Interview with 'God Hates You. Hate Him Back' author CJ Werleman (Part 1)

I second that

Monday 16th November 2009 | 10:39 AM

"God truly is a vindictive, capricious, jealous alpha-male bully with raging homophobic racist tendencies with a blood lust of anyone that is not Hebrew"

KL Andrews

Monday 16th November 2009 | 10:42 AM

One wonders if Jake isn't a CJ fanboi! Props for this though...when is part 2?

bolor

Monday 16th November 2009 | 10:50 AM

Amazing how a tragedy can make some scramble to the Bible while others go the opposite direction. The bali bombings should have been enough to make any sane person know there isn't any god - but just idiots who kill in the name of him.

KL Andrews

Monday 16th November 2009 | 10:51 AM

sorry i know it's on thursday now :)

ps web admin I didn't know who one of the people was on the who is this question.

Mikey

Monday 16th November 2009 | 10:53 AM

Nice work Jake - thanks for taking the lead on this BTW. Looking forward to the next part.

Franki

Monday 16th November 2009 | 11:20 AM

I expected this to be along the lines of "religion is teh gays!" but it wasn't too bad. Thanks CJ.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Monday 16th November 2009 | 11:23 AM

...in response to this comment by KL Andrews. KL, a fan I am, though not entirely sure what the destinction between fan and fanboi is...

Next part is out on Thursday this week.

Samo

Monday 16th November 2009 | 11:30 AM

...in response to this comment by Franki. It's what I expected - a guy on his moral high horse looking down on religion. Move along...nothing to see here...

Tyler V.

Monday 16th November 2009 | 05:15 PM

First, your history is wrong. Literalist interpretation (the method of fundamentalism) did not spawn Baptists, Evangelicals, or Creationists. Wow, if you cant even get basic chronology correct, what else will you miss? We’ll see.
Well to start, if his book is the “ultimate case” then I think we theists really have nothing to worry about since his “ultimate case” is easily refuted by people with even a cursory knowledge about the Bible, history, logic, philosophy or science.
Nothing about what he does could rightly be called “meticulously scrutini[zing]” since he simply combs over it to find statements that he can purposefully misconstrue, read out of context (both historically and textually), and ignores 2000 years of research and scholarship from both sides of the isle. (The shock for him will come when his book is panned by atheists who are scholars in the field and, at the very least, have a shred of intellectual and scholarly integrity.) Often the “contradictions” and “misconceptions” that he elucidates are little more than hasty generalizations or out and out misrepresentations of what the text actually says. A prime example is his insistence that God is evil because in Judges a concubine is raped by the Benjaminites. The problem is that the entire book of Judges is written as a CONDEMNATION of Israel for their sin. Courtenay cannot even identify a historical narrative (what the Bible describes) from a moral imperative (what the Bible prescribes). This is one of MANY examples where it is not the religious that overlook something, by Courtenay.
You also assert that few “fundamentalist/evangelical/creationist Christins” have a mind for science. Yet then you go on to assert that it is then pointless to use “methodological logic” to try and debate with them. Do you honestly mistake science and philosophy? You also make a hasty generalization that is some (or in your words “many”) do not have a mind for science, then NONE must have a mind for science (or “methodological logic”). That would be like saying that some women do not have a mind for science so none do. Or that some atheists do not have a mind for science (for surely not all do) so none do. Let us imagine that it were the case that “few” Christians hand a mind for science or logic (something that is epidemic in all of a America, not just the religious sector), would that mean that the Bible is itself incorrect? I’m not sure what the intelligence level of adherents actually have to do with the truth/falsity of a text or a worldview? Basically, it is a behind the back ad hominem argument meant to sound accurate but actually quite pointless.
Quick thought… Courtenay admits to be a guy “pretending to be a guy writing about a bad guy named God.” Now, is he pretending to be the guy, or pretending to write, or pretending to be able to write something of merit about God? It cannot be the first because then he would be a make believe author and no book would be written. He cannot be pretending to write or he would not be actually writing, and then again, no book would be written. Since we have a book written, it is best to assume he meant the third, in which case he admits that he has no clue what he writing about. Which, in a private conversation that I had with him he admitted that this book was not written for scholars since scholars would entirely disagree with him, but rather is written for every day people who don’t know any better. I suspect that is because they would accept what he writes without any hesitation because it is funny and entertaining and completely miss the fact that it is entirely hateful and fallacious.
Courtenay makes a big deal that people haven’t read the Bible. Now, there is no poll taken, but my guess would be that fewer people have read The Origin of Species than have the Bible, but that many people believe in the evolution and would call themselves Darwinians. What does that get you? Nothing. Again it is a red herring. The amount of readership among adherents plays no roll in the truth/falsity of a text. The fact that he calls this “a great f*cking LOGICAL dilemma” betrays two things. First, he has no clue what he talking about because the same thing would stand for Darwinism. Second, he himself does not have a mind for logic because even if his assertions are true, it is not a LOGICAL dilemma even if it may be a sad turn of events, or a even hypocritical of Christians to say they believe but haven’t read. But there is nothing in the premises that entail some kind of logical dilemma or a breach of any law of logic. Is this the type of “argumentation” that you approve of on this blog?
He then tries to build a case that God is not loving because people have read the Bible. Putting more holes in a bottomless bucket wont make it hold water. Just because some people have not read the Bible cover to cover, does not entail that they “worship and ideal or a concept of God.” Now is it possible that they may be duped? Of course. If anyone knows anything about philosophy we can all be duped that we are not just butterflies dreaming that the world exists. But that’s not an argument. He then goes on to cite the people who more than likely HAVE read the Bible, our parents (the previous generations) our teachers, and church leaders but he ascribes to them the same Bible illiteracy as the mass public? That would be like saying that no scientist has read Darwin because most non-professional scientists haven’t.
He then goes on to spew his “hardly a single sentence anywhere in the Old Testament….” nonsense. As can be shown on nearly every count where he deals with the text, he abuses the context (both historical and textual) commits eisegesis (reading his own 21st century atheism back into the text) and assumes the conclusion of nearly all of his assertions to be true before they are proven. Its not only bad scholarship, which he doesn’t claim thank goodness but should have at least a modicum of if he is going to write a book on the most prolific piece of literature ever written, but its also just bad reading. He just doesn’t read it. My guess is that he would be more than capable of reading and understanding context in other books, but when it comes to the Bible he has an axe to grind and he grinds it on every passage regardless of what the text actually says.
A good example is even in his answer concerning Cain and Abel. Was God playing favorites? No. The fact is that Cain could have brought an acceptable offering from the fields (as seen later in fine flour being acceptable in place of an animal), but that he didn’t. Abel bought the FIRST BORN of the flock while Cain just brought whatever he found left over. This was, if you do even more than a cursory glance, a sin offering. They were not just saying “hey God, thanks for being cool.” They were to give of their lively-hood to atone for their sin. Abel took it seriously, Cain did not. Now, agree with that or not, the problem is that Courtenay NEVER deals with what the text ACTUALLY says or the context because he simply has not done any research beyond reading other vitriolic rants, something ironic considering one of his major beefs with Christians as that we ignore facts that disagree with us.
But surely Courtenay would do better on the New Testament? Nope, not even in the slightest. The fact that he claims that the biography is fabricated and embarrassingly put together shows that he is not only out of line with Christian scholars, but even Secular Biblical scholars! In fact, the view point that he eschews (that Jesus never even existed) is so rare that you could count on one hand the number of scholars who agree with him out of the thousands involved with the SBL, Jesus Seminar, or any other New Testament Studies fellowship (Christian or non). The sheer ignorance it takes to call Jesus and “unremarkable dead man” just seems so beyond the pale. If the life and teachings of Jesus has impacted the vast majority of human life, culture, politics, law, ethics, education, family, etc. more than anyone else in the history of the world, to make the claim that Courtenay does seems to be the one beyond ignorance. Believe in Jesus as the Son of God or not, but to make a statement like that is just false to anyone with a shred of historical or ethical understanding.
You then ask about Courtenay’s “research.” Courtenay didn’t do any research (hence why he knows that his book will be a wash with scholars). Research requires diligent study of all the information, opposing views, scholars, the history of the discussion, and the study of all relevant areas of study that might come to bear on the topic (in this case with the Bible that would include things like Biblical/Higher Criticism, Literary analysis of original languages, manuscript transmission study, canonical studies, hermeneutics, philosophy, history, theology, etc.). Courtenay has obviously done none, if only being the Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Erhman lapdog.
He then makes the existential argument that we believe in God because of our need to feel like there is purpose, meaning, and life after death to appease our fears. This may be true for some but not most. Many of us, like myself, had no fear of death as an atheist to drive us to belief. We rather we convinced by the force of evidence, argument, and consistency/coherency of the Bible.
This argument amounts to the parallel of the Christian version that atheists are only atheists to escape the fear of judgment. While it may be entirely true, it is not actually a viable argument.
Besides, imagine my fear of death keeps me from jumping off the edge of a building. Does that means that if I just got over my fear of death that I would not die if I jumped off of a building? It seems absurd to try to use our reasons for coming to a belief to invalidate the belief itself.
He then goes on to blame the Israelites for inventing God due to “lack of air-conditioning” and a kind of god-envy of the surrounding nations. This is easily dismissed since convincing an entire people group (which would have to have taken place within one generation from the exodus of Egypt) would have to suddenly start believing in a new God without any reason to do so. In fact, we see the surrounding nations have gods that are quite amenable to our desires. Crop gods, and sex gods, and fertility gods, and gods of money, and power, etc. What do we see God do the first time the Israelites take over a land? Tell them they don’t get to keep a single dime. And they are now on a tight diet. And they don’t get to be just like their neighbors. If I were going to invent a deity for myself, it would be MUCH more like Baal or Ashtoreth than like Yahweh. Why would I want a God like a consuming fire over my sins, than one who says I can just have sex with a temple prostitute to be all good?
I also find it funny when atheists like Courtenay try to use those foolish beliefs that religious people had way back when, like it proves something? What about scientists who believed thay could turn lead into gold? Or, that the earth was moving because we could see the oceans sloshing about. Or what about the facts that in the early 1900’s a list of 100 things that scientists knew with 100% assurance was published and we don’t believe single one of them now? Does that prove the scientific endeavor wrong? Nope. It means some people went wrong somewhere but it has nothing to do with the worldview itself. (Ironically his own example about Pasteur overlooks that before Pasteur it was the SCIENTISTS who were wrong. Did Pasteur correct the pastors? Nope. The doctors.)
His analogy about the shovel also fails. I’m not looking to the Bible to tell me about positrons, quasars, supernovas, quarks, string theory, or anything like that. So no, when it comes to astronomy and the workings of planetary rotations, I’ll go to the astronomer. When it comes to liver disease and kidney transplants, I’ll go to the physician. But when it comes to timeless things like truth, reason, morality, God, etc. the time when someone writes has very little to do with the accuracy of what they write. Should we abandon atheism because they had progenitors 2000 years ago also? Now, I know some people read Genesis 1 like a science text book. They have their own problems. I’m not gonna help you win that argument (though I think you can.) But there is nothing illogical about positing a first cause.
As for previous stories being a tool to falsify the Bible. First it shows you have no concepts of polemics. Second, let me give you an example. Did you know that there was once a book written about a new super ocean liner called the Titus, and that on its maiden voyage it hit an iceburg and sank, and that most people died because it was not equipped with enough life boats? Does this sound familiar? It should! It is the story of the Titanic! Or is it…? Would you surprise you to know that the story of Titus was written DECADES before the actual events? Does that mean that everything written about the historical event of the Titanic are actually plagiarizing the story about the Titus? No of course not. Before you can prove plagiarism you need more than similarities. You need to provide proof. Something that has been universally refuted to those who keep up with scholarship.
As for his examples of his “favourites” there are so many problems with each one and this is becoming quite long that I will only pick one (as much as it pains me to let his other transparent errors slide). Well do an obvious one that shows that Courtenay actually hasn’t read the Bible himself, but just cherry picks concepts and runs with them.
Did David really dance naked “waving his pecker around as if it was a jump rope.” The story being cited here is from 2 Samuel 6:20 where David’s wife says, "How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!" So wait… did David dance naked!? Well if you read this verse in isolation in order to mislead people and grind your axe, it would sure seem so. But wait… what’s this!? It’s a little thing called CONTEXT. Am I asking you to look back 5 chapters to an obscure reference to solve it? No. Try 4 verses. 2 Samuel 6:14, which actually is the verse that describes the dancing, says, “David, wearing a linen ephod, danced before the LORD with all his might.” David was fully clothed! Why did Micah fret? Because David, the king, had taken of his royal garments and crown in public and went out dressed as a commoner.
Now, does Courtenay’s rash “synopsis” of the passage do anything to prove the Bible false even if it were correct? No not really. Besides being awkward for David it would really have no impact on the truth of the Bible or if God is hateful or not. So why point out this one? Because if Courtenay cannot even get something this simple right (and this is REALLY simple… just remember what was written 2 lines up) then how much can we trust him when it comes to complex issues of justice, religious practice, text criticism, historicity, covenantal structures, law/gospel distinctions, thematic tension/resolution, types/shadows/fulfillment, theology, logic etc. If he can’t even get basic narrative right, he will miss interpretation EVERY time.
His final statements, while tragic (truly, no one should have to suffer witnessing anything like that) are simply appeals to emotion to buy an illogical argument. To say that all religion is wrong because some religion is wrong, or that all Biblical religion is wrong because fundamentalist Islam is built off of the OT (which is actually a common misconception but quite incorrect) is like me saying that all evolutionists are evil because some evolutionists were involved in Nazi Germany’s experimentation on prisoners, or on the wicked eugenics programs of America, Brittan, and Germany. Or that all atheists are evil because of the crimes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Cruschev, and Castro. The fact is that ANY belief can be used and abused by ideologues. To compare radicalist Islamic terrorists to even everyday muslims, let alone evangelicals, is not only sociologically fallacious, but just flat out logically fallacious as well.
Well, I hope I have put more than one rock in your shoe. I look forward to the other half of this interview.

Angelina

Monday 16th November 2009 | 06:05 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V.. I think you could have made that comment longer.

Nuts

Monday 16th November 2009 | 06:06 PM

There is a good reason most have not read the bible - BORING! Much like Tyler's thesis response. Get off your soap box.

Copy Paste

Monday 16th November 2009 | 07:12 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V.. ...doesn't win you any brownie points. Try thinking for yourself Tyler.

chongy

Tuesday 17th November 2009 | 04:42 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V.. You humorless twat Tyler. Thank the devil I am going to Hell if heaven is full of the likes of you.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 17th November 2009 | 08:25 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V.. Tyler, WOW! Thanks for stopping by.

Clearly God means a great deal to you, but I have a question for you, just one; if god is omnipotent, why does it not stand up for its self? Why does it not answer questions asked of it? Why does it need clowns like you to do it's 'dirty work'?

The answer is simple. If there there truely are such things as gods, they clearly do not give a toss what humanity does or thinks!

You, my dear Tyler, are not defending god, you are defending an ideal set out in the bible. Worse than defending an ideal though, you're defending a totally vindictive, jellous, violent, aggressive and morally inept decrepid being!

If you were defending someone like Superman who has a whole bunch of cool powers but occasionally makes some collateral damage, I'd understand, but you're defending history's greatest literary arch villan!

Seriously, if god's were as depicted in the bible, there is no bloody way I'd follow them... Give me Zeus or Odin any day!

That said, Tyler, why spend so much time defending something you've never met, you've never conversed with, you've never gazed upon and you never will - or at least while you have the functioning synapses required for adequate brain function?

Tyler V

Tuesday 17th November 2009 | 12:07 PM

Wow, thank you all for proving my point precisely. Atheism claims that theists are illogical, ignore evidence, are closed minded, live by blind faith, etc. But not one single response dealt honestly with the arguments laid out. They all "toed the party line" as it were. You all can make ad hominem responses all day and it wont make single difference to the truth or falsity of the theistic worldview. The inability to self reflect of every response to my post is almost shocking if it werent so typical and thus expected. You see, when Courtenay deals out a shot across the bow (however weak the musket blast was) I responded to his arguments and his illogical, ahistorical, invalid assessments. What did you all attempt to do? Duck. Dodge. Avoid. Ignore. It is like the old preacher who writes in the margin of his sermon notes "POUND THE PULPIT" next to a point that he really has no support for. When you dont have good arguments or valid responses, shout louder.

And who said I was defending God? I'd sooner defend a Lion. I'm not DEFENDING God, I'm objecting to Courtenay's unsubstantiated, fallacious book and to atheism as a whole. Should I conclude that you stand up for atheism because it cant speak for itself... oh thats right, atheism is the rejection of theism and is thus a non-belief. So tell me, why do you defend a non-belief? I dont write books about the non-existence of unicorns or Santa Claus. "Santa Is Not Great," or "The Unicorn Delusion." If I have a non-belief, I just dont believe it. But atheists have hitched a non-belief to a worldview. Quite strange actually.

Now, are you all really so blinded by that non-belief worldview (hitched to naturalism) that you cant see that Courtenay has no business writing his book? Is anyone going to actually man up and actually interact with the arguments? Or is everyone going to sit back in a hermetically sealed worldview were youre not allowed to self reflect unless it is preapproved a priori by your worldview?

(And Chongy, it has nothing to do with Courtenay ability to be witty or cheeky. It has everything to do with the fact that is trying to pass fraud as fact.)

CJ

Tuesday 17th November 2009 | 01:13 PM

Oh Tyler. My dearly beloved internet stalker. I will keep this brief because you are really not much more than an 'oxygen thief', BUT here is an example whereby your worship of the unseen has you all tripped out on Bible interpretation:

This is what I said in the RustyLime interview on Cain & Abel:

"And woe to you if your animal sacrifice fails to meet his expectations, as exemplified by poor old Cain who was discriminated against by God because he, as a crop farmer, had only carrots to offer as offerings compared to Abel’s much sought after cattle. For my money, God’s preference for meat over potatoes only further supports the claim that he loves the taste of blood."

This is what you replied in your vitriolic assassination attempt on me:

"but when it comes to the Bible he has an axe to grind and he grinds it on every passage regardless of what the text actually says.
A good example is even in his answer concerning Cain and Abel. Was God playing favorites? No. The fact is that Cain could have brought an acceptable offering from the fields (as seen later in fine flour being acceptable in place of an animal), but that he didn’t. Abel bought the FIRST BORN of the flock while Cain just brought whatever he found left over. This was, if you do even more than a cursory glance, a sin offering. They were not just saying “hey God, thanks for being cool.” They were to give of their lively-hood to atone for their sin. Abel took it seriously, Cain did not."

Now for the actual passage from the Bible, and I will let others determine just how far off the mark I am:

"Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the first born of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor." (Genesis 4:3-5)

Wow seems I was way out!

How you got what you wrote from the above passage is beyond my comprehension?? You are simply seeing what is not written. You are really hoping for God to finally put out an addendum aren't you, to clear up all the mess on the first draft?

WHAT BIBLE ARE YOU READING BUDDY? Are you reading the Jerry Falwell limited edition version of the Holy Book. Tell us that part again about homosexuals being responsible for 9/11? Brilliant.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 17th November 2009 | 01:17 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Hi Tyler, I'm not sure how new to blogging you are, but what you might want to do if you'd like people to answer or address specific questions or rebukes that you have, is to keep them concise.

To answer your last question here, i.e. why do atheists target the bible/god/religion; now, I can't speak for any other atheist in the world besides myself, but as one who was raised in a fundamentalist christian household, I do it for the children out there.

For many years, I was taught that the stories of the bible were real, that they were not to be questioned and that satan was everywhere - from the cartoons the other kids got to watch, to inside the Mosque and Synagogue down the road. This, my dear Tyler, is utter horseshit. It is brainwashing and should be recognised as the absolute child abuse that it is.

The bible holds no truths or insights that can not be obtained from any work of literary fiction available in the childrens picturebook section of any book store, today.

If the bible is so mighty, if god is so mighty, let them stand on their own two legs and fight their own battles.

You say that if you didn't believe you would simply not believe, not attack those who do; are you saying that you are morraly superior because of your religion? Here you are attacking an authors perspective of a book that describes an abhorrent megalomaniac.

It's not nice to stereotype, but all Christians are hypocrits.

the being

Tuesday 17th November 2009 | 01:19 PM

The sample chapter is actually pretty good. Don't know if I'd buy the book just yet though. Maybe put it on the Christmas list.

Vanessa

Tuesday 17th November 2009 | 10:11 PM

Tyler, your persistence is kind of strange.

Papa

Wednesday 18th November 2009 | 03:12 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V.. Your first comment was completely wrong. Ever heard of Solo Scriptura? One of the main ideals behind Lutheranism which then later spawned, Protestants, Baptists, Calvinists, etc.

Papa

Wednesday 18th November 2009 | 03:17 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V.. I tried to read your whole comment but it was painful. Just skimmed through it, but the reason why Cain's offering was "denied" was most likely due to Yahweh cursing the earth a few verses earlier.

Robert

Wednesday 18th November 2009 | 02:07 PM

I have not read all on this page yet, and am printing it now. I want to say that I am a bedraggled refugee from the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church and at the age of 30 I became Atheist. That was because my knowledge of Science proved to me there was/is no "god" and no creation.
Recently as part of my research into the foundation of Judeo/Christianity I bought a copy of the NIV Study Bible to read parts of the Old Testament Roman Catholics and not encouraged to read. I got as far as Kings II and was to fed up with it I tore up that bible.
The Bible is the worst book of fiction ever written as should be classified Horror/Fiction- not suitable for under 18.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Wednesday 18th November 2009 | 03:59 PM

...in response to this comment by Robert. Well said mate. Part two of this interview comes out tomorrow morning... stay tuned!

Joe Marco

Wednesday 18th November 2009 | 05:12 PM

Jesus Cristos! what was up with that comment! damn....that's like filibustering one into to submission. I no longer have any idea as to what the interview was about and have been re-born by default.

V2

Thursday 19th November 2009 | 09:00 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler, pleaser step cautiously around the garden bed of atheism
Shinning any light on its failures and followers can really upset them, they are a frail little lot.

Oh and on that "nobody reads the bible " bit. Have you atheists read it, do you understand it, and what is your main issue with it
A lot of people profess Christianity, that doesnt make them Christian

One question I want a response to
If God is to blame for an individuals decisions, does that mean that God exists, or is there no god and we can do whatever we want. Why cant I kill people in Bali
This is confusing
This is definitely a God doesnt exist site, yet, he suddenly does
Nice moral high ground gentlemen...who made you God over me
You are all no better than those you accuse

dogbite

Thursday 19th November 2009 | 09:50 AM

CJ look forward to reading the book. Tyler your a fucking douche. If you can't say something in less than 3 sentences on a Blog it aint worth saying. Go piss into wind you homo.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 19th November 2009 | 10:12 AM

...in response to this comment by V2. Hi V2, all creepyness aside... and lets face it, your response was pretty creepy, you'll find that most atheists aren't that frail at all. We don't have a great lot of beliefs that are based on convoluted ramblings of ancient tribesmen, you know, the same beliefs that hold no basis in quantifiable or evidence based reasoning - but that doesn't make belief in those things illogical, afterall, it is human to fear and human to immagine, so why not put the two together!

To answer your question; no. You have clearly misinterpreted a simple blog post. CJ's book analyses the bible. In the bible, there is a god character that features pretty heavily and as such, CJ has taken what was said in that bible book and scrutinised it's characters.

Why can't you kill people in Bali? Well, the answer is you can; but why would you want to? They are human, just like you; they have thoughts and feeling, emotions and twitter accounts, just like you do; they have the same right to life that you do.

Morality, V2, is a community based institution. It is the community (or government, if you will) that decides what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable. The bible its self had a hand in this over a millenia ago, obviously though, this has been superceeded by hundreds of years of democratic judicial systems.

Lastly, and for the record, this site isn't a 'god doesn't exist' site. Many of the contributors and members are god lovers; I'm not, and a couple of others aren't - either way, we're pretty balanced here. Thanks for your input.

Tyler V

Thursday 19th November 2009 | 01:14 PM

To keep in concise.

Courtenay, you prove my point yet again. Lets return to Cain and Abel. Thanks for posting it for everyone. You say I see things that arent there? Not true. I just understand that like any good author, when the Bible says something explicit, it is for a reason. Cain brought fruit from the land. Was it the first fruits? the best? did he have no access to animals just because he was a farmer? We dont know. It just points out that he brought AN offering. What about Abel? What did he bring. Well he brought the FAT PORTIONS of the FIRSTBORN of his FLOCK. Now why do you think the text was so vague as to what Cain brought, and so specific as to what Abel brought? Because it is drawing a contrast between the QUALITY and PURPOSE of the offerings that each brought, not just giving a grocery list. This is why you CONSTANTLY misinterpret the Bible: because you are more concerned with your own axe, than actually doing your homework and performing good exegetical work. Sorry, your book is basically one big example of 21st century eisegesis and German Textual Criticism (something long abandoned by nearly every Biblical Scholar, Christian or not.)

Now Jake. You make the claim that morality is a communal based institution. So let me ask you this. Is God wicked in the Old Testament? Surely if morality is a social contract, you and Courtenay are actually WAY out of bounds to apply your 21st century social contract to 15th century BC activities? If morality is a social contract, who in the society picks the contract? In America the Christians think abortion is murder and the secular liberals dont. Who's contract? Is it subjective down to subculture? If its subjective down to subculture, then who's subculture? Maybe Dahmer had his social contract and his victims simply had another? Who are you to judge another person's social contract?

Or imagine society changed. Lets say suddenly all the women in the world decided to never have sex with men (sorry Vanessa). Well according to your worldview the major premise of neo-darwinian theory is the survival of the fittest, and so the only way for men to reproduce to pass on their genes is to rape the women. Now, is rape suddenly a moral action because it is best for the survival of the community? You see, as a theist I can say morality is rooted in the nature of God and thus rape is ALWAYS immoral. You want to base it on entirely subjective and relative social contracts.

The ironic thing is that in your attempt to critique God you must use universal, absolute moral standards, but your own worldview does not allow universal, absolute moral standards. You must either abandon your critique of God for being wicked as a false application of a different social contract, or you must abandon your naturalistic worldview (you atheism) and accept God to maintain your use of universal, absolute moral standards.

(I hope you fare better than Courtenay. He has been hopelessly lost on how to respond to this objection.) Good luck!

Tyler V

Thursday 19th November 2009 | 01:16 PM

Dogbite, you only prove my point. Has atheism reduced to ad hominems and character assassinations? I long for the days when atheism was atleast intellectually honest. At least Hume and Russell gave us a challenge.

Tank Top

Thursday 19th November 2009 | 01:29 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler you seem so smart that you seem stupid!

How was Cain able to match Abel's offering of the FAT PORTIONS of his cattle, with fat portions of a CARROT?

Sorry 1-0 CJ

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 19th November 2009 | 01:51 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Thanks for keeping it short this time Tyler.

To answer your first question, do I think that the god of the old testament is wicked; well, out of consideration for the fact that I would usually only use the word 'wicked' to describe a backstabbing bitch of a best friend, no I wouldn't. In fact, god, i.e. the protagonist described in that great fantasy novel, the Bible, can not be accurately described by even the most emotive words - abhorrent, malevolent, evil, etc.

As you say though, it would be 'way out of bounds' to judge a book from the 15th century BC based on 21st century AD social morality... if of course the book was like Homer's Iliad or other mythical epics... but it's not. It is treated literally and interpreted literally as the word of god. So, with that said, blow it out your bung hole, preacher!

Now, to you other question about this so called 'social contract' you're describing - I don't remember signing anything but laws are created by a democratically elected government. These change and develop as the social conscience grows and develops (or evolves, if you will). Political ladder climers pick these issues as being important and use them in their platform to get them elected so that they can fight for their cause (or sell out - whatever).

If your god is moral, then my penis dwarfs the Empire State Building in both height and girth (girth is the important one). Furthermore, if the morality described in the bible is the kind that you subscribe to, then I seriously question whether you are actually writing to us from prison - having murdered several infidels.

Lastly, I shudder to think how deeply into your psyche you had to dive in order to pull out that hypothetical, but rape of anyone or anything is as abhorrent an act regardless of the situation. You creep me out dude, seriously.

V2

Thursday 19th November 2009 | 04:56 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Preachy little hombre arnt you Jake

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 19th November 2009 | 05:57 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. When I get the chance, Veronica2.

Susan Means

Thursday 19th November 2009 | 10:46 PM

...in response to this comment by I second that. Can't wait to read the book. I've been waiting for something like this for a very long time. I'll be pre-ordering pronto!

Papa

Friday 20th November 2009 | 04:12 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. "Sorry, your book is basically one big example of 21st century eisegesis and German Textual Criticism (something long abandoned by nearly every Biblical Scholar, Christian or not.) "

Hahahahahahahahaha. I am sorry, after I picked myself up off the floor I decided to make a response.

You have no idea what your talking about (period). How many universities have you attended? I am guessing none.

The historical critical method is THE method for understanding and reading ancient Judeo or Christian texts. It is the most widely used method in academia. Call any university known for their biblical departments and ask what method is used to read the bible. They will probably be confused because its kind of like stepping inside of a grocery store and asking if they sell food here.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 20th November 2009 | 06:48 AM

...in response to this comment by Susan Means. Hi Susan, the book is available now at amazon.com, use the link at the top of the page, or here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/095642760X/ref=nosim?tag=cjwe02-20.

Tyler V

Friday 20th November 2009 | 07:46 AM

1st Jake. It doesnt matter how the Bible is READ. My question was about culture. If the Bible is a product of 15 century BC culture, what right, according to your basis for morality, do you have to project 21st century moral convictions on to it? In fact, that the Bible claims to be true history while the Iliad does not, actually proves my case MORE. See, it purports to be ACTUAL history from an ACTUAL culture involving ACTUAL people. You are more in bounds in judging the fictional characters of the Iliad with your 21st century moral code than you are the historical characters of the Bible (this is not an argument for the historicity of the Bible but I am allowing your rational to stand that because the Bible claims to be history it is more open to critique than less). So by your own admission you are judging another culture under a possibly different social contract that yours. Again, according to your basis for morality, this would be entirely unacceptable.

2nd, i never said anything about democratically elected beliefs. I said socially constructed contracts, which you attempted to base it on. hence my rape example, which you left untouched and simply avoided by just saying rape is wrong. But thats precisely my question! See, I can say that rape is ALWAYS 100% universally and absolutely wrong without exception because morality is based on the eternal, immutable nature of God. My question is what is YOUR basis? You said it was social contract and I gave an instance where social contract cannot account for why rape would be wrong. Hypotheticals are a common philosophical means of argumentation. If you have no response it is because your basis cannot account for your own use of universal, absolute, immutable moral laws.

3rd. I can see now why you rave over Courtenay's book now. you are just as wide-eyed anti-theistic as he is. You both make entirely rash and unfounded generalizations, one line statements regarding the Bible (which are actually unfounded, irrational, and entirely based on a priori assumptions, not informed evaluations of the texts), and the hollow character assassinations.

Finally to you Papa. i never said that historical critical method is not valid, I said that the German Higher Critical method and all the theological assumptions that came with it (something recycled by Courtenay and his idol Erhman) have been panned. Bultman, Schweitzer, and the like have all been disowned even in current German Critical circles.

CJ

Friday 20th November 2009 | 08:37 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler, you and your misguided sense from where morality stems from! We can't have morality without God? How utterly absurd, and contemptuous of our species you really are.

To suggest that unless the Bible is the accepted word of God, or without a God there can be no universal standard of morality is just insane. Really check yourself in for a frontal lobotomy if you believe this.

Admittedly we do not have a conclusive scientific understanding of morality, but it would appear self evident that raping, stealing, and murdering our neighbors is not in our tribe's best interests.

If your loony claim had any merit we would see secular societies behaving worst to one another than pious states. (Read the 2005 Human Development Report) The nations rated highest in terms of social dysfunction metrics are secular nations. The US ranks in at #27 out of a list of 50 developed nations. The bottom ten are all religious states.

Finally, answer the Christopher Hitchens question on morality. I've asked you this before and you were unable to. But have another crack at it champ:

1. Name an absolute moral action or statement that a person of faith can make that a non-believer would be prohibited or unable to make/do?

2. Name a wicked or immoral action or statement that only a person of faith could make or say?

Good luck with that Fan of Falwell!

CJ

Tyler V

Friday 20th November 2009 | 09:12 AM

Ha, you do realize that you simply help my point dont you?

1st, you ever gonna evolve past character assassinations and ad hominem arguments and actually deal with the issues?

2nd I never said atheists cant be good. I said there is no basis for morality apart from God. Big difference.

3rd your refutation is "morality just is!" ha it is "self-evident." I agree. Morality is self-evident. My question is why is morality self-evident? Is it merely self-interest? So if you are all alone on an island, does morality cease to exist? In the scenario given above where our "tribe's" survival is impossible without rape, is rape still morally wrong even if it is in our "tribe's best interest" (i.e. its survival). I agree that is a disgusting prospect because I believe morality is external to culture. if it is a derivative of culture, what the basis for calling that scenario wrong?

4th you read that report as if religion is THE deciding factor. The cause of social dysfunction is actually a derivative of (shocking I know) society. This has to do with economics, class struggle, health care, education, industry, politics and politicians, history, location, etc. Your extrapolations regarding the polls are just as bad as they are about the Bible.

5th for those watching let me point out what Courtenay's response will be to my answer. "Thats ridiculous!" and i'll tell you why. The answer to question #1 is: a moral action that a theist can do that an atheist cant is Love God. Now, Courtenay will say that it is absurd because in order for that to be a moral action one must first believe in God. Well yes.... that is precisely the point of the question was it not? Something that a theist can do that an ATHEIST CAN NOT do? Well the principle difference between Atheism and Theism is belief in God. So the answer must entail that belief in God is required for it to be possible for the theist by impossible for the atheist. So Courtenay sets up a question that is impossible to answer within HIS OWN worldview in order to ridicule it. But the point of the question is to give a moral action that is IMPOSSIBLE within his worldview! So the answer is valid.

At this point Courtenay will then try and belittle that loving God is just not good enough of a moral action. In his mind he was seeking a moral CATEGORY, not a single moral action. But I need not give a whole category. Simply a moral action. Ironically, if i would have said something like "love your wife" the complaint would be "we can do that too," not "I meant moral category not a narrow action." Had i supplied an invalid answer, he would be entirely content with me giving a moral action.

So Courtenay, a moral action that a theist can perform that an atheist cannot PRECISELY because of his disbelief in God, is loving God.

6th. I never claimed that Christians couldnt sin in every way an atheist could. So your second question doesnt get you anywhere.

Now Courtenay, I have a question or you. You title your blog "Rationalist". Tell me, you use the laws of logic. The immaterial, universal, absolute, immutable laws of logic. In a finite, temporal, changing, chaotic universe, what is the basis for laws of logic and their referent to a uniform creation? Are laws of logic social conventions as well?

CJ

Friday 20th November 2009 | 09:25 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. If your answer is that the only absolute moral action or statement I am unable to make or do, as a non-believer, is "Love God". Then the defense rests your honour. The plaintiff is clearly of unsound mind, and his testimony must be disregarded.

Tyler V

Friday 20th November 2009 | 09:33 AM

I rest my case. I answered the question (an moral action that an atheist cannot perform) and Courtenay says that I am unsound in mind because it is not a moral action that an atheist can perform. Ha.

Tell me Courtenay, is it unsound because it is not a moral action or because it is impossible to do without believing in God? (Rock ---- you ---- hard place).

Tyler V

Friday 20th November 2009 | 09:41 AM

Again for those watching from the sidelines, this is where he will either become aggressive and vitriolic with character assassinations and rash illogical generalizations, or will stop talking in an attempt to silence opposition. (Both of which he has done multiple times during our various dialogues.)

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 20th November 2009 | 10:14 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler V, I've decided that because of your juvenile love for the intangible, I'm going to call you Bilbo, who, if you've ever read the epic of Gilgamesh, is the loveable little character who is two parts god and one part man in the same way you're two parts deluded and one part coherrant.

So, Bilbo, to answer your insinuations, the reason I sidestepped your question about rape is that you posed a hypothetical which was so hypothetical it turned into a fantasy - what would happen if women refused to have sex with men, would rape be justified - well, the simple answer is; based on the inherrant socal morality of today, and that it is today, considered illegal to rape, no. My personal belief is that rape is abhorrent and anyone found guilty of it deserves sergical castration!

That said, in some parts of africa, rape, while never acceptible, is something that happens regularly and will mostly go unpunished - hence the horrible surge of aids and other communicable diseases.

Also, Bilbo, you alude to some divine misconcation that god=morality and without god, one can not be moral. Well, the etymology of Moral comes from the old friench word L. moralis "proper behavior of a person in society," and was firs coined in around 1340 Cicero ("De Fato," II.i) to translate the Greek 'ethikos '. Now, if we're going to go into ethics, we'll actually be crucifying (if you'll excuse the pun) your argument as again, ethics are socally accepted or culturally cultivated 'rules'.

That said, I'm an Atheist of the highest order - I've even been circumcised... oh, wait... so Bilbo, are you saying that I'm not moral?

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 20th November 2009 | 10:26 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Bilbo/Tyler V, I have a question for you - why do you asume that god=morality and without god, one can not be moral?

I have no gods, I certainly don't get on my knees for Jesus, and yet I am charitable, am affectionate towards my mother and wipe my sweat of gym equiptment after I use it... surely that makes me moral?

For a religious fruitcake such as yourself - and don't get me wrong here, the reason I love christmas so much is not because of the presents, but because of the fruitcake... I love it - all the proof you need that your assertions are correct are contained in the bible, a book which you believe to be true. I like to call this effect the "Stupidity Paradox" but it is also commonly known as "Pa, go get the shotgun".

Tyler V

Friday 20th November 2009 | 10:34 AM

So you have gone from ad hominem to ACTUAL name calling. Strange. But at least I'm "loveable."

You are still side stepping the question. I didn't ask how you evaluate the action in this culture, I asked if rape would be morally acceptable in THAT culture since you claim that morality is the social contract of the culture. It is YOUR premise that morality is a social contract and so I gave a scenario when a social contract would lead to mass rape being justified. If you dont like the conclusions of you position then change it or prove my logical extension is invalid.

Thanks for the etymology of "moral" even though it is entirely beside the point. I have never alluded that God = morality (especially if by that you think that I mean atheists cant be moral. Atheists can be moral but only because they borrow the basis from the theist without knowing it. They are inconsistent with their own worldview. This is the basis transcendental argument.) That would be a category mistake like saying food = cake. I have said that God is the only possible basis for universal, absolute, immutable eternal moral codes which we all apply every day, even if we deny they exist (just punch a relativist in the face or give them an F on a well written paper and see how long it takes for them to invoke a universal standard of justice.) In your response you did nothing to prove that morality is based on "culturally cultivated rules." Your argument would be like me saying that the etymology of "theology" is the study of God and therefore God exists. I didnt know linguistics could be a basis for arguments dealing with ontology?

Plus I never said that ethics are not cultural. Ethics, to a degree, are the right application of morality to various circumstances: bio-ethics, business ethics, professional ethics, social ethics, etc.

You still have not been able to base your use of absolute, universal morals within a cultural setting. I gave an example where culture could change with the circumstances. I never said this culture was real, but if this culture existed you would be forced to accept that rape within that context would be justified. You see, for a theist, rape is INHERENTLY wrong because morals based on a universal, absolute, immutable base (God). You base yours on a finite, subjective, ever-changing entity (culture) thus you have no ground for morality or moral judgment.

Tyler V

Friday 20th November 2009 | 10:42 AM

Again, I never said an atheist cannot be moral. You can be moral but your own worldview cannot account for its own use of absolute morality. I never said BELIEF in God = Morality, I said God is the BASIS for morality. Big difference. It is one of the reasons I believe atheism to be false. Only God can account for universal, absolute, immutable, eternal laws of logic and moral standards. A finite, chaotic, impersonal, changing, random universe simply cannot account for them.

So why can atheists be moral and love their neighbors and tell the truth, etc? Because God created the universe and thus there is objective morality. And the atheists are a part of that universe and thus can perceive those objective morals. (hence Courtenay's "they just are" but his, and your, complete inability to base them in anything equally objective.) You claim to be rational but are willing to say that we can get absolutes from provisionals, universals from finites, immutables from mutables, and uniformity from chaos, all by random chance and blind luck. You can reorder the english alphabet all you want, but you will never get a Japanese poem unless an outside, intelligent cause inserts Japanese characters and uses purpose.

Tyler V

Friday 20th November 2009 | 10:44 AM

And no, I didnt use that illustration to talk about Intelligent Design (though I think it holds for that too) but laws of logic and objective moral standards.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 20th November 2009 | 10:51 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Bilbo, to answer your question, I don't live in that society, so I can't very well make a judgment on it. Go to a refugee camp in south africa, uganda or the ghettos of frigging Salt Lake City in Utah and ask a 15 year old boy whether it is ok to rape a woman that refuses sex, then ask the same question of Richard Dawkins, or CJ, or another atheist and I'll bet you 3 brandy infused fruitcakes that their opinions differ.

The reason that I gave you the etymology of the word moral was to show you that it is a concept derrived 100% the f*ck seperate from the bible, your god and your god stick. Take time digesting that, it may sting a little.

That said, your logical base is not based on logic. Every form of justification you require is in a book based purely in fantasy. Belief and fact are two different things. The fact is that there is no reason to suggest that any god throughout history was more real than the others. In fact the gods of Egypt, Sumeria and Mesopotamia were as numerous as they were specific, they were also astrological, had sides of love and nurturing and evil malevolence and they predate monotheistic religion by a few thousand years. Again, take some time digesting that.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 20th November 2009 | 11:19 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. My dear Bilbo, that you believe in inteligent design doesn't surprise me, you're american, the americans made the Corvette... made/intelligently designed/whatever... so it makes perfect sense that you would believe your own notion of your own superiority.

In fact, gods were also intelligently designed. The same people that brought you the stone axe, the bone shovel and the wearing of animal skins brought you the first gods.

Now, back to morality; morality isn't univiersal it is social! Actually, it is class based. The morals (or 'proper behavior of a person in society') of someone in the slums is different to the morals (or 'proper behavior of a person in society') of someone living in a mansion.

If you think differently, then your John Everyman (or Joe The Plumber) immage just disolved into dog faeces in front of you.

Tyler V

Friday 20th November 2009 | 03:06 PM

You still have completely avoided actually answering the question. You said that morality is based on social contract and what is best for the society. I gave you an example of a society in which rape was the only possible way to extend the species. By YOUR own standard, rape would be acceptable THERE. im not asking you to evaluate here. Im not even asking you to come to a moral decision on whether it is right or wrong. I am asking you to say if that decision would be justified in that context because it is socially derived and best for the survival of the species.

You complete inability to answer the question shows that you realize the land mine you have stepped on and rather than changing your position, you simply dismiss the problem. Its alright. I cant blame you. Its hard when you realize that a person who you label as "irrational" pulls the carpet out from under you.

You still also misrepresent my position. I never said morality is based on the Bible. You can argue against that all day if you want. But its a straw man as that is not the position being argued for. Especially since morality existed before the Bible was written. So that stick may sting someone, but its not me. sorry.

I'm also not sure a logical base can not be logical...? Strange statement. From which you launch into a diatribe concerning the various kinds of deities worshiped throughout antiquity. Which, sorry to tell you, doesnt actually get you anywhere. I would be like me pointing out that there have been many theories of gravity and most have been wrong and so all must be wrong. Or there have been many claims of neo-darwinians that have been as specific as they are varied and a lot of have been wrong so therefore all must be wrong. Sorry, the illogical nature of your argument is almost mind-boggling irrational.

And then you change your basis of morality from social contract to class-contract. This actually is WORSE than before. Besides that fact that what you are referring to is actually more along the lines of etiquette and not morality, you actually make your basis for morality even more flimsy. So lying is morally acceptable for a thief if they are lower class but not if they are upper class. What happens if someone makes money and changes classes? Must their morals change (not DO they, but MUST they). If a poor man steals from a rich man, what right does the rich man have to impose his upper-class moral code on the poor man, or is it purely "might makes right"? If I came over tomorrow broke into your house, beat you up, and stole all your possessions, I dont think you would say "oh, your morals are based on a different culture/class. haha, you americans are so jaunty." You would shout for justice and betray your gut level conviction that morality is indeed universal.

If you still want to maintain that morals are not universal, then you must abandon your ability to pass moral judgments on anyone, especially on people of other cultures and from different times. Thus, no calling God sadistic, wicked, violent, unjust, unfair, not worthy, etc. You simply cannot apply any moral language to him at all. Neither can you even make sense of the statement that Mother Theresa is more moral than Hitler. You simply are not justified in applying your subjective moral code to their contexts.

Cactus

Friday 20th November 2009 | 05:57 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Name calling Jake?
Why not call him and his family stupid and get it over and done with
We know you want to, we know you will..eventually, when frustration takes over. When your silly argument cant be sustained any longer
Like a good dictator, working the crowd. Name calling, simply; I am superior and you are inferior
The bullied try's bullying. Its not school ground, you just look stupid
Be a man, not a child, I call you Jake not Jerk.........Its courtesy

Jake Farr-Wharton

Saturday 21st November 2009 | 07:21 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Hi Bilbo, to answer your question which isn't as much a land mine as you suggest; ultimately, a society such as that must have done something pretty bad in order to piss of the entire female population of earth.

Obviously, considering that this is hypothetical, I am allowed to throw in a few hypotheticals of myself... so considering that well into the future, the process of cloning and genetic manipulation will be both a controlled and a readily used process, the remaining men on earth would simply clone children, if that was their prerogative.

One of my good friends is the child of a rape victim and while she was one of the lucky ones whose mother dealt with the trauma and did not let the rape effect their relationship, there are plenty of children of rape victims (i.e. those either unable to go through with, or not allowed to have abortions) who treated this kids like shit because of it. Imagine the life that an entire generation of children would have, let alone the shared trauma that all those raped women would have to deal with.

Surely, by empathetically acknowledging this, the women of earth would want to make sticky with us again?

Last Bilbo, I absolutely maintain that morals are not universal. Again, go and visit a third world country for a month and live in the slums, their morals are different to those of ours in the first world. Whilst there is still the basic moral imperative that killing another human is wrong, such thought can be subverted or partially internally justified if such a murder means that your child lives or can eat. Comprende`?

Furthermore, and I'll only write this because if you're even slightly astute you will recognise that I just put a tangible value on human life, I absolutely deny that this is because we share a creator. I don't have any vestige that there is any form of life after death, no body should, when someone dies, their physical presence is gone, their personality, their thoughts, hopes and dreams are gone, their memories and accumulated knowledge and wisdom is gone. That is the value of a human life.

Tyler V

Saturday 21st November 2009 | 08:15 AM

Still dodging. Im not talking about alternatives, I'm talking about YOUR proposed base for morals. I'm beginning to think that while you say I'm an irrationalist, you are unable to make concept differentiations.

Great, you admit morals arent universal. Then you cannot agree with Courtenay that the God of the Bible is evil, wicked, sadistic, or malevolent because those are all moral terms which find their meaning within the social context that they are used and thus we have no right to pour our 21st century meaning into other times or contexts. So you must stand against Courtenay with me, but for completely different reasons.

You also must give up any ability to place praise or blame as hopelessly subjective. Sorry Billy, no more pat on the back for telling the truth that you broke your neighbor's window. Sorry Jews, Hitler wasnt morally wicked, he was acting out of his subjective morality and hey, might makes right.

Sorry Jake, but pointing to differences doesnt disprove universals either. Your basic syllogism is:

1. There are differences in cultural expressions of morality.
2. Therefore there is no universal moral standard.

I'm baffled to see how you get from 1 to 2. Is it not possible that some or all of them are aberrant on one or more points? I'm not sure how the differences necessitate that there is not a moral standard (especially considering that when we are wronged, even the relativist will appeal to universals!)

Your final paragraph is also nonsensical. You admit that you did put a value on human life, and say it is not because of a creator, but then the rest of the paragraph is about the non-persistence of the self after death, to which you say "That is the value of human life." So the value of human life is that we dont persist after death? I really dont think that is what you MEANT but that is what you typed.

My question either way, is where does the inherent value of human life reside? And what is the basis for the value of human life in a materialistic, neo-darwinian world? Do we not see the logical outcome of this in programs like eugenics where the "unfit" were experimented on and given forced sterilization in order to keep them from "infecting" the fit human race? Where is the value on human life there?

Jake Farr-Wharton

Saturday 21st November 2009 | 08:29 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Bilbo, mom is going to be so mad with you!

As I stated earlier, I don't believe that any situation justifies rape, but again, as I said earlier, I don't live in this future hypothetical of yours.

Bilbo, your example about the Jews isn't exactly politically correct, but your observation is correct. The fact that so many in the nazi party supported hitler, that they allowed him to do the unspeakable against the Jews is testament to my assertion. Morals are not universal, they, as I demonstrated quite clearly by posting the definition and etymology, show 2 things, 1stly that the tin foil rapped around your cranium is too tight, and 2ndly, that they are communally based, i.e. the society decides what is moral or not.

Get it? How about now? Now? I didn't think so. Have one of your servants whip you up some pot brownies, that'll expand your mind just enough to fit this in for you.

Where does the inherent value of life reside? Well Bilbo, that is a deeply philosophical question and I don't have arts degree to back this up, but my thoughts on the matter is that society places value on a human life.

All of those little individual facets that I listed in my last post, the hopes & memories etc, can be appreciated by all humans because we all have them, we evolved to develop deep and complex neural synapses that were capable of holding not only a concentric and individual consciousness, but also memories following a wibly wobbly time line.

Thank god we've evolved this far, right Bilbo?

Tyler V

Saturday 21st November 2009 | 08:41 AM

Great, so you dont think that any situation merits rape. Neither do I. but what is your basis? Culture is subjective and may change on this issue. Will rape still be wrong in that context because RAPE is wrong or because culture says so... even though culture no longer says so? You BASIS is subjective even though you want to hold it objectively. Sorry, you dont get both.

FYI, etymology NEVER proves a case. ha. It just shows the root of the word. lol. wow.

And wait... did you just admit that within Nazi Germany it was MORAL to exterminate Jews because the social contract?! Are you really more willing to say that the extermination of 6 MILLION Jews leads to moral relativism rather than just accepting that it was a moral violation!?

Oh so the value of human life is also culturally derived? Now, I agree that culture can EXPRESS what it THINKS to be the value of human life or morality, etc. What I reject is that they are the final authority or the basis for universal morals. According to your basis, not only were the Nazi's MORAL for exterminating 6 MILLION Jews, but early America was also MORAL in its devaluation of the value of African humans as less than human. After all, that was culturally derived. Does that not prove, according to you, that we should not see the American slave trade as a tragedy but as just an event in history that we must remain morally neutral on because they were moral within their own context?

See, I think even most of your atheist readers arent willing to follow you where you have gone.

Dave VB

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 08:38 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler V, or Bilbo as you have now been dubbed,

You are holding onto your hypothetical world where women decide not to have sex to support a distortion of morals that justifies rape like a smoking gun.

Take a good long look at the fossil record and you will see that our species extends back beyond the conception of god/gods. So where did our notion of god and morals develop. Well it wasn’t from our malevolent bearded friend in the sky, that’s for sure. They evolved over thousands of years. Maybe once, a long time ago, the female specimens were not so willing to breed with the males. In that time and place, evolutionary speaking, rape would have been justified for the continuation of the species. In the animal kingdom, this is a common occurrence.

Is rape justifiable in our more civil and westernized culture of today? Simply No. But we may never know what will happen, since hopefully we will never be faced by such a dilemma. But I am pretty sure that instincts and evolution will prevent woman from making such ‘Choices’.

This may be a big ask of one so faithful, but please remove god from the picture for a moment. We evolved before the notion of god and we had structured tribes and primitive societies before Monotheism was ever conceptualized. So therefore we must look at the evolutionary history of your so called “Universal Morals”. Have a read of one of my recent articles on sinning and morality and it will suggest many a logical argument for the evolutionary roots of morals and other superstitious tendencies.

http://www.rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=3762

As hominids migrated and created independent civilizations that were isolated from one another, just like the divergence of species, separate moral codes evolved. In the Middle East for example, it is still morally acceptable to undergo an “Honour Killing”. Does this adhere to your strict universal moral code? I doubt it. The “Universal Moral Codes” you deduce come from god, more likely evolved before the divergence of races, or evolved after the civilizations grew to such an extent that increased migration and dialogue converged to create a basic fundamental code of morals.

Do not be fooled by the grand delusion of god’s power. We were here before god, and will hopefully be here long after the foolish notion of god ceases. But I doubt that. Look beyond your blindfold of faith and inject the evidence that is mounting that precludes the notion of monotheism, and then I will consider your debate as intellectually founded.

Until then, I will consider you motivated by faith and faith alone.

Tyler V

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 09:27 AM

Dave,

First, the hypothetical is intended to show the logical consequences of a culturally based moral system. If morality is culturally based, no matter how much it may help society, it can never be absolutely binding on any person because there is actually NO real morality. Culture can only create an illusion of morality. But if there is no objective law giver, then there is no real law. We may use rules to keep society in line, but it is actually meaningless to call rape, murder, theft, deceit “wrong.”

I find it funny that you then look to the fossil record to make an appeal as to when morality started. Tell me, where was the “moral” fossil found? I think if you thought through that statement before you typed it, it may have come out clearer but you didn’t, and that is what we were left with: you trying to prove humanity predated morality based on fossils.

You then appeal to the animal kingdom to show that rape is “permissible” there but completely miss that what separates us from animals is our ability to be moral and see rape, no matter the reason and objectively wrong. But if it is rooted in evolution, tell me, why should I obey it? Evolution cannot provide a basis for objective morality.

You then say that you are “pretty sure that instincts and evolution will prevent woman from making such ‘choices.’ (i.e. denying men sex). Tell me, since you lambasted me for operating based on faith, what is the evidence of that statement. Do you KNOW that to be true or are you simply putting faith in evolution?

You next paragraph is a absurd as they get. “remove God from the picture for a moment.” Ha, in other words, “give up your argument for the sake of mine.” That would be like me saying, “believe in God for a moment, and since God exists then the Bible must be true and you are wrong. Q.E.D.” Even if, for the sake of argument, I grant your premises, your conclusion still does not follow. As shown above, evolution cannot provide a base for ACTUAL morals only the illusions of morals. It would be like trying to obey the speed limit when there was no government that ever set them. Sure there may be “rules of the road” that make life easier, but since there is no government and thus no one would be citizens, it follows that no one would be obliged to follow them. So it may be “good” for society for me to follow the “rules” but what is the basis for us wanting the “good” of society since that itself is a moral evaluation by which I would not be obliged to follow.

And yes I read your article. It was basically an excuse for hedonism that ends with pronouncement that we do not choose to sin because they are involuntary. Well, my response is, I would love to see you respond of your girlfriend cheated and then tried to get out of it by saying “but honey, I didn’t ACTUALLY do anything wrong since it was an involuntary action based on my evolutionary need to reproduce.” Something tells me you would still call her a foul name and leave because you hold objective morality in practice no matter how much you try and deny them in theory. This is clearly seen since you expect that even if she may have the URGE that she not act upon it. Choice. This alone debunks your whole article let alone you SWEEPING and vague assumptions and generalizations about the moral causal power of evolution.

Ironically you then say that “we SHOULD have a code of social morals to ensure that we promote a cohesive and constructive society. These SHOULD take in to consideration human nature coupled by community expectation and impact on other people.” I capitalized your moral pronouncements to bring them out. Tell me. WHY should we do those things? Are they just evolved and thus illusions that we have no obligation to obey (your basis) or culturally based and thus subjective to one culture but not to others (Courtenay and Jake’s basis) or are we obliged to obey them (My basis, even thought I may not agree with the results of those particular statements.) You in fact borrow from MY worldview in order to base your own system. Get off my lawn.

You then ask about honour killing. I’m not sure what that argument is meant to get you. Why would that influence God being a basis for morality? See, I have a category that cultures can be WRONG in where they arrive at in their cultural expressions of morality. Culture is NOT the measure of morality. So yes honour killing DOES fit in, precisely because I can look at it and say it is wrong.

You then chide me for a “blindfold of faith.” I don’t think that I have one, but lets assume you are right. Tell me, why is it “wrong” for me to have one? Is it objectively wrong? Or is it just culturally wrong? Or is it based on evolution and thus only have the illusion of being wrong?
Finally, you can consider my basis any which way you please. The problem is that you are stuck on the horns of a real epistemological dilemma. Either morality is real, and thus must have a law giver (God or culture; the former providing a basis for absolute morality, the latter subjective relative morality) or it is evolved and is thus an illusion of morality that is actually a moral fiction.

You appealed to the animal kingdom, now I will do the same. It is common for a baboon to come into the lair of another baboon, stupefy him with blows, then kidnap its mate and carry her shrieking into the night to forcibly have sex with her. Now, you say or morals are similar to theirs. Ignoring the fact that animals are not objectively moral while we are, imagine that I came over to your house and did the same thing. Would you shrug it off as an involuntary brain function based on my evolutionary desire to reproduce? No, you would either come for revenge because you had been objectively WRONGED or called the police because a law had been broken that the government (law maker) had put into place.

You say I am motivated by faith, tell me, did I ever appeal to faith? (something I have also never done in ANY of my posts here, which makes it appear that you are either blindly arguing your position regardless of the actual arguments before you or that you simply do not care to understand the opposing side in order to bunker yourself in. Which is it?)

Tyler V

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 09:30 AM

Plus, any moral system that ends in you saying that rape, genocide, Nazi Germany, and American Slavery are moral MUST be wrong. You may disagree. I think I have argued for that above, but even if I have to fall back on faith, sorry. I just cant accept, and I think that MOST people cant, even atheists, that any moral system that permits those things has gone awry somewhere.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 09:59 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Bilbo;

"the hypothetical is intended to show the logical consequences of a culturally based moral system"

That is what morality is! Morality is culturally based, it is not derrived from some mystical f*cking overlord, it exsisted before f*cking monotheism. The Sumerians and ancient Egyptians had morality, they had laws and they had polytheism. They also predate your invented god, and your notions of god derrived morality by a couple of thousand years.

You do realise that the reason that the biblical god is so schizofrenic is that he had to encompas so many sides, so many facets that were previously attributed to seperate gods. One for war, one for compassion, one for action, one for passivism, one for sex, one for fertility, one for immagination and inspiration, one for the sea, one for the stars, one for the night and one for the day.

Either way, if you ask an orthodox Jew, i.e. the inventors of your god, you are likely to be told that their view is that their god has very little influence on humanity, mainly because he has a f*cking universe to govern.

Why are christians so f*cking blind? The earth isn't made for you or because of you! The universe is the only infinity that humanity will ever get to experience, and we don't even inhabit .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 and so on and so on 1% of it.

There at over 400 billion stars in the milky way galaxy alone mate, if the universe was made for us by a god, then I'm looking forward to the opportunity to kick that f*cker in the face for wasting so much matter!

I have a question for you Bilbo, does creation have a purpose?

Tyler V

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 10:41 AM

Exactly, the hypothetical is intended to show the logical consequences of a culturally based moral system: i.e. that rape, genocide, Nazis and slavery are moral in their own contexts. A culturally based moral system is NO moral system at all because morality would be subjective to every person and there would be no obligation and thus no moral "ought"ness. If your girlfriend was raped, all you could tell her in truth was "well in your mind that is wrong, but that guy was actually acting out of his own moral code and so he was perfectly entitled to violate you. so dont cry..." (although even your sympathy for your sister would not be moral but subjective to you, so if someone stood by and laughed at her, they would be within THEIR moral right to do so. Sorry man, cultural morality leads to no morality at all.

For you to say “that is what morality is” is begging the question since that is precisely what is to be proven. You also still assume that I think morality cropped up somewhere with the advent of monotheism, or the writing of the Bible. I have told you before, and I’ll tell you again, MORALITY IS BASED ON THE ETERNAL NATURE OF GOD and thus whenever you try to argue with anything different, you aren’t arguing with me. I don’t care the sumarians or the Egyptians had morality because they don’t predate God’s existence.

You then also beg the question regarding why God’s nature is the way he is. You already assume that he is an invention of culture and then argue from that assumption to that conclusion. Sorry. That’s illogical.

Your diatribe after is ironically more faith based than most of what I hear from my fellow Christians and so vitriolic as to almost be non-sensical. “The universe is big, thus God doesn’t exist.” Ha, how does THAT logic work? ha

I also deny your question, because no answer will be valid in your worldview. It would be like me asking you, tell me, does creation bring glory to God?

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 11:01 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Rape, slavery, and what the nazis did was never moral in any f*cking context, Bilbo, the reason it was allowed to happed what some dickwad with a loud voice and heavy political backing convinced those in power that by allowing it, the world would be a better place.

In the case of Hitler, you had plenty of SS deserters that didn't wwant to go through with the torture or genocide, and there were thousands of guns from fallen soldiers that were never fired (suggesting that they would rather be killed than have to kill).

Morality isn't universal mate, and it is certainly not attributed to a god or gods. The very fact that morality predated monotheism proves this.

Furthermore, your logic is circular. You are saying that morals come from your god... well, where did your god get his logic? another god?

If you read what I wrote about the universe, I was simply saying that it is not centric to humanity. This planet was not created to suit the conditions of humanity, life slowly evolved to suit the changing conditions of this planet, as it will continue to do.

Lastly, you wan't me to answer your question, answer mine.

Secular Peace and Love Bilbo, right in you a-hole.

Tyler V

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 11:31 AM

Do you not see the problem with saying "Rape, slavery, and what the nazis did was never moral in any f*cking context," and then starting the next paragraph with "Morality isn't universal." Well which is it? Are those morally wrong in every context (universal) or are morals not universal? This is exactly the dilemma I am pointing out. You cannot base our absolute morals (which YOU use) on culture (which you TRY to do). The culture cannot base the morals. So you must either give up universals (which you cannot do because you will ALWAYS appeal to universals in the cases of rape, genocide, or if you feel you have been wronged) or the cultural base. You dont get to have both as even you yourself have now shown.

As for circular reasoning. Circular reasoning when it comes to absolute authority is necessary. I would never say that about any other thing, but absolute authority for reason must itself be self-referential. So even your claim that reason is the authority is self-referential. Why is reason the authority, because it is reasonable to say so. Any claim to an absolute authority will by necessity be circular, but not viciously so. (For more on this you can read Bahnsen, Frame, Van Til, Oliphint, etc.)

Plus God does not subscribe to an exterior source of logic (see the conversation with Courtenay about "divine command theory").

Ha, and I didnt expect you to answer my question. My question would be absurd in your worldview because it expects you to believe something in my worldview to be able to answer it.

And finally, you say this world is not centric to humanity. Well it seems that it is centric to life. Even Sagan noted that our universe seems to be finely tuned to life and that if even a single variable were tweeked a millionth of a percent, no life could exist anywhere in the universe.

I think the anthropic principle is still up for grabs in the mind of most scientists. But besides that... Im not sure why you brought this up. I never mentioned anything regarding it. Are you just throwing out any old argument in order to change the previous topic that you were unable to answer?

Tyler V

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 11:32 AM

p.s. Bilbo reminds me more of the Hobbit than the Enish.

Dave VB

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 01:21 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. TV,

Given your extreme example regarding the hypothetical situation you have provided for the culturally based moral system, any such argument can be taken to extremes to justify your calls. Alack of belief in a divine power is in no way impregnable to such corrupt and warped viewpoints. But I think you just hit the nail on the head with your sound bite, “there is actually NO morality”, at least not in a solid non-dynamic state. I disagree that it is meaningless to call rape, murder, theft or deceit wrong, meaning is subjective. In some societies, such acts may not be judged as wrong by the letter of the law, but our instincts have evolved to consider these things ethically wrong to promote social cohesion amongst our tribes.

I did not refer to the “Fossil Record” to appeal as to when morality started. If you read the whole sentence it says:

“Take a good long look at the fossil record and you will see that our species extends back beyond the conception of god/gods.”

I was discrediting your link of morals to a god that supposedly created man. It is only logical to presume such morals began to develop when our minds began to expand, which is why I followed up with...

“So when did our notion of god and morals develop(?)”

I thought through that statement long before I typed. But given to your tendency to interpret literature to suit your own mindset and preconceived beliefs, I am not surprised you took this out of context.

I have never said that rape is permissible; I was trying to demonstrate that a crime is only a crime from an established point of view. From my established point of view, rape is a crime, but from another’s it may not.

To truly understand the human beast, we must look to the animal kingdom for a wealth of inspiration. They are not so dissimilar from us, most just lack the mental capacity we wield. Anatomically they are very similar, and to observe and learn from their existence, allows us to hypothesize on how we became what we are today. To discredit the animal kingdom from this equation would be to deny the last 4.5 billion years of history from the equation of where our moral’s developed. Oh wait, that’s what you are doing.

Evolution cannot provide a basis for objective morality, but it offers an avenue of understanding, dissecting and ultimately improving our moral codes to better serve humanity. To rely on evolution alone can lead to very dangerous paths, like eugenics. Why should you obey it you ask? Think empathy and you will find your answer.

To quote myself again “pretty sure that instincts and evolution will prevent woman from making such ‘choices.’” You ask is this based on faith. Maybe it is. But my faith is based on historical evidence, not teachings from a society you say yourself would be way out of bounds to apply our 21st century social contract on 15th century BC activities. So why is it not so out of bounds to apply 15th century activities to 21st century social contracts? So yes I am putting an educated faith in evolution. Since if the female specimen did abstain from sex and god’s moral codes against rape triumphed over instinct, then the species would die out and another will rise to replace it. Evolution will prevail.

I never did say “give up your argument for the sake of mine” now did I? Is this just your habit of interpreting text in your own special way shining through again? I was subtly pointing out that to make your argument plausible, we would need to deny the existence of man before god created him. If I was to disregard the mountain of evidence that discredit’s creationism, then I would obviously conclude that god created morality, just like you have. But what I was pointing out is that if you remove god from the equation, then the evidence concludes that morals evolved from societies or their equivalents’ of the times. God cannot be credibly used as evidence. It would be like calling Santa Claus to the stand as an alibi. Evolution can explain the origin of morals while god can offer the illusion of morals. I think you might have had it the wrong way round. The “Good” of society is decided by the majority of society, laws are rarely objective and rarely need to be. What is the point of having a law against something that is socially acceptable by the majority??? You are obliged to follow it because the majority say you should. Survival of the fittest my friend and that is reality.

To your response of reading my article, thank you. I will not delve into my beliefs on monogamy, since this is not really the topic we are discussing. But yes, maybe I am hedonistic, but aren’t we all. It just takes a holy book to denounce the pleasurable as sinful, when in fact it’s pleasurable for a reason. To not make sweeping generalizations in a blog would mean it became a research article, not a blog. Please take note of the difference. I was simply offering an explanation other than, “God created morals and Lucifer causes us to sin” there is a logical explanation to everything. You just have to be willing to seek it.

I did not borrow anything from your world view, otherwise I would probably be dancing in your grand delusion. For humanity to flourish and for us to all enjoy our short time on this beautiful planet the cosmos provided, we need laws and moral ethics to promote cohesion. With cohesion comes peace and happiness. To disregard any moral standpoint would be to allow this world to become individualistic and descend into anarchy. Why should we do these things? So we grow, progress and carry on our species. Our obligation to obey is the repercussions of the law that is decided by the majority. These laws are put in place so that we all have an equal opportunity to achieve our desires, however hedonistic they may be. But we are stuck thinking in a westernized world. Think about the caste system of India or Pakistan, morally it is acceptable. So yes I am sharing CJ’s and Jakes viewpoint that morals are subjective to culture. You cannot expect every culture to share the same morals, because they simply don’t. Our obligation to obey is to the society we currently belong to. To not obey will wind you up in court, or in some countries, crucified.

To answer your last question...did you ever appeal to faith? Well, you explain a universal set of morals by giving the god created them excuse. In my opinion, that is appealing to faith. There is no physical evidence to support the existence of god, therefore I give more weight to the evolutionary debate. No I am not arguing my position regardless of the points in front of me, If you read carefully and stop interpreting my word’s to justify your claims, you will find I address each of the arguments from my, scientifically based, point of view.

I respect your point of view, but will continue to discredit it with evidence where possible. Thank you.

V2

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 02:15 PM

Bilbo?
Seriously Jake, is that your best argument.
You are grasping at straws and calling people names, Jake you seem to think name calling is moral, belittling people is excusable when you cant defeat the argument.
Name calling
Intelligent conversation?

TV: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right… and who is dead.

Jake: But it’s so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy’s? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

TV: You’ve made your decision then?

Jake: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

TV: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Jake: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?

TV: Australia.

Jake: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder’s origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

TV: You’re just stalling now.

J: You’d like to think that, wouldn’t you? You’ve beaten my giant, which means you’re exceptionally strong, so you could’ve put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you’ve also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Tyler V

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 02:32 PM

1. My point in commenting on your “fossil record” comment, was that it begs the question. It assumes that humanity created God and then arrives at the conclusion. It has nothing to do with taking anything out of context. It is simply an invalid argument.

2.You said that “from my establish point of view, rape is a crime, but from another’s it may not” actually proves my point. Morality becomes hopelessly subjective because it is nothing more than an illusion. There is no moral law giver (not even culture) and thus there can be no REALY moral necessity. It is actually meaningless to even say that for you rape is WRONG, because that would imply a moral “ought” but you are not obliged to anything/anyone and thus you have no “ought.”

3. I do deny your premise that we can look to animals for examples of moral development simply because anatomically we are similar. An airplane is “anatomically” more like a submarine than like a car for example, but I would not want to take an airplane on a deep sea expedition. I simply reject your comparison. If we are like animals, then we again have no real morals, only the illusion of morality for the sake of the community. An example I gave to Jake I think suffices. It is not uncommon for a baboon to stalk into another baboon’s lair, stupefy him with blows, then drag his mate back to his lair to forcibly rape her. Now, according to your view, the only difference is that we are more civilized than that. The problem is that there is no objective moral difference between us, and thus if I tried that same maneuver with you, would you simply say I was acting out of instinct, and am not to be blamed for my evolutionary attributable attitude? In your own words, from your point of view it was wrong, but maybe from mine it was not.

4. Then you say that evolution cannot provide a basis for objective morality but then claim that it can improve our morality. So it cant provide a basis for morality (interesting for you to admit since you say that I am wrong for saying that exact same thing) but it can improve morality…? You don’t see the glaring irrationality of that? You admit that evolution “alone” can lead to very dangerous paths. I agree. Like eugenics. Exactly. So why should we obey? You say empathy. So we should be moral because it is moral (empathy is a moral) to do so? Quite a tautology on your hands there. Plus you base it on what would be a moral fiction in your own worldview. Evolution cannot provide a basis for morality, even you admit it, but you SNEAK it objective morality… we OUGHT to have empathy. Why? If evolution is the governing reality, and there is no real moral law giver, WHY should I have empathy? Why shouldn’t I be like Stalin and exert my power to the best of my ability? Dog eat Dog! Why shouldn’t I perform eugenics to clear out the unfit from our species? See, you try to sneak in “ought” through the back door. Again… get off my lawn.

5. I also think that you do not understand my position. I don’t claim that the 15th century BC is under a different social contract that we are. I said that, pointing out to Courtenay and Jake, that if they want to base morality on culture, then THEY are out of bounds by applying on culture to another in their assessment of God. They want to base morality on social contract but then critique God, which, if their theory is correct, is out of bounds for them to do since they cannot rightly apply one social contract to another. (I get the feeling that you are confusing my position with theirs.)

6. You say that your “faith” is based on historical evidence. Really, what historical evidence is that? You also make the faulty assumption that a Christian faith is not an educated faith. I simply disagree. Faith, unlike how atheists think we hold it, actually has very little to do with blind faith. There are many of us who came to faith after studying textual criticism, history, science, philosophy, etc. Your final statement, a king of evolutionary prophesy, seems to be no more founded than the blind faith you scorn.

7. Ha, you didn’t say explicitly “give your argument for the sake of mine,” but that was in essence what you were saying. Right, you were asking me to assume that man existed before God… that is exactly the opposite of my position. So yes, you ARE asking me to give up my argument. Ha. So if I take God out of the picture, the only other possible explanation is that morality came about with God… yes. I agree. If God didn’t exist, then God wouldn’t be the basis for morality. I still deny the premise. Ha, you really don’t see the absurdity of the argument?

8. You then switch your argument from evolutionary basis to a cultural one. The “good” of the society is decided by the majority of the society. This is cultural relativism. You then are in the same dilemma as Courtenay and Jake. You are unable to base you own moral system and morals become a fiction because they are subjective. Imagine you are correct. Morality is based on majority consensus but am I obliged to majority consensus if I am strong enough to overcome it (survival of the fittest)? Why SHOULD I obey the culture? You again are trying to sneak in objective moral obligation into a situation that does not merit it. How can one culture oblige its citizens if it is only a consensus of the majority of PERSONAL moral convictions? Again, there is no real morality, only the strongest exerting the will over the weaker masses. But if Dahmer can overpower his victims, why shouldn’t he? If Jones can kill thousands with poison kool-aid, why shouldn’t he? If Bush can run American into the ground, why shouldn’t he? You see, there is NO basis for your moral “ought” in this system.

9. And no, we aren’t all hedonists. And no, I don’t deny what is pleasurable. I think sex is a wonderful thing that God made and made it to be enjoyed. I don’t think sex is a sin. I believe that certain KINDS are and thus, I am not a hedonist. And your blog was a blog, not a research article since NONE of what you said was actually cited. A research article cites its sources, yours did not. So it was a blog, no matter how informed it was. Plus you did not deal with anything I said regarding it. Would you tell your girlfriend that she didn’t do anything wrong by cheating on you because she had no choice because she was instinctually acting out her evolutionary roots? And do you actually think Christians think sin is “because the devil made me do it?”

10. You are borrowing from worldview in that you are trying to sneak in moral absolutes through the backdoor. You cannot escape moral absolutes and you continually appeal to them. But your own worldview, even by your own admission, cannot account for them… but you use them… thus, you borrow from my worldview. Like it or not, you do. This is because we all KNOW that morality is absolute and there are universal “ought/ought not” actions because we all live in the universe that God created with those universal “ought/ought not” action. You again appeal to us promoting “cohesion” as an example of human flourishing. But that is sneaking in a moral good in the back door. Why should we care about cohesion?! Peace? Happiness of others? What is wrong with slipping into anarchy? Maybe we wont slip into anarchy. Why shouldn’t we only slide a little way where we go back to eugenics and having slaves to make life easier so we don’t have to work? Why shouldn’t we do that if it is the survival of the fittest? Why shouldn’t America and other strong nations just take over weaker ones and enslave them? You say we do these things to grow and progress… why should we care to grow and progress? So we have “equal opportunity to achieve out desires.” You keep sneaking them in!

11. You are missing the same category that they are. You point to all the diverging moral codes and exclaim, “see! No universals!” Well we should point out that if you were to actually compare all the moral systems of the world you would find a large amount of uniformity or basic moral principles, with the difference being in their extent and their expression (no unjust killing with what makes something unjust being different; we should take care of the people we are responsible to take care of, with the difference being WHO that is; etc.) But you also are missing the basic option that it is possible for them to be in ERROR. We recognize that we can stray even from our OWN moral compass, why can culture not do it on a more grand scale?

12. You say, “Our obligation to obey is to the society we currently belong to. To not obey will wind you up in court, or in some countries, crucified.” So we are we ACTUALLY obliged to obey? Or do we obey out of fear of repercussions? In the first case you have to provide a basis for REAL obligation (something you can do by cultural relativism) and in the second there is no REAL obligation and so we are not actually obliged to obey.

13. Interesting that you call attributing morality to God an excuse since it seems obvious that you are unable to ground them in anything else but rather reject them and then still sneak them in the back doow.

14. You then say that there is no physical evidence for God. Tell me, are things only true if they have physical evidence? Or are there other kinds of evidence/arguments that can prove something to be true?

15. I also respect that you tend to not be as vitriolic and insulting as some other people on here… not to mention names *cough cough*. Would love to take you out for a beer and hear more.

Mikey

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 03:57 PM

FYI....

The bible: 593,493 words
This comment thread: 19,203 words

At this rate, I estimate we will have passed the bible in about 2 weeks :-)

Tyler V

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 04:48 PM

Oh, and my argument about the society where rape becomes mandatory is not extreme, it is an example of reductio ad absurdum. any form of relativism (personal, cultural, or evolutionary) basically reduces to 6 absurd conclusions.

1. A person is always correct in their ethical judgments. The only way to be wrong is to make a mistake about your own feelings about your own feelings. Since this is almost entirely impossible to do, nearly every ethical judgment would be true.

2. All moral actions are good and bad at the same time and in the same way.Joe says "abortion is wrong," Gene says "abortion is permissible" and they are both correct. It is more correct for them to say "I dislike abortion," or "I like abortion." (Ironically those who eschew moral relativism will often hold it on things like sexual practices but deny it in practice when they have been wronged themselves or on issues that they care about, like global warming or human rights.)

3. No two people ever ACTUALLY disagree over moral issues. This follows from the distinction made in #2. Since what they MEAN is "I like/dislike X" they are actually talking preference. We do not say it is an objective disagreement when one person likes chocolate ice cream and another likes strawberry. They simply state preferences.

4. No two people ever mean the same thing when they make the same ethical pronouncement. Imagine two white house advisers who both say "Telling the truth is wrong." What they actually mean is "I personally believe telling the truth is wrong" and thus they are describing separate subjective states.

5. It turns apparently significant moral judgments into either vacuous tautologies or blatant contradictions. Consider the person who says, "I like to get drunk all the time, but I know that it is wrong." In moral relativism, since ethics is a personal conviction, they actually end up contradicting themselves by meaning "I like to get drunk, but I dont like to get drunk." Or take the case where someone says "I like doing what is right." Since what is right is a personal preference, they are actually stating a tautology, "I like to do what I like to do."

6. There can be, what you called, progress. If there is no moral standard, then each new moral "development" actually is not a step in a "right direction" (since there is no objective terminus we are trying to reach) but rather just a step in a new direction. Thus when you say we are "more civilized" you are actually contradicting your own basis for morality. We cannot be getting more civilized because what is "civilized" is not an objective point by which we are measuring ourselves. All we can say is that we made new moral paradigm. Thus when America finally banned slavery, it did not become MORE moral, it simply changed morals (since the last one couldnt even be called "wrong" since it was the social contract until a new one was made by a new majority).

7. Finally, all choices would be equally good. And if all choices are equally good then all choices are arbitrary and we have no reason to choose one over the other. Any answer you give will demand you to slip in an absolute moral standard (empathy, justice, human flourishing, the good of the society, the survival of our seed, etc.) but that begs the question of why those are objective moral goods.

Tyler V

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 04:48 PM

sorry, #6 should start, "There CAN'T be..." ha. typo.

CJ

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 05:12 PM

I like how Tyler always dodges the tough questions. The questions that strike at the fault line of the 'clever' theists who MUST remain ever obedient to script. To veer off script is to cause the entire basis of the theist argument for not only the existence of God, but that morality is impossible without the Divine Command Theory. (DCT)

Case in point Tyler refuses to answer this question:

Q1. Name an absolute universal moral action or statement that an atheist is unable to make or do?

And will not answer the second question:

Q2: Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?

The second question shuts down the entire premise of the Divine Command Theory, and was done so by Plato 500 years before Christ's arrival in Nazareth. (Oops there was no Nazareth in 1 AD. My error)

He is unable to answer it because of Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma:

(1) If divine command theory is true then either (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.

(2) If (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are morally good independent of God’s will.

(3) It is not the case that morally good acts are morally good independent of God’s will.
Therefore:

(4) It is not the case that (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good.

(5) If (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then there is no reason either to care about God’s moral goodness or to worship him.

(6) There are reasons both to care about God’s moral goodness and to worship him.
Therefore:

(7) It is not the case that (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.
Therefore:

(8) Divine command theory is false.

Praise Plato

Tyler V

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 05:31 PM

Um I DID answer the question of a moral action that an atheist is unable to make or do. LOVE GOD. You don’t like the answer because it entail belief in God but that is EXACTLY what the question asks for… something IMPOSSIBLE for an atheist to do.

I also answered your second question. The answer is NEITHER. It is a false dichotomy. They are not good by nature of being commanded by God nor does God command them based on some external standard of good. They are good based on the eternal/immutable nature of God from which he commands.

Ha, now you are just bold faced lying! Ha, just scroll up and you will see that I answered both of these AT LENGTH.

The second question is invalid so as much as you would like to proudly declare it victor, it is just an invalid question because it sets up a false dichotomy. Like me saying “you are either part of the problem, or part of the solution,” when in actuality you could have entirely nothing to do with either.

I also find it funny that you continue on with the Divine Command Theory completely ignoring the LENGTHY critique from above to show why the DCT is actually an invalid argument. You premise 1, since it is a false dichotomy, is false and thus the rest of the argument is false which means your conclusion does not follow. Although I should say that since your conclusion is that the DCT is false, I should just let it go since even I think the DCT is false! Ha. Again arguing strawmen. I do not argue the DCT so you can debate with it all you want, but I disagree with it also, do go nuts.

Now, you ever going to deal with my ACTUAL arguments, or gonna keep hiding behind false and invalid strawmen?

Tyler V

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 05:36 PM

Courtenay, it is clear that you are getting SUPER desperate and have no real answers when you have to stoop to just bold face lying by saying that I didnt answer your questions when it is clear to anyone who just scrolls up that I gave extensive answers to your questions. Sorry, but from my experience, people with good arguments and evidence simply do not conduct themselves in such a manner. I think most people reading this, even if they dont agree with my position, can tell pretty quick that you are now just lashing out from a place of complete ignorance.

CJ

Tuesday 24th November 2009 | 07:38 PM

Yeah "loving God" is the only moral action or statement that an atheist is excluded from making or doing. With that you've retreated to the corner to play silly buggers now!

Want me to list all the wicked actions or statements exclusive only to the theist or believer community? Well folks, you've probably already thought of a couple, and we'd be here all day if we begun to shopping list them.

Interesting that the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, through to your hero Jay Richards have been intellectually honest enough to say they are unable to answer that question, BUT you, (smarter than Plato) resort to being a child. And I'm desperate?

As far as being desperate, it is not for me to become desperate. The burden of proof is on you my virgin birth friend. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or better yet, what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Who is the more desperate? The man who proclaims, at least implies, himself greater than Plato or the man who merely pushed forward Plato's refute of the Divine Command Theory?

I've seen hookers in the backstreets of Chicago still $20 short of their next crack whack less desperate than a man trying to maintain the miraculous, metaphysical improbabilities, and supernatural claims of a 2-4000 year old book in the face of the the library of evidence we now have in regards to natural selection, adaptive mutation, cosmology, and overall understanding of the universe.

You see it's one thing to maintain this new age intellectual theist persona that you thrust forth, with your clever use of scientific, and philosophic nuance BUT at the end of the day not only do you believe in a deity, but you then take that giant leap forward into the ether of arrogant certitude in believing that 'the' deity is the Hebrew one, amongst all other gods the majority of we have already discounted, and not only that - as if that isn't far enough along the line of illogic, you are also certain this Hebrew God had a son, and that this son did the things that the four gospels can't agree on the things he did. Whilst also believing that St Paul spoke to the ghost of Jesus to help him write his sadomasochistic ramblings. But I'm desperate?

Ladies and Gentleman - do not allow yourselves to be duped by such philosophical contortionists - because the fact that he believes in virgin births, resurrections, and the claims for the many other examples whereby the suspension of nature are described within his doctrine - means his beliefs having nothing to do with logic, rationality, or science.

If it looks like a duck.....

Tyler V

Wednesday 25th November 2009 | 01:29 AM

Courtenay,

Ha, so you admit that loving God is a moral action that an atheist cannot do? Now tell me, why is that an absurd answer? Is it because it is impossible to do without belief in God (which is EXACTLY what you asked me to provide)?

Ha, and I can list a lot of wicked actions that only an atheist can do as well. I did so on the facebook thread. I like how you recycle the same tired arguments to new audiences because you want to try and make yourself look good to people who don’t know any better.

My hero Jay Richards? I don’t even know who that is. Ha. Plus theists like Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, all the way through to Plantinga have ALL provided answers to Euthyphro. So thanks for providing a theist who I have never heard of, but I’ll stick with the company of the likes of the guys I do. How does that make me desperate?

How is the burden of proof on me? This is not my post or my interview. I was not the one MAKING the positive assertions. You and Jake were so no, sorry, the burden of proof is on YOU. And you can say the catchy cliché “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” but as I have shown you before, that is actually NOT true. Extraordinary claims require sufficient evidence just like any other truth claim. Sorry, but you then make it WORSE for yourself by stating “what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” Tell me, is that asserted with any empirical proof? No! So that statement itself should be dismissed without proof!

Plato believed in something like God, in forms and matter, and all sorts of stuff that I KNOW you don’t believe in. Should I accuse you of being desperate because you think you are GREATER than Plato because you think he is wrong? Ha, your arguments just get weirder and weirder. So you think I am claiming to be greater than Plato because I, along with dozens of MAJOR theologians and philosophers after him, disagree with him? Ha. Strange. (And to be technically, it would actually be Socrates who posed the questions to Euthyphro.)

Ha then you criticize me for my “cleaver use of scientific and philosophical nuance.” Ha, should I not use science and philosophy to base by case? I’m sorry, is logic getting in the way of your anti-theism? Then you critique me for my “arrogant certitude” in believing that the Hebrew deity is the true God (something you call illogical which in fact, regardless of if it is true or not, is not ILLOGICAL because no law of logic is violated). But you don’t realize that you argue with JUST as much certainty that ALL religions are wrong!

Then in normal Courtenay fashion, you don’t even make logical claims anymore, you just spew unhistorical, unvalidated, and actually quite incorrect assertions thinking that your wit will get you off the hook. Sorry, reason doesn’t work that way. How do you call yourself a rationalist?

Ha, finally you tell people to be wrong because I believe in miracles (begging the question). That is, you assume that miracles are wrong, and then argue to that conclusion to disprove me. Ha. In an a priori fashion you ASSUME miracles cannot happen. Tell me, what law of logic is violated by the suspension of natural laws? Or what natural law is broken by a SUSPENSION of natural law? Ha, whether or not God exists, miracles are not a violation of any law of logic, or rule of science. Science deals with the regular working of the natural laws and cannot prove or disprove the suspension of those laws. Hence the rule within the Scientific method, “AL LTHINGS BEING EQUAL,” that is, unless something interferes! Ha.

Nice special pleading though. lol

Tyler V

Wednesday 25th November 2009 | 01:45 AM

BTW, I'll be gone for the next 5 days for Thanksgiving and visiting family. I'll respond when I get back.

CJ

Wednesday 25th November 2009 | 10:06 AM

The Euthyphro dilemma is Plato's! His question was inspired Socrates.

How do I call myself a rationalist? Simply I activate the part of the brain that separates us from the other primates - REASON!

To base my beliefs only on empirical evidence makes me rational. To dismiss improbabilities without evidence makes me rational. To dismiss faith as hostile to critical thinking makes me rational. To study the historical facts of an event and dismiss hearsay makes me rational.

Whereas you believing that it is absurd for Mohammed to take a night flight to Jerusalem BUT it is totally plausible for a man to be born to a virgin; dead people rising from the dead (btw there is a difference between resuscitation and resurrection); a man can survive 3 days inside of whale; a talking snake can sell an apple; a man can walk on water - places you in the basket of irrationality my clever theist friend.

Oh but your rationality has enabled you to reasonably disregard the talking snake Adam & Eve story (Original Sin) as an event of pure mythology, you say.

Then explain this:

The New Testament tells us that God morphed himself into human form to atone for the original sin. But if the story of Adam is a myth, then why would God kill himself to atone for the sin of a fictitious person and a fictitious event?

Right there is the irrationality of Christianity. Utterly and completely non-sensical. But you can make sense of this, which means you can make sense of any kind of absurd or illogical premise given your ability to leap over the canyon of reason.

Finally, yes by your definition of rational, then I must be irrational. Thor save me.

Amen

gus

Wednesday 25th November 2009 | 05:56 PM

I think it is interesting that tyler is willing to defend his god, yet can't acknowledge the followers of any other religion. Linked or not to the Hebrew deity.

Please tyler, can you explain why your illogically chosen faith is more valid than any of the other faiths?

And more importantly, can you explain in a way that I can understand. Unfortunately, from my perspective, you are practising leaps of logic that Mr Werlemann is attempting to punt through the goalposts in his book.

Settle down Chongy!

Chonggy

Thursday 26th November 2009 | 04:08 PM

I'm settled now Gus thanks to your calming influence.

"Please tyler, can you explain why your illogically chosen faith is more valid than any of the other faiths?"

This is an easy one Gus- he was born in a christian society, probably in a christian family. If circumstances were different he'd be defending the Quran with equal conviction.
The rules are simple- first you believe and then you form arguments around the 'logic' of that belief.

But I want to add to Gus's question Tyler, if you are still about.
You argue that God must be real because there are laws of logic that are immutable, etc..
OK, I don't understand why they can't be independent of God (You've probably explained it but I don't read all of your threads; who has the time?), but lets take it as given that God is real because logic is real. Then please fill in the leap of logic that ends with 'therefore the bible is true'.

Tyler V

Sunday 29th November 2009 | 01:05 PM

Courtenay - The Euthyphro dilemma is recorded by Plato but is a conversation that Socrates had with Euthyphro. But that’s really not important.

Now, you say your ability to reason is what separates you from other primates. Sorry, other primates reason as well. So what does separate you from other primates? Why do we have things like “inalienable human rights” that the other primates do not have? What is your basis for them?

You say you base your beliefs on empirical evidence. Tell me, what empirical evidence do you have for the universal negation of God’s existence? What empirical evidence do you have that miracles CANNOT occur in our universe (especially considering a miracle is NOT a violation of the laws but a suspension of them)? Tell me, what empirical evidence do you have to believe your own criteria that we can only know things to be true through empirical evidence? The problem is that you imagine yourself to be an enlightenment thinker but completely ignore the following couple hundred of years response to the massive problems of empiricism.
Since you take ALL of the above of faith, then are you “hostile to critical thinking” as well? Or do you use special pleading to excuse your own worldview from its own skepticism?

I think it is absurd for Mohammed to take a midnight flight to Jerusalem for VERY different reasons than you do. You reject it based on you’re a priori presupposition that requires miracles to be impossible, I reject as an a posteriori unfactual event. Those are two VERY different means of rejection.

You mock virgin birth, resurrection, survival in a whale, man walking on water, etc. Tell me, IF an omnipotent God exists are those impossible? If they are not impossible then they are not illogical. Lets even assume you as an atheist are correct and that Jesus never resurrected from the dead. It is illogical for me to believe that he did if I believe God exists? No. Would it be incorrect? Yes. But there are lots of things that are incorrect but not illogical. For you to call theists irrational or illogical is simply erroneous. To be a theists and believe in miracles breaks no law of logic nor commits any formal or informal fallacy.

You then base you argument on an unattested “if” statement. “if the story of Adam is a myth, then why would God kill himself to atone for the sin of a fictitious person and a fictitious event? Right there is the irrationality of Christianity.” Sorry, once again you show that YOU are the irrational one. You assume your conclusion in the protasis of your first premise. Sorry, I reject your first premise as false and therefore you argument does not follow, and thus Christianity is not irrational. And tell me, what is the basis for universal, absolute, immutable, eternal, laws of logic? Are those based on social contract as well? Or is that “just the way it is”?

Plus you forget that an opponent of any worldview can frame it in such a way that renders it nonsensical. “If God exists then anyone who denies him has lost their friggin’ mind. Atheists deny God. Therefore atheists have lost their friggin minds and are totally non-sensical!” sorry, just because you can create a strawman of another worldview doesn’t win the argument. Its very easy to knock down the opposing worldview of your own making while never subjecting your own worldview to the same standard.

Now Gus, you argue in the same manner as Courtenay, you often assume your conclusion in your premise of question: “tyler, can you explain why your illogically chosen faith…” I could frame a question like this: “Gus, could you tell me why your illogical rejection of God is more valid than say the foolishness of agnosticism?” Theists can point to the differences between Anti-theism, Atheism that says we know God doesn’t exists, atheism that says they reject God because he has yet to be proven, Agnosticism that says that we can never know if God exists or not because of his nature, and Agnosticism that says we can never know that God exists or not because of our nature.

You also ask me to explain it in a way that you can understand. Sure, from my studies in science, philosophy, history, text criticism, and hermeneutics I have come to believe that Christian theism is the best explanation of the events of history, the metaphysical reality of God and the universe, our necessary epistemological reason and laws of logic, and the only possible basis for morality, justice, peace, uniformity, and hope.

Science – necessity of a 1st cause and an omnipotent, logical, personal, designing Being in order to account for the attributes of the universe sauce as causal relations, uniformity of the laws of nature over existing time and space, and the abundance of clear design.

Philosophy – the necessary existence of God to provide a basis for universal, absolute, immutable, uniform laws of logic.

History – the wonder that is the Bible written over multiple millennia by over 40 authors that is unparalleled by any work in its reliability, attestation, consistency, historical accuracy, and life changing power. (Read Bauckham’s masterful work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses). Also, the certainty of the resurrection of Christ from the dead. (The argument is LONG and EXTENSIVE so I wont argue it here but you can see N.T. Wright’s magnum opus The Resurrection of the Son of God.)

As for “leaps of logic” Courtenay likes to blindly assert that I am being illogical and irrational but has NEVER provided a single example of a logical fallacy. I’m not saying im perfect and never commit them, but Im saying that he really is not equipped to evaluate it in either case.

Plus his book, if you have read previous posts is so absurdly illogical, ahistorical, unscientific and so blindly biased that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry that you all actually think that he is a good source. He has even admitted that this book is not meant for critics but for the lay person who has no clue what he is talking about. Anyone with even preliminary knowledge of the methods for historical research, Biblical history, manuscript evidence, text criticism, theology, philosophy, hermeneutics, etc. can easily see the glaring errors in his book.

Lastly, Chonggy. First, I was born in an atheistic home and came to believe in Jesus after years of study. So don’t presume.

Second, yes I was born in the west. But tell me, does that invalidate my belief? Are our belief forming faculties such a product of our environment that that cannot be trusted? If that is the case, Darwinism, naturalism, and atheism are themselves beliefs arrived at through our belief forming faculties. Tell me, are they to be discounted because they are product of belief forming faculties shaped by western culture? Tisk Tisk. No special pleading. You must be willing to subject your own worldview to your own criteria.

If I were born in a different culture would I believe in the Koran with equal conviction? What about the hundreds of millions of Christians in China and Africa? What about the millions of Christians (and the number is on the rise) in traditionally Islamic countries? Are they products of culture? You see, to posit that our belief forming faculties are product of culture ALL belief forming faculties of ALL people must be a product of culture. Not just the ones you want to be.
And yes I have explained MULTIPLE times why immutable, universal, absolute, immaterial, eternal, uniform laws of logic cannot be independent of God. Tell me, from your worldview, how can a material, chaotic, chance, impersonal, UNTHINKING, universe create uniform, universal, absolute laws of logic (laws of personality and thought)? I seems to me a greater leap to go from chaos and unthinking to uniformity of laws of thought, than it is to say that they are a product of a uniform, logical being. The naturalistic worldview simply cannot account for them. Is that “just the way it is”? (which is not an answer but actually begs the question “why is that just the way it is”). Did they evolve? (if they evolved then they are not an exterior law within the universe but are evolved as human thought evolved which renders them subjective and most likely cultural; AND you must be able to describe how an unthinking chaotic universe can derive uniform laws of thought). Are they social conventions? (then they are REALLY hopelessly subjective and it is impossible for one person to impose logic on another person because each person would have their own logical preferences.)

chonggy

Wednesday 2nd December 2009 | 04:55 AM

Firstly I didn’t say different culture I said different circumstances. The millions of Chinese and Africans Christians are indoctrinated by Christians the same as you. My wife is Christian even though she was raised in a predominantly muslim country, not because it makes any more sense but that was how she was brainwashed brought up by her family.
So did you study several other religions in depth before deciding Christianity is the truth? How well do you know the islam or hindu religion? Millions of people are just as convinced as you that their religion is the truth. How do you explain that? Are these people deluded and you’re not? How could you explain to devout muslim that you don’t believe in the Koran (or any other religion books)? I’ll bet they’ll tell you that the Koran is an amazing book, full of facts and amazing accuracies. What do you think of them? They have got it wrong, right? They are deluded, not you…. tales of Jesus Christ is factual stuff, but not that horseshit about Mohammed or Ganesha; you’d have to be loopy to believe in that crap. Look, you all have the one thing in common- the need to believe.

How do you know the laws of logic cannot exist as they are without God? You make out like it is an obvious fact. All you really mean is you can’t understand how the “immutable, universal, absolute, immaterial, eternal, uniform laws of logic” can be independent of God. It doesn’t mean they can’t be, it just means it is beyond your understanding and like all practicing theists, instead of the phrase “I don’t know” you insert the word “God”.

It is common with you lot: How did the Universe begin “ I don’t know, it must be God” Further inquiry not needed; neat.

Admittedly my knowledge of the bible is superficial. So answer for me (and I am asking earnestly here) how the whole Jesus Christ story makes sense. For instance; God makes a law “the wages of sin is death” something like that. Someone has to die for the original sin. So in order to accomplish this and save humanity he sends himself as his son to die for mankind. What have I missed because this makes no sense to me. Why can’t an omnipotent God simply revoke the law? Or kill Adam and Eve and make new ones straight off. Why this whole charade? Why place the apple tree where eve could get to it in the first place? Does the bible give you any answers? Or does it just give you the stories and you are left wondering why? I am asking because you obviously know the bible well and I’ve never really heard these thing explained.

Tyler

Wednesday 2nd December 2009 | 09:35 AM

“Indoctrination” is a pejorative term people like to use when they want to dismiss the beliefs of another group. Technically indoctrination is much more like brain washing than instruction. I know of now Christian churches that brain wash. Did you ever think that people actually believe and find plausible evidence and existential validation in the teachings of the Bible and are just blindly following something obscure?

And yes, I studied various other religions and philosophical systems, but that is really besides the point. It would be like me asking you if you studied all of the scientific systems and theories that have come and gone over the centuries before you decided on naturalistic neo-darwinianism. And actually it cuts both ways. Not only to affirm but to deny. Atheism is a worldview and so have you studied all the other worldviews to know that they are false before you concluded on atheism?

You argument also has the force of “well people disagree, therefore you are all wrong… except us atheists. We’re the only right ones.” The same critique you use against me can be used against you. It also shows your utter ignorance about Christianity but also about Islam and Hinduism, etc. to think that they all make similar claims. Your example of the Muslim saying that the Koran also is full of amazing accuracies is actually incorrect. The Koran is a book of ethics, politics, society, law, etc. It does not make historical claims and makes no predictive prophecies. So no, no Muslim would argue that it is full of amazing accuracies. It just doesn’t apply.

You also miss that a theist rejects another theistic system for VERY different reasons than an atheist does. An atheist ASSUMES that supernatural, miracles, etc. CANNOT occur before any evidence or argument is made. It is like if you were arrested for a crime that you did not commit. There is AMPLE evidence that you didn’t do it, and only some circumstantial evidence that you did. But the judge, before the trial even begins, says that the only evidence that can be brought is the kind that can prove that you did it. It has nothing to do with the merits of either kind of evidence. It is because he assumes your guilt and only allows in what agrees with him. You do the same.

Laws of logic cannot exist without God. Tell me, what is the possible basis for universal, absolute, immutable, eternal, uniform laws of logic (which are laws of THOUGHT) in an UNTHINKIING, chaotic, uncausal, finite, changing, universe? I’m asking, epistemologically speaking, what is the possible basis for laws of logic? You say that they can be grounded outside of God so tell me, what is their basis? I’m not saying, “I don’t know,” I’m saying that epistemologically speaking, God is the only possible basis for laws of logic.

I also don’t say I don’t know how the universe began and thus say “God.” I say, well the universe began. Can something cause itself? No. Can nothing cause something else? No. Then there must be something that caused the universe. Well the creation of the universe caused time and space and so time and space didn’t exist before the universe did so the cause must be eternal and infinite/omnipresent. The universe is both nearly infinitely large and infinitely complex and so whatever created it must be infinitely powerful. And the universe is uniform, logical, and contains laws of logic, morality, persons, and so the creator must be immutable, logical, moral, and personal. And the list goes on. They are not just shrugs of the shoulders.

God does not arbitrarily make laws, they are based on his nature/essence. Why does the breaking of the law require death? Because God is holy and cannot be in the presence of sin. Why doesn’t he just revoke the law? Because God is not only forgiving, but he is also just. Why doesn’t a judge now just revoke the law because people break it? Because there has to be justice. We recognize that in society, but why cant we recognize it with God? So there must be justice. The payment for sin must be death and it must be paid. And we all sin so we all deserve death. So is God wicked? No, he decided that rather than US paying the price and taking the death penalty, that He would take it for us, so that he could be “both just, and the one who justifies” as Paul says.

I could go on, but the problem that you will have is that you presuppose that all this is false before you even look into it. You ask me to explain it to you, but I could explain it to you better than anyone in the world, and you still wouldn’t believe it and would try to find any reason to reject it because your worldview presupposes that God doesn’t exist, miracles cant happen, and that human autonomy is the way to go. You will always reject it because you WANT to reject it because you don’t want to have to answer to God, the judge.

We all deserve death. We all broke God's law. But God loved us too much to leave us like that. His justice demanded punishment for sin, but his love demanded mercy. But we couldnt do it on our own. A drowning man cannot save himself. A dead man cannot recessitate himself. So we could not justify ourselves. It took God acting in grace (giving us what we dont deserve) and taking the punishment upon himself, for our penalty to be paid and for our relationship to the judge as a citizen in good standing again to be achieved.

anonymouse

Wednesday 2nd December 2009 | 12:58 PM

Jake u justify ur own hate toward christians period, congrats. Ur always attacking christians in every way u can anc chnace u get. Get a life dear!!

Chonggy

Thursday 3rd December 2009 | 03:46 AM

OK you're right
"I could go on, but the problem that you will have is that you presuppose that all this is false before you even look into it. " No point going on, I totally reject this, I think you are a religious loony. I was going to try and slog it out but I can't stomach this sort of crap

"But God loved us too much to leave us like that. His justice demanded punishment for sin, but his love demanded mercy." What justice? A sin that get passed on for generations -God is a dick-period.

"you WANT to reject it because you don’t want to have to answer to God," I reject because it is utterly ridiculous and you'd have to a fruitloop to believe it.

"Because God is holy and cannot be in the presence of sin." He let it go on for generations before he sent JC. Besides didn't like a 100 million people die before JC got to give it a go. Why couldn't all those deaths have payed the due.

"The payment for sin must be death and it must be paid." WHY???? And why wait so fucking long. God is a dick.

"And we all sin so we all deserve death. So is God wicked?" No he is a dick

"No, he decided that rather than US paying the price and taking the death penalty, that He would take it for us, so that he could be “both just, and the one who justifies” as Paul says." Paul is also a dick!

What about all the people he drowned in the flood- why didn't that make him happy?

Quite honestly Tyler I think you have to be a little insane to think any of this makes sense.

Tyler V

Thursday 3rd December 2009 | 03:57 AM

Of course you do. Because you, as a part of your worldview, deny even the possibility of a holy and just God who acts in history and will be a judge for us all. your presuppositions deny it out of hand before any evidence, reason, or argument can be made. You deny it before you even hear it. Why doesnt it make sense? Because youre an atheist.

Tell me, what exactly is ILLOGICAL about it. Not what you just find troubling or dont think it happened that way, etc. But what is logically impossible about it?

chonggy

Thursday 3rd December 2009 | 04:01 AM

Apologies Tyler. I asked for an explanation, you gave me one and then I sledged you for it. My bad. No more comments from me. I am a dick (which makes me a bit like God) Praise me.

Tyler V

Thursday 3rd December 2009 | 04:05 AM

I dont mind giving you answers. But your argued by saying it was "nonsense" without actually saying HOW it was nonsense. My question for you is HOW is it nonsense. What is the logical impossibility to say that God is holy and just and therefore is in his rights to judge the wicked? I'm asking you to be more precise in your "sledging," not to stop. If youre gonna debate me, you wont get away with just making rash generalizations and unfounded comments like that. So i'm just asking you to be precise. But if you dont think you can do that and that is why you are backing down, then that is another thing.

chonggy

Thursday 3rd December 2009 | 04:20 AM

I lied - I'm commenting again.

"your presuppositions deny it out of hand before any evidence, reason, or argument can be made." What evidence? And what has reason got to do with it? Eve picks an apple and the sin carries on until Gods son dies, how is that reasonable? Why put the tree there if it was such a bad thing to pick? Why put the snake there? I realise I am being simplistic here, but does the bible explain any of this?

Your arguments follow logic when based on the premise that God is real and he is the god of the bible- so what? you have no evidence that God is real or ( if he is real) that he is that idiot written about in the bible.

Tyler V

Thursday 3rd December 2009 | 04:15 PM

Evidence that God is real: The necessity of His existence for the universe to exist, for the uniformity of laws of nature, the only basis for laws of logic, and of absolute morality.

What does reason have to do with it? Well your critique of my position is that it is irrational and nonsensical. Those are terms that mean that I have broken some law of logic. So I was asking for the precise way that I was being illogical.

Eve doesnt just pick an apple. Adam and Eve break a law and are thus, law breakers. As the head of our race they plunge humanity into sin by which we are ALL law breakers. Breaking a law demands punishment. To say otherwise is to deny justice. God is, in his essence, wholly just and thus God demands payment for sin. God is also, in his essence, holy, and thus any unholiness cannot remain in his presence forever. It must be dealt with. Thus the sinner must be put out of God's presence for eternity. But God loves us and will not let that happen. But his justice demands payment. So how can the problem be solved. Well either we pay the penalty, or else God pays the penalty for us. This is precisely what he does in Jesus Christ. (As for why the Son had to become incarnate and die on a cross, see Anslem's Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man, found at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-curdeus.html). I know it is old but it is one of the best works on the issue. The most astute line in all of it is when Anselm's friend Boso asks him basically what you ask me, Why did Jesus have to become a man and die? To which Anselm answers that Boso does not understand because he "has not yet considered how great your sin is."

You are not being simplistic but you are being impatient. You want immediate, clean, clear, pat answers. The problem is that the Bible, while a work of immense value, is also a book of immense wisdom and knows that questions about sin and suffering and the will of God are vast, and deep, and messy. The answers never come in simple syllogisms. They come in grand themes like fall and redemption, already and not yet, law and gospel. Read passages like God's response to Job toward the end of the book or Paul's response in Romans 9 to those who seek to quantify God's prerogative in election. Or look at the end of the 4 gospels. Basically the Old Testament sets the stage and raises a TON of questions and builds up a lot of tension. What is the answer? The cross. The ugly, brutal, bloody cross. A great hymn calls it a beautiful, scandalous night. It was at the same time immensely beautiful and immensely scandalous. Thats the answer to your questions.

But your evaluation on the being, character, and actions of God in the Bible are skewed by your own presupposition that He cannot exist, and that if He did he would be a god in the way that you would WANT a god to be (which is really a god of your own making.) So will my answers ever satisfy? No, because they do not fit the mold of your preconceived notion of what a proper answer SHOULD be (namely one that agrees with you). One way I know that God is not man made? Because he basically contradicts us as every turn we take. Dont listen to the health and wealth preachers. God doesnt want us happy, and healthy, and wealthy; He wants us holy first and foremost. We dont give to get and we dont do good to get praise. God tells us we arent the commanders of our own destinies, the best thing we can do is sacrificially love, to give to the poor even out of our own poverty, the turn the other cheek, to not seek vengence, to let God be the judge and not us. To deny ourselves and take up our cross daily. That is NOT the kind of God we would make up for ourselves.

Tyler V

Saturday 5th December 2009 | 03:29 PM

oh, and by the way, for someone who admitted that their knowledge of the Bible is superficial (a form of intellectual honesty that I find refreshing rather than Courtenay who is in the same boat trying to pass himself off as someone is even remotely familiar with it) you sure are dogmatic in your rejection of it. Just find those two things a bit at odd... "I dont know much about it... but I'm gonna reject it more fervently than most people who do."

Jake Farr-Wharton

Saturday 5th December 2009 | 08:04 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Play nice Biblo, or I'm releasing the hounds!

Seriously, no one's actual understanding of the bible is anything more than superficial.

Do you live in 2000BC? No, then don't claim to understand the old testament.

Do you live in 300AD, i.e. 300 odd years after Yeshua died? No! So get off your soap box and pee on the hedges from a normal height... you're scaring the ants!

Tyler V

Sunday 6th December 2009 | 06:07 AM

Ha, ok, go to any university campus and walk into the philosophy department and tell them that they dont have anything but a superficial understanding of Plato because they dont live when he lived. That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard.

And why would I need to live in 300 AD?

In fact with study, and research, we can have much more of a superficial understanding of anything. Is this really the kind of argumentation that you have resorted to? Im really beginning to think that if you and Courtenay and Papa are the future of atheism, we Christians really dont have anything to worry about. ha

V2

Sunday 6th December 2009 | 07:39 AM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Wow Jake! Talk about religious dogmatism
I accept your fundamentalism, complete adherence to all "you choose" your Nazi like dictatorship
But
You...You presume to judge others on Christianity
How CJ of you
How Dawkins of you
How retarded of you
You know what Christ said? I know you dont; rhetorical
Jesus stated in the Bible what his followers were expected to do, not you
Christianity is made up of individuals, but I figure your brain couldnt comprehend with that

Jake Farr-Wharton

Sunday 6th December 2009 | 01:19 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. Jesus didn't pen a single letter of the bible V2, in fact, the first words purported to have been said by Jesus to have made it into a biblical testament were written many, many years after he had died.

Don't presume to know what Jesus had said, and don't presume to know that I don't know what is written in the bible.

Also, given the fact that I've not committed genocide in my lifetime, can I ask how you came to the conclusion that 'my dictatorship' is like the nazi one? I wasn't even aware that I was ruling anyone.

Unlike you ass-hat, I'm accountable to every other man, woman, child, animal, insect and plant on this planet, you're only held accountable to some mystical sky fairy that you think exists because Pastor Ted told you to believe. Pitty Pastor Ted was high on anal sex and methanphetamine and not the Holy Spirit at the time!

Peace out Luddite!

Tyler V

Sunday 6th December 2009 | 01:56 PM

Great, if we dont know what Jesus said, then we REALLY dont know what Socrates said, Alexander the great said, Homer said, Plato said, etc. good luck passing that off in any university without getting laughed off the campus.

Oh and I love that you try and pass yourself off as a sophisticate and then try and say that we Christians universally care what Ted Haggard said. ha, what an ignorant statement.

Oh, an you say we are accountable to "every other man, woman, child, animal, insect and plant on this planet." Tell me, are we in a social contract with all those people? What OUGHT i be accountable to them? Why OUGHT I hold them accountable? Can an animal, insect, or plant hold me morally accountable? What happened to relative morality based on culture and social contracts? Nice try trying to posit universal, absolute morality. But it wont fly cause you have NO basis for it.

Tyler V

Sunday 6th December 2009 | 02:04 PM

Oh, and by the way, when people ACTUALLY have logical arguments, evidence, and the believe in their convictions, they dont have to resort to name calling, ad hominems, bullying, and many of the other tactics that you anti-theists take. The fact that you and Courtenay are so overtly vitriolic and intolerably narrow minded just reveals that you DONT have logical arguments or evidence on your side and you know it. Its like the cat who puffs up their back and tail in order to look bigger. Or the kid who bullies other kids because he is insecure on the inside.

Well it looks like Courtenay has tucked his tail an run away because he cant answer a single one of my questions, Papa is just shouting "nu-uh" louder and longer and lying about being educated, and you are reverting to name calling. Looks like my work here is just about done. Anytime it degenerates to that, you know its now just the pride and egos of the other side that is keeping them going.

V2

Sunday 6th December 2009 | 02:35 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Time for a Bex and a good lie down Jake. Doc V's orders
Ok Christ never penned any of the bible. Good boy, I have an apple for you. Lets just suggest a misunderstanding between us, dont have to beat your chest and do the big Silverback act
Crikey
Listen stoopid.
Stop judging Christians for what they believe. I as a new earth creationist have no issue with old earth creationists, or evolution believing Christians. So my little dictator, my little hollier than thou fundy, let our God judge us, not you.
Your standards are not ours
Christ said......."All those who accept "me" are mine"
Not "all those who accept 6 day creation, or evolution" or whatever you want
You need a necklace with a toilet paper roll on it so you can wipe your chin, Boy.

Tyler V

Friday 11th December 2009 | 03:35 AM

and Jake, if you dismiss Jesus because his biographies were written a couple decades later, then you have to not believe in ANYTHING from antiquity since the NT books are written closer to the events that they portray by HUNDREDS of years over EVERY other ancient source about anything or anyone. People who argue like you do just have NO clue how scholars evaluate historical documents.

Trent Greguhn

Friday 11th December 2009 | 03:43 AM

Holy hell, you're all discussing in two seperate articles? This is madness.

Tyler V

Friday 11th December 2009 | 10:35 AM

Ha yeah, I'm all over the place. It actually keeps me from working on my own blog. ha

Tyler V

Saturday 12th December 2009 | 03:32 AM

I'M COMMENT 100!!!

Joe Marco

Saturday 12th December 2009 | 07:18 AM

I'm 101. what the hell is going here?!

Tyler

Monday 21st December 2009 | 07:08 AM

Courtenay,

Why do you not allow me to post on your blog anymore? Tired of being shown how hopelessly biased and factually wrong you are? Ironic that a website called "rationalists" actively suppresses the opposing voice in order to shelter itself from criticism.

Though what should I expect. When someone is as blindly skewed by an illegitimate faith, why wouldnt they seek to suppress the opposition. Just ironic that you wrote a book bashing fundamentalism when all you do is reciprocate the fundamentalist mindset.

Gina Squitieri(about J Calvin)

Tuesday 22nd December 2009 | 01:07 PM

Excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_calvin

"The turning point in Calvin's fortunes occurred when Michael Servetus, a fugitive from ecclesiastical authorities, appeared in Geneva on 13 August 1553. Servetus was a Spaniard who boldly criticised Christian dogma. In particular, he rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. In July 1530 he disputed with Johannes Oecolampadius in Basel and was eventually expelled. He went to Strasbourg where he published a pamphlet against the Trinity. Bucer publicly refuted it and asked Servetus to leave. After returning to Basel, Servetus published Dialogorum de Trinitate libri duo (Two Books of Dialogues on the Trinity) which caused a sensation among Reformers and Catholics alike. The Inquisition in Spain ordered his arrest.

Calvin and Servetus were first brought into contact in 1546 through a common acquaintance, Jean Frellon of Lyon. They exchanged letters debating doctrine until Calvin lost patience and refused to respond; by this time Servetus had written around thirty letters to Calvin. Calvin was particularly outraged when Servetus sent him a copy of the Institutes of the Christian Religion heavily annotated with arguments pointing to errors in the book. When Servetus mentioned that he would come to Geneva if Calvin agreed, Calvin wrote a letter to Farel on 13 February 1547 noting that if Servetus were to come, he would not assure him safe conduct: "for if he came, as far as my authority goes, I would not let him leave alive."

[AWWWW, WHAT A GENTLE MAN.]

In 1553 when the inquisitor-general of France learned that Servetus was hiding in Vienne under an assumed name, he contacted Cardinal François de Tournon, the secretary of the archbishop of Lyon, to take up the matter. Servetus was arrested and taken in for questioning. His letters to Calvin were presented as evidence of heresy, but he denied having written them. He managed to escape from prison, and the Catholic authorities sentenced him in absentia to death by slow burning.

[HOW-- um..NICE!]

On his way to Italy, Servetus stopped in Geneva for unknown reasons and attended one of Calvin's sermons in St Pierre. Calvin had him arrested, and Calvin's secretary Nicholas de la Fontaine composed a list of accusations that was submitted before the court. The prosecutor was Philibert Berthelier, a member of a libertine family and son of a famous Geneva patriot, and the sessions were led by Pierre Tissot, Perrin's brother-in-law. The libertines allowed the trial to drag on in an attempt to harass Calvin. The difficulty in using Servetus as a weapon against Calvin was that the heretical reputation of Servetus was widespread and most of the cities in Europe were observing and awaiting the outcome of the trial. This posed a dilemma for the libertines, so on 21 August the council decided to write to other Swiss churches for their opinions, thus mitigating their own responsibility for the final decision. While waiting for the responses, the council also asked Servetus if he preferred to be judged in Vienne or in Geneva. He begged to stay in Geneva. On 20 October the replies from Zürich, Basel, Bern, and Schaffhausen were read and the council condemned Servetus as a heretic. The following day he was sentenced to burning at the stake, the same sentence as in Vienne. Calvin and other ministers asked that he be beheaded instead of burnt. This plea was refused and on 27 October, Servetus was burnt alive—atop a pyre of his own books—at the Plateau of Champel at the edge of Geneva.

[THAT JOHN CALVIN. WHAT'S NOT TO ADORE? Tyler, you said you are a Calvanist. Did you mean as in Giovanni Calvino?]

Tyler V

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 06:11 AM

This is where wikipedia shows that it is not a scholarly source. Much of what you have just cited is simply poor historical research into the actual proceedings of the Servetus event. For better research listen to the lecutre given by Dr. Frank A. James III found at http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/rts-public.1379833356.01379833359 (you will need itunes to listen to it).

Or you can listen to it here:

Part 1: http://www.cvcrt.org/audio/TheCalvinINeverKnew01.mp3
Part 2: http://www.cvcrt.org/audio/TheCalvinINeverKnew02.mp3
Part 3: http://www.cvcrt.org/audio/TheCalvinINeverKnew03.mp3
Part 4: http://www.cvcrt.org/audio/TheCalvinINeverKnew04.mp3

But what are some examples where Wikipedia is grossly inadequate?

Example 1: Calvin didnt have Servetus arrested.

Example 2: Calvin stopped writing Servetus because he himself was being driven out of Geneva.

Example 3: Calvin actually traveled all the way to Spain to visit Servetus and try to plead with him to repent of his heretical view even though Calvin was told that if he stepped foot in Catholic Spain he would be executed on the spot.

Example 4: Calvin warned Servetus not to come to Geneva to protect him.

Example 5: Wikipedia (or your picking and choosing of the passages) grossly simplifies the religious and political atmosphere of 16th century Europe. It also completely misses the difference between the Protestants and the Catholics and their UNWILLINGNESS to work together at that time in history.

Example 6. Calvin pastorally visited Servetus almost every day that he was on trial to get him to repent and save his life.

Example 7: Notice that once Servetus was condemned to death, Calvin sought him to be beheaded (quick and relatively painless) to spare him from being burned alive (slow and agonizing).

So yes, I do respect Calvin. But when I say that I am a Calvinist, I do not even mean to say that I follow Calvin, but rather the system of theology that he and those after him organized (it is actually more proper to call it Pauline, or even Augustinianism but it was not codified as a system under Paul or Augustine, but rather under Calvin and his students in response to the Arminians).

But here you go again distracting from the real issues. You say you are Reformed, I'm asking you for ONE Reformer who agreed with you on either the Trinity (or lack thereof), the universal salvation of mankind, or your semi-pelagianism where sin is just sickness that we need help with since we cant do it on our own.

Tyler V

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 06:40 AM

Listen to the words of Jesus explaining EXPLICITLY his parable of the weeds in Matthew 13:

36Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field."

37He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The WEEDS are the sons of the evil one, 39and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the END OF THE AGE, and the harvesters are angels.

40"As the weeds are pulled up and BURNED IN THE FIRE, SO IT WILL BE AT THE END OF THE AGE. 41The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will WEED OUT OF his kingdom everything THAT CAUSES sin AND ALL WHO DO evil. 42They will throw them into the FIREY FURNACE, WHERE THERE WILL BE WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH. 43Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Jesus himself says that when he returns, the unrighteous will be condemned, and the righteous commended.

Do you not see the mounting Scripture verses against you? From the Mouth of Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, even Jude? See, you build your entire theology on your philosophical convictions about what a loving God MUST be like and reading that INTO Scripture, rather than submitting to Scripture and letting God tell you what a loving God is like. Do you see the difference? I can either come to the Bible and say a loving God must be like this and impose that on Scripture. Or I can ask "What is a loving God like?" and see that how the Bible describes God and his action IS what a loving God is like. And since the Bible says "God is love" AND that God will be the judge who separate the wheat from the chaff, the righteous from the unrighteous, and that those who profess faith in this life will go onto to everlasting life, while those who reject him will go onto everlasting punishment, then I must say THAT is what a loving God is like, and thus love is not at odds with holiness, righteousness, justice, and wrath.

To read it the other way around, to say "God must be like this to pass MY definition of what love is" is to actually be wholly autonomous and implicitly reject the authority of Scripture and to tout the authority of our own reason. You are making yourself judge over what God can and cant do morally (from your own morally fallen position) rather than allowing God to tell us exactly what a loving God is like.

Papa

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 07:43 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler V picks and chooses what he wants to respond too. Completely ignoring some's posts and when a thread becomes full of his evangelical propaganda, he comes to another thread to continue his campaign. Not enough posts on your own blog Tyler?

Tyler V

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 08:26 AM

Papa, what am I picking and choosing? Ha, I have been on this thread since it started and the other thread (part 2) closed down. It has nothing to do with me picking anything. Nice ad hominem argument though. Very "rational" of you.

Gina Squitieri

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 10:58 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. I never said I was "reformed." Show me. Where did I say "I am 'reformed.'" I didn't. Please don't keep making things up.

Listen, I'll say it again. If reformed means that I believe that Jesus Christ will ultimately FAIL at the only task He was commissioned by the Father to do (that is, SAVE the WHOLE WORLD), then, no, I am definitely NOT reformed. Do you think you can understand that, or do you need me to repeat that again for the fourth time?

Gina Squitieri

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 11:37 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

This is a PARABLE and parables are not literal. We've went through that already.

Now YOU listen. You say that Jesus intends to eternally damn all those who do not worship Him, and must because that's what you THINK His word is saying. And, you're perfectly okay with that kind of torture and torment. But the very things you THINK He aught to condemn certain people for are trillions and trillions of times less severe, and those crimes were finite, whereas Jesus' condemnation is eternal - you say.

Are you familiar with the words that Jesus spoke to the Pharisees (hypocrites) wherein He said "You blind guides! You strain (filter) out a gnat (something small), but gulp down a camel (something HUGE).

Are you, Tyler, also guilty of gulping down the insane, demonic doctrine of eternal torment - a torment that NEVER end or lessons in intensity (even though Jesus said some would be beaten with few strips -- can you explain that one?). It is plainly written in the OT that penalties would be no greater than the offense/crime committed: Eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life. In certain instances the penalty appeared much more severe that the crime- like death by stoning, but only IF b-o-t-h the man AND the woman were caught in the act of adultery, and at that the "crime" had to be witnessed by not only one person, but by TWO or THREE (which is why Jesus is seen forgiving the woman the pharisees brought to him whom they claimed was caught in the very "ACT." Where was the man? Why didn't the Pharisees bring along the man? How did the Pharisees know that this woman had committed adultery? Where were they and how did they know she was committing adultery? And how is that they knew enough what penalty was prescribed by the law and yet somehow forget or neglect to bring the man with whom she was bedding?

Gee, ever wonder if it was because the man she was bedding was every last one of those "righteous" Pharisees? Maybe they were angry with her because she wouldn't give it up any more? Who knows! They obviously wanted to trap Jesus with it but they screwed up because the law required that BOTH the man AND the woman be stoned.

I believe Jesus knew without a doubt who the "man" was. Perhaps, just PERHAPS they were all none other than a bunch of her jilted lovers? Hell hath NO FURY like a rejected, "finely clad righteous 'man.' What do you think? Ah! But instead of publicly humiliating the pharisees and condemning them, all Jesus did was stoop down and start writing on the ground with His finger. What did He write? It's anyone's guess. But isn't it interesting that they all (the pharisees -"keepers of the law" - awwwww, weren't day tweet?) went away CONSCIENCE-stricken from the o-l-d-e-s-t to the last? Don't you find that fascinating and worth delving into a little deeper, Tyler. And, yes, I am aware that that verse is not in every manuscript, but it's in some for a reason, and so you'll excuse me if I find that interesting--very, very interesting. I'm positive I've been guilty of filtering out gnats and gulping down camels. In fact, I've also been guilty of gulping down the HUGE, HUGE, HUGE MONSTROUS doctrine of demons of Eternal torment, myself. But the difference between me and you, is, I've turned from that evil and vile doctrine -- it does nothing to glorify God and certainly does nothing for humanity.

Well?

Gina Squitieri

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 12:30 PM

Is "Everlasting" Scriptural?

http://bible-truths.com/aeonion.htm

Excerpt #1:

"Would God redeem us for just a few ages? (Then what?)

"aionian" here must mean "eternal" to make sense because Christ entered, (sacrificed Himself), once for all and for all time! Why would His sacrifice be for anything less than for eternity - all time? Is He not God?

Comment: Let me try this one more time. God created the eons of time, therefore, He is "the eonian God." God is working out His plan of salvation for the entire human race within the confines of these "eonian times." The Scriptures know nothing of "eternity." They didn’t even have a word for the concept. Redemption is only one of many things that God will accomplish in the eons. There are no promises, no prophecies, no anything, mentioned in Scripture that goes beyond the conclusion of the eons. After the eons are over, then what? What will we do? IT DOESN’T SAY. We know of only two things that are taught in reference to anything beyond the eons [1] we will all have IMMORTALITY [we will never die]. The word itself has nothing to do with "time," but rather ‘death-less-ness, and [2] God will be ALL IN ALL. That’s it! Beyond these, we must trust God in faith regarding what eternity holds for us.

Now for one of the most important truths of all regarding this word "aionios." When God says that He is "the EONIAN God," He is stating a FACT. That Jesus procured "EONIAN redemption" for us, is a statement of FACT. Neither "eonian God" nor "eonian redemption" are statements of LIMITATION. And to suggest that they are statements of limitation is to pervert the Scriptures—they neither say nor insinuate any such thing.

This principle of stating a FACT, which is not a statement of LIMITATION is found throughout the Scriptures. God is for example: "The God OF Abraham, OF Isaac, and OF Jacob"(Ex. 3:6). This is a statement of FACT. It is not a statement of LIMITATION. This statement of fact does not limit God from also being the God of Moses, David, Peter and Paul.

If the statement said that God is the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ONLY," then it would be a statement of limitation, but we don’t find any such words of limitation in the verses in question. It doesn’t say that God is the "eonian God, ONLY," or that Jesus procured "eonian redemption ONLY" for us. Does it? Well, DOES IT? Why then do you deceitfully suggest that that is what IT MUST AND HAS TO MEAN?

And so this verse doesn’t say that Jesus procured for us eonian ONLY redemption, nor does it mean such a thing. But it does say that Jesus procured "EONIAN redemption for us," that that is a statement of fact, and that fact is Scripturally true. God’s elect will receiving "redemption" during the remaining eons of time. Nowhere does it say that at the end of the eons we will then LOSE our redemption. These are but unscriptural carnal arguments used to discredit God’s word and promote the pagan doctrine of eternal torture."

Excerpt #2:

The word "eternal" comes from the Latin "aeternum" which in the first century meant virtually the same as the word "seculum," and in fact, Jerome sometimes rendered "aion" aeternus, and in other places he renders "aion" as seculum. They were considered virtually synonyms. Here is the how Latin dictionaries define, seculum—"a generation, an age, the world, the times, the SPIRIT OF THE TIMES, and a period of a hundred years." (Caps mine).

Trajan, Roman emperor from 98 to 117 AD spoke of seculum as the time he lived in. Tertullian, born about 160 AD refers to "a mighty shock impending over the entire world, and the conclusion of the seculum itself." Lactantius, born about 260 AD speaks of the "learned ones of this seculum." Eusebius, early Church historian, born about 265 AD gives the account of a martyrs’ trail in which Speratus, the martyrs’ leader, replied, "The empire of this seculum [world] I do not recognize."

We read this from the work, Whence Eternity by Scholar and Expert in the Greek language, Alexander Thomson, "Long ago in Rome, periodic games were held, which were called ‘secular’ games. Herodian, the historian, writing in Greek about the end of the second or beginning of the third century, call these ‘eonian’ games. In no sense were the games eternal. Eonian did not mean eternal any more than a seculum meant eternity" (Page 12).

Jake Farr-Wharton

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 02:44 PM

...in response to this comment by Papa. Papa, it is the Christian prerogative to pick and choose...

I was doing some research work today and was going over the vision that Paul had where God apparently told him that eating all of the stuff that was outlawed in the Old Testament was fine... it even hints that Paul was delirious with hunger...

Papa

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 03:05 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Yup, very very true. You and I both understand it because we reasoned exactly like him at one point, (at least I did!). He deliberately ignored my last substantive post in the previous thread. Picks and chooses what he would like to respond too in posts. Such is christianity...

Gina Squitieri

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 03:26 PM

...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. It was Peter who saw the vision, not Paul. And it was not even hinted at that Peter was hungry. It outright made it certain Peter was hungry.

Acts 10

9The next day as they were still on their way and were approaching the town, PETER [not Paul] went up to the roof of the house to pray, about the sixth hour (noon).

10But he became VERY hungry, and WANTED something to eat; and while the meal was being prepared a trance came over him,

11And he saw the sky opened and something like a great sheet lowered by the four corners, descending to the earth.

12It contained all kinds of quadrupeds and wild beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the air.

13And there came a voice to him, saying, Rise up, Peter, kill and eat.

14But Peter said, No, by no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common and unhallowed or [ceremonially] unclean.

15And the voice came to him again a second time, What God has cleansed and pronounced clean, do not you defile and profane by regarding and calling common and unhallowed or unclean.


Peter believed that the Gentiles (anyone who wasn't a Jew) were unhallowed or unclean, which is in direct correlation to the way Peter viewed the Canaanite woman came begging Jesus to heal her daughter. Remember what Peter and his buddies said to Jesus? "Send her away, for she is crying out after us." Peter thought anyone who wasn't a Jew was essentially no better than those things he was forbidden (under the OLD law) to not eat, and in this instance he doesn't want to even go near them.

But in the "vision" which is a v-i-s-i-o-n and not real, God is telling Peter that he was going to bring the Gospel to the Gentile nations because:

Acts 10:15 "...What God has cleansed and pronounced clean, do not you defile and profane by regarding (thinking of it as) and calling common and unhallowed or unclean."



Tyler, does it look like Peter was even closed to being "saved" at this point in his ministry? I think not.

Tyler V

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 04:39 PM

Gina,

you said on Monday 14th December 2009 | 12:08 AM that if being “reformed” meant believing like me, then you are not reformed. (logical inference from that line of reasoning is that you consider that I am mis-defining reformed theology and you get it right.)

I also DON’T believe that Christ will ultimately fail either. The problem that you have is that you assume that Jesus was commissioned by the Father to save the whole world. This was not Jesus’ commission. Jesus’ mission was the seek and save the lost sheep of Israel and to provide salvation to the elect. Again, the church has historically (and nearly universally) agreed with me. Again, to defend your position you must stand at odds with Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, Jude, and BILLIONS of Christians throughout the centuries. You have that much hubris?

Next, you then say that the passage I cited from Jesus’ own mouth was a Parable, when in fact, it is NOT a parable. The passage I cited was AFTER Jesus had told the parable and his disciples come to him to explain the parable and then he tells them what the parable meant. So while the parable is not literal, what it represents (what Jesus explained it to mean) IS. Thus when Jesus says in explanation, “"The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The WEEDS are the sons of the evil one, 39and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the END OF THE AGE, and the harvesters are angels. 40"As the weeds are pulled up and BURNED IN THE FIRE, SO IT WILL BE AT THE END OF THE AGE. 41The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will WEED OUT OF his kingdom everything THAT CAUSES sin AND ALL WHO DO evil. 42They will throw them into the FIREY FURNACE, WHERE THERE WILL BE WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH. 43Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.” He is being entirely literal.

And I NEVER said that I think Jesus will eternally damn people BECAUSE that’s why I think his word says. I said I believe it because that IS what his word says. In fact, Jesus talks about hell more than any other person in the entire Bible combined! It’s one of the reasons that Courtenay doesn’t like him so much!

Now, am I straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel? Ha. Not at all. Actually you are. You strain out the doctrine of hell but swallow that God is then not holy, righteous, judge, or that he is right in his revelation that he will in fact separate the righteous from the unrighteous and cast the latter out of his presence forever. You ask how I read the fewer stripes passage? The same way every generation of Christians has. That there will be varied levels of suffering in hell. Thos who knew that Jesus was who he claimed to be and yet rejected him (anti-theists, anti-Christ, Satan, demons, ex-clergy, apostates, etc.) will suffer far more than those who knew very little and thus will suffer littler (people on desert islands, people in banned countries who were kept by government from hearing of Jesus, etc.)

You then make the false claim that because in the OT all crimes were to be punished with equity, that ALL crimes commited in finite space must receive finite punishment. You make the mistake between quality and span. A finite crime can deserve an eternal punishment. Notice that adultery received the capital punishment. Does that seem like an eye for an eye? See, the problem is that the punishment for the crime is determined by the nature of the OFFENDED party. Why and eye for an eye? Because taking of a HUMAN eye deserves a finite punishment. It is a sin against God and man, but it is not a purposeful rebellion against God per se (see 10 commandments). So the finite crime receives a finite punishment. Yet crimes that violated the 10 commandments were in direct contradiction with the moral law of God and thus the nature of the offended party determines the punishment – eternal. So you objection makes several basic category mistakes.

As for the woman caught in adultery being brought to Jesus, it is not in any of the earliest manuscripts and thus I simply reject it as Canon. You say you know its not in “every manuscript” well the problem is that it doesn’t start showing up until some of the later manuscripts, that is, nothing before (I think the 5th century) has that story. So its not like its up for debate, like the manuscripts could go either way. Every scholar knows that it shouldn’t be in the Bible but some how it keeps staying in because people just like the story. But it really doesn’t belong. So I reject it as authoritative on any issue and doubt if that event even occurred. So you entire diatribe based on that text is simply invalid.


Again, your article on the lack of words meaning “eternity” in the Bible is simply absurd. Several reasons:

1. You say that we will live for everlasting; immortality – we will never die. If we NEVER die, does that not mean ETERNAL life, i.e. life that goes on for eternity?

2. When the Bible says things like “everlasting to everlasting” (or eternity of eternities) it is a Hebrew idiom meaning a countless of countlessness, i.e. eternity. It was a common manner of speech.

3. You then say that me calling “eonian God” or “eonian redemption” somehow limits them makes no sense… I am saying that are eternal… i.e. without time limits… so your objection here just makes no sense. If God is eternal, how is that limiting him, and how is that not also stating a FACT. Cant I state the FACT that God is eternal (a non-limiting term)?

4. You then start to muddle concepts. That God is the saving God of the elect (limited in scope) is a different doctrine than either the doctrine of God being Sovereign God of ALL creation, or that God is eternal. Those are three different relationships to the created order. We can see something of this distinction when we consider that all people are “children of God” by nature of being created, but that John in John 1:12 says that “12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” thus showing that there are different senses to the word “children.” All are his children in one sense, but there are others, those who will actually inherit the kingdom, who are hi children because they believed (thus inferring that those who do not receive him, and who do not believe in his name, are not given the right to BECOME children of God.)

5. You again make a LARGE category mistake when you say that Jesus cannot make EONIAN redemption for us ONLY. Here you confuse time with scope. Eternal deals with the time-span that the redemption will be maintained (forever) while “for us only” deals with who that eternal redemption is applied to. They are simply two different concepts that you are trying to force to contradict. But they don’t. They are talking about two different things.

6. Thus to say that “Jesus procured for us eonian ONLY redemption” makes no sense because the “eonian” modifies “redemption” while, in your construction “only” modifies “eonian” and it seems illogical to say something is “only eternal.” A simple grammar change would better suit what the Bible actually states is the case: “Jesus procured only for us, eternal redemption.” Thus there is no inherent contradiction.

Lastly, your treatment (though I know you copied this from someone) of aion and seculum is simply bad lexical study. It assumes that a word can only have one meaning and one meaning only. Especially considering that the Greek language had a fraction of the vocabulary as English, and that we see that nearly every word had multiple meanings, sometimes meaning very different things. English words like Abstract (with 14 different meanings http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abstract) or Set with 464 definition in the Oxford dictionary, RUN with 396, GO – 368, TAKE – 343, STAND – 334, GET – 289, TURN – 288, PUT – 268, FALL – 264, STRIKE – 250, and so on. The problem with your kind of argumentation (“we get our English word for the Latin, not the Greek) reveals absolutely nothing about the actual lexography of the Greek! This is simply not how real exegesis is done.

Now, on to Jake.

The ironic thing is that you accuse Paul (and Christians) of picking and choosing, yet your statement shows that you pick and choose what Christian theology to address and what to ignore. Was Paul suddenly picking Kosher laws that he liked and others he didn’t? No, in his conversion to Christianity, he was now to understand that God’s people was no longer geo-politcal Israel with their civil/ceremonial laws of the Mosaic covenant (see Hebrews on the coming of a New Covenant surpassing the Old Covenant) and thus kosher laws, ceremonial laws of geo-politcal Israel and its temple, were fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ, the last sacrifice. This is basic Covenant theology and yet you CHOOSE to pretend that it doesn’t exist when in fact, the books of Acts and Hebrews are largely written to address this very issue!

Oh, and I think that you mean Peter, not Paul. Peter had the vision while hungry in Acts 10, not Paul. Some “research” you must have been doing...

Finally to you Papa.

You accuse me of picking and choosing because I didn’t address the topic from another thread in this thread? Ha. Sorry, but that’s just stupid. They are different threads! Lol. The only reason I am talking with Gina about the same issue here is because SHE brought it up here. But again… I didn’t pick and choose, they are different threads!

I mean really…. Is that what your objections have degenerated to? That I didn’t carry over the argument from one thread to another and there for I am deceptive and shirk the issues. Ha. Wow. “Such is Christianity…” what an absurd argument. That would be like me saying atheism is invalid because Courtenay suppresses me on his website because he doesn’t like actually having to defend his positions. But I wouldn’t make that argument because I know the foolishness of one man doesn’t impinge of the truth/falsity or tactics of the entire worldview. Plus, again… not brining up a topic from one thread in another is not picking and choosing. Ha.

Besides, your last post was on Saturday 19th December 2009 | 03:09 AM about the KJV (again weird since I am not a KJV advocate… strawman?) to which I responded at Saturday 19th December 2009 | 06:04 AM which is the very next post. So I’m not even sure what I should have carried over had I even been weird enough to continue one thread on another.

Tyler

Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 04:47 PM

And yes Gina, Peter was saved since the day of the resurrection. Are you actually suggesting that Peter, as far as Acts 10 wasnt saved?

You know, Gina, as *fun* as this has been casting pearls before you, I think I am going to just go back to debating theism/atheism. That is what this thread was intended for. So when I dont respond to any more of your posts on these intercanonical issues, dont try and accuse me of dodging or anything like that. It is just clear that you are only interested in monologue and since you deny fundamentals of the Christian faith I dont even consider you a sister in Christ and thus this will get us no where. When you are so tied to what you say God must be like to be loving, over what God says that he is like himself, and say things like Peter isnt even saved, and deny the Trinity, etc. its clear that no amount of Scripture or reason could budge you. The fact that you cant ever even come close to adequately stating my position shows that you simply dont listen but rather assume my position and argue against that. So i'm gonna cut it here. I would appreciate it if you would just let it go and not keep trying to pick this fight.

Gina Squitieri

Thursday 24th December 2009 | 12:26 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler. No, Peter was not saved; he was SEALED for redemption. Big difference. HUGE.

#
# Ephesians 4:30
And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God by Whom you were SEALED for the day of redemption (of final deliverance through Christ from evil and the consequences of sin).

http://bible-truths.com/hagee1.htm

"One doesn't have to believe in a fabled Hell of eternal torture to realize that there is plenty to be saved from! How about saved from sin and evil? What about being saved from ourselves? What about being saved from weakness, stupidity, ignorance, foolishness and vanity? What about being saved from corruption, immorality, mortality and death? (What about being saved from any more of Pastor Hagee's sermons on Hell?) You don't think these are things to be saved from?"

haha -- I love this part: "What about being saved from any more of Pastor Hagee's sermons on Hell?"

Don't you think that's apropos here, Tyler? I sure do.

I'll address the rest of your post later. I must be about my other beeswax.

Tah-tah dahling~

Tyler V

Thursday 24th December 2009 | 03:13 AM

The "sealing" in Eph. 4 is a restatement of the blessings of a believer in Eph. 1. Notice that they are all in the past tense and occurred "when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation" in 1:13. The Holy Spirit is a seal (guarantee - like a down payment) securing the FULL benefits of our salvation. we are saved now, but we will have the FULL benefits (eternal life, resurrection, sinlessness, etc.) "when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ." Again, your complete lack of sound hermeneutics has tainted your view on even great truths like the seal of the Holy Spirit as a guarantee giving ASSURANCE of our salvation. Where you use it to deny our salvation!

I'll pray for you. At nearly every turn you end up saying the exact opposite of what Scripture actually teaches but claim that it is what Scripture teaches. At least Courtenay and Jake and them get Scripture wrong because they dont believe it. You get it wrong and say that you do believe it! Thats the scary part.

Gina Squitieri

Thursday 24th December 2009 | 03:11 PM

1 Timothy 4

1BUT THE [Holy] Spirit distinctly and expressly declares that in latter times some will turn away from the faith, giving attention to deluding and seducing spirits and ***doctrines that demons teach,**** 2Through the hypocrisy and pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared (cauterized), " (i.e., BURNED)]


1 Timothy 6

3 But if anyone teaches otherwise and does not assent to the *sound* and *wholesome* messages of our Lord Jesus Christ (the Messiah) and the teaching which is in agreement with godliness (piety toward God),

[COMMENT: It is not "wholesome"and it is not "sound" to believe and teach that Jesus Christ the SAVIOR OF THE WORLD will ultimately FAIL because God was so stupid that He made a rock so heavy (man's fabled freewill) even He cannot move it. I have no choice but to be withdrawing myself from you now, Tyler. All in all, this has not been fun, and I really mean that.]

Tyler V

Friday 25th December 2009 | 02:45 AM

Here again you show that you have no qualms about distorting Scripture. Lets see what Paul REALLY meant by “doctrines that demons teach.” Does it take some special insight or deep theological understanding? No, Paul tells us in the VERY NEXT VERSE! What is the heretical teaching that he is referring to?

“3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.”

Here he is combating his major opponents the Judaizers who said that Christians were still bound to the kosher food laws and customs of the Pharisees for salvation rather than that it is by grace alone that people are saved. Do you not see that you CLEARLY have pulled that verse out of context like you almost always do?

As for your commentary on 1 Timothy 6. you say that “It is not "wholesome" and it is not "sound" to believe and teach that Jesus Christ the SAVIOR OF THE WORLD will ultimately FAIL because God was so stupid that He made a rock so heavy (man's fabled freewill) even He cannot move it”. Well your comment is incorrect in both of its assumptions.

1. That I believe God made man free in such a way that God cannot move him. As I said before, as a Calvinist, I believe in Irresistible Grace – That God’s saving grace cannot be resisted by those on whom he applies it.

2. And that Paul is even talking about eternal issues anyway. In fact, most of the entire chapter is on the difference between eternal riches and earthly riches and the fact that we cant take money with us. It seems obvious that Paul is talking about a specific “message” of Jesus regarding how one should live with regards to finances.


You again have a bad habit of stating an objection, to which I respond, but rather than interacting with the objection you just pretend no response was made and move on. Again, you base your entire system on your precommitment to what God MUST be like if he is loving, rather than bowing a knee to what God says he is like since he is loving. If God says that “God is love” and that “he loves the world” but also that some of the world will be spending an eternity apart from him, then I accept His description of himself rather than trying to make God fit into my mold for him. Plus there are dozens of verses that are directly and explicitly contradictory to you system, while there are maybe a handful of verses that are challenges to the orthodox view that are often ambiguous and easily answered. Your heretical semi-pelagianism and insistence on the misconception about what God MUST be like leads you to deny several fundamentals of the orthodox faith. You strain at the gnat and swallow the camel.

Again, this conversation goes no where because you speak in monologues and do not interact with a single verse that is given to you.

Again:

John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that WHOEVER BELIEVES in him shall not perish but have ETERNAL LIFE.” (what about those who DON’T believe?)

Daniel 12:1-2
1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

Jeremiah 23:40:
40 And I will bring upon you EVERLASTING reproach and PERPETUAL shame, WHICH SHALL NOT BE FORGIVEN.'"

Psalm 78:66:
66And he put his adversaries to rout;
he put them to EVERLASTING shame.

Isaiah 33:14:
14The sinners in Zion are afraid;
trembling has seized the godless:
"Who among us can dwell with the consuming fire?
Who among us can dwell with EVERLASTING burnings?"

Jeremiah 25:9d:
I will devote them to destruction, and make them a horror, a hissing, and an EVERLASTING desolation.

Romans 10:9-11:
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

Matthew 25:41: 41
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the ETERNAL fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Matthew 25:46:
46And these will go away into ETERNAL punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Mark 3:29: 29
but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit NEVER HAS FORGIVENESS, but is guilty of an ETERNAL sin"

2 Thessalonians 1:9
They will be punished with EVERLASTING destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

Revelation 19:20:
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Revelation 20:10
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night FOR EVER and EVER.

Revelation 20:14-15
"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And WHOSOEVER WAS NOT found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Romans 9:22-24
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the OBJECTS OF WRATH—PREPARED FOR DESTRUCTION? 23WHAT IF HE DID THIS to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Hebrews 1:1-2:
1Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and ETERNAL judgment.

Jude 1:6-7:
6And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in ETERNAL chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of ETERNAL fire.

Matthew 13:36-43 (the EXPLANATION of the parable is not a parable):
36Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field." 37He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The WEEDS are the sons of the evil one, 39and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the END OF THE AGE, and the harvesters are angels. 40"As the weeds are pulled up and BURNED IN THE FIRE, SO IT WILL BE AT THE END OF THE AGE. 41The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will WEED OUT OF his kingdom everything THAT CAUSES sin AND ALL WHO DO evil. 42They will throw them into the FIREY FURNACE, WHERE THERE WILL BE WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH. 43Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.


So let me get this right Gina. Me, Jesus, Paul, Peter, the Author to the Hebrews, Jeremiah, Daniel, Jude, John, Mark, Isaiah, the early church, the medieval church, the reformers, BILLIONS of Christians before us, and even the critics of Christianity who all say that Bible CLEARLY teaches the reality of hell are all wrong? Do you really have that much ego? You have already, by your own admission, said that you were a heretic by denying the Trinity, denying life everlasting, rejecting the Gospel, accepting semi-pelagianism, and by calling the explicit teachings of Jesus Christ “damnable”.

Tyler V

Tuesday 29th December 2009 | 02:35 PM

Courtenay Werleman has made a very bold move... this will go down in the history books... In the name of "free -thinking" and "rationalism" and in opposition to the danger of religious intolerance and bigotry, he has banned me from posting on his site!

Was it because I was ill-mannered, harsh, disruptive? You all know me here. Even if you dont agree, I have never been the kind of person to be so off kilter to merit banning. So why did he do it? Because he was tired of actually having to stand up for his bogus claims like "Matthew capitalized the second kurios".

Read more about it on my blog. logical-theism.blogspot.com

And sometimes you are called upon to write your congressman... well here today... to all you atheists with intellectual honesty and integrity, as I have found MOST of you to be even at our most heated disagreements, write your logical raving anti-theist and tell him to lift the ban! Tell him, "thats not my atheism!" Show him that do suppress the opposing voice stands against all principles of free-thought, rationalism, and even flat out human dignity!

V2

Tuesday 29th December 2009 | 11:03 PM

Cmon Tyler
Now you are just bieng silly
Mr CJ wont lift his ban, poor Mr CJ cant justify his book never mind his ignorance.
Lifting his ban would only prove that he was wrong, and we all know that wont happen.
Funny how most big name atheists wont debate Christians anymore
Talking Dawkins has gone all shy
Now CJ, the great white hope has gone yellow too. Seriously though CJ was a try hard and he just couldnt back it up.
Another loss for atheism, seriously not a big one
Walk away with a smile on your face Tyler. Its obvious CJ is a loser

Trent Greguhn

Wednesday 30th December 2009 | 05:48 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. I can think of a few reasons why CJ banned you Tyler. Either a) he's tired of debating this topic with you as it will always be a agree to disagree subject or b) he feels that the debate has ran its course and there's no need to beat a dead horse anymore.

Either way he should not ban you. Were it me, I would just let you comment to your heart's content and with realizing that I'm not obligated to respond to your comments.

Also, were it me, like the other thread posted here on Rusty Lime, I would just end the comments as this conversation certainly has run its course.

CJ Werleman

Wednesday 30th December 2009 | 09:17 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

I banned you from my site for the following reasons:

1. You bombard my blog at least five (5) times per day. I do not have the time to respond to your complete and utter BS i.e. your false claims that Matthew (or any other of the gospels) were Jewish disciples and/or eye witness of Jesus; that Jesus was not an apocalyptic Jew (your proclamation that Jesus' prophecy was to do only with the destruction of the Temple is FUCKING ABSURD!! And even a skim read over the gospels and/or Paul's letters reveals this so; that Jesus was not a Gentile hating Jew like all others before him in the OT; etc etc etc.

You just don't seem to get it! Jesus was a Jew. Jewish parents. Jewish culture. Endorsed Jewish law to the N'th degree. Further, he had no intentions of staring a new religion. You have no concept of the birth of Christianity. No understanding of the relationship between Jesus and the later writers who penned the faith. You read the Bible as if it truly did descend from Heaven atop a fluffy cloud written by God. What is the point of arguing with such a radical fundamentalist? You're the American Taliban brother.

Responding to your faith twisted fallacies is like trying to win an argument against Fred Phelps on the issue of homosexuality.

2. You are a stalker. You have harangued people on my blog, and on my Facebook including my wife. And now you are writing posts all over the place whining that I am ignoring you?? Your obsession with me is kinda weird dude. For $50 I will send a life size blow up of myself. Email me for details.

Anyway my job is done here - I have brought you and V2 close together. Two intellectual giants finding each other in a sea of theistic passion is a beautiful thing.

Peace
CJ

Tyler V

Wednesday 30th December 2009 | 11:00 AM

Trent, Courtenay's comment is proof positive that it was not because the conversation had run its course. Especially considering that each post was a new conversation.

Courtenay,

1. I have not posted that many times. There have been maybe 5-10 posts TOTAL. So again you try and mislead by distorting facts.

2. To summarize your argument, "I dont have time to debate you on the very issue that is up for debate." Notice how you ASSUME your position is TRUE and then when someone challenges you to provide a basis, evidence, even simple logic, you call them a name, divert, and bash them for having the gall to disagree with you.

3. Interesting that you call me the "American Taliban Brother" when I am the one seeking honest, PUBLIC debate while you are the one trying to suppress and bully the opposing view point in order to isolate yourself from inquiry... Little hypocritical.

4. You then again define my position as false by definition even though you have not been able to once validate a single one of your objections (eg. Matthew capitalized the second kurios).

5. By "harangued" if you mean that I disagreed with you in a polite and logical manner and then did the same with anyone who then responded to me, then yes you are right. Although, again your hypocrisy is almost shocking when you tell me that I harangued people when it is you who stoop to name calling, ad hominems, character assassinations, and now suppression.

And if you write a book (even though you are completely uneducated and frequently show that you are beyond your intellectual depth) that attacks an entire worldview you are absolutely naive if you assume that you will not get major kick back.

I am glad that people on this post can now see your true colors. You are just grinding your axe and unwilling to participate in public and free dialogue (which is made particularly despicable since you are trying to tout free thought and bashing theism for its "intolerance.") I think most people can now see that you are just blindly biased and unable to defend your own position and suppress the people who actually call you the base your assertions. Man i miss the days when atheist used to actually have integrity. You could learn from Trent and Papa who, even though we disagree, at least have integrity.

CJ Werleman

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 12:51 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

Are you really that arrogant to believe that you are the only person I am debating with??

My book has delighted atheists (judging by reviews), alarmed apologists, and rallied the faithful.....thus debate is all around me. I just don't have the time to respond to your relentless posts on my blog.

I have been debating with you for the past 3-4 months on Facebook, my blog, and on this site......Forgive me for not wanting to keep you first and foremost in my life.

Peace
CJ

Tyler V

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 02:33 AM

"delighted atheists..."

Again, so misleading. It has delighted your fellow vitriolic, undereducated, and blind adherents to philosophical naturalism, who already agreed with your degree of antitheism to begin with. No one with even a cursory understanding of the Bible, its historical/literary/theological context would ever think that your book is anything but an flagrant diatribe based on skewed facts, distorted "reasoning", and eisegesis. (Although wasnt this your intention, since you admitted that you didnt write this for scholars who would know better, but the average lay person who has never read the Bible, let alone studied it, who wouldnt know any better. So basically... your preying on the feeble and you know it.)

"I just dont have time to respond to your relentless posts on my blog."

Well I have been to your blog. And no... there is almost NO ONE else debating with you on it. In fact, I took a brief look through some of the other links... and I couldnt find one single person challenging you at all.


You also assume that I take this personally, like it is some slight against me. I am not "hurt" or something. I'm actually GLAD you banned be because it has revealed the ideologue that you are. People with good evidence/arguments dont simply ban/suppress the opposition. That is the act of a totalitarian hell bent on attaining unquestioning allegiance. So all you have done is reveal to everyone here your hypocrisy - that you tout "free-thought" and reason, and rationalistic principles, and yet you are actually a wolf in sheep's clothing. You dont want free and public debate and you are incapable of actually defending your convictions. So since you cant actually defend you position you try to bully your opinion to be true. But sorry, I dont know if know one told you. But might DOESN'T make right.

Trent Greguhn

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 04:26 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. " fellow vitriolic, undereducated, and blind adherents"

For as judgemental as you are about generalizations and mis-information you'd think you'd be able to spot your own bias. Which leads me to my next comment.

Have you ever thought that you might be wrong Tyler? What you believe, and what you're fighting for might be wrong? I'm just curious.

You keep saying we're blind and uneducated, but you still don't understand what moral plurality is or have been able to use it correctly. Maybe it's beyond the scope of Christian understanding though.

You were the one that attacked CJ's beliefs because he wants to have a threesome with his wife. That's what they call an ad hominem Tyler. You fail to recognize your own hypocrocies is what I've observed. I'm sure you'd agree with Deepak Chopra on his perils of skepticism article.

Christians have always been for open interpretation to the holy texts unless that interpretation goes against what they believe.

I'm here as an observer pointing out what I've seen. You two have discussed this topic to a great extent and when CJ does explain himself you dismiss it always and start using ad hominems yourself.

Tyler, look up and read "Why People Believe Weird Things" and you should be able to reflect to a greated extent afterwards.

Tyler V

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 06:37 AM

Trent, I'm not here referring to the truth of falsity of worldview. I'm here talking about Courtenay and his book which is so illogical and uneducated that it is frightening that people actually think he knows what he is talking about. It would be like if I tried to write a book on quantum mechanics even though I have never done any research on it and then asked those who objected with science if they ever considered that they might be wrong because they are so adamant that I myself am wrong.

see, I'm not saying that ALL atheists are uneducated or illogical (notice I even complimented you and Papa), I am talking about Courtenay in particular, and to those who are just looking for him to scratch where they itch.

And I dont read much Chopra so I cant say that I agree or disagree. Or even that I agree with the conclusion but not the process (something I would hope that most educated atheists would say of Courtenay).

Usually when Courtenay "explains" himself, he actually doesnt explain anything but merely makes more bald assertions, muddled with sarcastic remarks, and topped with a heaping amount of bullying. Notice that when I disagree with him I often ask him questions to answer if he believes that he is correct. The only time I have ever dismissed him out of hand is when he makes arguments like "Matthew capitalized the second kurios" showing that he has absolutely NO clue what he is talking about since we know that Matthew would have most likely written in ALL caps and that the capitalization occurs in the English, not the original. See, Courtenay would know better if he even did a shred of research. But he hasnt, so he still makes those kinds of arguments.

What I have to admit is most striking, is rather than being logical and rational yourselves (which you normally are) you and Papa are more willing to defend Courtenay's drivel rather than just say you agree with his atheism, but recognize that he is completely beyond his education in his argumentation and his book. I have no problem saying that while I agree with the worldview of many Christians, I heavily disagree with their methods and sometimes their conclusions (like those who picket "God hates fags" kind of Christians). I can call them a dark spot in my worldview, like the crazy uncle you hide away when company comes over. But you guys seem so concerned about circling the wagons, that you are unable to critically evaluate those in your own worldview. (Well, Papa has said that he isnt an atheist but has yet to actually say what he believes so for now i'll leave him in the atheist camp until shown otherwise. But Papa, I dont mean to insult you. Seriously, correct me where I am wrong on this. I would like to adequately understand your position).


p.s. posted a new blog on the euthyphro dilemma on my blog.

logical-theism.blogspot.com

Tyler V

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 06:56 AM

p.p.s. Trent, Courtenay admitted himself that his book was for the undereducated. He didnt write for the scholars who would know better than to give his book even a shred of respect, but for the uneducated who simply dont know any better. Its by HIS admission, not just my opinion. See, even though you know he and i have been debating for months, you seem to forget that a lot of these comments then stretch back over months of conversations that you have not read.

Trent Greguhn

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 08:38 AM

Firstly, I'm not defending CJ as it were. I haven't read his book and don't know much about his personal beliefs.

I'm not "rounding the wagons" as it were, I'm askin' you to slow down and think that there may be other reasons to his lack of debate and or willingness to do so.

I'm a humanist and a skeptic and yes Tyler, there are Atheists out there who have it all wrong as far as I'm concerned. But again, I would like for you to address my question.

Have you ever thought your beliefs might be mis-represented or altogether wrong? It's a serious and informing question.

Yes, CJ can come off as bullying but that's his style, you go more of the passive aggresive route, your bullying hides in your diction. His is out in the open.

I can plainly see by the book cover and the diction that it is a satire not to be taken seriously academically. What we agree on here is that religion should not be taken so seriously as it breeds fundamentalism if that is the case.

All that aside, I'm just curious to know whether you ever thought yourself to be wrong in your beliefs.

CJ Werleman

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 08:40 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

Trent just nailed it on the head, "Have you (Tyler) ever thought that you might be wrong Tyler? What you believe, and what you're fighting for might be wrong?"

I am tired of debating with you because your beliefs have completely clouded the reality of what we know about history and the Bible. It is a fruitless exercise in throwing forth even a straight forward fact then having you close your eyes and shout "IS NOT!!"

Herewith are some examples of Biblical facts as stated in my book and held by the overwhelming majority of scholars and theologians:

1. There are no eye-witness accounts of Jesus. (But you disagree)

2. None of the Gospels or Paul were eye-witnesses to Jesus life. (But you disagree)

3. Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew that promised his return before the death of his contemporaries 36 times, between him and Paul. (But you disagree)

4. Jesus was born a Jew to Jewish parents that observed Jewish holidays and laws. He worshipped the Jewish God, and fully endorsed the Jewish law, every iota of it, and thus disliked or mistrust non-Jews, similarly as did the Old Testament prophets. (But you disagree)

5. Whilst most read the Gospels account of the empty-tomb/resurrection whereby Matthew says an angel greeted them, BUT Mark says it was a young man, BUT Luke says very clearly that it was two men, BUT John says nobody was there - and see the obvious discrepancies and irreconcilable differences, you think they are supporting.

You rave on about historicity and context and blah blah blah but you show no understanding of who and how the Bible was written. NONE! So let me save you the tens of thousands of dollars you are spending at Jerry Fallwell's Trinity college: (see next post)

CJ Werleman

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 08:47 AM

...in response to this comment by CJ Werleman. Tyler,

This is how we got the New Testament:

2,000 years ago there were no Kinkos, mass media, or book publishers. If someone wrote a book there'd only be one copy. That is until someone else thought the book was worth a read and they'd, in turn, make their own copy. Let me illustrate.

Let's say that in 100 AD I wrote a book titled How to Make Love like Tiger Woods. My neighbor sees my book resting on the coffee table and decides that he too would like to get on the Tiger program and asks if he can have a copy. I oblige, but the question becomes - how do we make a copy with no printers in Rome 1,900 years ago? The only way is for him to make a hand written copy of my book, the original. Thus for the next two months my neighbor spends his evenings writing his copy of my book.

BUT do you think his copy will be identical to mine? Well most probably not. He may not think the chapter titled 'Don't Give Your Home Phone Number to Randoms' to be relevant to his situation, thus he omits that. He may not also be comfortable with my liberal use of the word 'fuck', as I am known to use fuck as a comma. Thus he omits all the 'fucks'. And a few other changes here and a few changes there, and maybe the addition of one or two of his own chapters.

So now we have two copies of How to Make Love Like Tiger, but while being similar the two are far from being identical.

We move on. Let's say my neighbor's boss wants to improve his success rate away from home like Tiger. He now makes a copy of my neighbor's copy which is a copy of the original. With his own omissions here, and his own additions there. Now we have three copies all unalike or unique in their own way. And it goes on and goes on and goes on.

We know that the Gospels were not eye-witnesses to Jesus life. The Gospels wrote their respective biographies of Jesus based on stories they had heard from others. People converted to this new religion based on hearing tales of a guy named Jesus that was said to have preformed miracles, walking on water, rising from the dead etc. People were all like, "No shit? There was a Jew that fed 5000 people with two sardines and a loaf of bread? Really? Wow that's cool. Count me in. I am a Christian now."

The original anonymous author of Mark, for example, then writes a book about Jesus based on these things he had heard. BUT not only was Mark not an eye-witness to these stories BUT we also don't have Mark's original version. We don't even have the first copy of Mark's original. In fact NONE of the books of the New Testament are the original copies. They're not even copies of copies of copies of copies (x100??).

The Bible is just a human book but you see no human errors, no flaws, no contradictions, and no irreconcilable discrepancies because you think the book descended magically from Heaven.

How can I debate a guy like you? Why continue to waste my breath on a lost cause?

CJ

3.16

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 09:28 AM

...in response to this comment by CJ Werleman. CJ Have you considered if you are wrong
Christians die to Christ
Athiest die to the ground
If I am wrong I lose nothing, if you are wrong; everything
You are wrong
Education is the key to knowledge
Christs love and my prayers CJ

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 09:52 AM

...in response to this comment by 3.16. Yeah, what a great argument, believe in Christ just in case the Christians might be right... oh hang on:

"'These people honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'" and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' (Matthew 15:3-9).

I submit that a so called merciful god would see one who simply could not bring themself to feign belief far more riteous than one who believed just in case the Christians thought they were right!

3.16

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 10:20 AM

No argument Jake. I have none.
Christ is man, the Holy Spirit tho, will move inside a heart that is open. Open your heart to Christ, and the Spirit of God will turn lip service in to love. A hardened heart is a choice.
Jesus is love.
Do you preach that I should believe in you, and atheism. Is your faith that strong.

CJ Werleman

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 10:28 AM

...in response to this comment by 3.16. 3:16,

Have you considered if you are wrong and the Muslims are right?

You've seen what Mohammed's faithful do to infidels in a set of orange tracksuits? That's what will be waiting for you for perpetuity if they're right.

Not only do you need to be sure there is a god but that that god actually is sympathetic to the religion of Christianity.

If you suggest believing or not believing is a 50/50 proposition you are sorely wrong. You need to throw into the calculation of probability every single religion and god that man has created since the dawn of time - millions. Thus if in the massively improbable (read impossible) mathematical odds that there is A god then your chance of salvation improves only to 1/100,000,000 which is not much greater than mine my odds when you think about it.

Get off your knees and live your life standing on your own two feet. It's time to let go off your imaginary friend.

Peace
CJ

Jake Farr-Wharton

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 10:32 AM

...in response to this comment by 3.16. What bullshit statement, 3.16... if you have an open heart, you die!

Keep digging

Tyler V

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 10:44 AM

Trent,

Yes, there was a time when I considered my worldview to be wrong. It was when I was an atheist. Asking me if I have ever thought my worldview to be wrong is a meaningless statement. If I thought it was wrong, I would cease to hold it. It would be like asking Courtenay if he believes that evolution is wrong while still holding to it. I think you believe that you are asking a statement meant to drive the point of humility home, but the question is meaningless. Only a pluralist can ask if a person thinks that they are wrong at the same time that they believe it. Now, do I say that I am 100% certain? No. I say that I am 100% convinced. There is a large difference between the two.

Courtenay,

Trent didn’t nail anything on the head. You say that my convictions have clouded what we know about history and the Bible. 1st, the same can be said for you. 2nd, it is you who have, time and time again, be shown that you don’t have the first clue about Biblical history, context, theology, literature or even reason. Now, as for your points, the problem is, and this is ironic that you argue this way since you claim to be a rationalist, but you claim to be true the very conclusion that you are arguing for. Its called BEGGING THE QUESTION. In fact, it is one of the very things that you bemoan when Christians do it! How many times have you berated Christians who said “because the Bible says so.” Or how fast would you respond if on my blog I simply said “it’s a FACT that the Gospels are eye-witness history and whoever says otherwise is just stupid and wrong by definition” and then kept all people who disagreed with me from posting? You would have a post up on your blog within 5 minutes talking about the “irrational, intolerant, stupid fundamentalist” whose blog you just read. And yet its EXACTLY what you do. Do you not see your own irrationalism here?

We can see this on every one of your points.

1. There are no eye-witness accounts of Jesus.

Well in fact we have Matthew and John who were both disciples of Jesus, and we have Mark which who was most likely the scribe for Peter, and we have Luke who actually tells us that he isn’t the eyewitness but that he gathered the testimony of eye witnesses. The fact that you say this point as if it is a fact is begging the question, since it is precisely one of the points that is up for debate! That would be like me asking for any eyewitness testimony about Abraham Lincoln except for the ones that people accept as eyewitnesses… those don’t count. Its just ludicrous. You also seem to forget that even if they weren’t eyewitnesses, this still doesn’t pose a problem, since we have no eyewitness accounts about Alexander the Great, Homer, Socrates, etc. but go and try your argument on any university for them and see how fast you get laughed off campus. You try and use a double standard but that’s just not how historiography operates.

2. None of the Gospels or Paul were eye-witnesses to Jesus life.

See above. And it should be noted that even liberal scholarship places Paul’s writings from mid 40’s to early 60’s, in which case his conversion occurred in the mid 30’s to early 40’s. Which means that he would have been an active Pharisee in Jerusalem during the Ministry of Jesus and thus he would be an eye-witness.

3. Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew that promised his return before the death of his contemporaries 36 times, between him and Paul.

Again, you contradict your earlier point. You must either hold this point or abandon your liberal dating. You want to place the NT authors OVER a generation AFTER Jesus died, thus they would KNOW that Jesus did not come back within the generation. So why would they, if they were fabricating a Jesus and weren’t eyewitnesses, fabricate a lie that they would have KNOWN didn’t come to pass?! So either you get to keep your late date for the books and lose your argument, or keep your late date but realize that what is up for debate is NOT what “this generation” meant, but rather what was expected to happen within that generation, namely the judgment of God upon the holy city… a reality that we DO see happened within a generation and is supported by Reformed and Preteristic theology.

4. Jesus was born a Jew to Jewish parents that observed Jewish holidays and laws. He worshipped the Jewish God, and fully endorsed the Jewish law, every iota of it, and thus disliked or mistrust non-Jews, similarly as did the Old Testament prophets.

Again you beg the very question that is to be proven. Yes Jesus was a Jew, observed Jewish holidays and laws, and worshipped YHWH the Jewish God. But this is the same one who commanded his disciples to go throughout all the nations, told the Jews that the kingdom would be taken from them and given to the gentiles, etc. So you again show that you are unable to read verses in context or to read the ENTIRE corpus of texts on any given issue.

5. Whilst most read the Gospels account of the empty-tomb/resurrection whereby Matthew says an angel greeted them, BUT Mark says it was a young man, BUT Luke says very clearly that it was two men, BUT John says nobody was there - and see the obvious discrepancies and irreconcilable differences, you think they are supporting.

Again begging the question of what is to be proven. The word for Angel/Messenger was the same in Greek, and Angels were almost universally seen as men until they revealed their true nature. The differences of presentation also have to do with who the audience is. Jews don’t need to subtitles to be explained while gentiles did. If I told you that I went to the store today, and then my wife told her friend that both her and I went to the store, would either of us be lying? Either of us? Or if we both went to the store but nether of us felt it vital to the story of what we did that day if someone asked how our day was? The problem here is that you simply do not allow for the basic, every day usage of language and literature. Were there two angels? Yeah. Was Mark wrong to say that they looked like a man? Nope. Was Luke wrong to say there was two? Nope. Was Mark wrong to tell us only about the one who spoke? Nope. Was John wrong in just not including it in his narrative because he was focusing on something else? Nope. So you basically show that no only do you barely even understand the basic plot line, but you also clearly don’t understand historical/theological/literary contexts nor do you understand just basic functions and the realms of meaning of language! Next time your wife asks you about your day, are you going to account for every second, every person, every movement, every word, etc? No, that would take forever and would be utterly pointless. You skip to big events, telescope conversations, omit people who may have been present but not important to the story, etc. That’s just how we humans communicate!


So again, all you prove by this is showing that in your attempt to avoid being challenged on your beliefs, you will, in the name of rationalism, stoop to irrationalism and in the name of free-thought, stoop to censorship and suppression.


And thanks for reposting that drivel about the tiger woods book. All it shows again is that you have NO clue how manuscripting worked. In fact, not only do you clearly not know a single thing about manuscripting, but you also, if you are right, just eliminated Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Tacitus, and pretty much EVERYTHING EVER written before the advent of the printing press. Ha, you just have no clue how historiography functions.


Tell me, do you believe Plato existed and wrote what scholars say he wrote? Tell me why?



Oh and just for kicks and giggles… tell us… where did you go to school? And what was your degree in? Oh and what scholars did you read from the other side of spectrum on issues regarding manuscripts, NT history, etc. if any?



Papa, I’m actually with you for once. Ha. I never liked Pascal’s Wager as a logical argument (although we should be fair and realize that Pascal wasn’t using it as a PROOF for God, but more of a comfort to those struggling with doubts that they made the wisest decision, so we should keep that in mind when evaluating it). But yeah, I think asking people to pretend to believe is just asking people to be hypocritical.

Trent Greguhn

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 11:19 AM

3.16. Way to go with Pascal's Wager. How materialistic and shallow of you. The people who have commented to this have already dealth with how irrational this wager is.

Tyler,

How did you go from atheist to Christian? And again, reading comprehension. I didn't imply or state that you didn't believe what you believe now, I asked if you are or ever were open to the idea of being wrong. Two different things.

CJ Werleman

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 11:25 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

You keep repeating absolute baloney regarding the gospels. Your ignorance is frightening. Nah scratch that, terrifying!

Goddamit, if Matthew is an eye-witness, as you absurdly claim, then why on earth would he have written in the third person??? Everything Matthew writes is about what "they" did or "they said". NEVER once does he say what "we" were doing!!!

Not only do we not know who the identity of any of the gospels but more significantly none of them claim to be so!!! (Yes I am overusing the exclamation mark but your stupidity frustrates me to tears)

Simple question: Who were Jesus' disciples?

Fisherman, a stand-over man (tax collector), and a few peasants all from the rural region of Galilee. This all but guarantees that these lower-class socio-economic group were illiterate. As literacy under the Roman Empire in those times is said to be less than 10% - and thus reading/writing skills were confined to the ruling elite only.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the gospels that suggests that Jesus' followers could read, let alone write. As a matter of fact in Acts 4:13 it says that both Peter and John were "unlettered" meaning illiterate.

But here's where your faith and ignorance of history gets you tangled up. Not only are you claiming that Jesus' peasant class followers able to read and write Aramaic but they were linguistically skilled enough to write their books in the foreign language of Greek!!!

Then you jump into the idiot's pool with your assertion that Paul met or was an eye-witness to Jesus' life. Then answer this: Why does Paul never make the claim that he met or saw Jesus, excluding meeting his ghost on the Damascus Interstate?

Further, why does Paul write nothing, or certainly very little, of Jesus life? Paul says plenty about his death and resurrection and his promise to return before 100 AD, but says hardly more than a few lines in regards to what Jesus said or did while he was alive.

Can you see my frustration in dealing with an ignorant fundie like yourself?

Anyway, 4 months of this back and forth - and I'm done. I'm hating myself for even replying because we keep going back over old ground.

I'm done with ya.

CJ

3.16

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 11:53 AM

Bless You Trent
Of course it is Pascal's wager, and yes it is relevant in context.
CJ commented -What if Tyler was wrong. All I said was, what if CJ was wrong
Bitter nasty hate filled people?
Slaves, slaves to anger

Jake, an open heart is a spiritual term. Yes I agree with you, in real life you would most probably die
I dont mean a literal open heart. You can be a little silly at times

CJ, when you realise you are not in control, even you will bow down to the King.
Your life of excess will soon be over and humbly on your knees you will find my King.
Your book teaches division, enmity between man
You poison the very ground you walk on
Christs message was simple-Love
What do you teach CJ. What do you want to say
God doesnt exist, obviously, but after that. What is your messasge?

CJ Werleman

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 12:22 PM

...in response to this comment by 3.16. 3:16,

Well the purpose/message of my book is not to promote hate or division whatsoever. In fact the opposite. The message is that the only way mankind can work towards human solidarity is to forgo ancient beliefs that only serve to promote in-out thinking.

Central to that achieving that objective is to accurately characterize the personality of the Hebrew God, and Jesus to a lesser extent, as portrayed in the Bible. The Hebrew God of the Bible is truly a capricious, vindictive, misogynistic, genocidal ethnic cleanser with a love of murdering babies and placing those that dare tangle with the Hebrews into slavery. A god that is jealous and proud of it. A god that is merciless, unloving, and spiteful of anyone that is now a Jew.

Then comes along Jesus. You say "Jesus is love". These are the sound-bites we hear in Church. But it is far from the historical Jesus. The historical Jesus was an ill-tempered, petulant brat with overly racist tendencies, like all Jews of the time, and further was not very nice to his dear old Mum. His teachings were irresponsible, nonsensical, and misleading - and he let his small band of followers to a life of misery by encouraging them to forgo their future earthly concerns such as thrift, investment, and health because the end of times would occur before they would experience death themselves.

Sure he said "do unto others" but so did Socrates 600 years prior. Buddha also said love your enemy 500 years earlier but neither Socrates or Buddha promised eternal damnation to those that didn't believe or follow them. There's the lunacy and moral corruption of Jesus.

If you desperately want a religion of peace and love then follow Janism. Which is where MLK and Ghandi got their inspiration from.

Peace
CJ

3.16

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 01:37 PM

A tit for tat isnt going to benefit either of us CJ, so a reply seems a little futile
Christ message was simple. Love and forgiveness.
I have noticed your disagreement with a brother in Tyler.
Unfortunately, even for me it might be a little over theological. Christ preached love
I wont defend my Jesus. The bible says I dont have to,
Tho, what you write is wrong. You dont know the Bible
Christ preached love and forgiveness at personal cost

Read Jakes articles and then say in all honesty, that you dont breed hate
Your teachings are a fallacy, as are your beliefs CJ
Mankind cant live together. Will never live together, and your wishful thinking or dreams wont change a thing
Religion is a pawn in the hands of greedy men, to wrest power and money from others
If no religion existed, science sport or skin color would be used. Oh wait, it is used.
You blame Christianity for the bad things man does
I could blame you for Jakes article, but that would be silly
You could blame Christianity for bad Christians, but that would be silly
I love homosexuals,(not literally Jake) Haha as Christs demands from his followers

Buddha Socrates. They never fulfilled prophecy. They never died for others. Millions dont follow their teachings.

""If you desperately want a religion of peace and love then follow Janism. Which is where MLK and Ghandi got their inspiration from. ""

Your issue isnt with religion is it CJ, its with Christianity
You hate us as a group

and hence my message remains the same
Brothers and sisters in Christ in who I am of the lowest
Love these people and forgive them and indeed most of all pray that they will see the truth

Friendo

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 01:55 PM

"WE HAVE CHRIST
Time for Christianity to rise and shut up the atheist.
The militant atheist has become the unbelieving Muslim.
Jake's doctrine of hate is a slide down in to Nazism.
Unite fight, but only with love and Christ’s forgiveness and peace.
WE HAVE CHRIST
Christianity teaches love forgiveness and self-sacrifice.
You exude hate and self-righteousness.
I personally don’t believe in the rapture, nor disbelieve in it.
Christ taught Love and Forgiveness to everybody.
Jake preaches hate.
The Church will soon be oppressed again.
We are all sinners and death is our reward.
Judaism is the root of Christianity. Christ was the completion.
As to Muslims, yes I know of their God."

Source=3:16

dig, dig, dig...
pant, pant, pant...
rest, rest, rest...
dig, dig, dig...

Tyler V

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 02:06 PM

3:16. very good points. Not how I would argue but I like your tact.

Although I find it odd that Courtenay says he doesnt promote hate when the title of his book has the moral imperative to hate in the title. The title itself calls us to hate. And then all courtenay does for the most part is slander religious people and even go so far as to call for laws that would make parents raising their children in church a criminal offense... but yeah... he's all about the tolerance. ha

CJ Werleman

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 02:50 PM

The title 'God Hates You. Hate Him Back' in effect asks you to hate a mythical being, the Hebrew God of the Bible, not a human being, or a group of human beings.

If more of us had of hated Hitler when Nazism was on the rise from the early-mid 30s then maybe Chamberlain and co would have had the balls to act thus preventing the holocaust.

It's ok to hate agents of evil and immorality. It's ok to hate those that endorse Jihad, slavery, or suppression of gender equality.

Great social change rarely comes via being polite.

Why do I hate God? (If he were true)

Because he doesn't act when he sees suffering when he is capable of doing so by definition of being omnipotent. Consider the following example:

If a specialist Doctor is capable of performing a life saving procedure on a child at no cost to himself or to anyone else but refuses to because he has a game of golf scheduled then what would we think of such a person? A monster right? Then why can't theist's apply the same to their God?

BTW: Yes those that indoctrinate children with theological beliefs that encompass divineness and eternal punishment should be criminally charged for child abuse.

3.16

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 03:04 PM

So CJ
You like a petulant child, you desire God to intervene?
If God does exist?
When should he intervene?
When shouldnt he?
Set out your guidelines
Tell me the circumstance God should intervene in our lives and when he should stand back and allow us to live our lives

and my punishment for indoctrinating my children
What should that be?

CJ Werleman

Thursday 31st December 2009 | 11:54 PM

...in response to this comment by 3.16. 3:16,

I pointed out the reasonS (plural) for hating the Hebrew God i.e. capricious vindictive bully that loves a good ole fashioned ethnic cleansing etc etc. In the following post I should've said that my reason for finding no reason to love him is that, if he were real, he can sit back with arms folded and watch 3 million Jewish children be tossed into an oven for example.

Point being I see no reason to love even the myth of God, unlike Superman. If Jesus sacrificed himself to end all sin and all evil then I would salute and honor his memory. But nothing changed after his sacrifice! Evil and sin continued. A needless waste of a life.

In effect we can say that Jesus lived in dirty, dusty, and hot Palestine without air-conditioning and had himself sacrificed so that he could travel to Paradise. Not much of a sacrifice is it?

Oh but you say that Jesus sacrificed himself to atone for Adam's sin? Hahaha you think Adam was a real dude? I just pooped laughing.

CJ

Tyler V

Friday 1st January 2010 | 12:21 AM

Again, Courtenay, is God objectively evil? What is the basis for that moral evaluation when you say morality is a social contract and he belongs to a different social contract than you? (something you have been unable to answer)

And again.... what did you study in school? And what scholars did you read who disagree with you? (asked this now for the 10th time so i'm assuming the answer is "none")

CJ Werleman

Friday 1st January 2010 | 02:12 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Is God objectively evil? Umm YES!

From my blog: Is God a Moral Monster?

We all know the following argument backwards and forwards: That the presence of evil is logically inconsistent with an all-loving, all-good, and all-powerful God yadda yadda yadda. But here is a simple analogy to consider this argument further…

Let’s imagine that a newborn child is born with only 25% lung capacity, as in the example of my deceased nephew, making death virtually inevitable. But let’s say by chance a specialist doctor with unique skills has the know-how to perform a simple operation that does not cost anybody anything. HOWEVER, the doctor refuses to show up for the life saving procedure because he just doesn’t want to cancel his tee time at his local golf course, and the child dies.

What do we now make of this doctor? Does this not make him a moral monster?

If the doctor can save the child with no cost to anyone, but the doctor elects to let the child die in exchange for a game of golf, the doctor cannot be a moral person to say the very least.

Why can’t we apply the same standards to God?

If God is all-good, all-loving, and all-powerful then why does God not step in to save the child’s life? If He, like the golf loving doctor, chooses not to save the child’s life, when clearly he has the ability to do so and at no cost to anyone, because he can’t be bothered – then again I ask does this not make God a moral monster?



P.S: My bio is in my book. I was educated at a very good pre-school and arguably the best elementary school on the Central Coast, NSW Australia. What scholars do I read? I watch only YouTube. It's fricken awesome man.

CJ Werleman

Friday 1st January 2010 | 02:15 AM

Tyler,

As much as I loathe and despise you and your ilk (for your theology)- I do wish you a prosperous 2010.

Until next year.

CJ

P.S: My battle with you is over. We have covered everything. It's time to go slay some new dragons, for both of us. Farewell.

3.16

Friday 1st January 2010 | 10:02 AM

...in response to this comment by CJ Werleman. HI CJ and God Bless you this year and anyone reading this post

I am reluctant to push you for an answer.
You have every right to believe that God is either Evil, or doesnt exist. Both beliefs though are wrong, though I have no intention of trying to change your opinion

You previously inferred if God did exist he should intervene in our lives, so I asked when should he and when shouldnt he intervene. That remains an unanswered question

Also you suggested a punishment for Christians who raise their Children as Christians.
Hard for me to fathom somebody such as yourself, who incidentally wrote such a hate inspiring book, assuming responsibility for my children, or handing it over to the State
The punishment though you suggested, was what? Any thoughts

Truly CJ, as a Christian living in the last days I expect this. In fact I expect death(I consider it a blessing), both for me and my family, at the hands of people just like you, like Jake
I dont understand the motivation, outside of satan of course. I was wondering if you could shed a little light on your motivation.

Anyway still two questions; if they remain unanswered I wont press you
My love and prayers to you and yours, as a servant of Christ

3.16

Friday 1st January 2010 | 10:05 AM

...in response to this comment by Friendo.
dig, dig, dig...
pant, pant, pant...
rest, rest, rest...
dig, dig, dig...

I am sorry Friendo
I dont understand your little joke at my expense
Appreciate if you let me in on it

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 1st January 2010 | 10:53 AM

...in response to this comment by 3.16. 3.16, I find it extremely interesting that you asked for CJ's motivation at the same time as calling it a hate inspired book. Hate inspired infers that it is inspired by hate. Have you read the bible? The old testament is several long and horrifically boring stories about the Hebrew hate for other cultures, the New Testament is a long and horrifically boring diatribe about the ethereal Jesus' (speaking through Saul or post Damascus Paul) hate for women and all non Christians and then Jesus' testimony as written by four separate authors several generations after Jesus' death telling of how Jesus hated all non-Jews and at the same time hating the Jews that did not love him.

Hate inspired book is right, hate is best served biblical~

God bless you also 3.16, don't forget to cup the balls.

3.16

Friday 1st January 2010 | 11:56 AM

Often caught repeating myself around here suprisingly

Jake, it may come across as a complete shock to you, but the Bible, is two books and based on two authoritys
The Law Old testament. Jewish
Grace New testament. Christian
I could go on, but I am sure you have a Jericho type wall up as a defence. It would be pointless on my part.
Maybe indeed I am naive? This hate you describe is something I have yet to see in Gods book
I would be interested from you to point out this hate you see from the pages of the Bible.
Christs sermon on the mount, turn the other cheek and healings, preaching love and forgiveness. Maybe we are reading two different books, or maybe even literal scales cloud your eyes and mind.
I am not sure, but considering your atheist 2010 article ?
I can see hate certainly controls many lives around here.
Slaves to hate, slaves to this world
My prayers and love in Christ Jesus
My balls, dont need cupping

Tyler V

Friday 1st January 2010 | 01:24 PM

Courtenay,

Your Doctor analogy is simply false. A doctor is a human being with finite knowledge. It is not their job to determine providential meaning and purpose. Their job is solely to heal to the best of their ability. God is not a doctor. He is the creator of the universe with sovereignty and omniscience. Thus if God creates the infant from your illustration, unlike the doctor whose sole responsibility is health and well being, God may have sufficient reason because he is omniscient and has sole authority to do so. (Hence where we get the saying "to play God" where we arent not permitted to do what God IS permitted to do.)

And I think that you believe you dodged the bullet on both my questions by giving that false illustration and then giving a cheeky remark about your education (lack there of) and then throwing your hands up.

Again, IF God is evil, what is your basis for saying so? I know that you base morality on something like a social contract but since God is far removed from your social contract, who are you to say that he is evil in HIS social contract since you arent a part of it? You assume a universal moral system but are unable to base it in your own worldview. And you accuse Christians of being irrational...

Also, you either really did only go to preschool and elementary and only researched on youtube and are saying that sarcastically in order to mask the truth, or you are trying to just give a cheeky comment to avoid having to REALLY answer the question (which I suspect is the case). Again, if you really have good support, why be afraid to mention it? People with good arguments dont shroud their positions like you do, or ban people who disagree with them on their blogs... you plan on being a Stalin one day?

Oh, and I like how you dont say that you endorse hate but then you say "As much as I loathe and despise you and your ilk". But yeah... you're all about the peace and love. Its a little hypocritical for you to object to Christians who want to ban gay marriage (which I am not of that camp by the way) but yet you want to criminalize the Christian parents' rights to raise their children in the church... hypocrisy so think you can cut it with a knife!

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 1st January 2010 | 02:20 PM

...in response to this comment by 3.16. I don't have a defensive wall up at all 3.16, much the contrary, I do what I do in the name of free thought and inspired debate. As I mentioned in the other post we met at, my motto is to always be open minded, but not to the degree where my brain falls out!

Also, having a Jericho-esk wall is not really all that applicable to an atheist, mainly because it would suggest that god could knock such a wall down... well god and a whole bunch of freshly circumcised soldiers with trumpets... oh, and the Arc!

You were there when Jesus gave the sermon on the mount? Wow dude, those Christian time machines must be awesome. How can you seriously put your belief behind the new testament when you consider that none of the books were written BY Jesus and all of them were written well after his time. The New Testament isn't a testament it's a fabricated story.

How can you believe in this bullshit story and be atheistic towards the Joseph Smith's account? Both were fabricated!

Tyler V

Friday 1st January 2010 | 03:07 PM

Jake said,

"...none of the books were written BY Jesus and all of them were written well after his time."

You just disqualified pretty much ALL history prior to the printing press or anything that isnt autobiographical. ha. There goes Homer, Alexander the great, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Tacitus, Pliny, most of the Caesars, etc.

You sure you wanna keep that ludicrous standard for historical reliability that no historian would ever accept?

Oh, and the fact that many historians consider the Bible historically reliable (even if they disagree with its metaphysical/spiritual interpretation of the events; see Sir William Ramsey and many others), while NO historian considers the book of Mormon accurate on events that are even relatively current (within American history). Again, the false dilemma that you raise is that one must either accept or reject all religious books for the same reasons. That simply is not true in the same way that it would be false to say that one must accept all the writings of atheists or reject all the works for the same reasons. So if one atheist is wrong on history, logic, philosophy, etc. (e.g. Courtenay Werleman) does that make ALL atheists wrong? The book of Mormon, the Quran, and many others are not accurate on basic history (what cities were were, who was king when, etc.) a problem that the Bible does not have.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Friday 1st January 2010 | 03:43 PM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler, last time I checked, not a single person alive today prays to Alexander The Great or Aristotle. I am not so naive to think that all of human history should be negated due to authenticity errors, however I do most certainly assert that no one should live their life based on any one text, much less believe what is contained within it.

Today, we are blessed with so much beautiful information that we can research every claim that is made. Humanity has judged the bible, and found it wanting!

3.16

Friday 1st January 2010 | 06:21 PM

Sadly Jake, only your arrogance defends your position.

Tyler V is correct, though fails to mention history is recorded and influenced by the victors. Christ died and his subjects killed ruthlessly. Christ was a Victor in death , the religion and government of the day still could not stop his peaceful movement from influencing the world. No slave revolts no armies no government was overturned. Only peoples hearts changed

Jake to you........ No history exists in your mind that doesnt support your opinion, thats sad
You were there when life evolved from the mud? Wow dude, those atheist time machines must be awesome.
and again only your arrogance demands that I should live according to your religion, your beliefs. As should my children. Atheism?
Your religion Jake is far more susceptible to corruption than mine.

Free will is a gift from God, and you would take that by force. Thats not a question, you would advocate taking my children from me and my wife, you would take my life.
That is not what a sane person would say, never mind do.
Thats the work of satan

The Bible is wanting? Wanting in what Jake?
Empty rhetoric and hate, is all I here from you

No person prays to Alexander, Aristotle or JFK because they were not God
Christ is
As my questions go unanswered

God bless my prayers are for you all

Tyler V

Friday 1st January 2010 | 07:18 PM

Jake, it doesnt matter whether people BELIEVE what Jesus said or not for the purpose of this discussion. You were bashing the reliability of the text as too late and not autobiographical. I was pointing out that your standards are ridiculous and that no historian uses them the substantiate texts. I was pointing out that your statements like "How can you seriously put your belief behind the new testament when you consider that none of the books were written BY Jesus and all of them were written well after his time. The New Testament isn't a testament it's a fabricated story." Your conclusion only follows when you apply your absurd standard, but then the conclusion also follows that the stories of Alexander the Great, Plato, Socrates, Homer, Josephus, Caesars, and pretty much anyone before the printing press are also all "fabricated" stories. You bite off more than you can chew because you abuse historiography to suit your purposes.

And actually "humanity" HAS judged the Bible and the VAST majority have not found it wanting but found it quite refreshing, revitalizing, hope-instilling, inspiring, etc. Even those who dont believe everything, look to it for wisdom, insight, hope, and yes, even accurate history (any archeologist knows that if you want to do any work in the Levant, the Bible is THE best guide you could have to places, dates, events and people.) So again, you are just flat out wrong when you HUMANITY finds the Bible wanting... actually the only people who find it wanting are the atheists and anti-theists who are a fraction of a percent of the history of human population, even today.

And i'll ask you the same question I ask Courtenay. What scholars have you read from the OTHER side?

CJ Werleman

Sunday 3rd January 2010 | 09:06 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

"Your Doctor analogy is simply false. A doctor is a human being with finite knowledge. It is not their job to determine providential meaning and purpose. Their job is solely to heal to the best of their ability. God is not a doctor. He is the creator of the universe with sovereignty and omniscience. Thus if God creates the infant from your illustration, unlike the doctor whose sole responsibility is health and well being, God may have sufficient reason because he is omniscient and has sole authority to do so. (Hence where we get the saying "to play God" where we arent not permitted to do what God IS permitted to do.) "

The predictable theist's defense! Basically you now face a choice, either God is all-powerful or all-loving BUT he cannot be both.

Your response admits that God is not good by our moral standards. This is hardly welcome news for anyone that wants a model to guide his or her life.

V2

Sunday 3rd January 2010 | 11:08 AM

##
HI CJ and God Bless you this year and anyone reading this post

I am reluctant to push you for an answer.
You have every right to believe that God is either Evil, or doesnt exist. Both beliefs though are wrong, though I have no intention of trying to change your opinion

You previously inferred if God did exist he should intervene in our lives, so I asked when should he and when shouldnt he intervene. That remains an unanswered question

Also you suggested a punishment for Christians who raise their Children as Christians.
Hard for me to fathom somebody such as yourself, who incidentally wrote such a hate inspiring book, assuming responsibility for my children, or handing it over to the State
The punishment though you suggested, was what? Any thoughts

Truly CJ, as a Christian living in the last days I expect this. In fact I expect death(I consider it a blessing), both for me and my family, at the hands of people just like you, like Jake
I dont understand the motivation, outside of satan of course. I was wondering if you could shed a little light on your motivation.

Anyway still two questions; if they remain unanswered I wont press you
My love and prayers to you and yours, as a servant of Christ
##

Interesting post 3.16
Hope you were not expecting an answer from anybody around here

They love to question, but high tail it out like a bunch of Italian soldiers when put under the light
You wont receive an answer from those two.
Dictators never have an answer

Sufficient to say that like the children of Aboriginal Australians.They want your children as well.
Nothing new under the sun

Jake Farr-Wharton

Sunday 3rd January 2010 | 04:22 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. I'm sorry, V2, what did you just say about Australia's Indigenous?

It is so like the skin head that you must be to speak of things which you have no idea about.

3.16, indoctrination of children is an abhorrent practice and ultimately, without it I dare say that religion would have long ago faded into obscurity. If accepting god is a choice, then let it be just that, when your child is old enough to understand the leap they are taking, when they have seen all of the facts and can look at it objectively and decide if religion is their cup of tea.

Trent Greguhn

Sunday 3rd January 2010 | 04:55 PM

3.16--

Pascal's wager is never relevant in any context, it is completely superficial and cowardly. Pascal's wager is laughable and should never be used in defense of anything. Please explain in what context it could be relevant.

Tyler--

about 17% of the population is atheists/agnostic's. Either don't believe or don't care enough to believe or not. That's 1.1 billion people. When we talk of percentages it de-humanizes the people who are part of that statistic.

"Your conclusion only follows when you apply your absurd standard, but then the conclusion also follows that the stories of Alexander the Great, Plato, Socrates, Homer, Josephus, Caesars, and pretty much anyone before the printing press are also all "fabricated" stories. You bite off more than you can chew because you abuse historiography to suit your purposes."

Explain this. Let's say Jesus didn't write any of those books. Are you saying that Plato or Socrates didn't write any of their books? They didn't come after their time, their writings were during their time. I guess I don't understand your argument, please elaborate.

How is 3.16's tact favorable? It seems a bit mis-informed.

And Tyler, how did you go from atheist to christian? I'm still interested to find out how that transformation happened.

V2,

Didn't you dodge and complete ignore all my questions and answers?

Tyler V

Monday 4th January 2010 | 01:11 AM

Courtenay,

Nice try but you again create a false dichotomy in order to try and back me into the corner. Wont work. The answer to your question is that God is all powerful and all loving but he is also ALL KNOWING as well as SOVEREIGN, something that the doctor is not. The logical problem of evil does prove false a KIND of god (one that could not have sufficient reason to allow suffering) but it does not disprove the God of the Bible. You ASSUME that love requires God to see no purpose in suffering. Yet suffering, as we know from experience, is sometimes quite vital in the development of a positive human condition. Do you as a parent shield your child from EVERY kind of suffering? Do you make them do homework? Learn by mistake? Do you force them to get a painful shot to inoculate them from a worse disease? If we (who are finite and fallible) do this and are still loving on a SMALL scale, why would the God of the universe not be able to do this on an ultimate level? No doubt to which you will object that a shot is not the same as cancer or "unnecessary pain". But here the problem is that you still deny the Omniscience of God and the Sovereignty of God in his ability to have sufficient reason. Thus you are rejecting a god who is LESS than the God presented in the Bible.

And I dont think any consistent theist WOULD say that God is moral by OUR moral standards. That would be absurd. We are moral by HIS moral standards. See, you assume autonomy and then argue backwards from there. Theists reject autonomy and argue from dependence.

Trent,

The "17%" includes people who are "no affiliation" (which is actually like 13-14% of that 14-17% depending on the study you look at) who believe in God or spirituality, etc. but reject organized religion (not necessarily God). The next largest group are agnostics who say that we simply dont know, and then secularists, and then lastly is atheists at about .6%. That ends up to about 42 million people (being generous). That is a tiny fraction of the human population.

My argument about Plato and Socrates is multifaceted. 1st, yes, Socrates didnt write any books. His student Plato wrote them down. So Socrates, Alexander the great, and research is even coming out that Homer may have used a scribe, do not pass Jake's autobiographical test. The other is that Jake argued that we dont have any text from the original time. This is the case FOR EVERY ancient text. The Bible is actually closer than ALL the others by hundreds, and in most cases 1000 years or more in the closeness of the first extant manuscript to the originals.

My point was not to substantiate the Bible. My point was that Jake's standard for evaluation was simply ignorant of all historiography and would lead to the demise of ALL ancient texts.

3:16 tact is favorable because of his demeanor.

And I went from a Atheist to a Christian for 2 reasons, one passive, one active. Passive is the theological answer. God saved me. I dont expect you to understand it, but if you ever come to know the Lord, you will.

The other is that I researched. I read books from both sides of the isle on the Bible, its reliability, its accuracy, on theology, on history, on apologetics, on philosophy, on science, etc. And found that a God was the best explanation for the origin of the universe, morality, logic, personal relationship, etc. I also found that the Bible, when read in a manner that did not read it with the sole purpose of finding fault, but that read it in its historical/literary/theological context, was actually brilliantly consistent and meaningful. Ultimately I found that atheism had to actually rely on MORE faith and irrationality than Christianity did.

If you want details you can ask.

CJ Werleman

Monday 4th January 2010 | 04:26 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

I love backing you into a corner. Why stop now?

You claim that God is all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing AND then you presume to know God by presuming he permits suffering because it's good for us. Hahaha!

Here's the crux homeboy:

1. If there were an all-good, all-loving, all-powerful God who could act in time, then we would have strong evidence for his existence.

2. We do not have strong evidence for the existence of God.

3. Therefore, there is no all-good, all-loving, all-powerful God who can act in time.

Furthermore, there is no benefit in God hiding from us. We would lose so little by him showing up for supper. Think of what we would gain by him revealing himself: Most evil people would be scared away from their dastardly deeds as we can imagine that many would be scared at the prospect of eternal punishment. This would be wonderful news for future victims of rape, torture, and murder wouldn't you think?

Your analogical use of a child forced to do his homework as an example of suffering is cute & quaint. But how about using Elisabeth Fritzi as a better example? The Austrian woman held captive in her father's basement for 24 years whilst he anally raped her every day (24 x 365), beat her and her children (products of incestuous rape); and forced her two eldest children to play with the dead body of their youngest sibling. Each day she prayed to God for intervention but he sat back with arms folded with complete indifference. This is the kind of suffering I am talking about. What benefit to hers or the human condition is that suffering?

You then laugh at the absurdity that God can be held to our own moral standards?? Thus you believe that God is not subject to our moral standards because He created us, so we owe Him everything. But does that give God the right to abuse or neglect us anymore than it gives humans the right to abuse and neglect their children? Slogan: Might does not make right!!

Hallelujah.

CJ

Trent Greguhn

Monday 4th January 2010 | 04:46 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler,

But you've missed the point. What does it matter if atheists/humanists/secularists/agnostics are a small fraction of the population? Again, let's put that into the context of Scandanavia where most of the population (80%) falls into the agnostic/atheistic view point. Does the greater percentage of that population not matter?

"3:16 tact is favorable because of his demeanor."

What demeanor is that? You could say his demeanor is favorable because of his tact and it means the same thing. Please be more specific.

How did God save you? If this event happened to you then you should be able to explain it to an extent.

What science did you read? Do you believe in an all perfect, all knowing, all powerful, omnibenevolent God? If so, how do you reasonably deal with the problem of evil? Why is God the best explanation for the origin of the universe?

Have you read about psychology? Neuroscience?

Why is it inane to believe that morality is not absolute, but relative and constitutes any set of behaviors that encourage human cooperation based on their ideology?

Have you read about evolutionary morality not just in humans, but in other animals as well? That all social animals have changed to restrain selfishness to make group living worthwhile?

As it is, I've read both sides of the argument and to me Hume's Maxim seems appropriate. There is no necessity that God exist for humans to be good people.

Also you've claimed to believe in a literal hell and if I'm not mistaken in the rapture. There is no evidence or reason to believe in either of these beliefs, so how can you defend them on a philosophical level? On a moral level?

And if you have read the other side that I've presented to you, how do you figure all of that in to your beliefs?

Trent Greguhn

Monday 4th January 2010 | 05:14 AM

...in response to this comment by CJ Werleman. It's no use CJ, I've explained the problem of evil in detail and for some reason they just let it go on the premise that we're assuming what God would do. That's not true and let me explain to you again Tyler before you use the same defense.

It is not necessary to know God's intention because we know God's definition. And by definition an all powerful, all knowing, all loving God not only could make a world with no suffering, he'd want to. And that world with no suffering would be the most perfect world, because he could make it the most perfect world, because he is all powerful. It just doesn't follow logically to believe in a omnieverything God. It does not follow logically. No one has solved the problem of evil.

To me the problem of evil is a huge question that religion can and will never be able to answer.

CJ Werleman

Monday 4th January 2010 | 05:48 AM

...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. Trent,

Amen brother.

Cheers
CJ

Tyler V

Monday 4th January 2010 | 10:02 AM

Courtenay,

I said TRY to back me into a corner… again showing your lack of reading comprehension.

I also don’t presume that I have some secret knowledge of God. I simply said that if God is all knowing, all good, and all powerful, and yet suffering exists, it is due to the nature of God that there must be sufficient reason for it. Do I claim to know the reason? No. But the only way the argument works is if you can say God DOESN’T have sufficient reason for it. But the only way you could know that would be if you were capable of omniscience, but then you would be God. Again, the logical argument of suffering is actually pretty weak. It’s the existential problem of evil that is the bane of the apologists existence.

As to your attempted syllogism:

Why would we have strong evidence? What kind of NATURAL evidence would you expect for a SUPERNATURAL being? I would suspect that you are actually right… we would have strong evidence… we would have a logical world, a world with objective morality, a world of creativity and diversity, a world capable of compassion and love, a LIVING world as opposed to a non-living world, and I would expect that God would communicate, give laws, and perform miracles… oh wait… we have all those things! See, you want to say that we would expect to have evidence of God but only in a philosophical-naturalistic kind of way (a logical impossibility) and thus since you don’t see it then “God cant exist!” All you prove is that YOU are inconsistent with the world since you cant even ground your own use of logic, reason, morality, and existence.

Is there absolutely no benefit in God hiding from us? How do you know that universal negation?

Now what would we, a fallen people guilty before his throne, gain if God showed up at midnight tonight? Well without Christ we would receive an eternal life time of condemnation as criminals against the law of God. See, you want God to show up because you think he would be a miserly old grandpa or a genie in a bottle there just to do our bidding. But God is holy. God is just. I dont want to stand before God unless I am clothed in righteousness and already declared innocent. A visit from the sheriff is only pleasant if you arent guilty. Most evil people, if God showed up, would be consumed not just “scared straight.” He’s not the bigger dog on the cell-block. He’s the Creator of the universe!

You say “many would be scared at the prospect of eternal punishment”. Well, are you scared of the prospect of eternal punishment? The problem is that once youre standing condemned before the judge, the “prospect of eternal punishment” is the ONLY option. And YES! That IS wonderful news “news for future victims of rape, torture, and murder”! That’s the point! When we suffer, we know that there WILL be a final reckoning! All things will be made right! All accounts will be settled and no crime will go unpunished, either by the one who committed it or by the Son of God.

As for Ms. Fritzi, do I know WHY? No. But I know that I am not God. I don’t have omniscience. Do you? And tell me, lets say God doesn’t exist. You are Ms. Fritzi’s psychiatrist and she asks you, an atheist, why and to give her meaning, hope and a reason to continue living… what do YOU say? See, the problem of suffering is challenging for the theist, but it is impossible for the atheist. “Well it happened because you father was the stronger of the two of you and thus exercised his dominance, but hey, we caught him and one day you’ll die and turn into dust and all of this will ultimately have no meaning or purpose. Your just one cosmic accident that collided into another cosmic accident just a little bit harder than the rest. Good luck with that.”

I also never said that God is not moral, I said that God is not held to OUR moral standard. We don’t make up a standard and say “now God you obey me.” In other words, “Hey God, get off my throne!” And nothing GIVES God any kind of right, God is the creator of the universe and the absolute sovereign… he simply has rights by nature of being God. Although you slant the issue by calling it abuse and neglect (again assuming the very point to be proven… again… arent you a rationalist… arent you supposed to know begging the question when you see it?)

Interesting that as an atheist who has argued for a evolutionary/pragmatic view of morality that you would say, Might does not make right!! Well “Survival of the fittest” according to you. In fact, it seems that you are BOUND to say “might makes right” and only a theist can say otherwise.

Hallelujah indeed.



Trent,

I gotta admit, I always laugh when you guys start looking to places like Scandinavia to substantiate your points… Well fine. Use Scandinavia’s TOTAL population of bout 24 million people (less than the population of California alone). The problem is that what was being argued for was a kind of “truth by consensus”. My point was that if we are going to talk about consensus, the victory clearly goes to the theists. That was all my point was.

3:16’s demeanor is more pleasant than Courtenay and Jake was my point. He does not resort, from what I have seen (though I haven’t read all his posts) to name calling, belittling, and ad hominems. Again, don’t make a mountain out of a molehill.

As to how God saved me, I refrain from defending it in places like this because it will never make sense in your worldview. But if I must. God, from before he made the world, those from humanity who would be saved. Because of my sin, and my guilt before God, I was unable to make myself innocent. I was a sinner deserving of death. But God saved me. Imagine the story of Lazarus as an example. What did Lazarus do to have Jesus raise him from the dead? Nothing. He was dead. It took the act of Christ to raise him from the dead. Same goes for all who put their faith in Jesus.

I read Darwin, Dawkins, Sagan, Kenyon, Wilder-Smith, Popper, Gould, Maynard Smith, Zimmer, McGrath, Behe, Meyer, Johnson, Berlinski, Thaxton, and others.

I do believe in “an all perfect, all knowing, all powerful, omnibenevolent God”. I believe the logical problem of evil is actually quite simple for two reasons. First is that in order for us to even recognize something as “evil” we must first have an objective notion of “the good” (i.e. objective morality). This is simply something not in the range of feasibility for the philosophical naturalist. So the problem actually becomes quite incoherent when it tries to argue away God by using a moral system that only God can substantiate. Second is that, as I have stated above, if the logical argument disproves a god, it is not the God of the Bible for the reasons I have already stated. I simply disproves a god would could have no sufficient reason for suffering (thus the insistence on “unnecessary suffering” which already stacks the deck by assuming that some suffering simply has no reason for it). Now as for the existential problem of evil, it is difficult to comfort someone or deal with evil in the world on a personal level. But it doesn’t disprove God. In fact, it seems that God is the only compassionate response. It says that there is evil and that God did something about it (the cross) and will finally do away with it in the future (the consummation). What do atheists have? “Well youre a chunk of matter and life’s gonna end soon anyway… so… sucks to be you.” If the existential problem of evil is hard on a theist, it is near impossible on the atheist.

I have read a little bit about psychology and Neuroscience. Not enough to comment though.

You then ask, “Why is it inane to believe that morality is not absolute, but relative and constitutes any set of behaviors that encourage human cooperation based on their ideology?” As I have stated before, this reduced morality to social grooming (socialization) and is not REAL morality (something with “oughtness”) and thus cannot compel me to be good. It ultimately leads to a tautology: Good is what is good for the culture. But why should I seek what is good for the Culture? Because it is moral. Thus, it is meaningless and morality is no longer binding on any person. (Your example of the animals is actual precisely my point. It proves socialization, not real moral obligation). Even Dawkins, Dennett, and Singer all admit that evolutionists have not been able to ground real morality… but they are hopeful that they will be able to one day is what they say.

Hume also thought that we could not actually say that the billiard ball was causally acted upon by the cue ball and that we can know nothing for sure. Not even that the ground would stay under our feet as we walk. And you wanna trust his moral maxim?


I do believe in a literal hell, but you are mistaken on the Rapture. I’m reformed (and Biblical, ha) and no Christian believed in the Rapture until Darby invented it in the 19th century.) But I believe in hell as an a posteriori belief. I believe it because I believe other things to be true. Why do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow? What evidence do you have for it? Well you don’t have any because it is a future event. But you have good evidence that it rose in the past and that the earth orbits it, etc. You believe it on faith. I do the same with the doctrine of hell and the return of Christ. Because I believe God exists, that he revealed himself in Jesus, and that the Bible is accurate, then I believe other things as a result. We all have hundreds of beliefs of this order. And I cant prove hell on a moral level. That would be like me trying to prove you exist with a moral argument. Ethics cant base ontology.

And reading the other side does not mean I accept the other side as valid (I’m not a pluralist). But it has changed some of my views, made me study more, think harder and more critically of my own position and arguments, etc.

And I know you don’t like it when we object this way, but you DO assume to know what God would and wouldn’t do. You say, “God not only could make a world with no suffering, he'd want to.” Really? He would WANT to? How do you know he would want to? Did he tell you what he would want to do? Or are you assuming that if God were like you, he would want to. You also assume “that world with no suffering would be the most perfect world.” Really? Are you omniscient? Do you KNOW that the best possible world (perfect is an invalid title for it) would contain no suffering? Is it not possible that an ALL KNOWING being would know more about it than you?

Again, no one has to solve the problem of evil. It is self refuting since it assumes a moral standard to deny the only basis for that moral standard.

Plus we should point out, that throughout the history of philosophy the only argument against God that has been maintained through out the centuries is the problem of evil. All other arguments have been answered and gone into disuse by skeptics. But there are dozens of theistic arguments for God that have been around for centuries, some nearly 2000 years.



P.S. Courtenay is STILL suppressing me on his blog. He has really sheltered himself there from any objecting voice. The history of that tactic in human history is bleak and trod frequently by despots...

Trent Greguhn

Monday 4th January 2010 | 10:39 AM

Tyler,

As far as God saving you I don't believe in sin and therefore can no longer discuss that topic with you.

The logical problem of evil isn't simple and you fail to grasp it's notions. I don't assume anything about God Tyler, it's there in the definition. You simply refuse to know what the problem of evil actually is. Yes, an omnibenevolent God would want a world without suffering BY DEFINITION. An omniscient and omnipotent God could, by definition Tyler, make a world without suffering and again, would want to by definition.

"“Well youre a chunk of matter and life’s gonna end soon anyway… so… sucks to be you.” If the existential problem of evil is hard on a theist, it is near impossible on the atheist."

The problem of evil is non-existent for an atheist Tyler. We accept that not only does evil exist, but it's an inevitability based on statistics. As such humanists work hard against and at the same time try to understand evil. And no human besides existential philosphers think the way you have described. You just think religion or Christianity has monopolized meaning in life when it hasn't.

"As I have stated before, this reduced morality to social grooming (socialization) and is not REAL morality (something with “oughtness”) and thus cannot compel me to be good. It ultimately leads to a tautology"

This is your perception and your opinion, but it's anything but reality as you suggest. There's no reason for "oughtness" but that's only because you haven't read about evolutionary morality. Also, good is good isn't a tautology in the sense of evolutionary morality or societal morality, because it is objective to it's core, something I've been writing about recently so I won't go through it all here. But, God is good is the real tautology, because one must define good for themsevles, and thus define God.

"Hume also thought that we could not actually say that the billiard ball was causally acted upon by the cue ball and that we can know nothing for sure. Not even that the ground would stay under our feet as we walk. And you wanna trust his moral maxim? "

This is ad hominem. "Bob is an alcoholic and believes in God, you can't trust him can you?" What you've said doesn't effect the rationality of his maxim does it Tyler? Unless you do like to use ad hominem in this context.

"Why do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow? "

This is an old and out-dated argument. There's plenty of evidence stating that the sun will rise tomorrow and the next day and the next day. Seeing as how the sun doesn't necessarily "rise" as much as it is our perception of it rising. But what you've described there is no evidence for.

"And reading the other side does not mean I accept the other side as valid (I’m not a pluralist)."

You've almost got it, but not quite.

"Plus we should point out, that throughout the history of philosophy the only argument against God that has been maintained through out the centuries is the problem of evil."

Wrong. The philosphical arguments go back and forth and back and forth, much like this one. The problem of evil is the only one that Judeo-Christians can't explain. Others have for's and against's back and forth, but not the problem of evil. I have books and books on it.

V2

Monday 4th January 2010 | 05:25 PM

Commas Jake, Commas
Its next to the M on your keyboard (Uni education?)
It will help everyone who reads your tripe

Jake I am not a skin head, (comma) just going bald

Jake Farr-Wharton

Monday 4th January 2010 | 06:31 PM

...in response to this comment by V2. Many thanks for the schooling, V2. One day I will get around to teaching you about sentence structure, full stops and why physical evidence is not just for 'science types'.

V2

Monday 4th January 2010 | 08:40 PM

Yes, Hmmm!
Well, I wont hold my breath.

3.16 questions bit tricky?

Tyler V

Tuesday 5th January 2010 | 04:11 AM

Trent,

You don’t believe in God, sin, divine grace, the Holy Spirit, etc. Which is why I told you right when you asked that whatever I said would not make any sense within your worldview. I warned you from the get go.

You are mistaken on what Omnibenevolence is I think and what it applies to. Omnibenevolence refers to a quality of GOD, not of his will. Now, the two cooperate, but you confuse the two categories. God is omnibenevolent and thus the nature of God is all loving. But you seem to think that within that there is a MANDATE that in order for God to be all loving, that he MUST want to make a world without suffering. You ASSUME this to be true. Are you both omnibenevolent AND omniscient to know that this is how those two attributes would mesh? It seems entirely logical to say that an omnibenevolent God would still know that the BEST possible world would contain suffering. The problem is that you are also assuming that BEST is synonymous with “pain-less”. Again, you are attempting to make it true by definition when the definition is actually not that obligatory. Your problem is that you are defining the terms in such a way to MAKE them true by definition. But that is simply not what those words entail.

It also seems to make sense, since we are NOT perfect, holy, righteous, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent to look at one who IS to see how those attributes comingle and what that being would WANT, rather than saying what they WOULD be like from our state of imperfection. To do so seems neither safe nor right.

Then on to your problem of evil for the atheist (or rather, according to you, lack thereof). I was referring to the EXISTENTIAL (experiential) problem of evil and how impossible it is on atheism, NOT on the logical problem of evil. So the problem is not existent for you because you say evil exists but that it is inevitable…? Well I hate to inform you, but you have not done away with the problem for yourself. The question is not if evil exists or is inevitable (for Christians claim both of those as well since we aren’t Hindus) but when someone is experiencing immense suffering, what does the atheist say to comfort the victim? You try to side step this by saying that Christians has not monopolized the meaning of life… well great. Then tell me. Pretend that I am a rape victim, or a holocaust survivor. Tell me, how you answer me when I ask you, as every victim will at some point ask, WHY? (And remember, we are dealing with the existential problem of evil. This is what Courtenay tries to levy against the Christian when he points to atrocities. See, evil does not LOGICALLY disprove God, but if someone cannot understand WHY God would allow it, then they may reject him based on emotions, not reason. You might tell your father who abused you “you’re dead to me.” His evils against you don’t make him not exist, but you can deny he has a role in your life. This is what Courtenay is attempting to do. But he then makes the unfounded leap from God having no role to God not existing.) But tell… me… as an atheist, what would you tell me, the victim, if I asked you WHY?

So let me get your tautology argument straight. When we are talking about “good is good” it is not a tautology because it favors your view, but “God is good” is a tautology because we are talking about God? Ha, that’s one of the most blind cases of special pleading I have ever seen.

To address that absurd paragraph line by line.

Is it my opinion that the only way to achieve moral obligation is if morality is real? Tell me, do I have obligation to keep the laws of the fictional land of Narnia? I’m sorry, but only real morality can mandate obligation.

And I have read quite a bit on evolutionary morality. Have you? If you had, you would know that the current trend is to FIND a basis for real morality within evolution. See, they admit that they have been UNABLE to do so as of yet. So am I wrong to say, at this point, no atheist has been able to provide an evolutionary answer that can base real morality if they say so themselves? Again, not at all. I am actually just agreeing with where the field is right now. Ha.
You say, “good is good isn't a tautology in the sense of evolutionary morality or societal morality, because it is objective to it's core.” So good is good isn’t a tautology because it is objectively true that good is good? I’m sorry, but do you know how many logical fallacies you made in that statement? For now I’ll give you a pass because maybe you typed it fast and didn’t realize how it came out (I have done that several times so I understand). So how about you give that a second shot to be coherent.

You then say that “God is good is the real tautology, because one must define good for themsevles, and thus define God.” Again, according to the theist, we DON’T define good for ourselves. To do so would be to usurp the mandate of God. Thus, no tautology.

And my evaluation of Hume was NOT an ad hominem. No where did I appeal to the person, character, or lifestyle of Hume. I pointed to the REST of his theory that you had neatly left out. My point is that Hume’s entire philosophical theory is self refuting because it is skeptical to the extreme, and thus even of itself. If that is the best rebuttal to the dilemma that Hume created for himself, then you really need to think a little bit harder about it.

As for the sun argument. I didn’t ask why the sun will rise tomorrow if it rises tomorrow. I said, how do you KNOW that the sun will rise tomorrow. The evidence is that the sun has risen in the past and how the earth orbits the sun while rotating on its axis giving the appearance of rising. Great. But why do you BELIEVE that the sun WILL rise tomorrow? You believe it as an a posteriori belief based on your justified beliefs on other things but you don’t have EVIDENCE that the sun WILL rise tomorrow. It is a predictive conclusion, not a verified event. You seek to refute my belief in hell as unfounded but do not realize that I hold it because I believe other justified beliefs in the same way that we all hold a nearly countless number of other a posteriori beliefs about every day life. (For a longer treatment on justified belief, read Plantinga’s Warranted Belief)

You again make the normal fallacy, which I have pointed out before, that the only way we can know things is by evidence. But that statement itself cant stand up to the standard it sets. What evidence do you have that the only way we can know things is by evidence? Did you do a lab test? No You hold THAT statement based on no evidence itself and thus it is reflexively defeating.

As for the veracity of the logical arguments you prove my point. I did not say that all the logical arguments for God have been universally accepted. I said that they have been extant now for, in some cases, nearly 2000 years or more. They have not been soundly refuted and proven to be illogical. Yet with atheism, there is only ONE argument that has stood the test of time and that is the problem of evil (even though I think that many people, ever since the advent of presuppositionalism) have begun to realize that it assumes the very thing that it attempts to deny, hence the sudden surge in atheistic attempts to ground morality without God. They realize that if they cannot do that, then the problem of evil will soon vanish leaving them with nothing.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 5th January 2010 | 06:10 AM

...in response to this comment by V2. 3.16 didn't ask me any questions that I hadn't already answered.

Jake Farr-Wharton

Tuesday 5th January 2010 | 06:19 AM

...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Tyler V, old pal, I feel the need to ask you a very important and pressing question; are you God?

If you are not God, then how the hell can you profess to know so much about His presence and will?

The bible is neither constructive or descriptive in it's stories about God, so how on earth can you know so much about its nature, it's actions and it's will?

Logic dictates that you are one of two, either;

- an avid philosopher who does not believe in the traditional Christian faith and should thus be referred to as agnostic as y