Here are some of the first few lines from a Slayer song:
Drones Since The Dawn Of Time; compelled To Live Your Sheltered Lives; not Once Has Anyone Ever Seen such A Rise Of Pure Hypocricy;
i'll Instigate I'll Free Your Mind i'll Show You What I've Known All This Time;
god Hates Us All, God Hates Us All you Know It's True, God Hates This Place you Know It's True, He Hates This Race
homicide-Suicide hate Heals, You Should Try It Sometime; strive For Peace With Acts Of War; the Beauty Of Death We All Adore; i Have No Faith Distracting Me; i Know Why Your Prayers Will Never Be Answered
god Hates Us All, God Hates Us All
---------- I guess free will is a good thing, eh? Isn't the giver of a gift responsible for how people who receive that gift use it if the giver also knows in advance they will cause great harm to themselves and to others? YES OR NO?
Would a mother give a razor blade to a two-year old child? If she did, wouldn't she be held responsible for how that child used it? Then why not God? Why not God?
Yes, so now this alleged god can add deicide to humanity's list of crimes that deserve his anger.
2 Thessalonians 2 '... from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.'
God died for the Jews, so now his wrath has fallen upon the Jews for killing Jesus.
Yeah, free will is a good thing, John. It allowed you to walk away from a religion you could no longer believe in.
You're given the power to kill God and remove all remembrance of God from any mind you wish; yours, mine, anyone you choose. And you're given the power to heal the damage done with this God and his people. Can you project into that future and tell yourself, with complete certainty, that the angry or insane won't pick up guns and kill innocent people?
Gawd, some of you commenters are so dense. Making the comment "God hates us all" is not an admission of the existence of god, but an inference that if god exists, he's a freakin' hateful, evil, irresponsible bastard. And since that idea is pretty absurd even though the preponderance of evidence would show that to be the case, the logical and reasonable conclusion is: There is no god.
Sheesh, it's like trying to explain a joke. If you don't "get it," it's ridiculous to try to explain it, and it just kills the impact of the message trying to get through some peoples' obtuse denseness.
(Personally, I thought the video was lame. Even though it makes a good point showing the evidence that if god did exist, he's worthy of contempt and hate and not devotion and worship--unless you're talking about the kind of devotion and worship a wife-beating, child molesting husband instills in his family.)
I guess free will is a good thing, eh? Isn't the giver of a gift responsible for how people who receive that gift use it if the giver also knows in advance they will cause great harm to themselves and to others? YES OR NO
The answer is short is obviously Yes. "Thou shalt not kill" is the point, yes? That a just God condones war and killing on one page but then an another page orders us not to kill.
I don't even pretend to know the answer to this question, John. I'm searching for answers, too. I'm angry about the contradictions, as well.
But given the opportunity to start completely over again in a society where God doesn't exist in anyone, I'm not so sure we'd do things any differently.
Gypsy, then you agree God is responsible! Then how can your God be perfectly good?
Gypsy said...But given the opportunity to start completely over again in a society where God doesn't exist in anyone, I'm not so sure we'd do things any differently.
The world as we see it is better explained by the absence of God, since this is what we'd expect if there wasn't a perfectly good God.
BTW Cole, I found this video at your site. I'm glad you showed up!
I'm going to answer these questions in reverse order...
Would a mother give a razor blade to a two-year old child? If she did, wouldn't she be held responsible for how that child used it?
Yes, she would be held accountable. Clearly a 2 year old does not have the capacity to handle a razor blade, unless they have some physical proficiency they don't know about.
Then why not God? Why not God?
I'd hold God responsible too if he magically made a razor blade appear in the hands of a two-year old.
The problem I have is you jump from the specific to the general in one fell swoop. Free will is such a larger concept than a single two-year old. In addition, you're making the jump from a single person to all of humanity in a broad stroke as well.
Would that same mother be held accountable if she gave the same razor blade to her 17 year-old son? The answer is no. He has the capacity to understand the mechanics of the blade, its uses, its consequences. From there, he becomes responsible for his actions, successfully shaving his face, scraping junk off a windshield, or using it to injure others.
I guess free will is a good thing, eh? Isn't the giver of a gift responsible for how people who receive that gift use it if the giver also knows in advance they will cause great harm to themselves and to others? YES OR NO?
You attach the condition that the the giver knows what's going to happen and you attach the premise to all of mankind. Mankind is accountable for their actions, not the god that gives it to them. We've reached a point now where we know how to act and what is evil. After that innocence phase where we're still learning things (the two-year old), the ball is in our court (the 17 year-old). You become responsible for your actions, because you know what is better.
The same free will that allows the killers to do their thing also enables the Mother Theresas to do their own thing. I believe the good things being accomplished in this world outweigh the evils that are present. This doesn't mean that the ends justify the means or that I approve of the evil. I believe that free will is a good thing that has been granted to us, knowing what the consequences are of the issue.
Dillie-O said...Would that same mother be held accountable if she gave the same razor blade to her 17 year-old son?
No. A 17 year old is more responsible than a 2 yr old, and that's my point. A parent will only grant gifts to her children as they have the responsibility to handle them. At the age or 18 we consider them adults. But what if the mother gave a 17 yr old some vodka to drink, or bought him some illegal drugs, or gave him a semi-automatic weapon, or a hand grenade, or allowed him to repeatedly sleep with a girl in his room? Her parental responsibility is not over until he becomes an adult, and even then some. At that point my anology ceases to be effective for the point I want to make, since it's about parental responsibility. However, God's supposed parental responsibility over us never ceases.
John, it's very difficult to be Christian and not ask these kinds of questions. I feel I'd be irrepsonsbile by not asking them.
I stomp my foot down and demand answers and get quite angry when they don't come; I spit, sometimes literally.
Yes - in the light of these questions God doesn't (seem) good at all. He seems more like a dangerous trickster.
I may have simply been fortunate to have been spared the fundementalist experience...I don't feel the slightest hint of condemnation for asking him these questions.
Gypsy said...But given the opportunity to start completely over again in a society where God doesn't exist in anyone, I'm not so sure we'd do things any differently.
The world as we see it is better explained by the absence of God, since this is what we'd expect if there wasn't a perfectly good God.
I liked your answer well enough, but it's a bit too late now, isn't it. Goinng back to the first time I asked..would we or wouldn't we?
Dillie-O, so you really think "We've reached a point now where we know how to act and what is evil"?
That's blind faith, my friend. The existence of all the evil humans cause in the world is solid evidence against that claim of yours. How does it feel to believe AGAINST the evidence?
Dillie-O said I believe the good things being accomplished in this world outweigh the evils that are present.
You may be right about this for all I can tell, especially if you live in the West and have been raised in a good home in a good neigborhood.
But that doesn't answer anything if a perfectly good God exists. The question isn't whether the good outweighs the bad in this world from the use of our free will (not to mention the terrible natural disasters in it). The question is why there is so much suffering in this world if a perfectly good God exists. And even that doesn't end it either, for then you'd also have to explain how the sufferings of the "many" in hell in the next world is worth this present one.
Take you and I for example (assuming this is true of you). I have never suffered very much, and I suppose you haven't either--at least not as much by far as those pictured in this video. And yet this is a tough life, one that tests us suficiently, correct? Then if God can test you and I sufficiently without this much suffering, why do others have to suffer so much? You surely cannot suppose you and I are different than others such that we don't need to be tested? Evidence suggests we are all similar as human beings.
---- Chris, then you have a problem. God knew humans would do what we do when he gave us the gift of free will. Is God so sadistic that he did it for his glory? Why does he need any glory? What kind of glory is it that builds a castle in heaven on the backs of billions of screaming people? Why wouldn't it be better not to have created at all? To create such a world is simply NOT an expression of love! Besides, as a triune God he didn't need anything.
That's blind faith, my friend. The existence of all the evil humans cause in the world is solid evidence against that claim of yours. How does it feel to believe AGAINST the evidence?
How is that blind faith. Sure there are exceptions to the norm, but you know that killing people randomly is wrong. Sleeping with somebody outside of marriage is wrong. We realized creating the atomic bomb to drop on other people was wrong. If I walk up to you on the street, yank your iPod out of your hands and keeping going, what's the initial reaction? It's "Hey, you stole my stuff, you can't do that." I'm not talking about whether or not cloning is good or evil, but we know what good and evil is.
But that doesn't answer anything if a perfectly good God exists. The question isn't whether the good outweighs the bad in this world from the use of our free will (not to mention the terrible natural disasters in it). The question is why there is so much suffering in this world if a perfectly good God exists. And even that doesn't end it either, for then you'd also have to explain how the sufferings of the "many" in hell in the next world is worth this present one.
Now we're looking at goodness and justice. If there is a perfectly good God who has bestowed this free will thing on us, and there are people not doing good deeds, does he just let it slide since "Ooops, I gave this free will thing to everybody?" No, there is justice to enforce the deeds we have done.
This goes back to the quick reply you had to me earlier. Giving you the razor blade to use as you please doesn't mean you're immune from the fact that murder is wrong and there is a penalty for doing so. Why do you believe that God's parental responsibility for us never ceases?
Take you and I for example (assuming this is true of you). I have never suffered very much, and I suppose you haven't either--at least not as much by far as those pictured in this video. And yet this is a tough life, one that tests us suficiently, correct? Then if God can test you and I sufficiently without this much suffering, why do others have to suffer so much? You surely cannot suppose you and I are different than others such that we don't need to be tested? Evidence suggests we are all similar as human beings.
'Tis the eternal question in my mind at the moment. I would ask you the same question. Why do we have it so good while other people suffer endlessly?
Chris, is there any wonder why I tire of you? I provided a link answering your question. Did you read it? Sure, you may still disagree with me, but I answered it. Here's something else I wrote on the topic.
Now why won't you attempt a reasonable answer to my questions?
Dillie-O, I think a good case can be made that the reason people do what they do is because they have concluded that what they are about to do is good. Reasonable people do what we do because we think it is the best thing to do under the present circumstances. Do you really dispute that? Apart from mentally challenged people in varying degrees, or people with a Freudian "death wish," reasonable people only do what they think is the best action under any set of circumstances.
Dillie-O said...Now we're looking at goodness and justice.
Justice, if it's to be true justice, must be good. A God who punished us more severely than our crimes deserved is not being good.
Why do you believe that God's parental responsibility for us never ceases?
I don't believe in God, silly. You tell me how a perfectly good God should behave. I was primarily refering to this life anyway, but I do think it should apply in the next one if God is perfectly good. Why don't you?
Dillie-O said...I would ask you the same question. Why do we have it so good while other people suffer endlessly?
Shit happens. At least I have an answer. You don't.
Dillie-O, I think a good case can be made that the reason people do what they do is because they have concluded that what they are about to do is good. Reasonable people do what we do because we think it is the best thing to do under the present circumstances. Do you really dispute that? Apart from mentally challenged people in varying degrees, or people with a Freudian "death wish," reasonable people only do what they think is the best action under any set of circumstances.
So if I think it is reasonable to kill John Loftus, and you think it is unreasonable to kill John Loftus, do we have a differing of opinion, or is one of us wrong? I don't know how I'm taking things on blind faith by accepting that we know evil or good as you originally had mentioned.
Justice, if it's to be true justice, must be good. A God who punished us more severely than our crimes deserved is not being good. True. If a perfect God does exist though, how can he live with those that are imperfect. Isn't separation from that perfection a sufficient punishment?
I don't believe in God, silly. You tell me how a perfectly good God should behave. I was primarily refering to this life anyway, but I do think it should apply in the next one if God is perfectly good. Why don't you?
Yes silly, I know you don't believe in God, but you said this a little while back...
However, God's supposed parental responsibility over us never ceases.
I want to know where your rationale for this never ceasing parental responsibility is coming from.
Shit happens. At least I have an answer. You don't.
People suck. That's my answer. Yeah we've learned to play nice, but ultimately we're selfish people. 8^D
Dillie-O said...So if I think it is reasonable to kill John Loftus, and you think it is unreasonable to kill John Loftus, do we have a differing of opinion, or is one of us wrong?
What exactly does this have to do with anything I wrote? Are you echoing Chris' irrelevant point here? I already answered this in the links provided. Did YOU read them? Here's another link.
Dillie-O said...If a perfect God does exist though, how can he live with those that are imperfect. Isn't separation from that perfection a sufficient punishment?
If a parent of a 10 year old decides to punish him by abandoning him to fend for himself, is that a good punishment? And is it truly good justice to punish people if they do not know they are doing wrong? [This takes us back to what I said earlier, if you should choose to actually comment on it].
Dillie-O said...People suck. That's my answer. Yeah we've learned to play nice, but ultimately we're selfish people.
And whom do you think created us in the first place? You'd think a perfectly good God would've either done better than this, or not created us like we are at all. As but two examples, your God could've created us all with one skin color, and revealed himself more clearly so there wouldn't be such a wide diversity of religious opinions. If he had done either of these things, or both of them, there would be less suffering, slavery and war in our world. And that's just two of many many suggestions I have, coming as they do from an imperfect non-omniscient being. ;-)
"There have been certain ethical improvements over the years which makes Hitler look better when compared to Genghis Khan"
John,
Is this some kind of replacement theology you've come up with? Humanity is wiping out evil, one petty dictator at a time?
So using your "rational self interest" ethic, Hitler was more evolved and more rational than Genghis Khan, or more evolved and less self interersted?
You tire of me? Really?
How many houses did you help rebuild in the aftermath of Katrina? I know at least 30 people who aren't tired of me.
But since you don't suffer fools at all, let alone gladly, on to question answering.
Question: Is God so sadistic that he did it for his glory? Answer: He gave us free will so that we can freely choose him or reject him. People who use their free will to destroy, to plunder, to rape, to descimate, to subjegate have rejected him, freely. People who use their free will to reason their way into a God free existence, have rejected him, freely. Simple.
Question: Why does he need any glory? Answer: I'm sure he doesn't need it, but I'm equally sure he appreciates it. Why do you like to be appreciated (glorified) for your work?
Question: What kind of glory is it that builds a castle in heaven on the backs of billions of screaming people? Answer: Not sure what this means. If you mean that by exercing his free will, God gives us free will, and further, if the free exercise of that will by humans results in human suffering is utlimately God's responsibility, then I would say ok. But who is God responsible to? You? What about the people who exercise their free will by denying you yours? What is their responsibility? Do you hold them responsible at all?
Question: Why wouldn't it be better not to have created at all? Answer: Sorry, can't begin to think of an answer to this. Cat's out of the bag.
Chris, you win. I give up. I must do other things right now, but ouch! You really zinged me with those pat answers. I just hope you think about them, that's all.
As I go, let me leave you with a long discussion about free will, here.
Since you finally got around to reading at least one of my links and pulling at least one quote out of them, maybe you'll do likewise with my most important post of all, since the issue of free will is what we're talking about here.
Well, I will say that I haven't had time to check out the entire DC archive since I started seeing this place in July or so. That said, here's the transcript of my statement
** ------ **
Dillie-O: You attach the condition that the the giver knows what's going to happen and you attach the premise to all of mankind. Mankind is accountable for their actions, not the god that gives it to them. We've reached a point now where we know how to act and what is evil. After that innocence phase where we're still learning things (the two-year old), the ball is in our court (the 17 year-old). You become responsible for your actions, because you know what is better.
John: Dillie-O, so you really think "We've reached a point now where we know how to act and what is evil"?
That's blind faith, my friend. The existence of all the evil humans cause in the world is solid evidence against that claim of yours. How does it feel to believe AGAINST the evidence?
Dillie-O: How is that blind faith. Sure there are exceptions to the norm, but you know that killing people randomly is wrong. Sleeping with somebody outside of marriage is wrong. We realized creating the atomic bomb to drop on other people was wrong. If I walk up to you on the street, yank your iPod out of your hands and keeping going, what's the initial reaction? It's "Hey, you stole my stuff, you can't do that." I'm not talking about whether or not cloning is good or evil, but we know what good and evil is.
John: Dillie-O, I think a good case can be made that the reason people do what they do is because they have concluded that what they are about to do is good. Reasonable people do what we do because we think it is the best thing to do under the present circumstances. Do you really dispute that? Apart from mentally challenged people in varying degrees, or people with a Freudian "death wish," reasonable people only do what they think is the best action under any set of circumstances.
Dillie-O: So if I think it is reasonable to kill John Loftus, and you think it is unreasonable to kill John Loftus, do we have a differing of opinion, or is one of us wrong? I don't know how I'm taking things on blind faith by accepting that we know evil or good as you originally had mentioned.
John: What exactly does this have to do with anything I wrote? Are you echoing Chris' irrelevant point here? I already answered this in the links provided. Did YOU read them? Here's another link.
** ------ **
So correct my misunderstanding here. I believe we have an inherent sense of right and wrong, and that we are accountable for those actions. We are held accountable for this, hence the free will and how we can't blame God for the evil deeds humans do. Now somewhere along the way you said that this inherent knowledge of good and evil is a "blind faith" thing and that our right and wrong is based on what we feel is reasonable at the time, hence the reasonable to kill John Loftus little ditty. So where did I err here in a blind faith?
Alas, I feel we are straying into a circle, but that's just me. I always thought it would be great of God created chlorophyll type features into us, then we'd all be green and there would be no racism or world hunger, but apparently the diversity is better. Imagine if we were all just one color, how bland would that be?
The point is there is no god. If there were, and it allowed such evil; then the ability to discuss god in terms of omni-anything would mandate that god, if it existed, is also evil. In fact, if you believe in satan, then you must conclude the evil in god as he created and unleashed satan on mankind.
It is not possible for those who live in reality not to see the malevolence in the world. We also believe that religion does nothing to aid in the betterment of mankind. A non-theist philosophy however can aid society by teaching against such problems, to deal with life realistically instead of magically with the idea of divine intervention. Intervention which to date has never happened.
People are responsible for their actions and our society needs to promote personal responsibility not prayer.
It was quite obvious in the video that the problems featured stem from humans acting out their aggression on others while believing they will not be held accountable.
If the abortionist or the dictator or even the president who orders the invasion truly believed that their soul would be toast for what they are doing, would they still do it? No, of course not.
The idea "God hates us all" as a statement that God either does not exist or is evil is a tautology. "God hates us all" because we hate each other, therefore we blame God, therefore "God must hate us all". I suppose God hates the Cubs also.
Hi guys, very interesting post J.Loftus albeit somewhat bizarre, bearing in mind the nature of it, plus that 'horrendous' film clip added-which made my blood curdle....By the way I've checked out the "Free-will" blog attachment which you added back in september, found it quite informative -although quite lengthy- & there are 1-2 points i'd like to pick up on regarding this posting. You keep mentioning the fact that if a "child" is handed a razor-blade then the "mother" would be held responsible for her actions well, to be as concise as possible: the "mothers" actions would almost certainly be considered an act of 'blatant failure' to have taken due care of that "childs" safety, furthermore she will be held fully accountable for it's behaviour as a result of her 'mindlessness' -therefore would be regarded as tantamount to committing "Infanticide" herself.
The other point i want to make is this business about GOD...I know this site is all about D.Xianity, but for the life of me just can't seem to get my head around this notion of God this, God that, this God, that God; God is Omni this, Omni that & Omni everything else to boot! Why don't we all accept it; that God is merely an invention & is therefore "Manmade", so everything you find in the 'Scriptures' are henceforth, -just an invention period- to make an analogy; suppose you were given a 'radio making kit' for Christmas & didn't have the foggiest in how to put all those 'kit pieces' together, now without an explanatory guide/manual wouldn't get very far with it unless of course you was the person who devised it in the first place?....So why can't we just live with the fact that 'Religious minded' folk are & will always be at the 'behest' of those that CONTROL their 'faith' & all the baggage that comes with it....seems that the "Dummies" used as 'suicide bombers' are the more susceptible in this "Mentally challenging" world/climate we're living in, & can't see this trend altering in the foreseeable future, unless of course GOD performs one of his well documented "Miracles"....all the best & good wishes to you all!!!....
- How can there be any freewill for anyone (including god) if god knew everything before he created anything? This is a logical contradiction. Freewill depends on choice and timelines and uncertainty. There are no timelines to an entity that is timeless, and knows everything. There is no uncertainty.
- We don't have as much freewill as we imagine we do because of biological factors.
- Someone tell me why Canaanite religion is mythology and Israelite religion is not mythology when Israelite heritage is Canaanite.
- Is there a christian consensus on whether or not there was an adam and Eve? This makes a difference in the "God gave us freewill and then we mucked it up" claim
- If there was an adam and eve, just when did they pop into existence, 10,000 bc?
- If there wasn't, just when is it that we got this freewill? which era? At what point in our evolution?
- Why is it that freewill is so delicate that it can be influenced and manipulated with drugs, lack of sleep, stress, genetic encoding, etc
- if freewill is so important to god, then why is it that the bad guy can so easily usurp the freewill of the innocent?
- Doesn't mankind get any credit for law enforcement and such? Most of the people of the world get along by cooperating. If they didn't then there would be anarchy. Why do we only get blamed and punished and not credit and help?
Hi Chris, Question: Why does he need any glory? Answer: I'm sure he doesn't need it, but I'm equally sure he appreciates it. Why do you like to be appreciated (glorified) for your work? This is rich. Are you sure you want to say that we can compare god to us in this respect? I hope you say yes, because then that shouldn't be the only similarity. There's goodness and morality and principles of logic.... You seem to be saying that we can comprehend some things about god and make some conclusions.
But why would a being that made everything and knew everything about it before he made it appreciate what he knew would naturally result from what he made? Was he missing it? Does he need it? Was he surprised by it? Did he not expect it "to be so cute"? Did he forget what it was like?
HI John, Then if God can test you and I sufficiently without this much suffering, why do others have to suffer so much? excellent point. I wonder why the problem of evil wears some of us down physiologically to the point that we break down and lose faith or commit suicide. This seems to be completely counterproductive since there is no 'escape hatch'. Especially for people like those HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of poor souls raining down out of the towers who had to decide to burn to death or to commit suicide and jump as the result of the freewill choices of ELEVEN people. Is suicide a sin? Have any of you christians spent one minute trying to imagine what it would be like to be in that situation? Can you imagine looking down from the towers and feeling your flesh burning, seeing the tops of those buildings, the cars that look like ants, knowing that you have no hope? Which hurts worse, burning to death or hitting the ground at 80 miles an hour? Which is more terrifying?
Have any of you known anyone that committed suicide? Any christians that have committed suicide? Any christians broken by the PoE as a test? Any good people that just tried to get by as best as they can and it never works out? I do. go ahead, tell me they never were christians.
You want to tell me that a god set things up this way? I say that's blasphemy to a real god.
You are an idiot. You are comparing God giving us free will to giving a two year old a razor blade. And you think this is a fair comparison? You're ridiculous. It is our choice to do whatever we will with our FREE WILL! God gave us a choice, of course we are responsible for what we do with that choice! A murder has the choice to murder. When he does murder do you cry out, "Damn the government, they gave him the choice to have a gun!"
My point exactly, this was a dumb, foolish question, that you clearly either diodn't think through or you have faulty logic.
Well, let's say I am. If so, you didn't say anything I haven't already answered, and if so, what would a perfectly good God do with idiots like me who cannot see the truth but desperately want to know it?
God would say, look no further... I am truth! All evidence, logic, nature, history, and reason point to God. If you are truly seeking for truth I hope you one day find it because truth will lead you to the fact that there is a creator and you are a creation and that Christ died for your sins and you need to repent and trust! Good luck with your search!
msvoboda, people are not dumb simply because they disagree with you, and Lee certainly isn't. If you have an argument then state it. Calling people names is childish and doesn't help us understand why you disagree.
psst...Lee, I know where you can borrow a flame thower. You'll have to give it back soon though, I'm sure brimstone stays molten for awhile but we can't have that lake cooling off much.
Calling him dumb is no more childish than his sarcasm...
This is why I disagree:
"The strident atheists of our time like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are writing ruthless articles against any transcendent worldview, mocking and deriding belief in God. Let them look at the face of Cho and his video clips and see the end game in sight if their worldview is true: Life with no permanent address, with no name, no justice.… Life just dancing to a generic DNA. But their metaphysical framework flies in the face of every existential bone in the human frame. We have names, we long for purpose, we see evil, we cry out for justice, we wrestle against the silence of death, we define ourselves by relationships. Why? Because God has fashioned us with two great commandments in mind: to know and love Him and to know and love our fellow human being. Those two commandments are inextricably bound." Ravi Zacharias
What kills atheists is that they think with all of their 'evidence' the public should be persuaded that there is no God. But, "A fool says there is no God." Ravi put it best, the claim of atheism flies in the face of every existential bone in our body.
If an infinite God who created everything from nothing is real then he would have to be in everything, in our molecules, our atoms, in rocks, in trees, in mountains, in water, part of everything and in act "everything" would be a part of God. Otherwise he is simply nothing more than a limited being, pretty much like us but jsut with more powers. The latter would explain the God presented in the Bible, who is vindictive, hateful, spiteful, genocidal, hates women, has problems with science, can't get his story straight at times and doesn't even seem to know how the stars got out there. Maybe our God is like Q in Star Trek, just one of many powerful beings, with a God complex.
You did not respond to my post, at all. If you read the New Testament you will see Jesus treated women better than anyone else in any other religion! God is everywhere and in everything. He is all-powerful, omnipresent, etc.
He created the stars and put them exactly where they needed to be. He loves science, molecules, etc... he created it.
"People are responsible for their actions and our society needs to promote personal responsibility not prayer."
Are you saying that religion doesn't teach this? This has been echoed through posts here for as long as I can remember.
I can see two ways to overcome evil caused by humans. God keeping us from harming one another. Or us learning to make only the choices that don't harm others. Free will is the latter. Whether God knows the future is irrelevant to our choices. For a terrible example of this, lets say I ask John to baptized into the LDS church. I know the answer in advance, because of what I know from exchanges in this blog alone, but how does that change John's freedom to choose?
I had another thought along these lines. A perfect being shouldn't want for anything, no desires because he has everything, am I off on this? That being so, could said perfect being want, or desire, that another being become perfect also?
"Life with no permanent address, with no name, no justice.… Life just dancing to a generic DNA. But their metaphysical framework flies in the face of every existential bone in the human frame. We have names, we long for purpose, we see evil, we cry out for justice, we wrestle against the silence of death, we define ourselves by relationships. Why? Because God has fashioned us with two great commandments in mind: to know and love Him and to know and love our fellow human being. Those two commandments are inextricably bound." Ravi Zacharias
MY reply...
Ahh, I love it when the simplistic try to wax eloquent or otherwise cite eloquent quotes in their proclamation of what they don't know is simplicity!
Have you bothered to ask yourself, msvoboda, where your god gets his purpose? And if he doesn't need any, how come we do? And how does our crying out for justice point to belief in him? It is the lack of justice in the world that enables the highly intelligent among us to know that there isn't such a being. The very fact that we wrestle against the grave tells us that we have not, as a species, come to terms with our mortality, which is why we dream up gods and spirit guides to aid us on our perilous journey. Sad it is.
Hi Msvoboda, are you mad at me for shooting your rebuttal to john down in flames? That was a debate technique called 'reduction to the absurd'.
Thinking for myself enables me to do that kind of thing.
speaking of, lets analyze the argument you quoted from your expert. "The strident atheists of our time like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are writing ruthless articles against any transcendent worldview, mocking and deriding belief in God. so all viewpoints about god are valid? this seems to imply that.
Let them look at the face of Cho and his video clips and see the end game in sight if their worldview is true: Life with no permanent address, with no name, no justice.… Life just dancing to a generic DNA.
No it isn't. This is a "part to whole" fallacy. This characterisation doesn't match any athiest i know and I know more than you or probably Ravi. And I would go so far to say that it doesn't match any that you know eaither if you are honest with yourself. Therefore it is a mischaracterization and a fallacy. Thats two fallacies.
But their metaphysical framework flies in the face of every existential bone in the human frame. exactly how is that? What strong relevant evidence do you have in support of god? There is plenty of easily refutable evidence, and evidence that depends on a confirmation bias and pascals wager.
P: We have names, P: we long for purpose, P: we see evil, we cry out for justice, P: we wrestle against the silence of death, P: we define ourselves by relationships. C: Why? Because God has fashioned us with two great commandments in mind: to know and love Him and to know and love our fellow human being. Those two commandments are inextricably bound." Ravi Zacharias
And what is the underlying principle that support these premises that logically lead to this conclusion? The bible tells us, or the Bagavad Gita, or the Quran or the Pali Canon or some other scripture? Pick one. Now if you pick the bible, why did you pick the bible? and why is the israelite 'religion' not a mythology when their heritage is canaanite and the canaanite religion is mythology? And why do all those premises fit an atheist viewpoint? Its not exclusive to religion.
That makes a hasty conclusion.
Thats three fallacies. Hes not explcitly supporting one religion over the others and there can only be one true religion, moreover his premises support more than one conclusion.
You should be more careful in who you put your faith in.
Who or what was the governing authority that determined that God is good?
Seriously, didn't God himself simply get to proclaim that for himself. What standard was used to measure this against?
If I am the only being or entity in existence then you can bet your ass that anything I do will be goodness and anything I don't like will be evil. That way all my judgments will be righteous too.
Is there anything to stop God from changing his mind tomorrow and start calling some evil things as good? There is no other law than his own mind is there?
The God presented in the Bible is neither infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, nor even good. He is wholly a production of the human mind, this is why he has all these human traits.
The Bible is the green curtain and the church is the wizard of oz pulling the levers behind it.
Msvobda stated: “You did not respond to my post, at all. If you read the New Testament you will see Jesus treated women better than anyone else in any other religion!”
From your blog description I noticed that you are a student at Boyce College at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.
How do you explain the action of your dictator President Albert Mohler: Last fall he forced theology professor Molly Marshall to resign under threat of heresy charges. With her departure the seminary's School of Theology lost its last tenured female faculty member.
Msvobda is that how Jesus treated women?
What a bout former Southern Baptist Convention President Page Patterson? According to Patterson, the "the highest and noblest calling of God" for women is that of "mother and grandmother." Additionally, Patterson's interpretation of the Bible includes "an assignment from God, in this case that a woman not be involved in a teaching or ruling capacity over men." This stance was highlighted in a case involving Sheri Klouda, a Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary professor hired prior to Patterson's arrival. Southwestern Seminary has had a number of female faculty members, though Paige Patterson's wife, Dorothy, is now the only female faculty member listed among the School of Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Her teaching responsibilities are for the women at the Seminary.
Msuobda, do Page Patterson and Jesus agree on women roles in the work place?
Southern Baptist should not be too hard on Moslems. When it comes to women, they have much in common!
Do you know anything about Molly Marshall's theology? If so, do you think it is orthodox and that her forced resignation was uncalled for?
What would you have done in Mr. Mohler's shoes? Is the fact that she was a woman who was forced to resign the objectionable thing in your view? Do her theological positions have no bearing on the matter?
Harry, By the way, the Islamic treatment of women should in no way be compared to Christianity. There is no moral equivalence. Perhaps you all here could spend some time Debunking Islam in light of former Prime Minister Bhutto's violent assassination, likely by Wahhabi extremists.
Actually Molly Marshall departure from Southern occurred in the mid 1990s. But maybe God had his hand in that, since it appears that Southern's loss is Central's (Kansas) gain.
"Evangelical feminism is a real and present danger to the church."
On the same side of this coin - the bigotry of far too many fundementalists, not to mention the intolerance toward anyone at all who doesn't agree with exactly the views prescribed within each respective church, is possibly a danger to the unsaved.
God's Way of salvation is different than what I often desire but I accept it and recognize it as being gracious. Y'shua clearly indicates that the weeds are allowed to mature alongside the wheat (which is evident by everyday witness of violence and crime). That I am allowed to grow and actualize into the nature that I embrace and trust in, is , to me a testament of grace. In this way, POE does not discount Y'shua's expression of God and His Way of salvation. I didn't always see it this way, but instead of saying things like "God hates us all", what I really needed to acknowledge is that I really hated God. That was the truth for me.
Chris: “Do you know anything about Molly Marshall's theology? If so, do you think it is orthodox and that her forced resignation was uncalled for? What would you have done in Mr. Mohler's shoes? Is the fact that she was a woman who was forced to resign the objectionable thing in your view? Do her theological positions have no bearing on the matter?”
Lets see Chris, there are now no known women professors (teaching men) at either Southern or Southwestern Baptist seminaries and I would bet at the other Southern Baptist’s seminaries as well. So even if Marshall was a raving heretic, odds would still support that at least some women would still be qualified to teach men in these institutions. So just what am I missing here?
Why, Chris and msvoboda, can women be accept as equals with male professors at any major secular universities and most other denominational seminaries and not at any Southern Baptist?
msvoboda: “You are comparing beating and raping women with no consequences to firing a professor who held heretical beliefs? And you say they are not so different? I hope you were kidding...”
msvoboda, it’s religion that’s at fault and not women…but lets see how this is so (“Come, let us reason together saidth the Lord…” (Isaiah 1:18):
Let’s see now: Baptist = Christianity = Religion. God is male in the two later monotheistic religions all of which have roots in Judaism. God created man first. Women are NOT created in the image of God, but out of man’s rib Genesis 2, plus the fact women can mislead men as Eve did in Eden.
Paul jumps on this in his Corinthian correspondence (I Corth. 11) by making it clear that only man was created in the image of God and woman form man (verses 8 & 9). Thus, a women’s face should be covered in church lest she take away the glory of God created only in the image of man. In fact, if she does not have a veil to cover her face, than let her use her hair (verse 6, 15). For there may be angles present who would be offended to see the face of a women and hear her talk in the assembly without covering (verse 10). So, in short, men have short hair since they alone are created in God’s image while women have long hair since they are not (verse 3 – 7). Couple this with Corth. 14 and the Pastoral Epistle of 1 Timothy 2 and then you tell me that Southern Baptists are not degrading the equality of women?
Msvoboda, I hope you are kidding!
The Moslems I talked with claim your and Chris’ views of the Islamic faith and the Qur’an has been perverted by extremist groups just as they claim the actions on 9/11 do not represent true Islam. They have as much right to define their belief as you both Christianity.
Again, based on the laws of Saudi Arabia, Southern Baptists have more in common with Islam since, again, both stem from the same male god lead and male dominated religion.
I am a Secular Humanist and I’ll put up the “Secular Humanist Declaration” to the Bible any day of the week (and twice on Sunday) to any thing the Southern Baptist have to offer especially on the equality of women in the work place.
Msvoboda and Chris, as you both struggle with “God’s Will for your lives”, I hope one day the religious fantasy will end and you realize (just as I did; read my blog profile of being an very active Christian for 35 years) that you alone are responsible for your life.
I guess free will is a good thing, eh? Isn't the giver of a gift responsible for how people who receive that gift use it if the giver also knows in advance they will cause great harm to themselves and to others? YES OR NO? So you think free will is a bad thing?
You must be a big fan of slavery. Would a mother give a razor blade to a two-year old child? If she did, wouldn't she be held responsible for how that child used it? Then why not God? Why not God? If God gave a razor blade to a two-year-old child, then He would be responsible for how the child uses it.
A far different principle applies when giving free will to grown adults. Seriously, didn't God himself simply get to proclaim that for himself. What standard was used to measure this against? God is Lord of Lords and King of Kings, so He makes the rules.
A far different principle applies when giving free will to grown adults.
It is far from obvious how mature Adam and Eve are in the Genesis story. They apparently did not know good from evil, nor were they aware that they were naked. That sounds more child like than adult. In fact in Eastern Orthodox writings (probably traceable to the Church Fathers) Adam is understood to be immature, having more the potential of growing up, than having full awareness of the consequences of his actions.
Protestants, and Baptists in particular, talk about an age of accountability. But they don't agree as to when that occurs. Is it 5yr, or 18? How old must a child be before being baptized ('believer's baptism) and admitted to the church rolls (or allow to take communion)?
One major issue I have with the idea of free-will is that God is described as creating man, the universe and everything in it from nothing. As such, we would be completely dependent on God for anything and everything.
As an analogy, let's say you use your computer to calculate your taxes, but it returns the wrong amount and you get audited. Is it really *your* computers fault? No, it's not. The problem lies in one of the following...
- There was a bug in the tax software from the vendor. A software engineer used the wrong algorithm to perform the calculations, which returned the wrong amount.
- There was a bug in the OS which returned the wrong value to the tax software you installed.
- You made a typo or input the wrong information. (bad information from the environment)
- There was a bad sector on the disk or bad RAM that cause the corruption of the tax software, OS, or input data.
- There was a design flaw in the hardware or firmware which returned the wrong value to the software (IE, Pentium bug)
- The manufacturer of the hardware used defective materials or did not follow the necessary steps to meet the design specifications. (Bad CPU from the factory)
- It was exposed to environmental factors beyond it's design tolerances. (Dropped, struck by lightning, exposed to magnetic fields, etc.)
In other words, the computer on your desk is completely depended on external factors to do absolutely anything and everything. It didn't program, design or manufacture itself. While pounding on your keyboard or exclaiming it's incompetence might make you feel better, it's ultimately a scapegoat for one or more problems that exist elsewhere.
If God endowed us with free-will, designed us down to the smallest detail and created us by exercising his omnipotent will, then we would be completely dependent on him for absolutely anything and everything. To say we can be held eternally responsible for exercising our free-will flies in the face of a just or fair God as we would merely be the scapegoat for his decisions and creation.
And, if the free-will we exercise didn't exist before God, then he either created it from nothing or explicitly changed it to suit his needs. If God is omnibenevolent, God couldn't simply define free-will as some random function that directs us to make decisions on issues of importance. It must be based on some specific and clearly defined process. This process must be explicitly defined by God. If God is perfect, then free-will must work exactly as God defined it to. If it does not, then God is not perfect or omnipotent as his work, free-will, would be flawed.
If God did not create the free-will we exercise, then where did it come from? Wouldn't his decision to use an existing free-will be an implicit approval of it's function at every level? After all, an God omnipotent could change or create his own version and an omniscient God would know exactly the results it would cause in every situation.
73 comments:
Here are some of the first few lines from a Slayer song:
Drones Since The Dawn Of Time;
compelled To Live Your Sheltered Lives;
not Once Has Anyone Ever Seen such A Rise Of Pure Hypocricy;
i'll Instigate I'll Free Your Mind
i'll Show You What I've Known All This Time;
god Hates Us All, God Hates Us All
you Know It's True, God Hates This Place you Know It's True, He Hates This Race
homicide-Suicide hate Heals, You Should Try It Sometime;
strive For Peace With Acts Of War;
the Beauty Of Death We All Adore;
i Have No Faith Distracting Me;
i Know Why Your Prayers Will Never Be Answered
god Hates Us All, God Hates Us All
----------
I guess free will is a good thing, eh? Isn't the giver of a gift responsible for how people who receive that gift use it if the giver also knows in advance they will cause great harm to themselves and to others? YES OR NO?
Would a mother give a razor blade to a two-year old child? If she did, wouldn't she be held responsible for how that child used it? Then why not God? Why not God?
WHY NOT GOD?
If God exists, he does hate us all.
He hates us all!
It's one powerful song.
Every time a perfectly good metal song is ruined by some ponce with an acoustic guitar, a little piece of me dies.
See also: Tori Anus's horrific cover of Smells Like Teen Spirit
He hates us so much that He died for us.. such hate infuriates me..
I thought God didn't exist anyhow.. make up your mind
'He hates us so much that He died for us...'
Yes, so now this alleged god can add deicide to humanity's list of crimes that deserve his anger.
2 Thessalonians 2 '... from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.'
God died for the Jews, so now his wrath has fallen upon the Jews for killing Jesus.
But to you, he doesn't exist, John.
There is no good or evil in the world. There is just pure brutal existence. Deal with it.
I don't know why you waste so much time on meaningless emotionalism, braying against an unfair, misguided, evil, non-existent God.
There's fences to build and axes to grind. Get on with it!
Merry Xmas by the way.
don't dash john's life endeavor. heaven forbid you burst his bubble.
he's a little out of his own league
You know... maybe posting a "Gone Fishing" sign would be appropriate about now. Sheesh.
So I take it that Chris and with-out-reason cannot answer my question? Chris I've attempted to answer your question here, as just one example of many.
In fairness will you now attempt to answer mine?
'Gone fishing'
I don't understand that comment.
Is this a reference to the disicples reaction to seeing the resurrected Jesus?
They decided to go back to their old jobs?
But to attempt to engage your actual question:
Yeah, free will is a good thing, John. It allowed you to walk away from a religion you could no longer believe in.
You're given the power to kill God and remove all remembrance of God from any mind you wish; yours, mine, anyone you choose. And you're given the power to heal the damage done with this God and his people. Can you project into that future and tell yourself, with complete certainty, that the angry or insane won't pick up guns and kill innocent people?
Gypsy, how does this answer my question? You do remember what it was, don't you?
Hi steven,
Maybe "The Doctor is Out" would have been more apropos.
Gawd, some of you commenters are so dense.
Making the comment "God hates us all" is not an admission of the existence of god, but an inference that if god exists, he's a freakin' hateful, evil, irresponsible bastard.
And since that idea is pretty absurd even though the preponderance of evidence would show that to be the case, the logical and reasonable conclusion is: There is no god.
Sheesh, it's like trying to explain a joke. If you don't "get it," it's ridiculous to try to explain it, and it just kills the impact of the message trying to get through some peoples' obtuse denseness.
(Personally, I thought the video was lame. Even though it makes a good point showing the evidence that if god did exist, he's worthy of contempt and hate and not devotion and worship--unless you're talking about the kind of devotion and worship a wife-beating, child molesting husband instills in his family.)
I guess free will is a good thing, eh? Isn't the giver of a gift responsible for how people who receive that gift use it if the giver also knows in advance they will cause great harm to themselves and to others? YES OR NO
The answer is short is obviously Yes. "Thou shalt not kill" is the point, yes? That a just God condones war and killing on one page but then an another page orders us not to kill.
I don't even pretend to know the answer to this question, John. I'm searching for answers, too. I'm angry about the contradictions, as well.
But given the opportunity to start completely over again in a society where God doesn't exist in anyone, I'm not so sure we'd do things any differently.
John,
God doesn't hate all of us. Only some of us. :)
Gypsy, then you agree God is responsible! Then how can your God be perfectly good?
Gypsy said...But given the opportunity to start completely over again in a society where God doesn't exist in anyone, I'm not so sure we'd do things any differently.
The world as we see it is better explained by the absence of God, since this is what we'd expect if there wasn't a perfectly good God.
BTW Cole, I found this video at your site. I'm glad you showed up!
Cheers.
John, to answer your question; the giver of a gift is responsible for how the gift might be used.
Free will is not a gift.
Our life, with our awareness and our conciousness, is the gift.
So Chris, does your God also have foreknowledge? Is he omniscient? YES OR NO?
I'm going to answer these questions in reverse order...
Would a mother give a razor blade to a two-year old child? If she did, wouldn't she be held responsible for how that child used it?
Yes, she would be held accountable. Clearly a 2 year old does not have the capacity to handle a razor blade, unless they have some physical proficiency they don't know about.
Then why not God? Why not God?
I'd hold God responsible too if he magically made a razor blade appear in the hands of a two-year old.
The problem I have is you jump from the specific to the general in one fell swoop. Free will is such a larger concept than a single two-year old. In addition, you're making the jump from a single person to all of humanity in a broad stroke as well.
Would that same mother be held accountable if she gave the same razor blade to her 17 year-old son? The answer is no. He has the capacity to understand the mechanics of the blade, its uses, its consequences. From there, he becomes responsible for his actions, successfully shaving his face, scraping junk off a windshield, or using it to injure others.
I guess free will is a good thing, eh? Isn't the giver of a gift responsible for how people who receive that gift use it if the giver also knows in advance they will cause great harm to themselves and to others? YES OR NO?
You attach the condition that the the giver knows what's going to happen and you attach the premise to all of mankind. Mankind is accountable for their actions, not the god that gives it to them. We've reached a point now where we know how to act and what is evil. After that innocence phase where we're still learning things (the two-year old), the ball is in our court (the 17 year-old). You become responsible for your actions, because you know what is better.
The same free will that allows the killers to do their thing also enables the Mother Theresas to do their own thing. I believe the good things being accomplished in this world outweigh the evils that are present. This doesn't mean that the ends justify the means or that I approve of the evil. I believe that free will is a good thing that has been granted to us, knowing what the consequences are of the issue.
Dillie-O said...Would that same mother be held accountable if she gave the same razor blade to her 17 year-old son?
No. A 17 year old is more responsible than a 2 yr old, and that's my point. A parent will only grant gifts to her children as they have the responsibility to handle them. At the age or 18 we consider them adults. But what if the mother gave a 17 yr old some vodka to drink, or bought him some illegal drugs, or gave him a semi-automatic weapon, or a hand grenade, or allowed him to repeatedly sleep with a girl in his room? Her parental responsibility is not over until he becomes an adult, and even then some. At that point my anology ceases to be effective for the point I want to make, since it's about parental responsibility. However, God's supposed parental responsibility over us never ceases.
Yes, he is omni-everything.
john, you, along with the rest of these clowns can't be reasoned with, you're just an emotionally charged ranter.
John, it's very difficult to be Christian and not ask these kinds of questions. I feel I'd be irrepsonsbile by not asking them.
I stomp my foot down and demand answers and get quite angry when they don't come; I spit, sometimes literally.
Yes - in the light of these questions God doesn't (seem) good at all. He seems more like a dangerous trickster.
I may have simply been fortunate to have been spared the fundementalist experience...I don't feel the slightest hint of condemnation for asking him these questions.
Gypsy said...But given the opportunity to start completely over again in a society where God doesn't exist in anyone, I'm not so sure we'd do things any differently.
The world as we see it is better explained by the absence of God, since this is what we'd expect if there wasn't a perfectly good God.
I liked your answer well enough, but it's a bit too late now, isn't it. Goinng back to the first time I asked..would we or wouldn't we?
Chris said...
" Yes, he is omni-everything."
Including omni-evil? Omni-hateful? Omni-cruel? Omni-fickle? Omni-psychotic?
Omni-not-there?
Dillie-O, so you really think "We've reached a point now where we know how to act and what is evil"?
That's blind faith, my friend. The existence of all the evil humans cause in the world is solid evidence against that claim of yours. How does it feel to believe AGAINST the evidence?
Dillie-O said I believe the good things being accomplished in this world outweigh the evils that are present.
You may be right about this for all I can tell, especially if you live in the West and have been raised in a good home in a good neigborhood.
But that doesn't answer anything if a perfectly good God exists. The question isn't whether the good outweighs the bad in this world from the use of our free will (not to mention the terrible natural disasters in it). The question is why there is so much suffering in this world if a perfectly good God exists. And even that doesn't end it either, for then you'd also have to explain how the sufferings of the "many" in hell in the next world is worth this present one.
Take you and I for example (assuming this is true of you). I have never suffered very much, and I suppose you haven't either--at least not as much by far as those pictured in this video. And yet this is a tough life, one that tests us suficiently, correct? Then if God can test you and I sufficiently without this much suffering, why do others have to suffer so much? You surely cannot suppose you and I are different than others such that we don't need to be tested? Evidence suggests we are all similar as human beings.
----
Chris, then you have a problem. God knew humans would do what we do when he gave us the gift of free will. Is God so sadistic that he did it for his glory? Why does he need any glory? What kind of glory is it that builds a castle in heaven on the backs of billions of screaming people? Why wouldn't it be better not to have created at all? To create such a world is simply NOT an expression of love! Besides, as a triune God he didn't need anything.
withinreason said...you're just an emotionally charged ranter.
My irony meter just blew a gasket!
;-)
That's blind faith, my friend. The existence of all the evil humans cause in the world is solid evidence against that claim of yours. How does it feel to believe AGAINST the evidence?
How is that blind faith. Sure there are exceptions to the norm, but you know that killing people randomly is wrong. Sleeping with somebody outside of marriage is wrong. We realized creating the atomic bomb to drop on other people was wrong. If I walk up to you on the street, yank your iPod out of your hands and keeping going, what's the initial reaction? It's "Hey, you stole my stuff, you can't do that." I'm not talking about whether or not cloning is good or evil, but we know what good and evil is.
But that doesn't answer anything if a perfectly good God exists. The question isn't whether the good outweighs the bad in this world from the use of our free will (not to mention the terrible natural disasters in it). The question is why there is so much suffering in this world if a perfectly good God exists. And even that doesn't end it either, for then you'd also have to explain how the sufferings of the "many" in hell in the next world is worth this present one.
Now we're looking at goodness and justice. If there is a perfectly good God who has bestowed this free will thing on us, and there are people not doing good deeds, does he just let it slide since "Ooops, I gave this free will thing to everybody?" No, there is justice to enforce the deeds we have done.
This goes back to the quick reply you had to me earlier. Giving you the razor blade to use as you please doesn't mean you're immune from the fact that murder is wrong and there is a penalty for doing so. Why do you believe that God's parental responsibility for us never ceases?
Take you and I for example (assuming this is true of you). I have never suffered very much, and I suppose you haven't either--at least not as much by far as those pictured in this video. And yet this is a tough life, one that tests us suficiently, correct? Then if God can test you and I sufficiently without this much suffering, why do others have to suffer so much? You surely cannot suppose you and I are different than others such that we don't need to be tested? Evidence suggests we are all similar as human beings.
'Tis the eternal question in my mind at the moment. I would ask you the same question. Why do we have it so good while other people suffer endlessly?
John,
I have many problems it is true. You could write a book about them.
But my question to you is how do YOU explain evil in this world?
Chris, is there any wonder why I tire of you? I provided a link answering your question. Did you read it? Sure, you may still disagree with me, but I answered it. Here's something else I wrote on the topic.
Now why won't you attempt a reasonable answer to my questions?
Dillie-O, I think a good case can be made that the reason people do what they do is because they have concluded that what they are about to do is good. Reasonable people do what we do because we think it is the best thing to do under the present circumstances. Do you really dispute that? Apart from mentally challenged people in varying degrees, or people with a Freudian "death wish," reasonable people only do what they think is the best action under any set of circumstances.
Dillie-O said...Now we're looking at goodness and justice.
Justice, if it's to be true justice, must be good. A God who punished us more severely than our crimes deserved is not being good.
Why do you believe that God's parental responsibility for us never ceases?
I don't believe in God, silly. You tell me how a perfectly good God should behave. I was primarily refering to this life anyway, but I do think it should apply in the next one if God is perfectly good. Why don't you?
Dillie-O said...I would ask you the same question. Why do we have it so good while other people suffer endlessly?
Shit happens. At least I have an answer. You don't.
WITHINREASON
john, you, along with the rest of these clowns can't be reasoned with, you're just an emotionally charged ranter.
CARR
Gosh, not only are atheists people who demand evidence and scientific proofs for everything, they are also just emotionally charged ranters.
Which is it?
The one thing they are not are people who get answers to questions, as can be seen from this blog entry.
There is an interesting evangelism website Here
One thing it says is 'Listen to the questions people ask, and answer them with honesty – if you don’t know the answer, just say so!'
There is no advice to actually wonder why Christianity has not prepared you to answer the questions of sceptics.
Or that you should think carefully about beliefs that you cannot defend.
Just say you can't answer the questions of sceptics and forget it.
Dillie-O, I think a good case can be made that the reason people do what they do is because they have concluded that what they are about to do is good. Reasonable people do what we do because we think it is the best thing to do under the present circumstances. Do you really dispute that? Apart from mentally challenged people in varying degrees, or people with a Freudian "death wish," reasonable people only do what they think is the best action under any set of circumstances.
So if I think it is reasonable to kill John Loftus, and you think it is unreasonable to kill John Loftus, do we have a differing of opinion, or is one of us wrong? I don't know how I'm taking things on blind faith by accepting that we know evil or good as you originally had mentioned.
Justice, if it's to be true justice, must be good. A God who punished us more severely than our crimes deserved is not being good.
True. If a perfect God does exist though, how can he live with those that are imperfect. Isn't separation from that perfection a sufficient punishment?
I don't believe in God, silly. You tell me how a perfectly good God should behave. I was primarily refering to this life anyway, but I do think it should apply in the next one if God is perfectly good. Why don't you?
Yes silly, I know you don't believe in God, but you said this a little while back...
However, God's supposed parental responsibility over us never ceases.
I want to know where your rationale for this never ceasing parental responsibility is coming from.
Shit happens. At least I have an answer. You don't.
People suck. That's my answer. Yeah we've learned to play nice, but ultimately we're selfish people. 8^D
Dillie-O said...So if I think it is reasonable to kill John Loftus, and you think it is unreasonable to kill John Loftus, do we have a differing of opinion, or is one of us wrong?
What exactly does this have to do with anything I wrote? Are you echoing Chris' irrelevant point here? I already answered this in the links provided. Did YOU read them? Here's another link.
Dillie-O said...If a perfect God does exist though, how can he live with those that are imperfect. Isn't separation from that perfection a sufficient punishment?
If a parent of a 10 year old decides to punish him by abandoning him to fend for himself, is that a good punishment? And is it truly good justice to punish people if they do not know they are doing wrong? [This takes us back to what I said earlier, if you should choose to actually comment on it].
Dillie-O said...People suck. That's my answer. Yeah we've learned to play nice, but ultimately we're selfish people.
And whom do you think created us in the first place? You'd think a perfectly good God would've either done better than this, or not created us like we are at all. As but two examples, your God could've created us all with one skin color, and revealed himself more clearly so there wouldn't be such a wide diversity of religious opinions. If he had done either of these things, or both of them, there would be less suffering, slavery and war in our world. And that's just two of many many suggestions I have, coming as they do from an imperfect non-omniscient being. ;-)
"There have been certain ethical improvements over the years which makes Hitler look better when compared to Genghis Khan"
John,
Is this some kind of replacement theology you've come up with? Humanity is wiping out evil, one petty dictator at a time?
So using your "rational self interest" ethic, Hitler was more evolved and more rational than Genghis Khan, or more evolved and less self interersted?
You tire of me? Really?
How many houses did you help rebuild in the aftermath of Katrina? I know at least 30 people who aren't tired of me.
But since you don't suffer fools at all, let alone gladly, on to question answering.
Question: Is God so sadistic that he did it for his glory? Answer: He gave us free will so that we can freely choose him or reject him. People who use their free will to destroy, to plunder, to rape, to descimate, to subjegate have rejected him, freely. People who use their free will to reason their way into a God free existence, have rejected him, freely. Simple.
Question: Why does he need any glory? Answer: I'm sure he doesn't need it, but I'm equally sure he appreciates it. Why do you like to be appreciated (glorified) for your work?
Question: What kind of glory is it that builds a castle in heaven on the backs of billions of screaming people? Answer: Not sure what this means. If you mean that by exercing his free will, God gives us free will, and further, if the free exercise of that will by humans results in human suffering is utlimately God's responsibility, then I would say ok. But who is God responsible to? You? What about the people who exercise their free will by denying you yours? What is their responsibility? Do you hold them responsible at all?
Question: Why wouldn't it be better not to have created at all? Answer: Sorry, can't begin to think of an answer to this. Cat's out of the bag.
Sorry to be contentious.
Chris, you win. I give up. I must do other things right now, but ouch! You really zinged me with those pat answers. I just hope you think about them, that's all.
As I go, let me leave you with a long discussion about free will, here.
Since you finally got around to reading at least one of my links and pulling at least one quote out of them, maybe you'll do likewise with my most important post of all, since the issue of free will is what we're talking about here.
Cheers for tonight.
Well, I will say that I haven't had time to check out the entire DC archive since I started seeing this place in July or so. That said, here's the transcript of my statement
** ------ **
Dillie-O: You attach the condition that the the giver knows what's going to happen and you attach the premise to all of mankind. Mankind is accountable for their actions, not the god that gives it to them. We've reached a point now where we know how to act and what is evil. After that innocence phase where we're still learning things (the two-year old), the ball is in our court (the 17 year-old). You become responsible for your actions, because you know what is better.
John: Dillie-O, so you really think "We've reached a point now where we know how to act and what is evil"?
That's blind faith, my friend. The existence of all the evil humans cause in the world is solid evidence against that claim of yours. How does it feel to believe AGAINST the evidence?
Dillie-O: How is that blind faith. Sure there are exceptions to the norm, but you know that killing people randomly is wrong. Sleeping with somebody outside of marriage is wrong. We realized creating the atomic bomb to drop on other people was wrong. If I walk up to you on the street, yank your iPod out of your hands and keeping going, what's the initial reaction? It's "Hey, you stole my stuff, you can't do that." I'm not talking about whether or not cloning is good or evil, but we know what good and evil is.
John: Dillie-O, I think a good case can be made that the reason people do what they do is because they have concluded that what they are about to do is good. Reasonable people do what we do because we think it is the best thing to do under the present circumstances. Do you really dispute that? Apart from mentally challenged people in varying degrees, or people with a Freudian "death wish," reasonable people only do what they think is the best action under any set of circumstances.
Dillie-O: So if I think it is reasonable to kill John Loftus, and you think it is unreasonable to kill John Loftus, do we have a differing of opinion, or is one of us wrong? I don't know how I'm taking things on blind faith by accepting that we know evil or good as you originally had mentioned.
John: What exactly does this have to do with anything I wrote? Are you echoing Chris' irrelevant point here? I already answered this in the links provided. Did YOU read them? Here's another link.
** ------ **
So correct my misunderstanding here. I believe we have an inherent sense of right and wrong, and that we are accountable for those actions. We are held accountable for this, hence the free will and how we can't blame God for the evil deeds humans do. Now somewhere along the way you said that this inherent knowledge of good and evil is a "blind faith" thing and that our right and wrong is based on what we feel is reasonable at the time, hence the reasonable to kill John Loftus little ditty. So where did I err here in a blind faith?
Alas, I feel we are straying into a circle, but that's just me. I always thought it would be great of God created chlorophyll type features into us, then we'd all be green and there would be no racism or world hunger, but apparently the diversity is better. Imagine if we were all just one color, how bland would that be?
The point is there is no god. If there were, and it allowed such evil; then the ability to discuss god in terms of omni-anything would mandate that god, if it existed, is also evil. In fact, if you believe in satan, then you must conclude the evil in god as he created and unleashed satan on mankind.
It is not possible for those who live in reality not to see the malevolence in the world. We also believe that religion does nothing to aid in the betterment of mankind. A non-theist philosophy however can aid society by teaching against such problems, to deal with life realistically instead of magically with the idea of divine intervention. Intervention which to date has never happened.
People are responsible for their actions and our society needs to promote personal responsibility not prayer.
It was quite obvious in the video that the problems featured stem from humans acting out their aggression on others while believing they will not be held accountable.
If the abortionist or the dictator or even the president who orders the invasion truly believed that their soul would be toast for what they are doing, would they still do it? No, of course not.
The idea "God hates us all" as a statement that God either does not exist or is evil is a tautology. "God hates us all" because we hate each other, therefore we blame God, therefore "God must hate us all". I suppose God hates the Cubs also.
Musically, though, it's a great sounding song.
Hi guys, very interesting post J.Loftus albeit somewhat bizarre, bearing in mind the nature of it, plus that 'horrendous' film clip added-which made my blood curdle....By the way I've checked out the "Free-will" blog attachment which you added back in september, found it quite informative -although quite lengthy- & there are 1-2 points i'd like to pick up on regarding this posting. You keep mentioning the fact that if a "child" is handed a razor-blade then the "mother" would be held responsible for her actions well, to be as concise as possible: the "mothers" actions would almost certainly be considered an act of 'blatant failure' to have taken due care of that "childs" safety, furthermore she will be held fully accountable for it's behaviour as a result of her 'mindlessness' -therefore would be regarded as tantamount to committing "Infanticide" herself.
The other point i want to make is this business about GOD...I know this site is all about D.Xianity, but for the life of me just can't seem to get my head around this notion of God this, God that, this God, that God; God is Omni this, Omni that & Omni everything else to boot! Why don't we all accept it; that God is merely an invention & is therefore "Manmade", so everything you find in the 'Scriptures' are henceforth, -just an invention period- to make an analogy; suppose you were given a 'radio making kit' for Christmas & didn't have the foggiest in how to put all those 'kit pieces' together, now without an explanatory guide/manual wouldn't get very far with it unless of course you was the person who devised it in the first place?....So why can't we just live with the fact that 'Religious minded' folk are & will always be at the 'behest' of those that CONTROL their 'faith' & all the baggage that comes with it....seems that the "Dummies" used as 'suicide bombers' are the more susceptible in this "Mentally challenging" world/climate we're living in, & can't see this trend altering in the foreseeable future, unless of course GOD performs one of his well documented "Miracles"....all the best & good wishes to you all!!!....
Hi all,
my 2 cents.
- How can there be any freewill for anyone (including god) if god knew everything before he created anything? This is a logical contradiction. Freewill depends on choice and timelines and uncertainty. There are no timelines to an entity that is timeless, and knows everything. There is no uncertainty.
- We don't have as much freewill as we imagine we do because of biological factors.
- Someone tell me why Canaanite religion is mythology and Israelite religion is not mythology when Israelite heritage is Canaanite.
- Is there a christian consensus on whether or not there was an adam and Eve? This makes a difference in the "God gave us freewill and then we mucked it up" claim
- If there was an adam and eve, just when did they pop into existence, 10,000 bc?
- If there wasn't, just when is it that we got this freewill? which era? At what point in our evolution?
- Why is it that freewill is so delicate that it can be influenced and manipulated with drugs, lack of sleep, stress, genetic encoding, etc
- if freewill is so important to god, then why is it that the bad guy can so easily usurp the freewill of the innocent?
- Doesn't mankind get any credit for law enforcement and such? Most of the people of the world get along by cooperating. If they didn't then there would be anarchy. Why do we only get blamed and punished and not credit and help?
Hi Chris,
Question: Why does he need any glory? Answer: I'm sure he doesn't need it, but I'm equally sure he appreciates it. Why do you like to be appreciated (glorified) for your work?
This is rich. Are you sure you want to say that we can compare god to us in this respect? I hope you say yes, because then that shouldn't be the only similarity. There's goodness and morality and principles of logic....
You seem to be saying that we can comprehend some things about god and make some conclusions.
But why would a being that made everything and knew everything about it before he made it appreciate what he knew would naturally result from what he made? Was he missing it? Does he need it? Was he surprised by it? Did he not expect it "to be so cute"? Did he forget what it was like?
HI John,
Then if God can test you and I sufficiently without this much suffering, why do others have to suffer so much?
excellent point.
I wonder why the problem of evil wears some of us down physiologically to the point that we break down and lose faith or commit suicide. This seems to be completely counterproductive since there is no 'escape hatch'. Especially for people like those HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of poor souls raining down out of the towers who had to decide to burn to death or to commit suicide and jump as the result of the freewill choices of ELEVEN people. Is suicide a sin?
Have any of you christians spent one minute trying to imagine what it would be like to be in that situation? Can you imagine looking down from the towers and feeling your flesh burning, seeing the tops of those buildings, the cars that look like ants, knowing that you have no hope? Which hurts worse, burning to death or hitting the ground at 80 miles an hour? Which is more terrifying?
Have any of you known anyone that committed suicide? Any christians that have committed suicide? Any christians broken by the PoE as a test? Any good people that just tried to get by as best as they can and it never works out? I do.
go ahead, tell me they never were christians.
You want to tell me that a god set things up this way?
I say that's blasphemy to a real god.
Loftus,
You are an idiot. You are comparing God giving us free will to giving a two year old a razor blade. And you think this is a fair comparison? You're ridiculous. It is our choice to do whatever we will with our FREE WILL! God gave us a choice, of course we are responsible for what we do with that choice! A murder has the choice to murder. When he does murder do you cry out, "Damn the government, they gave him the choice to have a gun!"
My point exactly, this was a dumb, foolish question, that you clearly either diodn't think through or you have faulty logic.
msvoboda said...Loftus,You are an idiot.
Well, let's say I am. If so, you didn't say anything I haven't already answered, and if so, what would a perfectly good God do with idiots like me who cannot see the truth but desperately want to know it?
I still think you're all missing the important issue:
Some dick with an acoustic guitar RUINED a perfectly good Slayer song.
Hi msvoboda,
know where I can get a flame thrower? What? I can't, you say?
wonder why that is?
thats a violation of my rights, and my freewill!
hey Lee, Good one... you are dumb.
Loftus,
God would say, look no further... I am truth!
All evidence, logic, nature, history, and reason point to God. If you are truly seeking for truth I hope you one day find it because truth will lead you to the fact that there is a creator and you are a creation and that Christ died for your sins and you need to repent and trust! Good luck with your search!
msvoboda, people are not dumb simply because they disagree with you, and Lee certainly isn't. If you have an argument then state it. Calling people names is childish and doesn't help us understand why you disagree.
psst...Lee, I know where you can borrow a flame thower. You'll have to give it back soon though, I'm sure brimstone stays molten for awhile but we can't have that lake cooling off much.
Calling him dumb is no more childish than his sarcasm...
This is why I disagree:
"The strident atheists of our time like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are writing ruthless articles against any transcendent worldview, mocking and deriding belief in God. Let them look at the face of Cho and his video clips and see the end game in sight if their worldview is true: Life with no permanent address, with no name, no justice.… Life just dancing to a generic DNA. But their metaphysical framework flies in the face of every existential bone in the human frame. We have names, we long for purpose, we see evil, we cry out for justice, we wrestle against the silence of death, we define ourselves by relationships. Why? Because God has fashioned us with two great commandments in mind: to know and love Him and to know and love our fellow human being. Those two commandments are inextricably bound." Ravi Zacharias
What kills atheists is that they think with all of their 'evidence' the public should be persuaded that there is no God. But, "A fool says there is no God."
Ravi put it best, the claim of atheism flies in the face of every existential bone in our body.
If an infinite God who created everything from nothing is real then he would have to be in everything, in our molecules, our atoms, in rocks, in trees, in mountains, in water, part of everything and in act "everything" would be a part of God. Otherwise he is simply nothing more than a limited being, pretty much like us but jsut with more powers.
The latter would explain the God presented in the Bible, who is vindictive, hateful, spiteful, genocidal, hates women, has problems with science, can't get his story straight at times and doesn't even seem to know how the stars got out there.
Maybe our God is like Q in Star Trek, just one of many powerful beings, with a God complex.
You did not respond to my post, at all. If you read the New Testament you will see Jesus treated women better than anyone else in any other religion! God is everywhere and in everything. He is all-powerful, omnipresent, etc.
He created the stars and put them exactly where they needed to be. He loves science, molecules, etc... he created it.
"If you read the New Testament you will see Jesus treated women better than anyone else in any other religion!"
A human may be able to get away with this. An all powerful and loving god? No.
"I am a kind and gentle Nazi when compared to all the other Nazis."
"People are responsible for their actions and our society needs to promote personal responsibility not prayer."
Are you saying that religion doesn't teach this? This has been echoed through posts here for as long as I can remember.
I can see two ways to overcome evil caused by humans. God keeping us from harming one another. Or us learning to make only the choices that don't harm others. Free will is the latter. Whether God knows the future is irrelevant to our choices. For a terrible example of this, lets say I ask John to baptized into the LDS church. I know the answer in advance, because of what I know from exchanges in this blog alone, but how does that change John's freedom to choose?
I had another thought along these lines. A perfect being shouldn't want for anything, no desires because he has everything, am I off on this? That being so, could said perfect being want, or desire, that another being become perfect also?
msvoboda said...
"Life with no permanent address, with no name, no justice.… Life just dancing to a generic DNA. But their metaphysical framework flies in the face of every existential bone in the human frame. We have names, we long for purpose, we see evil, we cry out for justice, we wrestle against the silence of death, we define ourselves by relationships. Why? Because God has fashioned us with two great commandments in mind: to know and love Him and to know and love our fellow human being. Those two commandments are inextricably bound." Ravi Zacharias
MY reply...
Ahh, I love it when the simplistic try to wax eloquent or otherwise cite eloquent quotes in their proclamation of what they don't know is simplicity!
Have you bothered to ask yourself, msvoboda, where your god gets his purpose? And if he doesn't need any, how come we do? And how does our crying out for justice point to belief in him? It is the lack of justice in the world that enables the highly intelligent among us to know that there isn't such a being. The very fact that we wrestle against the grave tells us that we have not, as a species, come to terms with our mortality, which is why we dream up gods and spirit guides to aid us on our perilous journey. Sad it is.
(JH)
Hi Msvoboda,
are you mad at me for shooting your rebuttal to john down in flames?
That was a debate technique called 'reduction to the absurd'.
Thinking for myself enables me to do that kind of thing.
speaking of, lets analyze the argument you quoted from your expert.
"The strident atheists of our time like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are writing ruthless articles against any transcendent worldview, mocking and deriding belief in God.
so all viewpoints about god are valid? this seems to imply that.
Let them look at the face of Cho and his video clips and see the end game in sight if their worldview is true: Life with no permanent address, with no name, no justice.… Life just dancing to a generic DNA.
No it isn't. This is a "part to whole" fallacy. This characterisation doesn't match any athiest i know and I know more than you or probably Ravi. And I would go so far to say that it doesn't match any that you know eaither if you are honest with yourself. Therefore it is a mischaracterization and a fallacy.
Thats two fallacies.
But their metaphysical framework flies in the face of every existential bone in the human frame.
exactly how is that? What strong relevant evidence do you have in support of god? There is plenty of easily refutable evidence, and evidence that depends on a confirmation bias and pascals wager.
P: We have names,
P: we long for purpose,
P: we see evil, we cry out for justice,
P: we wrestle against the silence of death,
P: we define ourselves by relationships.
C: Why? Because God has fashioned us with two great commandments in mind: to know and love Him and to know and love our fellow human being. Those two commandments are inextricably bound." Ravi Zacharias
And what is the underlying principle that support these premises that logically lead to this conclusion? The bible tells us, or the Bagavad Gita, or the Quran or the Pali Canon or some other scripture? Pick one. Now if you pick the bible, why did you pick the bible? and why is the israelite 'religion' not a mythology when their heritage is canaanite and the canaanite religion is mythology?
And why do all those premises fit an atheist viewpoint? Its not exclusive to religion.
That makes a hasty conclusion.
Thats three fallacies. Hes not explcitly supporting one religion over the others and there can only be one true religion, moreover his premises support more than one conclusion.
You should be more careful in who you put your faith in.
Hi Richdurrant,
you are my ideal commenter!!!!
:-)
I aim to please
Who or what was the governing authority that determined that God is good?
Seriously, didn't God himself simply get to proclaim that for himself. What standard was used to measure this against?
If I am the only being or entity in existence then you can bet your ass that anything I do will be goodness and anything I don't like will be evil. That way all my judgments will be righteous too.
Is there anything to stop God from changing his mind tomorrow and start calling some evil things as good? There is no other law than his own mind is there?
The God presented in the Bible is neither infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, nor even good. He is wholly a production of the human mind, this is why he has all these human traits.
The Bible is the green curtain and the church is the wizard of oz pulling the levers behind it.
Msvobda stated: “You did not respond to my post, at all. If you read the New Testament you will see Jesus treated women better than anyone else in any other religion!”
From your blog description I noticed that you are a student at Boyce College at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.
How do you explain the action of your dictator President Albert Mohler:
Last fall he forced theology professor Molly Marshall to resign under threat of heresy charges. With her departure the seminary's School of Theology lost its last tenured female faculty member.
Msvobda is that how Jesus treated women?
What a bout former Southern Baptist Convention President Page Patterson?
According to Patterson, the "the highest and noblest calling of God" for women is that of "mother and grandmother." Additionally, Patterson's interpretation of the Bible includes "an assignment from God, in this case that a woman not be involved in a teaching or ruling capacity over men." This stance was highlighted in a case involving Sheri Klouda, a Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary professor hired prior to Patterson's arrival. Southwestern Seminary has had a number of female faculty members, though Paige Patterson's wife, Dorothy, is now the only female faculty member listed among the School of Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Her teaching responsibilities are for the women at the Seminary.
Msuobda, do Page Patterson and Jesus agree on women roles in the work place?
Southern Baptist should not be too hard on Moslems. When it comes to women, they have much in common!
Harry,
Do you know anything about Molly Marshall's theology? If so, do you think it is orthodox and that her forced resignation was uncalled for?
What would you have done in Mr. Mohler's shoes? Is the fact that she was a woman who was forced to resign the objectionable thing in your view? Do her theological positions have no bearing on the matter?
Harry,
By the way, the Islamic treatment of women should in no way be compared to Christianity. There is no moral equivalence. Perhaps you all here could spend some time Debunking Islam in light of former Prime Minister Bhutto's violent assassination, likely by Wahhabi extremists.
Wait a minute...
God handed a two year old a razor blade?
Let's look at your statement in a more realistic scenario:
Would an adult mother give her adult child a razor blade? If she did, wouldn't she be responsible for how that child used it? If not, why God?
Harry,
You are comparing beating and raping women with no consequences to firing a professor who held heretical beliefs?
And you say they are not so different?
I hope you were kidding...
Actually Molly Marshall departure from Southern occurred in the mid 1990s. But maybe God had his hand in that, since it appears that Southern's loss is Central's (Kansas) gain.
http://www.cbts.edu/presidentsmessage.asp
http://www.abpnews.com/115.article
Here's an interesting article about Baptist women migrating to other denominations
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=8481
You could add Dr Ruth Tucker to the list of seminary profs who have been at odds with misogynous administrators and denominational leaders.
"Evangelical feminism is a real and present danger to the church."
On the same side of this coin - the bigotry of far too many fundementalists, not to mention the intolerance toward anyone at all who doesn't agree with exactly the views prescribed within each respective church, is possibly a danger to the unsaved.
God's Way of salvation is different than what I often desire but I accept it and recognize it as being gracious. Y'shua clearly indicates that the weeds are allowed to mature alongside the wheat (which is evident by everyday witness of violence and crime). That I am allowed to grow and actualize into the nature that I embrace and trust in, is , to me a testament of grace. In this way, POE does not discount Y'shua's expression of God and His Way of salvation. I didn't always see it this way, but instead of saying things like "God hates us all", what I really needed to acknowledge is that I really hated God. That was the truth for me.
Chris: “Do you know anything about Molly Marshall's theology? If so, do you think it is orthodox and that her forced resignation was uncalled for?
What would you have done in Mr. Mohler's shoes? Is the fact that she was a woman who was forced to resign the objectionable thing in your view? Do her theological positions have no bearing on the matter?”
Lets see Chris, there are now no known women professors (teaching men) at either Southern or Southwestern Baptist seminaries and I would bet at the other Southern Baptist’s seminaries as well. So even if Marshall was a raving heretic, odds would still support that at least some women would still be qualified to teach men in these institutions. So just what am I missing here?
Why, Chris and msvoboda, can women be accept as equals with male professors at any major secular universities and most other denominational seminaries and not at any Southern Baptist?
msvoboda: “You are comparing beating and raping women with no consequences to firing a professor who held heretical beliefs?
And you say they are not so different?
I hope you were kidding...”
msvoboda, it’s religion that’s at fault and not women…but lets see how this is so (“Come, let us reason together saidth the Lord…” (Isaiah 1:18):
Let’s see now: Baptist = Christianity = Religion. God is male in the two later monotheistic religions all of which have roots in Judaism. God created man first. Women are NOT created in the image of God, but out of man’s rib Genesis 2, plus the fact women can mislead men as Eve did in Eden.
Paul jumps on this in his Corinthian correspondence (I Corth. 11) by making it clear that only man was created in the image of God and woman form man (verses 8 & 9). Thus, a women’s face should be covered in church lest she take away the glory of God created only in the image of man. In fact, if she does not have a veil to cover her face, than let her use her hair (verse 6, 15). For there may be angles present who would be offended to see the face of a women and hear her talk in the assembly without covering (verse 10). So, in short, men have short hair since they alone are created in God’s image while women have long hair since they are not (verse 3 – 7). Couple this with Corth. 14 and the Pastoral Epistle of 1 Timothy 2 and then you tell me that Southern Baptists are not degrading the equality of women?
Msvoboda, I hope you are kidding!
The Moslems I talked with claim your and Chris’ views of the Islamic faith and the Qur’an has been perverted by extremist groups just as they claim the actions on 9/11 do not represent true Islam. They have as much right to define their belief as you both Christianity.
Again, based on the laws of Saudi Arabia, Southern Baptists have more in common with Islam since, again, both stem from the same male god lead and male dominated religion.
I am a Secular Humanist and I’ll put up the “Secular Humanist Declaration” to the Bible any day of the week (and twice on Sunday) to any thing the Southern Baptist have to offer especially on the equality of women in the work place.
Msvoboda and Chris, as you both struggle with “God’s Will for your lives”, I hope one day the religious fantasy will end and you realize (just as I did; read my blog profile of being an very active Christian for 35 years) that you alone are responsible for your life.
I guess free will is a good thing, eh? Isn't the giver of a gift responsible for how people who receive that gift use it if the giver also knows in advance they will cause great harm to themselves and to others? YES OR NO?
So you think free will is a bad thing?
You must be a big fan of slavery.
Would a mother give a razor blade to a two-year old child? If she did, wouldn't she be held responsible for how that child used it? Then why not God? Why not God?
If God gave a razor blade to a two-year-old child, then He would be responsible for how the child uses it.
A far different principle applies when giving free will to grown adults.
Seriously, didn't God himself simply get to proclaim that for himself. What standard was used to measure this against?
God is Lord of Lords and King of Kings, so He makes the rules.
Don't like it? Burn in a fiery Hell.
A far different principle applies when giving free will to grown adults.
It is far from obvious how mature Adam and Eve are in the Genesis story. They apparently did not know good from evil, nor were they aware that they were naked. That sounds more child like than adult. In fact in Eastern Orthodox writings (probably traceable to the Church Fathers) Adam is understood to be immature, having more the potential of growing up, than having full awareness of the consequences of his actions.
Protestants, and Baptists in particular, talk about an age of accountability. But they don't agree as to when that occurs. Is it 5yr, or 18? How old must a child be before being baptized ('believer's baptism) and admitted to the church rolls (or allow to take communion)?
paulj
One major issue I have with the idea of free-will is that God is described as creating man, the universe and everything in it from nothing. As such, we would be completely dependent on God for anything and everything.
As an analogy, let's say you use your computer to calculate your taxes, but it returns the wrong amount and you get audited. Is it really *your* computers fault? No, it's not. The problem lies in one of the following...
- There was a bug in the tax software from the vendor. A software engineer used the wrong algorithm to perform the calculations, which returned the wrong amount.
- There was a bug in the OS which returned the wrong value to the tax software you installed.
- You made a typo or input the wrong information. (bad information from the environment)
- There was a bad sector on the disk or bad RAM that cause the corruption of the tax software, OS, or input data.
- There was a design flaw in the hardware or firmware which returned the wrong value to the software (IE, Pentium bug)
- The manufacturer of the hardware used defective materials or did not follow the necessary steps to meet the design specifications. (Bad CPU from the factory)
- It was exposed to environmental factors beyond it's design tolerances. (Dropped, struck by lightning, exposed to magnetic fields, etc.)
In other words, the computer on your desk is completely depended on external factors to do absolutely anything and everything. It didn't program, design or manufacture itself. While pounding on your keyboard or exclaiming it's incompetence might make you feel better, it's ultimately a scapegoat for one or more problems that exist elsewhere.
If God endowed us with free-will, designed us down to the smallest detail and created us by exercising his omnipotent will, then we would be completely dependent on him for absolutely anything and everything. To say we can be held eternally responsible for exercising our free-will flies in the face of a just or fair God as we would merely be the scapegoat for his decisions and creation.
And, if the free-will we exercise didn't exist before God, then he either created it from nothing or explicitly changed it to suit his needs. If God is omnibenevolent, God couldn't simply define free-will as some random function that directs us to make decisions on issues of importance. It must be based on some specific and clearly defined process. This process must be explicitly defined by God. If God is perfect, then free-will must work exactly as God defined it to. If it does not, then God is not perfect or omnipotent as his work, free-will, would be flawed.
If God did not create the free-will we exercise, then where did it come from? Wouldn't his decision to use an existing free-will be an implicit approval of it's function at every level? After all, an God omnipotent could change or create his own version and an omniscient God would know exactly the results it would cause in every situation.
Post a Comment