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

[PRmerger]

cont’d

All of this deals with what God could have done if he had a way of making sure that the innocent were ultimately taken care of. It sketches a possible reason for why God commanded what he did in the Old Testament, but this theory is no good if it still results in the innocent–or even one innocent person–receiving a raw deal. If even one person gets the short end of the stick with God then God is acting unjustly.

So what about it? Given his commands in the Exodus, could God make sure that all of the innocent Canaanites who suffered would come out on the plus side?

Yes.

As we noted, all life is a gift from God, and it is his choice how much of it we get. Further, he gives us all an infinite amount of life, and no one will suffer in eternity without choosing this.

Suppose that there was a Canaanite child who was four years old–young enough to still be an innocent, but old enough to experience the horror of watching her civilization killed around her before being killed herself.

From a purely human perspective, that is HORRENDOUS. My heart is SICKENED at the thought of what such a child would go through.

But is God–who is infinitely powerful–INCAPABLE of making it up to this child?

No, he is not incapable of making up to her the sufferings that she experienced on earth, however horrible they were. If he gives her an infinite amount of happiness (natural or supernatural) then that more than makes up for the finite amount of unhappiness that he allowed her to suffer in this life. And if he assigns her a positive destiny in the afterlife, an infinite amount of happiness will be hers.

I know that if I myself were in her situation–if I experienced a horrible, devastating, but still finite amount of suffering in this life–and then God gave me an infinite amount of happiness in the next that I would count myself fortunate. I would say with St. Paul that–no matter how horrible they were–“the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that [has been] revealed to [me].”

As long as God makes sure that I receive more happiness than unhappiness as an innocent then I cannot claim he was being unjust with me, and as long as God compensates the innocent for the sufferings that have come to them in this life then I do not see the grounds for him being fundamentally unjust.

It thus seems to me that if we make the assumption that God did give the commands to wipe out the Canaanites that this would not prevent him from making it up to the innocent Canaanites who suffered and thus he would not be unjust toward them.

But suppose that he didn’t do this. We mentioned earlier the question of whether God ever gave this kind of command, and we said that the answer to this question is either yes or no. To this point, we’ve been considering what if the answer was yes. But what if it was no?

In this case the commands found in the Pentateuch concerning the Canaanites would not be meant to be taken in a literal sense. We know that the early history in Scripture contains symbolic elements as well as literal ones, and these commands would then turn out to be symbolic.

Presumably, they would symbolize things like the need to be totally separate from pagan culture, of how radically incompatible the pagan lifestyle is with faith in God. On this theory the books of the Pentateuch would have reached their final form some time after the events they describe, and these stories about wiping out the Canaanites (which the Israelites did not actually fulfill; there were still Canaanites living later) were included to teach the later readers how they must reject paganism, and that the original audience was meant to understand the nature of these stories as cautionary tales from which they were to draw a moral lesson (i.e., don’t be pagan; stick with God).

 

[PRmerger]

cont’d

If this is the case then God never did command the extermination of the Canaanites and we, because we are not familiar with the way literature was written at this time, tend to take as literal something that was never meant to be literal. (It’s certainly not the first time that’s happened!) It is just that because we live in such a different age and because our literature works so differently that we don’t easily recognize which parts are literal and which are not.

It thus seems to me that, either way one goes (assuming that the commands were literal or that they weren’t), a rational account can be offered that shows God was not acting unjustly.

Now let me go a step further and address the question of the reader’s potential loss of faith concerning this matter:

Whether or not one buys the above account, this is not going to change the fact that suffering–including innocent suffering–exists in this life. It just does, and us wanting it to be otherwise will not change this fact. The question is how we interpret the existence of suffering.

It seems that we can interpret it in one of two ways: Either the sufferings of the innocent are meaningless and can never be redeemed or they are part of larger plan in which they do make sense and they can be redeemed. It is belief in God that allows the latter possibility to happen.

I, personally, would not like to believe that the innocent who suffer are just out of luck, that their suffering was meaningless and that nothing will ever happen to make it up to them. I’d rather believe that there is a meaning and purpose to what happens to us–even if I don’t fully understand it in this life–and that we live in a world in which those who have suffered innocently will ultimately be comforted and have their sufferings all made up to them.

So that’s what I do believe–that we’re not living in a meaningless world in which people suffer to no purpose and they will never be compensated. Instead, even if we can’t understand it all from our tiny perspective, we’re living in a world that is guided by a loving God who will vindicate the innocent who have suffered, who will wipe away their tears and give them happiness, who will make sense of all the pain and anguish that they have had to bear, and who will ultimately bring good out of their sufferings–just like he did the sufferings of his Son on the Cross.

When faced with the reality of innocent suffering, one can either suffer a loss of faith and suppose that the world is meaningless and cruel or one can make a leap of faith and believe in a world were suffering can have meaning and where the innocent will be compensated.

I choose to leap. source

 

[TruthSeeker60]

I also want to add that one would be motivated not to do something in part because the group wouldn’t approve of it.

Also, most people wouldn’t murder, even if they could get away with it (both in this life, and a hypothetical afterlife) both in this life and the next, because psychologically, it sicken people.

youtube.com/watch?v=w309hbGVH6A

 

[PRmerger]

I also want to add that one would be motivated not to do something in part because the group wouldn’t approve of it.

Interesting concept.

I wonder, though, what motivates someone to provide such heroic sacrificial love for another, even if the group wouldn’t approve?

I know of no atheist who has ever given his life motivated by love for a stranger.

Yet, in the history of Christianity, one is overwhelmed by tales of sacrificial love, motivated out of Christian principles.

Take Maximilian Kolbe. Gave his life in the concentration camp for a total stranger.

Do atheists do this?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

. . .]
I choose to leap. source

PRmerger, if you want to use an article to argue for or against something, summarize it in your own words and provide a link to it. Don’t post the entire thing, then expect someone to systematically address the entire 9 page article (which is how long the article was when I pasted it into an OpenOffice.org file). Otherwise, these forums would consist of nothing more than people copying and pasting entire articles, theses, and dissertations to refute other articles, theses, and dissertations.

It’s also a good idea to summarize things in one’s own words because it makes one understand what he/she is summarizing, and more likely that one appreciates it’s value and weaknesses. It’s easy to post what others have written without fully understanding or appreciating it’s strengths and weaknesses.

I have a wave of exams and papers to work on. I’ve spent enough time for now.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger, if you want to use an article to argue for or against something, summarize it in your own words and provide a link to it. Don’t post the entire thing, then expect someone to systematically address the entire 9 page article (which is how long the article was when I pasted it into an OpenOffice.org file). Otherwise, these forums would consist of nothing more than people copying and pasting entire articles, theses, and dissertations to refute other articles, theses, and dissertations.

It’s also a good idea to summarize things in one’s own words because it makes one understand what he/she is summarizing, and more likely that one appreciates it’s value and weaknesses.

I have a wave of exams and papers to work on. I’ve spent enough time for now.

As you wish:

Either God commanded the extermination of peoples, but He is not unjust. (see article for details).

OR

He did not command the extermination of peoples and this is command was not meant to be understood literally. (see article for details).

Don’t post youtube videos either, TruthSeeker. Just summarize in your own words. Otherwise this forum would just consist of nothing more than people posting youtube videos in order to refute youtube videos, eh?

 

[PRmerger]

youtube.com/watch?v=w309hbGVH6A

In the time it takes for me to watch this video, you could read the 3800 words in the article.

Fair is fair.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Interesting concept.

I wonder, though, what motivates someone to provide such heroic sacrificial love for another, even if the group wouldn’t approve?

I know of no atheist who has ever given his life motivated by love for a stranger.

Yet, in the history of Christianity, one is overwhelmed by tales of sacrificial love, motivated out of Christian principles.

Take Maximilian Kolbe. Gave his life in the concentration camp for a total stranger.

Do atheists do this?

I’m sure atheists do do heroic things.

I would speculate that one thing that motivates someone to provide such heroic sacrificial love for another, even if the group wouldn’t approve, would be for the sake of goodness itself. Or perhaps psychological reasons such as avoiding the pain of a nagging conscience for the rest of one’s life. Perhaps it could be because of seeing one’s self (or someone that one loves) in a stranger one is doing something heroic for (social psychology has confirmed that people are more likely to do good things to such individuals).

I would suspect that one reason why you “know of no atheist who has ever given his life motivated by love for a stranger” is because heroes wouldn’t really have a motive for advertising their lack of belief in a god, while heroism which may be partially motivated by religious reasons would be well-publicized (especially among religious people). Also, another thing is that most people are theists.

Side note…You might be interested in the works of social psychologist Dr. Philip Zimbardo. He wrote a book called “The Lucifer Effect” in which he explained how ordinarily good people do bad things in the wrong social situations, and why the few who wouldn’t (heroes) wouldn’t. You can find interesting lecture by him for free on Itunes U and throughout the internet entitled “The Lucifer Effect”.

Either God commanded the extermination of peoples, but He is not unjust. (see article for details).

OR

He did not command the extermination of peoples and this is command was not meant to be understood literally. (see article for details).

It seems the Israelites took Yahweh quite literally. It I remember correctly, there was a time which Yahweh became angry because they didn’t destroy everything. I can’t remember the book/chapter/verses on top of my head.

Don’t post youtube videos either, TruthSeeker. Just summarize in your own words.

First, I have.

Second, there’s a difference between 1 summarizing an argument from a source and 2 arguing something by using statistics and facts from a source, and providing a link to that source. For example, if I’m going to say that the claim by the Tuskegee Airmen that they never lost a bomber in WWII is false, I need to provide a source for some sort of documentation/evidence.

 

[PRmerger]

In the time it takes for me to watch this video, you could read the 3800 words in the article.

Fair is fair.

So I kept my end and watched the video.

Interesting.

But this was addressed centuries ago by St. Augustine. (Actually even earlier than that in the NT, but I’d rather talk about Augustine.)

Originally posted by St. Augustine:
“Love God and do what you will”.

When one is truly free, that is a freedom immersed in grace, one can do what he wills and no sin remains.

Just like I’m really free from the commandment not to kill my husband. I am not tempted in any way, shape or form to extinguish his life.

However, to the extent that I am not free from the tendency to lose my temper, I am bound by the commandment to maintain a charitable disposition. It binds me. Perhaps if there were no “commandment” to do this, I might let loose every single moment I felt like it.

Finally, my fave quote by St. Augustine, as a response to the video:

Originally posted by the one and only St. Augustine: “Does love bring about the keeping of the commandments, or does the keeping of the commandments bring about love?” And he answers: “But who can doubt that love comes first? For the one who does not love has no reason for keeping the commandments”.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m sure atheists do do heroic things.

Haha! I made you say “do do”.

Sources, please. Motivated out of love, of course, must be shown in your citations. And sacrificial love for strangers. Of one’s life.

 

[PRmerger]

I would speculate that one thing that motivates someone to provide such heroic sacrificial love for another, even if the group wouldn’t approve, would be for the sake of goodness itself.

What does that even mean, “for the sake for goodness itself”?

That’s like saying, “I’m going to cry just for the sake of crying.”

I would suspect that one reason why you “know of no atheist who has ever given his life motivated by love for a stranger” is because heroes wouldn’t really have a motive for advertising their lack of belief in a god, while heroism which may be partially motivated by religious reasons would be well-publicized (especially among religious people). Also, another thing is that most people are theists.

Ah. A conspiracy to hide sacrificial, life-saving love by atheists.

It seems the Israelites took Yahweh quite literally.

How do you know this? Just from reading the OT? If so, then you’re reading the book with the lens of someone who is “not familiar with the way literature was written at this time.” ibid

First, I have

Second, there’s a difference between 1 summarizing an argument from a source and 2 arguing something by using statistics and facts from a source, and providing a link to that source. For example, if I’m going to say that the claim by the Tuskegee Airmen that they never lost a bomber in WWII is false, I need to provide a source for some sort of documentation/evidence.

Fair enough.

Hoping you will provide a source for atheists who did heroic (even to the point of sacrificing one’s life, as St. Maximilian Kolbe did) feats motivated out of love.

 

[tonyrey]

I’d consider the inerrancy of the Bible to fit under faith, since all of christian theology hinges on the veracity of the Bible.

Your opinion is flawed by the fact that the veracity of the Bible does not depend on the literal truth of every sentence - unless you belong to certain Protestant sects.

The fact that Jesus said He came to fulfil the Law implies that it was incomplete and imperfect.

First, I wasn’t just talking about the OT. Second, I wasn’t just talking about moral matters, but also facts presented in the gospels. Third, there’s a difference between being incomplete/imperfect and being contradictory.

Incompleteness and imperfection invariably lead to error and confusion. Jesus explicitly stated “I want mercy not sacrifice”. The moral decline of the Israelites inevitably distorted some of their beliefs. Jesus referred to their hardness of hearts…

There are no accounts of the birth of a god. God was not born. The Son of God manifested Himself as a human being, born of a woman and crucified by men.
The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus was fully god and fully man. That’s why it is said that Mary is the mother of God.

But it was the** man** - God in His human nature - who was born, not the Deity. The mother of God signifies the mother of the Son of God incarnate on earth - not the mother of God in heaven.

Where are the contradictory accounts of when Jesus was born?

I covered this a long time ago on this thread (see posts 166 and 177):

The responses to your post show your dogmatism is unjustified.

I’m an atheist.

Why bother to make a redundant statement when you have already made it abundantly clear by what you write?

I reject the Bible as evidence in favor of the existence of a god because it is filled with problems. The Bible is filled with contradictions…

I have already pointed out that the writers of the Scriptures belonged to a primitive tribe. You are confusing inspiration with infallibility.

There are also moral problems with the Bible, including Psalm 137:9 indicating that dashing babies against rocks is a potential source of joy, and Yahweh mandating in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 that virgins who are raped marry the person who raped them. In Deuteronomy 28:53, Yahweh threatened to force people to eat their own children. In 2 King 2:23-23, God had bears kill 42 children because they mocked Elijah for being bald.

Your research was a waste of time and energy because it is evident from outset that Yahweh is not the loving Father revealed to us by Jesus.

I believe in the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and I am concerned about everyone, because that will make everyone happier.

You have given no rational basis for your beliefs in those principles and concern for others. A sceptic could say you have been brainwashed by the society in which you live. They’re not really your beliefs at all because you’re a cog in the machine of the universe. Accidents have no rights whatsoever! They just happen to exist for no reason or purpose at all before they disappear into the emptiness of eternity. They are just sparks in the dark… If only matter exists nothing matters… Vanity of vanities and all is vanity!

 

[tonyrey]

I would speculate that one thing that motivates someone to provide such heroic sacrificial love for another, even if the group wouldn’t approve, would be for the sake of goodness itself.

Why do you believe in goodness if the universe is amoral? Did it pop up from nowhere?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

youtube.com/watch?v=w309hbGVH6A

In the time it takes for me to watch this video, you could read the 3800 words in the article.

Fair is fair.

I wasn’t posting that video as an argument which I expected someone to refute. I summarized it’s point and provided a link to it to supplement what I was saying. This was the context:

I also want to add that one would be motivated not to do something in part because the group wouldn’t approve of it.

Also, most people wouldn’t murder, even if they could get away with it (both in this life, and a hypothetical afterlife), because psychologically, it sickens people.

youtube.com/watch?v=w309hbGVH6A

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Why do you believe in goodness if the universe is amoral?

Do you think that slavery is a good thing when god endorses it (like in Leviticus 25). If not, even when god endorses it explain why.

What about dashing babies against rock? Forced marriages (rape)? Infanticide? Forcing raped women to marry the rapist?

There are certain principles regarding behavior that I hold because they have beneficial effects on everyone. One could call these principles “morality”. However, if you’re going to claim that morality comes from your god, you have a ton of explaining to do.

Did it pop up from nowhere?

Did civil law pop out of nowhere?

Did the notion that slavery is wrong pop out of nowhere? If not, where did it come from?

 

[PRmerger]

I wasn’t posting that video as an argument which I expected someone to refute. I summarized it’s point and provided a link to it to supplement what I was saying. This was the context:

Ok. But I wasn’t posting my article as an argument which I expected someone to refute.

It was an answer to the question, asked ad nauseumin this forum (however valid) of why God commanded the extermination of many in the OT.

 

[PRmerger]

Did the notion that slavery is wrong pop out of nowhere? If not, where did it come from?

It came from Christian principles, no doubt!

Christianity saved the modern world.

Didn’t the Romans leave babies out to endure the elements?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

I don’t have enough time right now to address everything that is brought up. So I’ll just say this.

There are countless contradictions in the Bible, including contradictions on theological points. I’ve named a few previously in this thread, so look at my last posts.

An omniscient god would not allow there to be any errors of any kind in his holy book that he uses as the foundation for his religion. The Catholic Church teaches that the entire Bible is inspired, meaning it can’t be wrong in whatever literary sense (literal, liturgical, rhetorical, etc.) is without error.

One must remember, regarding morality in the OT, that an omni-benevolent god would teach what is good and what is not regardless of how moral the people he’s teaching to are. Also, Yahweh himself ordered the people be killed, forced to marry people who killed their families (rape), and forced to marry rapists.

Tonyrey, I would expect you to know what your church teaches (which it seems you don’t regarding the Incarnation unless I misinterpreted you). I’m a theology major at a Catholic college, and I’m telling you that you’re disagreeing with your own church when you say that Mary did not give birth to god. The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus was both fully man and fully god. The First Council of Nicaea in 325, the Council in Ephesus in 431, and especially the Council in Chalcedon in 451 all taught this. I was required to take a “theology of Christ” class that was all about this. Look up the Catholic teaching on the Incarnation to discover what your church teaches.

Regarding atheist heroes, I shouldn’t have to do all this work if you’re unwilling to do it. Instead of spending forever proving that people who don’t believe in god can be just as heroic as those who don’t, I’ll provide this link I quickly found by a google search:

workswithoutfaith.org/2007/04/atheist-hero-who-deserved-better.html

Also, it seems that whenever people’s faith is seriously being challenged on a forum, theists generally try to make atheists do a ton of work to avoid certain issues (like is the sadistic Yahweh in the OT doing morally acceptable things).

Regarding morality, people sometimes do things for nothing more than the good of others.

Also regarding morality, I think there are principles that if generally adopted, will benefit everyone. One may label this “morality”.

When an atheist does a good thing, he/she doesn’t credit it to his/her atheism, however when a theist does a good thing, it is often attributed to his/her religion (while the attrocities done for religious reasons are often not appreciated). If St. Kolbe’s heroic action is to be attributed to religion, then St. Thomas More’s actions of torturing and murdering people for owning a Bible in English should also be attributed to religion.

reformation.org/sir-thomas-more.html

Regarding murder, the Bible says that Joshua had everyone in various cities killed because Yahweh commanded it, which indicates that the Israelites took Yahweh’s orders to kill everyone (including women, children, and babies) seriously.

Ok. But I wasn’t posting my article as an argument which I expected someone to refute.

It was an answer to the question, asked ad nauseumin this forum (however valid) of why God commanded the extermination of many in the OT.

PRmerger, if you weren’t posting that article as something to refute the other side (and hence putting the burden of refuting it on the other side), why did you post the entire thing, as opposed to just posting a link? If someone wanted to make the opposite point, would it be appropriate for them to just post an entire article like you did?

If you’re going to use arguments from another source to make a point here, use your own words to summarize.

It came from Christian principles, no doubt!

Christianity saved the modern world.

Didn’t the Romans leave babies out to endure the elements?

If that’s so, it took Christianity a long time to figure that out.

Where do the anti-slavery Christian principles you’re talking about come from? Is it Leviticus 25? In not, whatever it is seems to contradict Leviticus 25.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

He could, but that would take out their chance to back out. God knows you can go to heaven or hell, and he knows every possible path you can take to each. Why would an all-knowing, all-loving being wipe somebody off the face of the earth - even destroy their own soul - when he knows it is possible, if not certain, that they will change on their deathbed (if not earlier). Also note he could “push” them towards heaven, sometimes harder than other times.

God could also make them cease to exist even after death as well, but chooses not to I guess.

If you don’t mind me asking, what is your focus in your theology study? Like, OT Scholarship, NT Scholarship, Biblical Archeology, moral theology, Church tradition, comparative religion, etc.?

The theology program I’m in is a general Catholic theology program with no specific focus. Students are required to take classes in several subjects within Catholic theology, including moral theology, studies of the OT, studies of the NT, christology, soteriology, sacraments, theology of the church, as well as upper level electives and a thesis. According to the university, it has the most theology majors out of all the Catholic colleges in the US. Professors from the theology department frequently appear on EWTN (both tv and radio).

BTW, the school takes the Catholic faith very seriously. I think about one out of three students goes to Mass everyday.

 

[PRmerger]

An omniscient god would not allow there to be any errors of any kind in his holy book that he uses as the foundation for his religion.

Not allow errors of *any *kind? Who says?

Not allow any theological errors? You betcha!

The Catholic Church teaches that the entire Bible is inspired, meaning it can’t be wrong in whatever literary sense (literal, liturgical, rhetorical, etc.) is without error.

No. That is not what The Catholic Church proclaims in stating that the Scriptures are theopneustos.

One must remember, regarding morality in the OT, that an omni-benevolent god would teach what is good and what is not regardless of how moral the people he’s teaching to are.

Why would he have to do this is this way?

Also, Yahweh himself ordered the people be killed, forced to marry people who killed their families (rape), and forced to marry rapists.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Regarding atheist heroes, I shouldn’t have to do all this work if you’re unwilling to do it.

I’m unwilling to do what?

PRmerger, if you weren’t posting that article as something to refute the other side (and hence putting the burden of refuting it on the other side), why did you post the entire thing, as opposed to just posting a link?

It’s really quite simple. I know many people won’t take the extra step to click on a link. So I just provided it for them.

If someone wanted to make the opposite point, would it be appropriate for them to just post an entire article like you did?

I dunno.

You could try and see the response you get, I suppose.

If you’re going to use arguments from another source to make a point here, use your own words to summarize.

Fair enough.

Can I cite youtube videos?