Pascal's Wager, Biblical Contradition

[quankanne]

If you don't know Christ, are you eternally separated, as it is written in Moose's gospel, or is there hope for the ignorant, according to the catechism of the Catholic church? Does the Pope have the final word on all of this?

 

actually, what Moose writes is the dropping of the other shoe: There are people who know Christ, and those who don't.

 

of those who don't, some are ignorant of his existence, but if they seek "the truth and do the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved."

 

the ones who beg ignorance of Jesus – i.e., deliberately choose to ignore Christ as savior and redeemer – are the ones who have no hope when they reject God in the person of Christ. Yet there is still hope while they live, because they still can accept the salvation he offers.

 

the Pope? God love him, he doesn't have *that* kind of power, but is just a very visible presence because he's the guy in charge of the original Christian church … and I think because the Church has been around nearly two millenia, she's considered a bit of a voice of authority or a respected elder in the "community" because she has stayed intact despite corrupt popes, despite the Inquisition, despite the schisms and fractions, and despite scandal.

[Trimmer]

Thank you for introducing us, but I am guessing that you meant: "Moose meet quankanne."

Arrrgh! I hate it when I try to do something with a flourish and I completely blow it and end up sounding like a dork...

 

I think I responded to this as well, but you deserve the respect of a response. My point is not that someone puts himself on level as a god, but that some/many people who do not believe that there is a God believe that Man is the god of the universe. This is not in the sense that "I am the ultimate one," but in the sense that "I am in charge of my destiny." But I think my last response indicated that this is not meant as an either/or supposition.

Yeah, it has kind of evolved/devolved into a semantic argument at this point, and I'm not even sure which side I'm on, vs. which side I'm arguing! I guess the bottom line is that the original point (which I have realized all along was nittygritty's, not yours...) that:

...it seems like people that do not believe in any kind of God have essentially made themselves their own God...

seems to imply a certain "well, someone must be supreme, and therefore it must be me" attitude on the part of the non-believer, and I truly don't feel that way. While acknowledging the astonishing wonder of my (our) presence on the earth and in the universe, I also humbly accept the smallness - even insignificance - of my part in the truly larger scheme of things.

[VIP]

the ones who beg ignorance of Jesus – i.e., deliberately choose to ignore Christ as savior and redeemer – are the ones who have no hope when they reject God in the person of Christ. Yet there is still hope while they live, because they still can accept the salvation he offers.

 

God is not a person. Worshipping a person is idolatry.

 

and I think because the Church has been around nearly two millenia, she's considered a bit of a voice of authority or a respected elder in the "community" because she has stayed intact despite corrupt popes, despite the Inquisition, despite the schisms and fractions, and despite scandal.

 

Anything that's old is not necessarily true.

[Trimmer]

...the ones who beg ignorance of Jesus – i.e., deliberately choose to ignore Christ as savior and redeemer – are the ones who have no hope when they reject God in the person of Christ. Yet there is still hope while they live, because they still can accept the salvation he offers.

Yes, I accept that this makes total sense - if you have the chance and choose to reject it, you're on the outs... And to actually touch for a moment on the original post, I understand the consequences of my chosen row in the "God/no God", "believe/don't believe" decision matrix...

 

But Moose's comments just seemed so unqualified. It was just "if they don't know... eternally separated....Simple as that...eternity in Hell...no ignorance card." There wasn't much wiggle room in there for "those who don't know Christ," as he opined that God reveals himself to every man woman and child at the age of accountability...

 

Incidentally, I'm not asking for you to speak for Moose; I just noticed that he posted his comments within a couple minutes of yours, assumed he hadn't seen yours, and wondered what he thought of the contrast.

[disgracian]

God is not a person. Worshipping a person is idolatry.

Verily spoken! I'd go so far as to say that all forms and manifestations of orthodoxy constitute the sin of idolatry.

 

Cheers,

D.

[sb129]

Today on "the big question" (BBC1) they were debating whether the perceived decline of British morality could be improved if there was more emphasis placed on religion.

 

As you can imagine, the debate was lively, and well argued on both sides by several prominent British journalists, politicians, scientists, musicians and members of the public. There were representatives from many different religions, including spiritualists who didn't belong to a particular religion.

There was an atheist who actively debates this topic online, although I don't think he is a LS member.

 

It was really interesting, and brought up several good points that have been addressed in this thread.

 

The atheists/ scientists were saying that it is possible to be a moral person without religion in ones life, others were saying that moderate religions provide a good framework for morality.

 

I agree with both statements, despite being an atheist, I think that moderate religions CAN provide some people who may not get it from other sources (ie the home) with a moral framework, however, personally I can't comfortably accept the existence of a god, and would like to live my life well and as a good person, but without religion being a part of it.

 

The interesting things were that despite several disagreements, there were a couple things that everyone seemed to more or less agree on:

 

In an ideal world:

1. For religions to succeed in providing successful moral guidance, they need to accept eachother, and work together in some communities, especially in a multicultural city such as London. This includes atheists accepting and being accepted, and moral education being emphasised separately from religious education, to show that they can be independent of eachother should an individual choose not to have religion as part of their life.

 

2. For the above to happen, the government should try to be as secular and impartial as possible, to show that THEY accept the existence of several different religions in their country, and to discourage any one religion influencing politics and legislation too much.

 

There was a general consensus that if religion and politics became too intertwined, this could have an adverse effect on some societies, particularly multicultural ones such as Britain and the US. It can encourage bigotry, hatred, segregation and intolerance, as well as discourage some scientific and social advances. (for example: stem cell research and gay rights such as the civil partnership)

 

As you would expect this led on to a debate about stem cell research, at which point I decided that it was getting a bit too heavy for a Sunday morning and went back to reading the trashy Sunday papers.

 

I think the points outlined above have hit the nail on the head IMO.

[Moai]

I'm back! Had a blast--lots of comedy...

 

I have read most of and scanned all of the posts that have happened over the weekend, and I'll try to address the gist of some wuestions I read.

 

First, the evolution of consciene fits perfectly into current evolutionary theory. It is complex, but to put it simply, the creatures that ccooperate better have a better chance of surviving to pass on their genetic material.

 

If I am tall and can reach fruit someone else can't, but he can get to water I can't, we increase our chances of survival if we work together. If we operate seperately, we both perish. So we who have the "cooperation gene" are selected for over those who don't. There are excellent books on this subject available at any local library.

 

As far as morality goes, it is a result of culture. If you look around the world, countries that have not enjoyed the benefit of the Enlightenment are still performing rituals and still have the moral outlook of those living in the 14th century, or even older.

 

The reason Western culture is so vibrant and even considers the concept of human rights is because of secularism and the DISMISSAL of religious morality.

 

Consider slavery. There is not one word in the Bible that says slavery is wrong. In the US, the bloodiest war in our history was fought to force some of the most religious people our country has ever known to give UP slavery. Certainly, there were religious leaders who preached against slavery (but far more preached for it), but as usual they were late to the party and then hoped to take credit for it. Again, a short stay at the local library will provide all the evidence you need to see this.

 

And now, women's rights. Is there one passage in ANY holy book that speaks to the equality of women? Paul, in the New Testement has some very misogynistic things to say on the subject--women shouldn't speak in church, etc. That being so, where did the idea of women's rights come from? It came from people looking around and thinking about the subject without the veneer of religious tradition.

 

Where in the Bible does it say that it is wrong to sleep with my 12 year-old cousin? Where is the advice on dealing with the elderly? The facct is that morality is determined secularly, and then the Bible "morphs" to fit the concept. Notice, our morality has changed drastically, the the book remains unhanged. It is just that more of it is, and should be ignored.

 

We have seen altruism is animals such as wolves, bonobos, chimpanzees, lions, tigers, etc. And that includes inter-species altruism, such as a wolf helping a beaver, say. Now, one can say that animals don't believe in god, but we have no way of knowing. No animal besides man engages in woshipping activity, certainly. But if animals do believe in god, it is a safe bet that their god looks like them. The horse god is a horse, the bonobo god is a bonobo. The human god has human-like attirbute...

 

Or he used to. If you look at how the concept of god has evolved, it went from anthropomorphic being to existential deity over the last 200 years or so. Why? Because as we understandmore of the world around us, god gets smaller and smaller and smaller.

 

I will write further later, but now it is nap time. Thanks for all the good wishes, and see you in a few hours!

[nittygritty]

Everyone undergoes spiritual growth all the time. Belief in a diety is not required for this.

 

I didn't understand what you meant by this statement. I would think that the belief that humans have spirits would be necessary for growth to take place so from your perspective what is and how does a human's spirit grow? What is the inspiration and the goal? Do you believe that spirit is extinguished at the time of death?

[VIP]

But if animals do believe in god, it is a safe bet that their god looks like them. The horse god is a horse, the bonobo god is a bonobo. The human god has human-like attirbute...

 

Animals love unconditionally, they don't need to know who you are, they just love you because it's their nature to love. Humans don't see beyond the physical, and as far as morals, this doesn't come naturally. So I really don't see how humans are superior to animals.

[nittygritty]

Animals love unconditionally, they don't need to know who you are, they just love you because it's their nature to love. Humans don't see beyond the physical, and as far as morals, this doesn't come naturally. So I really don't see how humans are superior to animals.

 

It does seem that good and beloved pets love unconditionally but I doubt that animals experience love in the same way that humans do.

 

Although it may not seem like it at times, there are many differences between animals and people. Animal behavior is much more predictable than human behavior. The brains of animals are not capable of developing to the high level of intelligence that a human brain can develop. Whether intelligence is used for good or bad is a choice for humans.

 

My Christian perspective is that animals don't have sin, people do. I think that God entrusted animals in the care of humans and animals are a vital and significant part of our lives.

[VIP]

I think that God entrusted animals in the care of humans and animals are a vital and significant part of our lives.

 

Humans kill animals for pleasure (hunting) and commit other acts of cruelty towards them. I guess the excuse for that is that humans are superior.

[Moai]

I didn't understand what you meant by this statement. I would think that the belief that humans have spirits would be necessary for growth to take place so from your perspective what is and how does a human's spirit grow? What is the inspiration and the goal? Do you believe that spirit is extinguished at the time of death?

 

Aristotle believed that humans had spirits (or "soul") but did not believe that they exist beyond death. Read "On The Soul."

 

The quality that we have that makes us each individually us, the part of being human that actually experiences things can be called the soul, or spirit. Not all cultures see such things as a duality, either.

 

Just as your body grows, your experiene and how you interpret things grows, too. I don't see why a belief in magic has anything to do with it.

[Moai]

It does seem that good and beloved pets love unconditionally but I doubt that animals experience love in the same way that humans do.

 

It is unknowable if they experiene love at all, actually.

 

Although it may not seem like it at times, there are many differences between animals and people. Animal behavior is much more predictable than human behavior. The brains of animals are not capable of developing to the high level of intelligence that a human brain can develop. Whether intelligence is used for good or bad is a choice for humans.

 

I am not sure which animals you have been looking at, but it is readily apparent to me all the time everywhere that animals are dissimilar to humans in substantial ways.

 

The brains of animals are certainly capable of developing higher intelligence, or we wouldn't have developed it. We are animals (primates) after all. It seems that intelligence is not necessarily an evolutionary benefit. If it were, tuna would be doing calculus. Clearly, they are not. Intelligence has given us a definite benefit, but we also have mental illness psycho- and sociopathology that is unknown in other species.

 

My Christian perspective is that animals don't have sin, people do. I think that God entrusted animals in the care of humans and animals are a vital and significant part of our lives.

 

Interesting. So animals act according to their nature and they are given a free pass, we act according to our nature and we have "sin." I cannot think of one sin that isn't a social construct, that has variance between cultures. Even murder is not seen universally. In some cultures if your sister is seen with a man she is not married to you can stone her to death, in Aztec culture ripping the beating heart out of someone and throwing it on a fire to appease the gods is ok, etc.

 

I don't think that we were given stewardship over nature at all. I do agree that animals are significan tand vital, but probably not in the same way you mean it.

[Moai]

Animals love unconditionally, they don't need to know who you are, they just love you because it's their nature to love. Humans don't see beyond the physical, and as far as morals, this doesn't come naturally. So I really don't see how humans are superior to animals.

 

Animals don't love at all in the way humans mean it, by definition.

 

I don't know what you mean about humans not seeing beyond the physical.

 

Morals do come naturally. Otherwise, we wouldn't have them. Do you really think that the ancient Hebrews thought murdering each other (by their definition of murder) was ok until the Ten Commandments were delivered? What about every culture that existed before also having a taboo against murder?

 

Morality and the human condition has improved exponentially since the Enlightenment, and that is because people began to address moral issues rationally instead of consulting a book written by primitives.

 

This is self-evident. Did the Inquisition stop because a new scripture was disovered that trumped the "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" passage? Did slavery end in the civilized world because suddenly the Holy Spirit helped us interpret scripture correctly (finally)? Can women (and minorities) vote now because God handed down more tablets with new instructions?

[nittygritty]

It is unknowable if they experiene love at all, actually.

 

 

 

I am not sure which animals you have been looking at, but it is readily apparent to me all the time everywhere that animals are dissimilar to humans in substantial ways.

 

The brains of animals are certainly capable of developing higher intelligence, or we wouldn't have developed it. We are animals (primates) after all. It seems that intelligence is not necessarily an evolutionary benefit. If it were, tuna would be doing calculus. Clearly, they are not. Intelligence has given us a definite benefit, but we also have mental illness psycho- and sociopathology that is unknown in other species.

 

 

 

Interesting. So animals act according to their nature and they are given a free pass, we act according to our nature and we have "sin." I cannot think of one sin that isn't a social construct, that has variance between cultures. Even murder is not seen universally. In some cultures if your sister is seen with a man she is not married to you can stone her to death, in Aztec culture ripping the beating heart out of someone and throwing it on a fire to appease the gods is ok, etc.

 

I don't think that we were given stewardship over nature at all. I do agree that animals are significan tand vital, but probably not in the same way you mean it.

 

 

VIP said that animals love unconditionally and I disagreed with him about that. I agree with your statement "Animals are dissimilar to humans in substantial ways".

 

I can think of one sin that is universally shared in all religions and that sin is not believing in God. While there are variances and disagreements as to which God. I am unaware of any religion that doesn't consider it to be a sin not to believe in their God.

[VIP]

Animals don't love at all in the way humans mean it, by definition.

 

There are different kinds of human love, and there are different definitions of love, one of them being "warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion ". Animals can experience this type of love.

 

I don't know what you mean about humans not seeing beyond the physical.

 

Many people are not able to see beyond race or religion.

 

Morals do come naturally. Otherwise, we wouldn't have them. Do you really think that the ancient Hebrews thought murdering each other (by their definition of murder) was ok until the Ten Commandments were delivered?

 

They don't come naturally in the sense that some people need to rely on the book and not on their own judgement.

 

Did the Inquisition stop because a new scripture was disovered that trumped the "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" passage?

 

Inquisition was stopped by Napoleon Bonaparte, in a fight for power.

 

Did slavery end in the civilized world because suddenly the Holy Spirit helped us interpret scripture correctly (finally)?

 

The reasons for that were purely political and economical.

 

Can women vote now because God handed down more tablets with new instructions?

 

That was just one more victory of feminism.

[Moai]

VIP said that animals love unconditionally and I disagreed with him about that. I agree with your statement "Animals are dissimilar to humans in substantial ways".

 

I can think of one sin that is universally shared in all religions and that sin is not believing in God. While there are variances and disagreements as to which God. I am unaware of any religion that doesn't consider it to be a sin not to believe in their God.

 

Buddhism postulates no diety, so that's one. Ba'hai suggests that all religions are worshipping the same god differently, so in a sense nobody is sinning in that way--except for people like me who don't believe in god at all.

 

And the point isn't whether or not all sins are shared, the question is why the sins are so different. The Norse gods didn't care if you believed in them or not, and I don't think that the Greek gods did either. Certainly, a person could anger them, but I am not aware of one myth where one of them got mad at a person for not believing in them.

 

In the Abrahamic tradition God is certainly jealous and punishes those who worship differently--or at least requires his followers to do so. One wonders why a being that could create the Universe and all that is in it would care what little bits of protoplasm think about him, or needs themm to grovel in front of him. Or even demands credit for it, now that I think about it.

 

If I give some possessions to Salvation Army I don't care if I get any credit for it or not. If someone is hungry I'll feed them regardless of what their opinion is on the origin of the Universe. That is not so for the Most Powerful Being In The Universe, is it?

 

I have read beofre that one must be humble before god, etc., but it strikes me as the height of arrogance to suggest that the entire Universe was created just for us, and that out of the infinite Universe we are most important and that we are all that god cares about.

[Moai]

There are different kinds of human love, and there are different definitions of love, one of them being "warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion ". Animals can experience this type of love.

 

How do you know?

 

Many people are not able to see beyond race or religion.

 

Religious people cannot see beyond religion, that is certain.

 

They don't come naturally in the sense that some people need to rely on the book and not on their own judgement.

 

The book they use--no matter which book it is--is incomplete about morality, so in fact they don't rely on the book at all. They make a moral decision and then use the book to justify it. The reason why religion is always last on the moral bandwagon demonstrates this to be so.

 

Inquisition was stopped by Napoleon Bonaparte, in a fight for power.

 

Actually, the Enlightenment was the beginning of the end for the Inquisition.

 

The reasons for that were purely political and economical.

 

As are they all.

 

That was just one more victory of feminism.

 

Be that as it may, religion fought against women voting, birht control, etc. because of what their book says. It wasn't Christians leading the way in women's rights. Or minority rights, for that matter.

[sb129]

Be that as it may, religion fought against women voting, birht control, etc. because of what their book says. It wasn't Christians leading the way in women's rights. Or minority rights, for that matter.

 

 

Ain't that the truth. I am proud to be from first western country that gave women the vote, New Zealand, in 1893.

 

I think much of that had to do with the fact that the country's government was new (under 150yrs old), and relatively secular due to the fact that the country wasn't settled by missionaries, wasn't tied too tightly to Mother Englands apron strings, and they actually let the indigenous people have a say in the government. (Not as much as they should have, but more than others have.)

[JamesM]

Moai, welcome back. I hope that time of comedy was also relaxing. And it is good to see your response to this thread. Your answers as usual are well thought out.

 

I have some questions and responses. I do not say I have all of the answers and if I read your responses, you do not not think I have any. So be it.

 

First, the evolution of consciene fits perfectly into current evolutionary theory. It is complex, but to put it simply, the creatures that ccooperate better have a better chance of surviving to pass on their genetic material.

 

You may be right, but if I am reading your example given...what you have described is how we learn behavior. And yes, this is passed on from generation to generation. People and animals have learned that cooperating through teamwork results in greater "production." This is a kind of synergistic relationship. So, when the tall men and women worked together, they learned that this resulted in more fruit picked. As their children grew, they also learned this behavior. But when children are born, they are not born as "cooperaters." In fact, that is part of the learning experience as children. As they get older, they learn to play together. It is around 2 years old that they learn to cooperate and play with other children. And teamwork does not come naturally to those who play sports as an example. Part of a good coach is one who can get the stars to work as a team. (Think Shaq and Kobe in NBA).

 

As any parent knows, children do not come with instructions. And we are no born parents. By this point, one would assume that we should be genetically wired to take care of our off spring, yes? We know that we should, but we do not know how. A maternal instinct is diferent than a knowledge of raising children. And not everyone has that instinct either.

 

So, maybe the example was not explained as well as you meant. Unless I read it wrong, this example does not compare to an inborn conscience.

 

As far as morality goes, it is a result of culture.

 

We agree. This is rather obvious. But is morality the same as the knowledge of right and wrong, or are no people born with that knowledge?

 

 

Consider slavery. There is not one word in the Bible that says slavery is wrong.

 

As a president said too often, "There you go again." While you are the library, tak a trip to the section that has Bibles, and do some research. While in one sense you have some truth to your statement, the kind of slavery that you are most referring to is not condoned in the Bible. In fact in the Old Testament, there is a law that states, "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16) If you doubt the context, feel free to red the rest in the Bible. I think that this clearly shows that forced slavery is not condoned.

 

So, obviously, slavery during Old Testament times was not what we recognize as slavery in the US when Africans were captured and forcibly brought to work on plantations. And since it doesn't seem that there was a welfare program like many countries now have for ancient Middle Easterners who could not provide a living for themselves, the poor would by necessity sell themselves into "slavery" or servanthood. In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.

 

So, when we read the Bible, we see many rules for masters and slaves. These are there to protect the slaves from mistreatment. I could go into detail as to what they are, but I suggest that a good commentary of the Bible could help you find such verses. And Paul did write to Philemon, a "slave" owner, with even a strong suggestion that as a Christian, he should set his slave free.

 

And when we read many verses in the Bible, they indicate that God sees everyone as equals. He does not put slaves in a lower class. Look up Gal 3:28, Eph 6:8 &9, Col 3:11. These are just some that show that God does not treat slaves as less of a person.

 

The idea that God approves of slavery is false. In fact, as you would see, anyone selling someone into slavery is punishable by up to death. But voluntary slavery was prevalent due to poverty. In that case, the Bible did give rules as to how masters should treat slaves, etc.

 

Yes, there were "Christians" who had slaves in the South, and there were Christians in the North who spoke out against it. This does not say one way or another what the Bible says about slavery. And this certainly was not about secular people fighting Christian people in a battle about slavery. In fact, when I read about the Civil War, many historians have written that slavery was not the deciding factor that led to the Civil War. While you are at the library, check out the Civil War history section.

 

And now, women's rights. Is there one passage in ANY holy book that speaks to the equality of women?

 

I have to say, Moai, when I read your post, I was impressed. You seemed to hit all of the major morality topics in one post.

 

It looks like that we now move on to feminism. You ask for one passage. Hopefully what I have written will satisfy that.

 

And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:27)

 

This verse implies right at the beginning of the Bible that God "thought" that both man and woman was created in His Image. God created woman as a helper to man.

 

Oh oh, that will bring up another question, so I will answer that. Helper was not subservient. This same word used here for Eve is also used to describe God in relationship to man. See Ex 18:4; Deut 33: 7, 26, 29; Psalm 33:20; Ps 70:5; Ps 89:19; Ps 115:9; Ps 115:10, 11; Ps 146:5; Hosea 13:9. These are some of them. So clearly, a "helpmeet" is not equal to a servant.

 

Now when we read the Bible, we would assume from what you said that women are just a mother or servant, yes? the answer is the opposite. In the OT already, we have women who are in roles of authority. There is Deborah, the judge and ruler over Israel and there are many others who were in commanding roles. There were many prophetesses who spoke to the people. In the NT, we read of may deaconesses who helped and ruled in the Church. Clearly, this does not show that women had not equal role to men in the Bible.

 

Plus let us not forget the books of the Bible that were written about women. The books of Esther and Ruth come to mind immediately. One was about a queen of Persia and the other is about a woman who is not even a Jew. Throughout the Bible, we see great importance put on women and from what they did, great things occurred.

 

Read the many stories about Jesus and how He treated women. I think that is a good example of how God views women.

 

Based on your knowledge, you also probably knew that whenever God refers to His Church, the Church is a "she." In the Old Testament, God's people are the "daughters of Zion." The Church or body of Christ (including us men) is referred to as the "bride" of Christ and God is said to be our "husband." In addition, the Greek word for church is a feminine noun. So, clearly God thought that women were not less than men.

 

As for Paul and women, let me quote just one passage, since you said I only needed one..."There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. " (Galatians 3:28) Does this sound like women are treated less than men?

 

Where in the Bible does it say that it is wrong to sleep with my 12 year-old cousin? Where is the advice on dealing with the elderly?

 

I hope this is a bit of a rhetorical question, because we all know that there are many guildelines for sexual behavior. The Bible is clear that sexual intimacy should be kept within the bonds of marriage. I doubt that it needs to specify all of the many ways sex should not be utilized. I am guessing that if it specified not to have sex with your 12 yr old cousin, then someone would raise the question that this does not apply to a 14 year old cousin. That would be absurd. Sex outside of marriage is not condoned...whether you want to agree with that or not.

 

As for the elderly, I don't have a specific verse at hand, but this I know, the Mid Eastern culture placed older people on a bit of a pedestal. Age equalled wisdom. I do not think that it was as necessary as it is today to specify how to treat them. This was well known.

 

Now, one can say that animals don't believe in god, but we have no way of knowing. No animal besides man engages in woshipping activity, certainly. But if animals do believe in god, it is a safe bet that their god looks like them.

 

I have never taken a philosophy or debating class, but I think this fails on some logical fallacy position. And if you want to use history as an example of how gods looked, many many gods have not been human looking. The Egyptians had many half aniumal/half human gods. One of my favorite TV shows on Sci Fi called Stargate uses alot of this history and creates quite a great storyline. In India, cows are considered sacred. So when we refer to man and his gods, then he has not created simply human looking gods.

 

As for man creating God, this goes into another area, but I am willing to guess that the God of the Bible is not what man would have created. But as for God being human like, the Bible says that man was created in God's Image not vice versa.

 

I am sure by now you woke up from your nap, but I look forward to hearing from you. Now I need some lunch.

[JamesM]

Animals don't love at all in the way humans mean it, by definition.

 

First, another thing we agree on...animals and humans love differently. As much as I love animals and see that my dogs "love" me, I am well aware that I may be applying human emotions to them.

 

Morals do come naturally. Otherwise, we wouldn't have them.

 

So, they are inborn? Or are they learned? I don't think the Bible says (since that is where the handing down of 10 commandments is recorded) that Man did not know them prior. Already in the beginning of Genesis, Cain murdered Abel. And it records that he knew that this was wrong and was punished for his deed. And even in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve knew that they had disobeyed God. They knew right from wrong.

 

We do learn proper behavior as we grow. No question about it, but I don't think these morals just come naturally. I don't have them here, but when I took Sociology, I do recall that studies have been done showing what happens when children have been raised with hugs, without hugs, with other children, without other children, etc. I think this showed that these interactions are needed for proper growth.

 

Morality and the human condition has improved exponentially since the Enlightenment, and that is because people began to address moral issues rationally instead of consulting a book written by primitives.

 

I am willing to guess that if you check out statistics and history, you will find that the human condition and the morals have not increased exponentially since the Enlightenment. Now if you mean, health and medical discoveries...then yes. If you mean education and technological discoveries...no doubt about it. Many new discoveries have been made that lengthened the lives of people and healed diseases. And we could go on and on about new technologies. But when you look at history prior to the Dark Ages for instance, you see that this is when the human race took a bit of a dive as far as their condition. Early civilizations such as Egyptians and Sumerians had quite advanced societies for what they had discovered. But as with your or I on a much smaller scale, the human race will become "smarter" and more educated as they discover new technologies. This is not evolution at work. This is education and recorded achievements.

 

As for morals, then I guess one has to define what we mean by morals. Now a days, with a relevatistic thought, there are no morals, your rights and wrongs may not be mine. But when you refer to murders and other atrocities, this is not true. Think back on the 20th Century alone. The atrocities of Hitler's Germany and many others come to mind. And in th US, you brought up the slavery issue in the 19th Century. Overall, no, the morals have not progressively "evolved."

 

This is self-evident. Did the Inquisition stop because a new scripture was disovered that trumped the "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" passage? Did slavery end in the civilized world because suddenly the Holy Spirit helped us interpret scripture correctly (finally)? Can women (and minorities) vote now because God handed down more tablets with new instructions?

 

No, but when we read the history of the Inquisition, we see that men used the name of the Church and the Bible to abuse power. And they used it against other Christians. The Inquisition was not specifically a "Christian versus non-Christian" atrocity. It certainly not was strictly a witch hunt.

 

We have to also realize that just because man uses the Bible to justify his atrocities does not mean that the Bible really does justify his atrocities.

 

If we go back through history, we will see that many Christians and other religionsists have been murdered because they believed in a God. The people behind this...atheists. Does that alone invalidate atheism? No, these atrcocities in both cases have been committed in the name of total power. It is intended to dominate others...no matter whose name it is committed under.

 

The book they use--no matter which book it is--is incomplete about morality, so in fact they don't rely on the book at all. They make a moral decision and then use the book to justify it. The reason why religion is always last on the moral bandwagon demonstrates this to be so.

 

While this may be true in some cases (wrongfully so), this is not true all of the time. And as I stated above, men are always going to say they are Christians and justify their actions based on the Bible, but this does not mean that the Bible justifies their actions or beliefs.

 

Does the Koran justify killing 3000 plus people in the WTC ? No, I don't believe so, nor do most Muslims. But the terrorists said it did...or shall I say, they used it to justify their actions. And so it goes.

 

In the Abrahamic tradition God is certainly jealous and punishes those who worship differently--or at least requires his followers to do so. One wonders why a being that could create the Universe and all that is in it would care what little bits of protoplasm think about him, or needs themm to grovel in front of him. Or even demands credit for it, now that I think about it.

 

One does wonder why man would "create" such a God, huh? Why not create one who lets man do what he wants? Since you mentioned in an earlier post that you felt man created God, then I thought it was appropriate to point out that this proves that man would not have created such a God.

 

And yes, one does wonder why a God would care about man? No question about it. But...and I know you will groan at this....who can know the mind of God? (please don't start a post off that one sentence. )

 

Please give me an example where God demands credit for something. I am not saying it isn't in the Bible, but help me find it.

 

God does demand love and worship, but He gives man a choice. Salvation is given to those who ask.

[nittygritty]

Buddhism postulates no diety, so that's one. Ba'hai suggests that all religions are worshipping the same god differently, so in a sense nobody is sinning in that way--except for people like me who don't believe in god at all.

 

And the point isn't whether or not all sins are shared, the question is why the sins are so different. The Norse gods didn't care if you believed in them or not, and I don't think that the Greek gods did either. Certainly, a person could anger them, but I am not aware of one myth where one of them got mad at a person for not believing in them.

 

In the Abrahamic tradition God is certainly jealous and punishes those who worship differently--or at least requires his followers to do so. One wonders why a being that could create the Universe and all that is in it would care what little bits of protoplasm think about him, or needs themm to grovel in front of him. Or even demands credit for it, now that I think about it.

 

If I give some possessions to Salvation Army I don't care if I get any credit for it or not. If someone is hungry I'll feed them regardless of what their opinion is on the origin of the Universe. That is not so for the Most Powerful Being In The Universe, is it?

 

I have read beofre that one must be humble before god, etc., but it strikes me as the height of arrogance to suggest that the entire Universe was created just for us, and that out of the infinite Universe we are most important and that we are all that god cares about.

 

Many people consider Buddhism as a Philosophy not a Religion. I don't live a Buddhist lifestyle so I don't know but I did read that some Buddhist do believe and worship a God, so I would imagine that it would be a sin for them. There are also many Athiest who practice a Buddhist lifestyle which is why I tend to think that its more of a Philosophy than a Religion. Perhaps a Buddhist will be able to explain what Buddhism is and whether they consider it to be a Philosophy or Religion.

 

Religions that worship a God would probably consider it to be a sin to not believe in that God.

[Moai]

Moai, welcome back. I hope that time of comedy was also relaxing. And it is good to see your response to this thread. Your answers as usual are well thought out.

 

Thank you.

 

I have some questions and responses. I do not say I have all of the answers and if I read your responses, you do not not think I have any. So be it.

 

Don't be so hard on yourself!

 

You may be right, but if I am reading your example given...what you have described is how we learn behavior. And yes, this is passed on from generation to generation. People and animals have learned that cooperating through teamwork results in greater "production." This is a kind of synergistic relationship.

 

Learning cooperation within the ulture is learned, cooperation itself is innate. Not all life forms need to cooperate, and those that don't--well, they don't. Sharks, for example, have no need to ooperate so they don't. Hyenas need to cooperate, so they do.

 

In humans this phenomenon is certainly more complex as we cooperate on an extrememly high level, but if such a trait were not innate it would never exist to be taught in the first place. It is true that some people cooperate better than others.

 

So, when the tall men and women worked together, they learned that this resulted in more fruit picked. As their children grew, they also learned this behavior. But when children are born, they are not born as "cooperaters." In fact, that is part of the learning experience as children.

 

They are born to cooperate. That doesn't mean that they "know" the parameters of such cooperation. How humans cooperate and what cooperation means in a human sense is part of morality, and changes over time. This must be so, or I would not be sitting here typing this.

 

As they get older, they learn to play together. It is around 2 years old that they learn to cooperate and play with other children. And teamwork does not come naturally to those who play sports as an example. Part of a good coach is one who can get the stars to work as a team. (Think Shaq and Kobe in NBA).

 

Certainly some people cooperate better than others. If selection pressure were to act on the instance you describe, Shaq and Kobe would be abandoned at some point and wouldn't survive to pass on their genetic material.

 

As any parent knows, children do not come with instructions. And we are no born parents. By this point, one would assume that we should be genetically wired to take care of our off spring, yes? We know that we should, but we do not know how. A maternal instinct is diferent than a knowledge of raising children. And not everyone has that instinct either.

 

We are genetically wired to take care of our offspring. People have been raising children without instructions for most of the time we have existed. I think Dr. Spock is the first to write a manual, but that is just off the top of my head...the point is, that we are great child rearers. The fact that some individfuals aren't is irrelevant.

 

So, maybe the example was not explained as well as you meant. Unless I read it wrong, this example does not compare to an inborn conscience.

 

It does. The instinct humans have to help one another is innate, not learned. Sadly, when you tack on trbalism (which is also innate) you get the sense of "other" who must not be helped or destroyed. Religion is a great example of tribalism gone haywire.

 

Just because it is innate in humans to be altruistic to one another it doesn't follow that it isn't in our nature to kill one another. WE can and od learn quite readily, and it is time that people learn we are all one people, and that any differences--no matter how great they may seem--are really trivial and in some cases illusory. If we can't figure that out, we will destroy ourselves, which we are on the cusp of doing in my view.

 

We agree. This is rather obvious. But is morality the same as the knowledge of right and wrong, or are no people born with that knowledge?

 

Morality is the application of the concept of right and wrong.

 

As a president said too often, "There you go again." While you are the library, tak a trip to the section that has Bibles, and do some research. While in one sense you have some truth to your statement, the kind of slavery that you are most referring to is not condoned in the Bible.

 

I have, and what I say is true. There is not one passage that condemns slavery.

 

In fact in the Old Testament, there is a law that states, "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16) If you doubt the context, feel free to red the rest in the Bible. I think that this clearly shows that forced slavery is not condoned.

 

Read further. The chapter to which you refer is all about the rules for slaves, and the passage you reference is about stealing a slave, not kidnapping someone. If that were so, why all the rules above that about who the slave's children belong to, etc.?

 

There is not one passage where anyone in the Bible says, "Slavery is wrong. All men are free individuals and owning another human being is immoral and barbaric."

 

So, obviously, slavery during Old Testament times was not what we recognize as slavery in the US when Africans were captured and forcibly brought to work on plantations. And since it doesn't seem that there was a welfare program like many countries now have for ancient Middle Easterners who could not provide a living for themselves, the poor would by necessity sell themselves into "slavery" or servanthood. In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.

 

No offense, but I have read this ad hoc explanation before and it is total crap. The Bible has rules for beating your slaves, keeping their children, and what is owed to the owner of a slave if another injures him.

 

Why redefine slavery? Didn't the Hebrews beat theirs--as is learn they did by reading scripture?

 

Certainly, the Bible is contradictory about slavery if we read it broadly, but any honest reading of the Bible shows that God condones slavery. If it didn't Christians and Jews would never have owned slaves, right? There are certainly passages where god prohibits enslaving another Hebrew, but that is not an indictment of slavery itself.

 

Consider that Fredick Douglas wrote that when his master became a devout Christian he became more brutal, as he understood that he was doing god's will. Or the example of Mark Twain's grandmother who felt pity for Satan, but thought nothing of slaves since she had never heard a sermon condemning slavery.

 

So, when we read the Bible, we see many rules for masters and slaves. These are there to protect the slaves from mistreatment. I could go into detail as to what they are, but I suggest that a good commentary of the Bible could help you find such verses. And Paul did write to Philemon, a "slave" owner, with even a strong suggestion that as a Christian, he should set his slave free.

 

I have read many a commentary, some better than others--some downright nutty and offensive.

 

And when we read many verses in the Bible, they indicate that God sees everyone as equals. He does not put slaves in a lower class. Look up Gal 3:28, Eph 6:8 &9, Col 3:11. These are just some that show that God does not treat slaves as less of a person.

 

Really. I suppose you're right, as god says it is ok to beat your slaves (Exodus 21:20-21) and your children as well (Proverbs 13:24). Interestingly, the Bible is where the Inquisition got the idea that torture purifies people. Proverbs 20:30 "The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil, so do stripes inward parts of the belly."

 

Do you believe that is true, or was ever true?

 

The idea that God approves of slavery is false. In fact, as you would see, anyone selling someone into slavery is punishable by up to death. But voluntary slavery was prevalent due to poverty. In that case, the Bible did give rules as to how masters should treat slaves, etc.

 

Patently, demonstrably false. If you persist in this point, I would like some references please. Every theology teacher, anthropology teacher, and history teacher I have ever had is dead wrong if what you assert is the case.

 

Considering that we humans have figured out a better welfare system than slavery, why couldn't god? It would have been easy for him, since he is god, and then look at all the suffering that could have been avoided. Also, why did it take believers 1800 years to figure out that god doesn't like slavery, if it is so apparent in the Bible?

 

Yes, there were "Christians" who had slaves in the South, and there were Christians in the North who spoke out against it.

 

The Christians in the North were late-comers to the emancipation movement. Look it up.

 

This does not say one way or another what the Bible says about slavery.

 

Really? Where do Christians get their rules from, then? If the Bible can be used by one group to say one thing and another group to say another thing, what good is it? I have read sermons both for and against slavery from that era, two from Methodists, one on each side of the Mason-Dixon line!

 

And this certainly was not about secular people fighting Christian people in a battle about slavery. In fact, when I read about the Civil War, many historians have written that slavery was not the deciding factor that led to the Civil War. While you are at the library, check out the Civil War history section.

 

Yeah, and you should read it, instead of just persuing and looking at the things that agree with your preconeived view. I hope you are not suggesting that the Civil War did not end slavery in the United States...

 

I have to say, Moai, when I read your post, I was impressed. You seemed to hit all of the major morality topics in one post.

 

It looks like that we now move on to feminism. You ask for one passage. Hopefully what I have written will satisfy that.

 

And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:27)

 

This verse implies right at the beginning of the Bible that God "thought" that both man and woman was created in His Image. God created woman as a helper to man.

 

What about the rib Creation story? Woman is responsible for man's fall, so god inreased her pain in childbirth, and women have been persecuted for that ever since. Are you aware of the daily Hebrew prayer where men thank god for not being born female?

 

Oh oh, that will bring up another question, so I will answer that. Helper was not subservient. This same word used here for Eve is also used to describe God in relationship to man. See Ex 18:4; Deut 33: 7, 26, 29; Psalm 33:20; Ps 70:5; Ps 89:19; Ps 115:9; Ps 115:10, 11; Ps 146:5; Hosea 13:9. These are some of them. So clearly, a "helpmeet" is not equal to a servant.

 

Whatever. Your position is untenable, since those who were given the Bible in the first place treated women horrifically. Why would god give them a book he knew they couldn't understand?

 

Now when we read the Bible, we would assume from what you said that women are just a mother or servant, yes? the answer is the opposite. In the OT already, we have women who are in roles of authority. There is Deborah, the judge and ruler over Israel and there are many others who were in commanding roles. There were many prophetesses who spoke to the people. In the NT, we read of may deaconesses who helped and ruled in the Church. Clearly, this does not show that women had not equal role to men in the Bible.

 

Nope. Not even close. Given the contradictions in the Bible I am sure we can trade verses all day, but suffice it to say that Exodus 20:17 pretty much covers it: "You shall not covet your neighbors house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." That clearly meansn women are PROPERTY.

 

God also commands that MEN should come before him. At no time does he want women to come to him. And the word used for "man" is the gender specific, not the one synonmous with "human". In Leviticus we read that when a woman gives birth to a boy she is more "clean"than if she has a girl (Leviticus 12:2).

 

Plus let us not forget the books of the Bible that were written about women. The books of Esther and Ruth come to mind immediately. One was about a queen of Persia and the other is about a woman who is not even a Jew. Throughout the Bible, we see great importance put on women and from what they did, great things occurred.

 

Yep. And last I checked, there are arguments as to whether Esther was really a hero, whether the books themselves were doctored, etc. As far as Ruth goes, do you really think that is a good way to get a husband?

 

Read the many stories about Jesus and how He treated women. I think that is a good example of how God views women.

 

Or read Exodus and Deutoronomy and Leviticus to see how god views women.

 

Based on your knowledge, you also probably knew that whenever God refers to His Church, the Church is a "she." In the Old Testament, God's people are the "daughters of Zion." The Church or body of Christ (including us men) is referred to as the "bride" of Christ and God is said to be our "husband." In addition, the Greek word for church is a feminine noun. So, clearly God thought that women were not less than men.

 

Uh-huh. Not only is that just weird, it has nothing to do with how god views women. Using marriage as a metaphor the Church would have to be female, since god is male. By the way, why does an omnipotent super-being there is only one of have gender?

 

As for Paul and women, let me quote just one passage, since you said I only needed one..."There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. " (Galatians 3:28) Does this sound like women are treated less than men?

 

It doesn't have anything to do with how women are treated. If it did, it would imply that sex was now unnecessary beause we no longer have gender, which is silly. Saying that women can go to Heaven or follow Jesus doesn't imply that they are treated as equals--which history shows they clearly were not. If your position is the correct one, why is it that only now is the Holy Spirit revealing it?

 

I hope this is a bit of a rhetorical question, because we all know that there are many guildelines for sexual behavior. The Bible is clear that sexual intimacy should be kept within the bonds of marriage. I doubt that it needs to specify all of the many ways sex should not be utilized. I am guessing that if it specified not to have sex with your 12 yr old cousin, then someone would raise the question that this does not apply to a 14 year old cousin. That would be absurd. Sex outside of marriage is not condoned...whether you want to agree with that or not.

 

No, it isn't. Why can't I marry my 12 year-old cousin? If I did, then sex with her would be ok, right?

 

It would be easy to cover this for god, I would think. I can do it now, in fact. "Do not have sex with anyone who is under 18, or any of your own sisters or brothers. Do not have sex with your parents, and don't have sex with any of your sibling's children."

 

And what about Lot's daughters? They get him drunk and sleep with him so he will impregnate them. IS that morally respectable? And why does a woman who gets pregnant through rape have to marry her rapist? Does that sound remotely moral to you--or uplifting for women?

 

As for the elderly, I don't have a specific verse at hand, but this I know, the Mid Eastern culture placed older people on a bit of a pedestal. Age equalled wisdom. I do not think that it was as necessary as it is today to specify how to treat them. This was well known.

 

Asian cultures rever age as well. But in current US culture the elderly are put in homes and ignored, as if they are a burden. Where in the Bible does it say that is the right idea? Or wrong?

 

I have never taken a philosophy or debating class, but I think this fails on some logical fallacy position. And if you want to use history as an example of how gods looked, many many gods have not been human looking. The Egyptians had many half aniumal/half human gods. One of my favorite TV shows on Sci Fi called Stargate uses alot of this history and creates quite a great storyline. In India, cows are considered sacred. So when we refer to man and his gods, then he has not created simply human looking gods.

 

Naturism postulates non-human or semi-human gods, that is true. But the Godhead, or Big Cheese, if you will, is always in human form. The Egyptians used animal forms to represent different gods because they had no other way to define them Horus was human, as was Osiris. At the very least, all of the gods are anthropomorphic.

 

Cows are sacred, not god in Hinduism. And they do have a god that looks like an elephant, and one with lots of arms, but again they can change form and these effigies are representative of their power, not their "true form." As usual, religious iconography is not that simple.

 

In a basic sense, though, humans create human gods. And they used to walk around and interact with us. But as science advances, that has been shown to not happe, so god became a "spirit" that is "everywhere." Now he only exists in the places where we haven't figured things out yet. Smaller, and smaller, and smaller...

 

As for man creating God, this goes into another area, but I am willing to guess that the God of the Bible is not what man would have created. But as for God being human like, the Bible says that man was created in God's Image not vice versa.

 

Why not? If you look at all the gods that man has invented, why is Jehovah different? Given their limited understanding of the world around them, I think that their god was a pretty good description of what they saw as happening. A jealous, malicious, psychopathic maniac.

 

I am aware that the Bible says we are created in god's image. Think about that. Isn't that just a little nutty? Are apes his first shot at it and didn't quite make it? Why are we so close to chimpanzees in form and behavior? We are 98% the same as thy genetically. Are they modeled after god's retarded older brother, or what?

 

And if god has a body, that implies that he is limited by time and space, and so can't BE everywhere all the time, right?

 

I am sure by now you woke up from your nap, but I look forward to hearing from you. Now I need some lunch.

 

I hope you enjoy your meal.

[Moai]

First, another thing we agree on...animals and humans love differently. As much as I love animals and see that my dogs "love" me, I am well aware that I may be applying human emotions to them.

 

That is good. We humans have a tendency to anthropomorphie everything, and it is dangerous.

 

So, they are inborn? Or are they learned? I don't think the Bible says (since that is where the handing down of 10 commandments is recorded) that Man did not know them prior. Already in the beginning of Genesis, Cain murdered Abel. And it records that he knew that this was wrong and was punished for his deed. And even in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve knew that they had disobeyed God. They knew right from wrong.

 

So why are the Commandments even necessary in that case?

 

We do learn proper behavior as we grow. No question about it, but I don't think these morals just come naturally. I don't have them here, but when I took Sociology, I do recall that studies have been done showing what happens when children have been raised with hugs, without hugs, with other children, without other children, etc. I think this showed that these interactions are needed for proper growth.

 

It is innate, but it is shaped by culture. And the culture shapes behavior it values or that suits it.

 

I am willing to guess that if you check out statistics and history, you will find that the human condition and the morals have not increased exponentially since the Enlightenment.

 

I have, and they have. And are continuing to improve. We don't burn witches anymore, for one thing. A single woman with children carries far less stigma now than it did even twenty years ago. When my mother divorced my father a divorced woman was seen in not the most positive light, and now it is no big deal. As a side note, my mother had a college eucation and had the same job for fifteen years, but after the divorce nobody would give her a credit card save Shell (this is back in the 60s). She is a fiercely loyal customer to them, as you may imagine.

 

Now if you mean, health and medical discoveries...then yes. If you mean education and technological discoveries...no doubt about it. Many new discoveries have been made that lengthened the lives of people and healed diseases. And we could go on and on about new technologies. But when you look at history prior to the Dark Ages for instance, you see that this is when the human race took a bit of a dive as far as their condition.

 

It wasn't that great before that. The Dark Ages were when religion had the power in the West, by the way.

 

Early civilizations such as Egyptians and Sumerians had quite advanced societies for what they had discovered. But as with your or I on a much smaller scale, the human race will become "smarter" and more educated as they discover new technologies. This is not evolution at work. This is education and recorded achievements.

 

There were advanced civilizations in the Americas, but they still sacrificed humans. Technological advancement isn't the same as moral advancement necessarily.

 

We aren't becoming smarter, we just understand more. And the more we understand, the better we treat each other. It is no coincidence that the areas of the planet that experience the most human rights abuses are the most ignorant.

 

As for morals, then I guess one has to define what we mean by morals. Now a days, with a relevatistic thought, there are no morals, your rights and wrongs may not be mine. But when you refer to murders and other atrocities, this is not true. Think back on the 20th Century alone. The atrocities of Hitler's Germany and many others come to mind. And in th US, you brought up the slavery issue in the 19th Century. Overall, no, the morals have not progressively "evolved."

 

Christians are the relativisitic ones, not me. Look at how morality changes but the book stays the same. And yes, morals have evolved.

 

Relativism is not the same thing as your morality being different from mine. Absolute morality doesn't change. Murder is wrong, rape is wrong, theft is wrong. And it is for everyone. But when you apply your idea of sexual morality, say, to the equation then it is up to the individual culture. And Western cultures are fluid in this area (which is good).

 

No, but when we read the history of the Inquisition, we see that men used the name of the Church and the Bible to abuse power. And they used it against other Christians. The Inquisition was not specifically a "Christian versus non-Christian" atrocity. It certainly not was strictly a witch hunt.

 

It was a tool to battle heresy. And we consider it an abuse of power, they saw it as just "power" which was given to them by god. And they had all the Biblical reasons they needed. Read Malleus Maleficarum.

 

We have to also realize that just because man uses the Bible to justify his atrocities does not mean that the Bible really does justify his atrocities.

 

Yes, it does. You imply that you or I can somehow derive the correct interpretation while others cannot. The fact that the Bible can be used to justify anything should be evidence enough that god had nothing to do with writing it.

 

If we go back through history, we will see that many Christians and other religionsists have been murdered because they believed in a God. The people behind this...atheists.

 

Nope. Athiests have been killed at the hands of the religiouis far more than the other. And more Christians have been killed by other Christians than any other group.

 

I imagine you are refering to the purges under Stalin or the killings under Mao. The people killed in this instance were not killed BECAUSE they were Christians (or Buddhist in Mao's case) but because they were a threat to their power. Big difference. When the atheists were killed, it was for that reason.

 

Does that alone invalidate atheism? No, these atrcocities in both cases have been committed in the name of total power. It is intended to dominate others...no matter whose name it is committed under.

 

There is no doctrine of Atheism that suggests killing those who disagree with atheism. There are many passages in many religious books that instruct believers to kill non-believers. Big difference.

 

While this may be true in some cases (wrongfully so), this is not true all of the time. And as I stated above, men are always going to say they are Christians and justify their actions based on the Bible, but this does not mean that the Bible justifies their actions or beliefs.

 

See above. This is also a No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

Does the Koran justify killing 3000 plus people in the WTC ? No, I don't believe so, nor do most Muslims. But the terrorists said it did...or shall I say, they used it to justify their actions. And so it goes.

 

Actually, it does.

 

One does wonder why man would "create" such a God, huh? Why not create one who lets man do what he wants? Since you mentioned in an earlier post that you felt man created God, then I thought it was appropriate to point out that this proves that man would not have created such a God.

 

Nope. Fear of death is part of it, as is a perverse fear of sexuality.

 

And yes, one does wonder why a God would care about man? No question about it. But...and I know you will groan at this....who can know the mind of God? (please don't start a post off that one sentence. )

 

If we can't know the mind of god, how do you know that sex should only be within marriage? Because the Bible says so? How do we know that the writiers of the Bible knew the mind of god? And on and on and on....

 

Please give me an example where God demands credit for something. I am not saying it isn't in the Bible, but help me find it.

 

God does demand love and worship, but He gives man a choice. Salvation is given to those who ask.

 

What do you think worship and praise is?

[quankanne]

God is not a person. Worshipping a person is idolatry.

 

ummm, God actually became “the word Incarnate” and took on human form through Christ. If you remember the theology of the Trinity, there’s God the Father (God), God the Son (Jesus) and God the Spirit (the Holy Spirit). Kinda like water can be solid, liquid or gas, but it’s still water!

 

Incidentally, I'm not asking for you to speak for Moose; I just noticed that he posted his comments within a couple minutes of yours, assumed he hadn't seen yours, and wondered what he thought of the contrast.

 

I think Moose and I tend to tag-team when it comes to spirituality: He knows the Bible pretty well and can give example from it, but when it seems that the point is overlooked or misunderstood, I try to spit it out in a different way. And it’s kind of funny, when you think about it, a Protestant and a Catholic tag-teaming for Jesus