Thumbelina Posted March 18, 2011 Author Share Posted March 18, 2011 ShackledNoMore said: That is not a parallel comparison. If a guy were entering the town square with spears and armor to mass murder as many people as possible and god (or a swat team member, or even some guy on the scene, for that matter) took him out, then it would be different. The human race will not self destruct because some guy picked up sticks. Have you ever jaywalked, or driven 5 mph over the speed limit? Do you think you should have been executed for your transgression? After all, you broke the law, willfully. Does evil now abound because you were not executed? Remember, we're talking about a civil penalty prescribed for this offense. Thumbelina said: I know it can't be a parallel comparison, we're dealing with God here; it's an analogy. Yes evil would have abounded ShackledNoMore said: Analogy: A comparison based on such similarity. OK, analogy: fine with me. In any case, we seem to be having difficulties agreeing on our analogies. You need to frame things differently to defend outrageous atrocities attributed to your god as acts of love and mercy. Thumbelina: This word "anthropomorphism" was coined a while back so maybe I should have used that instead? We just can't compare ourselves to God (there is none like Him) which is why the bible is written like that so we can relate to God. He gave us children to love so we can understand how He loves us; He gave us marriages so we can understand how to cherish and love a person and how to jealously (positive jealousy that protects the object of love from danger) guard our relationships with them. We can identify with God when children go astray, we can identify with Him when a spouse cheats. When we are lied to and on or when we have our possessions stolen we can see how God feels. You don't believe in God and therefore do not respect Him so you can't see that God is infinitely Holy and sin is abhorrent to Him. Eve stole a fruit and look at where we are today. Sin causes a domino effect. Thumbelina said: The bible is a book of myth to ShackledNoMore, there, I finished your sentence ShackledNoMore said:Well, yes, just as you could say, "Star Trek is a work of fiction to ShackledNoMore." The point is the question of whether some god exists or not aside, the bible is a compilation of ancient tales which contain many contradictions, and its claims have systematically fallen to what we have learned from archeology, geology, cosmology, etc. That would be a book of myth. I don't go around qualifying a statement that stories of Zeus are mythical stories (to me). There are a lot of mysteries on this speck of a planet that scientists can't even solve Thumbelina: The bible is misunderstood by skeptics and even by some of its proponents (eg God will burn people through the ceaseless ages); it is not contradictory we are the ones who are slow to let God teach us rightly but the more one looks at it the more one will see that it harmonizes with itself. People who work in the above fields you mentioned do stand in awe of creation and some of them do come to God when they study nature and the universe but as I say, the carnally minded won't come to God no matter what. ShackledNoMore said: I don't go around qualifying a statement that stories of Zeus are mythical stories (to me). Thumbelina: Of course you don't because you know that is a myth but you do go around saying the bible is a myth because you don't actually believe that and you are trying to suppress it Thumbelina said: I believe what the bible says. You cannot prove anything, it's all based on faith, it was not observable, demonstrable, repeatable, ShackledNoMore said: Which is no different than saying "I believe what the Koran/I Ching/Tao-te-ching/Veda/Book of Mormon/Dianetics/Star Wars/man preaching on the corner says. You cannot prove anything, it's all based on faith, it was not observable, demonstrable, repeatable..." If the bible were true, I would have expected it to corroborate more and more of what we learned about the world and the universe over the past 2600 years instead of sending the faithful scrambling for the god of the gaps. If I told you that the entire universe as we know it exists inside of some alien child's closet in a shoebox as a home project, I could make the same claims, and I should not expect you to believe it. Same story with the proverbial invisible dragon in the garage, for whom I could propose explanations for every objection to make unfalsifiable. Thumbelina: Science is the god of the skeptic and evolution is their god of the gaps, they purposely set it up that way ; they prefer to worship the creation rather than the Creator. The stipulations put forth by scientists to define something as true science IS that it HAS to be observable, demonstrable, repeatable, so therefore, they are putting forth their theories by FAITH just like a believer in God. Thumbelina said: science has been wrong myriads of times (like recommending smoking for emphysema) ShackledNoMore said: Science differs from religion. It does not claim to have all the answers a priori. It is a process of questioning things, testing hypotheses, refining our view based on discoveries, and learning. It has proven to be a most effective of understanding of things. It has delivered results through recorded history. It has brought us from living as goat herders 2,600 years ago to having people walk on the moon. Throughout recorded history, it has brought us from a state of greater ignorance to greater knowledge whenever it has not been suppressed by religion. Since it never claimed to be above criticism, it has followed a consistent general pattern of honing in from being more "wrong" (e.g., Newtonian physics, which already had things pretty much nailed within its own domain) to less wrong (e.g., Relativity). As it has moved from more to less wrong, our ancient superstitions are left far behind as being more and more ridiculous, or to look at it in a better way, to show how far we've come. Thumbelina: These days science is a religion to SOME people; when it comes to origins they have A LOT of faith, they're guessers and that is NOT true science. You said "It does not claim to have all the answers a priori." but to hear all the atheists on the Internet and other media they do claim that. The bible might be pre scientific but it is not non scientific and if some of its directions were followed then we would have avoided a lot of mistakes. Like not eating animal fats, modern science is finding out the diseases this causes, eating more food as grown or raw foods, or washing hands when handling blood and sick patients, putting diseased people under quarantine, God instructed the Israelites to do all of that. SOME scientists (the ones who don't want a Holy God to interfere with their lifestyles) still think non living material can produce living intelligent beings and in order to make their suppositions plausible they use high sounding technical language to intimidate people. In order to induce others to follow their fads (using the word "evolution" or "part of our evolution" as some use the phrase "the new black" some of them insult and bully creationists. I do acknowledge that the creationist camp has its share of crazies too. ShackledNoMore said: Now, as for science recommending smoking for emphysema, I was skeptical, because I knew that the tobacco companies used to dishonestly market cigarettes by claiming they had health benefits, just like quacks today make all sorts of fantastical claims about the miraculous powers of their untested herbal supplements. Therefore, I googled to try to find out whether the scientific consensus ever touted cigarette smoking improves emphysema. I found nothing, and I usually turn up information I google for, so if this is indeed the case, I will rely on you to point me to (a) credible source(s). Remember, we're looking for consensus among the scientific community. Thumbelina: I saw that on the tele' and just typing in emphysema on google brings about extensive results so I didn't find it either. It could have been the tobacco industry hiring actors to pose as scientists or it can be scientists making mistakes just like when they believed in spontaneous generation (they still believe that, yes yes I know I am going to be accused of ignorance but "whatever"). When it comes to the origin of life there is never consensus in the scientific community. Thumbelina said: I believe (know based on my personal experiences with God and therefore trust His word) that they are wrong about the age of the earth; that is my faith. I don't care to go into that... ShackledNoMore said: I believe we have for the most part, talked out the original topic, ... Thumbelina: Yes I think so, Phanta started a nice thread. ShackledNoMore said: and in your last posts you have more and more appealed to the inerrancy of the christian god and the bible to back up your claims. You will never be able to successfully support your case unless you address this issue, which will be much, much more difficult than what you needed to do within the more limited debate we have been having: if the christian god loving and merciful to all, including women and foreigners. By arguing for why ever we should believe the bible/claims of xianity as the Ultimate TruthTM to begin with, you would be (generally speaking) meeting us on our turf (our being many of the skeptics here, not defining anybody else's turf for them). I have been leading up to suggesting you need to do this if you want to further advance your argument, and other members, such as Par, have called upon you to prove that god exists. He's right: unless you provide something there, I won't have any more reason to believe in your god than in faries at the bottom of your goldfish pond. I was thinking of starting a new topic to invite you to argue why we should believe the claims of the bible or that the christian god exists to begin with, including a rebuttal to common objections about things that we have to be wrong about if biblegod IS The Truth, such as the age of the universe and the value of pi, but I'll leave that to you since you seem to not want to go there. If you make a good case, you will have succeeded where nobody in history has before you, if you do not try, you will not be able to cite the bible as an authority and expect it to mean any more than if I quoted Twilight to make my case. Thumbelina: Every one has a measure of faith, the reason why you guys don't believe is because you don't want to; um, I should not generalize, awwww, there are some who are so nervous and scared of the God portrayed in faulty Christian doctrines. Not even the bible sets out to prove that God exists, it just declares it and when one reads it with an open heart one does realize that mere man could not have thought about the contents in that book, there was a supernatural being behind it; we do have a yearning for God, He made us that way. I can use the bible, it is not outlawed yet, Jesus used scripture a lot and God's sheep hear His voice, even if one person were to gain eternal life it would have been worth my time. Thumbelina said: Constantine apparently saw a miracle and the pagans flocked into the church and look at what happened, the church became a blend of Christianity and paganism therefore they are not truly worshiping God the way God wants ShackledNoMore said: Yes, there is one person who has told me that she saw Jesus in the flesh and spoke while taking a bath, and another person who told me that he spoke with Satan during a NDE. While I don't know them personally, there are those who claim that they have spoken to Elvis Presley (after 1977) and that he is still alive. Like "I spoke with Jesus/Satan" and "Elvis lives," Constantine's burning cross is an unsupported claim, 1700 years old, apparently first reported after his death, and while he may or may not have seen something in the sky (anyone care to think about the numerous reports of UFOs today?) there is as little or less reason to believe that he saw an inscribed burning cross in the sky, than the Joseph Smith spoke with an angel named Moroni. With or without a burning cross, Constantine was crafty and influential enough to turn the corner xianity and allow it to take root. Thumbelina: Yup there are a lot of "Jesus' " running around out there,Christians should not be surprised about that Thumbelina said: The devils can perform supernatural acts but not even them can make a leg grow, they can perform some seeming miracles that will FOOL anyone who does not have a complete dependence on God. ShackledNoMore said: By all means, show me any documented, verified, supernatural acts of Satan or his minions that prove that principalities, powers, rulers of the darkness of this world, and spiritual forces of any kind exists, since such a demonstration of god's miracles has not been forthcoming. (Update for all on but one of those opportunities: as of today, my father-in-law still has only one leg.) Thumbelina: Just turn on the news,that's the evidence right there; this world is evil and it can be depressing if someone does not have faith. Satan is doing a number on this world. If your father-in-law hangs on to Jesus, he'll be alright ShackledNoMore said: As I say, I think that for the most part, we have both presented the bulk of our respective cases, and we have lodged on your core premise: that the christian god exists, and that the bible is inerrant. We know this by faith, and it is justified with no evidence. As part of your faith, you attribute ultimate love and ultimate mercy to this god, despite the genocidal track record of this god provided in the bible, and that fact that under christianity, he will throw the vast majority of the people that ever existed in human history into a burning hell forever for not believing in him and asking him to save them. From here, there is nothing left but to go around in circles with you perpetually defending why your god is all loving and all merciful by heaping on unfalsifiable rationalizations, much the same as I would if we were arguing about the existence of that dragon in my garage. Thumbelina: Oh the evidence for God is there for those who WISH to see it. About God being genocidal, God is the Creator and He can mete out judgement when He sees it fit to do so. About skeptics focusing on the OT judgments, I don't usually see them focusing on the judgments in the book of Revelation, that is a trick of skeptics so they can hold on to their skepticism and encourage others to do likewise. This term has been coined "Argument by Outrage" as a fallacy of criticism of the Bible. I don't condone everything that is written because I simply do not know about why God instructed some of the things He did and I do defer judgement. Maybe you would like to look at the article: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 3/21, Part 1: Shack you don't have to address everything I write, only the parts that really interest you OK. ShackledNoMore said: I believe we have for the most part, talked out the original topic, ... Thumbelina: Yes I think so, Phanta started a nice thread. I agree it's time to prune and let some of the exchanges stand. 1. The 66 books maintain harmony with each other. 2. Often new concepts on a subject are expressed, but these concepts do not undermine what other Bible writers say on the same subject. ... Ask people who have viewed an identical event to each give a report of what happened. They will differ widely and will virtually always contradict each other in some way. Yet the Bible, penned by 40 writers over a 1,500-year period, reads as if written by one great mind. Yes, like... Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matthew), Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark), Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them (Luke), or Mary Magdalene (John) go to Jesus' tomb where there was a violent earthquake where an angel rolled the stone away from the entrance of the tomb and sat on it (Matthew), the stone had already been rolled away and a man was sitting on the right side (Mark), the stone had already been rolled away and two men stood beside them only after they had entered the tomb (Luke), or Mary Magdalene ran to two of the disciples (John). In John, the scene at the tomb is out of sequence, but the events differ from the other three accounts: Mary Magdalene sees two angels, this time at the head and the foot of where the body had been. Then, Jesus himself appears to Mary Magdalene in the tomb and talks to her. She thinks he's the gardener at first, but then realizes he is Jesus. Jesus tells Mary Magdalene that he has not yet risen, and then he himself, rather than the angel(s) tells Mary Magdalene to tell the others. In the other accounts the angle(s) talk(s) to the women and tells them Jesus has already risen and is already gone, that they will see him in Galilee, and to tell the others (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). The women tell the disciples and Jesus immediately met them (Matthew), say nothing to anybody because they were afraid (Mark), told the disciples, who did not believe them, although Peter ran off to see the empty tomb and wonders what happened (Luke), or Peter and another disciple both ran off to the tomb and Peter believes (John). This is but one story in the bible. There are volumes of contradictions, and I'm trying to keep this short. To claim this reads as if it were written by one great mind is utter nonsense. God's word is objectively true. Yes, you are familiar with the different types of love and the bible does go into more details with those but the last six commandments are the letter of the law. Fallen beings tend not to understand the spirit of the law. Perhaps that's because of biblegod's propensity to kill people for the procedural errors when making offerings, reflexively trying to keep the ark from being dropped on the ground, or picking up sticks on the sabbath that we discussed previously, while he does nothing about incest and killing sprees. I am sorry you were hurt by that erroneous teaching of God being an eternal torturer. ... Thumbelina: Nope, finite crimes will get finite punishments. ... The bible is misunderstood by skeptics and even by some of its proponents (eg God will burn people through the ceaseless ages) Thumb, you really surprise me, I am flabbergasted! I don't think I have ever met a christian who believes things like a literal six day creation six thousand years ago and a global flood who also parts ways with almost all moderate and conservative xians by rejecting the doctrine of eternal damnation! What form of afterlife do you believe in for those you believe to be unsaved? A purgatory, like the catholics, only for everybody, providing a finite punishment for finite sins? No afterlife? Something else? Bear in mind that your fellow christians use scripture to defend their belief in eternal damnation, even if the bible isn't a bastion of clarity on the matter, particularly between testaments (no need to try to cherry pick scripture to try to show why you are right and they are wrong). In any case, you do understand that except for liberal christians who do not claim to take the bible literally, the doctrine of universal damnation that you call erroneous is nearly universally accepted by your brethren. ShackledNoMore said: I believe that somewhere out there, you have the capacity to apply real thinking skills to the information you have available to you. You might make a good ex-christian (whatever that is). Thumbelina: I have no desire to embrace worldliness. My Jesus gives me such love and comfort. Well, whatever "embracing worldliness" means to you, I am sorry to disappoint you that the world is full on non-christians who are moral, ethical, and upstanding. What you can only reconcile by saying they are "a law unto themselves." Slavery came about because of sin. Where do you get that from!? It is obviously from contemporary values and not biblical. The god of the bible endorsed slavery in both the old and new testaments! I don't suppose that you are taking the position that god endorsed sinning by his people, now are you? Shack, we made a mistake, the woman was a Canaanite woman... Shame on us, and I bear the real responsibility having first referred to the woman as Samaritan. I stand corrected. Thumbelina: Dude, you have to go a digging! Jesus wants us to diligntly seek after Him just like the woman he called PUPPY! You go to the text and then look at the Greek http://biblos.com/matthew/15-26.htm then you click on the word dogs to see the original word http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2952.htm Cognate: 2952 kynárion – properly, puppy, a diminutive of 2965 /kýon ("dog"). I am not a Greek scholar, but I looked at your sources and did a quick google. It appears to me that this is a reference to "house dogs," or maybe better, "little house dogs," the 2000 year old equivalent of Fifi the little poodle begging for scraps under the table as opposed to Bubba's big ol' hunting dog that's kept outside. Not a huge amount of consolation to the Canaanite woman. I would of course welcome hearing from a linguist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 just like I can't prove God is real (I have my own testimony and each individual needs to get theirs) you can't prove that He isn't ShackledNoMore: You've just utterly failed to support your claim. The bible is filled with contradictions, absurdities, and claims that are unsupported outside of the bible. The bible also says that donkeys have been known to talk, insects have four legs, ostriches neglect their young (contrary to their actual behavior), the value of pi is 3 and volume is NOT equal to depth times pi * r2, the earth is 6000 years old, and the earth was quickly deluged several miles deep with water which quickly disappeared leaving behind a fertile world to repopulate (globally) with one breeding pair of each species. Prove that the bible is a correct, reliable source before using it to support your claims. THEN we'll talk. Thumbelina: The misunderstanding is on the part of man. Apart from the talking donkey and the young age of the earth and the flood where the clean animals went in by sevens and the unclean animals (like rabbits ) went in by twos I have no idea what you are talking about. I can't prove the bible to people who are bent on not believing it no matter what, even if God were to somewhat veil Himself, a person who does not want to submit to Him won't do it; they will block their ears and pinch their eyes shut and say "la la la la" as loud as they can so they won't have to acknowledge Him. For me, I loved that the bible teaches good morals and it has great prophecies like the prophecy in Daniel 2. As for the story of the king's dream in Daniel 2, that could potentially lead to some long paragraphs that would not tie into the topic we have been discussing. If you are citing it as an argument that the bible is a reliable source and wish me to discuss it, I will do so at your request. I just have to return to our dragon in the garage one more time: If instead of a dragon, you told me you had a car in your garage, I would not be bent on disbelieving you. It would be a plausible claim. If we went into your garage and you showed me the car, you will have proven it to me. The dragon is an extraordinary claim. I would harbor a greater degree of skepticism, just as you would if I told you I was 800 years old, but despite my doubts, I would not be "bent on not believing." If you produced extraordinary evidence that you had a dragon in your garage, you would capture my interest and I would believe you. What is so difficult about this? Would you believe me uncritically just because I told you I was 800 years old? You said, "The stipulations put forth by scientists to define something as true science IS that it HAS to be observable, demonstrable, repeatable, so therefore, they are putting forth their theories by FAITH just like a believer in God." Essentially what you are saying here is, "you can't prove a negative," and anything you can't disprove you must take on faith. Since you can't prove that I am not 800 years old, it therefore takes great FAITH for you to believe that I am not 800 years old. By your reasoning, it takes great FAITH to question any extraordinary claim that you cannot disprove. Do you dismiss my claim that I can type a million words per minute? Then by your own reasoning you are doing so by faith, and without cause. God in general, and in particular your particular god is an extraordinary claim. Far from showing me extraordinary evidence, you expect me to believe you based on blind faith and an ancient book filled with absurd fallacies. Among the three absurdities above that you are familiar with, you have not even attempted to show how they are plausible, although they must not only be plausible, but true in order for the bible to be true and the god of the bible to be the True GodTM, all the more so in light of your literalist theology. Now on to the rest of the absurdities I pointed out above... Insects have four legs, Leviticus 11:20 - 23: All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean. Ostriches neglect their young, Job 39:13 - 17: The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully, though they cannot compare with the wings and feathers of the stork. She lays her eggs on the ground and lets them warm in the sand, unmindful that a foot may crush them, that some wild animal may trample them. She treats her young harshly, as if they were not hers; she cares not that her labor was in vain, for God did not endow her with wisdom or give her a share of good sense. In fact, ostriches are committed parents, caring diligently for their eggs and their young. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich#Reproduction Pi and calculation of volume: The molten sea described in 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 was impossibly 30 cubits in circumference and 10 cubits in diameter, yielding a value of 3 for pi. This has been noticed by a lot of people, but it gets even better in these passages: a lot better! The depth of the sea is also given in both passages as 5 cubits. However, 1 Kings 7:26 gives the volume of the sea as 2,000 baths. 2 Chronicles 4:5 contradicts this value, claiming 3,000 baths instead? Which is correct? Well, neither. We can get a decent approximation of what a bath is by archaeological and other means. A common lower figure is around 5.8 to 6 gallons, with common higher figures ranging two or three gallons more. If we choose the lower figure so that it more closely matches the biblical accounts, it would yield a volume of around 1,700 baths for the molten sea, assuming the sides were straight and not rounded (in which case the volume would be even less and the error even greater). Assuming a larger volume for a bath and a rounded bottom, the volume could be less than 1,000 baths. Even the closest estimate allowing the greatest benefit of the doubt yields a much greater error than the error in the value of pi. Now tell me, Thumbelina, that the bible is inerrant and perfect. You cannot just say that the 66 books maintain perfect harmony with each other. You cannot just say that the bible reads as if it were written by one great mind. Not when it is chock full of inconsistencies and absurdities such as these. Having pared down my responses considerably this time, there are nearly a dozen places where you have responded to some point or another by merely spewing out biblical passages as the authority to support your point. If you want to do that you need to SHOW that the bible is inerrant, and do it successfully, rather than just SAY that it is perfect. ShackledNoMore said: I don't go around qualifying a statement that stories of Zeus are mythical stories (to me). Thumbelina: Of course you don't because you know that is a myth but you do go around saying the bible is a myth because you don't actually believe that and you are trying to suppress it Well, especially having once believed and then spending years examining my beliefs, I personally would not presume to attribute suppressed doubts about their convictions to others (no matter how far a reach those convictions may be) but just sayin' there is this little thing called projection. Science is the god of the skeptic and evolution is their god of the gaps Um.... God of the gaps refers to attributing the unexplained to some supernatural power (or god), and then, when more and more is understood and explained, redefining the boundaries of what is attributed to god to account for the remaining gaps in our knowledge/understanding. Calling evolution a god of the gaps is a non sequitur. ShackledNoMore said: Now, as for science recommending smoking for emphysema, I was skeptical, because I knew that the tobacco companies used to dishonestly market cigarettes by claiming they had health benefits, just like quacks today make all sorts of fantastical claims about the miraculous powers of their untested herbal supplements. Therefore, I googled to try to find out whether the scientific consensus ever touted cigarette smoking improves emphysema. I found nothing, and I usually turn up information I google for, so if this is indeed the case, I will rely on you to point me to (a) credible source(s). Remember, we're looking for consensus among the scientific community. Thumbelina: I saw that on the tele' and just typing in emphysema on google brings about extensive results so I didn't find it either. It could have been the tobacco industry hiring actors to pose as scientists or it can be scientists making mistakes just like when they believed in spontaneous generation (they still believe that, yes yes I know I am going to be accused of ignorance but "whatever"). You know, I read a response like that from you, and it makes me think there may hope for you engaging your brain after all, taking in information, revisiting and questioning prior assumptions, giving it some reasonable thought, and considering changing your position in light of new information. Then I think about your staunch, unyielding insistence that every kangaroo descended from one pair that landed in the Middle East on a boat some 4000 years ago and magically got to Australia after a flood that covered the mountain tops over the entire earth without leaving any geological traces or killing off any land plants. Just for perspective, however, I would suggest you check the Wikipedia article on spontaneous generation, particularly the last two sections on "Adoption in Christianity" and "Scientific method." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 I should have said something a few days ago with my full response, but I really needed to respond to this last paragraph, too. About God being genocidal, God is the Creator and He can mete out judgement when He sees it fit to do so. Yes, just as I can beat, torture, or murder my children as I see fit, because I made them. Oh, but wait! God is Perfect Good and I am in the Total Depravity of Sin, so it's different for god to commit genocide than for me to harm my kids, right? Unless god tells me to or I'm forced to kill my children because I made a foolish vow. I hesitate to mention this again because it's been beaten into the ground, but it is a variant of what Tekton calls the "argument by outrage" which I'll discuss momentarily, so oh well, maybe it will become a reference? About skeptics focusing on the OT judgments, I don't usually see them focusing on the judgments in the book of Revelation, that is a trick of skeptics so they can hold on to their skepticism and encourage others to do likewise. It's not that John's acid trip isn't a good example of horrible stuff in the bible, it's just kind of fruitless and a lot less useful. You xians certainly cannot get your story straight among each other as to what it means, and we're left with a story where a bunch of surreal, but definitely bad stuff happens, that you can interpret in all sorts of bizarre ways (sort of like reading tea leaves). Add to this we're talking about a story that most (but not all) xians agree has not yet happened, and there's just not room left for intelligent discussion as there might be for tangible claims that the xian thinks are historical, such as documentation of biblegod's infamous rage and genocidal mania. This term has been coined "Argument by Outrage" as a fallacy of criticism of the Bible. I don't condone everything that is written because I simply do not know about why God instructed some of the things He did and I do defer judgement. Maybe you would like to look at the article: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.html Much of the Phanta's original thread and this sequel focused on what the Tektonics apologist is calling an "argument by outrage." It appears that some guy named Glenn Miller put forth this argument (isn't he supposed to be a trombone player?). It is an argument that the bible does not portray a god of goodness and love as it claims in many places and that xians claim. The apologist claims that one has to show that god's action was unfair or cruel to justify the claim, otherwise it is an emotional appeal. Meanwhile, Miller hinges his case on one of the steps his strawman: he provides a step in the argument he attributes to the bible critic which reads, "The killing of children can never be a 'just' act, regardless of competing ethical demands in a given situation." He cites the basis of this step as "someone's personal moral intuition." The grand irony in their whole argument, is that they are invoking moral relativism to defend a god who is all about moral absolutes. Thanks to this moral relativism, the senseless murder of every firstborn male infant in Egypt, or killing the infants of your rivals in war, or dashing babies against rocks can be and is defended by the apologists. Even defending god on the basis of moral relativism, it is not shown how it was just and moral for god himself to do the dirty work of killing a nation full of helpless babies. Miller has no grounds to necessarily assume his biblical critics are moral absolutists, but looking at the situation individually, first "hardening the pharoh's heart" just so you can have an excuse to punish him by killing an entire nation of first born infants is absolutely not a just act by any stretch given any ethical demands in this particular situation. Miller's accusation that the whole outrage thing is the result of "someone's personal moral intuition" is a fallacious answer to the deeper question of where morals come from. I'm sure that Miller and the Tektonics apologist, along with xians in general, would make an unsupported assertion that morals come from the christian god. Where do they really come from? Well, the details of what is moral and what is not has always been a function of the society and its context, and there are rules of morality that are pretty universal (the ones that turn out to work in all cultures, like don't murder members in good standing of your own tribe), and those that vary from culture to culture. The claim that homosexuality is immoral, for example, is a construct that exists within xianity, but not within all cultures. The claim that slavery is immoral is an accepted value in contemporary Western culture, but it was not considered to be immoral at the time and place that both the OT and the NT was written. Naturally this causes difficulties for contemporary xians who are caught between their contemporary cultural beliefs about the morality of slavery and what their religious texts say. This is a problem of religion having been codified into a written, rather than oral tradition. Under an oral tradition, religious practitioners could simply pretend that their absolute moral was always an absolute moral. Thus, the belief, by many xians, that slavery becomes what Miller misrepresents as "someone's personal moral intuition." It is also unfortunate that text like this persists to defend and perpetuate bigotry and other such unfortunate moral values. Naturally moral values differ from person to person but they are shaped by the prevailing societal norms. This means they are heavily influenced by the christian world view in contemporary Western society. Moving on to Hitler, * sigh *, I did not introduce Hitler into this thread, the Tekton apologist saw fit to compare the two following statements: Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews. Blethkorp exterminated 6 million Refrons. ...and then to claim that the "argument by outrage" attempts to draw a moral equivalency between the two by ignoring context (I am paraphrasing here, but I think I am being fair). Naturally, what this leads to, by adding up the figures from biblical accounts is: God exterminated 2 1/2 million People. The trouble is, Blethkorp the peaceful leader may well have been justified in exterminating 6 million predatory Refrons in self defense, but the god of the bible is no Blekthorp, and it's pretty clear from the biblical stories that there was vengeful anger behind his exterminating 2 1/2 million People. I loved the last paragraph: "Such tactics were a matter of national preservation as they would not be today. David's bit about dashing infants against rocks (Ps. 137:9) was no sick desire to witness acts of random cruelty, but a lament that such action would be taken as needed to preserve his own people from the future acts of cruelty of the Babylonians, which would inevitably come to pass." Psalm 137:9: Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. No sick desire indeed, but a lament. That's why they were supposed to be so HAPPY about dashing infants against rocks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts