FarSeeker

I'm taking time to prepare a larger post, but I thought these points might be interesting:

FarSeeker:
>Atheism doesn’t clearly oppose slavery or the oppression of women.

Which means there are many different secular moralities. Now what was it that an Atheist said about a multitude of options? Oh, this is what he said:

There are, for example, so many different secular moralities -- each of them claiming to have the truth, each saying that their truths are clearly superior to the truths of others -- how can someone possibly take any of them seriously? I mean, that's insane.

More Clarke-isms?
"Of those around at the moment, Islam is the only one that has any appeal to me. But, of course, Islam has been tainted by other influences. The Muslims are behaving like Christians, I'm afraid."

"And, as you know, Islam helped rescue Western civilization from the Dark Ages by preserving classical texts and transmitting them to the west. We on the other hand, burned the library at Alexandria. If Islam hadn't fallen into internecine warfare and had gone on to conquer the rest of Europe, we'd have avoided a thousand years of Christian barbarism." _Free Iquiry,_ Spring 1999, p. 37


DP:
"But Islam is diametrically opposed to western thought, its religious beliefs and way of life."
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Tell me, who really burned the Alexandrian Library? Never mind, too far off topic. But you gotta love the studious, well informed, intelligent people -- who are always right because they say so -- Atheists listen to.

They inspire such trust.

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: FarSeeker ]</p>

FarSeeker

Well, I was hoping to speed this along, but I guess we'll do this by the numbers (actually Deuteronomy 30:11-20).
The New International Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House) 1984.

Now, God would not be asking man to make a decision unless man was free to make a decision. That is Free Will. You can choose God, or you can reject Him, it's your free will.

As a side thought:
A question I want to ask you developed from an _Analog_ story. You have a time machine that can only transport you back 100 yrs. and due to the physical laws of time travel you can only remain there for 24 hrs. before some law of non-contradiction erases you from the timeline. But you can go anywhere on Earth. You have cancer, and will die within a year, and cannot trust anyone else with this technology. Do you go back and kill Hitler as a child, or not?

David M. Payne

Well FS, I got 23 hits when I ran the words “free will” in my search program. Only these two below had the words together though, the rest just had the words in the same passage, but not together. For example this passage has free and will, but not in any context that would signify that God was trying to give man free will.
Samuel17:25 And the men of Israel said, Have ye seen this man that is come up? surely to defy Israel is he come up: and it shall be, that the man who killeth him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and will give him his daughter, and make his father's house free in Israel.
Ezra7:13 I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and their priests and the Levites, in my realm, that are minded of their own free will to go to Jerusalem, go with thee.
No relation to God granting man free will here.
Philemon1:14 but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
No relation to God doing it here either.
As for your passage, well you see it one way, and I don’t see what you see. We have a difference of opinion on it. So far it’s a draw. You produce a biblical passage that says “And God gave man free will,” and you get your “gotcha.”

David

FarSeeker

Well, you will have the same problem showing that Atheism supports compassion, equal rights, etc.



Well, this is a long time in coming, but it’s a long response and many need to be broken into a couple of separate post.

Let us look at DP’s post from another POV:

Why I fear Atheists.
In the late 1990’s there were roughly 1.9 billion Christians in the world (Encarta.com). While this is the largest religious group in the world, ahead of Muslims and Atheists, a casual reading of the media might lead one to think we’re all but non-existent – until someone claiming the name does something wrong. Sort of like a pin-on button I have which says: “When I’m right, nobody remembers, When I’m wrong, nobody forgets.” But as a Christian it’s with some measure of irony that I watch the condemnation of all Christians by Atheists and their fellows after the events of 9-11-2001. All this by the same people who turned a blind eye to the actions of their fellow Atheists over the past 200 years. We hear the anguished denunciations that those Atheists don’t represent the “True Atheist Religion.” Really.

Tho there are examples of good moral teachings to be found in Atheists’ books, there are also teachings found in them that can lead right to the acts perpetrated on us by Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others declarers of self-superiority.

Atheists will often point to dogmatism to explain away this murderous and barbaric behavior by other Atheists, but argue with them about it and they will be very dogmatic in their beliefs. Is that a reasonable position for a rational “freethinker.” Not in my book.

Alright now, let us take a look at the "Flood Killed Innocents" accusation.
Before The Noachian Flood (TNF), everything was different. People lived a hundreds of years. The environment was likely just as different as well with more water in to atmosphere, the Earth likely had a more even temperature (thermal capacity and transport would even out temperatures). Over-all a more benign environment; thus it is possible that there wasn’t the desperate need to raise as many children to help grow food (farming, herding, etc.). It is possible that decades or at least years could pass without a child being born, or existing under a theoretical age of responsibility. God could easily chosen such a period to cause the TNF, so no “innocent” child needs to have died in TNF. Read Genesis 6:11, 18; 7:7, 13; 8:15-16, 18; 9:7. Noah had only married sons and their wives, no grandchildren, or children under age.

So… with this possibility, not only is the scientific and historic BURDEN OF PROOF fall on DP (don’t you just hate it when the BOP bites you back there?) but so does the LEGAL BOP. Not that I think God could get a fair trial here.

But while you are considering this, ask yourselves these questions: Why did DP shift the BOP on me when it fall squarely on him? Was it an emotional reason – does he hate God and/or Christians? Why does DP demand Christians be judged by the actions of evil Muslims, and not good Christians or even good Muslims? DP does this while DEMANDING Atheism be judged ONLY by the actions of “good” Atheists. This, I think, is Atheism SOP: judge Christians by the worst, but Atheism by the best.

Yes, humans do have a lot of control, but no rational person would claim man has total control over this world. Especially over men’s own self. But as with my argument over the demands of Dr. Peter Singer has shown, religious teachings are not the only thing that can be misinterpreted by those in power. There is nothing in a morality made by men that cannot be changed by anyone who can, “rally the most votes, gain the most political power, buy the most TV time, gather the most marchers, shout the loudest – you name it.” When you set out to set up your new moral standard by consensus: you had better remember who you will have to contend with, and that you may reach a moral consensus you may hate. How? Will you exclude Dr. Singer and his supporters out of the process? How about Dr. Kinsey supporters and NAMBLA?

How do you know you’re even starting at the right point? E.g:

Twilight Zone, Episode No. 15
Air Date: January 24, 1986
A Small Talent for War
Starring: John Glover
Summary: Mankind unites after an alien ambassador comes to Earth and tells the UN that they are unhappy about our progress. But what the aliens really wanted were warriors, not peace-lovers.

Society had already chosen a morality. But when the murder of both unborn babies and partially born babies was made legal, just as when lynching were “overlooked” by the law, a minority highjacked that morality for their own sick preferences. The Chinese, Soviet and Nazi societies chose their own morals, and look what they got; are you going to say they were justified in their self-selected morals? China is still happily getting away with murder - literally! So I guess murder is moral in that Atheist society.

As Nietzsche and Sanger would say, self-superiority rules.

Wizardry condemns the acts he doesn’t agree with in the OT, but states:
Not fully realizing that those who committed the acts he and other here detest also created those morals he calls a good start.

Pandora
Yeah, there was a lot Hitler hated about religious people too.
Yeah, that’s probably the reason the ACLU supports the distribution of child pornography, they never washed their brains of the filth.
Yeah, a lot of people do act like animals, perhaps that shoots down the "Doesn’t the fact that we are the only intelligent animals, or that we are humans ourselves count for anything?" argument.

2 Chronicles 7:14
“and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

Psalm 10:17
O LORD, You have heard the desire of the humble; You will strengthen their heart,

Psalm 76:9
When God arose to judgment, To save all the humble of the earth.Selah.

Proverbs 11:2
When pride comes, then comes dishonor, But with the humble is wisdom.

The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation) 1996.

More later.

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: FarSeeker ]

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: FarSeeker ]

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: FarSeeker ]</p>

Brahma's atheist

You and Pandora have written almost everything I have thought.
If the gods existed they would all be the biggest mass murderers ever. Not only that they would be guilty of passive complicity, i.e. standing by while shit happens to their followers. Every god allows every attrocity commited by and against their people as well as commiting attrocities themselves. Look at how many civilisations have simply fizzled away or just been destroyed by others, they all had thier gods. Don't forget that the gods are the biggest abortionists aswell.
There is something in religious texts for everyone. You can love or slaughter. It's all sanctioned and the gods won't stand in your way in fact they encourage it.
Of course if the gods really existed the world really,really would not be the way it is. it would be more like Michael Moorcocks multiverse.Read his books their great.

David M. Payne

As this thread has gotten somewhat off track, I thought I would post these two essay links, the first by Bill Schultz, and the second by Don Morgan. I read them both when they were first published and found them to be excellent critiques of the bible and the God is good myth. <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/criminal-god.html" target="_blank">Is God A criminal?</a> and; <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html" target="_blank">Bible Atrocities</a>

David

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]</p>

DaveJes1979

wordsmyth
Dave: it is the Word of God, but it depends on what you mean by "literal".

Dave: to define a word according to its own native context IS objective. To abandon this method IS subjective. It is the author's intent that determines the meaning.

Dave: no one "imposes" personal interpretation if they follow proper rules of biblical exegesis - by allowing the author's intent and the native context to determine the interpretation - considerations which you are ignoring.


Dave: huh? When did I "attempt to change the context"???? I was appealing to the IMMEDIATE context of those terms. My interpretation takes into account all that the Bible (as a whole) and Genesis (immediately) say. Yours simply does not.

Dave: how, precisely am I "forcing the context" to fit my interpretation? This sort of vague criticism is hardly compelling. Please rebut the specific contextual issues I raised if you your criticism to hold water.

Dave: this quote is hardly penetrating. It fails to take into account that many "sects" form out of political - not theological or interpretive issues. It also ignores the possibility that it could be SIN that leads to theological error - not the Bible's lack of clarity.

Dave: actually, my original argument was worded like this: "To distinguish something is to passively understand or receive knowledge. To define something is to actively impose one's standard into existence."

Semantics aside, my argument is still maintained. There is still a sense in which we DO KNOW, and another sense in which we DON'T (because we reject that knowledge as such).

Dave: analogy is rather irrelevant in this case, as it is a unique (yet very fundamental) case of self-deception. If I were to offer one, I suppose you could imagine a speed law that is broken by a teenager. The teenager knows that it is the law, but rejects that law, as such, in favor of his own estimation of what a good speed limit is (his own law).

Dave: were you even paying attention?? Romans 3:

9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one....There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

You conveniently ommitted this portion of Paul's exposition - when it is the conclusion of all that has come before it!
Dave: why "should" it read like that?

Dave: this ignores the fact that the verbs here are past tense - this is the state of humanity until God grants men repentance (addressed in chaps. 4-8)

Dave: why do you assume that not everyone does evil?

Dave: this conditional clause does not rule out the idea that all have sinned.

Dave: actually, just after vs. 3 he says "let God be true and every man a liar" and ignores Paul's conclusion in vs. 9-23 cited above. You are also confusing the fact that obedience (following the law) is different from faith (I have faith, but I am still a lawbreaker because of remaining sin). This also ignores the fact that you cannot honestly interpret "no one" (a very exhaustive term) to be "only some" in light of the fact that Paul was pulling this phrase from a Psalm that was talking about God looking down from heaven onto earth.

Dave: the righteousness that is spoken of in the verses you cited above is not a native righteousness - it is the result of God's regenerating work. Paul is dealing with the fact that we are all lawbreakers UNTIL God saves us. Romans 5 continues:

6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--

Ahhhh, it all becomes clear when you actually follow Paul's line of thought to its conclusion!!!

Dave: I said "the church has no mandate". Why do you jump to the absurd conclusion that I believe that the mandate COMES from the church?? No, our mandates come from the New Testament.


Dave: that is a straw-man of the Christian conception of faith. Faith is the necessary foundation for proving anything at all.

Dave: let me repeat the challenge then. How does your atheistic worldview account for, say, the law of induction? Why do you expect that the world is in any way ordered? Please justify your assumption that the universe is ordered.
Dave: once again - no one is righteous is the pure sense of the word. We can only have a relative sense of righteousness as the result of God's renewing work. The reason why God did not kill Adam, Even, Noah, and many others is because God is pleased to have grace on some.

Dave: God was pleased to save, by grace, a remnant of people to be a testimony to His Name, to be His people.

Dave: yet you fail to tell us WHY God should be morally compelled to prevent such an act - or why this would alleviate the guilt of the actual perpetrators.

Dave: this long, tangential rant is devoid of any substantiation.

Dave: or it could be, as Christians contend, that God has a morally justified reason for foreordaining evil.

Dave: why, precisely, is it that your recognition of your own value leads you to recognize the value in others? Why should I be compelled to hold these values, epistemically? There are many who would disagree with your value system. Why should I subscribe to yours over theirs?


Dave: you haven't yet told us why you care about the conditions of others. OK, other people want to survive. So? Maybe I should prioritize my want to survive over others. And your assumption that others share the same desires as you is an unsupported claim.

Dave: how does anything I said make the nature and act "one and the same"???? Our natures determine how we will act, is all I was pointing out.

Dave: but our sinful nature does not imply a BARE capability to sin, it implies that, given the chance, we will inevitably sin.

Dave: what does Christian agremeents have to do with anything? The Bible is our standard, not any given agreement or interpretation. This is just a deflection to avoid the challenge I posed to you.


Dave G.

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: DaveJes1979 ]</p>

DaveJes1979

Dave: gee, a critique of God based on atheistic criteria of morality. Talk about circular reasoning!!

FarSeeker

In the passage I quoted from the Bible
(Deuteronomy 30:11-20) God is literally saying I am giving you these two choices, you are free to choose which one you want.

There are many things you are given in this life without being told, "you are given ___," but are expected to use what was given.

I'll admit you know how to dodge, but I think this only shows your lack of integrity. Especially as you didn't give a reasoned reply for rejecting the evidence.

You can take a mule to the water, but you can't make him drink.

Wyrdsmyth

&gt;Ahem&lt;

Who sets up the proper rules of biblical exegesis?