"You shall not lie with a male as one lies
Michael The Arch Angel
with a female; it is an abomination"
Leviticus 18:22 NASB
The preceding verses prohibit marital adultery and
spiritual idolatry. The verse following it forbids sex with
animals. Clearly, the Lord views homosexuality in a
class with these other abhorrent practices.
"Do not be deceived; neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves,
nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the
kingdom of God"
1 Corinthians 6:9 NASB
Again (this time in the New Testament) we see
homosexuality classed with sins God hates most.
The Greek word translated "homosexuals" here is
arsenokoites.
Strong's Lexicon: "sodomite, homosexual"
Mounce's Analytical Greek Lexicon: "a male engaging
in same-geneder sexual activity"
Kohlenberger's Greek Lexicon: "one engaging in
homosexual acts, sexual deviant"
The assertion that arsenokoites refers only to male
prostitutes (a contention of the Sodomite Apologists) is
against the overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion.
Moreover, arsenokoites as "homosexuals" synchs with
the Old Testament teaching (Leviticus 18:22, et. al.).
Remember: We use Scripture to interpret Scripture !
"If there is a man who lies with a male as
those lie with a woman, both of them have
committed a detestable act; they shall
surely be put to death"
Leviticus 20:13 NASB
Here we see the Most High prescribing the death penalty
for homosexuality.
John Hattan
>"You shall not lie with a male as one lies
>with a female; it is an abomination"
>Leviticus 18:22 NASB
Troll troll troll your boat. . .
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.freespeech.org/shatner
Michael The Arch Angel
Clarifying Christianity
(Click a topic) Heaven Angels Church Cults
Creation/Evolution
Reading and Understanding the Bible Bible Search
The Bible's Subjects Bibles In Various Languages
The Source of Life Search (Netscape) Search (IE)
The Trinity Baptism FAQ Dinosaurs Science
Proving the Bible Losing Weight Statement of Faith
How Do You Know The Bible Is True?
Starting the Foundation
Proving whether something is true or not is called apologetics. This word is
derived from the Greek word "apologia," which means "to defend." The entire
Clarifying Christianity site is filled with apologetics-proofs and
explanations for many Christian-related issues. The focus of this page is
the proof supporting the accuracy of the Bible. After all, if the Bible is
not true or if it is filled with errors, Christianity would only be a "blind
faith"-something people believe without any evidence to support it.
However, Christianity is not a blind faith. It is the only religion that can
prove itself, and a main source of that proof is the Bible. Although it is
becoming less common, there are still people who tell others that they
follow Christianity "because it feels right" (or use wording like that).
This is unfortunate, since there is a lot of evidence supporting
Christianity. The existence of all that evidence is one reason we started
this site. We want people to learn about the solid evidence that supports
their faith, and have a place that collected that evidence so they can show
it to others.
By the way, if you would like some reference materials that are a little
more portable than a computer with an Internet connection, a book we
recommend is Know Why You Believe by Paul Little. This book is available in
larger bookstores and most Christian bookstores. Also, the Tucson Community
Church recorded a seminar called "Knowing The Facts Behind The Faith." It is
available on VHS video (NTSC format) or on two audiocassettes. If you are
interested in getting a copy, please contact the Tucson Community Church
office, or contact us by e-mail for information.
The Proof of Science
There is a great deal of scientific evidence that supports the Bible. Enough
that we have a separate page to discuss this proof alone. If you would like
to see our science page, click on this sentence.
The Proof of Prophecy
One of the strongest arguments for the accuracy of the Bible is its 100%
accuracy in predicting the future. These future predictions are called
"prophecies." The Old Testament was written between approximately 1450 BC
and 430 BC. During that time, many predictions of the future were recorded
in the Bible by God's prophets. Of the events that were to have taken place
by now, every one happened just the way they predicted it would. No other
"sacred writing" has such perfectly accurate predictions of the future.
One Type-The Messianic Prophecies
Of these prophecies, the most striking examples are the predictions about an
"anointed one" ("Messiah" in Hebrew) who was to arrive in the future. About
4 BC, a miraculous event occurred-a boy named Jesus was born to a virgin
named Mary. You can read His story in the book of Luke. Starting at age 30,
Jesus fulfilled more and more of these prophecies written about the Messiah.
His fulfillment of these prophecies was very spectacular: Jesus gave sight
to the blind, made the lame walk, cured those who had leprosy, gave the deaf
hearing, and raised people from the dead! These miracles and others were
done many times in front of thousands of witnesses for three years. About 30
AD, Jesus was crucified (a prophecy) and died (a prophecy). Three days later
he rose from the dead (another prophecy), after which He was seen by over
500 witnesses. Since these prophecies were written down at least 400 years
before they happened, there is no doubt that the Bible's writers were
inspired supernaturally-by God. To examine these prophecies yourself, click
on the link below.
The Messianic Prophecies
A Second Type-Fulfilled Prophecy Dealing With Nations
There are many prophecies that can be proven through archaeology, especially
prophecy dealing with entire nations. Typically, when God declared judgment
on a nation, He would send a prophet to announce to the citizens why He was
judging them and what He was going to do to them if they continued their
evil behavior. On occasion, God would also tell the citizens how He would
reward them if they started doing what was right. The book of Jonah records
a case where the very evil Assyrians stopped doing what was evil as a result
of Jonah's short prophecy. This is what God wanted, and God did not punish
them as a result of their change of heart. However, most often the people
would jeer at God's prophet and continue their bad behavior-later becoming
recipients of the exact punishment that God threatened.
Like other prophecy recorded in the Bible, these predictions support the
supernatural inspiration of the Bible. The prophecies recorded in the Bible
came true in such a detailed way that they could not have been predicted by
chance. Further, archaeologists have evidence that these prophecies were
written down many years before they were fulfilled, proving that they were
not falsified documents claiming to be prophecies that came true. (The
discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls stopped the majority of that talk.)
Although an entire web site could be filled with this information, we will
provide one example-the foretelling of the destruction of Edom and its
capital city of Petra.
Click here for an example of fulfilled prophecy dealing with nations
The Proof of Textual Evidence
Both the Old and New Testaments are strongly supported by manuscript
evidence (the evidence of early hand written copies). The famous Dead Sea
Scrolls are one example of the Old Testament evidence. These documents came
from the "library" of a settlement founded at Qumran before 150 B.C. and
abandoned about 68 A.D. Some of the manuscript copies were made during that
period, and some were written earlier (third century B.C.) and brought to
the settlement. Ignoring spelling-oriented (orthographic) changes and
similar small differences, the Dead Sea Scrolls match the Hebrew text behind
today's Old Testament, in spite of the passage of over 2,000 years (where
one would expect errors to creep in).
Over 20,000 known manuscripts document the New Testament text. This makes
the New Testament the most reliable document of antiquity (a document
written before the printing press). These manuscripts vary in size from a
part of a page to an entire Bible (Old and New Testaments). The earliest New
Testament manuscripts date from the second century (100-199) A.D. These
manuscript copies were written in different languages by people of different
nationalities, cultures, and backgrounds. In spite of all those differences
between them, the New Testament texts all agree. (That is, those differences
that we do observe between these hand written documents are occasional
changes in the spelling of names or isolated cases of missing or changed
words. Still, since we have so many copies, it is obvious to anyone but the
hardened skeptic can that they all represent the same text.)
Note: Those minor differences that do exist between the Old and New
Testament manuscripts are interesting for academic reasons. They are the
topic of a future "in depth" Clarifying Christianity page. (It is currently
about 10,000 words long and still under construction-stay tuned.)
The Proof of People Living at the Time of Christ
Special proof exists for the New Testament, since Christians were strongly
persecuted by both the Jews and the Roman government. If the New Testament
writings were false, these two groups would have produced a great deal of
evidence to stop the growth of this "sect." None exists. Further, the New
Testament writings (before they were assembled into the "book" we call the
New Testament) circulated during the lifetimes of thousands of people who
had actually seen Jesus' miracles and other historic events. No one ever
refuted the New Testament writings as "fairy tales."
The Proof of Historians
Secular history supports the Bible. For example, in The Antiquities of the
Jews, book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 the famous historian Flavius Josephus
writes:
"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call
him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as
receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews,
and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the
suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,
those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to
them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these
and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of
Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
In 115 A.D., P. Cornelius Tacitus wrote the following passage that refers to
Jesus (called "Christus," which means "The Messiah") in book 15, chapter 44
of The Annals:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and
inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their
abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the
name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of
Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most
mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not
only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all
things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre
and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded
guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted,
not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of
beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or
were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination,
when daylight had expired."
If you have any questions or comments contact us.
Copyright © 1998, 1999 by Clarifying Christianity (SM).
Printed copies of this article may be circulated if it is reproduced in its
entirety, along with this copyright notice. You may not charge for, request
a donation for, or seek reimbursement from anyone for such copies. Links are
OK. All rights reserved.
Clarifying Christianity is a RealName. A RealName is an easier way to find
web sites using everyday language. Typing Clarifying Christianity in a
RealName enabled search engine like MSN Search, LookSmart, or AltaVista will
take you to our site.
All information contained in Clarifying Christianity is a resource for
questions dealing with Christian issues. It is not to be taken as Christian
counseling. Seek a qualified Christian counselor for help with all such
issues. If you choose to work with a Christian counselor, it is your
responsibility to ask pertinent questions before you begin, to assure
yourself of their qualities and abilities.
7797
"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:0nhumtct83v77sq6t...@4ax.com...
Adam Marczyk
news:OAHb7.1674$H7.6...@news.uswest.net...
Yes, we're well aware of the moral depravity of Christianity. Why do you
bring it up?
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
John Hattan
Hoo boy. He doesn't even trim off the menus at the top of the pages he
plagiarizes anymore.
Woden
"Michael The Arch Angel" <Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:OAHb7.1674$H7.6...@news.uswest.net...
(snip more religious hatred & attempts at demonization of others...)
Do you really think that we give a shit about what your ancient book of
myths says?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
Ray
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:9knhdr$1b2i$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net...
John Hattan
>Brought up because Christians are moralists to the bone
Stick with the plagiarism. You make no sense when you try to write
original material.
Michael The Arch Angel
There seems to be a widespread assumption throughout much of the Western
intellectual community that belief in God is based on all kinds of
irrational immature needs and wishes, but atheism or skepticism is derived
from a rational, no- nonsense appraisal of the way things really are. To
begin a critique of this assumption, I start with my own case history.
As some of you know, after a rather weak, wishy-washy Christian upbringing,
I became an atheist in college in the 1950s and remained so throughout
graduate school and my first years as a young experimental psychologist on
the faculty at New York University. That is, I am an adult convert or, more
technically, a reconvert to Christianity who came back to the faith, much to
his surprise, in my late thirties in the very secular environment of
academic psychology in New York City.
I am not going into this to bore you with parts of my life story, but to
note that through reflection on my own experience it is now clear to me that
my reasons for becoming and for remaining an atheist-skeptic from about age
18 to 38 were superficial, irrational, and largely without intellectual or
moral integrity. Furthermore, I am convinced that my motives were, and still
are, commonplace today among intellectuals, especially social scientists.
The major factors involved in my becoming an atheist-although I wasn't
really aware of them at the time-were as follows.
General socialization. An important influence on me in my youth was a
significant social unease. I was somewhat embarrassed to be from the
Midwest, for it seemed terribly dull, narrow, and provincial. There was
certainly nothing romantic or impressive about being from Cincinnati, Ohio
and from a vague mixed German-English-Swiss background. Terribly middle
class. Further, besides escape from a dull, and according to me unworthy,
socially embarrassing past, I wanted to take part in, in fact to be
comfortable in, the new, exciting, even glamorous, secular world into which
I was moving. I am sure that similar motives have strongly influenced the
lives of countless upwardly mobile young people in the last two centuries.
Consider Voltaire, who moved into the glittery, aristocratic, sophisticated
world of Paris, and who always felt embarrassed about his provincial and
nonaristocratic origin; or the Jewish ghettos that so many assimilating Jews
have fled, or the latest young arrival in New York, embarrassed about his
fundamentalist parents. This kind of socialization pressure has pushed many
away from belief in God and all that this belief is associated with for
them.
I remember a small seminar in graduate school where almost every member
there at some time expressed this kind of embarrassment and response to the
pressures of socialization into "modern life." One student was trying to
escape his Southern Baptist background, another a small town Mormon
environment, a third was trying to get out of a very Jewish Brooklyn ghetto,
and the fourth was me.
Specific socialization. Another major reason for my wanting to become an
atheist was that I desired to be accepted by the powerful and influential
scientists in the field of psychology. In particular, I wanted to be
accepted by my professors in graduate school. As a graduate student I was
thoroughly socialized by the specific "culture" of academic research
psychology. My professors at Stanford, however much they might disagree on
psychological theory, were, as far as I could tell, united in only two
things-their intense personal career ambition and their rejection of
religion. As the psalmist says, ". . . The man greedy for gain curses and
renounces the Lord. In the pride of his countenance the wicked does not seek
him; all his thoughts are, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 10:3-4).
In this environment, just as I had learned how to dress like a college
student by putting on the right clothes, I also learned to "think" like a
proper psychologist by putting on the right-that is, atheistic-ideas and
attitudes.
Personal convenience. Finally, in this list of superficial, but
nevertheless, strong irrational pressures to become an atheist, I must list
simple personal convenience. The fact is that it is quite inconvenient to be
a serious believer in today's powerful secular and neo-pagan world. I would
have had to give up many pleasures and a good deal of time.
Without going into details it is not hard to imagine the sexual pleasures
that would have to be rejected if I became a serious believer. And then I
also knew it would cost me time and some money. There would be church
services, church groups, time for prayer and scripture reading, time spent
helping others. I was already too busy. Obviously, becoming religious would
be a real inconvenience.
Now perhaps you think that such reasons are restricted to especially callow
young men-like me in my twenties. However, such reasoning is not so
restricted. Here I will take up the case of Mortimer Adler, a well known
American philosopher, writer, and intellectual who has spent much of his
life thinking about God and religious topics. One of his most recent books
is titled How to Think About God: A Guide for the 20th Century Pagan (1980).
In this work, Adler presses the argument for the existence of God very
strongly and by the latter chapters he is very close to accepting the living
God. Yet he pulls back and remains among "the vast company of the
religiously uncommitted" (Graddy, 1982). But Adler leaves the impression
that this decision is more one of will than of intellect. As one of his
reviewers notes (Graddy, 1982), Adler confirms this impression in his
autobiography, Philosopher at Large (1976). There, while investigating his
reasons for twice stopping short of a full religious commitment, he writes
that the answer "lies in the state of one's will, not in the state of one's
mind." Adler goes on to comment that to become seriously religious "would
require a radical change in my way of life . . ." and "The simple truth of
the matter is that I did not wish to live up to being a genuinely religious
person" (Graddy, p. 24).
There you have it! A remarkably honest and conscious admission that being "a
genuinely religious person" would be too much trouble, too inconvenient. I
can't but assume that such are the shallow reasons behind many an
unbeliever's position.
In summary, because of my social needs to assimilate, because of my
professional needs to be accepted as part of academic psychology, and
because of my personal needs for a convenient lifestyle-for all these needs
atheism was simply the best policy. Looking back on these motives, I can
honestly say that a return to atheism has all the appeal of a return to
adolescence.[2]
The Psychology of Atheism: Psychoanalytic Motives
As is generally known, the central Freudian criticism of belief in God is
that such a belief is untrustworthy because of its psychological origin.
That is, God is a projection of our own intense, unconscious desires; He is
a wish fulfillment derived from childish needs for protection and security.
Since these wishes are largely unconscious, any denial of such an
interpretation is to be given little credence. It should be noted that in
developing this kind of critique, Freud has raised the ad hominem argument
to one of wide influence. It is in The Future of an Illusion (1927, 1961)
that Freud makes his position clearest:
[R]eligious ideas have arisen from the same needs as have all the other
achievements of civilization: from the necessity of defending oneself
against the crushing superior force of nature. (p. 21)
Therefore, religious beliefs are:
illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest
and most urgent wishes of mankind . . . As we
already know, the terrifying impression of
helplessness in childhood aroused the need for
protection-for protection through love-which
was provided by the father . . . Thus the benevolent rule of a divine
Providence allays our fear of the danger of life. (p. 30)
Let us look at this argument carefully, for in spite of the enthusiastic
acceptance of it by so many uncritical atheists and skeptics, it is really a
very weak position.
In the first paragraph Freud fails to note that his arguments against
religious belief are, in his own words, equally valid against all the
achievements of civilization, including psychoanalysis itself. That is, if
the psychic origin of an intellectual achievement invalidates its truth
value, then physics, biology, much less psychoanalysis itself, are
vulnerable to the same charge.
In the second paragraph Freud makes another strange claim, namely that the
oldest and most urgent wishes of mankind are for the loving protecting
guidance of a powerful loving Father, for divine Providence. However, if
these wishes were as strong and ancient as he claims, one would expect
pre-Christian religion to have strongly emphasized God as a benevolent
father. In general, this was far from the case for the pagan religion of the
Mediterranean world-and, for example, is still not the case for such popular
religions as Buddhism and for much of Hinduism. Indeed, Judaism and most
especially Christianity are in many respects distinctive in the emphasis on
God as a loving Father.
However, let us put these two intellectual gaffes aside and turn to another
understanding of his projection theory. It can be shown that this theory is
not really an integral part of psychoanalysis- and, thus cannot claim
fundamental support from psychoanalytic theory. It is essentially an
autonomous argument. Actually, Freud's critical attitude toward and
rejection of religion is rooted in his personal predilections and is a kind
of meta psychoanalysis-or background framework which is not well connected
to his more specifically clinical concepts. (This separation or autonomy
with respect to most psychoanalytic theory very likely accounts for its
influence outside of psychoanalysis.) There are two pieces of evidence for
this interpretation of the projection theory.
The first is that this theory had been clearly articulated many years
earlier by Ludwig Feuerbach in his book The Essence of Christianity (1841,
1957). Feuerbach's interpretation was well-known in European intellectual
circles, and Freud, as a youth, read Feuerbach avidly (see Gedo & Pollock,
1976, pp. 47, 350). Here are some representative quotes from Feuerbach which
make this clear:
What man misses- whether this be an articulate and therefore conscious, or
an unconscious, need-that is his God. (1841, 1957, p. 33)
Man projects his nature into the world outside himself before he finds it in
himself. (p. 11)
To live in projected dream-images is the essence of religion. Religion
sacrifices reality to the projected dream. . . (p. 49)
Many other quotes could be provided in which Feuerbach describes religion in
"Freudian" terms such as wish-fulfillment, etc. What Freud did with this
argument was to revive it in a more eloquent form, and publish it at a later
time when the audience desiring to hear such a theory was much larger. And,
of course, somehow the findings and theory of psychoanalysis were implied as
giving the theory strong support. The Feuerbachian character of Freud's
Illusion position is also demonstrated by such notions as "the crushing
superior force of nature" and the "terrifying impression of helplessness in
childhood," which are not psychoanalytic in terminology or in meaning.
The other piece of evidence for the nonpsychoanalytic basis of the
projection theory comes directly from Freud, who explicitly says so himself.
In a letter of 1927 to his friend Oskar Pfister (an early psychoanalyst, and
believing Protestant pastor), Freud wrote:
Let us be quite clear on the point that the views expressed in my book (The
Future of an Illusion) form no part of analytic theory. They are my personal
views. (Freud/Pfister, 1963, p. 117).
There is one other somewhat different interpretation of belief in God which
Freud also developed, but although this has a very modest psychoanalytic
character, it is really an adaptation of Feuerbachian projection theory.
This is Freud's relatively neglected interpretation of the ego ideal. The
super-ego, including the ego ideal is the "heir of the Oedipus complex,"
representing a projection of an idealized father-and presumably of God the
Father (see Freud, 1923, 1962, pp. 26-28; p. 38).
The difficulty here is that the ego ideal did not really receive great
attention or development within Freud's writings. Furthermore, it is easily
interpreted as an adoption of Feuerbach's projection theory. Thus, we can
conclude that psychoanalysis does not in actuality provide significant
theoretical concepts for characterizing belief in God as neurotic. Freud
either used Feuerbach's much older projection or illusion theory or
incorporated Feuerbach in his notion of the ego ideal. Presumably, this is
the reason Freud acknowledged to Pfister that his Illusion book was not a
true part of psychoanalysis.
Atheism as Oedipal Wish Fulfillment
Nevertheless, Freud is quite right to worry that a belief can be an illusion
because it derives from powerful wishes- from unconscious, childish needs.
The irony is that he clearly did provide a very powerful, new way to
understand the neurotic basis of atheism. (For a detailed development of
this position see Vitz and Gartner, 1984a, b; Vitz, 1986, in press.)
The Oedipus Complex
The central concept in Freud's work, aside from the unconscious, is the now
well-known Oedipus Complex. In the case of male personality development, the
essential features of this complex are the following: Roughly in the age
period of three to six the boy develops a strong sexual desire for the
mother. At the same time the boy develops an intense hatred and fear of the
father, and a desire to supplant him, a "craving for power." This hatred is
based on the boy's knowledge that the father, with his greater size and
strength, stands in the way of his desire. The child's fear of the father
may explicitly be a fear of castration by the father, but more typically, it
has a less specific character. The son does not really kill the father, of
course, but patricide is assumed to be a common preoccupation of his
fantasies and dreams. The "resolution" of the complex is supposed to occur
through the boy's recognition that he cannot replace the father, and through
fear of castration, which eventually leads the boy to identify with the
father, to identify with the aggressor, and to repress the original
frightening components of the complex.
It is important to keep in mind that, according to Freud, the Oedipus
complex is never truly resolved, and is capable of activation at later
periods-almost always, for example, at puberty. Thus the powerful
ingredients of murderous hate and of incestuous sexual desire within a
family context are never in fact removed. Instead, they are covered over and
repressed. Freud expresses the neurotic potential of this situation:
The Oedipus-complex is the actual nucleus of neuroses . . . What remains of
the complex in the unconscious represents the disposition to the later
development of neuroses in the adult (Freud, 1919, Standard Edition, 17, p.
193; also 1905, S.E. 7, p. 226ff.; 1909, S.E., 11, p. 47).
In short, all human neuroses derive from this complex. Obviously, in most
cases, this potential is not expressed in any seriously neurotic manner.
Instead it shows up in attitudes toward authority, in dreams, slips of the
tongue, transient irrationalities, etc.
Now, in postulating a universal Oedipus complex as the origin of all our
neuroses, Freud inadvertently developed a straightforward rationale for
understanding the wish-fulfilling origin of rejecting God. After all, the
Oedipus complex is unconscious, it is established in childhood and, above
all, its dominant motive is hatred of the father and the desire for him not
to exist, especially as represented by the desire to overthrow or kill the
father. Freud regularly described God as a psychological equivalent to the
father, and so a natural expression of Oedipal motivation would be powerful,
unconscious desires for the nonexistence of God. Therefore, in the Freudian
framework, atheism is an illusion caused by the Oedipal desire to kill the
father and replace him with oneself. To act as if God does not exist is an
obvious, not so subtle disguise for a wish to kill Him, much the same way as
in a dream, the image of a parent going away or disappearing can represent
such a wish: "God is dead" is simply an undisguised Oedipal
wish-fulfillment.
It is certainly not hard to understand the Oedipal character of so much
contemporary atheism and skepticism. Hugh Heffner, even James Bond, with
their rejection of God plus their countless girls, are so obviously living
out Freud's Oedipal and primal rebellion (e.g., Totem and Taboo). So are
countless other skeptics who live out variations of the same scenario of
exploitative sexual permissiveness combined with narcissistic self-worship.
And, of course, the Oedipal dream is not only to kill the father and possess
the mother or other women in the group but also to displace him. Modern
atheism has attempted to accomplish this. Now man, not God, is the
consciously specified ultimate source of goodness and power in the universe.
Humanistic philosophies glorify him and his "potential" much the same way
religion glorifies the Creator. We have devolved from one God to many gods
to everyone a god. In essence, man-through his narcissism and Oedipal
wishes-has tried to succeed where Satan failed, by seating himself on the
throne of God. Thanks to Freud it is now easier to understand the deeply
neurotic, thoroughly untrustworthy psychology of this unbelief.
One interesting example of the Oedipal motivation proposed here is that of
Voltaire, a leading skeptic about all things religious who denied the
Christian and Jewish notion of a personal God-of God as a Father. Voltaire
was a theist or deist who believed in a cosmic, depersonalized God of
unknown character.
The psychologically important thing about Voltaire is that he strongly
rejected his father-so much that he rejected his father's name and took the
name "Voltaire." It is not exactly certain where the new name came from but
one widely held interpretation is that it was constructed from the letters
of his mother's last name. When Voltaire was in his early twenties (in
1718), he published a play entitled "Oedipus" (Edipe), the first one of his
plays to be publicly performed. The play itself recounts the classic legend
with heavy allusions to religious and political rebellion. Throughout his
life, Voltaire (like Freud) toyed with the idea that he was not his father's
son. He apparently felt the desire to be from a higher, more aristocratic
family than his actual middle-class background. (A major expression of this
concern with having a more worthy father is the play Candide.) In short,
Voltaire's hostility to his own father, his religious rejection of God the
Father, and his political rejection of the king-an acknowledged father
figure-are all reflections of the same basic needs. Psychologically
speaking, Voltaire's rebellion against his father and against God are easily
interpretable as Oedipal wish fulfillment, as comforting illusions, and
therefore, following Freud, as beliefs and attitudes unworthy of a mature
mind.
Diderot, the great Encyclopaedist and an avowed atheist-indeed he is one of
the founding brothers of modern atheism-also had both Oedipal preoccupation
and insight. Freud approvingly quotes Diderot's anticipatory observation:
If the little savage were left to himself, preserving all his foolishness
and adding to the small sense of a child in the cradle the violent passions
of a man of thirty, he would strangle his father and lie with his mother
(from Le neveau de Rameau; quoted by Freud in Lecture XXI of his
Introductory Lectures (1916- 1917), S.E., 16, pp. 331-338).
The Psychology of Atheism: The Theory of Defective Father
I am well aware of the fact that there is good reason to give only limited
acceptance to Freud's Oedipal theory. In any case, it is my view that
although the Oedipus complex is valid for some, the theory is far from being
a universal representation of unconscious motivation. Since there is need
for deeper understanding of atheism and since I don't know of any
theoretical framework-except the Oedipal one-I am forced to sketch out a
model of my own, or really to develop an undeveloped thesis of Freud. In his
essay on Leonardo da Vinci, Freud made the following remark:
Psychoanalysis, which has taught us the intimate connection between the
father complex and belief in God, has shown us that the personal God is
logically nothing but an exalted father, and daily demonstrates to us how
youthful persons lose their religious belief as soon as the authority of the
father breaks down (Leonardo da Vinci, 1910, 1947 p. 98).
This statement makes no assumptions about unconscious sexual desires for the
mother, or even about presumed universal competitive hatred focused on the
father. Instead he makes the simple easily understandable claim that once a
child or youth is disappointed in and loses his or her respect for their
earthly father, then belief in their heavenly Father becomes impossible.
There are, of course, many ways that a father can lose his authority and
seriously disappoint a child. Some of these ways-for which clinical evidence
is given below-are:
He can be present but obviously weak, cowardly, and unworthy of respect-
even if otherwise pleasant or "nice."
He can be present but physically, sexually, or psychologically abusive.
He can be absent through death or by abandoning or leaving the family.
Taken all together these proposed determinants of atheism will be called the
"defective father" hypothesis. To support the validity of this approach, I
will conclude by providing case history material from the lives of prominent
atheists, for it was in reading the biographies of atheists that this
hypothesis first struck me.
We begin with Sigmund Freud's relationship to his father. That Freud's
father, Jacob, was a deep disappointment-or worse-is generally agreed to by
his biographers. (For the supporting biographical material on Freud see, for
example, Krull, 1979, and Vitz, 1983, 1986.) Specifically, his father was a
weak man unable to financially provide for his family. Instead money for
support seems to have been provided by his wife's family and others.
Furthermore, Freud's father was passive in response to anti-Semitism. Freud
recounts an episode told to him by his father in which Jacob allowed an
anti-Semite to call him a dirty Jew and to knock his hat off. Young Sigmund,
on hearing the story, was mortified at his father's failure to respond, at
his weakness. Sigmund Freud was a complex and in many respects ambiguous
man, but all agree that he was a courageous fighter and that he greatly
admired courage in others. Sigmund, as a young man, several times stood up
physically against anti-Semitism- and, of course, he was one of the greatest
of intellectual fighters.
Jacob's actions as a defective father, however, probably go still deeper.
Specifically, in two of his letters as an adult, Freud writes that his
father was a sexual pervert and that Jacob's own children suffered from
this. There are also other possible moral disasters that I have not bothered
to note.
The connection of Jacob to God and religion was also present for his son.
Jacob was involved in a kind of reform Judaism when Freud was a child, the
two of them spent hours reading the Bible together, and later Jacob became
increasingly involved in reading the Talmud and in discussing Jewish
scripture. In short, this weak, rather passive "nice guy," this schlemiel,
was clearly connected to Judaism and God, and also to a serious lack of
courage and quite possibly to sexual perversion and other weaknesses very
painful to young Sigmund.
Very briefly, other famous atheists seem to have had a similar relationship
to their fathers. Karl Marx made it clear that he didn't respect his father.
An important part in this was that his father converted to Christianity-not
out of any religious conviction-but out of a desire to make life easier. He
assimilated for convenience. In doing this Marx's father broke an old family
tradition. He was the first in his family who did not become a rabbi;
indeed, Karl Marx came from a long line of rabbis on both sides of his
family.
Ludwig Feuerbach's father did something that very easily could have deeply
hurt his son. When Feuerbach was about 13, his father left his family and
openly took up living with another woman in a different town. This was in
Germany in the early 1800s and such a public rejection would have been a
scandal and deeply rejecting to young Ludwig-and, of course, to his mother
and the other children.
Let us jump 100 years or so and look at the life of one of America's best
known atheists-Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Here I will quote from her son's
recent book on what life was like in his family when he was a child.
(Murray, 1982) The book opens when he is 8-years-old: "We rarely did
anything together as a family. Hatred between my grandfather and mother
barred such wholesome scenes." (p. 7) He writes that he really didn't know
why his mother hated her father so much-but hate him she did, for the
opening chapter records a very ugly fight in which she attempts to kill her
father with a 10-inch butcher knife. Madalyn failed but screamed, "I'll see
you dead. I'll get you yet. I'll walk on your grave!" (p. 8)
Whatever the cause of O'Hair's intense hatred of her father, it is clear
from this book that it was deep and that it went back into her childhood-and
at least psychological (e.g. p. 11) and possibly physical abuse is a
plausible cause.
Besides abuse, rejection, or cowardice, one way in which a father can be
seriously defective is simply by not being there. Many children, of course,
interpret death of their father as a kind of betrayal or an act of
desertion. In this respect it is remarkable that the pattern of a dead
father is so common in the lives of many prominent atheists.
Baron d'Holbach (born Paul Henri Thiry), the French rationalist and probably
the first public atheist, is apparently an orphan by the age of 13 and
living with his uncle. (From whom he took the new name Holbach.) Bertrand
Russell's father died when young Bertrand was 4-years-old; Nietzsche was the
same age as Russell when he lost his father; Sartre's father died before
Sartre was born and Camus was a year old when he lost his father. (The above
biographical information was taken from standard reference sources.)
Obviously, much more evidence needs to be obtained on the "defective father"
hypothesis. But the information already available is substantial; it is
unlikely to be an accident.
The psychology of how a dead or nonexistent father could lay an emotional
base for atheism might not seem clear at first glance. But, after all, if
one's own father is absent or so weak as to die, or so untrustworthy as to
desert, then it is not hard to place the same attribute on your heavenly
Father.
Finally, there is also the early personal experience of suffering, of death,
of evil, sometimes combined with anger at God for allowing it to happen. Any
early anger at God for the loss of a father and the subsequent suffering is
still another and different psychology of unbelief, but one closely related
to that of the defective father.
Some of this psychology is captured in Russell Baker's recent autobiography.
(Baker, 1982) Russell Baker is the well-known journalist and humorous writer
for the New York Times. His father was taken to the hospital and died there
suddenly when young Russell was five. Baker wept and sorrowed and spoke to
the family housekeeper, Bessie:
. . . For the first time I thought seriously about God. Between sobs I told
Bessie that if God could do things like this to people, then God was hateful
and I had no more use for Him.
Bessie told me about the peace of Heaven and the joy of being among the
angels and the happiness of my father who was already there. The argument
failed to quiet my rage.
"God loves us all just like His own children," Bessie said.
"If God loves me, why did He make my father die?"
Bessie said that I would understand someday, but she was only partly right.
That afternoon, though I couldn't have phrased it this way then, I decided
that God was a lot less interested in people than anybody in Morrisonville
was willing to admit. That day I decided that God was not entirely to be
trusted.
After that I never cried again with any real conviction, nor expected much
of anyone's God except indifference, nor loved deeply without fear that it
would cost me dearly in pain. At the age of five I had become a skeptic . .
. (Growing Up, p. 61).
Let me conclude by noting that however prevalent the superficial motives for
being an atheist, there still remain in many instances the deep and
disturbing psychological sources as well. However easy it may be to state
the hypothesis of the "defective father," we must not forget the difficulty,
the pain, and complexity that lie behind each individual case. And for those
whose atheism has been conditioned by a father who rejected, who denied, who
hated, who manipulated, or who physically or sexually abused them, there
must be understanding and compassion. Certainly for a child to be forced to
hate his own father-or even to despair because of his father's weaknesses is
a great tragedy. After all, the child only wants to love his father. For any
unbeliever whose atheism is grounded in such experience, the believer,
blessed by God's love, should pray most especially that ultimately they will
both meet in heaven. Meet and embrace and experience great joy. If so,
perhaps the former atheist will experience even more joy than the believer.
For, in addition to the happiness of the believer, the atheist will have
that extra increment that comes from his surprise at finding himself
surrounded by joy in, of all places, his Father's house.
"Woden" <wo...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:tmuig7k...@corp.supernews.com...
raven1
<Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>"You shall not lie with a male as one lies
>with a female; it is an abomination"
>Leviticus 18:22 NASB
>
>The preceding verses prohibit marital adultery and
>spiritual idolatry. The verse following it forbids sex with
>animals. Clearly, the Lord views homosexuality in a
>class with these other abhorrent practices.
May I ask why you think atheists might give a flying fuck what your
book of fairy tales has to say about anything?
Michael The Arch Angel
We are not discussing legalism todaynews:ikiumtsdqaph47e77...@4ax.com...
Michael The Arch Angel
Now here is some more "flawed" logic: If Christianity were an invention of
man, then why have as its primary requirement a belief in the ridiculous
notion that its founder rose from the dead? Wouldn't such a perposterous
absurdity doom its success from the start? I propose that Christianity is
truly divine in its origin because the miraculous element in its inception
gave credence to its claims, with enough witnesses to verify all that took
place. Those Jews seeking to discredit the movement sure had enough
motivation to produce a body, but they could not; And the power of God
manifesting itself among its believers were testimony enough to those
joining the infant church through faith in Christ. Later Tater! :-) orin
"Woden" <wo...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:tmuig7k...@corp.supernews.com...
>
Michael The Arch Angel
"raven1" <psyched...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:iptumt4750dv9e2rv...@4ax.com...
Yang
Michael The Arch Angel
But to answer your question Yes it is...for profit
"Yang" <eac...@AYBABTUmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b6f4eb9...@news.service.uci.edu...
raven1
<Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>The Psychology of Atheism: Social and Personal Motives
>There seems to be a widespread assumption throughout much of the Western
>intellectual community that belief in God is based on all kinds of
>irrational immature needs and wishes, but atheism or skepticism is derived
>from a rational, no- nonsense appraisal of the way things really are.
Exactly.
raven1
<Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>Because your always asking
No one asked you to post this, or anything else for that matter. Oh,
with the exception of my challenge that you weaseled out of answering.
Ray
to the non lucidity of your challengenews:cbvumtsrmmr8005vd...@4ax.com...
Ray
One of the more dramatic debating maneuver used by Christian apologists
against atheists is to argue that atheists can provide no objective reason
for not raping people. This startling claim follows from the apologists'
wider claim that atheists can provide no objective moral reasons for
anything. In this paper I will examine both claims in context of the debate
between atheism and theism.
I will maintain first that the theists' assume without good argument that an
atheistic morality must be subjective. Second, I will argue that the
theistic position on rape does not escape a special case of the Euthyphro
dilemma:[1] Does God disapprove of rape because it is bad or is rape bad
because God disapproves of it? On the first interpretation of the dilemma
theists can provide objective reasons for not raping, but so can atheists.
On the second interpretation, theists can provide no objective reasons for
not raping so that if atheists cannot, they are no worse off than theists.
To be sure, some theists attempt to escape from the dilemma by appealing to
God's character. But I will argue that they do not succeed and in fact beg
the question against atheists. Finally, I will maintain that the Biblical
view of rape should not be our moral guide: Not only does the Bible seem to
condone rape on certain occasions but its attitude toward female victims of
rape is insensitive and chauvinistic.
Is Atheistic Morality Necessarily Subjective?
Not all theists claim that atheistic morality is subjective. For example,
Richard Swinburne, perhaps the most famous contemporary Christian
philosopher, argues that many moral statements are true independent of God's
commands. Swinburne says "Genocide and torturing children are wrong and
would remain so whatever commands any person issued."[2] Furthermore, he
believes that although, if God had issued commands on a topic, these
commands are morally relevant to this topic, he assumes that it is possible
to objectively settle moral disputes concerning this topic if God did not
exist.
However, not all theists hold this position and some maintain that atheistic
morality must be subjective. Theists who claim that atheistic morality must
be subjective usually assert this without argument. However, to support
their case solid arguments must be given. Indeed, theists must refute the
following argument before their views on atheistic morality can be taken
seriously:
1) In order to show that atheistic morality necessarily is subjective,
theists must show that all attempts to ground objective morality on a
nontheistic basis fail.
2) But theists have not shown that all attempts to ground objective morality
on a nontheistic basis fail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Hence, theists have not shown that atheistic morality is necessarily
subjective.
Theists have their work cut out for them since there have been many attempts
to show that morality can have an objective basis that is independent of
religion.[3] To my knowledge these attempts have not been refuted.
Now the theist William Lane Craig in his oral debates and written work[4]
has used the work of John Mackie, an atheist who advocated a subjective
morality, to support his subjectivist interpretation of atheistic morality.
Arguing that without a God an objective morality is impossible, Mackie
advocated ethical subjectivism.[5]
However, Mackie's arguments are not persuasive and certainly do not
represent the views of all atheists. It is significant that, although Craig
cites atheists who maintain atheism leads to moral subjectivism, he fails to
cite any atheists who maintain that atheism is compatible with objective
ethics, let alone refute any of their arguments. Moreover, although he
adopts Mackie's position, he does not seem to be aware of the critical
responses to Mackie's arguments.
Mackie gave two arguments for ethical subjectivism.[6] First, he argued that
the existence of great disagreements in ethical opinion supports ethical
subjectivism. Second, he maintained that to hold the view that morality is
objective one would have to suppose that moral properties are so strange
that they would not fit into a naturalistic worldview. Both of these
arguments are problematic.[7]
Consider the argument from disagreement. Mackie realized that disagreement
in science does not undermine our belief in scientific objectivity, but he
held that there is a basic difference between science and ethics. Most
scientific disputes are resolvable in principle, he believed, whereas many
ethical disputes are not. Mackie's position seems to be that ethical
disputes would only be resolvable in principle if there was antecedent
agreement concerning general moral principles and disagreement was the
result of different applications of these principles. Then there would be no
real ethical dispute. But Mackie's position is that there are genuine
disputes.
However, this argument is unsound. First of all, in order for all disputes
to be reconcilable in principle the people engaged in them must be fully
informed, fully rational, and have sufficient time for deliberation. In many
cases, we have no reason to suppose that these conditions have been met. For
example, many moral disputes may be the result of nonculpable ignorance of
nonmoral facts, for example, about whether a particular economic policy
would increase the standard of living. Second, in science one can imagine
cases in which agreement is not even possible in principle because of
systematic error. For example, a person P in a factual dispute over some
historical occurrence may start off with completely false psychological
hypotheses about human nature. In this case one would hardly expect that
agreement in principle is possible. Systematic error may also occur in moral
disputes thus precluding agreement in principle. Third, even barring
systematic error, moral realism does not require that all ethical disputes
are reconcilable in principle. There can be moral ties where one position
does not have any over-all advantage over another. Moreover, moral realism
is compatible with some objective moral considerations being incommensurable
with others. In such cases, two moral positions are not tied but
incomparable. In addition, Mackie is mistaken to think that agreement in
principle must be based on antecedent agreement on general ethical
principles. On one well-known model (the coherenist model) of moral
agreement, agreement is brought about by mutual adjustment between general
moral principles and judgments about particular cases. David Brink puts it
in this way:
we make trade-offs among the various levels of generality of beliefs in such
a way as to maximize initial commitment, overall consistency, explanatory
power and so on. The fact that we disagree about some moral issues at the
beginning of the process of adjustment gives no compelling reason to suppose
the adjustment will not, in the limit, resolve our disagreement.[8]
Mackie maintains that in order to explain moral disputes, the moral realists
must assume that many moral facts are contingent. Necessary moral facts
would only be associated with the common moral principles that allegedly
underlie disputes. For reasons that are unclear, Mackie supposed that moral
realism was committed to necessary moral facts. However, there is no reason
to suppose that this is so.
Mackie's argument from strangeness is that since moral realism entails that
objective moral facts and properties would have to be so fundamentally
different from natural facts and properties for which we have evidence,
there is good a posteriori reason to reject them. This is because moral
facts would have to be objectively prescriptive. Thus, one can interpret
Mackie as maintaining that moral realism is committed to internalism, the a
priori thesis that the recognition of moral facts either necessarily
motivates or provides reasons for action no matter what the facts are. Let
us call the first type of internalism motivational internalism (MI) and the
second reason internalism (RI). Externalism denies both MI and RI.
However, one strategy to meet this argument is to argue that internalism is
indeed compatible with a nontheistic ethical realism.[9] This strategy is
not as plausible as arguing that both MI and RI are incorrect and are not
entailed by moral realism.[10] MI is incorrect because whether the
recognition of a moral fact is motivational is contingent on what the moral
fact is and on the psychological state of the agent. The same is true of RI:
whether the recognition of a moral fact provides reasons depends on what the
moral fact is and on the psychological state of the agent. However, moral
realism is compatible with externalism.[11]
Is Theistic Morality Necessarily Objectivist?
Let us assume for the moment that the Biblical position on rape is clear:
God condemns rape. But why? One possibility is that He condemns rape because
it is wrong. Why is it wrong? It might be supposed that God has various
reasons for thinking rape is wrong: it violates the victim's rights, it
traumatizes the victim, it undermines the fabric of society, and so on. All
of these are bad making properties. However, if these reasons provide
objective grounds for God thinking that rape is wrong, then they provide
objective grounds for others as well. Moreover, these reasons would hold
even if God did not exist. For example, rape would still traumatize the
victim and rape would still undermine the fabric of society even. Thus, on
this assumption, In this case, atheists could provide objective ground for
condemning rape--the same grounds used by God.
Let us suppose now that rape is wrong because God condemns it. In this case,
God has no reasons for His condemnations. His condemnation makes rape wrong
and it would not be wrong if God did not condemned it. Indeed, not raping
someone would be wrong if God condemned not raping. However, this hardly
provides objective grounds for condemning rape: Whether rape is right or
wrong would be based on God's arbitrary condemnation. On this
interpretation, if atheists can provide no objective grounds for condemning
rape, they are no worse off than theists. However, as we have seen, there is
no reason to suppose that they cannot provide such grounds.
Theists such as Greg Bahnsen and John Frame suppose that the above dilemma
can be avoided by basing morality on the necessary attributes of God's
character rather than directly on His condemnation.[12] It may seem that to
say that God condemns rape as wrong because His character is necessarily
good avoids the dilemma, but this is an illusion. Bahnsen argued that in the
Euthyphro Plato set up a "false antithesis":
truth of the matter is that good is not independent of God. Certain behavior
is good because God approves of it, and God approves of it because it is the
creaturely expression of His holiness -- in other words, it is good. To be
good is to be like God, and we can only know what behavior is good if God
reveals and approves of it. The important point is that good is what God
approves and cannot be ascertained independent of Him. . .[13]
Unfortunately, however, Bahnsen's position is not clear. The quotation
suggests both that something is good because God approves of it and that God
approves of it because it is good. But these two positions cannot both be
maintained at once. Suppose that "X because of Y" means "X is caused by Y".
This would mean that when one says that rape is bad because God disapproved
of it one means that God caused rape to be bad by disapproving of it. But if
one says that God disapproved of rape because it is bad, this would mean
that the badness of rape caused God to disapprove of it. But how can what
God caused by disapproving of it have caused God to disapprove of it? If "X
because of Y" means "Y is the reason for X," a similar problem arises. If
the reason for rape being bad is God's disapproval of it, how can it be the
case that rape being bad is the reason for God's disapproval of rape?
In any case, appealing to God's character only postpones the problem since
the dilemma can be reformulated in terms of His character. Is God's
character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply
because it is God's character? Is there an independent standard of good or
does God's character set the standard? If God's character is the way it is
because it is good, then there is an independent standard of goodness by
which to evaluate God's character. For example, suppose God condemns rape
because of His just and merciful character. His character is just and
merciful because mercy and justice are good. Since God is necessarily good,
God is just and merciful. According to this independent standard of
goodness, being merciful and just is precisely what a good character
involves. In this case, even if God did not exist, one could say that a
merciful and just character is good. Human beings could use this standard to
evaluate peoples' character and actions based on this character. They could
do this whether or not God exists.
Suppose God's character is good simply because it is God's character. Then
if God's character were cruel and unjust, these attributes would be good. In
such a case God might well condone rape since this would be in keeping with
His character. But could not one reply that God could not be cruel and
unjust since by necessity God must be good? It is true that by necessity God
must be good. But unless we have some independent standard of goodness then
whatever attributes God has would by definition be good: God's character
would define what good is. It would seem that if God could not be cruel and
unjust, then God's character must necessarily exemplify some independent
standard of goodness. Using this standard one could say that cruelty and
injustice are not good whether God exists or not.
This attempt to avoid the dilemma by basing objective morality on God's
necessary character has another problem. It assumes that there would not be
an objective morality without God. However, this seems to beg the question
against an objective atheistic ethics. After all, why would the nonexistence
of God adversely affect the goodness of mercy, compassion, and justice? Yet,
this is precisely what would happen if being part of God's character created
the goodness of mercy, compassion and justice. This point can perhaps be
made in another way. One could affirm the objective immorality of rape and
deny the existence of God with perfect consistency. There is no
contradiction in claiming "Rape is objectively evil and God does not
exist."[14]
Should the Biblical Position on Rape Be Our Model?
Christians seem to assume that God condemns rape and that this His
condemnation can be supported from reading the Bible. In addition, they
assume that God condemns rape on the same grounds that rape is condemned in
contemporary society. However, the Biblical position is complicated and only
supports the common view that rape is wrong because it harms the victim to a
very limited extent. To be sure, one can find rape condemned in the Bible.
However, one can also find passages where God seems to be tacitly approving
of rape and other passages where rape is condemned but without regard for
the victim's welfare.
First of all, in some passages God seems to tacitly sanction rape. In the
Old Testament Moses encourages his men to use captured virgins for their own
sexual pleasure, i.e. to rape them. After urging his men to kill the male
captives and female captive who are not virgins he says: "But all the young
girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves
(Num. 31: 18)." God then explicitly rewards Moses by urging him to
distribute the spoils. He does not rebuke Moses or his men (Num. 31: 25-27).
Second, when rape is condemned in the Old Testament the woman's rights and
her psychological welfare are ignored.[15] For example: "If a man meets a
virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are
found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father fifty skelels
of silver, and she shall be his wife, and he may not put her away all of his
days (Deut:22; 28-29)." Here the victim of rape is as treated the property
of the father. Since the rapist has despoiled the father's property he must
pay a bridal fee. The women apparently has no say in the matter and is
forced to marry the person who raped her. Notice also if they are not
discovered, no negative judgment is forthcoming. The implicit message seems
to be that if you rape an unbetrothed virgin, be sure not to get caught.
In the case of the rape of a betrothed virgin in a city, the Bible says that
both the rapist and victim should be stoned to death: the rapist because he
violated his neighbor's wife and the victim because she did not cry for help
(Deut. 22: 23-25). Again the assumption is that the rapist dispoiled the
property of another man and so must pay with this life. Concern for the
welfare of the victim does not seem to matter. Moreover, it is assumed that
in all cases that a rape victim could cry for help and if she did, she would
be heard and rescued. Both of these assumptions are very dubious and
sensitive to the contextual aspects of rape.
On the other hand, according to the Bible, the situation is completely
different if the rape occurs in "open country." Here the rapist should be
killed, not the victim. The reason given is that if a woman cried for help
in open country, she would not be heard. Consequently, she could not be
blamed for allowing the rape to occur. No mention is made about the
psychological harm to victim. No condemnation is made of a rapist in open
country, let alone in a city, who does not get caught.
The only place I know in the Bible where any sensitivity is shown to the
victim of rape is in the story of David's son Amnon who raped his half
sister Tamar and then rejected her. The writer of this story describes her
immediate grief in some detail, Her brother Absalom revenged her rape by
killing Amnon. As Gerald Larue has described it: "The death of Amnon put the
Israelite justice in balance, so to speak, but the pain experienced by the
women was not considered worthy of further record."[16]
Conclusion
How then can atheists meet the debating maneuver that atheists can provide
no objective reason for not raping people?
First, atheists can argue that it has never been shown that nonreligious
ethics is necessarily subjective. Indeed, it can be pointed out that even
famous Christian philosophers have denied that atheistic morality is
subjective. In particular, Mackie's two arguments against nonreligious
objective ethics are unsound.
Second, using the Euthyphro dilemma, on the one hand, they can argue that if
theists can provide such reasons, so can they. On the other hand, they can
argue that on certain interpretations of Christian ethics, theists cannot
provide any objective reasons. If rape is wrong simply because God commands
it or simply because rape is bad because it conflicts with God's character
and God's character is good simply because it is God's character, the
badness of rape is completely arbitrary.
Third, atheists should point out that if theists base the wrongness of rape
on Biblical interpretation, they are on shaky grounds. In places the Bible
condones rape and where the Bible condemns rape, the reasons for the
condemnations are neither adequate nor in keeping with enlightened moral
opinion.
"raven1" <psyched...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ouumt87mi0uhqp3h...@4ax.com...
Adam Marczyk
> No
>
> Now here is some more "flawed" logic: If Christianity were an invention of
> man, then why have as its primary requirement a belief in the ridiculous
> notion that its founder rose from the dead? Wouldn't such a perposterous
> absurdity doom its success from the start?
Right. Christianity must be true because it's so ridiculous no one could
possibly have made it up. I'm sure you'll win a lot of converts with that
argument.
[snip]
LPetrazickis (St. Leo)
"Michael The Arch Angel" <Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:OAHb7.1674$H7.6...@news.uswest.net...
> "You shall not lie with a male as one lies
> with a female; it is an abomination"
> Leviticus 18:22 NASB
>
> The preceding verses prohibit marital adultery and
> spiritual idolatry. The verse following it forbids sex with
> animals. Clearly, the Lord views homosexuality in a
> class with these other abhorrent practices.
>
Really? I think that prohibits anal sex with those of the the *OPPOSITE*
sex.:)
> "Do not be deceived; neither fornicators,
> nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
> effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves,
> nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor
> revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the
> kingdom of God"
> 1 Corinthians 6:9 NASB
>
>
> Again (this time in the New Testament) we see
> homosexuality classed with sins God hates most.
>
Yep, they already God's partners in ownership and thus do not need to
inherit the kingdom.:)
>
> "If there is a man who lies with a male as
> those lie with a woman, both of them have
> committed a detestable act; they shall
> surely be put to death"
> Leviticus 20:13 NASB
>
>
> Here we see the Most High prescribing the death penalty
> for homosexuality.
>
Both hetero- and homesexual people should be put to death?:)
Leons Petrazickis (St. Leo)
Steve Knight
vomited:
>"You shall not lie with a male as one lies
>with a female; it is an abomination"
>Leviticus 18:22 NASB
>
>The preceding verses prohibit marital adultery and
>spiritual idolatry. The verse following it forbids sex with
>animals. Clearly, the Lord views homosexuality in a
>class with these other abhorrent practices.
You get all that from one homophopic verse from an anti-life female
hating macho man religion?
Good grief.....
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
Meteorite Debris
Angel<Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> did eloquently compose:
> "You shall not lie with a male as one lies
> with a female; it is an abomination"
> Leviticus 18:22 NASB
>
> The preceding verses prohibit marital adultery and
> spiritual idolatry. The verse following it forbids sex with
> animals. Clearly, the Lord views homosexuality in a
> class with these other abhorrent practices.
Either that OR the book of Levitius is simply a reflection of the
prejudices of the time. Apply Ockam's Razor and what do you get?
You have not been completely honest either, You omitted to mention the
penalty for these other "abhorrent practices". Why? You don't want
people to know that your god and its' people were blood thirsty
barbarians and were kindred spirits of the Taliban? This makes you
deceitful and put you in breech of the 9th commandment. Hope you like
a warm climate in the afterlife by your own beliefs.
And if "the Lord views homosexuality in a class with these other
abhorrent practices" why did he make homosexuality possible? Why did
he make the plumbing fit? Why does he make so many animals homosexual
like 10% of rosette terns?
> "Do not be deceived; neither fornicators,
> nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
> effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves,
> nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor
> revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the
> kingdom of God"
> 1 Corinthians 6:9 NASB
Paul was a dick. The most boring parts of the bible are the Pauline
epistles
<snipped>
> "If there is a man who lies with a male as
> those lie with a woman, both of them have
> committed a detestable act; they shall
> surely be put to death"
> Leviticus 20:13 NASB
And adulterers too. Lev.20:10. Why have you forgotten this? Is it
possibly for marketing reasons?
>
>
> Here we see the Most High prescribing the death penalty
> for homosexuality.
Or the most low bigot.
I wonder what is the penalty for impersonating an archangel?
--
alt.atheism #1417 rot-13 on email reply
EAC Bicycle Salesman to marine vertebrates -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.dingoblue.net.au/~meteorite/atheism/eac.htm
http://members.dingoblue.net.au/~meteorite/atheism/
"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the
politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." - Lucretius (99 - 55
B.C.E.)
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.dingoblue.net.au/~meteorite/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 196D 0C35 95C9 BFD2 0677 C238 8FDE 0133 86E9 7B89
cloidheamh
<Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>No
>
>Now here is some more "flawed" logic: If Christianity were an invention of
>man, then why have as its primary requirement a belief in the ridiculous
>notion that its founder rose from the dead?
Because such thoughts were common to the primitive people that it was
origionally presented to.
>Wouldn't such a perposterous
>absurdity doom its success from the start?
Not in that time period.
Try to start one up today with such a silly premise, and it would be more
difficult. People would want proof. Or at least some sort of evidence.
...
Then again, maybe it would work now as well.
> I propose that Christianity is
>truly divine in its origin because the miraculous element in its inception
>gave credence to its claims, with enough witnesses to verify all that took
>place.
So all religions are truly divine? How many witnesses did Joseph Smith have? Are
you a Mormon? IIRC there were also numerous witnesses to the miraculous deads of
Heracles. Whens the last time you burned fat on his altar?
> Those Jews seeking to discredit the movement sure had enough
>motivation to produce a body, but they could not; And the power of God
>manifesting itself among its believers were testimony enough to those
>joining the infant church through faith in Christ. Later Tater! :-) orin
>
Too bad those manifestations were not witnessed by any non-believers. And too
bad they stopped occuring 2000 years ago.
If the 'miracles' of the early church were real, then the church should have
spread like wildfire. The fact that after 2000 years it is not the only
religion, not even the religion of the majority, discredits the notion that it
is divine.
>
>"Woden" <wo...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:tmuig7k...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Michael The Arch Angel" <Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
>> news:OAHb7.1674$H7.6...@news.uswest.net...
>>
>> (snip more religious hatred & attempts at demonization of others...)
>>
>> Do you really think that we give a shit about what your ancient book of
>> myths says?
>>
>> --
>> Woden
>>
>> "religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
>> people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
>> ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
>> generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Frank
aa#1930
D a#344
<Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>"You shall not lie with a male as one lies
>with a female; it is an abomination"
>Leviticus 18:22 NASB
And if anyone here was a christian, that might mean somthing,
But this is ALT.ATHEISM.
Fluffy the giant space bunny says,
Thumper 15:21
Thou shalt not eat of chocolate bunnies, for that is the way of
sinners, and leads to damnation.
Thene, now you can't eat easter chocolate or Fluffy the giant space
bunny will send your soul to Uncle Wiggly's eternal carrot farm, and
your soul will have to farm carrots in the hot sun for eterinty for
all the good bunnies.
There, now don't you feel threatened?
No, Then perhaps you get the point. But probably not.
Dana
a#344
"I will not get involved in any pointless debates
about who I am. I know who I am, and if you have
a problem with that, then it stays your problem."
-- Douglas Adams--
raven1
wrote:
>Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape
Are you referring to YHWH ordering the Hebrews to kill all their
non-virgin female captives, and keep the virgins for themselves,
perhaps? Or maybe the OT custom of forcing a rape victim to marry
their attacker?
raven1
wrote:
>You asked me to post this dont you remember.It wasafter my explanantion as
>to the non lucidity of your challenge
I was asking why you posted the original article on homosexuality, you
fucking moron.
Fury
news:OAHb7.1674$H7.6...@news.uswest.net...
> "You shall not lie with a male as one lies
> with a female; it is an abomination"
> Leviticus 18:22 NASB
*yawn* Does your boyfriend know you hate him, O Wise One?
>
> The preceding verses prohibit marital adultery and
> spiritual idolatry. The verse following it forbids sex with
> animals. Clearly, the Lord views homosexuality in a
> class with these other abhorrent practices.
Who gives a shit? The bible is irrelevant.
<snip remainder of an imbecilic rant>
Go back to your lover...don't tell us what to do.
Fury
news:nSHb7.1693$H7.6...@news.uswest.net...
> Brought up because Christians are moralists to the bone
Only if we are calling a penis a bone.
Fury
> Plagarism is a legal term
> We are not discussing legalism today
You're still a thief.
Fury
> The Psychology of Atheism: Social and Personal Motives
<snip several thousand lines of likely-plagiarized garbage>
Thief.
BUG
"LPetrazickis (St. Leo)" <SPAMSuxpet...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:JQIb7.1102$iC.2...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
Meteorite Debris
Angel<Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> did eloquently compose:
> No
>
> Now here is some more "flawed" logic: If Christianity were an invention of
> man, then why have as its primary requirement a belief in the ridiculous
> notion that its founder rose from the dead?
Absurdity as evidence of the absurd? All sorts of faiths have asked
their followers to believe in absurd things.
The existence of Elvis to this day is also absurd therefore he must
actually still be alive.
The sun moving in the sky at Fatima is totally absurd so therefore it
must have happened.
Alien abductions of so many is totally absurd so therefore it must
have happened.
> Wouldn't such a perposterous
> absurdity doom its success from the start?
Why? Rationality is not compulsive, especially among the theologically
entranced.
> I propose that Christianity is
> truly divine in its origin because the miraculous element in its inception
> gave credence to its claims, with enough witnesses to verify all that took
> place.
Bullshit! Elvis has been witnessed by many more people than is claimed
for the resurrected Jesus. And furthermore the first accounts were
written down very soon after his death. Not decades latter as with
Jesus. There is really MORE evidence for Elvis still being alive today
than there is for Jesus rising from the dead.
Why did Jesus not appear to absolutely everyone on earth and do so in
every generation thereafter? Why did he appear only to some of his
starry eyed groupies? They can not be considered objective observers.
> Those Jews seeking to discredit the movement sure had enough
> motivation to produce a body, but they could not; And the power of God
> manifesting itself among its believers were testimony enough to those
> joining the infant church through faith in Christ. Later Tater! :-) orin
There was no empty tomb. The story evolved decades latter - after
Paul. The earliest part of the NT, the epistles of Paul, say nothing
about an empty tomb. Strange if the empty tomb is as important a piece
of evidence for the divinity of Jesus as is claimed.
But even if it happened what is it evidence for. Anything you can
imagine. A boring old ghost but not a god. A devious demon conning
humans. A deluded demon (who sincerely thought he was a god). A local
unimportant god among many other gods deceiving humans. A deluded
smaller god with no knowledge of greater gods than himself. A devious
prophet pretending he was a god. A deluded prophet believing he was a
god. The possibilities are limited only by your imagination.
If the whole structure of your religion comes down to a gee wiz what
an amazing trick type of magic than I am unimpressed. It's simple and
silly. That this impresses MTAA shows a lack of imagination but this
was already evident from his CNTL c CNTL v postings.
Jos Flachs
<Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> copy & pasted:
<snipped>
= Do you shave?
= Do you wear clothes of mixed fibers?
= Did you ever pick up a stick on a Saturday?
= Ever slept with a menstruating woman?
= Do you work on Saturday? ANY kind of work?
= Ever had sex before being married?
If you answer one or more of the above questions by 'yes' you are an
abomination in the eyes of your lord.
If you can honestly answer 'no' to all questions: in which mental
asylum do you reside?
==========================================================
Jos Flachs in: Krungthep Mahanakhon Bovorn Rattanakorsin Mahinthara
Ayutthaya Mahadilokpop Noparat Ratchathani Burirom
Udom Ratchanivej Mahasathan Amornpiman Avatarnsathit
Sakkathattiya A-visnukarmpasit
also known as: Bangkok, Thailand
==========================================================
LP
<Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>No
>
>Now here is some more "flawed" logic: If Christianity were an invention of
>man, then why have as its primary requirement a belief in the ridiculous
>notion that its founder rose from the dead? Wouldn't such a perposterous
>absurdity doom its success from the start?
1)
Jesus did not found Christianity.
2)
There are more than twenty religions that have someone rising from
the dead as one of their central myths. Many of them predate the
Christian version of the myth.
Here are a few examples from which the Jesus myth was likely derived.
Mithra
Attis
Adonis
Buddha
Horus
Osiris-Dionysus
Quirinus
Indra
Krishna
Quexalcote
You can read about some of these myths (including the Jesus one) here:
Parallels between the Christian Gospels and Pagan Mythology
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm
Sacred texts
http://davidwiley.com/religion.html
The Encyclopedia Mythica
http://www.pantheon.org/mythica.html
> I propose that Christianity is
>truly divine in its origin because the miraculous element in its inception
>gave credence to its claims, with enough witnesses to verify all that took
>place. Those Jews seeking to discredit the movement sure had enough
>motivation to produce a body, but they could not; And the power of God
>manifesting itself among its believers were testimony enough to those
>joining the infant church through faith in Christ. Later Tater! :-) orin
>
>
>"Woden" <wo...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:tmuig7k...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Michael The Arch Angel" <Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
>> news:OAHb7.1674$H7.6...@news.uswest.net...
>>
>> (snip more religious hatred & attempts at demonization of others...)
>>
>> Do you really think that we give a shit about what your ancient book of
>> myths says?
>>
>> --
>> Woden
>>
>> "religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
>> people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
>> ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
>> generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
>>
>>
>>
>
Whirl_pool
#1439
Arky
wrote:
>1)
> Jesus did not found Christianity.
>
>2)
> There are more than twenty religions that have someone rising from
>the dead as one of their central myths. Many of them predate the
>Christian version of the myth.
Paul could be regarded as the founder perhaps.
--
Arky, truth seeker
http://www.jarkazz.co.uk/musings/
Greg Shelley
>
> "You shall not lie with a male as one lies
> with a female; it is an abomination"
> Leviticus 18:22 NASB
>
> The preceding verses prohibit marital adultery and
> spiritual idolatry. The verse following it forbids sex with
> animals. Clearly, the Lord views homosexuality in a
> class with these other abhorrent practices.
>
difficult to give a woman a blow job, so I guess that must be allowed
--
Greg #1636
Minister, Universal Life Church
Completely pointless personal and work pages:
Http://users.aber.ac.uk/ggs98
Thor
> "You shall not lie with a male as one lies
> with a female; it is an abomination"
> Leviticus 18:22 NASB
>
> The preceding verses prohibit marital adultery and
> spiritual idolatry. The verse following it forbids sex with
> animals. Clearly, the Lord views homosexuality in a
> class with these other abhorrent practices.
As a matter of interest, how many of the rules described in
Leviticus do you, personally, obey? Do you dress, eat and deal with
medical matters as that book demands of you?
If not, why not?
THOR
To reply, remove pan.
http://www.thehungersite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/HungerSite
Thor
alt.atheism:
> Clarifying Christianity
> (Click a topic) Heaven Angels Church Cults
> Creation/Evolution
> Reading and Understanding the Bible Bible Search
> The Bible's Subjects Bibles In Various Languages
> The Source of Life Search (Netscape) Search (IE)
> The Trinity Baptism FAQ Dinosaurs Science
> Proving the Bible Losing Weight Statement of Faith
[SNIP 200 lines of trash posted in response to John's comment]
> "John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
> news:0nhumtct83v77sq6t...@4ax.com...
> > "Michael The Arch Angel" <Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
> >
> > >"You shall not lie with a male as one lies
> > >with a female; it is an abomination"
> > >Leviticus 18:22 NASB
> >
> > Troll troll troll your boat. . .
You really pressed his button there!
Thor
from Lauren a.k.a. Ray. Probably not worth reading.
So, I am checking to see if Agent will let me reply to LauRay's post
without actually bothering to download it.
Thor
alt.atheism:
> The Psychology of Atheism: Social and Personal Motives
> "Woden" <wo...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:tmuig7k...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Michael The Arch Angel" <Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
> > news:OAHb7.1674$H7.6...@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > (snip more religious hatred & attempts at demonization of others...)
> >
> > Do you really think that we give a shit about what your ancient book of
> > myths says?
[Snip 500 lines, without bothering to read it]
I think Michael was a little annoyed by your question :)
Woden
"Thor" <ze...@thor666.fsnet.pan.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fjnvmtsn6eleeove3...@4ax.com...
> "Michael The Arch Angel" <Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> wrote in
> alt.atheism:
>
> > The Psychology of Atheism: Social and Personal Motives
> > "Woden" <wo...@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:tmuig7k...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Michael The Arch Angel" <Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
> > > news:OAHb7.1674$H7.6...@news.uswest.net...
> > >
> > > (snip more religious hatred & attempts at demonization of others...)
> > >
> > > Do you really think that we give a shit about what your ancient book
of
> > > myths says?
>
> [Snip 500 lines, without bothering to read it]
>
> I think Michael was a little annoyed by your question :)
I hope so. But I've decided to ignore all three of his sock puppets,
Lauren, Ray & Michael. All he's doing is dumping his lies, hatred and
delusions. He/she/it isn't interested in an intelligent conversation (if
they could even have one), and isn't entertaining or funny.
Thor
to alt.atheism:
NOTE: This essay was written by an unidentified atheist, not by
Ray/lauren/"Michael The Arch Angel"
If my earlier reply to Ray's post I established that Agent will
allow me to answer a post without bothering to download it.
However, curiosity got the better of me and I downloaded Ray's post
and was startled to see that it was written by some unknown but very
erudite atheist!
The headers look similar to those of Lauren/Ray/ArchAngel, so I
assume that they have atheist writings on their hard disk - and have
sent us one by accident!
John Hattan
>"Ray" <Bigfo...@Hotmail.com> posted this essay
> to alt.atheism:
>
>NOTE: This essay was written by an unidentified atheist, not by
>Ray/lauren/"Michael The Arch Angel"
>
>> Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape
<snip>
That's really funny.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.freespeech.org/shatner
Ritalin-Kid
If the link doesn't work I suggest you look up the thread (google)
"Psychology of Atehism: Defective Father" made in 1996.
It's plagiarized from Professor Paul C. Vitz's "The Pscyhology of
Atheism" on http://www.iclnet.org/clm/truth/1truth12.html (the link
doesn't work anymore. However, the www.iclnet.org link does... it must
be in there somewhere)
Since the original link doesn't work, Look at the Message 7 in thread;
it gives an (exact) paragraph present on both of 'em.
And you, Word thief, I suggest that you put references to where you're
copying your garbage.
Ritalin-Kid
chibiabos
Angel <Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> wrote:
> We will talk legalism another day.
> But to answer your question Yes it is...for profit
You better brush up on your Title 17 USC.
-chib
--
The best thing about religion is,
people who are praying can't do any harm.
--Ashleigh Brilliant
Elf Sternberg
"Ray" <Bigfo...@Hotmail.com> writes:
>Brought up because Christians are moralists to the bone
Christians have no morality at all. They are merely apes bowing
to the Supreme Ape, fearful and trembling. That's no way to form a
moral community.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
Today is gone, today was fun. Tomorrow will be a better one.
From there to here, from here to there, funny things are everywhere.
Lexin
news:nSHb7.1693$H7.6...@news.uswest.net...
From the evidence of your post, they are both immoral and cruel. This is no
surprise.
--
Lexin
http://www.lexin.co.uk
a.a. number: 1947
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
religious conviction." Blaise Pascal, philosopher.
<to reply to me, remove all references to animals from my email address>
Lexin
news:taIb7.1720$H7.6...@news.uswest.net...
> If Christianity were an invention of
> man, then why have as its primary requirement a belief in the ridiculous
> notion that its founder rose from the dead?
Why wouldn't it? As a myth, rising from the dead was pretty normal around
then, if not slightly ho-hum. As was the virgin birth thing. At that time,
anyone who was anyone (Caesar, Pythagoras) was born from a virgin and rose
from the dead.
Etherman
"Michael The Arch Angel" <Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
> The Proof of Science
> There is a great deal of scientific evidence that supports the
Bible. Enough
> that we have a separate page to discuss this proof alone. If you
would like
> to see our science page, click on this sentence.
The Bible contradicts numerous scientific facts.
> The Proof of Prophecy
> One of the strongest arguments for the accuracy of the Bible is its
100%
> accuracy in predicting the future. These future predictions are
called
> "prophecies." The Old Testament was written between approximately
1450 BC
> and 430 BC. During that time, many predictions of the future were
recorded
> in the Bible by God's prophets. Of the events that were to have
taken place
> by now, every one happened just the way they predicted it would. No
other
> "sacred writing" has such perfectly accurate predictions of the
future.
Jesus told the people that he would return in their lifetimes and
bring the kingdom of god with him. He didn't.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
"I tasted poison, when I drank the wine of fate."--Blind Guardian
Etherman
"Ray" <Bigfo...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape
>
>
apologists
> against atheists is to argue that atheists can provide no objective
reason
> for not raping people. This startling claim follows from the
apologists'
> wider claim that atheists can provide no objective moral reasons for
> anything. In this paper I will examine both claims in context of the
debate
> between atheism and theism.
According to the Bibull, Lot was a good and righteous man. Whilst in
Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot and his family were besieged by the townsfolk.
Lot offered his daughters to the people, to be raped, in exchange for
his own safety. Thus, according to the Bibull, rape is ok.
Atheism says nothing about morality. However, certain philosophical
arguments can be used against rape. For example, the Satanist
philosophy says "Do unto others as they have done unto you." So unless
you were raped first, rape would be considered immoral. Secular
Humanism takes a slightly different view and proclaims rape always to
be wrong. It seems, Ray, that by your own standards Satanism and
Secular Humanism are both better than Christian Theism.
Etherman
"Michael The Arch Angel" <Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
> No
>
> Now here is some more "flawed" logic: If Christianity were an
invention of
> man, then why have as its primary requirement a belief in the
ridiculous
perposterous
> absurdity doom its success from the start?
Such a notion is found in many religions. It's especially common in
agrarian societies because the death and rebirth cycle is symbolic of
the harvest/growth cycle. Christianity presents nothing new.
> I propose that Christianity is
> truly divine in its origin because the miraculous element in its
inception
> gave credence to its claims, with enough witnesses to verify all
that took
> place. Those Jews seeking to discredit the movement sure had enough
> motivation to produce a body, but they could not;
Of course not. Jesus never existed so how could they produce a body?
> And the power of God
> manifesting itself among its believers were testimony enough to
those
> joining the infant church through faith in Christ. Later Tater! :-)
orin
That's what all religions say.
Etherman
"Michael The Arch Angel" <Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
> Because your always asking
If your god exists, why do you top post?
LPetrazickis (St. Leo)
first message.:)
Leons Petrazickis (St. Leo)
"BUG" <Cpro...@ctlnet.com> wrote in message
news:sYKb7.726$7g6.1...@nntp1.onemain.com...
mikey
I'm not sure Ray would have been very happy with it, had he done so
himself.
Very bad of you all to dismiss before reviewing! Can't have atheists
believing without evidence, now can we? ... rather too much like the
other side.
Mike
Colin Day
>
> "You shall not lie with a male as one lies
> with a female; it is an abomination"
> Leviticus 18:22 NASB
>
> The preceding verses prohibit marital adultery and
> spiritual idolatry. The verse following it forbids sex with
> animals. Clearly, the Lord views homosexuality in a
> class with these other abhorrent practices.
>
> nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
> effeminate,
Careful now, those effeminate guys can generate a lot of torque with
that limp-wristed motion. They'll slap your face off.
--
Colin Day aa #1500
BAAWA-nnabe
Chris Nelson
message news:OAHb7.1674$H7.6...@news.uswest.net...
> with a female; it is an abomination"
> Leviticus 18:22 NASB
I guess God must love lesbians.
--
Chris Nelson
AUDIO VIDEO DISCO - "I hear, I see, I learn"
wingedbeast
> "You shall not lie with a male as one lies
> with a female; it is an abomination"
> Leviticus 18:22 NASB
>
> spiritual idolatry. The verse following it forbids sex with
> animals. Clearly, the Lord views homosexuality in a
> class with these other abhorrent practices.
>
>
>
>
> "Do not be deceived; neither fornicators,
> nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
> nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor
> revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the
> kingdom of God"
> 1 Corinthians 6:9 NASB
>
>
> Again (this time in the New Testament) we see
> homosexuality classed with sins God hates most.
>
> arsenokoites.
>
> Strong's Lexicon: "sodomite, homosexual"
>
> Mounce's Analytical Greek Lexicon: "a male engaging
> in same-geneder sexual activity"
>
> Kohlenberger's Greek Lexicon: "one engaging in
> homosexual acts, sexual deviant"
>
> The assertion that arsenokoites refers only to male
> prostitutes (a contention of the Sodomite Apologists) is
> against the overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion.
>
> Moreover, arsenokoites as "homosexuals" synchs with
> the Old Testament teaching (Leviticus 18:22, et. al.).
> Remember: We use Scripture to interpret Scripture !
>
>
>
> "If there is a man who lies with a male as
> those lie with a woman, both of them have
> committed a detestable act; they shall
> surely be put to death"
> Leviticus 20:13 NASB
>
>
> Here we see the Most High prescribing the death penalty
> for homosexuality.
Mmmhmmmmm. And, though all this, I wonder why you think biblical
scripture would hold any weight in alt.atheism, let alone what you're
trying to accomplish by these random spoutings on the topic of
sexuality.
satyr
>On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 18:44:13 -0700, "Michael The Ass Angel"
><Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> copy & pasted:
>
><snipped>
>
>= Do you shave?
>= Do you wear clothes of mixed fibers?
>= Did you ever pick up a stick on a Saturday?
>= Ever slept with a menstruating woman?
>= Do you work on Saturday? ANY kind of work?
>= Ever had sex before being married?
>
>If you answer one or more of the above questions by 'yes' you are an
>abomination in the eyes of your lord.
Come on, don't you remember how these purity tests are supposed to work?
0-1 'yes' If you are pregnant, there is a star in the east. If a guy,
your mother doesn't let you out.
2-3 " You are normal, a regular guy/gal.
4-5 " Sinner, I rebuke you
6 " You are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.
>If you can honestly answer 'no' to all questions: in which mental
>asylum do you reside?
The one where you spend every day in a canvas strait jacket and are not allowed
razor blades, of course.
Fury
news:D62c7.222295$Q9.58...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
> "Michael The Arch Angel" <Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> wrote in
> message news:OAHb7.1674$H7.6...@news.uswest.net...
> > "You shall not lie with a male as one lies
> > with a female; it is an abomination"
> > Leviticus 18:22 NASB
>
> I guess God must love lesbians.
If god is a guy, you can bet he does *wiggles eyebrows*
Forrest
>The Greek word translated "homosexuals" here is
>arsenokoites.
So remember -- arse: no coitus
Bill Haygood
Having spent more than a year in South Central Thailand that straddled
the 1960s and 1970s, I have often wondered why, in English, we change
the capital city names, e.g., Bangkok = Krungthep . Since "Krungthep"
is easily pronounced in English, why not retain that instead of changing
it to something else? Beyond my understanding. How difficult could it
be so say "Pa-ree" rather than "Paris" or "Roma" rather than "Rome"?
BTW, Thailand is an incredibly beautiful country! And, oh, but do the
Thai know how to prepare an excellent, spicy meal! It makes my mouth
water just to think of it.
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Brought up because Christians are moralists to the bone
So moral that they worship a god that tells us that owning another
person is permitted. That the penalty for picking up a stick is
death, if it angers the god. That children are to be raped.
If that's morality, I prefer to be amoral.
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
rukbat at optonline dot net
Iain
"Michael The Arch Angel" <Bigfo...@Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:r7Ib7.1713$H7.6...@news.uswest.net...
> The Psychology of Atheism: Social and Personal Motives
Bzzzzz wrong. We are born atheists.