Freethought & Rationalism Archive

NOGO · 03-16-2003, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Ed:
No, they just imposed a desire upon us, you can overcome a desire by your own will.

In that case Adam and Eve did not have this desire because God did not create them with this desire but because they did something this desire was imposed on the rest of us.

You still have a problem Ed.
We are not given the fair chance that Adam and Eve had.
We are therefore being punished for something which we did not do.

Quote:

Ed:
Yes animals can adapt up to a certain point, but they do not have a true will. For example, no normal hungry animal will refuse food, but a normal hungry human can and will in some cases, ie food strikes, diets, etc.

Your example is unfair. Animals obviously are not capable of abstract thinking and therefore refusing food when hungry is not within their intelectual capacity. But this is a question of degree and not a fundamental difference.

To be fair take a mentally deficient human. Such a human will also be incapable of refusing food when hungry. Take a human who has never been thought to speak and would therefore have no cultural heritage .... then you would have a fair comparison.

Quote:

Ed:
The overall teaching of scripture regarding death for all humans is in Romans 6:23 and Romans 3:9-23. We all deserve death including children but sometimes the timing of childrens deaths is used as a punishment of the parents. I have never denied this and that is what the passage you quote refers to.

You are talking about Paul who first persecuted CHristians and then felt a great sense of guilty.
Paul needed a great sin from which all of humanity had to be saved from and he found in the Genesis story.

Note that Jesus never even once referred to the Genesis story as the reason for his mission on earth. Nor does any part of the old testament speak about this. This is strictly speaking Paul's invention. It is baseless.

Ed · 03-16-2003, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

jtb: Christianity is responsible for more deaths in its name than any other religion in the world, including Islam.

Ed: Evidence? But even if true, followers of atheism and practical atheism (the evolutionary pantheism of the nazis) have slaughtered far more people than those claiming Christianity and Islam combined.

jtb: The statement stands. The Holocaust was not done in the name of any religion except Christianity. There is no such religion as "evolutionary pantheism".

No, the references I provided above show that most of the Nazi leadership hated Christianity and conducted the Holocaust with little or no reference to it. Evolutionary pantheism is a philosophy but also a generic term for religions such as Wicca, New Age religions, and the occult. In fact, there is evidence that many of the Nazi leaders including Hitler were interested in the occult, read Bullock's "A Portrait in Tyranny".

Quote:

jtb: Nor can it be claimed that Stalin killed "in the name of atheism": at best, it might be argued that he persecuted the Russian Orthodox Church "in the name of atheism" (even that would be quite a stretch), but they were only a tiny fraction of Stalin's victims. He wasn't personally driven by atheism, nor did he use it as a tool to motivate others: his ideology was his own brand of Communism instead. Yes, he happened to be an atheist (just as he happened to be a round-Earther), but communism is not inherently atheistic. It certainly isn't a "denomination" of atheism.

No, Karl Marx's writings plainly teach that atheism is an intrinsic and necessary part of Communism.

Quote:

jtb: He probably would have been WORSE if he'd been a Christian. All those Muslims to massacre in Soviet Central Asia.

No, as I explained above Christianity teaches freedom of conscience.

winstonjen · 03-16-2003, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
No, as I explained above Christianity teaches freedom of conscience.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's a good one, Ed! Give us some more! Xianity teaches blind obedience - the conscience of Xians must be god's conscience. As you have argued before, Ed, 'experience' teaches us that god is moral and just.

Ed · 03-16-2003, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen

Originally posted by Ed
It doesnt matter what most preachers say. James 1:17 states that God is light and there is no shadow in him. In other words there is nothing antithetical in him or his actions. So he cannot do evil, he cannot go against logic, he cannot not exist, and etc. So he cannot do absolutely ANYTHING.

wj: Then he is not all-powerful. The book of Isaiah states that god also created evil. Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

No, this passage refers to His power over the two fundamental poles of reality. This power includes allowing evil to occur within limits.

Quote:

wj: That also implies that he enjoys letting people suffer, and he has made innocents suffer, take the example of the Egyptian people in Exodus. Egypt was an AUTOCRACY. The people had no influence over what Pharoah did, so why were THEY punished? Oh that's right, they were Egyptian.

The reason they were punished was because of idolatry and as an example to Pharoah so he would let His people free.

Quote:

Ed: Any evidence witches can heal the sick with witchcraft?

wj: Even if they couldn't, it is not a reason for killing them for 'idolatory'. The majority of the accused witches used herbs and plants to cure sickness, which was much more effective than the church's 'faith healing'.

The ancient hebrew theocracy was held to a higher standard of moral purity therefore many deviations from it were capital crimes. But after the coming Christ and the greater spreading of God's grace and forgiveness, only murder warrants the death penalty because the goal of believers is no longer to establish a theocracy like ancient Israel. No, the biblical church always recommends using doctors in addition to praying for miraculous healing. Luke was a doctor and Paul recommended using medicines, ie telling Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach problems. Also, modern hospitals and medical science were founded by Christians not witches and they are much more effective treatments than witches herbs.

Quote:

Ed: There is no such thing as truly innocent babies, all humans are in rebellion against God from birth. And as Romans 6:23 says the wages of sin is death, we all deserve to die, but sometimes God is gracious and lets us live for awhile. If God used persuasion in person it would take away our free will so he commands his human representatives to use persuasion. And there is some evidence that Noah did preach to the people to repent but they refused.

wj: So why bother creating us at all? To be the slaves of your god?

No, to have a loving relationship with those who want to do so.

Quote:

Ed: Sexual preference is not like liking a different flavor of ice cream. Male homosexuality is one of the most disease ridden behaviors known to man. And some of those diseases harm people who have not even engaged in that behavior. And it is not a "natural" desire, prior to 1973, the Amercan Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a mental illness. All the research up to that time confirmed this assessment. In 1973 the APA caved in to political pressure, NOT scientific evidence, and changed their view to it not being an illness. This is a historical fact, read R. Bayer, "Homosexuality and American Psychiatry:The Politics of Diagnosis." Also, even if it is a "natural" desire, not all natural desires should be acted upon, such as alcoholics, kleptomaniacs and etc.

wj: Actually, there is more evidence now to suggest that sexual preference is genetic, not a result of choice.

No, most of the evidence now points to environmental causes. Studies using twins showed that it was not purely genetic. The act of engaging in homosexuality IS plainly the result of choice.

Quote:

wj: What evidence did they use to determine that it is a mental illness?

Read any psychiatric publications prior to 1973.

Quote:

wj: Next you'll be saying that only homosexuals are pedophiles, which is patently false.

Actually studies have shown that pedophiles make up a higher percentage of homosexuals than they do of heterosexuals.

Quote:

wj: Why shouldn't all natural desires be acted upon? Is religion 'natural'? Why allow sex for straight couples and not for gay ones?

So you think that kleptomaniacs should be allowed to steal as much as they want? Or rapists allowed to act on their "natural" desires? Religion is natural but the Christian life is not. As stated above male homosexual behavior is a threat to society by the spread of serious disease and injury to both the practitioners and innocents, that is why it is not part of God's plan for humans.

winstonjen · 03-16-2003, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
The reason they were punished was because of idolatry and as an example to Pharoah so he would let His people free.

Wrong. Pharoah was willing, but god did not let him set them free - just so that your arrogant, vicious god could show off.

Quote:

No, to have a loving relationship with those who want to do so.

And if we don't want to do so, we get condemned into eternal torment. How loving.

Quote:

No, most of the evidence now points to environmental causes. Studies using twins showed that it was not purely genetic. The act of engaging in homosexuality IS plainly the result of choice.

Read any psychiatric publications prior to 1973.

Actually studies have shown that pedophiles make up a higher percentage of homosexuals than they do of heterosexuals.

Lies. If you wish to disprove me, post links of research. Most gays are NOT pedophiles - the majority are heterosexual. And if it was a choice, why do gay people find it almost impossible to change their sexual orientation?

Quote:

So you think that kleptomaniacs should be allowed to steal as much as they want? Or rapists allowed to act on their "natural" desires? Religion is natural but the Christian life is not. As stated above male homosexual behavior is a threat to society by the spread of serious disease and injury to both the practitioners and innocents, that is why it is not part of God's plan for humans.

Straw man argument. Homosexual acts between CONSENTING adults do not harm anyone. The spread of STDs can be controlled through condoms and monogamous relationships. How do the acts harm innocents?

And why does the bible only condemn MALE homosexuality? Sounds sexist to me.

Jack the Bodiless · 03-17-2003, 03:37 AM

Quote:

jtb: I used your "argument" to prove that Americans cannot exist.

And then I refuted your "argument."

No, because you failed to establish that there is any fundamental difference between "personal" and "American". They're just labels, Ed. Your argument says that things with this label cannot be produced by things without this label. And it just doesn't stand up.

Quote:

jtb: You claimed, falsely, that Christianity provides a superior rational foundation. But I know WHY good and evil exist: you do not. I know, not just that we HAVE emotions, but where emotions COME from: you do not. By analogy, you know that plants need sunlight, but you don't know why: whereas I understand photosynthesis.

Huh? Christianity explains why good and evil exist. But see above where I demonstrated that if evolution is true then good and evil don't exist. Christianity also explains where emotions come from. By analogy you understand how to fix a car engine but you think it just came into existence by accident.

As you posted your "see above where I demonstrated that if evolution is true then good and evil don't exist" AFTER this issue was addressed by several posters, you are lying AGAIN by pretending this is still an issue. Your decision to keep dredging up old posts from weeks ago is NOT an excuse to blatantly ignore everything that has been said since!

You are also lying when you say that "Christianity explains why good and evil exist". The answer "God did it" does not explain WHY these traits EXIST at all, and you have already admitted this, and you KNOW that you have.

Quote:

Ed: Also, they were following the biblical teaching that you can learn about God by studying nature. Yes, some Christians used the bible to justify unbiblical slavery.

jtb: There is nothing unbiblical about slavery.

The biblical form of slavery is more like indentured servitude, ie they were freed in the Year of Jubilee.

Incorrect. That was for Jewish "slaves" only. They kept both "indentured servants" AND slaves.

Quote:

Ed: No, the scriptures refer to religious leaders being under greater accountability and judgement when they do wrong things. Although the scriptures condone indentured servitude as a necessary evil in severe economic times, it is not the ideal, read I Corinthians 7:21-24.

jtb: ...Which, of course, says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about indentured servitude being a "necessary evil in severe economic times", or about it being "not the ideal". What it ACTAULLY says is "For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant". In other words, God doesn't care either way: his standards of "freedom" and "servitude" are entirely independent of society's standards.

So, by implying that the Bible speaks against slavery, you were lying.

No, you failed to read verse 21 where Paul encourages those who are able to, to seek freedom.

Slaves cannot seek freedom. Paul was referring to servants, not slaves. If the Bible DID condemn slavery, then it would instruct the slave OWNERS not to keep slaves. The slaves have no choice in the matter!

Quote:

No, the references I provided above show that most of the Nazi leadership hated Christianity and conducted the Holocaust with little or no reference to it. Evolutionary pantheism is a philosophy but also a generic term for religions such as Wicca, New Age religions, and the occult. In fact, there is evidence that many of the Nazi leaders including Hitler were interested in the occult, read Bullock's "A Portrait in Tyranny".

Martin Bormann, the ONLY known atheist among the Nazi leadership (and the source of quotes attributed to Hitler in "Table Talk"), isn't "most".

And if you think that "evolutionary pantheism" is "a generic term for religions such as Wicca, New Age religions, and the occult": then I suggest you throw out your dictionary! I hereby claim that "Christian theism" is a generic term for Satanism, astrology, and human sacrifice to the Aztec rain god Tlaloc.

Quote:

No, Karl Marx's writings plainly teach that atheism is an intrinsic and necessary part of Communism.

...Where?

And it's a fact that many communists are theists.

Quote:

No, as I explained above Christianity teaches freedom of conscience.

This IS a joke, right? What part of "slay them before me" do you not understand, Ed?

Quote:

wj: Then he is not all-powerful. The book of Isaiah states that god also created evil. Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

No, this passage refers to His power over the two fundamental poles of reality. This power includes allowing evil to occur within limits.

God CREATES evil, just as surely as God INSTIGATES rape.

Quote:

wj: That also implies that he enjoys letting people suffer, and he has made innocents suffer, take the example of the Egyptian people in Exodus. Egypt was an AUTOCRACY. The people had no influence over what Pharoah did, so why were THEY punished? Oh that's right, they were Egyptian.

The reason they were punished was because of idolatry and as an example to Pharoah so he would let His people free.

Two lies in one sentence! It is quite clear from the Bible that idolatry was't the reason, AND that God had hardened Pharoah's heart.

Quote:

Also, modern hospitals and medical science were founded by Christians...

There were hospitals and doctors long before Christianity, and of course many modern hospitals were NOT founded by Christians. Have you ever wondered why doctors swear the Hippocratic oath and use the Caduceus of Hermes as their symbol?

Ed · 03-17-2003, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO

Ed:
Male homosexuality is one of the most disease ridden behaviors known to man

ng: Please explain this statement, Ed.
It seems to be saying somthing totally absurd but I will reserve judgement until you clarify.

Sexually transmitted diseases are a subset of diseases which are passed on from person to person through contact.

Some like the bubonic plague was trasnmitted by simple contact.
The spread of these disease is amplified by the concentration of people and began in earnest when people started to move into cities.

Usually our skin protects us against most of these diseases but we do have a weak spot. Our genital areas are not all covered.
This is a point of entry which is designed in.

Promiscuity certainly helps the spread of STD but it does not create such diseases no more than concentration into cities produced the bubonic plague.

For the homosexual it was impossible in the past to have any kind of stable relations. Why? because society did not tolerate it. Society also forced all heterosexuals into stable relations without total success.

Ed, here is the question.

What in the homosexual relation make it worse than the heterosexual relation for the spread of disease?

The primary form of sex engaged in by homosexual men is anal sex. This behavior damages the rectum which opens the strong possibility of rectal cancer, multiple bowel and other infectious diseases, and of course the spreadable AIDS virus.

NOGO · 03-18-2003, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Ed:
The primary form of sex engaged in by homosexual men is anal sex. This behavior damages the rectum which opens the strong possibility of rectal cancer, multiple bowel and other infectious diseases, and of course the spreadable AIDS virus.

You must have read this in some reputable scientific study.
Please provide a reference.

For one thing this is the first time that I hear someone suggesting that physical damage can cause cancer. At any rate I will read your reference and then conclude.

Starboy · 03-18-2003, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO
For one thing this is the first time that I hear someone suggesting that physical damage can cause cancer.

I am not an expert in this field but I have read that continued extraordinary damage in an area will cause an unusually large number of cellular regenerations. Each new generation causing the telomere lengths to shorten and then eventually at some point the probability of cancer in those cells will become large as the DNA strand ends unravel.

Starboy

Ed · 03-18-2003, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed: No, the reasons that we do know in the bible are sufficient enough.

jtb: Again, I think the phrase "you are lying" is appropriate here. If the reasons given in the Bible were sufficient, you wouldn't keep inventing new material, and you know that.

Ed: What new material? Everything I have presented is a logical deduction from the explicit and implicit teachings of the scriptures.

Jack the bodiless: Nope, you're lying AGAIN. (Then Jack sticks his fingers in his ears and says "nah, nah, nah, nah, liar, liar, pants on fire!, I can't hear you Ed!")

Ed just shakes his head in exasperation.

Quote:

Ed: ..but they are indirectly described in the scriptures teachings about the nature of God and the nature of humans.

jtb: The Bible describes a vindictive, bad-tempered, bloodthirsty war-god who enjoys blood sacrifices (including human sacrifices). It is part of the NATURE of the Biblical God to kill indiscriminately, and to enjoy killing.

Ed: See above about your tunnel vision.

jtb: YHWH is a storm god adopted as a tribal totem and war god! In the OT he demands blood sacrifices! He perpetrates genocide and commands others to do so! It is a FACT that the Bible describes a vindictive, bad-tempered, bloodthirsty war-god who enjoys blood sacrifices (including human sacrifices). No "tunnel vision" required!

Dealt with in earlier posts AGAIN.

Quote:

Ed: No, it is also possible if the judge meting out the punishment is omniscient. Only such a judge truly knows the motivations and attitudes of the heart.

jtb: No amount of omniscience can possibly justify the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others, as clearly stated in the Bible.

Ed: See above about innocents not really existing. Also read Romans 3:9-23.

jtb: See my previous post about the morality-crippling effect of your religion. It is perfectly obvious to any sane person that MANY people are entirely innocent of any crime, and also perfectly obvious to any sane person who reads the Bible that the punishment of people FOR THE CRIMES OF OTHERS is a common theme.

I didnt say that they were guilty of any crime against men, I said that everyone has a natural desire of rebellion against God.

Quote:

jtb: If you believe that everyone deserves death, then ANY atrocity is justifiable. This is the morality of the Holocaust.

No, everyone deserves death from the hand of God, not man.

Quote:

jtb: And Romans 3:9-23 is merely more of the sick, perverted morality of Paul. I can't imagine why you thought that citing it would help your case.

My point was just to demonstrate what the bible actually teaches in its overall context, not just your superficial obsession with the Amalekite story.

Quote:

jtb: All Biblical inerrantists are incompetent scholars, Ed. No competent Biblical scholar can remain an inerrantist.

Ed: No, the hyperskeptic picks and chooses verses out of the context of the overall picture and teachings. Thereby making episodes appear to be what they are not. No competent biblical scholar can remain rational and reject inerrancy.

jtb: You are lying AGAIN, Ed. Every verse I have cited is IN CONTEXT. It is the inerrantist who takes verses out of context.

No, reread this entire thread, NOW.

Quote:

jtb: There are NO competent Biblical scholars who are inerrantists. NONE.

No, that comment is just based on your presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, which I have demonstrated earlier is fatally flawed, ie it has no rational basis for believing in an objective reality.

Quote:

Ed: Why is preservation of your own species completely rational? It is only rational from the perspective of specieism, but specieism has no rational foundation if atheistic evolution is true.

jtb: On the contrary, speciesism has a rational foundation BECAUSE evolution is true.

And, again, you know this by now. So you're lying AGAIN.

Ed: How? Are you an old school evolutionist? The only evolutionists that thought atheistic evolution favored humans above other species were the Victorians and the Nazis. And of course they thought it only favored Aryan humans. What in atheistic evolution makes humans more valuable than other species?

jtb: What are you blathering about?

OF COURSE evolution favors humans above other species! That's why we are so successful as a species! But I have never claimed that humanity was the GOAL of evolution: that is a THEISTIC concept.

Humans are OBJECTIVELY successful as a species because of our mental and physical characteristics. But "speciesism" is SUBJECTIVE: it is a form of prejudice. Evolution explains why speciesism exists: it provides a rational foundation for the existence of speciesism.

But you know this already. Or you should, by now. It is very difficult to determine if you are feigning ignorance, or if this comes naturally to you.

I am not referring to its existence, I am referring to you not having a rational basis for practicing it. And yet you continue to practice it, ie killing organisms for food and clothing and etc.

Quote:

Ed: It is not an exact analogy but having an omniscient being choose your representative is better than having a human judge choose him which is the case if you are too poor to pay a lawyer. And You do have to face the consequences of your lawyer or legislator or president if he errs. Most western legal scholars believe representative justice and government is fair and is in fact the best form of justice or government.

jtb: If God was omniscient, I wouldn't NEED a "representative".

The only way you could know that is if YOU were omnscient.

Quote:

jtb: It is perfectly clear to ANY SANE PERSON that the guilt or innocence of every single one of us is entirely independent of any decision made by Adam and Eve.

The story of Adam and Eve was originally a story of God's FEAR of them: the fear that they would become rival gods. THAT is why they were kicked out of Eden.

Later, this story was perverted into a story of "spiritual poisoning": Adam and Eve "infected" the human race with sin, which God (being NON-omnipotent) was initially powerless to remove. This is your "spiritual DNA" argument: God is powerless to fix "spiritual DNA", and is therefore NON-omnipotent.

So it isn't OUR fault. We are INNOCENT.

No, God can fix your spiritual DNA, all you have to do is repent and ask Christ to do it. Evidence for your other assertions about Genesis?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.