How does one respond to the fairy, leprechaun unicorn, etc. comparisons?

[Touchstone]

All right.
I’m not a coward to fear God, because it is written, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and before honor comes humility.”

That isn’t the basis for my charge. It’s accepting, *a priori, *that “it is written” is morally binding on you that is abdication. As I said above, if one examines what is claimed, and one fines it agreeable and virtuous on its own merits, then no problem. If I found it was written “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, I would find that a valuable moral principle to adopt. But not because “it is written”. Rather, because it’s a good, practical principle regardless of the mode of delivery.

If you are accepting it just because it is written, just as a pure appeal to authority, that’s a cowardly stance for a human being to adopt, I say. Truly, surrendering the struggle to sort out good and evil and running away toward enslavement. And abetting in the enslavement of others, to boot.

You metion a rational mind twice. Again, it is written, “To be carnal minded is death, but to be spiritual minded is peace and life.”

I can see value in that. As a materialist, I think there’s a lot to be said for numinous experiences, and the kinds of awe and wonder that can be developed through meditation and contemplation and ritual, etc. Accepting a God that one grants is free to kill at will, and call that “just” strikes me as a perverse form of spiritualism.

So, I eschew a rational mind (which is too capable of rationalizing rather than reasoning) for a spiritual mind and faithful heart.

Understand.

Our priorities are different. I exercise my reason as the handmaiden of my faith and am right to do so.

That’s certainly your prerogative. But you know the saying, “garbage in, garbage out”. Reason can’t redeem what is perverse in its premises. Making reason the handmaiden of faith means that what value reason does have for is surrendered, able to be trumped at will by the caprice of your faith.

You have nothing that I want in thought nor morals. It takes courage to recognize, much less exercise, absolute morals and to stand for God in this wicked world. I do that. So, I have not made any moral abdication. I may avoid your morality. But I stand on an eternal morality, not a morality that changes with social whims.

I understand that’s your position. I regard that to be intensely cowardly as a response to world around you. It trades the imagined payoff of eternal returns for enslavement and abdication in the here and now, being “bought off” with the carrots and sticks of heaven and hell. If you want to exhibit some courage, think with your own mind, apply your reasoning and values boldly, and see the naive acceptance of “it is written”, just because “it is written” as the temptation toward compliance in evil that it is.

I would advise you to change what you stand on and to stand on Christ the Rock. As it is written, “It is better to fall on the rock and be broken than to have the rock fall on you and be crushed.”

I would rather be crushed, frankly, than surrender my courage and virtue as you have. I’d much rather die than abdicate and find common cause with God’s evil and injustice. He can break me if he wills. But his might aint’ making it right. While I have brains and breath I will do what’s right, and the worship of an imaginary evil God isn’t it. And neither is lip service to those who do.

The scriptures in the Holy Bible are life and death, physically and spiritually. It is not wise to belittle them.

God loves you,
Don

I get it, it’s all about might and power. I don’t know the might laid against my tiny, mortal self…

But I do, and that is where courage is really proved, not the faux-martyrdom of solace taken from the fact that others despise your sympathy for tyrants. I think there is no God or gods, but if there is a Christian God as Catholics believe, the virtuous will curse him.

-TS

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Well, what’s at stake is how you know that god’s nature is “good.”

If you’re just defining “good” to mean “god’s nature,” then you’re just making a tautology: “god is god.” You don’t have any reason to think that god is actually good. You’re just calling him that.

For example, when god commands rape and murder (as he does in the Bible), justifies one human being owning another (as he does in the Bible), kills children (as he does in several passages), etc., you have to accept that this behavior is “good.”

And you’re free to do that, but don’t expect other people to go along with it.

People can build monuments that would pale in comparison to the acts of hubris of most atheists. I used to be one and I know the gloriously blinding pride that comes along with it. Atheists need to focus more on the “A-” part then with the “-theist” part and then we can come to reasonable conclusions or at least discussions. Using the Bible to condemn the actions of God proves you do not have much going against the certitude of the faithful. Leave the Bible passages for theologians. There is no such thing as Atheology although Richard Dawkins (and his much more intelligent friends of the Horsemen) seems to the source of revelation.

And we do have plenty of reason to call God good but the atheist will never believe it because they only have a superficial idea of good and evil (and God) and forget the Christian tenet of why it happens. Again, leave the theology (and the philosophies that come with it) to theists. A superficial reading (as atheists do and can only do) of the Bible would make me steer clear of Christianity also and I am hardly non-objective. I became Catholic because I became objective and erased all presuppositional bias and started fresh. I refuse to discuss Bible with an atheist because they are not being “faithful” to atheism by condemning His actions. You may claim that you are only giving reason to disprove the idea of an all-good God through His actions but I will let you ponder why it is comically absurd.

Anyway, about the main question of the post. By definition of fairies, unicorns, etc…, they are imaginary and hence gave no revelation. God, on the other hand, did. The imagination can used to know God and figure Him out and such because in no way does using the imagination make anything imaginary. It certainly can but not always. Newton’s Laws, Relativity, a space shuttle, and computers are certainly products of the imagination. There is an infinite gulf of meaning between imaginative and imaginary.

It is quite true that you cannot disprove the non-existence of fairies by my mere logic and demonstration. In the same sense, you cannot prove the existence of Berlin as a city in Germany, that World War 2 was an actual event, I exist or that the universe is intelligible to name a few examples. We can only explain these things by the convergence of evidence. In the case of Moscow, we have maps, witnesses, documents, etc… (very well could have easily been lies or fabrications) that lead us to the conclusion that it does exist because there is no reason to distrust. Saying, “Look! It is right here!” is no explanation. We know fairies and unicorns are non-existent because they match up entirely with mythical and fantasy figures (of which Jesus is certainly not a part) created by the human mind. Read at least 30 myths and you will find out why. There are 0 parallels between myths and the Gospels other than the fact that they are written down.

Read past your atheistic demi-Gods and make a search for Life, Truth and Love. You may think it is corny to say but you clearly have not ever heard the expression “Live to love to live to love” and other sayings.

 

[ddarko]

Page 1

It’s not a claim that holds “no good can come through it”. The immorality here occurs at a higher level, in accepting God as good axiomatically in the first place. If we simply define God’s actions as just, *a priori, *then “good” just becomes an arbitrary construct.

For example, if Yahweh had decided it was good for Abraham to slaughter Isaac on the altar, and made the human sacrifice of the first born son of each family the cosmic good of pious people, then on your view, it would be, by definition, good and just to follow the command for each of us to ritually slaughter our first born sons on a properly prepared altar on the son’s twelfth birthday. You are powerless to resist such a scenario, because on your own terms, you have abdicating all moral reasoning, and delegated it to Yahweh. There is NO depth of atrocity or wickedness your God could demand that wouldn’t worship and celebrate, because you have made God axiomatically just.

Dear Touchstone, you sound so logical yet can’t seem to grasp the simplest concepts.

God can slaughter you, me and everybody else in the universe. We were given life by him. How on earth is it un-Just for God?

On the other hand, we humans cannot slaughter each other BECAUSE, God is the sole creator of life. Not us.

From the outside, that’s just sick and disgusting. As one who was a Christian for 30+ years, I well understand the “Just is as just does” principle, and the problem is NOT that some good could not come from any particular decision. Perhaps some silver linings obtain from ritual sacrifice of each family’s first born son. God would be just as just under your Christianity.

Well that just means you were as much a Christian as you were an atheist, i.e. without much logical basis.

God is your creator. He can do away with you or keep you. There isn’t even a question about justice on that matter. Humans on the other hand have to act consistent with God. So if God willed a human being in to life, you and I can’t go kill him. It is up to God to take away that life when he pleases.

Just because you were once a confused Christian without much logical understanding of the issue does not mean other people are in the same boat.

The standard is my reasoning based on my goals, of course. Same as your standard. Yahweh is just the decision you’ve come to personally, your chosen delegate for what’s good and what’s not. I recognize no cosmic delegate, but I decide for myself just as much as you do. I want to live, to be free, to be creative, and to have rewarding relationships with other humans. I live in community as a human so I have personal constraints due to my own goals, and social constraints in the community per their expectations I must abide by as a member of the community.

Sure touchstone, that is fine. All I am saying is its pretty stupid of you to call Yahweh unjust. If its your own opinion, well thats fine and dandy, its your OPINION. And there is no logical inconsistency between an objective view of morality and that Yahweh is Just as I have shown. So to go around saying how Yahweh is unjust as ‘your opinion’ is … well, just an opinion.

A basic test for me is:

a) does it fit my goals and declared priorities?
b) Are my gains realized from my own investment and expenses (as opposed to exploiting others resources or freedoms)?
c) How would I react if others behaved similarly toward me, or themselves?
d) If my position depends on evidence and being reasonably informed, have I done my work?
e) What are the risks and costs that are incurred if I’m mistaken?

Under your system, why should you care about (c)? Also, if you are just bunch of matter and everyone else is the same, there is really not much reason to be so intellectual. For all you know, your ‘intelligent’ choices are just a by product of a causal chain of events i.e. just random thoughts without any actual intelligence.

 

[ddarko]

Page 2

We don’t have God’s nature. I’m sure that things would look different if I were omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, immutable, and well, let’s just throw “simple” in there for the full crazy. But I’m not a god.

Phew, glad we got that straight.

I’m just a mortal, human, limited person with a biological nature that makes “god morality” utterly alien to me, even if some god does exist. If I had the technology to create my own life forms, my own “cosmos in a terrarium”, I’d be wicked to expect those creatures I created to adopt my sensibilities and declarations over what proceeds from their nature. I may well have the power to take their lives, even as I gave it, but I’m a foolish god, deserving of curses from my creatures, if that’s how I proceed. They are means to my end, in that case, rather than ends in themselves.

Well thats because you can never create life. Life is from God alone. You can create matter sure, but thats not life. Whats ironic here is that you seem to think you are NOT a God but somehow you can become one.

And here the Catholic dissonance. Man truly has no intrinsic value in his being. It’s only value granted by God. It must be thus, or God would be just as unjust to take life from man or any living thing. Saying "God is just’ here just equivocates badly on “just”, and terms a good and useful term for humans into cruel and cynical euphemism.

There is really no dissonance. Man is intrinsically valuable because he/she is a life given by God and made in his image. That is why Theist keep telling Atheist that if they reject God, they just have to reject the first premise of Ethics.

The problem with you (like the other person I’ve been talking to here) is that you already assume that morality is something outside of God. That view is illogical. Any philosopher would tell you that if there were an objective morality, the only logical place to ground it is in a transcendent being we call God. So instead of starting from a false premise, you first need to start off with a valid premise or at least the same one as the Christian one if you want to show some dissonance or logical inconsistency in that position. Instead, you start off with your own flawed little implicit assumption. Not very good logical reasoning if you ask me.

Yes, you have it now. On human terms, God is not just, not even respectable on those principles. An evil tyrant.

There is no meaning to say God is unjust in terms of human terms. What on earth does that even mean? Does that mean personal opinion of humans?
Again you are assuming morality is outside of God. Wrong premise, wrong conclusion.

I understand. But this is to profound demerit of Christianity. It’s anti-human in that regard.

Anti-human? in what sense? Because God does not agree with your subjective little view of just ???

I cannot think of a more wicked and anti-human position to take toward your fellow man. I understand it’s sincere, but this is a good example of Christianity poisoning everything. It doesn’t, contra Hitchens, poison everything – that is hyperbole – but this is Christianity as morally toxic, anti-human.

First its logical. Your view is utterly emotional. You say you are ‘‘not a God’’ but you are ‘‘trying to be your own God’’. So you keep saying God isn’t just using a flawed premise to begin with.

If thats how you operate, I would thankfully remain a Christian

Such an attitude is just as amenable to worship of Molech and child sacrifice as it is with the Eucharist.

Well thankfully, we Christian’s don’t operate on baseless emotion and try to reason things out.

If you like Hitchens just want to cry that God is un-JUST by already taking to the flawed position that morality is outside of God, well there is nothing anyone can do for you.

First get your premise corrected, everything else will then follow.

God Bless

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 1/4

Ddarko, I would request that you not be condescending in any of your following replies. In you recent replies, you say something in every paragraph along the lines of “your stupid”. Saying something like “I’ll pray for you” at the end of your post in no way makes up for that (in fact, it makes it worse). If I wanted to, I could have used any one of the Bible verses I mentioned to say “your a sadist”, but I didn’t (I did say, or at least imply that Yahweh was though). I’m speculating that you may be doing this in part because your religion is very personal to you (strictly Roman Catholic). If this is so, it’s understandable. Regardless of whether or not that’s the case, try to be better.

Many of the times that you think you’ve caught me saying something stupid, you’ve really just misinterpreted me anyway. Most of the other times, either your reply is somewhat of a strawman (perhaps unintentionally) or I didn’t explain myself very thoroughly because I was quickly writing lengthy replies.

How do you define “morality”? How do you know what is moral and what is not? Where do you get your morality from? I’ve asked you this before, but you’ve avoided answering it. You need to answer this question because I think your notion of morality is a creation of your religion. I think that if you analyze it, you’ll find that your very conception of morality is such that by definition whatever Yahweh does is moral.

Why can’t morality be “intelligently designed” by humans? I submit that morality is an invention. If you dispute that morality is an invention (which I’m sure you do), then answer the questions I asked you about your morality in the previous paragraph. Morality is invented somewhat analogously to civil laws (which are often based off of what behavior will and will not be accepted, or “morality”). Just like no God is needed for a society to create a government with laws regarding conduct, the same goes for morality. I accept and assume that how people treat each other aught to be centered around the goal of helping ourselves and others to living happy, fulfilling lives. This is my underlying assumption. I’m starting with that assumption because there would be no purpose for the invention of morality without that assumption. Yes, this may be an presupposition, but I would argue that your concept of morality has underlying presuppositions as well. DON’T QUOTE, OR COMMENT ON, ANYTHING IN THIS OR THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH UNTIL YOU ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE.

You’re probably thinking “see, your allegation that Yahweh is immoral isn’t logical, because it’s based off of assumptions.” However, I would argue that your moral reasoning begins with assumptions around your religion, which would probably make you understand morality in such a way that, by definition, your god is moral (regardless of what he does because he’s the definition of morality). This would make moral arguments for god circular. All morality, I would argue, has some form of underlying assumption, and asking me to expose mine without yourself rising to the same challenge is cowardly. I somewhat agree with one of my theology professor said that it’s not whether or not you have presuppositions, because every viewpoint has presuppositions, it’s whether or not your presuppositions are warranted. I think the Bible verses I mentioned demonstrate that Yahweh is a cruel and barbaric sadist. With my underlying assumption behind “morality”, such a being is immoral. At the end of the day, I’m making what I think are reasonable assumptions that lead me to believe that slavery, human sacrifice, infanticide, dashing babies against rocks, and many other atrocities are immoral, while you’re presumably making assumptions that lead you to saying that they’re morally permissible.

Regardless of how you define morality, Yahweh is malevolent. I challenge you to dispute that. That’s what I mean when I accuse Yahweh of being immoral. I don’t think you can dispute that the actions and decrees of Yahweh would be considered malevolent today.

QUOTE=ddarko;7201245]So how did you determine that suffering is bad?

How do you determine that slavery, infanticide, and dashing babies against rocks is good?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 2/4

QUOTE=ddarko;7201245]about inerrancy. The Bible is inerrant in its teachings. The fact that Christ died for us is a teaching. That is inerrant. The fact that there were two thieves around him and one scorned him IS NOT a historical teaching. Only the message that comes from it is teaching. You on the other hand are claiming historical inerrancy of the Bible. No Catholic wants to affirm that position and you as someone studying to be a theologian should know this. This is pretty poor stuff on your part.
. . .]
“Again, this would go against Providentissimus Deus 20.”
No one claims inerrancy of the Bible with respect to historical facts. Historical inerrancy is only applicable when it has to do with teachings i.e. Jesus existed, Apostles existed etc. In other words, inerrancy of the Bible is with respect to teachings. You are one confused theologian.

Your church claims inerrant with respect to historical facts. I guess you disagree with the interpretation of Providentissimus Deus that the editors of New American Bible have:

Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus. . . reaffirmed the decisions of the Council of Trent and emphasized that the Bible in all its parts was inspired and that a stated fact must be accepted as falling under inspiration, down to the most insignificant item; that is, the whole Bible is the Word of God.

Note that it says, “in all its parts . . .] down to the most insignificant item.” Wouldn’t “in all its parts . . .] down to the most insignificant item” include when Jesus was born? I think so.

Even disregarding this, why would an omnipotent god allow any discrepancies in his holy book? Why would the book that an omnipotent god authored have contradictory accounts of when that god was born? You’ve avoided answering this. If I wrote an autobiography, I wouldn’t say I was born in 1980, while saying elsewhere in that same autobiography that I was born in 1990. Surely, God could have made the writers of the gospels get basic facts like that right.

QUOTE=ddarko;7201245]I thought you were a theologian, not a historian

I’m majoring in theology and mental health and human services. I’m minoring in philosophy and history.

QUOTE=ddarko;7201245]What is the evidence for Caesar and Cleopatra?

There are many sources which are evidence for Caesar and Cleopatra. I don’t think of them by themselves would be considered sufficient evidence to justify belief in their existence. Here is a writing I quickly found, which is written by a contemporary of Julius Caesar (Catullus 57):

perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0005oem%3D57

Here another writing from a contemporary (Caius Sallust), that’s unfortunately isn’t translated:

perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abohi,0631,001:52

Here’s a contemporary writing for Cleopatra (Suetonius, XXXV):

fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suetonius-julius.html

I found those in about a matter of minutes of searching on the internet, while there are no contemporaries of Jesus (at least that I know of) who have mentioned him.

BTW, the burden of proof isn’t on me to find resources for every single historical figure that is believed to exist. Burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that there is reason to believe in the gospel accounts. Therefore, I’m not going to reply to any further requests to demonstrate the historicity of someone or something.

QUOTE=ddarko;7201245]if you had ANY experience in historical studies, you would know that historians agree that Jesus historically existed. But hey, you don’t accept authority right… so … who are they to say right?

strawman

I never said the Jesus didn’t exist (or at least I didn’t mean to). I indicated that there’s not enough historical evidence to believe in the Jesus of the gospels, meaning a guy who worked miracles and rose from the dead. A guy like Jesus, but much less spectacular, may have existed.

One of my own history professors, who is Catholic himself, admitted to a class of almost all Catholic students that there is virtually no evidence of Jesus outside the Bible. Assuming that historians generally agree that Jesus did exist, historians also agree that Sathya Sai Baba and Apollonius of Tyana existed, but this is far from believing that what is written about them is accurate at all. Also, many scholar believe that many of the ancient mythological gods (such as Heracles) were just powerful men, who, in spreading by word of mouth, became stories of gods. If there were no writings contemporary to Jesus, how do we know many stories of his works didn’t undergo similar spectacular changes? BTW, if the gospels can’t even agree on what year Jesus was born, how can they be taken as proof that Jesus performed miracles or rose from the dead?

How many historian believe that thousands of dead people rose from the dead (Matthew 27:52)? Surely, if that really happened, someone would have written about it.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 3/4

Again you present some problems with Moses’s law and the new covenant. This is stuff that a first year theology student can answer. Moses’s law is included in the NT. Under the NT commandments, some of the rituals need not be practiced. They have achieved completion and being revealed in full in the NT. That is why we don’t practice circumcision and other kind of stuff that you claim we don’t. There is no contradiction once again. Just very poor understanding on your part.

I’m very aware that the view that the OT is revealed in the NT.

The rituals of the Mosiac law were repealed, by not the moral principles. I’m not talking about rituals though. How about this, do you use the ten commandments as a source of morality? If so, wouldn’t this mean that the moral principles of the old testament are still valid? An apologist may argue that the NT clarified the OT, but many of the things in the OT would contradict the things in the NT.

There is no contradiction once again. Just very poor understanding on your part.

Same goes for the rest of the examples. They are as I said

1. confusion of multiple interpretations as contradictions
2. concentrating on irrelevant narrative elements on stories and wanting the bible to be inerrant on all historical claims
   3)(new one) poor understanding of theology it-self

I’ve already dealt with the idea that having contradictory narrative element in the gospels 1 is not against the Biblical inerrancy that the CC holds and 2 that it in no way discredits the Bible as a holy book with an omniscience god as its author. Why would an omniscience god allow there to be any errors, regardless of importance, in his on holy book? You haven’t answered that.

Which one of theses three do you think the thing regarding Jesus descending from Jehoiakim falls under? Bible scholars will tell you that this is of great significance in part because this fulfills the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7:12-13). The Davidic covenant refers to both an earthly kingdom and an eternal kingdom according to theologians. Because it was important that Jesus sit on David’s throne, Luke used a different geneology (Luke 3:23-38), but this doesn’t take away from the fact that Matthew 1 uses a geneology that includes Jehoiakim (even though it seemed he tried to exclude Jehoiakim by saying Jehoiakim’s father was the father of Jehoiakim’s son, although that may partially be to get “14”s in the geneology, which has Davidic significance).

There is a standard attempted technique to refute this, which I’ve heard many times before and reject. I’ll be interested to see if you bring it up.

QUOTE=ddarko;7201245]I seriously do not know how you got in to your program.

What’s your point in making statements like this? I think you have to think I don’t understand Catholic theology in order for you to adjust to the parts of the Bible I presented. You could make better use of your time answering some of the questions I’ve asked you that you’ve avoided.

BTW, I got As in both of my “principles of biblical studies” classes. In fact, in the second class I had the top grade out of over 100 undergrads and about a dozen grads (who were working on prereqs).

I have no problem with God my creator and life giver taking my life or anyone else’s at any time. I see not logical problem with it. You claim the lame argument that it causes suffering. So what? Under the Christian view, suffering is fine.

I just want to clarify something. Are you saying that if you created conscious beings that it’s OK to torture and kill them? If so, on what basis do you think that.

Plus, it’s not like this life is the only life we have. We strive for an eternal life.

This is a huge claim that can greatly effect how people behave and much people value life. Please back this up.

I can tell you with great authority that in a scientific conference, your paper’s acceptance is decided by AUTHORITY. They decide if your paper is valid or not. Similarly, in theology, your claims are validated by AUTHORITY. Now there are no different authorities in the sense you put it. There is no “I AM ANTI SCIENCE” authority and “I AM FOR SCIENCE” authority. There is only a SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY. This is the same in Theology. There is only one group of people you consider authoritative when it comes to Theology. The rest are lay people who like to make useless points like the ones you keep brining up.

It makes sense to have a paper criticized and evaluated by experts before it’s accepted. If a paper isn’t properly backed up by evidence, then I would think it would be rejected by other scientists.

If scientists generally agree on something, I’ll accept it (reasons why this is justified go beyond this thread). However, when people who are considered authorities in the area of theology dogmatically hold incompatible beliefs (theology of non-Catholic Christians, Catholic theology, Islamic theology, etc.), I have to listen to what all have to say and why they say it, and decide what is the most reasonable conclusion.

BTW, I already listen to what theologians have to say. I just reject their conclusions.

 

[ddarko]

Well, what’s at stake is how you know that god’s nature is “good.”

If you’re just defining “good” to mean “god’s nature,” then you’re just making a tautology: “god is god.” You don’t have any reason to think that god is actually good. You’re just calling him that.

For example, when god commands rape and murder (as he does in the Bible), justifies one human being owning another (as he does in the Bible), kills children (as he does in several passages), etc., you have to accept that this behavior is “good.”

And you’re free to do that, but don’t expect other people to go along with it.

For the longest time I was considering if it was worth replying to you since all you do is make one stupid comment and never reply again for the longest time … well aside from open another thread somewhere else to try and insult me…

But here it is anyway

Definition of Good: What is consistent with God’s nature.

There is no Good outside of God. That is illogical. You are making the same mistakes your atheist friends here are making i.e. Starting off by assuming Good is defined external to God.

So you keep asking “How do you know God is good”. What I am telling you is that Good and Bad can only be defined in terms of God’s nature. There is no other way to define a Good and Bad. Subjective definitions obviously don’t count since there are worthless. No one cares if it’s your opinion that God is bad… no matter how popular you might think you are

God Bless

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 4/4

The rest are lay people who like to make useless points like the ones you keep brining up.

The fact the that the gospels contradict one another on when Jesus was born and many other things, Yahweh is in favor of slavery, and there is little evidence that thousands of dead people rose from the dead (Matt 27:52) are useless points. If similar points were made regarding other religions, you would consider them to be reasons to reject that religion.

*) Presenting Sam harris’s self refuting statement as superb (only high-school students think this way)
*) Your argument from circular logic to support it

I’m actually not sure which of my statements you think is from Sam Harris, so I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve seen a few videos of him on youtube, but that’s about it. You could specify which statement it is and actually demonstrate that it’s circular logic.

*) Rather weird claim that “Evidence is from Reason not from proof”. I mean what does that even mean? Evidence is what you consider as proof.

I don’t remember saying anything like that, and I couldn’t find those words on any of the pages when I searched for “Evidence is from Reason not from proof”. If you were trying to paraphrase something I said, you misunderstood.

*) Taking multiple interpretations to be a contradiction

Give examples of when I did that.

Of course, if one gospel says one thing about a significant event, while another gospel says something incompatible with the other, one could claim that the writers were making different theological points, and that they can be interpreted differently.

*) Confusion of biblical inerrancy (with respect to teaching) with historical inerrancy (Bible does have historical truths but not all are historical. Talk to a historian at your University)

If an omnipotent god made a holy book, why wouldn’t he make it free from errors and contradictions in every way?

Also, the editors of the New American Bible disagree with you.

As a side note, (newadvent.org/cathen/07271a.htm)

Words quoted in Scripture as spoken by infallibly truthful speakers, e.g., by God Himself, or the good angels, or the prophets and apostles actually inspired, or by the sacred writer himself while under the influence of inspiration, all these words are nor merely historically, but also objectively,true”

Well, Jesus is an infallible speaker (since you think he’s god). Reconcile John 5:31, “If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true,” to John 8:14, “Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true.”

There are many statements by Jesus that don’t fit, such as the last words of Jesus (Luke 23:46 and John 19:30), but apologists will argue that those are only paraphrases differing only to make different theological points. Jesus also gave differing instructions in Matt 28:10 and John 20:17.

*) Claims God is immoral, because he did immoral things like cause suffering to people.

Are you pro-slavery, pro-infanticide, and pro-human sacrifice? If not, then you disagree with your god.

You have a lot of explaining to do if you worship a pro-slavery, pro-infanticide, and pro-human sacrifice god.

*) Somehow already believes there is no Positive evidence for the existence of God because your reason say these arguments are invalid.

What arguments? The only argument in favor of god’s existence is an argument from morality. If you are using morality to claim that your god exists, as part of the burden of proof, it’s up to you to define morality and lay down where you get morality from.

Unless you state otherwise, I’m assuming that you get your morality from Yahweh, which would make morally defending Yahweh a matter of circular logic, which you accuse me of.

My morality, on the other hand, isn’t circular, because I admit that I’m starting with an assumption, and I’m starting with that assumption because there would be no purpose for the invention of morality without that assumption. I hold that morality is invented much like civil law (they both arise from challenges in living in community).

If you choose to reply, I’d like you to respond to the following questions:
How do you define “morality”?
How do you know what is moral and what is not?
Where do you get your morality from?
Are you pro-slavery, pro-infanticide, and pro-human sacrifice?
Do you support everything that Yahweh does in the Bible, or disagree with Yahweh morally?
How do you determine that slavery, infanticide, and dashing babies against rocks is good?
Wouldn’t “in all its parts . . .] down to the most insignificant item” include when Jesus was born?
How many historian believe that thousands of dead people rose from the dead (Matthew 27:52)?
Do you use the ten commandments as a source of morality? If so, wouldn’t this mean that the moral principles of the old testament are still valid?
Do you think that if you created conscious beings that it’s OK to torture and kill them?
If the gospels can’t even agree on what year Jesus was born, where he was born, and when Jesus died, how can they be taken as proof that Jesus performed miracles or rose from the dead?
What about the contradictions between God seemingly accepting the human sacrifice in Judges 11 and “thou shall not kill.”

 

[ddarko]

What arguments? The only argument in favor of god’s existence is an argument from morality. If you are using morality to claim that your god exists, as part of the burden of proof, it’s up to you to define morality and lay down where you get morality from.

Unless you state otherwise, I’m assuming that you get your morality from Yahweh, which would make morally defending Yahweh a matter of circular logic, which you accuse me of.

My morality, on the other hand, isn’t circular, because I admit that I’m starting with an assumption, and I’m starting with that assumption because there would be no purpose for the invention of morality without that assumption. I hold that morality is invented much like civil law (they both arise from challenges in living in community).

I was not going to answer you considering what I now know about you but this bit cracked me up.

The Moral argument is not Circular logic. What exactly have you been studying at your University?

God is the only possible grounding source of an objective morality. The argument simply shows that if you accept Objective morals, therefore God must exist. It is trivial but certainly not Circular logic.

If your view is indeed that morality is “invented” like civil law, then slavery, infanticide, pedophilia, genocide and all the other forms of crimes you can imagine are actually not WRONG. They just seem wrong as an invention of our societies i.e. morality.

To add, under your view of morality, no country should have considered the Holocaust a negative thing. Germany was just doing what it thought was RIGHT for it’s society. Is that what you believe? You are quiet the moral champion I must say.

So unless you have something seriously cross-wired, I really don’t think you can accept the whole position that “morality is an invention” brings about. Whats worse is that you keep accusing God of committing immoral acts when morals were apparently a human invention.

Oh and before I forget this little beauty you presented haha

“Why would an omniscience god allow there to be any errors, regardless of importance, in his on holy book”

How about you answer why God should keep it historically inerrant? God was giving people his message. People far brighter than you or me like Thomas Aquinas, Augustine understood that. It’s really not God’s fault that you aren’t reading the Bible for what it was intended to be read.

Next you are going to accuse God of not giving you some medical tips on the Bible.

Oh another one that caught my eye just now:

Many of the times that you think you’ve caught me saying something stupid, you’ve really just misinterpreted me anyway. Most of the other times, either your reply is somewhat of a strawman (perhaps unintentionally) or I didn’t explain myself very thoroughly because I was quickly writing lengthy replies.

Do ponder on what you said for a moment. God is probably saying the same thing about you

So please take my advice and this is not meant as an insult, spend some time on building up your logical skills. I was once as bad as you when it came to logic. But after some time working on it you can do better. Then revisit all these arguments you have and re-evaluate your position. You will be surprised.

I will keep you in my prayers.

God Bless

 

[AntiTheist]

Definition of Good: What is consistent with God’s nature.

There is no Good outside of God.

You’re not addressing the substance of my objection – I am pointing out that you are merely constructing a tautology. When you say, “Good is what is consistent with God’s nature,” you’re not actually saying anything. All you’re saying is “God’s nature is god’s nature.”

Your god, apparently, has it in his nature to endorse slavery (in both the Old and New Testaments), murder, rape, genocide, and killing infants.

If it is honestly your position that “These things are good when God commands them,” that is your business, but my reaction to that position is that you have values nearly as twisted as those of your god.

 

[AntiTheist]

And we do have plenty of reason to call God good

Well, you seem to be at odds with ddarko on this one. He seems to be saying that “good” is just another word for “God’s nature,” which means that he’s just labeling your god’s nature “good,” no matter how your god acts – whether or not, for example, the Old and New Testament of god’s holy book endorse slavery and never anywhere propose that it is wrong for one human being to own another.

If you disagree with this and think that you have good reason to call god good, then that means that you have some standards of “good” outside of god that you are using to judge god’s nature. In that case, “good” is something separate from god that we can determine without him because – obviously – you would have needed to know the standards of good before using them to judge god’s nature.

Take your pick.

I refuse to discuss Bible with an atheist because they are not being “faithful” to atheism by condemning His actions. You may claim that you are only giving reason to disprove the idea of an all-good God through His actions but I will let you ponder why it is comically absurd.

There’s no contradiction in passing judgment on a hypothetical being based on stories. I can equally pass judgment on various pagan gods and on characters in novels without believing that any of them are real.

To be clear, pointing out that the god of the Bible is a vicious monster isn’t an argument against believing in him – it’s an argument for not worshipping him, even if he does exist.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

If it is honestly your position that “These things are good when God commands them,” that is your business, but my reaction to that position is that you have values nearly as twisted as those of your god.

Your reaction should be, “Why would he think that? I wonder where he found this out so I can get out of my ignorant shell of pride and nescience. Whether or not I would believe it is secondary but at least I would understand why it is reasonable for him to believe that.” I realize this is out of your sympathies but get out of your bias. You all do not know as much as you all think.

What he said though is a little different from the eyes of a believer. I will admit that it is a little more simpler than he put it, but it is by no means ridiculous or twisted. We already believe that He exists, therefore do not have to prove our positions ABOUT Him. In dealing with atheists, we can only argue about His existence. This is absolutely ZERO sense in arguing about His nature with an atheist.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Well, you seem to be at odds with ddarko on this one. He seems to be saying that “good” is just another word for “God’s nature,” which means that he’s just labeling your god’s nature “good,” no matter how your god acts – whether or not, for example, the Old and New Testament of god’s holy book endorse slavery and never anywhere propose that it is wrong for one human being to own another.

If you disagree with this and think that you have good reason to call god good, then that means that you have some standards of “good” outside of god that you are using to judge god’s nature. In that case, “good” is something separate from god that we can determine without him because – obviously – you would have needed to know the standards of good before using them to judge god’s nature.

Take your pick.

There’s no contradiction in passing judgment on a hypothetical being based on stories. I can equally pass judgment on various pagan gods and on characters in novels without believing that any of them are real.

To be clear, pointing out that the god of the Bible is a vicious monster isn’t an argument against believing in him – it’s an argument for not worshipping him, even if he does exist.

True to an extent. Pointing that out is not an argument. But the thought that He is a “vicious monster” is obviously far too complex for the mind of an atheist, especially your demi-god, Richard Dawkins. You really do sound absurd when condemning the actions of anything that you claim does not exist. I would never condemn the actions of a fairy, a leprechaun, Zeus, Prometheus, etc… because that would make me look ridiculous. I am saying that you would not do that because you obviously would.

And you have no right to instill in my mind what I believe about good and God’s nature as much as you think you have figured me out. There is a paradox between my idea of it and darko’s but that by means indicates it is contradicted. A paradox is not a conflict. The idea of good outside God’s nature is contrary to atheism because the only logical (I will defend this point) philosophy that can sustain atheism is nihilism.

About the slavery thing… Again your opinions are very ignorant. Tell me something. In your studies of history, what kind of jobs would they have had? Telemarketing, nuclear engineer, hospital supervisors, loan advisors, etc… ad infinitum? The slavery of African Americans was the cause of the abolishment because they were treated as property and only that. The Bible’s idea of slavery was actually part of the household. In any case, the Bible teaches for master’s to treat the slaves respectfully and vice-versa because they will be judged according to the deeds. I will not further discuss the Bible anymore with you because it is obvious you have no idea of it or its message. Let us just stick to something you actually have a decent knowledge of.

 

[ddarko]

You’re not addressing the substance of my objection – I am pointing out that you are merely constructing a tautology. When you say, “Good is what is consistent with God’s nature,” you’re not actually saying anything. All you’re saying is “God’s nature is god’s nature.”

Your god, apparently, has it in his nature to endorse slavery (in both the Old and New Testaments), murder, rape, genocide, and killing infants.

If it is honestly your position that “These things are good when God commands them,” that is your business, but my reaction to that position is that you have values nearly as twisted as those of your god.

You are like a record tape that just keeps repeating it-self.

First, about the tautology, of course it is. As I said to you, Good and Bad can only be defined in terms of God’s nature. Thats why its so dumb when you say God is immoral/ not Good. It’s like saying Good is not Good. This is also the key point of the moral argument for God’s existence.

Second, I told you, things aren’t good because its the way God commanded it.

Things are good because that is God’s nature. He didn’t command good, he just revealed himself to us.

The killing of infants is not immoral for a God because God is the sole giver of life. He can take away life as he pleases. There is no injustice in such an act. The problem that I keep highlighting with your position is that it starts off with the implicit assumption that God adheres to what is good. On the Contrary, Good is God’s nature. Correct your initial false premise first otherwise you will always end up with a false conclusion and keep repeating yourself.

Now if you think you have a good argument to show why God is immoral OBJECTIVELY than by using some subjective notion, please do so or forever hold your peace.

God Bless

 

[AntiTheist]

You really do sound absurd when condemning the actions of anything that you claim does not exist.

I fail to see what is “absurd” about commenting on the actions of a fictional character. I don’t believe that Darth Vader is real, but I can still condemn his destruction of Alderaan and call him a monster. And if there were a group of people in the real world who worshipped Darth Vader, I think I would be well within my rights to point out to them not only that there is no evidence that he exists but that even if he did exist, his actions make him clearly not worthy of worship.

There is no absurdity or contradiction there whatsoever.

The idea of good outside God’s nature is contrary to atheism

This is simply false. Atheists hold a variety of moral positions, ranging from Kantianism and Utilitarianism on one end to moral nihilism on the other.

I am quite capable, for example, of using the word “good” to denote things that I find beneficial for self and society on the whole, a definition that does not require any kind of god.

The slavery of African Americans was the cause of the abolishment because they were treated as property and only that. The Bible’s idea of slavery was actually part of the household.

In Leviticus 25, the Lord says to Moses, “'44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life”

Your god explicitly says that slaves are property and may be inherited by other people. I don’t care how nicely these slaves are treated; the idea that people can own other people is a wicked one.

I want nothing to do with such a monster who advocates human beings owning other human beings.

 

[AntiTheist]

Thats why its so dumb when you say God is immoral/ not Good. It’s like saying Good is not Good. This is also the key point of the moral argument for God’s existence.

Okay, then. I just wanted to confirm.

So, then, when you read a passage like Leviticus 25 that I quoted above – in which your god explicitly says that the Israelites can own other human beings as property and pass them on to their descendants like other pieces of property – you think that this is a good thing that your god is doing?

I just want to be clear. If you do think this, please reply to this post with the sentence, “I think that slavery is a good thing when God endorses it, as he does in Leviticus 25.”

I’m pretty sure that this is your position, as shocking and horrifying as it is. I just want to be clear on this.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Ddarko, this is what I’ve noticed from your posts:

I have yet to see a post from you in which you have not implied that the person you are debating against is an idiot. This is extremely arrogant.

You define god as morality (“Morality is God’s nature”, post 191). Thus, you can claim that whatever god does goes. With your thinking, god could torture little children by crushing their genitals and you’d say that that’s OK because he’s god, and others can’t call that immoral unless they believe in a god.

I’m almost wondering if your someone who pretends to be a theist online in order to make theists look bad.

The Moral argument is not Circular logic.

If you’re saying god=morality (“Morality is God’s nature”, post 191), and you are further saying that the fact that there is objective morality means there is a god, that’s circular logic. That’s using your definition of god as proof that anyone who has objective “morality” (most people mean something very different by “morality” than you) believes in “god”.

BTW, what do you even mean by “objective morality”. If “objective” means “uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices” (answers.com/topic/objective-3), than believing that“good” consists of that which leads to happiness and overall well being, than that can be said to be an “objective morality”. No god is needed for that objective morality.

If your view is indeed that morality is “invented” like civil law, then slavery, infanticide, pedophilia, genocide and all the other forms of crimes you can imagine are actually not WRONG. They just seem wrong as an invention of our societies i.e. morality.

To add, under your view of morality, no country should have considered the Holocaust a negative thing. Germany was just doing what it thought was RIGHT for it’s society. Is that what you believe? You are quiet the moral champion I must say.

So unless you have something seriously cross-wired, I really don’t think you can accept the whole position that “morality is an invention” brings about.

STRAWMAN!!!

In post 204 I said, “how people treat each other aught to be centered around the goal of helping ourselves and others to living happy, fulfilling lives.” Everything you mentioned goes against that.

The purpose of adopting a moral system, just like a legal system, is for the benefit of individuals.

Oh and before I forget this little beauty you presented haha

“Why would an omniscience god allow there to be any errors, regardless of importance, in his on holy book”

So out of everything I quickly wrote today you felt you had to spend some time making fun of me typing “omniscience” instead of “omniscient”. You do that, but then probably think that your holier than others on this thread, consistently telling them that you’ll pray for them. Why not spend that time (both mocking and praying) answering the question (which I repeated about a dozen times) instead (which you keep avoiding)?

How about you answer why God should keep it historically inerrant?

How can he keep it historically inerrant when it’s historically inaccurate? One can’t keep something inerrant unless it was inerrant to begin with.

Did you mean to ask why god would want to make his book inerrant? If you did, he’d want to do that for the same reason a student would want to get his facts correct on an essay about US history. If that student’s essay has obvious factual errors, its evidence that the author of that essay lacks knowledge. Likewise, if the Bible has obvious factual errors, it’s evidence of the author’s lack of knowledge (and thus, lack of omniscience).

If god wants to be worshiped (which the Bible affirms) than he would want as many people as possible to know about him, so that he would be worshiped more.

How about you answer why God should keep it historically inerrant? God was giving people his message. People far brighter than you or me like Thomas Aquinas, Augustine understood that. It’s really not God’s fault that you aren’t reading the Bible for what it was intended to be read.

Why couldn’t you answer why you think a book filled with inaccuracies is made by a supposedly omniscient being which you worship?

BTW, Thomas Aquinas was an idiot who thought that an object twice as heavy as another object would fall twice as fast. That’s little his thinking was grounded in reality.

Next you are going to accuse God of not giving you some medical tips on the Bible.

I wasn’t planning to say that. However, now that you mention it, I think you’ve beaten Yahweh regarding coming up with a superior method for proving his existence. Congratulations!

God Bless

I’m curious, how would you feel if someone who claimed that it’s OK to offer humans as a sacrifice to Moloch because “morality is Moloch’s nature,” and then said Molock bless ?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

The slavery of African Americans was the cause of the abolishment because they were treated as property and only that. The Bible’s idea of slavery was actually part of the household. In any case, the Bible teaches for master’s to treat the slaves respectfully and vice-versa because they will be judged according to the deeds.

I just wanted to point out that in Exodus 21:20-21, Yahweh says that a slave can be beaten, as long as the slave doesn’t die right away. In Exodus 21:21, Yahweh says, “But if the slave survives a day or two, he [the slave’s owner] is not to be punished” (RSV2CE). Cultural context doesn’t make it ok to own a person, torture them, and beat them so badly that they die a day or two later.

That’s Biblical slavery.

 

[ddarko]

If you’re saying god=morality (“Morality is God’s nature”, post 191), and you are further saying that the fact that there is objective morality means there is a god, that’s circular logic. That’s using your definition of god as proof that anyone who has objective “morality” (most people mean something very different by “morality” than you) believes in “god”.

I am just going to address you one last time because I really hope you can learn something.

The moral argument is as follows

1. If God does not exists, objective morality does not exists
2. Objective morality exists
3. Therefore God exists

Now there might be other things that you would want to validly argue about but if you see circular logic here, you get a FAIL in your logic.

BTW, what do you even mean by “objective morality”. If “objective” means “uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices” (answers.com/topic/objective-3), than believing that“good” consists of that which leads to happiness and overall well being, than that can be said to be an “objective morality”. No god is needed for that objective morality.

Objective morality is independent of people’s opinion. Its not normative.

To give you an example, if the whole world decided that Pedophilia was good stuff, if Objective morality exists, IT WOULD STILL BE WRONG.

This why your suggestion for objective morality “believing that“good” consists of that which leads to happiness and overall well being” is laughable at best. It is a subjective notion. A good way to see it is you start off with “believing that…”. As you typed it, it should have hit you that you are on the subjective line.

In post 204 I said, “how people treat each other aught to be centered around the goal of helping ourselves and others to living happy, fulfilling lives.” Everything you mentioned goes against that.

The purpose of adopting a moral system, just like a legal system, is for the benefit of individuals.

Thats your subjective opinion of what morality should be. Nazi Germany thought helping its citizens consisted of exterminating Jews. How does that sit with you?

So out of everything I quickly wrote today you felt you had to spend some time making fun of me typing “omniscience” instead of “omniscient”. You do that, but then probably think that your holier than others on this thread, consistently telling them that you’ll pray for them. Why not spend that time (both mocking and praying) answering the question (which I repeated about a dozen times) instead (which you keep avoiding)?

Whats the point of repeating my self? You seem to lack a basic understanding of logic which is key when it comes to these kind of debates. Again, don’t take this as an insult. When someone tells me that I can’t take a certain graduate course because I do not have the background, I do not whine at the person saying he is being judgemental or arrogant. I go and try to get that background. I suggest you do the same first.

If god wants to be worshiped (which the Bible affirms) than he would want as many people as possible to know about him, so that he would be worshiped more.

I think he has done that.

Why couldn’t you answer why you think a book filled with inaccuracies is made by a supposedly omniscient being which you worship?

Because it is inerrant in terms of what God wanted to do. It’s like asking ‘If emily Bronte was such a good author, why Withering heights didn’t contain any scientific theory’. It’s total stupidity. You read a book for what the author intended it to be read. You judge based on whether the author revealed what he wanted to reveal. NOT whether he gave you what you wanted.

BTW, Thomas Aquinas was an idiot who thought that an object twice as heavy as another object would fall twice as fast. That’s little his thinking was grounded in reality.

You are such an idiot (yes I said it). Under your view, every one who lived pre-Galileo was an Idiot including Aristotle, Plato and many others.

I wasn’t planning to say that. However, now that you mention it, I think you’ve beaten Yahweh regarding coming up with a superior method for proving his existence. Congratulations!

Why do I even waste my time replying…

I’m curious, how would you feel if someone who claimed that it’s OK to offer humans as a sacrifice to Moloch because “morality is Moloch’s nature,” and then said Molock bless ?

Considering that I know that Yahweh is the one true God, I would check out this guy’s reasoning for his “Molock faith” and knock some sense in to him

You are asking a totally different question here though. We are discussing if its immoral for God to take a life. We already know that Yahweh does not take pleasure in human sacrifices. As for God taking lives, we already know it is NOT un-just.
You are asking a question on how do you know which God is right than whether God is moral. I guess you can’t even stick to one topic anymore

Please excuse me for not replying to you any further and know that I will keep you in my prayers.

God Bless