what an Ironic video, especially the part where they were suggesting how God should tell them how to not spread diseases, but in the bible it says not to fornicate, and fornication would stop the spread of STDs, there would be no AIDs since the bible says not to have sex with animals(that is a theory on how the aids virus was created) getting rid of deserts will disrupt the environment and it goes on and on, another video(like your book) designed for uneducated unintelligent Christians to question their faith, while any Christian with a basic grasp of logic, knowledge of the bible, will just sit back and laugh.
TD so you laugh at the suggestions in this video eh, and my book?
In the first place you should know that the only things I agree with completely are the things that I myself write. I link to things that are generally good though and this video is generally good. Keep in mind that nothing so short as this video can defend its contentions in such a short sound bite.
In the second place have you read my book to know what you're talking about? It seems as if many Christians come here and say it's laughable who have never read it to say that. Have you and don't lie for Jesus. Nonetheless by saying this you disagree with some very important people who do take it very seriously, a few of whom are Christian scholars. So what are your credebtials for laughing at my book since you disagree with credentialed Christian scholars about it?
DJ, when will you stop claiming that Geisler recommended your book? When will anyone on this blog tell you "That's a lie. Stop it!"? The whole "honest doubter"-thing would only sound as half as ridiculus if you would do that.
TD - Are you saying you're an example of an intelligent, educated Christian even though you don't seem to be aware that STDs are a very small minority of the germs and viruses which affect humanity? Malaria, smallpox, polio, the bubonic plague and influenza to name a few. More people died from influenza in 4 months from 1918-9 than died in all combat in WWI and WWII combined, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you sneer because of AIDS? Gimme a break.
I laughed. Out loud. The factual information in this video is lower than the ankle sock of a particularly small beetle, standing in a ditch, in a quarry, in the low country. With intllectual garbage like this circulating, its no wonder why loads of people are leaving Atheism in shroves. Keep up the good work DJ, it just makes it easier for us.
Matthew it's not a lie. Geilser not only said so in his review of my book but he also emailed me personally saying so, which was quoted inside my book with permission from him.
I have read the book loftus, I have a copy sitting not 10 ft from me so I am not lying, furthermore, your appeal to academic authority does not scare me one bit, as your book stands on the merits of its claims, not who takes it seriously or not, giesler recommends your book for the first few pages and that's it, he even calls your arguments bad, my credentials(or lack of them) are irrelevant, as the blatant errors in the book have nothing to do with my credentials are not, so your attempts to scare me with your appeals to academic authority mean nothing at all, here are a couple of the errors (pointing out all of them will be a multi part series on the blog)
TD not to have sex with animals(that is a theory on how the aids virus was created)
CARR Really?
There is also a competing theory.
One which says there is this 'god' who created all life forms.
Perhaps you have heard of it Yes, man having sex with monkeys is a theory of how aids got started, God created all life forms, that is a theory as well, so is, God created the original life forms and they changed to what they are now is a theory as well, did you have a point?
TD-God created the original life forms and they changed to what they are now is a theory as well,Do you believe that all predatory animals were herbivores until Adam & Eve ate the magic fruit?
If a woman had sex only with exclusive lesbians who had never been near a man (and neither had she) then she wouldn't catch any STDs whatsoever. She could be really promiscuous with other exclusive lesbians too. No STDs.
Are STDs a punishment for having sex with men who aren't virgins?
If a woman had sex only with exclusive lesbians who had never been near a man (and neither had she) then she wouldn't catch any STDs whatsoever. She could be really promiscuous with other exclusive lesbians too. No STDs.
Are STDs a punishment for having sex with men who aren't virgins? rrriiiiggghhhhtttt considering aids got here via homosexuality I'd say you have no point whatsoever, if only people listed to God we would not have this AIDS/STD epidemic, I guess we could thank homosexuals for that one.
"Yeah, in your dreams. What an imagination to picture atheism as if it was a church." It's not my fault of you can't accept reality. Try not to wet the bed you big baby.
'Yes, man having sex with monkeys is a theory of how aids got started'
Firstly it is a theory that only the truly rabid christians spout...tis a load on claptrap by the way...AIDS is not spread via sex...either either humans/human or human/animal...
It is spread by blood to blood contact...intravenous injection and contaminated blood from a blood bank is the traditional vector in the west... also a man that gets bitten by a monkey with a cut in its mouth is the more likely method of contraction. Trying to wrestle a wild monkey to the ground to have sex with it might excite christian fools but the practicality...just like their delusion...is not persuasive...
Secondly..Monkeys or apes do not have the HIV/AIDS virus...they can suffer from 'Green monkey disease' which is a generic name for the Marburg virus which funnily enough affects a species of green monkeys....
Thirdly AIDS/HIV evolved from Marburg...thus neatly proving both evolution happens and that Christians should really not spout complete rubbish without checking some basic facts..
'but in the bible it says not to fornicate'
It also says 'go forth and multiply' in Genesis...so make your mind up!
'any Christian with a basic grasp of logic, knowledge of the bible, will just sit back and laugh.'
Oxymoronic irony...how cute!
God created all life forms, that is a theory as well, so is, God created the original life forms and they changed to what they are now is a theory as well, did you have a point?'
"rrriiiiggghhhhtttt considering aids got here via homosexuality I'd say you have no point whatsoever..."Via male homosexuality, yes. Not exclusive lesbians. Unless you have evidence to demonstrate otherwise.
"...if only people listed to God we would not have this AIDS/STD epidemic, I guess we could thank homosexuals for that one."Oh, you mean God who said that men could have as many female sexual partners that they could afford to marry, throughout the OT?
All unprotected of course.
So tell me, by your reckoning, how many unprotected sexual partners did King Solomon have with the approval of God?
'God created all life forms, that is a theory as well
No!... it is not a theory... it is a 'belief' with no evidence...it is no theory according the the definition of the word... try not to flatter yourself!
'God created the original life forms and they changed to what they are now is a theory as well'
No that is not a theory either... that is a version of theistic evolution through wishful thinking...it is usually a position held by folks that understand that evolution actually happens because they see and can interpret the evidence for evolution...but still want a sky fairy to be in charge..it is a very unethical sad and desperate position to be in... There is no evidence for the theistic part...it is a delusion....still !
'did you have a point?'
Actually do you have a point...seems not...just spouting wild and exaggerated poppycock might be a christian way...still means it does not have a point except as an attention seeker!
Via male homosexuality, yes. Not exclusive lesbians. Unless you have evidence to demonstrate otherwise. what? genital herpes can spread from mouth to genitalia, herpes as well, those are 2 examples off the top of my head. Oh, you mean God who said that men could have as many female sexual partners that they could afford to marry, throughout the OT?
All unprotected of course.
So tell me, by your reckoning, how many unprotected sexual partners did King Solomon have with the approval of God? cute, God not once approved of polygomy, so you're wrong there, secondly solomon as well as many other people disobeyed God many times, so you have no point, you just provided an example of someone disobeying Gods instructions, which include sexual promiscuity.
Theological Discourse . . . what an ironic name since there is so little of either in your comments. Oh, come on, you gotta laugh a little at that!
Of course the bible says a few things that are probably good sense. It has it's share of nonsense, too. It could have been better--that's the point of the video. Right now, there's nothing in the Bible that makes me quiver in astonishment at how the ancients could have known such things. It is as if it were written by a pre-scientific people. Oh yeah, it was.
Your claim that getting rid of the deserts will disrupt the environment has two problems. One, it claims that God is too powerless to create an Earth with no deserts--which sounds a bit blasphemous. Two, I'm pretty sure Eden was free of deserts, which means it's possible (I guess).
You claimed the video was designed for uneducated unintelligent Christians to question their faith. Snarkily, I would ask you if there are any other kinds of Christians. But seriously, not to be mean, but it really just comes across as pouting. The thrust of the video--about God/Jesus making decisions to keep people ignorant--is spot on. There is only hand-waving apologetics and wishful theology that can attempt to philosophize these problems away.
Ironically, I think the more apologetics and philosophy I hear on the topic of God/Jesus, the weaker the case for him/them becomes.
Actually do you have a point...seems not...just spouting wild and exaggerated poppycock might be a christian way...still means it does not have a point except as an attention seeker! if you had any sort of reading comprehension you would know that I was mocking steven carr.
Your claim that getting rid of the deserts will disrupt the environment has two problems. One, it claims that God is too powerless to create an Earth with no deserts--which sounds a bit blasphemous. Two, I'm pretty sure Eden was free of deserts, which means it's possible (I guess). 1. Only one as ignorant as yourself would think my claim about God removing deserts has to do with God creating an earth, this falls under the straw man fallacy, if God removed the desert and replaced it with fertile land it would disrupt the environment, then you come here building a strawman saying 'the claim says God is powerless to create an earth with no desert!' it says no such thing, they are 2 different subjects, your fallacious, illogical, ridiculous reasoning has been exposed. 2. I am pretty sure you are ignorant of the bible since eden was a garden in one part of the earth, the garden did not encompass the whole entire earth, thus there were deserts outside of the garden of eden. The thrust of the video--about God/Jesus making decisions to keep people ignorant--is spot on. There is only hand-waving apologetics and wishful theology that can attempt to philosophize these problems away. if you call quote mining scripture and factual errors and omission of facts that prove the video to be ridiculous to be 'spot on' then sure it is spot on, of course to someone as ignorant in simple facts, history, and logic as you appear to be, the video would to be spot on, and what you call 'hand waving apologetics and wishful theology' others call pointing out glaring, embarrassing, factual errors, oh well, tomato, tomahto. Ironically, I think the more apologetics and philosophy I hear on the topic of God/Jesus, the weaker the case for him/them becomes. Ironically the more criticisms I hear on the topic of God/Jesus, the weaker the case for His nonexistence/myth etc. becomes.
You can't spell "polygamy" and you don't know the difference between a "monkey" and an ape, and you think AIDS got here via "sex with monkeys" and "homosexuality."
I suggest you go visit a forum where the ignorance and educational levels more closely parallel your emotional need to discuss such issues.
On droughts it wouldn't take much to avoid massive starvation if some areas of the earth presently farmed just got a little more rain, like if God simply blew a flew more rain clouds over some parched areas were food was being grown instead of letting those clouds move naturally out to sea and rain on the ocean. Just a few such clouds moved every once in a while over critically dry areas where farming was taking place wouldn't upset the entire world order. But apparently the same God who fed two thousand people lunch one day can't be bothered with blowing a few clouds over critical food growing areas every once in a while (not even if the area prays for rain).
On AIDS, if there's more than one hypothesis as to how it got started why did you bring up having sex with monkeys as if that was the one hypothesis? I heard just being bitten by an infected monkey could have started the HIV virus on its way. And people are hunting "bush meat," like monkey and ape flesh to feed themselves because they are starving, not because of huge hunting parties out there trying to find monkeys and apes to have sex with.
Also, the logistics of having sex with monkeys and/or apes are these: Monkeys are small vicious creatures with claws and teeth (how would you even penetrate such a creature with the size of the human penis being what it is?), chimps and other great apes are larger but also far more strong and more dangerous to humans than monkeys. I'd say about the only chance is if someone tranquilized, tied-up, and/or killed a female gorilla or chimp (NOT a monkey) and then had sex with it. That's about the only possible scenario. But did you also know that vaginal sex has a low transmission rate for AIDS, especially in the direction of female to male? Even the transmission rate for anal sex is lower for the man doing the penetrating than for the person being penetrated because it's the rectal wall that is thin and easily bruised far moreso than the penis skin so THE TRAMSMISSION OF HIV via rectal sex with tranquilized or dead chimps (and do you really believe there's a huge market for that?) is implausible. It's far more likely that bush meat hunters were bitten by a green monkey.
ON POLYGAMY:
The Bible teaches that a man can have as many wives as he can afford. God even GIVES people extra wives. The divine plan is laid out in the Pentateuch:
Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife....
Deuteronomy 21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated....
Genesis 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives.
Genesis 16:1-4 Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai ... gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived.
Genesis 25:6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had....
Genesis 26:34 Esau ... took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite.
Genesis 31:17 Then Jacob rose up, and set ... his wives upon camels.
Judges 8:30 And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.
1 Samuel 1:1-2 Elkanah ... had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah.
2 Samuel 12:7-8 Thus saith the LORD God of Israel ... I gave thee ... thy master's wives....
1 Kings 11:2-3 Solomon ... had seven hundred wives ... and three hundred concubines.
1 Chronicles 4:5 And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.
2 Chronicles 11:21 Rehoboam ... took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines.
2 Chronicles 13:21 But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives....
2 Chronicles 24:3 Jehoiada took for him two wives....
Even in the NEW TESTAMENT, as pointed out by Muslim readers:
In Matthew 22:24-28 Jesus takes polygamy totally in stride when discussing what should happen when a childless widow marries her husband's brother (even if her husband's brother already had a wife).
See also Mt.25:1 "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom [singular]." Even in Paul's letters the image used is of Christ being the singular male head of the church, it's bridegroom, while the whole church is his bride.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ntpoly.htm
I also read a book about a controversy that has taken place in the Catholic church in Africa when faced with polygamous tribes there, who converts to Christianity, and whether or not the converts then had to give up their extra wives. The book covered the history of polygamy in Judaism and the Bible and early Christianity, and how various missionaries dealt with such controversies. Interesting book, somewhere among my stuff.
Oh, and apropos of of God "giving" people more than one wife, there's also cases in the Bible where God blesses people with slaves or adds to their number, and even ensures his priests are given their fair share of slaves once the Israelites capture them, notably, Numbers 31, in which the priests are given their divinely commanded portion of the young virginal females who were enslaved.
Come back after you've actually read John's book including all the BIG words. And quit trying to act like another smart ass inerrantist know- nothing like J.P, Holding.
There's also a whole lot of Christians you can go argue inerrancy with. You think atheists are the ones who began questioning the Bible's inerrancy? It started among Christians scholars at Christian institutions of higher learning. Some medieval rabbis even began questioning whether Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch based on obvious questions that arose simply by a plain reading of the text which never says Moses wrote the Pentateuch. It's all told in the third person, and there's lots of incidental phrases that suggest the Pentateuch was stitched together and edited centuries after Moses' death. So, Jews and Christians have been raising questions for centuries concerning each of their own religion's traditional beliefs concerning the Bible's authorship.
If Solomon was so wise, the wisest and most understanding human ever (1 Kings 3:12), then how were “his wives" able to "turn away his heart after other gods?” (1 Kings 11:4) And if that can happen to the wisest and most understanding human ever, then consider the faults inherent in the system God has set up with his "salvation play game." But keep reading.
SOLOMON (THE HEBREW PHILOSOPHER-KING)
History records the names of numerous ancient “philosophers” and “philosopher kings,” some mythical, some real, some a bit of both. But King Solomon’s wisdom exceeded all of them if we are to believe what the Bible tells us, for it says that God gave King Solomon “a wise and understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee” (1 Kings 3:12). But to really drive the point home 1st Kings 4:31 adds that “Solomon was wiser than any other man, including Ethan the Ezrahite -- wiser than Heman, Calcol and Darda, the sons of Mahol.” And we all know how wise they were. Oops, we don't.
And how come it says in the Bible in the book of Ecclesiastes (a book that evangelical Christians allege Solomon wrote), “The sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again” (Eccles. 1:5, NASB)? The wisest of men says the sun “hastens to its place” so it can “rise there again” each day? Whoever wrote such a thing appears to have been neither wise, nor inspired by God (at least not in the subject of astronomy).
And what about the question of whether there is life after death? That question is answered with a great big, “Who knows?” (Eccles. 3:21) As for righteousness, his advice is, “Be not righteous overmuch.” (Eccles. 7:16) And his advice concerning the best pursuit in life is, “A man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry.” (Eccles. 8:15)
Christians take note: 1 Kings 3:12 says that “none” shall arise “after thee” who have as “wise and understanding a heart” as Solomon’s. Doesn’t the word, “none” mean “none,” and hence it excludes even Jesus from having as “wise and understanding a heart” as Solomon?
One can not discuss King Solomon without mentioning the temple that the Bible tells us he built--a relatively tiny temple only about ninety feet long and thirty feet wide (1 Kings 6:2 & 2 Chron. 3:3) but which must have been an extraordinary sight because King David allegedly provided his son, Solomon, with “a hundred thousand talents of gold, a million talents of silver, quantities of bronze and iron too great to be weighed, and wood and stone” to use in building it. “And you may add to them” David said. (1 Chron. 22:14) Add to “a hundred thousand talents of gold?” The NIV Bible says that a hundred thousand talents of gold is equal to 7.5 million lbs. The U.S. federal gold depository at Fort Knox holds only 19% more than that, or 9.2 million lbs. Moreover, a single ounce of gold can be beaten out to 300 square feet. So King Solomon could have gilded his entire nation with 7.5 million pounds of gold, or perhaps built the whole temple out of gold, without even needing to use the 75 million lbs. of silver he also had on hand. (Hmmm, maybe Solomon made the temple so small so he could pocket most of the gold and silver his father left him; or, more likely, the author of 1st Chronicles was inflating the wealth of King David and King Solomon just as he inflated the numerical sizes of their armies--after all, “a hundred thousand talents of gold,” is a nice large round figure.)
Of course it’s difficult for anyone today to believe that ancient kings, ruling over relatively parched and moderately populated lands like ancient Palestine, lacking modern methods and machines for gold mining and refining, could have accumulated 81% of what currently lies at Fort Knox. (Though I admit that the above Bible verses have inspired myths galore concerning the amount of precious ore waiting to be rediscovered in “King Solomon’s mines.”)
Unfortunately, no trace of Solomon’s extraordinarily gaudy temple has ever been found, nor was it ever reported to have been seen by any non-Biblical traveler even though it was supposedly only a few miles from heavily traveled trade routes and “all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom” (2nd Chron. 9:23). Neither was Solomon’s “wisdom” ever referred to by any non-Biblical travelers of that era. Probably because all ancient Near Eastern civilizations back then boasted large collections of “wise sayings,” some of which even the Bible plagiarized when it attributed them to “King Solomon.”
"...THE TRAMSMISSION OF HIV via rectal sex with tranquilized or dead chimps (and do you really believe there's a huge market for that?)"Lol Ed, sounds like just one activity from a typical no-morals EVILutionist atheist soiree. You know, with IVF caviar, just special for teh ebil festivites.
32 posts and you guys are still obsessed with AIDS?
Talk about a red herring! After all these puffed-up claims I thought that someone would eventually break down and talk about the video. I thought that at least someone would see this as the obvious diversionary tactic it is and get back on topic.
I asked you to demonstrate that AIDS could come about via exclusive lesbianism. You started talking about herpes.
Fail. let us see what you said before.
If a woman had sex only with exclusive lesbians who had never been near a man (and neither had she) then she wouldn't catch any STDs whatsoever. She could be really promiscuous with other exclusive lesbians too. No STDs.that was your first post, so looks like YOU fail, since I provided evidence that STD's are contracted via lezbians.
here is what I said if only people listed to God we would not have this AIDS/STD epidemic, I guess we could thank homosexuals for that one looks like you FAIL at reading comprehension as I said AIDS/STD epidemic, you're the one that tried switching it to strictly aids when the original topic was about aids and std's You also asserted that God has never condoned polygamy. Read Exodus 21:10 and then get back to me. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.the word is IF, IF does not = approval, IF can logically equal "I don't like it but if you do it then you must abide by these rules," so you have FAILED to provide evidence for God approving of polygamy since the word IF is not synonymous with approval. Please demonstrate that it was Solomon's polygamy rather than him marrying women of idolatrous nations that caused God's displeasure. 1 Kings 11. I don't have to, God never approved of his polygamy in the first place, and the lack of God saying "I disapprove of your polygamy" is nothing but an argument from silence, not to mention his idolatry was a direct result of his polygamy.
You can't spell "polygamy" and you don't know the difference between a "monkey" and an ape, and you think AIDS got here via "sex with monkeys" and "homosexuality." cute, arguing semantics, it is readily obvious what I meant by monkeys, your ignorance is at a new level, if I say dog I am not required to give the exact species of dog, monkeys in general = chimps and apes etc., unless your a fundy atheist ready to argue semantics to prove a point. The Bible teaches that a man can have as many wives as he can afford. God even GIVES people extra wives. The divine plan is laid out in the Pentateuch: you seem to have the same logical shortcomings as the ignorant girl
the world "If" does not = approval, the recording of people taking multiple wives does not = approval, the only thing that = approval is, approval
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/approval
1. the act of approving; approbation. 2. formal permission or sanction.
saying 'IF' you take multiple wives be sure to clothe them is no where at all similar "you can have multiple wives," telling my two year old "If you steal something you must return" does not mean I am saying it is ok to steal.
Simple logic that goes way over 2 atheists heads.
not only are you ignorant in logic you are also ignorant in simple words, typical of atheism.
I can't forget this ignorance.
If Solomon was so wise, the wisest and most understanding human ever (1 Kings 3:12), then how were “his wives" able to "turn away his heart after other gods?” (1 Kings 11:4) And if that can happen to the wisest and most understanding human ever, then consider the faults inherent in the system God has set up with his "salvation play game." Sometimes wise people don't do wise things, just like smart people don't always do smart things, just like good boxers don't always box good.
more simple logic that goes way over the ignorant atheists head, this is laughable.
'if you had any sort of reading comprehension you would know that I was mocking steven carr.'
Yes I comprehended as much...but I was referring to the use of the bovine excrement as the manure you liberally spread in your posts presumably to mask the stench of bankrupt integrity....
Mocking is a christian tradition and none do it with more feeling and less impact seemingly...pity being the more they mock the less coherent in their argument they become...oh wait they have no argument except a 'godwotdidit'...now there is a superior premise that trumps all others...not!
Obviously listening to ignorance from other like deluded fools and reading trash and sensationalism on righteous christian forums does you little intellectual gain.
Parroting xian 'tolerance' the way you perceive might be the will of some fictitious god...but what price that god if it is just sad wishful thinking and blatant ignorance.
Your homophobia is quite touching...and at odds with the christian interpretation of god...so what is new... Your ignorance is not touching that is just sad...that you might have children is tragic...I feel for them...because you are a mental abuser and moralistic bully with no redeeming features whatsoever...a belief in a fairy story is your choice...but to use that as a basis for your stupidity and arrogance is a crime against humanity let alone your fellow xians......you are simply a disgrace...
'it is readily obvious what I meant by monkeys'
To most folks but obviously not to you...do you actually know the difference...or is your ignorance blessed by god?
'monkeys in general = chimps and apes etc., unless your a fundy atheist ready to argue semantics to prove a point.'
So when fact and evidence is actually required...for any fallacious hysterical claim...then folks are 'fundy atheists' for demanding such data for clarification. Very weak and very fundamentalist christian actually...projection always confuses the afflicted does it not?
'I am pretty sure you are ignorant of the bible since eden was a garden in one part of the earth, the garden did not encompass the whole entire earth, thus there were deserts outside of the garden of eden.
Where is that documented? What were the geographic co-ordinates and what deserts do you refer to? Or did you just make that up?
'if you call quote mining scripture and factual errors and omission of facts that prove...'
Biblical inerrancy...then you are in the same leaky arc!
'what you call 'hand waving apologetics and wishful theology' others call pointing out glaring, embarrassing, factual errors'
Like in the bible for instance...
You are not a very good example of Theological Discourse are you?
Learn a little humility and a lot more reality...then you can play with the big boys!
TD writes: "the world "If" does not = approval, the recording of people taking multiple wives does not = approval, the only thing that = approval is, approval"
The emphasis is on the fact that God GAVE the wives, not IF.
If a parent GAVE a child a cookie, would you think them a good parent for then beating the child for eating it?
What am I saying ... Christianity's system has God punishing people for something someone else did, anyhow.
You are contesting that polygamy was forbidden in the OT times. Are you saying that each subsequent Hebrew wife a man took was not recognized by both God and the state as being the man's legal wife?
If this is the case then sleeping with any wife but the first would be adultery on the part of the husband in the eyes of God, wouldn't it?
It's either a legal marriage in the eyes of God or it's not.
You are stating that God provided a legalistic framework in order to enable a union that he was disgusted by, are you not?
If something is legal in the eyes of God, is it right or wrong?
Legal = pertaining to God's Law (I'm sure you'd agree that the Law reflects his perfect nature)
In fact I'd like you to support your case using the Pentateuch, as though you were a prosecuting lawyer. Tell me which laws the polygamist has broken, and what (according to the law) his punishment should be.
I don't give two shiny shits about your personal semantic extrapolation, I care about the Law as written. If you must play around with the meaning of words, then justify your personal re-interpretation using suitable academics (by this I mean actual graduates of accredited universities specializing in either Ancient Hebrew, Law or Biblical History; not random nutters with websites who happen to agree with you).
Also, Tektonics doesn't have much to say on this one so you might have to think for yourself.
TD behave yourself. I've met up with you before. When people call for me to ban you I take it seriously, and I am. Because of people like you discussions get sidetracked and degenerate. I want a polite respectful discussion or none at all. When someone like you comments others respond in kind and that's not what I want. Be warned, okay?
You are contesting that polygamy was forbidden in the OT times. Are you saying that each subsequent Hebrew wife a man took was not recognized by both God and the state as being the man's legal wife? God making a law and providing legal framework for something He doesn't like is nothing new.
Divorce Matthew 19:4-8
God hated divorce but allowed them to do it because their hearts were hard If something is legal in the eyes of God, is it right or wrong? this of course is a loaded question since something can be legal but still hated in the eyes of God, so the answer is neither. Tell me which laws the polygamist has broken, and what (according to the law) his punishment should be. that doesn't even need to be done when considering the above, furthermore if one looks at matthew again you will see
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." this argument fails if polygamy is acceptable! Jesus' point is that improper divorce does not nullify a marriage, and if the first marriage still stands, then a second marriage is adultery--and NOT simply 'polygamy'!
oh and loftus if you're going to tell me to behave myself I suggest you fair and extend that warning to the rest of the blog.
also, I know you've seen the link to some(not all, not all by a LONG SHOT, there will be multiple blog posts to expose them all) of your errors exposed, but just in case you missed it.
TD, remember, you're on a skeptic Blog. If you come in here calling us ignorant and stupid then you must expect that the name calling begins on both sides. Just reason with us. I know you can do it. Don't call us ignorant simply because we disagree. You can think that, as we do you. But if you express it then you see what happens. I don't mind you. It's just that you must remember where you are. And I've looked at yur link. Keep blogging about it and I'll keep reading. I don't have the time to respond but I don't see any inconsistencies if what I said is placed in context. I'm sure you disagree, but I'm reading.
Keep it civil, please, as much as is possible, everyone, even if ignorance is hard to tolerate.
TD: the Biblical penalty for breaking one of the moral or ceremonial laws was death. In one of my favorite passages, a man is stoned to death for violating the Sabbath by simply picking up sticks.
Given this, can you think of a single Old Testament figure who was put to death for their "sin" of polygamy after the providing of the Law? I can't.
I know ... "God's longsuffering and grace towards sinners."
It's interesting, though, that picking up some branches gets one buried in sand to their neck while others stand around you and bash your brains out, but having numerous women lovers gets one a slap on the wrist (if that).
TD, here's another scenario for you from the Bible.
Let's look at the life of King David. The man after God's own heart, right? As we read through 1 and 2 Samuel, we see places like 1 Sam. 18:27, where he marries Saul's daughter, Michal. (And incidentally, pays the price of 200 Philistine foreskins for her...how romantic!) That would be his first wife. Later on, in 1 Sam. 25:42-43, David also marries Abigail and Ahinoam, "and they were also both of them his wives." Then, David becomes king - you know the story - and he sees Bathsheba. He commits adultery with her, then has her husband killed and takes her as his wife. ONLY THEN does God get in a tizzy and kill his first child with her. What happened to his hatred of polygamy? You see, God punished David (or rather, his son) for committing adultery. But by Jesus' words that you quoted, David's relations with Abigail and Ahinoam should ALSO have been adultery, because he already had a wife! Where was God's punishment for that?
You say that God "allowing" people to have more than one wife is not acceptance of it. But I think that it is implicit acceptance. If a child steals a cookie and you do nothing to punish them for it (don't even tell them it's wrong), you implicitly are accepting it as okay. God's failure to punish David for polygamy shows that God had nothing wrong with it until Jesus came down and changed his mind.
1. Only one as ignorant as yourself would think my claim about God removing deserts has to do with God creating an earth, this falls under the straw man fallacy, if God removed the desert and replaced it with fertile land it would disrupt the environment, then you come here building a strawman saying 'the claim says God is powerless to create an earth with no desert!' it says no such thing, they are 2 different subjects, your fallacious, illogical, ridiculous reasoning has been exposed.
Jim says: Oh this is ridiculous. There is no strawman here. You don't get to win an argument by showing how many logic terms you can throw around.
It is implicit in the request to God/Jesus to replace the deserts with fertile land that he ALSO make the ecosystem function normally based on this new environment. Otherwise, what's the point of the request to God?
Sick person: God, I have a tumor in my brain, can you please remove it?
God: Sure, but that would leave a big empty hole in your head, causing your brain to contort and you would die.
Sick: Oh God, you know what I mean!
God: No I don't. Theological Discourse down on Earth taught me that when people ask for something--they don't imply anything else. They only want to me to do the barest minimum (i.e. what they literally asked me for and nothing else).
To sum: It's implicit in the request that if the new environment/situation causes it's own problems of suffering, that those new problems also be dealt with.
That's why your claim that "getting rid of the deserts will disrupt the environment" is true only in the barest literal sense. Not in the sense that the angels made the request, and not in the sense that God would receive the request (in my opinion--not believing in any such God).
There is no strawman. I didn't intentionally build anything up to knock it down.
What an excellent video clip! Sound reasoning questioning "God's" overall view of the humanity of man. There was nothing "below the belt" here! No wonder TD had to attract attention away with the fornication comments.
I expected more comments like Reuben's which were more in tune with the overall message of the clip rather than a lesser point. But since AIDS talk has dominated the comments, I would suggest that the research of Peter H. Duesberg be read.
While I think the "concerns" about God the video raises are ridiculous, I am concerned that this is a legitimate perception of many people about the God of Christianity. Is there a social disconnect here? I don't see the same thing when I read the Bible, but obviously others do.
While I think the "concerns" about God the video raises are ridiculous, I am concerned that this is a legitimate perception of many people about the God of Christianity. Is there a social disconnect here? I don't see the same thing when I read the Bible, but obviously others do.Hyde,
I'm concerned as well. However, my concern is that you fail to see any of the issues brought up as being valid.
Apparently, you think God's decision to act the way he did was reasonable, when others think it was not. Why do you think there is such a disconnect?
How do you decide what is reasonable for God and what is not reasonable?
Herr Hyde -- Perhaps the instruction you received in your ministerial training gives you the insight necessary to find the love in the Bible. Imagine reading it without the benefit of the instruction, culturalization and interpretation you've received, and try to understand how it comes across.
Mr. Hyde, one of the concerns I see as a sceptic is how little god actually does to further advance mankind. God himself is alleged to come to earth, and the best we get is a new message of morality and a chance for a one-way ticket to eternity?
The problem is that this kind of offer is done time again by regular people claiming extraordinary things. When humans are in "contact" with extra-terrestrials, it's never anything that advances human knowledge, rather it is a moral message. Carl Sagan used to reply that he would be convinced if the aliens were able to show a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem rather than bringing yet another moral guideline.
Sam Harris also makes a similar point, that in the 17th century when Newton went into isolation from the plague, he emerged having learned many secrets of nature. Likewise Darwin in the 19th century and Einstien in the early 20th century have come up with revolutionary ideas that have changed how we look at the universe. Yet these advances in human knowledge - all man.
By comparison, the myth of Christianity looks very thin. It still perpetuates the same falsehoods. How much would humanity have advanced from knowledge of germ theory before Pasteur came up with it? To learn the laws of mechanics? Surely God could have put an addemdum in his teachings saying that the earth revolves around the sun saving Galileo from threat of torture.
Forgive my scepticism, but a man (or a woman) preaching a moral message is a dime a dozen. Human knowledge though is precious, it's taken great men (and women) breaking free from the cultural bounds and giving empirical inquiry into the world to learn about it. All the conflict between science and religion could have been avoided if God did a bit better in letting people know how the world works.
”Only one as ignorant as yourself would think my claim about God removing deserts has to do with God creating an earth, this falls under the straw man fallacy, if God removed the desert and replaced it with fertile land it would disrupt the environment, …….. “The Earth’s climate and geography works in a way which gives no indication that it is micro-managed by any god.
The environment is constantly in a state of disruption, sometimes catastrophic and other times extremely slow moving. The Sahara Desert was once fertile and forested. Lincolnshire was once under an ice sheet but is now extremely fertile. Indeed, it gains it’s fertility precisely because its clayey soil was produced by the ice age.
And just as the Earth is constantly changing so life has to adapt to accommodate its changing environment. Similarly, Christianity has had to adapt over the years to accommodate differing and changing cultures. This is a natural human process and God is irrelevant to and indetectable within it.
Wow, I did not expect my simple and humble post to recieve so much feed back. But i will try and respond to all those who responded to me.
Scott, you wrote, "Apparently, you think God's decision to act the way he did was reasonable, when others think it was not. Why do you think there is such a disconnect? How do you decide what is reasonable for God and what is not reasonable?
I am assuming here that you are not a Christian based on your comment. As a Christian, I admit that I have a different outlook upon life in general and the Bible in specific. Because of my worldview, I think humanity as a whole is fouled up (including me). Therefore, our reasoning is not what it should be. I'm sure many who read this blog (both sides of the aisle) know that Christians believe humanity is not what it was supposed to be, we are fallen from the ideal God created us to be. This is because of Adam and Eve's sin. This gets to the heart of our difference I think.
You believe you can reason what should be correct actions for God and you reason that he has not acted approriately. I reason that we cannot determine on our own what actions are correct for humans or God, because we are fouled up. So I would think the better argument is whether or not God was "right" to put the temptation of sin before Adam and Eve, would you not? Since my worldview holds this is the foundational problem with humanity, would not this be the better place to fault God? This is why I do not view these issues in the video as reasonable. They are after the fact problems, not the real issue.
Greg Mills, You wrote, "Perhaps the instruction you received in your ministerial training gives you the insight necessary to find the love in the Bible. Bible. Imagine reading it without the benefit of the instruction, culturalization and interpretation you've received, and try to understand how it comes across."
I understand your point here. However, does a parent only give love to his/her child? There is a time for discipline as well, is there not? Just the same, there doesn't seem to be a problem with other cultures gods who pour out wrath upon those who worship them. So why is this a problem for the God of Christianity? So the wrath of God argument doesn't shake me.
To be fair, I suppose your point was that when reading the Bible "at face value" it comes across as being unreasonable, is this correct? Would you not then also say that Mormonism or Islam is also unreasonable? Have you read their religious works "at face value"?
Kel, you whole argument seems to be that God has kept "knowledge" hidden from mankind. Yet, many of those great discoverers you mentioned had faith in God (i.e. Einstein, Pastuer, Newton). Furthermore, I don't simply see knowledge as the end all and be all. What is more important is how we use the knowledge we have. All the conflict between science and religion could have been avoided if God did a bit better in letting people know how the world works. God was not concerned with explaining to us every detail of how the world works. Storing up knowledge about the world does not lead one into a closer relationship with God anymore than a lot of knowledge about Tom Cruise leads a person to be his best friend. Knowledge is important, but more important than that is what we do with our knowledge.
Because of my worldview, I think humanity as a whole is fouled up (including me). Therefore, our reasoning is not what it should be.If this is the case, then how do you know you should follow God? It seems our "fouled up" reasoning would put even this into question.
I reason that we cannot determine on our own what actions are correct for humans or God, because we are fouled up.But, by accepting the Bible's view, it appears that you have personally determined what actions are reasonable for God. Are you not free to reject or accept this view? Is this not exactly what you said we cannot do?
If we cannot determine what should be correct actions of God, then we should all be agnostics. Even when it comes to accepting the Bible's claim of what is or is not reasonable for God. However, I do not think this is your position.
Which leads me back to my original question.
How do you decide what is reasonable for God and what is not reasonable?
I'd also note that rejecting other religions, such as Islam or Mormonism, would be another example, as these religions hold exclusive views about what is or is not reasonable for God.
Did you not choose to be a Christian on your own out of all the religions available?
58 comments:
what an Ironic video, especially the part where they were suggesting how God should tell them how to not spread diseases, but in the bible it says not to fornicate, and fornication would stop the spread of STDs, there would be no AIDs since the bible says not to have sex with animals(that is a theory on how the aids virus was created)
getting rid of deserts will disrupt the environment and it goes on and on, another video(like your book) designed for uneducated unintelligent Christians to question their faith, while any Christian with a basic grasp of logic, knowledge of the bible, will just sit back and laugh.
TD so you laugh at the suggestions in this video eh, and my book?
In the first place you should know that the only things I agree with completely are the things that I myself write. I link to things that are generally good though and this video is generally good. Keep in mind that nothing so short as this video can defend its contentions in such a short sound bite.
In the second place have you read my book to know what you're talking about? It seems as if many Christians come here and say it's laughable who have never read it to say that. Have you and don't lie for Jesus. Nonetheless by saying this you disagree with some very important people who do take it very seriously, a few of whom are Christian scholars. So what are your credebtials for laughing at my book since you disagree with credentialed Christian scholars about it?
DJ, when will you stop claiming that Geisler recommended your book? When will anyone on this blog tell you "That's a lie. Stop it!"? The whole "honest doubter"-thing would only sound as half as ridiculus if you would do that.
TD - Are you saying you're an example of an intelligent, educated Christian even though you don't seem to be aware that STDs are a very small minority of the germs and viruses which affect humanity? Malaria, smallpox, polio, the bubonic plague and influenza to name a few. More people died from influenza in 4 months from 1918-9 than died in all combat in WWI and WWII combined, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you sneer because of AIDS? Gimme a break.
I laughed. Out loud. The factual information in this video is lower than the ankle sock of a particularly small beetle, standing in a ditch, in a quarry, in the low country. With intllectual garbage like this circulating, its no wonder why loads of people are leaving Atheism in shroves. Keep up the good work DJ, it just makes it easier for us.
Matthew it's not a lie. Geilser not only said so in his review of my book but he also emailed me personally saying so, which was quoted inside my book with permission from him.
its no wonder why loads of people are leaving Atheism in shroves.Yeah, in your dreams. What an imagination to picture atheism as if it was a church.
TD
not to have sex with animals(that is a theory on how the aids virus was created)
CARR
Really?
There is also a competing theory.
One which says there is this 'god' who created all life forms.
Perhaps you have heard of it?
I have read the book loftus, I have a copy sitting not 10 ft from me so I am not lying, furthermore, your appeal to academic authority does not scare me one bit, as your book stands on the merits of its claims, not who takes it seriously or not, giesler recommends your book for the first few pages and that's it, he even calls your arguments bad, my credentials(or lack of them) are irrelevant, as the blatant errors in the book have nothing to do with my credentials are not, so your attempts to scare me with your appeals to academic authority mean nothing at all, here are a couple of the errors (pointing out all of them will be a multi part series on the blog)
http://taooftruthinfighting.blogspot.com/
TD
not to have sex with animals(that is a theory on how the aids virus was created)
CARR
Really?
There is also a competing theory.
One which says there is this 'god' who created all life forms.
Perhaps you have heard of it
Yes, man having sex with monkeys is a theory of how aids got started, God created all life forms, that is a theory as well, so is, God created the original life forms and they changed to what they are now is a theory as well, did you have a point?
TD-God created the original life forms and they changed to what they are now is a theory as well,Do you believe that all predatory animals were herbivores until Adam & Eve ate the magic fruit?
If a woman had sex only with exclusive lesbians who had never been near a man (and neither had she) then she wouldn't catch any STDs whatsoever. She could be really promiscuous with other exclusive lesbians too. No STDs.
Are STDs a punishment for having sex with men who aren't virgins?
EDIT:
Unless HIV from birth is present - in which case the punishment would be for the deeds of the ancestors.
Very OT.
If a woman had sex only with exclusive lesbians who had never been near a man (and neither had she) then she wouldn't catch any STDs whatsoever. She could be really promiscuous with other exclusive lesbians too. No STDs.
Are STDs a punishment for having sex with men who aren't virgins?
rrriiiiggghhhhtttt considering aids got here via homosexuality I'd say you have no point whatsoever, if only people listed to God we would not have this AIDS/STD epidemic, I guess we could thank homosexuals for that one.
TD- if only people listed to God we would not have this AIDS/STD epidemic, I guess we could thank homosexuals for that one.
Walter- God does not talk to me. All I hear are other people telling me what God wants.
Can't we just get religious leaders to spit on people with AIDS?
After all, that is one of the ways Jesus cured people.
It has to be worth a try.
I don't want to get leprosy.
Should I avoid charity work in a leper colony?
After all,if STD's are a punishment for fornication, then leprosy must sometimes be a punishment for doing charity work in a leper colony.
"Yeah, in your dreams. What an imagination to picture atheism as if it was a church."
It's not my fault of you can't accept reality. Try not to wet the bed you big baby.
'Yes, man having sex with monkeys is a theory of how aids got started'
Firstly it is a theory that only the truly rabid christians spout...tis a load on claptrap by the way...AIDS is not spread via sex...either either humans/human or human/animal...
It is spread by blood to blood contact...intravenous injection and contaminated blood from a blood bank is the traditional vector in the west... also a man that gets bitten by a monkey with a cut in its mouth is the more likely method of contraction.
Trying to wrestle a wild monkey to the ground to have sex with it might excite christian fools but the practicality...just like their delusion...is not persuasive...
Secondly..Monkeys or apes do not have the HIV/AIDS virus...they can suffer from 'Green monkey disease' which is a generic name for the Marburg virus which funnily enough affects a species of green monkeys....
Thirdly AIDS/HIV evolved from Marburg...thus neatly proving both evolution happens and that Christians should really not spout complete rubbish without checking some basic facts..
'but in the bible it says not to fornicate'
It also says 'go forth and multiply' in Genesis...so make your mind up!
'any Christian with a basic grasp of logic, knowledge of the bible, will just sit back and laugh.'
Oxymoronic irony...how cute!
God created all life forms, that is a theory as well, so is, God created the original life forms and they changed to what they are now is a theory as well, did you have a point?'
"rrriiiiggghhhhtttt considering aids got here via homosexuality I'd say you have no point whatsoever..."Via male homosexuality, yes. Not exclusive lesbians. Unless you have evidence to demonstrate otherwise.
"...if only people listed to God we would not have this AIDS/STD epidemic, I guess we could thank homosexuals for that one."Oh, you mean God who said that men could have as many female sexual partners that they could afford to marry, throughout the OT?
All unprotected of course.
So tell me, by your reckoning, how many unprotected sexual partners did King Solomon have with the approval of God?
'God created all life forms, that is a theory as well
No!... it is not a theory... it is a 'belief' with no evidence...it is no theory according the the definition of the word... try not to flatter yourself!
'God created the original life forms and they changed to what they are now is a theory as well'
No that is not a theory either... that is a version of theistic evolution through wishful thinking...it is usually a position held by folks that understand that evolution actually happens because they see and can interpret the evidence for evolution...but still want a sky fairy to be in charge..it is a very unethical sad and desperate position to be in...
There is no evidence for the theistic part...it is a delusion....still !
'did you have a point?'
Actually do you have a point...seems not...just spouting wild and exaggerated poppycock might be a christian way...still means it does not have a point except as an attention seeker!
Via male homosexuality, yes. Not exclusive lesbians. Unless you have evidence to demonstrate otherwise.
what? genital herpes can spread from mouth to genitalia, herpes as well, those are 2 examples off the top of my head.
Oh, you mean God who said that men could have as many female sexual partners that they could afford to marry, throughout the OT?
All unprotected of course.
So tell me, by your reckoning, how many unprotected sexual partners did King Solomon have with the approval of God?
cute, God not once approved of polygomy, so you're wrong there, secondly solomon as well as many other people disobeyed God many times, so you have no point, you just provided an example of someone disobeying Gods instructions, which include sexual promiscuity.
Theological Discourse . . . what an ironic name since there is so little of either in your comments. Oh, come on, you gotta laugh a little at that!
Of course the bible says a few things that are probably good sense. It has it's share of nonsense, too. It could have been better--that's the point of the video. Right now, there's nothing in the Bible that makes me quiver in astonishment at how the ancients could have known such things. It is as if it were written by a pre-scientific people. Oh yeah, it was.
Your claim that getting rid of the deserts will disrupt the environment has two problems. One, it claims that God is too powerless to create an Earth with no deserts--which sounds a bit blasphemous. Two, I'm pretty sure Eden was free of deserts, which means it's possible (I guess).
You claimed the video was designed for uneducated unintelligent Christians to question their faith. Snarkily, I would ask you if there are any other kinds of Christians. But seriously, not to be mean, but it really just comes across as pouting. The thrust of the video--about God/Jesus making decisions to keep people ignorant--is spot on. There is only hand-waving apologetics and wishful theology that can attempt to philosophize these problems away.
Ironically, I think the more apologetics and philosophy I hear on the topic of God/Jesus, the weaker the case for him/them becomes.
Regards,
Jim
Actually do you have a point...seems not...just spouting wild and exaggerated poppycock might be a christian way...still means it does not have a point except as an attention seeker!
if you had any sort of reading comprehension you would know that I was mocking steven carr.
Your claim that getting rid of the deserts will disrupt the environment has two problems. One, it claims that God is too powerless to create an Earth with no deserts--which sounds a bit blasphemous. Two, I'm pretty sure Eden was free of deserts, which means it's possible (I guess).
1. Only one as ignorant as yourself would think my claim about God removing deserts has to do with God creating an earth, this falls under the straw man fallacy, if God removed the desert and replaced it with fertile land it would disrupt the environment, then you come here building a strawman saying 'the claim says God is powerless to create an earth with no desert!' it says no such thing, they are 2 different subjects, your fallacious, illogical, ridiculous reasoning has been exposed.
2. I am pretty sure you are ignorant of the bible since eden was a garden in one part of the earth, the garden did not encompass the whole entire earth, thus there were deserts outside of the garden of eden.
The thrust of the video--about God/Jesus making decisions to keep people ignorant--is spot on. There is only hand-waving apologetics and wishful theology that can attempt to philosophize these problems away.
if you call quote mining scripture and factual errors and omission of facts that prove the video to be ridiculous to be 'spot on' then sure it is spot on, of course to someone as ignorant in simple facts, history, and logic as you appear to be, the video would to be spot on, and what you call 'hand waving apologetics and wishful theology' others call pointing out glaring, embarrassing, factual errors, oh well, tomato, tomahto.
Ironically, I think the more apologetics and philosophy I hear on the topic of God/Jesus, the weaker the case for him/them becomes.
Ironically the more criticisms I hear on the topic of God/Jesus, the weaker the case for His nonexistence/myth etc. becomes.
TheoDisc
I asked you to demonstrate that AIDS could come about via exclusive lesbianism. You started talking about herpes.
Fail.
You also asserted that God has never condoned polygamy. Read Exodus 21:10 and then get back to me.
Please demonstrate that it was Solomon's polygamy rather than him marrying women of idolatrous nations that caused God's displeasure. 1 Kings 11.
Cheerio :D
Quick note in case you're tempted towards Deuteronomy 17:17.
The king is ordered not to take "many" wives. He is also ordered in the same chapter not to take "many" horses.
Unless the king is limited to one horse, he is not limited to one wife.
You can't spell "polygamy" and you don't know the difference between a "monkey" and an ape, and you think AIDS got here via "sex with monkeys" and "homosexuality."
I suggest you go visit a forum where the ignorance and educational levels more closely parallel your emotional need to discuss such issues.
On droughts it wouldn't take much to avoid massive starvation if some areas of the earth presently farmed just got a little more rain, like if God simply blew a flew more rain clouds over some parched areas were food was being grown instead of letting those clouds move naturally out to sea and rain on the ocean. Just a few such clouds moved every once in a while over critically dry areas where farming was taking place wouldn't upset the entire world order. But apparently the same God who fed two thousand people lunch one day can't be bothered with blowing a few clouds over critical food growing areas every once in a while (not even if the area prays for rain).
On AIDS, if there's more than one hypothesis as to how it got started why did you bring up having sex with monkeys as if that was the one hypothesis? I heard just being bitten by an infected monkey could have started the HIV virus on its way. And people are hunting "bush meat," like monkey and ape flesh to feed themselves because they are starving, not because of huge hunting parties out there trying to find monkeys and apes to have sex with.
Also, the logistics of having sex with monkeys and/or apes are these: Monkeys are small vicious creatures with claws and teeth (how would you even penetrate such a creature with the size of the human penis being what it is?), chimps and other great apes are larger but also far more strong and more dangerous to humans than monkeys. I'd say about the only chance is if someone tranquilized, tied-up, and/or killed a female gorilla or chimp (NOT a monkey) and then had sex with it. That's about the only possible scenario. But did you also know that vaginal sex has a low transmission rate for AIDS, especially in the direction of female to male? Even the transmission rate for anal sex is lower for the man doing the penetrating than for the person being penetrated because it's the rectal wall that is thin and easily bruised far moreso than the penis skin so THE TRAMSMISSION OF HIV via rectal sex with tranquilized or dead chimps (and do you really believe there's a huge market for that?) is implausible. It's far more likely that bush meat hunters were bitten by a green monkey.
ON POLYGAMY:
The Bible teaches that a man can have as many wives as he can afford. God even GIVES people extra wives. The divine plan is laid out in the Pentateuch:
Exodus 21:10
If he take him another wife....
Deuteronomy 21:15
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated....
Genesis 4:19
And Lamech took unto him two wives.
Genesis 16:1-4
Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai ... gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived.
Genesis 25:6
But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had....
Genesis 26:34
Esau ... took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite.
Genesis 31:17
Then Jacob rose up, and set ... his wives upon camels.
Judges 8:30
And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.
1 Samuel 1:1-2
Elkanah ... had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah.
2 Samuel 12:7-8
Thus saith the LORD God of Israel ... I gave thee ... thy master's wives....
1 Kings 11:2-3
Solomon ... had seven hundred wives ... and three hundred concubines.
1 Chronicles 4:5
And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.
2 Chronicles 11:21
Rehoboam ... took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines.
2 Chronicles 13:21
But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives....
2 Chronicles 24:3
Jehoiada took for him two wives....
Even in the NEW TESTAMENT, as pointed out by Muslim readers:
In Matthew 22:24-28 Jesus takes polygamy totally in stride when discussing what should happen when a childless widow marries her husband's brother (even if her husband's brother already had a wife).
See also Mt.25:1 "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom [singular]." Even in Paul's letters the image used is of Christ being the singular male head of the church, it's bridegroom, while the whole church is his bride.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ntpoly.htm
I also read a book about a controversy that has taken place in the Catholic church in Africa when faced with polygamous tribes there, who converts to Christianity, and whether or not the converts then had to give up their extra wives. The book covered the history of polygamy in Judaism and the Bible and early Christianity, and how various missionaries dealt with such controversies. Interesting book, somewhere among my stuff.
Oh, and apropos of of God "giving" people more than one wife, there's also cases in the Bible where God blesses people with slaves or adds to their number, and even ensures his priests are given their fair share of slaves once the Israelites capture them, notably, Numbers 31, in which the priests are given their divinely commanded portion of the young virginal females who were enslaved.
Come back after you've actually read John's book including all the BIG words. And quit trying to act like another smart ass inerrantist know- nothing like J.P, Holding.
There's also a whole lot of Christians you can go argue inerrancy with. You think atheists are the ones who began questioning the Bible's inerrancy? It started among Christians scholars at Christian institutions of higher learning. Some medieval rabbis even began questioning whether Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch based on obvious questions that arose simply by a plain reading of the text which never says Moses wrote the Pentateuch. It's all told in the third person, and there's lots of incidental phrases that suggest the Pentateuch was stitched together and edited centuries after Moses' death. So, Jews and Christians have been raising questions for centuries concerning each of their own religion's traditional beliefs concerning the Bible's authorship.
Hi again TD,
If Solomon was so wise, the wisest and most understanding human ever (1 Kings 3:12), then how were “his wives" able to "turn away his heart after other gods?” (1 Kings 11:4) And if that can happen to the wisest and most understanding human ever, then consider the faults inherent in the system God has set up with his "salvation play game." But keep reading.
SOLOMON (THE HEBREW PHILOSOPHER-KING)
History records the names of numerous ancient “philosophers” and “philosopher kings,” some mythical, some real, some a bit of both. But King Solomon’s wisdom exceeded all of them if we are to believe what the Bible tells us, for it says that God gave King Solomon “a wise and understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee” (1 Kings 3:12). But to really drive the point home 1st Kings 4:31 adds that “Solomon was wiser than any other man, including Ethan the Ezrahite -- wiser than Heman, Calcol and Darda, the sons of Mahol.” And we all know how wise they were. Oops, we don't.
And how come it says in the Bible in the book of Ecclesiastes (a book that evangelical Christians allege Solomon wrote), “The sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again” (Eccles. 1:5, NASB)? The wisest of men says the sun “hastens to its place” so it can “rise there again” each day? Whoever wrote such a thing appears to have been neither wise, nor inspired by God (at least not in the subject of astronomy).
And what about the question of whether there is life after death? That question is answered with a great big, “Who knows?” (Eccles. 3:21) As for righteousness, his advice is, “Be not righteous overmuch.” (Eccles. 7:16) And his advice concerning the best pursuit in life is, “A man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry.” (Eccles. 8:15)
Christians take note: 1 Kings 3:12 says that “none” shall arise “after thee” who have as “wise and understanding a heart” as Solomon’s. Doesn’t the word, “none” mean “none,” and hence it excludes even Jesus from having as “wise and understanding a heart” as Solomon?
One can not discuss King Solomon without mentioning the temple that the Bible tells us he built--a relatively tiny temple only about ninety feet long and thirty feet wide (1 Kings 6:2 & 2 Chron. 3:3) but which must have been an extraordinary sight because King David allegedly provided his son, Solomon, with “a hundred thousand talents of gold, a million talents of silver, quantities of bronze and iron too great to be weighed, and wood and stone” to use in building it. “And you may add to them” David said. (1 Chron. 22:14) Add to “a hundred thousand talents of gold?” The NIV Bible says that a hundred thousand talents of gold is equal to 7.5 million lbs. The U.S. federal gold depository at Fort Knox holds only 19% more than that, or 9.2 million lbs. Moreover, a single ounce of gold can be beaten out to 300 square feet. So King Solomon could have gilded his entire nation with 7.5 million pounds of gold, or perhaps built the whole temple out of gold, without even needing to use the 75 million lbs. of silver he also had on hand. (Hmmm, maybe Solomon made the temple so small so he could pocket most of the gold and silver his father left him; or, more likely, the author of 1st Chronicles was inflating the wealth of King David and King Solomon just as he inflated the numerical sizes of their armies--after all, “a hundred thousand talents of gold,” is a nice large round figure.)
Of course it’s difficult for anyone today to believe that ancient kings, ruling over relatively parched and moderately populated lands like ancient Palestine, lacking modern methods and machines for gold mining and refining, could have accumulated 81% of what currently lies at Fort Knox. (Though I admit that the above Bible verses have inspired myths galore concerning the amount of precious ore waiting to be rediscovered in “King Solomon’s mines.”)
Unfortunately, no trace of Solomon’s extraordinarily gaudy temple has ever been found, nor was it ever reported to have been seen by any non-Biblical traveler even though it was supposedly only a few miles from heavily traveled trade routes and “all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom” (2nd Chron. 9:23). Neither was Solomon’s “wisdom” ever referred to by any non-Biblical travelers of that era. Probably because all ancient Near Eastern civilizations back then boasted large collections of “wise sayings,” some of which even the Bible plagiarized when it attributed them to “King Solomon.”
"...THE TRAMSMISSION OF HIV via rectal sex with tranquilized or dead chimps (and do you really believe there's a huge market for that?)"Lol Ed, sounds like just one activity from a typical no-morals EVILutionist atheist soiree. You know, with IVF caviar, just special for teh ebil festivites.
32 posts and you guys are still obsessed with AIDS?
Talk about a red herring! After all these puffed-up claims I thought that someone would eventually break down and talk about the video. I thought that at least someone would see this as the obvious diversionary tactic it is and get back on topic.
Anyone?
TheoDisc
I asked you to demonstrate that AIDS could come about via exclusive lesbianism. You started talking about herpes.
Fail.
let us see what you said before.
If a woman had sex only with exclusive lesbians who had never been near a man (and neither had she) then she wouldn't catch any STDs whatsoever. She could be really promiscuous with other exclusive lesbians too. No STDs.that was your first post, so looks like YOU fail, since I provided evidence that STD's are contracted via lezbians.
here is what I said
if only people listed to God we would not have this AIDS/STD epidemic, I guess we could thank homosexuals for that one
looks like you FAIL at reading comprehension as I said AIDS/STD epidemic, you're the one that tried switching it to strictly aids when the original topic was about aids and std's
You also asserted that God has never condoned polygamy. Read Exodus 21:10 and then get back to me.
If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.the word is IF, IF does not = approval, IF can logically equal "I don't like it but if you do it then you must abide by these rules," so you have FAILED to provide evidence for God approving of polygamy since the word IF is not synonymous with approval.
Please demonstrate that it was Solomon's polygamy rather than him marrying women of idolatrous nations that caused God's displeasure. 1 Kings 11.
I don't have to, God never approved of his polygamy in the first place, and the lack of God saying "I disapprove of your polygamy" is nothing but an argument from silence, not to mention his idolatry was a direct result of his polygamy.
You can't spell "polygamy" and you don't know the difference between a "monkey" and an ape, and you think AIDS got here via "sex with monkeys" and "homosexuality."
cute, arguing semantics, it is readily obvious what I meant by monkeys, your ignorance is at a new level, if I say dog I am not required to give the exact species of dog, monkeys in general = chimps and apes etc., unless your a fundy atheist ready to argue semantics to prove a point.
The Bible teaches that a man can have as many wives as he can afford. God even GIVES people extra wives. The divine plan is laid out in the Pentateuch:
you seem to have the same logical shortcomings as the ignorant girl
the world "If" does not = approval, the recording of people taking multiple wives does not = approval, the only thing that = approval is, approval
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/approval
1. the act of approving; approbation.
2. formal permission or sanction.
saying 'IF' you take multiple wives be sure to clothe them is no where at all similar "you can have multiple wives," telling my two year old "If you steal something you must return" does not mean I am saying it is ok to steal.
Simple logic that goes way over 2 atheists heads.
not only are you ignorant in logic you are also ignorant in simple words, typical of atheism.
I can't forget this ignorance.
If Solomon was so wise, the wisest and most understanding human ever (1 Kings 3:12), then how were “his wives" able to "turn away his heart after other gods?” (1 Kings 11:4) And if that can happen to the wisest and most understanding human ever, then consider the faults inherent in the system God has set up with his "salvation play game."
Sometimes wise people don't do wise things, just like smart people don't always do smart things, just like good boxers don't always box good.
more simple logic that goes way over the ignorant atheists head, this is laughable.
What is the point of arguing with someone whose arguments are little more than Ad Hominem Abusive (personal attack)? Why don't you block TD.
'if you had any sort of reading comprehension you would know that I was mocking steven carr.'
Yes I comprehended as much...but I was referring to the use of the bovine excrement as the manure you liberally spread in your posts presumably to mask the stench of bankrupt integrity....
Mocking is a christian tradition and none do it with more feeling and less impact seemingly...pity being the more they mock the less coherent in their argument they become...oh wait they have no argument except a 'godwotdidit'...now there is a superior premise that trumps all others...not!
Obviously listening to ignorance from other like deluded fools and reading trash and sensationalism on righteous christian forums does you little intellectual gain.
Parroting xian 'tolerance' the way you perceive might be the will of some fictitious god...but what price that god if it is just sad wishful thinking and blatant ignorance.
Your homophobia is quite touching...and at odds with the christian interpretation of god...so what is new...
Your ignorance is not touching that is just sad...that you might have children is tragic...I feel for them...because you are a mental abuser and moralistic bully with no redeeming features whatsoever...a belief in a fairy story is your choice...but to use that as a basis for your stupidity and arrogance is a crime against humanity let alone your fellow xians......you are simply a disgrace...
'it is readily obvious what I meant by monkeys'
To most folks but obviously not to you...do you actually know the difference...or is your ignorance blessed by god?
'monkeys in general = chimps and apes etc., unless your a fundy atheist ready to argue semantics to prove a point.'
So when fact and evidence is actually required...for any fallacious hysterical claim...then folks are 'fundy atheists' for demanding such data for clarification.
Very weak and very fundamentalist christian actually...projection always confuses the afflicted does it not?
'I am pretty sure you are ignorant of the bible since eden was a garden in one part of the earth, the garden did not encompass the whole entire earth, thus there were deserts outside of the garden of eden.
Where is that documented?
What were the geographic co-ordinates and what deserts do you refer to?
Or did you just make that up?
'if you call quote mining scripture and factual errors and omission of facts that prove...'
Biblical inerrancy...then you are in the same leaky arc!
'what you call 'hand waving apologetics and wishful theology' others call pointing out glaring, embarrassing, factual errors'
Like in the bible for instance...
You are not a very good example of Theological Discourse are you?
Learn a little humility and a lot more reality...then you can play with the big boys!
TD writes: "the world "If" does not = approval, the recording of people taking multiple wives does not = approval, the only thing that = approval is, approval"
The emphasis is on the fact that God GAVE the wives, not IF.
If a parent GAVE a child a cookie, would you think them a good parent for then beating the child for eating it?
What am I saying ... Christianity's system has God punishing people for something someone else did, anyhow.
Theological Discourse.
You are contesting that polygamy was forbidden in the OT times. Are you saying that each subsequent Hebrew wife a man took was not recognized by both God and the state as being the man's legal wife?
If this is the case then sleeping with any wife but the first would be adultery on the part of the husband in the eyes of God, wouldn't it?
It's either a legal marriage in the eyes of God or it's not.
You are stating that God provided a legalistic framework in order to enable a union that he was disgusted by, are you not?
If something is legal in the eyes of God, is it right or wrong?
Legal = pertaining to God's Law (I'm sure you'd agree that the Law reflects his perfect nature)
In fact I'd like you to support your case using the Pentateuch, as though you were a prosecuting lawyer. Tell me which laws the polygamist has broken, and what (according to the law) his punishment should be.
I don't give two shiny shits about your personal semantic extrapolation, I care about the Law as written. If you must play around with the meaning of words, then justify your personal re-interpretation using suitable academics (by this I mean actual graduates of accredited universities specializing in either Ancient Hebrew, Law or Biblical History; not random nutters with websites who happen to agree with you).
Also, Tektonics doesn't have much to say on this one so you might have to think for yourself.
Hey, I like these videos. Simple animation, funny voice-overs, amusing and sometimes laugh-out-loud funny. Good show.
TD behave yourself. I've met up with you before. When people call for me to ban you I take it seriously, and I am. Because of people like you discussions get sidetracked and degenerate. I want a polite respectful discussion or none at all. When someone like you comments others respond in kind and that's not what I want. Be warned, okay?
You are contesting that polygamy was forbidden in the OT times. Are you saying that each subsequent Hebrew wife a man took was not recognized by both God and the state as being the man's legal wife?
God making a law and providing legal framework for something He doesn't like is nothing new.
Divorce
Matthew 19:4-8
God hated divorce but allowed them to do it because their hearts were hard
If something is legal in the eyes of God, is it right or wrong?
this of course is a loaded question since something can be legal but still hated in the eyes of God, so the answer is neither.
Tell me which laws the polygamist has broken, and what (according to the law) his punishment should be.
that doesn't even need to be done when considering the above, furthermore if one looks at matthew again you will see
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." this argument fails if polygamy is acceptable! Jesus' point is that improper divorce does not nullify a marriage, and if the first marriage still stands, then a second marriage is adultery--and NOT simply 'polygamy'!
oh and loftus if you're going to tell me to behave myself I suggest you fair and extend that warning to the rest of the blog.
also, I know you've seen the link to some(not all, not all by a LONG SHOT, there will be multiple blog posts to expose them all) of your errors exposed, but just in case you missed it.
http://taooftruthinfighting.blogspot.com/
TD, remember, you're on a skeptic Blog. If you come in here calling us ignorant and stupid then you must expect that the name calling begins on both sides. Just reason with us. I know you can do it. Don't call us ignorant simply because we disagree. You can think that, as we do you. But if you express it then you see what happens. I don't mind you. It's just that you must remember where you are. And I've looked at yur link. Keep blogging about it and I'll keep reading. I don't have the time to respond but I don't see any inconsistencies if what I said is placed in context. I'm sure you disagree, but I'm reading.
Keep it civil, please, as much as is possible, everyone, even if ignorance is hard to tolerate.
Cheers.
TD: the Biblical penalty for breaking one of the moral or ceremonial laws was death. In one of my favorite passages, a man is stoned to death for violating the Sabbath by simply picking up sticks.
Given this, can you think of a single Old Testament figure who was put to death for their "sin" of polygamy after the providing of the Law? I can't.
I know ... "God's longsuffering and grace towards sinners."
It's interesting, though, that picking up some branches gets one buried in sand to their neck while others stand around you and bash your brains out, but having numerous women lovers gets one a slap on the wrist (if that).
TD, here's another scenario for you from the Bible.
Let's look at the life of King David. The man after God's own heart, right? As we read through 1 and 2 Samuel, we see places like 1 Sam. 18:27, where he marries Saul's daughter, Michal. (And incidentally, pays the price of 200 Philistine foreskins for her...how romantic!) That would be his first wife. Later on, in 1 Sam. 25:42-43, David also marries Abigail and Ahinoam, "and they were also both of them his wives." Then, David becomes king - you know the story - and he sees Bathsheba. He commits adultery with her, then has her husband killed and takes her as his wife. ONLY THEN does God get in a tizzy and kill his first child with her. What happened to his hatred of polygamy? You see, God punished David (or rather, his son) for committing adultery. But by Jesus' words that you quoted, David's relations with Abigail and Ahinoam should ALSO have been adultery, because he already had a wife! Where was God's punishment for that?
You say that God "allowing" people to have more than one wife is not acceptance of it. But I think that it is implicit acceptance. If a child steals a cookie and you do nothing to punish them for it (don't even tell them it's wrong), you implicitly are accepting it as okay. God's failure to punish David for polygamy shows that God had nothing wrong with it until Jesus came down and changed his mind.
TD said:
1. Only one as ignorant as yourself would think my claim about God removing deserts has to do with God creating an earth, this falls under the straw man fallacy, if God removed the desert and replaced it with fertile land it would disrupt the environment, then you come here building a strawman saying 'the claim says God is powerless to create an earth with no desert!' it says no such thing, they are 2 different subjects, your fallacious, illogical, ridiculous reasoning has been exposed.
Jim says: Oh this is ridiculous. There is no strawman here. You don't get to win an argument by showing how many logic terms you can throw around.
It is implicit in the request to God/Jesus to replace the deserts with fertile land that he ALSO make the ecosystem function normally based on this new environment. Otherwise, what's the point of the request to God?
Sick person: God, I have a tumor in my brain, can you please remove it?
God: Sure, but that would leave a big empty hole in your head, causing your brain to contort and you would die.
Sick: Oh God, you know what I mean!
God: No I don't. Theological Discourse down on Earth taught me that when people ask for something--they don't imply anything else. They only want to me to do the barest minimum (i.e. what they literally asked me for and nothing else).
To sum: It's implicit in the request that if the new environment/situation causes it's own problems of suffering, that those new problems also be dealt with.
That's why your claim that "getting rid of the deserts will disrupt the environment" is true only in the barest literal sense. Not in the sense that the angels made the request, and not in the sense that God would receive the request (in my opinion--not believing in any such God).
There is no strawman. I didn't intentionally build anything up to knock it down.
Regards,
Jim
What an excellent video clip! Sound reasoning questioning "God's" overall view of the humanity of man. There was nothing "below the belt" here! No wonder TD had to attract attention away with the fornication comments.
I expected more comments like Reuben's which were more in tune with the overall message of the clip rather than a lesser point. But since AIDS talk has dominated the comments, I would suggest that the research of Peter H. Duesberg be read.
John, I love your site!
While I think the "concerns" about God the video raises are ridiculous, I am concerned that this is a legitimate perception of many people about the God of Christianity. Is there a social disconnect here? I don't see the same thing when I read the Bible, but obviously others do.
While I think the "concerns" about God the video raises are ridiculous, I am concerned that this is a legitimate perception of many people about the God of Christianity. Is there a social disconnect here? I don't see the same thing when I read the Bible, but obviously others do.Hyde,
I'm concerned as well. However, my concern is that you fail to see any of the issues brought up as being valid.
Apparently, you think God's decision to act the way he did was reasonable, when others think it was not. Why do you think there is such a disconnect?
How do you decide what is reasonable for God and what is not reasonable?
Herr Hyde -- Perhaps the instruction you received in your ministerial training gives you the insight necessary to find the love in the Bible. Imagine reading it without the benefit of the instruction, culturalization and interpretation you've received, and try to understand how it comes across.
It's an odd couple of anthologies.
Mr. Hyde, one of the concerns I see as a sceptic is how little god actually does to further advance mankind. God himself is alleged to come to earth, and the best we get is a new message of morality and a chance for a one-way ticket to eternity?
The problem is that this kind of offer is done time again by regular people claiming extraordinary things. When humans are in "contact" with extra-terrestrials, it's never anything that advances human knowledge, rather it is a moral message. Carl Sagan used to reply that he would be convinced if the aliens were able to show a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem rather than bringing yet another moral guideline.
Sam Harris also makes a similar point, that in the 17th century when Newton went into isolation from the plague, he emerged having learned many secrets of nature. Likewise Darwin in the 19th century and Einstien in the early 20th century have come up with revolutionary ideas that have changed how we look at the universe. Yet these advances in human knowledge - all man.
By comparison, the myth of Christianity looks very thin. It still perpetuates the same falsehoods. How much would humanity have advanced from knowledge of germ theory before Pasteur came up with it? To learn the laws of mechanics? Surely God could have put an addemdum in his teachings saying that the earth revolves around the sun saving Galileo from threat of torture.
Forgive my scepticism, but a man (or a woman) preaching a moral message is a dime a dozen. Human knowledge though is precious, it's taken great men (and women) breaking free from the cultural bounds and giving empirical inquiry into the world to learn about it. All the conflict between science and religion could have been avoided if God did a bit better in letting people know how the world works.
TD wrote:
”Only one as ignorant as yourself would think my claim about God removing deserts has to do with God creating an earth, this falls under the straw man fallacy, if God removed the desert and replaced it with fertile land it would disrupt the environment, …….. “The Earth’s climate and geography works in a way which gives no indication that it is micro-managed by any god.
The environment is constantly in a state of disruption, sometimes catastrophic and other times extremely slow moving. The Sahara Desert was once fertile and forested. Lincolnshire was once under an ice sheet but is now extremely fertile. Indeed, it gains it’s fertility precisely because its clayey soil was produced by the ice age.
And just as the Earth is constantly changing so life has to adapt to accommodate its changing environment. Similarly, Christianity has had to adapt over the years to accommodate differing and changing cultures. This is a natural human process and God is irrelevant to and indetectable within it.
Wow, I did not expect my simple and humble post to recieve so much feed back. But i will try and respond to all those who responded to me.
Scott, you wrote, "Apparently, you think God's decision to act the way he did was reasonable, when others think it was not. Why do you think there is such a disconnect? How do you decide what is reasonable for God and what is not reasonable?
I am assuming here that you are not a Christian based on your comment. As a Christian, I admit that I have a different outlook upon life in general and the Bible in specific. Because of my worldview, I think humanity as a whole is fouled up (including me). Therefore, our reasoning is not what it should be. I'm sure many who read this blog (both sides of the aisle) know that Christians believe humanity is not what it was supposed to be, we are fallen from the ideal God created us to be. This is because of Adam and Eve's sin. This gets to the heart of our difference I think.
You believe you can reason what should be correct actions for God and you reason that he has not acted approriately. I reason that we cannot determine on our own what actions are correct for humans or God, because we are fouled up. So I would think the better argument is whether or not God was "right" to put the temptation of sin before Adam and Eve, would you not? Since my worldview holds this is the foundational problem with humanity, would not this be the better place to fault God? This is why I do not view these issues in the video as reasonable. They are after the fact problems, not the real issue.
Greg Mills,
You wrote, "Perhaps the instruction you received in your ministerial training gives you the insight necessary to find the love in the Bible. Bible. Imagine reading it without the benefit of the instruction, culturalization and interpretation you've received, and try to understand how it comes across."
I understand your point here. However, does a parent only give love to his/her child? There is a time for discipline as well, is there not? Just the same, there doesn't seem to be a problem with other cultures gods who pour out wrath upon those who worship them. So why is this a problem for the God of Christianity? So the wrath of God argument doesn't shake me.
To be fair, I suppose your point was that when reading the Bible "at face value" it comes across as being unreasonable, is this correct? Would you not then also say that Mormonism or Islam is also unreasonable? Have you read their religious works "at face value"?
Kel,
you whole argument seems to be that God has kept "knowledge" hidden from mankind. Yet, many of those great discoverers you mentioned had faith in God (i.e. Einstein, Pastuer, Newton). Furthermore, I don't simply see knowledge as the end all and be all. What is more important is how we use the knowledge we have. All the conflict between science and religion could have been avoided if God did a bit better in letting people know how the world works. God was not concerned with explaining to us every detail of how the world works. Storing up knowledge about the world does not lead one into a closer relationship with God anymore than a lot of knowledge about Tom Cruise leads a person to be his best friend. Knowledge is important, but more important than that is what we do with our knowledge.
Mr. Hyde wrote:
Because of my worldview, I think humanity as a whole is fouled up (including me). Therefore, our reasoning is not what it should be.If this is the case, then how do you know you should follow God? It seems our "fouled up" reasoning would put even this into question.
I reason that we cannot determine on our own what actions are correct for humans or God, because we are fouled up.But, by accepting the Bible's view, it appears that you have personally determined what actions are reasonable for God. Are you not free to reject or accept this view? Is this not exactly what you said we cannot do?
If we cannot determine what should be correct actions of God, then we should all be agnostics. Even when it comes to accepting the Bible's claim of what is or is not reasonable for God. However, I do not think this is your position.
Which leads me back to my original question.
How do you decide what is reasonable for God and what is not reasonable?
I'd also note that rejecting other religions, such as Islam or Mormonism, would be another example, as these religions hold exclusive views about what is or is not reasonable for God.
Did you not choose to be a Christian on your own out of all the religions available?
Herr Hyde -- "Would you not then also say that Mormonism or Islam is also unreasonable?"
Yes. I have read portions of both the Koran and the Book of Mormon and both are bonkers.
Post a Comment