The Worst Homicidal Atheistic Governments (Combined) are Not as Barbarous as God!
I’ll begin my premise of this thesis by posing the question:
Is it a positive act (both ethically and morally) for modern science to totally wiped off an entire part of God’s creation from the face of the earth and for sinful humans to feel great about what they have done? (Or, to put it in Christological terms, that the creature in the post-modern world is almost all the time smarter and kinder than the Creator.)
From time to time, in the comment section to a post by the contributors here at DC, we’ll find a “Drive by Comment” when an upset set Christian trying to make a point will remark: Look at all the abortions / murders of babies done under secular governments! Or Look how many millions of people have been murdered either for ethic or political reasons under Godless / atheistic governments!
I would counter these Drive by Comments with the fact that both the total of all the acts done by either legalized abortions or murderous acts done by humans (ether in the name of religion or acts of “godless” governments); that the sum total of all killings done by the creature / man on this earth though out the entire history of the world will not equal the known and intended malicious acts of the Judao-Christian God! (A God who has now been sanitized via theology as a “All-loving” (except for human sin.)).
Lets remove all the acts of humans from the equation and simply focus on the prim-mover / Creator called and described in the Bible as “God”. Now lets consider the account given in the Book of Genesis as a fact for the origins of the world given by Creationist. My questions for this post are as follows:
A. When were all the harmful viruses, germs, bacteria and parasites created? (As oppose to some normal events of weather and flooding which have been already discussed here at DC. My post is dealing with purposeful acts of creation by God.)
B. Who, other than God / Yahweh himself, could create? If Satan is not a god (as he is not), than he could not be blamed for any part of these malicious acts of creation which has killed and is killing billions and billions of humans (If animals and plants are included, that the number is uncountable!)
C. If this was the intended effects on humans after the Fall with their forced removal from the Garden of Eden, than why did God even go though the motion of tempting Eve and Adam in the first place since this harmful creation was already created and simply waiting on them outside the Garden?
D. If man (as a sinful creature) alone is the target of these harmful and deadly acts of creation (as one Christian doctor tried to tell me), than exactly why are both plants and animals also affected by harmful viruses, germs, bacteria and parasites or specifically put; why do dogs get Heart Worms, cattle get Hoof and Mouth Disease and plants get Root Rot and trees in the Appalachian mountains are attack and killed by the hundreds of millions by the Southern Pine Beetle to name but a few? Did plants and animals sin too? What does this tell us about the reality of the theological God of love?
In conclusion, as the Bible (though theology) tries to place the blame for all problems of creation on “sinful” humans; the real culprit in both the Bible and theology for these malicious acts of creation is none other than God himself!
Is it a positive act (both ethically and morally) for modern science to totally wiped off an entire part of God’s creation from the face of the earth and for sinful humans to feel great about what they have done? (Or, to put it in Christological terms, that the creature in the post-modern world is almost all the time smarter and kinder than the Creator.)
From time to time, in the comment section to a post by the contributors here at DC, we’ll find a “Drive by Comment” when an upset set Christian trying to make a point will remark: Look at all the abortions / murders of babies done under secular governments! Or Look how many millions of people have been murdered either for ethic or political reasons under Godless / atheistic governments!
I would counter these Drive by Comments with the fact that both the total of all the acts done by either legalized abortions or murderous acts done by humans (ether in the name of religion or acts of “godless” governments); that the sum total of all killings done by the creature / man on this earth though out the entire history of the world will not equal the known and intended malicious acts of the Judao-Christian God! (A God who has now been sanitized via theology as a “All-loving” (except for human sin.)).
Lets remove all the acts of humans from the equation and simply focus on the prim-mover / Creator called and described in the Bible as “God”. Now lets consider the account given in the Book of Genesis as a fact for the origins of the world given by Creationist. My questions for this post are as follows:
A. When were all the harmful viruses, germs, bacteria and parasites created? (As oppose to some normal events of weather and flooding which have been already discussed here at DC. My post is dealing with purposeful acts of creation by God.)
B. Who, other than God / Yahweh himself, could create? If Satan is not a god (as he is not), than he could not be blamed for any part of these malicious acts of creation which has killed and is killing billions and billions of humans (If animals and plants are included, that the number is uncountable!)
C. If this was the intended effects on humans after the Fall with their forced removal from the Garden of Eden, than why did God even go though the motion of tempting Eve and Adam in the first place since this harmful creation was already created and simply waiting on them outside the Garden?
D. If man (as a sinful creature) alone is the target of these harmful and deadly acts of creation (as one Christian doctor tried to tell me), than exactly why are both plants and animals also affected by harmful viruses, germs, bacteria and parasites or specifically put; why do dogs get Heart Worms, cattle get Hoof and Mouth Disease and plants get Root Rot and trees in the Appalachian mountains are attack and killed by the hundreds of millions by the Southern Pine Beetle to name but a few? Did plants and animals sin too? What does this tell us about the reality of the theological God of love?
In conclusion, as the Bible (though theology) tries to place the blame for all problems of creation on “sinful” humans; the real culprit in both the Bible and theology for these malicious acts of creation is none other than God himself!
71 comments:
I think I have God in a choke hold.
Can any of you Christians get him out?
Harry, you forgot to mention that after a few years, God decided to shake the Etch-a-Sketch and leave just one boat full of organisms -- meaning that all their specific parasites had to live in the specific dyad that existed on that boat, a very ill group of creatures that would then have died, even if you discount the 7 year cicadas which would have been larval and underground or the mayflies which only reach sexual maturity for a day and then die.
In conclusion, as the Bible (though theology) tries to place the blame for all problems of creation on “sinful” humans; the real culprit in both the Bible and theology for these malicious acts of creation is none other than God himself!
Where are you drawing this conclusion from?
Someone has estimated that every ten seconds one human being dies from a parasite! Think also about how many people had to die before we learned that certain plants will kill you, or that certain spiders will kill you (like the brown recluse), or that you can get lead poisoning, or that drinking sea water when thirsting actually is counterproductive. Think also of how many people died before we discovered certain vaccinations for our illnesses (like small pox, influenza and tuberculosis).
Christians who claim that this creation is perfectly fine tuned for human life must decide here. Were these things created prior to the sin of Adam and Eve or not? If, so God did a horrible job! If not, then it means God was not done creating, since after the fall he had to create them. And in doing so upset the fine tuned universe he had previously made.
Evan, better yet, just how long did it take the Emperor Penguin to waddle / swim tens-of-thousands of miles from the South Pole to Noah and his ark and Polar Bears lumbering thousands of mile down from the North pole? Exactly why (besides fish) did marine mammals liked whales and dolphins get out of God’s killing field? And just how did fresh water fish live in salt water?
But, really Evan, should we as “sinful men” even attempt to try and understand the infinite wisdom and love of God?
I think I must repent and withdraw this comment along with the Post. Lets just place all our wisdom and care in God’s hand and call it faith!
Oh, about the choke hold; God is starting to turn blue!
Jason asked: Where are you drawing this conclusion from?
RE: Secular Humanism
John, Great points!
Didn't god also destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, Nineva and order the isralites to kill every living thing in canaan? And to refresh my memory I made a trip to wikipedia and it reminded me of this fact that israelites after the exodus drove out the other nations in thier way.
"the other nations include the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites (Deuteronomy 7:1).
someone help me out, I'm sure I'm missing some cities in here. Maybe tyre and petra?
so even if you don't want to say that viruses and such are part of gods plan, you can't get around the wholesale destruction of the earth and the wars against seven nations that continues in a small part to this day.
Not to mention the christian whacko's with guns, and those that kill nigerian children as witches, enable the spread of aids in africa (vatican), and commit manslaughter during exorcisms.
oh yea,
on a philosophical point,
all those people burning in hell.
I don't think that it is justifiable to torture the lost when one can just "delete" them and be done with it.
When one can make a choice to punish people forever or just end thier misery and take the loss, then to choose the punishment is less loving and forgiving than just to 'cancel' them out.
Eternal torture rather than just 'spiritual euthenasia' is not consistent with a choice that I would predict a loving, forgiving god or anything else would make.
I wish you guys were capable of following your philosophy to it's logical conclusion. No God = no absolute morality = no definition for words like evil, malicious, etc. etc.
" If you’re an atheist, if you’re an atheist logically speaking you cannot believe in objective morality. You cannot believe in free will. These are two things that the vast majority of humankind implicitly believe in. We believe for example that if a person carries out a bad action, we can call that person bad because we believe that they are freely choosing those actions. … And just quickly an atheist believes we are controlled completely by our genes and make no free actions at all."
David Quinn
Oh...and Richard Dawkins refuses to carry out the logic of his philosophy as well. Too bad he can't be intellectually honest with himself.
Quinn and Dawkins debating:
Dawkins: I certainly don’t believe a word of that. I do not believe we’re controlled wholly by our genes. Let me go back to the really important thing Mr. Quinn said.
Quinn: How are we independent of our genes by your reckoning? What allows us to be independent of our genes? Where is this coming from?
Dawkins: Environment, for a start.
Quinn: But no, hang on, that also is a product of, if you like, matter, okay?
Dawkins: Yes, but it’s not genes.
Quinn: Yes, okay. But what part of us allows us to have free will?
Dawkins: Free will is a very difficult philosophical question and it’s not one that has anything to do with religion, contrary to what Mr. Quinn says.
Quinn: It has an awful lot to do with religion, because if there is no God there is no free will, because we are completely phenomenon.
Dawkins: Who says there is no free will if there’s no God? What a ridiculous thing to say.
Quinn: William Provine, for one, who you quote in your book. I have a quote here from him. Other scientists as well believe the same thing, that everything that goes on in our heads is a product of genes and, as you say, environment and chemical reactions. But there is no room for free will. And Richard, if you haven’t got to grips with that, and you seriously need to as many of your colleagues have, and they deny outright the existence of free will and they are hardened materialists like yourself.
Moderator: Okay, Richard Dawkins, rebut to that now, as you wish.
Dawkins: I’m not interested in free will.
Too bad you guys can't be logically consistent...but wait, that's because the Moral Law won't let you be.
If we have free will, and there is a god, then god cannot be omniscient. Free will indicates that we can make our choices that affect the future. Choice A takes me to this point, Choice B takes me to this point. But and omniscient god already knows what choice I will make and therefore, it is something that must happen. Sure god can know the outcome of either choice, but then that requires multiple realities since they must both occur, otherwise, god is just sitting around all day in a vast ocean of possible outcomes to every freakin free will decision we make and the subsequent butterfly effect. Even then god still must know which one we'll ultimately choose and so, it is still predetermined (by god).
Add to this that god, being omniscient, knows which 11 year old girls he will save and which ones he will let die long before their great-grandparents are even conceived.
So, I'll take the genetic yoke of non-free will (which I don't believe anyway) over the oppressive psychological mind-f*** non-free will of god any day of the week.
The genes aren't leading or allowing me to burn in eternal furnace of torment.
Hi John M.
It looks to me like quinn was attempting to derail the dialog by misrepresenting dawkins views on genes, misrepresenting how the mind works in general and then throwing out the red herring of freewill.
Now you are using it to ad hominem Dawkins and committing a part to whole fallacy about atheists in general.
Why don't you just stick to the article? You might make more headway.
Jericho is another city trashed by Gods henchmen.
What about the Egyptians during the Exodus? If god really wanted his chosen people to escape the mean ol' Egyptians, why didn't he just move them out into the wilderness without sending plagues and death, not to mention the soldiers swallowed by the sea after it stopped parting.
Sure, you can say that god was pissed off at the Israelites and wasn't going to make anything easy, but why kill Egyptians who were essentially caught in the crossfire? God sure loves him some collateral damage!
I guess you can look at it as "Nobody is allowed to mistreat my people except me, so I'm going to punish you for mistreating my people (and then go back to mistreating my people)", but that's pretty petty and sounds like an all too human characteristic and not the behaviour expected from a loving god.
rotten arsenal writes: So, I'll take the genetic yoke of non-free will (which I don't believe anyway) over the oppressive psychological mind-f*** non-free will of god any day of the week.
What you're suggesting is a kind of theistic determinism, in which God's foreknowledge of something determines that the thing will happen. The problem is that the argument fails because the direction of causality runs the other way.
The theist would say that because X will happen God believes X, not that God's belief in X causes X to happen.
Leaving God out of the equation, you end up with the same problem with logical determinism. The claim here is that if it's true that X will happen, then X must happen. For example if it's true that you will leave a comment on this blog, then you must leave a comment on this blog.
Both kinds of arguments fail because they get the direction of causality wrong.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, Harry. No matter how barbarous God is to us while we're here, He rewards True Christians quite generously after they die. So against the admittedly barbarous plagues, massacres, and dogbites He has afflicted us with, must be balanced the bliss of eternal life in Heaven.
The accusation looks like this: huge number of beings times huge amount of time tortured equals some horrendously large amount of badness done by God. But look at the other side of the equation: very small number of True Christians times infinite amount of time in bliss equals an infinite amount of goodness. Hell, if there is only one True Christian, and even if that True Christian is a ladybug, that still puts God clearly on the right side of the "is He good or bad?" line.
Any of you atheists offering infinite amounts of goodness? I thought not.
John Murphy said...
“I wish you guys were capable of following your philosophy to it's logical conclusion. No God = no absolute morality = no definition for words like evil, malicious, etc. etc.”
John, ever hear of counter advertising? You Christians have put a product on the market of morality and ethics in life called Christianity. We atheist, agnostics and Secular Humanist are simply taking the claims made by your product (religion) and showing how, logically, it falls apart. This is not a one sided discussion, this is a world view “Consumer Reports” where our team of experts has rate the Christian product as a poor value in all categories and claims tested.
Oh, and by the way, we atheist are to burn in the Lake of Fire forever based on your reality, and yet we are NEVER to rebuff this claim? Get real!
John M, if you want to talk about the Judao-Christian tradition giving Free Will, please answer the questions on the post and don’t side track the issue with the red herring of that we don't have the right to critic Christianity. Our understanding of FREEDOM and not Free Will says we do!
God created theses harmful organisms which has killed and continues to kill both plants and animals for millions of years and you want to talk about Free Will? Again, did all plants and animals sin? Just how does a pine tree have Free Will to avoid God’s created Southern Pine Beetle? Were the Pine trees cast out of the Garden too?
The stupid story of Garden of Eden is like placing a freshly baked tray of chocolate chip cookies in front of two kids (the mental equivalent of Adam and Eve) knowing all the time what they would do and then punishing them forever and calling it Free Will.
Did not Jesus tell us to call God “Our Father which art in Heaven…”? God is just the kind of father that the Department of Social Services would remove all the kids from the home and have the parent forced into having a mental evaluation.
Problem is John M, God never knew what free will was himself!!!
zilch, prove eternal life. john murphy, you try to put up a strawman, but the truth is, evil can be "determined" by social contract. For example: whatever does not lead to individual or racial survival is "evil." Eventually. A lion eating a human baby is initially perceived as evil, or at least unjust. Science and reason eventually prove that that is consistent with the lion's nature, and therefore not evil. A human eating a human baby is initially perceived as evil and unjust. Science and reason support that because it is not in the human nature - through social contract, and necessary for individual and racial survival - to eat the human baby.
And your contention that "objective" moral authority even exists...objective to whom? Humans on planet earth? Well, it might look like that. Objective as regards the universe? Prove it! What we call murder and evil here may be standard operating procedure on some planet orbiting Betelgeuse (though Betelgeuse is a red giant and probably would not support planetary accretion). So, all "absolute moral authority" does not exist. And does not exist, even on this planet.
Because there is no god.
Harry,
You're drawing your conclusion from secular humanism. Why would, or should, Christianity feel threatened by a conclusion drawn from the views of a philosophy that rejects the spiritual?
Jason, Christianity does not have a choice. Truth refuses to be silenced. Stick one’s figures in ones ears as one will, we are still there.
So,simply answer some of the questions of this post. Lets just see how good you are at getting God out of my choke hold!
Jason, harry, evan... and anyone else here even if you are not a believer... just please look up this one verse online ' Psalm 37'
At least one atheist (William Provine evolutionary biologist) is actually willing to acknowledge the logical consequences of evolution.
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 †"
Harry,
What exactly is this choke hold you keep referring to?
Hi Jim Holman,
I wish you'd been around a couple of months ago when we beat freewill to death. I think you'd be interested in the dialog if you looked it up in the archives.
Try and surprise god by raising your arm suddenly. You can't can you? He knew you were going to do it didn't he? Raising your arm was not caused by god, but just the same he knew when you were going to do it before you did it.
If there are an infinite number of possibilities of times you could have raised your arm and god knows all possibilities but does not know the exact one you will take, he doesn't have foreknowledge.
Since god knows everything in advance, you only appear to have freewill because you don't have foreknowledge. You are like an actor in a play.
If god has a plan, then if we all had freewill and god didn't know how it was going to turn out, then god has a very real risk of things not turning out as he planned doesn't he? This is not consistent with what the character of the god of the bible.
A god with foreknowledge cancels out free will. This is a well known philosophical problem. You can find reference to it on wikipedia and there are several books on amazon regarding it.
In any case, it is not as 'cut and dry' as you seem to think it is.
Same to you John M.
I think you would be interested in the debate we had over morals in the past couple of months.
Game theory and mark housers 'the moral sense test' at harvard show that a type of 'raw' ethics naturally arise out of circumstances and 'free agents' self-interest.
Go look up the "christmas truce of world war one" and my previous months articles.
I agree there is no 'absolute ethic' but there is a biological algorithm that has an effect, and some of it evidently comes from our survival instinct. But the Biological algorithm is not sophisticated enough to have been provided by the type of God character described in the Bible.
I would provide links but I'm strapped for time now but I wanted to bring them to your attention.
I'd also like to mention the fact that harrys assertion seems to be going almost unchallenged. Especially the additional wonton carnage pointed out by myself and R.A.
you all seem to be more interested in derailing the topic with the tried and true unresolvable 'freewill' and 'absolute morality' issues to gain some ground by making us look like have no rebuttal.
Lee the apologetic positions are really getting down to a two-trick pony.
Trick 1 -- Some version of the transcendental argument -- easily the weakest possible position for a Christian, since accepting that argument as true in no way entails acceptance of the resurrection from the dead of anyone.
Trick 2 -- Assertion that God doesn't really have the characteristics that are ascribed to him by theists in the special circumstance you bring up to apply those criteria to him.
Now there is also denying facts proved by scientific research, archeology, literary criticism, linguistics, psychology, geology, astrophysics and quantum theory, but those are usually sui generis.
Over the last few days I've become really saddened by the position apologists have to take.
To be honest, the Bible is a really cool book to read, as are some of the non-canonical texts from the 2nd century BCE to the 3rd century CE. John Milton is great to read, so is Dante. I love reading Homer, Ovid and Virgil.
But reading the Bible gives far less pleasure because I know people believe it to be literally true. Imagine reading Homer and having to justify it in your mind as literal history, or even reading it and knowing that a huge majority of those around you believed it was literally true.
It saps the quality of the literature, removes the moral lessons from the text, and dessicates the characters from the historical, literary, and artistic milieu in which they can be understood.
It seems as if the story of Yahweh and the story of Jesus are destroyed as valuable things to study by inerrantism. The only way to save God is to stop believing in him.
bro crow- you want proof for eternal life? God says so in the Bible:
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." If that isn't proof, what is?
Uh, I was trying to be funny- I think you need to reset your irony meter...
John Murphy- despite what William Provine believes, there is no "logical" connection between evolution and atheism, and there are lots of self-described Christian biologists. True, one logical conclusion to be drawn from evolution is that the Bible is not inerrant, but many Christians are willing to accommodate that somehow. Perhaps such Christians are not True Believers™ in your view, but I would say that's an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. But only God knows for sure...
zilch, i stand ironized. Good one. Got by me. I am, alas, an old crow. That day, I was spoiling for a fight. Truly, your words have comforted me...to know that it all does not end here but goes on and on and on...wow! Eternal life. In Heaven. With Jesus. Uh, oh.
A. When were all the harmful viruses, germs, bacteria and parasites created?
Not explicitly mentioned in Scripture so the answers can’t be dogmatic. It’s been suggested germs were created after the Fall, which, if germs are to be considered harmful, would seem to make sense given the original state of creation. God may have created plant-like microbes on Day Three and the animal-like microbes with the animals, etc., on Days Five and Six. Since neither are inherently harmful, they could have been altered after the curse. As for viruses, some may be degenerate parts from cells after the Curse; others may have their origin during the days of creation – again, we’re not told so most of this is conjecture.
B. Who, other than God / Yahweh himself, could create?
I'll assume this is rhetorical.
C. If this was the intended effects on humans after the Fall with their forced removal from the Garden of Eden, than why did God even go though the motion of tempting Eve and Adam in the first place since this harmful creation was already created and simply waiting on them outside the Garden?
What do you mean “already created and simply waiting on them outside the Garden”?
D. If man (as a sinful creature) alone is the target of these harmful and deadly acts of creation (as one Christian doctor tried to tell me), than exactly why are both plants and animals also affected by harmful viruses, germs, bacteria and parasites…
Nature works hard to maintain balance. If you’ve watched the Planet Earth series, it’s an overriding theme throughout every ecosystem. What’s evil about a parasite that attacks a tree if it ultimately means new growth for the forest?
or specifically put; why do dogs get Heart Worms, cattle get Hoof and Mouth Disease and plants get Root Rot and trees in the Appalachian mountains are attack and killed by the hundreds of millions by the Southern Pine Beetle to name but a few? Did plants and animals sin too? What does this tell us about the reality of the theological God of love?
A heartworm is an animal, so is the Southern Pine Beetle. They’re doing what they were created to do. We’re emotionally attached to dogs and cattle more then we are to beetles and worms so it’s natural to pick favourites – but this isn’t logical grounds to criticize or question the love of God. A parasitologist wouldn’t question the love of God by studying the interaction between a tree and beetle – he would simply see nature at work.
Jason you are pretty unlearned when it comes to biology so I will straighten you out a bit here. You say:
Not explicitly mentioned in Scripture so the answers can’t be dogmatic.
Yes isn't it odd that the God of the universe wasn't aware of all that he had created?
It’s been suggested germs were created after the Fall, which, if germs are to be considered harmful, would seem to make sense given the original state of creation.
Harmful to what? Certainly not to themselves. Harm presupposes a human point of view, something God could not have. Therefore your statement begs the question. The proper answer, that all living organisms have evolved from a single population and that life seeks to exploit all available niches, is of course the best one.
God may have created plant-like microbes on Day Three ...
Life is divided into three domains. Those domains are the bacteria, the archaea and the eukarya with viruses given a separate status. If you believe God told Moses the story of Genesis, you must also believe that God was fundamentally ignorant of the divisions of life he created.
The fact is that animals and plants are closely related, as you can see with a few clicks there, when compared to bacteria and archaea. It's strange God was unaware of this.
... and the animal-like microbes with the animals, ...
On which day did he create Euglena which has choloroplasts to do photosynthesis and can move and engulf its food as well? Did he create it twice?
... etc., on Days Five and Six. Since neither are inherently harmful, they could have been altered after the curse.
Malaria can ONLY survive as a parasite inside human blood. Who/what did the altering? Did God do it? If he did, why did he forget to mention it to Moses? The text has no problem mentioning his alteration of serpents, so why would he forget to mention that?
As for viruses, some may be degenerate parts from cells after the Curse; ...
You keep on using that word, Curse. What biological evidence do you have for it?
... others may have their origin during the days of creation – again, we’re not told so most of this is conjecture.
No. It's all a fantasy. There's no conjecture at all. You don't even know the basic facts.
There's a lot for you to learn. You ought to spend time learning it.
Jason, evan just checked my choke hold on God (as any good referee would do) and declare it legal (this is Extreme Fighting) and that God is indeed turning blue. God needs to “Tap out on this one”, but as the opponent in the fight, God has more to loose than Jacob did when he wrestled God / an angel.
Basically, what we have here is what the chain gang Boss-man in the 1970’s movie “Cool Hand Luke” calls “Failure to Communicate.” Better yet, God is the criminal on trial for what, according to you Jason, he tried to covertly cover up in the Bible (Maybe God was simply too caught up in the idea that the heart was the center of thought).
As God and his Bible are now on trial before the jury of modern science and the secular world, his team of defense lawyers (the Christian and theistic apologists) are hard at work with “what if” and “just maybe” to try and cause doubt in order to destroy the prosecution’s iron clad case which can end in judgments for the plaintiffs (we atheists) in both civil and criminal mental verdicts for religious rejection!
Face it Jason, God got caught with his “all knowing” Scriptural pants down and no amount of excuses or conjuring up some hypothetical “well may be / what if” will stand against hard core facts.
Lets face it and simply call a “spade a spade”. God (along with his son Jesus) and the Bible are issues of faith that lives in the believer’s heart and are not objective realities of the head / brain!
I think the Bible is due to be rewritten by you Christian apologist in a totally new 2008 revision, but that just might prove the Bible is humanly created (as it now stands, out of ancient ignorance) and that God is simply as mental construct.
Well at least Jason, you apologists need to at least attach an ever expanding “ERRATA”! (And Jason, this is why I’ve paid top dollar for my books: current and up to date; something that seems only “sinful man” can do while the ancient mental construct of “God“ is forever in the errors of the past.)
Evan,
Once you figure out exactly what you’d like to discuss in relation to Harry's topic, we can chat.
Zilch stated: "bro crow- you want proof for eternal life? God says so in the Bible:
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." If that isn't proof, what is?
Uh, I was trying to be funny- I think you need to reset your irony meter..."
Mocking God and the Bible? Damn you Zilch! Hell will not be HOT enough for people like you!
If the carrot of God's love (Dr. Jekyll) will not win you over, then the split personality of the stick of God's Wrath (Mr. Hyde) will!
Harry, I’m also not sure what you’re arguing. Your topic title is "The Worst Homicidal Atheistic Governments (Combined) are Not as Barbarous as God!” but it seems you’d like to discuss lawyer/wrestling terms and evidence for when germs were created (of which I happily admit I don't have), drawing your conclusions from secular humanism. Please define your argument so I can better respond to it.
Jason, I just don't know how much clearer I can make my point.
If you deny evolution, as your explanations appears to do, than just who created Small Pox and why? What good is it? Could an all loving and knowing deity do such a thing to his creation? Is this to punished “Fallen Man” outside the garden? If so, who needs Hell since God and Satan seem to be one-in-the-same as the attack on Job proves.
Jason, you are always circling my post like a wolf pack looking to make me or another DC contributor make a weak point so you can attack. You tried to and evan beat you back. Now you, as an apologist want to interrogate me hoping (as the police do a lying criminal) I’ll incriminate myself so as to give you some leverage to attack.
You gave the questions your best shot and evan knocked them down. Face it; it’s over!
Harry,
If you deny evolution, as your explanations appears to do, than just who created Small Pox and why? What good is it?
Why does it need to be good? Sorry Harry, you're going to have to explain your thoughts. I'm not catching on to what the argument is.
Could an all loving and knowing deity do such a thing to his creation?
Sure He can.
Is this to punished “Fallen Man” outside the garden? If so, who needs Hell since God and Satan seem to be one-in-the-same as the attack on Job proves.
I agree 100%.
Jason, you are always circling my post like a wolf pack looking to make me or another DC contributor make a weak point so you can attack.
I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to be attacking...
You tried to and evan beat you back. Now you, as an apologist want to interrogate me hoping (as the police do a lying criminal) I’ll incriminate myself so as to give you some leverage to attack.
Er, I tried answering your questions and as a result Evan wanted to discuss Moses and choloroplasts. I happily admit I don't know when God created germs and I admit I'm not a biology expert either. I still don't see your 'choke hold'.
You gave the questions your best shot and evan knocked them down. Face it; it’s over!
Um, alright :)
Jason:
Butter Cookies!
INGREDIENTS
* 1 cup butter
* 1 cup white sugar
* 1 egg
* 2 2/3 cups all-purpose flour
* 1/4 teaspoon salt
* 2 teaspoons vanilla extract
DIRECTIONS
1. In a large bowl, cream together the butter and white sugar until light and fluffy. Beat in the egg, then stir in the vanilla. Combine the flour and salt; stir into the sugar mixture. Cover dough, and chill for at least one hour. Chill cookie sheets.
2. Preheat oven to 400 degrees F (200 degrees C). Press dough out onto ungreased, chilled cookie sheets.
3. Bake for 8 to 10 minutes in the preheated oven, or until lightly golden at the edges. Remove from cookie sheets to cool on wire racks.
At the 1986 Society of Biblical Literature held in Atlanta, Ga., I attended the “History of Ancient Israel Section” where the topic for the day was a History written by two professors of Old Testament from Emory University: John Hayes and James Miller. The title of their new book “History of Ancient Israel and Judah” published by Westminster Press was to give a new foundation for the fact that Israel has an ancient history.
To rebuff their book and give counter arguments was Phillip R. Davis from the University of Sheffield in England (who, along with a number of other well know minimalist professors, strongly believe the Hebrew Bible was strictly a creation of the Persian Period). Davies book “In Search of Ancient Israel” is now in its 2nd edition and you can read some of Davis summations at: http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_47.htm
The debate grew heated and both Hayes and Miller, trying to defend an early origins for Israel, challenged Davies with statements like “Well, maybe…” “It maybe as well possible that…”. To which Philip Davis countered: “Well, maybe it is not…” and “It may not as well be possible that…”. So Professor Davies concluded: “Just what have you really said?…Nothing!”
Thus, without any Biblical knowledge of micro organisms, viruses and parasites the apologists who say “Well, may be this…” or “Is possible that…” are pure conjectures given just like Hayes and Miller to defend their book and try and find an early origin for “Ancient Israel”.
Butter cookies, anyone? They're delicious.
Harry,
In your article, you said,
Now lets consider the account given in the Book of Genesis as a fact for the origins of the world given by Creationist. My questions for this post are as follows:
So your questions are in the context of assuming that Genesis is true re: the origins of the world. Thus, given that context, the answer to (A) is quite simple. God did not create any harmful parasites, viruses, etc. They are all mutations that occurred naturally, and they are harmful because of the world falling under the curse of sin. This eliminates (B) (C) and (D).
All that God created was good. But sin caused everything to begin to deteriorate, thus some mutations would eventually be harmful, e.g. viruses, parasites, etc.
Harry, you say:
Damn you Zilch! Hell will not be HOT enough for people like you!
As long as it's hot enough to heat the hot tubs, and roast our s'mores, I'm satisfied.
Rachel says:
All that God created was good. But sin caused everything to begin to deteriorate, thus some mutations would eventually be harmful, e.g. viruses, parasites, etc.
I can think of at least two problems with this. First, it is simply untrue. When I studied paleontology at UC Berkeley, I held in my own hands the vertebral column of a saber-tooth cat, which was largely fused together by arthritis, rendering the cat a cripple. I imagine this would count as being "not good", and also count as being "before the Fall", no? In any case, you must do an apologetic dance of Byzantine complexity to mutate all the nice pre-Fall bugs into nasty post-Fall bugs. And what does a "good" parasite look like? Just asking...
Second problem: if you say that viruses, parasites, and other post-apple-biting nasties are "bad", where exactly do you draw the line? For instance, is Escherichia coli, which populates you and me in the billions, "good" or "bad"? For that matter, are the sharp teeth of carnivores "good" or "bad"? It seems to me that we have a tiny problem of "cui bono" (who benefits?) here, and one that is in principle insoluble.
I would go further, and say that in general, drawing a hard line between "good" and "bad" is impossible. But that's perhaps a topic for another thread.
Rachel, Zc has given you some hard facts that the Bible and the Fall just don’t consider. Thanks, Zc
The main question to the post was: Is it a positive act (both ethically and morally) for modern science to totally wiped off an entire part of God’s creation from the face of the earth and for sinful humans to feel great about what they have done? (Or, to put it in Christological terms, that the creature in the post-modern world is almost all the time smarter and kinder than the Creator.)
From the above, as drawn from theology, the Christians loving “Father which art in Heaven…” (as told to us by Jesus) has created a mutation mess, from which old fallen and sinful man must clean up though modern science.
Theologically, the Garden of Eden raises more questions than it solves:
A: If the Garden was so wonderful and pure a Genesis 1 and 2 portrays it to be, what was the talking snake doing there (later identified as Satan) in the first place!? God created this Satanic talking snake (who, by the way told the truth about not dying “that day” as soon as they ate the fruit, while God lied and did not kill them that very day).
B: Why did God (as a father) act so irresponsibly by letting Adam and Eve, who had no knowledge of right or wrong (they have not yet eaten of the Tree of Knowledge), even get near it? Just what was this All Seeing and All Knowing God doing at the time? Rachel, that’s like leaving a loaded gun in the house and then blaming the child forever for shooting him / herself or another child.
C: Why even put two forbidden trees in the garden in the first place if this All Knowing God knew the future? Whoever created this story /myth showed by lack of thinking it though how it would turn out.
D: In this context, it’s the parent / God who is the responsible one and not Adam and Eve who had the mental equivalent of two young toddlers. Remember, Rachel, they did not even know what sex was!
E: And why does God (and the others Gods) now fear them (lest they eat of the Tree of life and become as US). This story is a great give-away in that humans become their own Gods. Eat of the Tree of Knowledge, plus eat of the Tree of Life and you are now a God yourself! Thus, God and his fellow polytheistic Gods now fear Adam and Eve and MUST kick them out to keep Godhood away from them. With one tree down and one to go, Godhood is in on the way!
F: Finally, if the story is literal, exactly where is Eden today? The Book of Revelation tries to bring this lost paradise back with the New Jerusalem, but according to you, we should find this Garden of Eden in its pure form with un-mutated animals and micro organisms as guarded by an angel.
This story of Eden, which provided answers to the mind of ancient man, now creates total confusion to post-modern man who comes to the Genesis account with values of parental responsibility (and demand of God’s parental responsibility as much) and much better morals and ethics than the old Gods of the story ever had.
If pushed today, the Genesis story only hurts the faith of Christians who are willing to read it exactly for what it says, but no question it. But problems are bound to happen when question are asked and we try and relate it to our knowledge today.
Remember, Rachel, while we (via Adam and Eve) did not eat of the Tree of Life and live forever, the first humans ate of the Tree of Knowledge and we now have all the knowledge of God just as much a fact as we have Original Sin. So, my "God knowledge" lets me see thought the faults of this story of Eden.
Zilch,
The first problem you suggested was a saber-tooth cat that had arthritis. Why would this have to be pre-Fall? In fact, if the Genesis account is true (as we're assuming for the sake of argument here), then as I said, sin brought deterioration and death, thus we could be sure that arthritis would not have existed pre-Fall.
Regarding the nice and nasty bugs, no doubt many of them were created and originally had no "nasty" effects. As creation began to deteriorate after the Fall, plus all the major changes brought about by the Flood, many of the "nice" bugs that survived probably had their original purposes lost and/or mutated to a more "nasty" version.
You said,
Second problem: if you say that viruses, parasites, and other post-apple-biting nasties are "bad", where exactly do you draw the line? For instance, is Escherichia coli, which populates you and me in the billions, "good" or "bad"? For that matter, are the sharp teeth of carnivores "good" or "bad"? It seems to me that we have a tiny problem of "cui bono" (who benefits?) here, and one that is in principle insoluble.
Well, Harry asked the questions from the perspective of humans, i.e. why did God "create" viruses and such that would end up killing millions of humans. So, for our purposes here, we are looking at things that would be harmful to humans, especially if they are harmful to lots of humans. In fact, there were likely parts of the original creation that were not designed for "bad" purposes, but after all the changes of the Fall and the Flood, began to be used in different ways. Even my own hand can be used to lovingly caress my child's face or to slap it. Just about anything can be used for good or bad. So the creatures themselves could very well have been created, but with different, "good" purposes, which were changed by the Fall and the Flood.
Harry,
Is it a positive act (both ethically and morally) for modern science to totally wiped off an entire part of God’s creation from the face of the earth and for sinful humans to feel great about what they have done? (Or, to put it in Christological terms, that the creature in the post-modern world is almost all the time smarter and kinder than the Creator.)
If that part of God's "creation" was negatively affecting humans in a significant way (i.e. small pox), then sure, why couldn't we try to eliminate it from the earth and be happy about it? As I said, if God created a virus or whatever that would have devastating effects on humans, he didn't create it with that purpose originally, so there's no reason to think that he wants us to let it live.
From the above, as drawn from theology, the Christians loving “Father which art in Heaven…” (as told to us by Jesus) has created a mutation mess, from which old fallen and sinful man must clean up though modern science.
God did not "create" the mutations, God created perfection. It is sin that caused the deterioration and thus the harmful mutations.
The rest of this is straying from the main point of the post, which was how horrible God supposedly is for "creating" viruses and things that have killed many humans. I don't mind discussing the garden of Eden in general, but please note that the points below do NOT affect the original issue that I've answered above.
A. God created Eden perfectly. That doesn't mean Satan couldn't go there. And God never said they would keel over within 24 hours.
B. It was not God that acted irresponsibly. It is not said that Adam and Eve had NO knowledge of good and evil. In any event, they had been told by God that dire consequences would follow if they ate from that tree. They walked and talked with God. If they wanted to know why or whatever, they could have just asked. Instead, they ignored God's instructions and acted on their own in disobedience. Considering all that God had done for them was good, they had no reason to doubt him. Yet they couldn't obey even one command. So your analogy to the child and the gun isn't quite accurate.
C. It's not really much of a relationship if the other person doesn't have a choice.
D. Why do you think they didn't know what sex was? There's no reason to think they were the mental equivalent of toddlers! However did they figure out how to lie to God and then cultivate the ground?
E. I'm not completely sure what the issue was with the Tree of Life, but I AM sure that God is not "afraid" of man now. My current thoughts are that if man had eaten of the Tree of Life in his sinful state, he would have "become like God" in that he would be like that eternally. Since God wanted to redeem man and give him another chance to choose Him, He didn't want man to eat of the ToL in that state.
F. Eden was likely destroyed in the Flood.
Rachel,
A...And God never said they would keel over within 24 hours.
Doesn't it say this?
KJV - Genesis Chapter 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
B...Yet they couldn't obey even one command.
Not only is it true that they couldn't, God also knew that they couldn't, and wouldn't. After all, he's omniscient and he created them, every aspect of their person, and the world in which they found themselves.
It's not so much like leaving a gun in the house with a child, it's like leaving the gun with the kid after having looked into a quantum-tachyon tri-corder video showing you the future where the kid finds the gun and shoots herself.
C...It's not really much of a relationship...
Yeah, it's pretty one-sided. Even after a lifetime of prayerful devotion, Mother Teresa wondered if there was ever anyone there. When talking about relationships, we call that "neglect".
F...Eden was likely destroyed in the Flood.
Wait, Eden was good, right? God says so. Kicking Man out of Eden preserved or restored Eden's goodness and perfection. Why would God destroy that?
Hamilcar,
A. The context of Gen. 2-3 makes it clear that God did not mean they would immediately stop breathing. The curse God places on Adam in Gen. 3:17-19, combined with the literal meaning "dying you will die", makes it rather evident that the point was that they would be cut off/separated spiritually from God, as well as begin to die physically from that point.
B. You said,
It's not so much like leaving a gun in the house with a child, it's like leaving the gun with the kid after having looked into a quantum-tachyon tri-corder video showing you the future where the kid finds the gun and shoots herself.
And every time you change something about the setup, the kid still shoots herself... it never gets any better because the kid always looks for and finds the gun. So rather than scrap the whole thing, you decide to rescue as many "kids" as you can by offering a way for them to be healed from their self-inflicted bullet wound.
C. You said,
Yeah, it's pretty one-sided. Even after a lifetime of prayerful devotion, Mother Teresa wondered if there was ever anyone there. When talking about relationships, we call that "neglect".
Of course, that's not what I was saying with that point, but if you want to bring up something new, that's fine. Mother Teresa was human, that's all. Everyone has doubts from time to time. I sometimes wonder why I keep trying to be a good parent, there are moments when it seems pointless. But that's not because of neglect in any area by anyone, it's just the natural ebb and flow of life, emotions, etc. I'm sure Mother Teresa also had many times in her life where she felt the presence of God very clearly. Having times of wondering where God is is not a reflection on God's supposed "neglect" but rather a reflection of normal humanity.
F. You said,
Kicking Man out of Eden preserved or restored Eden's goodness and perfection.
Where does it say that? Gen. 3:24 indicates that god kicked man out of the garden to keep them away from the Tree of Life. Letting Eden be destroyed in the Flood is certainly one way of keeping man away from the ToL.
Rachel:
{If that part of God's "creation" was negatively affecting humans in a significant way (i.e. small pox), then sure, why couldn't we try to eliminate it from the earth and be happy about it? As I said, if God created a virus or whatever that would have devastating effects on humans, he didn't create it with that purpose originally, so there's no reason to think that he wants us to let it live.}
The Hebrew word for “Good” in Genesis is “tov”. Rachel, to get from point A (the creation was good/ tov) to point B (part of the creation (if not all) mutates after it leaves the garden) is pure conjecture. Nowhere does Genesis say the creation turned bad out side the Garden. Why has not humanity itself mutated into some lower life forms? Fact is, evolution show man has advance in mental capacity nad years of life. The long years as listed in Genesis are idea copied directly from the cuneiform “King List” where ancient kings such as Sargon live hundreds to thousands of years.
What we have here is a reworked Akkadian source like the Enuma Elish were the Elohim or GodS (plural) are still in the polytheistic story. The El / God here is not an all knowing and all powerful as the story (and not Christian theology) clearly shows. We have a God who gets confused, lies, can’t find Adam and Eve after the act and must ask them what they did or how did the know they were naked.
From the above, as drawn from theology, the Christians loving “Father which art in Heaven…” (as told to us by Jesus) has created a mutation mess, from which old fallen and sinful man must clean up though modern science.
{God did not "create" the mutations, God created perfection. It is sin that caused the deterioration and thus the harmful mutations.}
Again Rachel, you are the fourth redactor of the Genesis story to make it fit your “Sitz im Leben” or now an apologetic Christian theology. The reason God said the creation was tov / good is that ancient man had no idea of micro biology. To say that simply some organisms fell into harmful mutations while other did not, just “begs the question“.
{The rest of this is straying from the main point of the post, which was how horrible God supposedly is for "creating" viruses and things that have killed many humans. I don't mind discussing the garden of Eden in general, but please note that the points below do NOT affect the original issue that I've answered above.}
The very next post I’m working on will show that Yahweh demanded human sacrifice. I’ll be doing a word study in Hebrew for the acts demanded by God in the Deuteronomistic literature on my next post which proves this.
You are taking a late Semitic (Second Temple) / Hellenistic (Christian) view of a god / theos and reading this into the limited Genesis 1, 2 and 3 text in place of El.
{A. God created Eden perfectly. That doesn't mean Satan couldn't go there. And God never said they would keel over within 24 hours.}
The truthful talking snake (a symbol wisdom in the ancient Near East) is not Satan! The cobra represented wisdom as a symbol for pharaoh in ancient Egypt. It’s simply a animal of wisdom who tells the truth. Rachel, the Hebrew word in Genesis 2:17 is “yom” which means day. Simply check it out in a Hebrew lexicon. Just as the snake said, they did NOT die that DAY. Again, Rachel, your theology of Satan being the snake or in the snake is entirely anachronistic.
{B. It was not God that acted irresponsibly. It is not said that Adam and Eve had NO knowledge of good and evil. In any event, they had been told by God that dire consequences would follow if they ate from that tree. They walked and talked with God. If they wanted to know why or whatever, they could have just asked. Instead, they ignored God's instructions and acted on their own in disobedience. Considering all that God had done for them was good, they had no reason to doubt him. Yet they couldn't obey even one command. So your analogy to the child and the gun isn't quite accurate.}
The serpent / snake was the true hero in this story and not God along with his polytheistic his fellow Gods (Rachel, you NEVER addressed the plural form of the Hebrew “El” into Elohim” / Gods in the text). These Gods feared the human just like in the Enuma Elish. The human were to serve the Gods, but, instead, they wanted to become just like the deities themselves. The fear of humans by the Gods is again seen in the actions of the Elohim in the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11: 1-8).
This God / El is not the God of Jesus and Paul. He and his fellow Gods are early Semitic deities who were semi-divine just as the Akkadian King list proves.
{C. It's not really much of a relationship if the other person doesn't have a choice.}
Again, this story is to explain suffering in the world. It is as truthful and valid as any other Semitic or Greek story which attempts to do the same thing.
{D. Why do you think they didn't know what sex was? There's no reason to think they were the mental equivalent of toddlers! However did they figure out how to lie to God and then cultivate the ground?}
They had no knowledge of their nakedness. They had no lust which equals a need for clothes. The story tell us sex comes by knowledge and is controlled by the Gods via legal codes and laws. Whether it’s the Garden of Eden or the Tower of Babel, the Gods feared humans. Rachel, please tell me at what point they lied to God; God had lied to them in the word “yom” / day.
{E. I'm not completely sure what the issue was with the Tree of Life, but I AM sure that God is not "afraid" of man now. My current thoughts are that if man had eaten of the Tree of Life in his sinful state, he would have "become like God" in that he would be like that eternally. Since God wanted to redeem man and give him another chance to choose Him, He didn't want man to eat of the ToL in that state.}
You seem to be completely adsorbed in monotheism! Read the text, the Hebrew “Elohim” and “Us” are used. This is not some early idea of the Trinity, its ancient Semitic polytheism. Again, the Gods feared humans who were now well on their way to becoming Gods too. My point is that if you want to say man is cursed with Original Sin (a doctrine Judaism NEVER accepted), humans have inherited eternal wisdom past on in humanity also.
{F. Eden was likely destroyed in the Flood.}
The mythological Eden is now replaced with Heaven and the New Jerusalem.
The Bible is clear both in the OT and the NT: God will lie to make people suffer.
Harry's showing clearly that he did so in the OT.
For the NT version we have 2 Thessalonians 10-12:
They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
Harry,
Nowhere does Genesis say the creation turned bad out side the Garden.
Gen. 3:17-19 mentions that "thorns and thistles" were part of the curse of sin, that "the ground" was cursed, and that Adam would now have to work hard, sweat, toil, etc. to get what he needed to live. And Romans 8:20-22 makes it pretty clear that all of creation suffers as a result of man's sin.
Why has not humanity itself mutated into some lower life forms?
It has. We have more diseases, more sicknesses, etc. Our genetic code is deteriorating, not getting better. But of course if you're expecting to see humans turn into lizards or something, that wouldn't be expected in the context of creation or the Fall.
The rest of your comments there were unrelated to the point.
You said that God created a mutation mess that humans are having to fix. I answered, "God did not "create" the mutations, God created perfection. It is sin that caused the deterioration and thus the harmful mutations."
You responded,
Again Rachel, you are the fourth redactor of the Genesis story to make it fit your “Sitz im Leben” or now an apologetic Christian theology. The reason God said the creation was tov / good is that ancient man had no idea of micro biology. To say that simply some organisms fell into harmful mutations while other did not, just “begs the question“.
And you're not begging the question? But in fact I did not beg the question. According to your article, we are assuming the truth of creation for the sake of argument, and you are trying to point out logical inconsistencies in the creation account. I showed why the points you were made were either inaccurate or not inconsistent. I am not trying to prove that creation is true here. I am simply showing how the "problems" you raised about the Genesis creation account are not really problems. Whether or not Genesis is true is another discussion.
A. I answered the point about "day" in my comment to Hamilcar. Please read it.
B. None of your comments addressed what I said here. You said that I "NEVER" addressed the plurality of "elohim", yet I don't know why I would have since we weren't even close to discussing that. I try not to bring up random points in a discussion, unlike you apparently.
C. You had nothing relevant here either.
D. You said, The story tell us sex comes by knowledge and is controlled by the Gods via legal codes and laws.
This is so obviously ridiculous I won't bother with it.
But, I will concede that I was wrong in saying Adam & Eve lied to God. More like, hid, made excuses, and tried to cover up their actions. But no lies.
E. You said, My point is that if you want to say man is cursed with Original Sin (a doctrine Judaism NEVER accepted), humans have inherited eternal wisdom past on in humanity also.
The Bible says nothing about Adam & Eve gaining "eternal wisdom". There's NO reason to think they even had such a thing, let along passed it down automatically to others. This makes no sense.
F. I said, "Eden was likely destroyed in the Flood." You had nothing relevant to say here either.
Harry, your original article stated that if God created everything, then God is to blame for creating viruses and such that have killed millions of humans. I have clearly shown that God can easily have created "everything" w/o creating deadly viruses, it's all about mutations. If you have any answer to that, I'll respond to it. Otherwise, the rest of your comments are irrelevant to the discussion and I won't bother.
Sorry again for any typos, no time to preview this.
Evan,
Explain what you know about this particular section of Scripture. What is God lying about, who's the "they", what's the suffering, and when is all of this supposed to take place?
Rachel,
Our genetic code is deteriorating, not getting better.
Wait, what?
I don't think that could be regarded as a factual statement -- or perhaps even a coherent statement. What basis do you have to state this?
"Our" genetic code is "deteriorating"? The DNA of the entire human species is getting... what? Broken up? Mutated? Scrambled? Turned evil?
We certainly know of a great many ways DNA can be altered through natural processes, but the vast majority of these things (cosmic rays, radioactive decay from rocks, enzymes and natural compounds, etc.) have been present along with life for over 4 billion years. Our DNA has lots of repair/defense mechanisms to deal with these problems, and usually does an amazingly good job.
And our code is "not getting better"? What would it look like, for it to "get better"? You mean all the endogenous retroviruses would be cleaned out? But actually, those can be co-opted to become useful. You mean all the redundant copies of haemoglobin would be purged from the genome? But those seemingly extra copies of genes can become extremely useful under selection pressure, down the road.
Whatever do you mean?
There's an interesting article here about genetic mutation.
Jason,
There's an interesting article here about genetic mutation.
I agree, this is interesting. The researchers may have discovered a mechanism for genetic change that was not previously understood. That's good science: through testing and observation, determine the way that a natural phenomenon works.
They speculate that the oxidation mechanism is driven by ionizing radiation and other, unspecified "environmental factors", but these factors were not part of the research.
Overall, it appears that the main contribution of this research is to help explain why mutations sometimes cluster on the genome, rather than being spread evenly across it.
Jason I really don't see it as my job to interpret the Bible for you. When the Bible says that God sends someone a powerful delusion so that they believe a lie, it really seems quite evident what is being said.
Why you have trouble understanding it is between you and the deutero-pauline epistle writer.
Rachel, You just pulled the rug out from you time descending mutation theory. In order to protect a good God, you proposed mutation:
{Gen. 3:17-19 mentions that "thorns and thistles" were part of the curse of sin, that "the ground" was cursed, and that Adam would now have to work hard, sweat, toil, etc. to get what he needed to live. And Romans 8:20-22 makes it pretty clear that all of creation suffers as a result of man's sin.}
So here you just defeated you mutation over time theory and prove my point ant the “thorns and thistles” were already created and just waiting on the poor human to get the boot! Rachel, there was no time for plants to mutate into “thorns and thistles” in this very short time.
The fact that there was a garden (a protected and cultivated section of land) means that this section of land was called out and set apart just as Israel was from the nations. This means that creation in seven days created BOTH the protected garden and the wild world of nature outside the garden. Thus, seven days (Hebrew “yom” / day) means that the was absolutely NO TIME I seven 24 hour days of creation for mutation to occur, so just as God (good and loving) created the Garden of Eden, the same God (who I stated has killed more humans than all atheistic governments combine) ALSO created the world outside the garden at the same time with all the harmless and HARMFUL viruses, germ and parasites already in place.
Thus, a closed reading of the Genesis creation account totally supports my original post against your “Mutation Theory”. The fact that the basic day in Hebrew “yom” is a 24 hour day times 7 equals 168 hours. The Genesis account plainly states that creation ended on day 7 = יעיבשה and that God DID NOT create anything after that!
So, from a close reading, both the good Garden of Eden and the wild BAD world of hardship “thorns and thistles” were BOTH created at the SAME TIME. If there were mutation over time, it would ONLY ADD to what harmful things God had already created outside the small garden.
Thus, Rachel, God IS DRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for ALL the harmful viruses, germ and parasites (not even counting your over time formed mutations) which has killed and continues to kill billions and billions!
Rachel, I noticed you host a blog entitled: The Land of Reason BYOB (Bring Your Own Brains). So lets have some Semitic Hebrew logic here. Protestant theology founded on Paul’s views can be dangerous as I pointed out in my post about how Paul’s reading of the Genesis account has caused all women to be fired from all Southern Baptist Seminaries. Paul’s view on the Law and the Jews is often contradictory and confusing. His reading of the Genesis account has been very destructive on all Christian women in the modern world ( I know this is not on the topic, but this, via your blog, tell me where your are coming from).
If you want to deal with the Genesis 1, 2 and 3 accounts, then stay with the facts of dual creation that ended in 7 twenty-four hour days. The God of loving in the Garden of Eden is also the God of eternal destruction and hate outside the Garden (thorns and thistles). Love can only “whit wash” hate (as I’ll prove in my next post on God), it can not replace basic cruelty and hate! Adjust you theology to fit the facts of Genesis and please do not keep reading this account though Pauline theology.
Oh, by the way, another lie of God in recorded in Genesis 3:14: Snakes do not eat dust!
Harry,
Discussing this with you would appear to be quite unproductive.
Just a quick note about my blog... I disagree that Pauline theology is bad on women, but in any event the articles on my blog are not based on Pauline theology alone. My blog is fairly new and is currently addressing a very specific debate among Christians. I doubt it would be of much interest to anyone here.
Hamilcar,
You may be reading too much into my comment about the deterioration of our genetic code. I'm simply referencing the gradual accumulation of mistakes to the genetic code as the genetic information is transferred from person to person.
Rachel: "Discussing this with you would appear to be quite unproductive."
While you have to improvise or import a foreign reading into the text (esigesis), I can simply take the 7 day dual creation account and defend my original thesis.
Theology that can only make God good is a total human creation. Only the facts as recorded in the Hebrew Bible can describe God who, at times, goes out of control and slaughters men, women, children, babies, the unborn, and animals ether directly or though the Israelites.
Jesus NEVER dealt with this God / Yahweh or as my second post at DC showed, Jesus was a Jewish religious Bigot who had no use for gentiles.
Your bog, though selected authors (J.P. Holding at Tektonic Ministries is a poor choice) is taking a Creedal God and defending him as the Father of Jesus and God of absolute love. If there is any mutation, it is the limited Semitic Yahweh of wrath who mutates into your eternal Logos of love as found in the Gospel of John 1.
At least you decided to come here at DC and joined in some of the discussions…you have to be commended for that. Thanks for the comments.
Evan,
If you're going to reference the Bible and make a comment on what you think a verse means, I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion. You require the same from Christians, now I'm requiring it from you.
You want to have your cake and eat it too.
Now, have at it.
Rachel,
I'd like to suggest you ask Harry to show you where Paul blames women for the sin of mankind. He likes to make this claim, along with his varying opinions of Paul and women, but getting him to produce evidence for both is another story altogether.
Jason I believe the Bible is a collection of writings that have no authority whatsoever. There's no need for me to interpret a sentence like the one in 2nd Thessalonians.
It says that God sends a delusion to people so that they will believe a lie.
How is that hard to understand? What needs to be explained?
God sends a delusion to people so they will believe a lie means:
God (Subject, accusative case) sends (verb, present indicative) a (indefinite object) delusion (direct object, accusative) to (preposition) people (indirect object) so (link) they (subject) will believe (future verb) a (indefinite object) lie (direct object).
Evan,
It certainly does say God will send a delusion, but I'd like to know who He's sending the delusion to and when exactly it was sent. I'd also like to know how you interpret this verse to mean God makes people suffer.
Jason you really don't get this, do you?
My goal is not to interpret a Bible I don't believe is an authority to you, someone who does.
My goal is to show how it doesn't make sense. When it doesn't make sense, it is your choice to believe it in spite of the fact it doesn't make sense or stop believing it. If you feel there is an alternate explanation for the plain sense of the text (remember Elijah going up to the sky in a whirlwind?) then knock yourself out.
But the plain text says God sends a delusion. Just like the plain text says Elijah went up in whirlwind.
Good luck.
Evan,
Sure the verse says God will send a delusion. Anyone can read that. What it doesn't say is that God will lie to make people suffer. Yet this is what you're claiming these verses mean.
You're basing this interpretation on something - I'd like to know what it is.
Evan, Jason is a sect unto himself. He does not believe anyone (believers) are presently in Heaven (a good atheistic point...hey Jason, Rachel should asked you about this!). From what I can tell, if he ever was a member of a denomination, he been given the boot. He hangs out at DC probably since most main line Christian blogs will consider him heretical.
And Jason, this is my view of you and, NO, I don't care to debate your personal hermeneutics and religious life.
I'm actually considering banning Jason for persistent ignorance. It would be the first time I did this. Any thoughts?
The question is: Exactly why does everyone, but Jason, see the point of a post even if they do not agree with it.
The suffering of women under the theology of Paul is a case in point. While women today suffer because of the Pauline doctrine as expressed in his letters, Jason keeps asking: “Where does it say in the New Testament that women are eternally unforgiven?”
My reply to Jason was: “Where does it say in the New Testament that Jesus ever took a dump?” My point is that the conclusions are real and clear; but Jason just can not see it simply for personal and theological reasons and not based on objective logic. When I confronted him with the fact that the women were being fired by the largest evangelical Bible based denomination in the United States, he claims I’m side tracking the issue and refuses to face the fact that women professors have been fired from teaching men in ALL Southern Baptist Seminaries based directly on Paul’s theology drawn form the mythological story of Adam and Eve in Genesis account. Then, like a record hung up in a recording track, he keeps asking over and over just where do I arrive at the fact that women are eternally unforgiven? Duh, wake up Jason and read the blog’s of these women professors! Wrong gender means no job straight from the Bible!
John, Jason seems to have a good heart, but he is very dense (dumb) or illogical or, more likly, both. Little wonder he is not associated with a Christian denomination or sect.
If you want to given him the boot from DC, I would say he earned it.
John,
What exactly are you accusing me of being ignorant about?
Jason, only thoughtful and relevant comments from you will be approved from now on. As Harry just said, you are dense. I don't have to show you this. I don't think I could show to a dense person that he is dense anyway.
Our comment policy reads: "This is not a site for grade school level arguments. First finish High School, take a few college classes and then come back after doing so."
That's what I bid you to do. Or, better yet, get my book and read it. I think that'll help bring you up to snuff on the issues that divide us.
John,
Jason doesn't have a good heart as Harry seems to be willing to allow. He doesn't respond to what is actually said but seems to enjoy behaving like a troll. I noticed him being intentionally ignorant about points presumably because he had no response (so he pretended to not understand the point). I’ve seen him ignore points, refuse to comment because the argument was off topic (even though it was on topic and he had veered afield) and I’ve seen him feign ignorance when he perceives a slight just to avoid responding in a truthful manner and pretend to take the high road. He does all this then restates his original, thoroughly debunked point and try to start the whole circus all over again. This is not debating in an honest manner. Points should be made and defended if possible and views sorted out but it is impossible to do if one party refuses to see a clear point and acknowledge it but instead corrupts the process by obfuscation, willful ignorance and trolling.
I can't stand reading his tiresome crap anymore and refuse to engage him (although I reserve the right to mock his ignorance if the mood strikes) but up to a certain point his ignorance allows a chance for other more patient commenters to address points that may be new and interesting and enlightening to some. That's the tradeoff, in my view.
Use your best judgment. Maybe delete the tedious, obtuse crap and make him bring a better, more honest argument to the blog. If that's too much work then ban him.
Post a Comment