J
JamesS
Guest
Wolpertinger,
Do you believe morality is objective or subjective?
Do you believe morality is objective or subjective?
- Status
I
ISABUS
Guest
QUOTE=wolpertinger]To me, the OT is simply a product of its time and the authors unfortunately chose to spread their message with a big carrot and a big stick. Having said that, watching contemporary news makes me wonder how different the times actually were. I’m afraid I don’t have a ready-made sophisticated answer, but then I’m not a Christian apologist. If anything, it’s a hopeful sign that the OT is something to be apologetic about.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
Since you yourself admit to doubting your ability to articulate your problem, it seems a bit harsh to say what you just did.
The two scenarios you describe each express a sentiment that I can understand on an intellectual level; I can even empathize up to a point. However, I personally don’t subscribe to either view. I’ll even go a step further; as far as I’m concerned anybody that truly lives one of the two looks on life that you describe suffers from a clinical personality disorder.
I
ISABUS
Guest
To me, the OT is simply a product of its time and the authors unfortunately chose to spread their message with a big carrot and a big stick. Having said that, watching contemporary news makes me wonder how different the times actually were.
The OT shows consequences. A scheme that gives an account of what ‘physical reality’ was precieved to be true within a fixed time and space. Can we really define ‘physical reality’?
That’s what the ignore filter is for, isn’t it? Admittedly, I’ve been gone from this board for a while because of the prevailing attitude.
I’m most empathic since I too have had a similar experience. However, I can’t resist quoting from the ***Apology *** G.H. Hardy, ‘It is never worth a first class man’s time to express a majority opinion. By definition, there are plenty of others to do that.’
His friend C.P. Snow writes of Hardy, ‘In order to deceive the sun into shining, he brought with him, even on a fine May afternoon, what he called his ‘anti-God battery’. This consisted of three or four sweaters, an umbrella belonging to his sister, and a large envelope containing mathematical manuscripts, such as a Ph.D. dissertation, a paper which he was refereeing for the Royal Society, or some tripos answers. He would explain to an acquaintance that God, believing that Hardy expected the weather to change and give him a chance to work, counter-suggestibly arranged that the sky should remain cloudless. There he sat. To complete his pleasure in a long afternoon watching cricket, he liked the sun to be shining and a companion to join in the fun. Technique, tactics, formal beauty — those where the deepest attractions of the game for him’.
I see good people, bad people, and anything in between; god belief or not doesn’t sway my opinion about any given individual and I often wonder why we all just can’t get along.
I try. I repeat, I try my best to avoid labeling people since it could lend itself to an attitude of shame and blame. My wish is to avoid this plague at all costs, realizing each individual should be accountable for his/her own being. We are constantly advancing at our own rhythm and speed in a world of semantic states which makes it at times difficult for all to ‘get along’. However, this chaos is temporary state and often replaced by a zest for life when we can share the experience of discovery. This draws me to a comment made by J.M. Burgers “The fundamental and ultimate reality of the universe is a multiple and never ending complex of processes developing out of one another.”
Unless I phrased my original comment carelessly, I meant to convey no such thing. I am an atheist and wouldn’t write such a letter because it’s not my mission in life to convert Christians to atheism and a cheap appeal to the (atheistic) gallery only serves to further entrench both sides. None of this means, however, that other atheists wouldn’t or haven’t written similar missives.
Thank you for clarifying your intention. I’m not in need of converting souls. I place my trust in God to do that kind of stuff if deemed necessary.
Mary who previously posted a thread by accident.Sorry folks! I’m only human.
(continued)
I
ISABUS
Guest
W
wolpertinger
Guest
You mentioned in another thread that it’s the godless, which presumably means atheists, are the true enemy. Under the circumstances, I don’t feel that you deserve an answer.
Having said that, my previous posts here and elsewhere are a matter of public record.
J
JamesS
Guest
There are two camps in this world, that of Lucifer and the world, and that of Christ and his Church.
You have chosen your camp, as I have chosen mine. This does not mean no interaction can occur though, because of course souls must be saved in Christ.
You are my enemy in spirit, but i must still show compassion. That is why i am attempting discourse with you.
Now, you can choose to not answer. But im not going to search through every post of yours to determine such a simple answer to a question I have asked you.
M
Mijoy2
Guest
You’re entitiled.
F
FelixBlue
Guest
While I agree with many of the “responses” above; Wolpertinger is absolutely right when he says the original question has not been answered.
You can rant and rave about how the atheist of the letter is not humble and how he needs to recheck his history and how its really just Jewish history, not Christian (which, by the way is tantamount to Marcionism ie the God of the OT is not that of the NT, etc) and how Stalin was worse (and no doubt, atheist morality has been by far the most atrocious from the French Rev. forward) etc.
But, my good apologetics friends, if you don’t answer the question that was asked, (I risk being redundant), you simply don’t answer the question asked, and you fail.
As a side, this is something I see all the time on this forum…
The question? Look at the first post. The truth is it is incredibly problematic for any modern Catholic…
And by the way, Christian morality developed not only because of the Bible, but because of many “pagan” influences as well (notably Aristotle and Plato). P
J
john_doran
Guest
but this isn’t true: atheists do have a position to defend, namely the position that god does not exist.
agnostics have no position to defend, since their position is precisely to withhold belief in god altogether and thus have no position at all.
so. epistemologically speaking, if theists need to have a defense for their belief in the proposition “god exists”, then atheists also need a defense for their belief in the proposition “god does not exist”.
i’m just saying.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
john doran:
Only a minority of atheists holds the position that god doesn’t exist and yes, they do have a positive claim to defend. The majority of atheists, however, make no positive claim either way and thus have no position to defend. Specifically, I am an atheist, I most definitely do not claim that god does not exist, therefore I have nothing to defend.
While atheism is a statement about belief, agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. It is not contradiction for an agnostic to believe in god; anybody is free to believe what they will even if lack a proper epistemology to support their belief. Like atheism, agonisticism comes in different variations, ranging from “I don’t know that god exists” to “it is principally unknowable whether or not god exists”.
Clear as mud?
By the way, I consider myself an apathetic agnostic atheist.
I’ll have disagree with you and the definitions you use.
Only a minority of atheists holds the position that god doesn’t exist and yes, they do have a positive claim to defend. The majority of atheists, however, make no positive claim either way and thus have no position to defend. Specifically, I am an atheist, I most definitely do not claim that god does not exist, therefore I have nothing to defend.
While atheism is a statement about belief, agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. It is not contradiction for an agnostic to believe in god; anybody is free to believe what they will even if lack a proper epistemology to support their belief. Like atheism, agonisticism comes in different variations, ranging from “I don’t know that god exists” to “it is principally unknowable whether or not god exists”.
Clear as mud?
By the way, I consider myself an apathetic agnostic atheist.
M
Mijoy2
Guest
I’m torn between agreeing with you (the post has not been answered) and accepting Madaglans CCC answers.
My (admittedly vague) view of this is that, under the “old” law we were either in full compliance or we were subject to Gods just wrath. Which in the OT He wielded frequently. I don’t think (correct me if I am wrong) that in the OT you will not see God as the creator of evil or as the perpretrator of evil. Only handing out very harsh justice for said evils. Such as all the curses in Exodus. The problem I have is that it seems there are innocent victims of this justice. i.e. the killing of all of Egypts 1st born when the Pharaoh wouldn’t allow the exodus of the Hebrews.
J
john_doran
Guest
i don’t think any of these words mean what you think they mean.
look, there are three possible positions to have on the issue of god’s existence:
- to believe that god exists;
- to believe that go does not exist;
- to believe neither.
i mean, if you can be an atheist that doesn’t actually believe that god doesn’t exist, then why can’t you be an atheist that actually believes that he does exits? or a theist that thinks there’s no god? or a “buddhist” that believes that buddhism is false and that the catholic church is the one, true church?
but whatever. if you, personally, withhold belief with regard to the existence of god, and you, personally, call that “atheism”, then cool, i guess.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Agnostics still have to defend their decision to take a position of “no position”, though. . …
Now, is this the original question you wanted answered?
One: Why did God allow some of these things to go “unpunished”?
How do you know he DIDN’T punish them?
Even today, people commit crimes and aren’t caught. Or don’t commit crimes but are tried and found guilty wrongly.
When and if we get to heaven, we will see EXACTLY what God has judged about those old rapes and murders (and every rape, murder, or other crime ever committed by every single person). And it will be JUST. In fact, it will be far MORE JUST than any “human” sentence.
Two: (And why they now seem very sinful to us today). This is another question. Rape, murder, or even slavery were no more sanctioned by the Bible (or God) than capitalism, communism, pornography, cybersex, indentured servitude. . .the list is endless, because slavery was a particular socioeconomic cultural condition that arose, flourished, and collapsed–though there are still pockets which flare up today in certain areas. Rape was still a crime–if you’ll recall, the rapes of Dinah and Tamar were savagely punished. Slavery of some kind has always existed, to a greater or lesser degree, and always will. We are, if you will, slaves to our passions at times, or slaves to a particular ideology, even if we are not the O.T. image of a slave (and BTW there were a lot of rules about having slaves and their wellbeing, and even, every 50 years, a requirement for Jews to free their slaves–who knew?) One must understand the context. One could hardly expect a person steeped in the life of 1200 B.C. Judea to have or to understand the same concepts as a person steeped in the life of early 21st century U.S. Not only that, we don’t know WHAT sort of developments might take place in the next 10, 50, 100 or 1000 years. Our current life-style might be completely overturned. Then years from now people will wonder how we could have been the way we were, and think** we** should have known now what they would know in that future.
Finally, “Please help me understand why rape and terrible murder occurs so frequently in the O.T.”
Ok–because rape, murder, arson, pride, lust, envy, vanity, anger, etc. occur so frequently** in people**. The Bible tells us many things.
If people were writing about the 20th century world, the book would be *full *of rape and murder etc. That is human nature.
One does have to pause, though. What, for example, could be *worse *than rape? Death, obviously. Naturally, rape should be punished–and it will be. Now, what’s worse than death? We are all going to die. And we are all going to suffer for our sins. And we are all going to have to pay a penalty for our sins, here and/or in the afterlife.
Now, imagine I’ve been a pretty lackadaisical sort of person who just does “lip service” to any sort of belief. Suddenly, I’m faced with death. Immediately, my life flashes before me, I see my errors, I am full of sorrow for my sins, I cry for forgiveness. . .and I am slaughtered. I’ve had the chance to see and know my sins and to *repent *and be forgiven.
If I were the same person, and I’d just gone on through life nodding my way into a nursing home, never knowing the danger of death, and just died in my sleep, I would not have the chance to know, and to repent, my sins.
What looks like a terrible injustice (my murder) could wind up being my salvation. Trust in God, to make an evil (murder) be an opportunity for good.
Now, is this the original question you wanted answered?
Actually, it’s more than one question.
One: Why did God allow some of these things to go “unpunished”?
How do you know he DIDN’T punish them?
Even today, people commit crimes and aren’t caught. Or don’t commit crimes but are tried and found guilty wrongly.
When and if we get to heaven, we will see EXACTLY what God has judged about those old rapes and murders (and every rape, murder, or other crime ever committed by every single person). And it will be JUST. In fact, it will be far MORE JUST than any “human” sentence.
Two: (And why they now seem very sinful to us today). This is another question. Rape, murder, or even slavery were no more sanctioned by the Bible (or God) than capitalism, communism, pornography, cybersex, indentured servitude. . .the list is endless, because slavery was a particular socioeconomic cultural condition that arose, flourished, and collapsed–though there are still pockets which flare up today in certain areas. Rape was still a crime–if you’ll recall, the rapes of Dinah and Tamar were savagely punished. Slavery of some kind has always existed, to a greater or lesser degree, and always will. We are, if you will, slaves to our passions at times, or slaves to a particular ideology, even if we are not the O.T. image of a slave (and BTW there were a lot of rules about having slaves and their wellbeing, and even, every 50 years, a requirement for Jews to free their slaves–who knew?) One must understand the context. One could hardly expect a person steeped in the life of 1200 B.C. Judea to have or to understand the same concepts as a person steeped in the life of early 21st century U.S. Not only that, we don’t know WHAT sort of developments might take place in the next 10, 50, 100 or 1000 years. Our current life-style might be completely overturned. Then years from now people will wonder how we could have been the way we were, and think** we** should have known now what they would know in that future.
Finally, “Please help me understand why rape and terrible murder occurs so frequently in the O.T.”
Ok–because rape, murder, arson, pride, lust, envy, vanity, anger, etc. occur so frequently** in people**. The Bible tells us many things.
If people were writing about the 20th century world, the book would be *full *of rape and murder etc. That is human nature.
One does have to pause, though. What, for example, could be *worse *than rape? Death, obviously. Naturally, rape should be punished–and it will be. Now, what’s worse than death? We are all going to die. And we are all going to suffer for our sins. And we are all going to have to pay a penalty for our sins, here and/or in the afterlife.
Now, imagine I’ve been a pretty lackadaisical sort of person who just does “lip service” to any sort of belief. Suddenly, I’m faced with death. Immediately, my life flashes before me, I see my errors, I am full of sorrow for my sins, I cry for forgiveness. . .and I am slaughtered. I’ve had the chance to see and know my sins and to *repent *and be forgiven.
If I were the same person, and I’d just gone on through life nodding my way into a nursing home, never knowing the danger of death, and just died in my sleep, I would not have the chance to know, and to repent, my sins.
What looks like a terrible injustice (my murder) could wind up being my salvation. Trust in God, to make an evil (murder) be an opportunity for good.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
john doran:
The point is that any atheist will refuse to affirm that god exists, but it does not follow that every atheist affirms the opposite, that god does not exist. I certainly don’t believe that god exists, but neither do I believe that god does not exist. By their own definition, this most definitely does not make me an agnostic; there is nothing undecided about them. In any case, similar nine permutations exist when examining the above two questions with regards to knowledge claims instead of belief.
I don’t accept your definition of atheism, just like you might reject my definition of a Christian (“Calling yourself one is good enough for me.”).
False dichotomy. Limited to belief, you have two propositions, one: god exists, two: god does not exist. Each proposition can be accepted, rejected, or judgement can be withheld, yielding a total of nine permutations, some of which are internally inconsistent or somewhat odd.
The point is that any atheist will refuse to affirm that god exists, but it does not follow that every atheist affirms the opposite, that god does not exist. I certainly don’t believe that god exists, but neither do I believe that god does not exist. By their own definition, this most definitely does not make me an agnostic; there is nothing undecided about them. In any case, similar nine permutations exist when examining the above two questions with regards to knowledge claims instead of belief.
Because that’s the one thing I cannot do and call myself an atheist.
It is not just me, personally, that calls withholding of god belief atheism. It is how atheists as a group define themselves. I consider it unfortunate that too many of us do not challenge how theists misrepresent our position.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
Tantum ergo:
I’m sorry, but you are mistaken. To say “I don’t know” is definitely position, perhaps subject to revision, but one not requiring any defense. To say “it is principally unknowable” is a firmly committed position that is open to question.Agnostics still have to defend their decision to take a position of “no position”, though. . …
J
john_doran
Guest
hey, man - call it what you want, but neither believing nor disbelieving in god is, by definition, agnostic.
but, again, whatever: it doesn’t really matter (to me) what you call it. you either believe, disbelieve, or neither. period. call it “bill”, “fred”, and “sam”, for all i care.
this is straightforwarly false: i know atheists, and what they mean when they say they are atheists is that they believe that god does not exist.
in fact, one fella i work with called himself an atheist until he realized that he didn’t actually believe that there was no god, but rather that he just didn’t believe anything about the issue either way. now he calls himself an agnostic.
i consider it unfortunate that anyone thinks that anything substantive hinges on what a particular state of belief is called.
a rose, after all, by any other name…
W
wolpertinger
Guest
john doran:
Nothing hinges at the name, everything hinges at what the name is understood to mean.
M
Monarchy
Guest
Athiesm
A=Without Theism=God Belief
Therfore
Atheism=Without God Belief
You can not physicaly prove the non-existance of something. Therefore stating “God does not exist” is illogical, and not stated by most atheists. Whomever makes the POSITIVE assertion has to prove it.
Also, since I have seen it for the umpteenth time, Stalin, Hitler, Etc. did not kill in the name of Athesim, but of the state. They wanted the state to be the dogmatic belief of the people and religion got in the way.
A=Without Theism=God Belief
Therfore
Atheism=Without God Belief
You can not physicaly prove the non-existance of something. Therefore stating “God does not exist” is illogical, and not stated by most atheists. Whomever makes the POSITIVE assertion has to prove it.
Also, since I have seen it for the umpteenth time, Stalin, Hitler, Etc. did not kill in the name of Athesim, but of the state. They wanted the state to be the dogmatic belief of the people and religion got in the way.
J
john_doran
Guest
a·the·ism cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/...o.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifm)
n.
*]
*]Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
*]The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
but (what i’m calling) atheists do make a “positive” statement: they are claiming that the proposition “god does not exist” is true.
- Status