| |
|
|
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:Feb 2, 2007
|
|
dog my friend,
How have you been?
I admit that I'm jumping in here without catching on the debate but I do have a question...
.Murder is murder, rape is rape, stealing is stealing ... period. It is rather amusing actually that so many people of faith claim that atheists and agnostics have no moral foundation when they seem to have a more stable moral foundation that the very people of faith pointing fingers at them.How do they seem to have a more stable foundation?
Also, as a Christian, I look at stealing and murder on the same level as wrong.
Would you look at them in the same light or is one worst then the other?
For the record I don't feel that atheist/agnostics have no morals.
|
|
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 22, 2006
|
|
dog
Are you aware that 20-30% of all pregnancies end in natural abortions? Given that every life is created by God, that would make God the greatest abortionist in the history of the species.
These are called miscarriages. There is a huge difference between wilfully taking the life of the innocent unborn, and something occurring to the woman that is beyond her control. Why does God permit the unborn child to miscarry? The same reason that evil exists in the World until His return. He permits it for a time, so that ultimately, all will have a chance to repent and believe. The unborn are innocent and return to the Father's care and keeping. He is God, we are not. It may be, if that child were born he/she may have been a mass murderer, caused untold pain and anguish, or maybe they would have been perfectly fine. We don't know. We trust in God to be true to His nature and do the right thing.
Second, I have to ask what your stance is on fertility clinics. Given that the claim is that life begins at conception, and it takes literally hundreds of fertilized eggs to establish which will be implanted, fertility clinics far surpass the number of abortions annually.
My informed opinion is that they should be made available to infertile couples to adopt by allowing implantation and birth.
My opinion regarding the moral stories is rather well founded in both the Biblical text and our standards of moral behavior, last I checked, all of the following are unacceptable:
These are your opinions, and based on this, you presume to sit in judgment of God?
1) turning your daughters over so that a mob may "know them"
2) incest
3) murdering your child because the voices in your head tell you to do so
4) Murdering first born sons for the acts of another
5) Holding children guilty for the sins of the father
6) genocidal campaigns ordered by God
The use of the terms murder and genocide are pejorative.
So you support genocidal campaigns? Murdering children? Would abortions be okay if the mothers and daughters claimed that God told them to do it? How about executing children for the crimes of their fathers?
This phraseology isn't intended to be objective and rational, but provacative. I will give you an alternative, more rational rendering. There are times when God orders things to be done that were men to do them would be error. God can exact justice upon people who sin individually, and as a nation. No earthly judge has that right.
The incident of turning the daughter over to the mob was to prevent the rape of angels, which would have provoked the wrath of God and the destruction of the city- a better outcome?
The incest was not order, nor condoned by God, but once done, was not allowed to prevent the continued relationship between God and His people. If you are referring to the case in which the two daughters got their father drunk and seduced him in his sleep.
The others, I have no idea what you are referring to.
Genocide against the Canaanites was because of their own sins prior to the entry of Israel into the land. That was a judgment of God against the heinous and corrupt idolatry and evil that they encouraged and perpetuated in their culture- human sacrifice and temple prostitution, to name two.
God is God, we are not.
|
|
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 14, 2006
|
|
Wildjj....
was saying (in response to another post) that none of us blame him for feeling hurt and pain from what happened. However, every single one of us feels hurt and pain, some more so than others, but we all have to make decision for ourselves. Regardless of what life brings our way, it is up to us to decide what we will do.
So what are you saying? You wouldn't blame him, but God would? That would seem to entail that you are not following the example of God on this matter...or that you don't agree with his ethics concerning this scenario.
You don't blame him, but he is responsible for his actions towards the God that let it happen?
This is like saying if I were raped and went out to kill the person who raped me, then not many people would blame me, but I would still be held responsible for my actions in the eyes of the law. I think this is fallous, because I would have never went out to kill anybody if I wasn't raped in the first place. Yes, there is a level of accountability on my part, but the majority lies with the transgressor....and if I didn't kill him then it shouldn't matter what he does after the fact, he is still guily of his transgressions and deserves punishment.
Any God that would let the rapist in heaven while closing the gate on the victim is not morally just.
|
|
|
Reputation:98
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 11, 2006
|
|
Gators,
I am truly sorry that you have drawn this conclusion for yourself. It doesn't have to be that way. I will pray for you.
Thanks for the sentiment!
I don't actually believe the scripture that I was reading was inspired by God so it's not that big of a deal to me what John thought. However I am interested in what people think today because it affects my life. The idea of Hell, anti-christs, and Infidels have an extremely negative stigma associated with them and this is unecessarily IMO due to hard to beleive ancient texts written by folks who were less equipped to analyze reality. I doubt most of these books would have ever been written (as non-fiction) if we knew then what we know today through science and technology. The human need to explain everything led ancient people to speculate beyond their technological capacity. 2,000 years later it is still engrained so deeply that it is extremely hard to let go in spite of now existing evidence to explain some of the unanswerable questions of that time. Not everything mind you has been answerd but enough that we should be able to break the ties from old ideas and start from scratch under new premises.
So let me get it started...
In the beginning of this particular universe approximately 13.7 billion years ago there was a massive and rapid expansion which we now refer to as the Big Bang. We now know on at least one planet within that universe life began and has evolved over a few billion years. It is not yet demonstrable how the expansion or life got started but it may be some day. It is possible that there is an eternal entity known as God responsible for one or both but not necessarily either. It is also possible that the universe itself is eternal in some form and life got it's start naturally. Neither idea can be demonstrated with an accuracy at this time but we will leave this open to be ammended with future discoveries. Either way it is impossible to prove that God does not exist so you will always be entitled to that belief.
|
|
|
Reputation:98
Level:Superstar
Since:Nov 6, 2006
|
rjd and wild,
I've been reading your correspondences concerning the rapist and the child. Perhaps I am out of place, but I'd like to add my two cents, a question of interpretation.
Any God that would let the rapist in heaven while closing the gate on the victim is not morally just.I have read this multiple times. As I read it and reread it, it assumes that if a person is victimized that they get a free pass to heaven or if the rapists received forgiveness and makes it into heaven, the rapists victim(s) should get also get a free pass into heaven. This would be justice. And if the victim does not make it into heaven, that is an injustice.
Am I reading this correctly?
-Hicks
|
|
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 18, 2006
|
I think I may have solved the priest and boy dilemma. Apparently all the boy needs to do is relocate to a planet that is free from original sin.
Vatican says aliens could exist
By David Willey
BBC News, Rome
The Pope's chief astronomer says that life on Mars cannot be ruled out.
Writing in the Vatican newspaper, the astronomer, Father Gabriel Funes, said intelligent beings created by God could exist in outer space.
Father Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory near Rome, is a respected scientist who collaborates with universities around the world.
The search for forms of extraterrestrial life, he says, does not contradict belief in God.
The official Vatican newspaper headlines his article 'Aliens Are My Brother'.
'Free from sin'
Just as there are multiple forms of life on earth, so there could exist intelligent beings in outer space created by God. And some aliens could even be free from original sin, he speculates.
Asked about the Catholic Church's condemnation four centuries ago of the Italian astronomer and physicist, Galileo, Father Funes diplomatically says mistakes were made, but it is time to turn the page and look towards the future.
Science and religion need each other, and many astronomers believe in God, he assures readers.
To strengthen its scientific credentials, the Vatican is organising a conference next year to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of the author of the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin.
|
|
|
Reputation:96
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 22, 2006
|
Cher
In the beginning of this particular universe approximately 13.7 billion years ago there was a massive and rapid expansion which we now refer to as the Big Bang. We now know on at least one planet within that universe life began and has evolved over a few billion years. It is not yet demonstrable how the expansion or life got started but it may be some day. It is possible that there is an eternal entity known as God responsible for one or both but not necessarily either. It is also possible that the universe itself is eternal in some form and life got it's start naturally. Neither idea can be demonstrated with an accuracy at this time but we will leave this open to be ammended with future discoveries. Either way it is impossible to prove that God does not exist so you will always be entitled to that belief.I maintain a healthy skepticism, however, it wouldn't rock my World if this turns out to be true. I am fascinated by the deep space photos and surveys from the new generation of telescopes. The colors are astounding. I am also a Trekkie, so I have fun speculating about those types of things. One of my favorite authors wrote a classic that I still occasionally read, The Foundation Trilogy. I find Asimov's intellect appealing and his writing authentic (although the three volumes were written in the 50s). I particularly like Star Trek: The Next Generation and Voyager. There are so many ethical dilemmas and conundra. The Prime Directive, for example encounters many paradoxes.
|
|
|
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:Oct 18, 2007
|
Dog, that would work for you as a non-believer who feels the bible could be inaccurate. As a believer who thinks the bible is written accurately, I have to go with the 3 L's. Jesus made the claims, either we believe them or we don't.
Okay, then I'll have to go with "we don't."
|
|
|
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:Oct 18, 2007
|
'papa
Still numerous problems with your numerous posts. I'll compress them into one reply:
1) I'll repeat, no one claims that the Constitution is the inerrant word of God or that it is perfect. In fact the framers of the Constitution gave it built in provisions to revise it, which has been done 27 times. The two documents are not synonymous because, yet again, Christians claim the Bible is the inerrant word of God, Americans make no such claim regarding the Constitution.
2) Your argument regarding people leaving the church or political parties actually flies in the face of the existing data. The #1 determinant for political affiliation or religious affiliation is parental affiliation. The rebellious teens do exist, but generally speaking they revert to their parent's affiliation or never completely rebel.
Finally yet again you seem to have this need to project your own inner emptiness upon others. Just because you might have been searching for greater meaning, etc., and came here, doesn't mean it motivates the rest of us who don't share your new found faith. Personally I find the conversation interesting even when I don't agree with it. Also, while I could simply dismiss people of faith as deluded, or simpletons, for believing what I myself have decided is simply a book, instead I strive to understand them because there has to be a reason why otherwise intelligent and logical people suspend their logic. I haven't figured it out yet, but I am rather persistent when it comes to learning and curiosity. Simple truth is this:
Skeptics don't accomplish anything if they dismiss people of faith as delusional or stupid.
People of faith don't accomplish anything if they dismiss skeptics as soulless or lost.
You always want to revert to that claim that we must be searching for something, assuming that what we are searching for is the faith that you feel you found. Instead I believe most of us who are skeptics are searching for knowledge. Also, I don't think many of the faithful here would honestly try to claim that Rjd, Cher, or myself lack morals as many faithful who haven't bothered to talk to agnostics or atheists simply assume.
Acquiring Knowledge, in and of itself, is a valid reason to spend time.
|
|
|
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:Oct 18, 2007
|
It is simply impossible and undesirable to divorce ourselves (believers) from the indwelling Holy Spirit in order to achieve some amorphus "objectivity" that might be acceptable to unbelievers. We have beaten the canard of the "slavery" issue to death. The most important slavery from our perspective is bondage to sin. We have physical bondage of many kinds in this life. They are important, but not of ultimate importance.
Actually you have desperately avoided addressing the slavery "issue" to no end, that doesn't change the moral relativity of the Bible. On one hand it tells you to love thy neighbor, on the other it tells you an eye for an eye. At least you finally admit that it isn't the skeptic who is biased in the evaluation of the Bible, but the believer.
I am sorry you felt the need to reject the whole due to defective understanding. Many others accept this challenge, grow in their knowledge, and still maintain both their spiritual and intellectual integrity intact.
My understanding isn't defective, your faith skews your understanding and blinds you to the obvious contradictions. I know we aren't going to get anywhere with this argument because I will simply point out flaws, failings, and contradictions in the Bible and you will perform mental gymnastics in an effort to convince everyone here that they don't exist. While I do enjoy a good circus act, it really wont solve anything.
Suffice it to say that the actual problem lies in the role of the Bible. I am willing to accept many of the teachings portrayed in the New Testament as valid and noble goals to achieve, much as the other major religions all contain noble teachings and paths to a better life. The problem is that I simply don't see it as the inerrant word of God. You have no logical reason for doing so, in fact you claim this in spite of the multitude of logical reasons not to accept this. So kindly drop the arrogant "defective understanding" claim when it is instead your biased "understanding" tempered by your faith. Yet again, as has been mentioned over and over again, skeptics dismiss your Bible as the inerrant Word of God for the same reason you dismiss all of the other claims of the "false" religions. You are simply unable, or unwilling, to see the same flaws in your own "magic book."
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, all of the major and most of the minor faiths all contain truths, paths to living a better life, etc. Simple fact is, I can accept those elements of all of them and, at the same time, dismiss all of their claims to be the word of God(s).
Some posit all taking of life as murder, making no distinction between war (just), execution (due process by law), or self defense. I do not. Israel was a theocracy. Many times leaders were commanded to enforce the law by taking life. We could get more specific, case by case. Simply saying that we disagree doesn't mean that the Bible encourages murder. That is simply not accurate. Some actions recorded in the Bible are also cautionary tales told to teach what not to do. Many simply don't make these distinctions. The fault is not with the Scripture, but with faulty interpretations. That proves little, if anything.
We can agree to disagree, agreeably.
This is a rather weak cop out, much like your inability to deal with the portrayal of slavery in the Bible. Show me where, in international law, in US law, in the concept of the modern industrialized world, the slaughter of innocent women and children is condoned. In the Bible the murder of children is ORDERED. How is this not the encouragement of murder? This isn't due process, this isn't self defense, this isn't a just war, this is the wholesale slaughter of innocent children accompanied by the enslavement of those who survive. This wasn't tacitly approved as a necessary evil (which would still be morally bankrupt), this wasn't a cautionary tale, this was ORDERED.
|
|
|
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:Oct 18, 2007
|
How do they seem to have a more stable foundation?Because if you read the Bible literally, as many of you are want to do, then the Bible not only condones, but commands the murder of innocent children, rape, incest, genocide, etc. In the New Testament, not so much. By today's standards, not allowed, except for some Christians when it comes to homosexuals, who some still believed should be stoned to death, etc.
Very hazy set of morals.
Statistically agnostics and atheists are less likely to do these things that Judeo-Christian history is full of.
Also, as a Christian, I look at stealing and murder on the same level as wrong.
Would you look at them in the same light or is one worst then the other?
As the same level of wrong? No, I don't see them that way. Both are wrong and should be punished, when possible restitution should also be made, but stealing a candy bar isn't as bad as robbing someone at gunpoint which isn't as bad as shooting someone which isn't as bad as slowly torturing someone to death.
And really, history and modern criminal justice argue that while Christians may claim that they are all equal crimes, the fact that there have been separate punishments for these crimes for centuries does not support that claim. Even in England, where you had over 200 crimes that resulted in the death penalty, you still had other crimes that didn't and, in the case of truly heinous crimes, they added dismemberment at a medical college, the idea being that you would then spend all eternity in limbo.
|
|
