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

[Pieman333272]

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.

I feel I should comment that Mosaic Slavery (what you call Biblical) was more of an apprentice/servant program (depending on the “job” of the “slave”) rather than actual, unpaid/unfair labor. As for allowance for hitting, that’s actually not as bad as American Slavery has been recorded as going, and death/torture for the slave would actually be moral in the context of the time compared to some ancient civilizations (especially Mesopotamia). If you deny cultural context as justification then I’m very sure you won’t be fazed by any arguments this is morally acceptable (to enough of an extent for God to be considered just).

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.

Do you really study theology at a Catholic College? In all, genuine, honesty, I’m doubting that more and more. You should probably then know this is an ad hominem argument on your part presumably trying to say that since Aquinas was wrong on (at least) one thing that was completely outside of his field of study (philosophy/theology), he’s wrong on everything inside of his (main) field of study, even though over 75% of philosophers (including the secular ones) take his arguments/views/teachings seriously to some extent. That’s like saying that even though you don’t have a degree in paleontology, if you make a major mistake in identifying a fossil of some kind, all of your arguments for atheism (which may or may not be correct/true) are invalidated, and ddarko and I just won this debate! See my point?!

 

[AntiTheist]

I feel I should comment that Mosaic Slavery (what you call Biblical) was more of an apprentice/servant program (depending on the “job” of the “slave”) rather than actual, unpaid/unfair labor.

So what? The point is that the Bible condones owning other human beings as property. It actually uses the word “property” and explicitly says that slaves can be passed down like any other piece of property.

And the New Testament, of course, doesn’t breathe a word about slavery being wrong – it instructs slaves to obey their masters.

It seems odd that a book authored by a supreme being who is “all good” wouldn’t say anything against people owning other people as property, doesn’t it? Instead, it condones and encourages it.

If you actually claim that “good” is a synonym for “god’s nature,” and you accept the Bible, then you have to logically accept that god’s endorsement of people owning other people is good.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

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.

This argument wouldn’t work because if morality was “god’s” nature, and god did not exist, number two would be wrong. If something, such as morality (“Morality is God’s nature”, post 191), is defined as the nature of a being that doesn’t exist, than it doesn’t exist.
Thus, number two is only correct if “god” exists. This would be circular logic because the conclusion “god exists” is also a premise, which is the very definition of circular reasoning. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

In other words, I could say:
1 If unicorns don’t exist, “unicorness” doesn’t exist
2 “unicorness” does exist
3 therefore unicorns exist

With how you’ve defined “morality” as “god’s” nature, this “logic” regarding the existence of unicorns is just as logical as what you presented.

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

If that were the case, then no one’s morality, including your own, is objective morality. Isn’t your belief that “morality is god’s nature” an opinion? If not, prove it to be a fact.

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.

Bad analogy.

If a there are certain pre-reqs for a course, it’s generally very straight foreword whether or not a student has met those requirements.

Plus, you keep saying that to virtually everyone in virtually every post. I’m trying to point out that pattern to you, because I think that is one of the ways you are making yourself, and theism, bad.

It is even worse when this person is using their logic to justify slavery, infanticide, and human sacrifice.

ddarko;7205615:

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.

FWI, less than half of the world’s population is Christian. In fact, only about one out of three people on the planet are Christian. I wouldn’t consider that getting all the people in the world to know that he is god.

religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

If god wanted the entire world to conclude that he exists, he would have done a lot better job if he was omni-potent.

TruthSeeker60;7205416:

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.

You think I’m an idiot because I make a statement about a pre-Galileo person that would seem to absurdly apply to all other persons pre-Galileo. Considering that, what would keep someone from saying your an idiot if you think that the extraordinary claim that Yahweh exists doesn’t need extraordinary evidence (post 167), which would absurdly apply to all other gods (who are incompatible with Yahweh)?

In post 174 you called my logic in my response to post 167 circular because you erroneously thought I “pre-supposed that [other gods] were false due to ‘lack of extraordinary evidence.’”

I don’t know if everyone pre-Galileo subscribed to that view. Even if they did, there are other reasons why I, after taking a class on “Thomistic traditions” think he’s not the smartest to say the least.

I want to point out that a ten year old today could probably test that hypothesis and conclude that it isn’t true.

Keep in mind that this was a response to:

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.

That last statement could be made to defend just about every holy book. One could say, “It’s not Allah’s fault you reject his message because you concerned yourself with historical details being wrong, and with cruel moral principles.”

We already know that Yahweh does not take pleasure in human sacrifices.

If this were so, Yahweh did not delight in the human sacrifice made to him in Judges 11:29-40. Yahweh didn’t complain about it at all. Also, many interpret Numbers 31:40 as saying that Moses offered up 32 human virgins as sacrifices to god. There’s no evidence of Yahweh’s displeasure.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

You should probably then know this is an ad hominem argument on your part presumably trying to say that since Aquinas was wrong on (at least) one thing that was completely outside of his field of study (philosophy/theology), he’s wrong on everything inside of his (main) field of study

I was trying to refute the general idea that Aquinas was smart in itself. I could understand how you’d interpret what I said to be trying to implicitly make the point that since he’s wrong on “A”, he must be wrong on “B”. However, if I was trying to do that, I would have to also address Augustine, who ddarko mentioned.

Also, I didn’t mention this at the time, but I found Aquinas to be an idiot in many respects when I took a class on “Thomistic traditions”.

I wanted to mention that I thought Aquinas was stupid in part because even when I was Catholic, I was very irritated by treating him as if he were infallible.

BTW, allowing a slave to be beaten up so badly that they die in a day or two is extremely cruel.

Well, the entire notion of owning a person as property is extremely cruel.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

I want to address a few things I forgot to address earlier.

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.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that the argument from morality you mentioned above proved the existence of a god (which it doesn’t). In that case, it only proves that a god exists, but does not prove that Yahweh exists. Unless one has evidence that Yahweh is more likely to be god than all the other gods, one’s selection of Yahweh’s morality (which is pro-infanticide, pro-slavery, and is for forcing raped women to marry the rapist) verses the morality of any of the alternative gods is also subjective. This, I submit, is laughable (well, more like horrifying) at best.

Do you have any evidence in favor of Yahweh verses the other gods?

TruthSeeker60;7205416:

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.

This is a bad analogy for many reasons.

The last statement is a strawman. The question is, why would an omniscience being get simple facts wrong in his holy book?

My question is about why an author would allow positive, factual errors in his holy book, as opposed to why he/she wouldn’t add something with little relevance to the story.

A better analogy would be “why would a high school student, writing a paper on Darwinian evolution, be ok with getting facts wrong about Darwin’s personal life as he was collecting data and formulating the theory of evolution.” Such personal details may not be important, but if you’re going to put them in, you might as well get your facts straight and not contradict yourself.

 

[donsnow]

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.

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.

Understand.

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.

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 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.

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

Touchstone,

Please, do not mistake pride for courage.
The faith that God gave me when I asked for it because my faith had run out, is not capricious.
I consider it wise, not abdication, to go by what is written in the Holy Bible.
The God you claim you would so despise if He existed is Who gave you your free will. We’re created with that in us. If it weren’t for Him making us the way we are, we would have no free will and just be zombies.

Oh, Touchstone, you are not an animal. You are made in the image of the God you claim you would despise if He existed. You can’t escape that, it’s built in. So, you judge yourself when you judge Him, because we are made like Him.
That’s true for any atheist.

God loves you,
Don

 

[GreggAlvarez]

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.

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.

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.

Well, you may have stumped me but that is because I fail to see beyond the superficialities you haven given it. Your rigorous studies with our theology of God are not very fruitful. This also another reason why I will not use the Bible. I have a very limited understanding of passages seeing as how I am new the scene still from an atheism even worse than yours as hard as that is to believe. I actually made some people drop their religions because we all think we are the only logical people in the world and fail to understand that logic, reason and rationalities are NOT the foundations of all knowledge and intelligence. Anyway, a difficulty should not leave one to doubt. If it does, that means you have jumped to an assumed conclusion. There are many books on it. Go read them instead of your bias books. Seriously, get out of the shell of nescience and omniscience and go read something you have never read. I will not answer any more Bible questions because you and atheists will not and cannot understand it. Not your fault though.

Your idea of atheism is false. There may be different sects but even Kantianism defeats the idea of atheism. The concept you misunderstood was that nihilism is the only LOGICAL form of atheism one can take. “The Moral Lanscape” (along with some speeches by Hitchens) seems to inherently propose this.

And when you use a statement that says you can use good without a God you have to use proof without the Bible. You have to propose something else in a demonstration if you are to deny something. If you deny something, you have to propose something else. Atheists fail to do that.

Yes, it is absurd and contradictory. The fact that you claim it is not certainly has no bearing on the reality of it. You just condemned Darth Vader and the hypothetical worship of him. Come on. Seriously, if that is not absurd I have no clue what is. It is absurd regardless. You can argue all you wish but it is still absurd. Your idea about God being a monster just sucks. If you want nothing to do with Him, nobody is forcing you. But at least you admit that you choose not to deal with Him. That is good.

You are ever so subtly saying that God does not exist in your Darth Vader analogy. You see, that is where you need proof, especially when we have many.Darth Vader = an evil villain; God = an all-good Entity. You have not even looked to any reasons why we have the Truth, that is that God is all good. Are you willing to read about it? Hopefully. Can you honestly say you understand why? Not a chance.

 

[donsnow]

In my post #225, I remarked that since we are made in the image of God, we judge ourselves when we judge our Creator.

Since then, I have entertained the thought, that an atheist who really thinks God is horrible, might have a clinical psychological reaction which is termed “denial”. This is a common mental defense against something too horrible to bear, for the mind to claim, “That’s not so.”

So, it then came to me, that some atheists may have spent such a time and effort convincing themselves there’s no such God of which to be made in His image. Well, I’m not going to fiddle with your mental defense. Although I can recognize it, this old man has learned to recognize my own limits. A person’s mental defenses are beyond my expertise.

Nevertheless, for the sake of the souls of any lurkers, I would like to point out a few things.

First, there is good and evil in the world. Christians recognize God as the source of good and Satan as the source of evil. God is neither cruel nor evil to allow Satan’s rebellion. That gives us a genuine freedom of choice between good and evil. Otherwise, we would have no free will.

Now, as far as to eternal torment, I would like to show where that is a result of a loving Father God. Now, let’s say that somebody was always abusing your children. Did horrible things to them, like Satan leads people to do. And, that somebody knows better. But does it anyway. In that context, Jesus’ words in Matt 25, 41 (emphasis mine) “Then shall he say to them that shall be on his left hand: depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.”, reveals the Heavenly Father’s vengeance upon Satan and his demons for torment God’s children in this life.
You see, dear lurkers, that getting into Hellfire is just the opposite of going to Heaven: you get there only by hanging onto the devil or one of his demons, because it was never meant for people. The opposite of course, is that we only get into Heaven by hanging onto Jesus.

About the slavery. The atheists, and how Truth Seeker with his education could do this, I know not. In Mosaic law, presented in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Holy Bible) there is a provision for freeing slaves. This legality shows that God indeed did not approve of slavery. It’s just that the people’s understanding was such, that slavery could not at that time be abolished without grave social upheaval. For example, our Civil War was required to abolish slavery in this nation during the late Nineteenth Century. And there is yet hidden slavery in America and more slavery in some places in Africa and middle Asia.
Anyway, what Truth Seeker should have remembered is that in the law of Moses, every seven years, a slave owner is to bring all his slaves before him and offer them their freedom. Whosoever of the slaves who claim their freedom are let go and given proof of their freedom, they and their families. The bondsmen who choose to remain in bondage, a wooden peg is put through the lobe of their ear, and they are slaves the rest of their lives. Seven years later, when the owner again summons his slaves, he will see the pegs in the ears of those who chose to remain with him and not offer them their freedom again. So, in the law of Moses, provision is made to free the slaves, who choose to leave.
But, where that is written either in Leviticus, Numbers or Deuteronomy, I cannot
remember. Ok, that for slavery. The release of slaves every seven years required by law shows that God does not approve of slavery.

Things were savage, in those days, 3,500 years or so, ago. Killing, slavery, pillaging, idol worship and more. These are the common activities of that day, which the Ten Commandments forbade His people Israel.

I’m writing this, because the Church’s time of trial in EuroAmerica approaches. With Wahabbi Islam slaying or enslaving all who refuse to embrace it in Africa and Asia; with Shariya law of Islam spreading to Europe and America, the savagery of Wahabbi sect of Islam follows close behind. Christians must not be deceived as to the choice they may have to make. To die or serve as martyrs for the faith of Christ? Or give in to a false religion?

For what it’s worth, Wahabbism views both devout Christian and stout atheist as the same: not Wahabbi. They also kill fellow Muslims who will not follow Wahab. This is the mad dog brand of Islam, that hides behind Shariya and other Muslim laws.

We must not only live our faith, but either die or endure slavery for it. As Jesus says, “Fear not he who can take your life as he who can consign you to eternal torment.” Touchstone’s claims of cowardice notwithstanding, this is what Christians have to look forward to. And, yes it can happen in Europe or America.

Ok, I may have written too much. I just want to make clear that religion is about life and death. And that false religion is about eternal torment and true religion is about eternal joy.
And, saying religion isn’t so, won’t change the truth of the above brief paragraph. Saying it isn’t so is just more clinical psychological denial of a hard truth.

 

[donsnow]

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.

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.

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.

I’ve found the law of Moses which states when slaves are to be set free:
Exodus 21, 1 -11:
“1. These are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. 2. If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve thee in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3. With what rainment he came in, with the like let him go out; if having a wife, his wife also shall go out with him.” (this next is what I remembered wrong) “4. But if his master gave him a wife, and she hath borne sons and daughters; the woman and her children shall be her master’s; but he himself shall go out with his rainment. 5. And if the servant shall say: I love my master and my wife and children, I will not go out free’; 6. His master shall bring him to…and he shall be set to the door and the posts, and he shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall be his servant for ever. 7. And if any man sell his daughter to be a servant, she shall not go out as bondwomen are wont to go out. 8. If she displeases the eye of her master to whom she was delivered, he shall let her go; but he shall have no power to sell her to a foreign nation, if he despise her. 9. But if he hath betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10. And if he take another wife for him, he shall provide her a marriage, and rainment, neither shall he refuse the price of her chastity. 11. If he do not these three things, she shall go out free without money.”

As I said in my previous post, this law shows that God did not approve of slavery, because if He did, He would not have given that law to Moses.

 

[Rocinante]

I’ve found the law of Moses which states when slaves are to be set free:
Exodus 21, 1 -11:
“1. These are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. 2. If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve thee in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3. With what rainment he came in, with the like let him go out; if having a wife, his wife also shall go out with him.” (this next is what I remembered wrong) “4. But if his master gave him a wife, and she hath borne sons and daughters; the woman and her children shall be her master’s; but he himself shall go out with his rainment. 5. And if the servant shall say: I love my master and my wife and children, I will not go out free’; 6. His master shall bring him to…and he shall be set to the door and the posts, and he shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall be his servant for ever. 7. And if any man sell his daughter to be a servant, she shall not go out as bondwomen are wont to go out. 8. If she displeases the eye of her master to whom she was delivered, he shall let her go; but he shall have no power to sell her to a foreign nation, if he despise her. 9. But if he hath betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10. And if he take another wife for him, he shall provide her a marriage, and rainment, neither shall he refuse the price of her chastity. 11. If he do not these three things, she shall go out free without money.”

As I said in my previous post, this law shows that God did not approve of slavery, because if He did, He would not have given that law to Moses.

note that this applies only to hebrew slaves.

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone,

Please, do not mistake pride for courage.
The faith that God gave me when I asked for it because my faith had run out, is not capricious.
I consider it wise, not abdication, to go by what is written in the Holy Bible.

I understand, just as I said above. I was a devout Christian from about 9 years old to 39 years old, and had many “low points” in faith that I understood (at the time) God to have given by grace a “replenishment” of my faith. So I’m very familiar with that experience.

The God you claim you would so despise if He existed is Who gave you your free will. We’re created with that in us. If it weren’t for Him making us the way we are, we would have no free will and just be zombies.

And in that, I think you have the seeds of the undoing of what you just said above. If I do have free will, and I do have reason, and I do have a constitution that gives me courage and strength, then I am fully in my “*imago dei” *to give the world around me a clear-eyed, sober, critical, and yes, courageous look.

And this goes badly for God, as it turns out. At least the Catholic/Christian God. The very thing you commend here as my endowment is the context and insight for thinking morally on my own, as a natural human, endowed with free will, and not a slave, not a moral coward or sycophant.

If my will really is free, it bodes ill for Christianity. I had someone pull an exotic rhetorical manouver on me, appealing to my past appreciation of C.S. Lewis, or at least his novels. In The Last Battle, there is a character, a soldier of Tash, which means he’s the “enemy of Aslan” (analogous to me, an atheist, here), who Aslan saves ultimately because Aslan loved the integrity and mettle the soldier of Tash showed in his life and service, even if he was “in the wrong army”.

Perhaps God is testing us to see who’s brave enough and disciplined enough to speak truth to power and call out the Catholic God for the tyrant he is, or is portrayed to be. The ones who “pass” are the ones who reject the perverted caricature of a good and just God as delivered by Christianity.

That’s nonsense, I think, even if there is a benevolent, universalist idea in there I can appreciate. The point is though, that’s the only route I can see for man equipped with a free will and reason, faced with Christianity as it exists today. A kind of “trick” to see is true enough to call it for what it is, a sort of ‘reverse Pascal’s Wager’.

Oh, Touchstone, you are not an animal. You are made in the image of the God you claim you would despise if He existed. You can’t escape that, it’s built in. So, you judge yourself when you judge Him, because we are made like Him.

I think that’s true, but reversed. God is very much like you and me, because we made God in our image. So it is built-in as you say, but the source is us. Even so, when we do judge our own actions, it fits with imaginations of God in many ways – that’s why we made God! We feel guilt when we’ve taken advantage of others, and profited to our own goals at others expense, and so we have this built-in natural “moral grammar” that many of us project into a god-fantasy.

Some of that is good and healthy, but like man the creator of gods, much of that is dark indeed. So God made in our image is not just loving, benevolent and kind and just, but sometimes – often – cruel, vicious, wicked, jealous, unjust. This is a much more powerful explanation for why the Catholic God is the crazy bundle of human contradictions that he is, good and evil, noble and wicked all wrapped into one. Catholics fumble and stumble all over themselves to try and rationalize and deny and ignore and change the subject when it comes to the full view of God in the Bible, and all that needs be done is look through the other end of the binoculars; this is all very natural and predictable for a god made by man. He is us, made in our image.

That’s true for any atheist.

God loves you,
Don

Thanks for that. I appreciate the sincerity of the thought there, even as I disagree with the underlying basis for it.

-TS

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I’ve found the law of Moses which states when slaves are to be set free:
Exodus 21, 1 -11:…

As I said in my previous post, this law shows that God did not approve of slavery, because if He did, He would not have given that law to Moses.

The logical implication here is that God is permitting slavery, but at the same time he is putting limits on it. God is not necessarily saying that slavery is good; even though it does appear that way.

For me there is only two reasonable theories as far as i can tell.

Theory 1. Some parts of the bible has errors, in so far as its application of moral truth. :

This would mean that insofar as morals are concerned the bible is not morally infallible. This, however, doesn’t mean that the Bible does not have the infallible stamp of the Holy Spirit in a different context or sense which transcends its quality as literature for moral teaching. In which case the bible has a different infallible value with a different purpose which has little to do with its moral content.

Theory 2. Free will, Natural moral development, & divine providence.

It could be that God knows that, given the impediments of original sin, human beings would start slavery and that it would inevitably become a natural fact of human society when seen in light of human freewill and ignorance. It could be that God had a plan for a greater good that wouldn’t be fulfilled if he outright rebuked slavery, and thus instead of imposing his will with absolute force, God instead introduces small providential changes by planting a seed of ideas such as love and goodness and prophesy which develops naturally over time allowing his people to come to terms with what it means to be good and how it benefits them to embrace it as they continue to gain a greater deeper experiential understanding of these concepts over time. God, in knowing that nobody in those times would freely give up slavery to serve God, covertly causes a silent revolution from within, through a growing influence of good and rational development in the Judaic experience. Thus when we open the bible we see, documented, a continuous development in moral understanding and wisdom as divine prophesy unravels. This happens right up until you come to the time of Jesus where you have Paul saying that you must treat a slave like you would treat a brother or sister or your family in general (The logical implication being that you wouldn’t treat your family members like slaves), and you have Jesus saying that you must treat people as you would want to be treated. These sayings, while they are indirect in that they are not directly rebuking slavery, a rational person knows that the logical implication of their implementation would lead naturally to an abolition of slavery all together. By this time the Judaic people have developed a deep experiential rational and spiritual consciousness of the value of good; they have come to a point where they can trust and accept that the abolition of slavery is Gods will and it is good. This is further clarified by the fact that no Pope today would justify the implementation of any of the slavery methods that were expressed in the bible. You don’t see it in Catholic theology and it isn’t taught in catholic schools; and this is because our spiritual and rational development has reached a point where we can see that these things are no-longer acceptable in any civilized society.

However, there are other types of forced labor which could be interpreted as a type of slavery but never the less has a reasonable grounding in what is morally good for society, such as “community service” enforced by law on to criminals. Thus context has a relevant part to play when interpreting the right or wrong of any action. I think it is important that we respect the historical context in which these ideas were being implemented.

Conclusion: Theory number two like number one admits that there are in a particular context moral errors in the bible. However in the context of theory 2, one could reasonably hold that while there are moral errors or moral fallibility in the bible, in light of Gods providential plan of salvation one can still rationally hold the belief that scripture is still the infallible word and will of God given the fact that it documents Gods providential and moral influence in Judaic history despite the bibles developmental nature. Thus moral error doesn’t necessarily have to mean “divine fallibility” if we adopt the context of theory number 2 with reference to theory number one.

If none of these theories work in terms of Catholic theology, then i have to say that i am finding it very difficult to believe in the infallibility of the moral teachings of the bible and at the same time hold that belief with rational and ethical honesty.

Peace and God bless.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Your rigorous studies with our theology of God are not very fruitful. This also another reason why I will not use the Bible. . . .] I will not answer any more Bible questions because you and atheists will not and cannot understand it.

Couldn’t a Muslim say the same thing about the Qur’an. “You who points out the violent parts, contradictory parts, and non-historical parts of the Qur’an don’t understand the Qur’an.”

a difficulty should not leave one to doubt. If it does, that means you have jumped to an assumed conclusion. There are many books on it. Go read them instead of your bias books.

How many books does one have to read and how many Christian apologists does one have to listen to before considering a what seems like a contradiction a contradiction?

There may be different sects but even Kantianism defeats the idea of atheism.

How?

And when you use a statement that says you can use good without a God you have to use proof without the Bible. You have to propose something else in a demonstration if you are to deny something. If you deny something, you have to propose something else. Atheists fail to do that.

What’s your concept of “good”? What do you mean by it?

God = an all-good Entity. You have not even looked to any reasons why we have the Truth, that is that God is all good.

Again, what do you mean by “good”?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

In my post #225, I remarked that since we are made in the image of God, we judge ourselves when we judge our Creator.

“We are made in the image of God” is an extraordinary statement which presupposes there is a god. What evidence do you have to back this up?

Since then, I have entertained the thought, that an atheist who really thinks God is horrible, might have a clinical psychological reaction which is termed “denial”. This is a common mental defense against something too horrible to bear, for the mind to claim, “That’s not so.”.

So you think that those who are atheist are atheist because they’re in denial? Would you consider the possibility that someone may be an atheist because of lack of evidence of a god?

First, there is good and evil in the world. Christians recognize God as the source of good and Satan as the source of evil. God is neither cruel nor evil to allow Satan’s rebellion. That gives us a genuine freedom of choice between good and evil. Otherwise, we would have no free will.

Define “good”.

If one defines “good” in such a way that it’s very definition is tied to god, then god is good even if he kills babies (1 Sam 15:3, Duet 20:16, Exodus 12:29, Joshua 10:28-43), allows fathers to sell their daughters as sex slaves (Exodus 21:7-11), and forces raped women to marry the rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

Now, as far as to eternal torment, I would like to show where that is a result of a loving Father God. Now, let’s say that somebody was always abusing your children. Did horrible things to them, like Satan leads people to do. And, that somebody knows better. But does it anyway. In that context, Jesus’ words in Matt 25, 41 (emphasis mine) “Then shall he say to them that shall be on his left hand: depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.”, reveals the Heavenly Father’s vengeance upon Satan and his demons for torment God’s children in this life.
You see, dear lurkers, that getting into Hellfire is just the opposite of going to Heaven: you get there only by hanging onto the devil or one of his demons, because it was never meant for people. The opposite of course, is that we only get into Heaven by hanging onto Jesus.

That’s a barbaric way to deal with one’s enemies. If you had the power to have someone who hates you tortured forever, would you do it?

Also, many theists believe that not believing in god will send one to hell for all eternity.

In Mosaic law, presented in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Holy Bible) there is a provision for freeing slaves. This legality shows that God indeed did not approve of slavery.

So because one is able to release a slave that one owns, it makes slavery ok?! How would such a provision show that God did not approve of slavery?

It’s just that the people’s understanding was such, that slavery could not at that time be abolished without grave social upheaval. For example, our Civil War was required to abolish slavery in this nation during the late Nineteenth Century.

The causes of the civil war didn’t have as much to do with slavery as most people think. Besides America, no country (that I know of) fought a war over abolition of slavery. I don’t want to go too far on this, because that would be off topic.

I do want to make the point that god could have given the Israelites the graces to not revolt.

Anyway, what Truth Seeker should have remembered is that in the law of Moses, every seven years, a slave owner is to bring all his slaves before him and offer them their freedom. Whosoever of the slaves who claim their freedom are let go and given proof of their freedom, they and their families… . .]The release of slaves every seven years required by law shows that God does not approve of slavery.

I assume you’re talking about Exodus 21:1-11.

This is only for Hebrew slaves.

Does giving Hebrew slaves a chance to get out after seven years make it OK? Why would it be OK to own someone for seven years?

How does this show the Yahweh does not approve of slavery, especially considering the Yahweh said it’s OK to beat a slave so badly that he/she dies in a day or two (Exodus 21:20-21)? I guess the option of being released after seven years, which only applies to Hebrews, could simply be nullified by the owner killing the slave.

BTW, if Yahweh did oppose slavery, rules would have improved over time as people were open to abolishing slavery.

Things were savage, in those days, 3,500 years or so, ago. Killing, slavery, pillaging, idol worship and more. These are the common activities of that day, which the Ten Commandments forbade His people Israel.

Which of the ten commandments forbids slavery?

Yahweh, on several occasion ordered the invasion of cities that didn’t attack the Israelites, and then either ordering them to kill everyone (including women, children, and infants) or kill everyone except female virgins, who would be forced to marry. That contradicts the commandment “thou shall not kill,” and is not justified because of the age.

We must not only live our faith, but either die or endure slavery for it.

Endure slavery for it?!

When would it be appropriate to die for it? Many Israelites, according to the Bible, died following Yahweh’s commands to invade other cities/kingdom’s.

Saying it isn’t so is just more clinical psychological denial of a hard truth.

Prove that what you call truth is true. Burden of proof is on theists.

 

[The_Exodus]

touchstone:

And this goes badly for God, as it turns out. At least the Catholic/Christian God. The very thing you commend here as my endowment is the context and insight for thinking morally on my own, as a natural human, endowed with free will, and not a slave, not a moral coward or sycophant.

You seem to forget that you certainly still retain the ability to be wrong, on either a theist or atheist supposition.

touchstone:

If my will really is free, it bodes ill for Christianity.

No my friend. It bodes ill for thee.

touchstone:

Perhaps God is testing us to see who’s brave enough and disciplined enough to speak truth to power and call out the Catholic God for the tyrant he is, or is portrayed to be. The ones who “pass” are the ones who reject the perverted caricature of a good and just God as delivered by Christianity.

The falsity in this statement is overshadowed only by its pride.

God does not save you because of some courageous act you have made, as if you could *earn * everlasting happiness. God, as he is in himself and as he is experienced in beautitude is an object beyond the created power of any intellect or being to attain to. Any creature who is saved and who enters into this joy does so entirely by grace. And grace, by definition, is gratutious and unmerited. One does not deserve heaven, any more than one deserved to be brought into being. God doesn’t owe you anything. It is the height of Satanic pride to suppose that God will save you because of anything coming from you or your will.

touchstone:

The point is though, that’s the only route I can see for man equipped with a free will and reason, faced with Christianity as it exists today.

You speak as if this matter is settled. Philosophers across the world, however, find reason infallibly pointing to an ultimate being, and once you are dead and gone, philosophers will continue to say this.

No matter how far our reason reaches and how high our tower becomes, people will continue to see that it is logical, sane, and good to affirm the existence of a supreme being.

The rest of your post is Freudian/positivistic “emotionalism,” and is not worth responding to, since it has nothing to do with whether or not God exists.

 

[Rocinante]

The logical implication here is that God is permitting slavery, but at the same time he is putting limits on it. God is not necessarily saying that slavery is good; even though it does appear that way.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-21

i think it is impossible to reconcile such quotes as this with biblical inerrancy with regard to morals. clearly the moral knowledge of the average american 5 year old is superior in at least some ways to that of the ancient “wise” man that wrote these words.

rocinante

 

[MindOverMatter2]

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-21

i think it is impossible to reconcile such quotes as this with biblical inerrancy with regard to morals. clearly the moral knowledge of the average american 5 year old is superior in at least some ways to that of the ancient “wise” man that wrote these words.

rocinante

I agree that it is very difficult to reconcile at face value, since it conjures up an image of the slavery of black people, and my being black, i am certainly and absolutely against that notion of slavery. Slavery is absolutely repugnant to me. But whether the biblical events in question is truly impossible to reconcile, will depend on why it happened in the first place, why they were beaten, why they were slaves, and why they felt that those rules were necessary, since it is evident to me that “context” can drastically change the moral meaning of the events in question. I gave an example of this in the sense of community service or prison labor. If a prisoner get’s out of hand, you will do what is necessary to subdue them. If a prisoner attacks you, you have a right to defend yourself, this may require that you beat them. Thus we need to ask, in respect of the bible, why were they “slaves”, what is intended by those words within that histrionically context and culture. At face value I am certainly repelled by the idea that a human being is some other human-beings property. I certainly agree that it “appears” irreconcilable; but given that later accounts in the bible logically imply a total rejection of slavery, and that the Catholic faith today rejects slavery in its theology, it seems to me either today’s Christianity is in direct contradiction to the old testament, or a very important contextual fact is being left out when people pick up the bible and attempt to interpret it today. I certainly don’t blame you if you felt that there are indeed moral errors in the bible and false or erroneous attributions to God on the part of the author or authors, and if you are being honest, i don’t think God will blame you either. But if we don’t take into consideration first the historical context, language, the system and society, and Judaic culture, and how it differs from our understanding of things to day, i don’t think its fare to condemn those parts of bible outright. It appears to me quite possible that you are reading things in to the words from your understanding of today’s world and use of language with out considering the historical, textual, and contextual facts.

But its also quite possible that you are right. The face value appearance of scripture would certainly seem to agree with you.

 

[donsnow]

note that this applies only to hebrew slaves.

Hi, Rocinante,

Yes, and I had expected somebody to mention that. In return, I would like to bring up Mosaic Law referring to non-Hebrews.

Leviticus 19, 18 and 33 - 34:
18. “Seek not revenge, nor be mindful of the injury of thy citizens. Thou shalt love thy friend as thyself. I am the Lord.”
33. “If a stranger dwell in your land, and abide among you, do not upbraid him; 34. but let him be among you as one of the same country; and you shall love him as yourselves: for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.”

I respectfully submit that Moses, Aaron, Joshua and other elders during and just after the Exodus, could rule that the law for Hebrew slaves, in light of the above, is the same for other slaves. And, in the days of the Judges, so could the judges so pronounce.
I’m not saying they did. But, I am saying, that the Lord God did give these ordinances and they apply to strangers, the same as to Hebrews.

Regards,
Don

 

[donsnow]

I understand, just as I said above. I was a devout Christian from about 9 years old to 39 years old, and had many “low points” in faith that I understood (at the time) God to have given by grace a “replenishment” of my faith. So I’m very familiar with that experience.

And in that, I think you have the seeds of the undoing of what you just said above. If I do have free will, and I do have reason, and I do have a constitution that gives me courage and strength, then I am fully in my “*imago dei” *to give the world around me a clear-eyed, sober, critical, and yes, courageous look.

And this goes badly for God, as it turns out. At least the Catholic/Christian God. The very thing you commend here as my endowment is the context and insight for thinking morally on my own, as a natural human, endowed with free will, and not a slave, not a moral coward or sycophant.

If my will really is free, it bodes ill for Christianity. I had someone pull an exotic rhetorical manouver on me, appealing to my past appreciation of C.S. Lewis, or at least his novels. In The Last Battle, there is a character, a soldier of Tash, which means he’s the “enemy of Aslan” (analogous to me, an atheist, here), who Aslan saves ultimately because Aslan loved the integrity and mettle the soldier of Tash showed in his life and service, even if he was “in the wrong army”.

Perhaps God is testing us to see who’s brave enough and disciplined enough to speak truth to power and call out the Catholic God for the tyrant he is, or is portrayed to be. The ones who “pass” are the ones who reject the perverted caricature of a good and just God as delivered by Christianity.

That’s nonsense, I think, even if there is a benevolent, universalist idea in there I can appreciate. The point is though, that’s the only route I can see for man equipped with a free will and reason, faced with Christianity as it exists today. A kind of “trick” to see is true enough to call it for what it is, a sort of ‘reverse Pascal’s Wager’.

I think that’s true, but reversed. God is very much like you and me, because we made God in our image. So it is built-in as you say, but the source is us. Even so, when we do judge our own actions, it fits with imaginations of God in many ways – that’s why we made God! We feel guilt when we’ve taken advantage of others, and profited to our own goals at others expense, and so we have this built-in natural “moral grammar” that many of us project into a god-fantasy.

Some of that is good and healthy, but like man the creator of gods, much of that is dark indeed. So God made in our image is not just loving, benevolent and kind and just, but sometimes – often – cruel, vicious, wicked, jealous, unjust. This is a much more powerful explanation for why the Catholic God is the crazy bundle of human contradictions that he is, good and evil, noble and wicked all wrapped into one. Catholics fumble and stumble all over themselves to try and rationalize and deny and ignore and change the subject when it comes to the full view of God in the Bible, and all that needs be done is look through the other end of the binoculars; this is all very natural and predictable for a god made by man. He is us, made in our image.

Thanks for that. I appreciate the sincerity of the thought there, even as I disagree with the underlying basis for it.

-TS

Well, TouchStone,

You probably expect me to say this: I disagree with your analysis.

Before an eternal God, the oldest and wisest of us are mere babes. Likewise, when I was young, I thought my parents were so wrong to do this or that. However, as a young man of 26, as a result of a life crisis, I found myself sitting on the side of my bed, racking my brain for every bit of information my parents had given me. Because, they were not wrong: they were parents and I the child.
In line with that experience, I say again: the creature may not judge the Creator, because the creature has no idea of the Creator’s experience and knowledge. It is the evil in a viewer’s eye, that judges God as unjust or wrong or immoral.

Furthermore, I respectfully put aside your contention that mankind created God. That is not for me. I respectfully submit that to liken Greek and other pagan gods and where they came from to the Living God of Israel is a false comparison. I want no part of it.

In closing, I would like to touch upon about God slaying this or that person. Our God is the resurrection. He gives us life. He may take it because He will raise us again to life for Judgement Day. So, He has actually not taken life, He is life. That is why it is good to abide in Him by abiding in His word. I think, in that context, that all the atheist and anti-theist complaints are “biting the hand that feeds you.”

Respectfully,
Don

 

[donsnow]

“We are made in the image of God” is an extraordinary statement which presupposes there is a god. What evidence do you have to back this up?

I have subjective evidence of God Most High the Holy Trinity. “Because Jesus Christ lives, I live.” I am proof of my God. His word abides in me.

So you think that those who are atheist are atheist because they’re in denial? Would you consider the possibility that someone may be an atheist because of lack of evidence of a god?

What people look for, they find. I have found much evidence of God, to suit me.

Define “good”.

If one defines “good” in such a way that it’s very definition is tied to god, then god is good even if he kills babies (1 Sam 15:3, Duet 20:16, Exodus 12:29, Joshua 10:28-43), allows fathers to sell their daughters as sex slaves (Exodus 21:7-11), and forces raped women to marry the rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

That which gives life and true hope, loves and is faithful is good.

That’s a barbaric way to deal with one’s enemies. If you had the power to have someone who hates you tortured forever, would you do it?

Also, many theists believe that not believing in god will send one to hell for all eternity.

So because one is able to release a slave that one owns, it makes slavery ok?! How would such a provision show that God did not approve of slavery?

The causes of the civil war didn’t have as much to do with slavery as most people think. Besides America, no country (that I know of) fought a war over abolition of slavery. I don’t want to go too far on this, because that would be off topic.

I do want to make the point that god could have given the Israelites the graces to not revolt.

I assume you’re talking about Exodus 21:1-11.

This is only for Hebrew slaves.

Does giving Hebrew slaves a chance to get out after seven years make it OK? Why would it be OK to own someone for seven years?

How does this show the Yahweh does not approve of slavery, especially considering the Yahweh said it’s OK to beat a slave so badly that he/she dies in a day or two (Exodus 21:20-21)? I guess the option of being released after seven years, which only applies to Hebrews, could simply be nullified by the owner killing the slave.

BTW, if Yahweh did oppose slavery, rules would have improved over time as people were open to abolishing slavery.

Which of the ten commandments forbids slavery?

Yahweh, on several occasion ordered the invasion of cities that didn’t attack the Israelites, and then either ordering them to kill everyone (including women, children, and infants) or kill everyone except female virgins, who would be forced to marry. That contradicts the commandment “thou shall not kill,” and is not justified because of the age.

Endure slavery for it?!

When would it be appropriate to die for it? Many Israelites, according to the Bible, died following Yahweh’s commands to invade other cities/kingdom’s.

Prove that what you call truth is true. Burden of proof is on theists.

Your tactic of shot gunning many pellets of data neither dissuades, persuades nor entraps me. I have already stated, you have taken so much time and effort to convince yourself that there’s no God that I won’t attempt to penetrate your mental defenses.
You’re entitled to your opinions and questions.
I will respond to you as I respond to both Satan and my own base nature: I DO NOT QUESTION GOD. I will question all else and put my skepticism to anything but God. For I have seen the trap that you and other skeptics have fallen into, so I’m not going there.
God may well love you, but I don’t love you enough to risk my soul to save yours. If you can’t appreciate who Jesus Christ is and what He’s done to save us all, then in no way will you appreciate what I have to offer.

I will now answer all your remaining questions with one of my own: why should I waste my time spelling all this out to you, when all you well may want is to subdue me with your questions? You offer no conversation. What you offer, seems to me, is like a hostile attack of my savior. I will let Him answer you.

Regards,
Don