Cipher Girl

Well I will post this even if Hired Gun has left the thread, if only for the benefit of the lurkers. I guess we weren't as easily bowled over as she thought we would be.

I never said that humanism is claiming the high road. Actually I'm not a humanist, as you seem to assume. My only moral code is a very simple one, "Do whatever causes the most good or the least amount of harm. I treat others exactly how I would like them to treat me."

You need to brush up on Southern history some, Hired Gun. Slave owners frequently used the bible to justify owing slaves. There is no verse mandating that slavery is wrong, only verses that describe how slaves were to be treated. If you want me to quotes, I'll be happy to supply them.

Well this simply doesn't suprise me. I said that you would find some extreme rationalization to justify the verse, and you proved me correct.

To be human is to sometimes be immoral. Why don't Christians simply admit that simply because a story is included in the bible does not make the characters moral. Why all of the mental gymnastics to justify immoral acts?

Its too bad that a lot of Christians try to justify everything in the bible as moral. This is what turned me off of Christianity in the first place. Specifically this story. I would probably be a Christian today if the bible was presented as a series of moral lessons showing the good and the bad that people do. Such as using religion as a reason to kill off your neighbors (bad thing), wanting to kill the infants of your enemies (bad thing), loving your neighbor(good thing), god deciding to kill off people for being the way he created them (bad thing)...etc. But since all of the Christians I grew up around believed that if it was in the bible, it was moral no matter how evil the act was.

Oh, and for the use of the a-bomb in Japan. As a former Air Force officer, I find the use of such weapons targeted against a civilian population to be absolutely immoral and abhorrent. Especially as Japan was in the process of negotiating terms of surrender with the US at the time. Most of the scientists working at the Trinity site after the bombs were dropped, refused to build any more. The government had a real bitch of a time trying to get people to develop the fusion bombs that followed.

Jinto

Which is irrelevant, because I am driving a CAR. Welcome to the 21st century, please check your strawmen at the door.

What's dishonest about claiming victory when your opponent has just conceded the very point you are trying to make? Perhaps you didn't hear yourself:

You do have every right not to play the game,

Were these not your exact words? Perhaps in your habit of evading my arguments, creating strawmen, complementing yourself on your own imagined brilliance, and using ad hominem attacks to (unsuccessfully) cover up the fact that you refused to even adress my arguments, an actual comprehension of my posts eluded you, and as such you didn't realize that was the very point I was trying to make. Or perhaps you did, and you just haven't grown out of your habit of lying, as alluded to here:

...I wrote him back a reply: " You obviously have never read the recent Oxford study concerning 'Cruci-fiction'. This study, conducted in the archaeological digs of Rome in 1989, conclusively proved that Roman crucifixions did not take place prior to 350AD. It would have been impossible for Christ, in 33AD to have been executed in such a manner. You have bought into a lie. Christ did not die on a cross. He didn't die at all because he never lived. You need to grow up, accept the facts, and move on."

Of course, this was an outright lie that I had manufactured on the spur of the moment. I didn't even think that this kid would buy it, because it contained an obvious fallacy. If we had copies of the gospels dating to 250 AD and if the original gospels were dated to have been written within 100 AD, then how could they contain accounts of a method of crucifixion that didn't happen until 250 years later?

Nowhere357

A freaking battle manual! What a terrible representation for Christianity. Well, they feel as if they're under seige with crumbling walls, I guess.

Hired Gun

Or perhaps you did, and you just haven't grown out of your habit of lying, as alluded to here:

...I wrote him back a reply: " You obviously have never read the recent Oxford study concerning 'Cruci-fiction'. This study, conducted in the archaeological digs of Rome in 1989, conclusively proved that Roman crucifixions did not take place prior to 350AD. It would have been impossible for Christ, in 33AD to have been executed in such a manner. You have bought into a lie. Christ did not die on a cross. He didn't die at all because he never lived. You need to grow up, accept the facts, and move on."

Of course, this was an outright lie that I had manufactured on the spur of the moment. I didn't even think that this kid would buy it, because it contained an obvious fallacy. If we had copies of the gospels dating to 250 AD and if the original gospels were dated to have been written within 100 AD, then how could they contain accounts of a method of crucifixion that didn't happen until 250 years later? [/B][/QUOTE]

I used to lie in good conscience, but I can no longer do that, thanks to the Spirit of Jesus Christ that restored my conscience. As for your claims of a straw man, I think that the nature of the game that God has established speaks for itself and that there will be those who see that your right to refuse to play the game still has you playing it.

A.S.A. Jones

Dr Rick

Like so many, CG raises good points with her questions and responses that will ultimately go unaddressed by Hired Gun. Hired Gun may claim that she's simply overwhelmed by the number of replies and challenges that have been brought to her attention, but how many of us have ever seen an atheist on a theist forum post a dodge like "my times up"? She chose to come to these fora, and she chose to retreat, as well.

We can accurately label Hired Gun a "drive-by theist."

Hired Gun replied to but did not address the points raised by Cipher Girl, Jinto, Nowhere 357, Jobar, Queen of Swords, and many others, but her brief appearance on the IIDB was still useful; she provided a stark contrast to the reasoning of a free-thinker, and that's why we should welcome her back.

Her reasoning is illustrative; she frequently rationalizes by analogy rather than explanation when her faith is questioned and calls that "logic," though her reasoning does not resemble the deductive method that has served so many, from scientists to philosophers, so well.

That Hired Gun was once an atheist I do not question; she is an example of what many of us have argued repeatedly; lack of god-belief is not a system of belief or thinking at all, but merely a lack of belief, and she shows us that lack of belief is not the same as thinking. To be an atheist is not to be a free-thinker is the lesson to be learned from her.

Hired Gun's philosophy is hard to categorize at first glance, but a thoughtful analysis can bring it down to simply this: "what's the point?" For her, the answer is that without a parental figure, there is none. Her testimonial at her website speaks volumes: she squishes insects as she contemplates meaning. Really, now; how many of us, most of whom were theists at one time, went out and massacred helpless creatures upon freeing ourselves from superstition?

Hired Gun has come and gone; she posted her faith and labeled it "logic", apparently never considering nor fully comprehending the challenges to her sky-daddy belief. The replies to her reveal frustration at this, but we should remember that her posts were not an argument; they were just an illustration.

Dr Rick

double post

Nowhere357

Over at Tweb is a moderator (RightIdea) (who btw advocates the execution of homosexuals).

This bigot also advocates dishonesty (in this case, by omission) as a valid recruiting tactic.

So I have two points. First, poor moral standards and Christianity apparently go hand in hand, if RightIdea and Hired Gun are examples; (and Hired Gun's denial above is without meaning - a liar would be expected to lie about not lying, while a repentent liar would make that clear on her website).

And second, the high quality of moderators at II is something we should take pride in.

Hired Gun

It is a very good question! And you are correct that I would answer with the traditional free will arguments regarding the first part. The second part deals with the consequences of living in a physical world with set physical laws.

Once again, we have to view the salvation plan in its entirety and see what it is trying to accomplish and how such intervention, by God, to prevent tragedy, would affect that plan of salvation. Also, there seems to be a misconception about what constitutes a 'loving' god. A 'loving' god need not be an emotional, omnipotent Barney type figure who goes about singing, "Hoi ta Doi duh doi," while rescuing small humans from earthly traps in order to qualify as 'loving'.

Our life here is to show us the consequences of our separation from God. He wants us to 'find' Him through our efforts of self-examination and acknowledgement of our hopeless and desperate situation. You ask, "Why doesn't God deliver just enough rain so that people need not starve?" But why stop there. Why doesn't God prevent mudslides, tornados, hurricanes, apartment fires, car wrecks, train wrecks, plane wrecks, dogs from biting, people from drowning and disease and aging? Why does God allow there to be cats?? In short, you are asking, "Why isn't earth the Garden of Eden?" Some spiritual lessons just can't be learned in the garden. Sometimes, one has to venture into the desert.

Is it a coincidence that many victims of hardship have a greater faith in God than those whose physical lives are cushioned by prosperity? I don't think that it is. And if those who experience death in a drought still manage to hold God dear, then who are we, who suffer not, to condemn Him? Many a brat have been deprived of any physical discomfort and suffering seems to be good for the soul. One cannot develop character without adversity. We all die; some of us quietly, some of us kicking, some young, some old. What matters to God isn't the 'how' of our deaths but the condition of our souls.

Thank all of you again for your time and arguments!

By the way, Rick, I feel flattered that you felt it necessary to present your twisted summary of my iidb adventure in what seems to be some bizarre form of damage control.

Just keep chanting the mantra, "She really didn't make any sense at all. She really didn't make any sense at all..."
:chuckle:

A.S.A. Jones

Queen of Swords

I know Hired Gun won't respond to this, but what the hell. It's fun.

Originally posted by Hired Gun
In short, you are asking, "Why isn't earth the Garden of Eden?" Some spiritual lessons just can't be learned in the garden.

Then why create a garden in the first place? And if good spiritual lessons could be learned from leaving the garden, why not encourage Adam and Eve to do so?

Is it a coincidence that many victims of hardship have a greater faith in God than those whose physical lives are cushioned by prosperity?

The Victims of Hardship Society has just elected their official spokesperson, I see.

I don't think that it is. And if those who experience death in a drought still manage to hold God dear, then who are we, who suffer not, to condemn Him?

So if someone who experienced death (presumably not their own) was willing to criticize God, would it be all right for us to condemn him?

Many a brat have been deprived of any physical discomfort and suffering seems to be good for the soul.

I'm sure the Jews who died during the Holocaust are agreeing with you in between screams of agony.

One cannot develop character without adversity.

That doesn't mean that adversity is a good thing, any more than a child's murder is a good thing because it resulted in Megan's Law being passed.

Just keep chanting the mantra, "She really didn't make any sense at all. She really didn't make any sense at all..."

Are you in so much need of attention?

ex-xian

Hey QoS...I propose that you do a sequel last week's Nutwatch, using the posts that Hired Gun made in this thread.

I'm not going to bother to respond to her last response to my posts. She's not responding, I don't have QoS's gift of gab, and everyone else already knows the answers...that is all....