Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Why won't Christians and Jews admit the immorality of what is actually written in the Bible?

David Hodgson (born 1939) is an author and Australian appellate judge. He has written an excellent article entitled "Dawkins and the Morality of the Bible (first published in Quadrant 436 (May 2007), 38-43)which you can find at: http://users.tpg.com.au/raeda/website/Dawkins.htm

In this article, Hodgson notes that it is right for Christians and Jews to condemn genocide and terrorism. However, he then suggests that in order for them to be consistent they should acknowledge the following 8 statements:

(1) It would have been wrong for God to order Abraham to kill his son, as the Bible says He did.

(2) It would have been wrong for Abraham to set about doing so.

(3) It is wrong to kill an innocent person because you believe God has told you to.

(4) It would have been wrong for God to kill children to induce Pharaoh to release the Israelites. (It would have been terrorism.)

(5) It would have been wrong for God to order the Israelites to kill all occupants of defeated cities. (It would have been to order genocide.)

(6) It would have been wrong for Joshua and his followers to kill all occupants of Jericho. (It would have been genocide.)

(7) If Jesus believed that God had killed children to induce Pharaoh to release the Israelites, it would have been wrong for him to celebrate the Passover. (It would have been to condone terrorism.)

(8) The Bible stories of Abraham and Isaac, the Passover and the battle of Jericho were written by fallible human beings and convey wrong messages about God and morality.

What Hodgson is calling for is a frank admission of the immorality of what is actually written in the Bible. The fact that many fundamentalist Christians and Jews refuse to make these admissions and instead engage in apologetics to defend the indefensible scares me (see the discussion thread following this post: Scripture warns, if "you did not hate bloodshed, b... ). It is precisely what fuels this blog.
Posted by The Atheist Missionary at 8:18 AM
Labels: , , , , , , ,

135 comments:

  1. The Bible is a collection of narratives. It was written by people, all kinds of people so of course it has parts that are immoral. Christians tend to make the mistake of reading it as a manual for living. And a manual for living it is not. It is more like a collection of cautionary tales. If read properly one can glean much useful information from its pages. The biggest failure Christians make in reading the Bible is their failure to see humanities gradual decline in moral fortitude as time takes them further away from the moment of creation. This is a huge lesson that applies to people in general. Believers or not the lesson is the same. The farther you stray from your point of origin the less likely you are to find your way back without making mistakes.
    ReplyDelete
  2. I've kind of recently come to accept the teaching that, while the Bible is inspired writing, it was indeed written by fallible humans. I can totally agree with the last statement Hodgson makes. The Israelites' understanding of God could very well be different than our understanding of God. I happen to believe in God, but believe that it was not God that called for the Canaanite genocide but it was done with the understanding that this is what God wants. The two ideas are totally different.
    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry but that is absolutely wrong. What is not understood is the justice of God in all of these matters. The Bible plainly teaches that God does not desire the suffering of the good or the bad, however, man's sin must be accounted for. Pharaoh was an evil man who refused to set free the slaves of Israel. God gave him chance after chance to make it right but he refused. Egypt brought punishment upon itself, this was no arbitrary vengeful lash from God but a just recompense for atrocities.
    ReplyDelete
  4. Brad, what did Abraham's son do to deserve being put in the situation pictured above?
    ReplyDelete
  5. "Pharaoh was an evil man who refused to set free the slaves of Israel. God gave him chance after chance to make it right but he refused."

    It is also said in the bible that god hardened the pharaoh's heart. If god was interested freeing the slaves, why harden his heart?
    ReplyDelete
  6. We know one thing for certain - Australia must be very different than North America in terms of the judiciary. Can you imagine a North American Judge openly raising these questions without trying to disguise his/her identity? Can you say "lynching"?
    ReplyDelete
  7. The story of Abraham is an interesting one. God promised that Abraham would be the father of many nations through his son Isaac. Then God tells Abraham to kill Isaac, who is not an infant at this time, but probably a young teenager (and not innocent in the sight of God). If Isaac were to die, God would break his promise and become a liar and therefore cease to be God. Abraham knew this, and believed it. He told his servants that he and Isaac were going up on the mountain, and that they would both return. Either God was going to raise him from the dead when he sacrificed him or he was going to provide a substitute. Hebrews 11 explains this. This was to test Abraham's faith, display God's grace and mercy, and give us a picture of the Christ to come.

    As for the Passover and the battle of Jericho, we have to acknowledge God is perfectly wise and perfectly just, and that he can punish all those who are guilty of sin, both in this life and the life to come. We aren't dealing with innocent people in these stories and an unjust God, but rather we are dealing with sinners deserving of God's perfect and just wrath.

    Sometimes people also die because of other people's sins, which is the case for both of these examples and even the great flood (there were babies that died because their parents were sinful). We have all sinned in the eyes of God, and are all in need of Jesus Christ to take the wrath we deserve.
    ReplyDelete
  8. You need a useful book to help you learn to read with insight. The book is entitled How To Read A Spiritual Book by Cousins. Furthermore, learn to recognize what is an elipses designed to get you to go deeper into the text. Quit reading The Bible like the fundamentalists about whom you seem to rail against for their literalism.
    ReplyDelete
  9. Allow me to correct my spelling. I meant "ellipsis" and not "elipses". Also, why don't you bring up your objections to someone well qualified to deal with them? I suggest you read www.cutsinger.net and then pose your questions to Professor Cutsinger. Do it if you are serious about your views and want answers.
    ReplyDelete
  10. I would like to correct the notion that God merely punished an evil man when he retaliated against Pharaoah. If you translate the text correctly (I prefer the NSRV)it clearly says that "God hardened Pharoah's heart..." before each incident, implying that Pharaoh's emotions were influenced by God himself each time he refused to let the slaves go. So if Pharaoh was evil, God made him so. His intentions are never made clear, but you can make the argument that God was not only set on freeing the Israelites, but also revealing his power to the world and showing that He, Elohim was the most powerful deity. Some people call this shock and awe, others call it terrorism.

    To be fair, Genesis reads more like an origins story, whereas the morality tales come later. You're not supposed to get your morals from Genesis.
    ReplyDelete
  11. There is a text in the Bible that reads: Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.
    Does this sound like Faith in God should be rational? Faith in God is in its very nature irrational like the publisher of this Blog refers to Religion. There is no point in arguing the morality or immorality of what God told Abraham to do. It is religion. In those days all governments were theistic so military battles were all done in the name of one god or another. That is the difference between then and now. Today most governments are not. Logic and reason are our gods and morality is a practical by product of it. It is like arguing apples and plastic oranges.
    Religious people are one sided. They tend to be critical of all points of views that do not harmonize with theirs. there is no reason to condemn someone to hell because he does not believe as you. I think the important thing for a religious person to focus on if they want me to be convinced about their god. Is not the details but the big picture. The big why? Is what they should focus on.
    ReplyDelete
  12. @Mateo: this is true if Pharaoh's heart was good to begin with, or even a neutral or a blank slate, but it was not. We learn throughout the Bible man is born with a heart opposed to God. No one seeks God, no one does good. We see this theme throughout the Old Testament and even into the New (and especially in current times). Pharaoh is even talked about later in Romans.

    Romans 9:14-18, "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

    Pharaoh was evil because that's what he wanted, and in hardening his heart, God gave him the desires of his heart. Under his own volition, Pharaoh sinned. Yet, God allows this evil so that he can bring about good and bring glory to himself.

    Lastly, from the pen of one of my favorite Puritans, Thomas Watson, to illustrate this situation, "A musician plays upon a viol out of tune; the musician is the cause of the sound, but the jarring and discord is from the viol itself; so men’s natural motion is from God, but their sinful motion is from themselves. When a man rides on a lame horse, his riding is the cause why the horse goes, but the lameness is from the horse itself. Herein is God's wisdom, that the sins of men carry on his work, yet he has no hand in them."
    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.
    ReplyDelete
  14. Hopefully one day he will discover the Bible!

    RT
    www.anonymity.us.tc
    ReplyDelete
  15. This is a non-issue.

    Gal 4:21-25 states that the story Abraham is an _allegory_.

    You only run into absurdities and contradictions when you try to apply a literalist interpretation.

    It was like when you heard the story of the "Boy who cried wolf." It does not matter if _really_ didn't happen, the only point is the moral of the story.
    ReplyDelete
  16. If the bible is written by man who is fallible, then how can christians uphold statements in the bible condemning other faiths as the holy truth? Then how can it accuse other faiths to be the worship of false gods? Isn't it potentially one such false god perpetuated by man for their own motives?

    If the bible is indeed infallible and not written by man, then this christian god is a genocidal terrorist who should be seen as such. How then can such a god claim to be the one true god? Consider how this same god cower Jobs into submission. It fits with the description of a tyrannical despot who is murderous and contemptous of anyone who does not love him.

    Either way, he makes the most villainous criminal seem like a goody two-shoe choir boy.
    ReplyDelete
  17. Steve, I am sorry but I don’t see god’s grace and mercy in Abraham’ story.

    Why did god ask Abraham to kill his son? No matter what excuse we have, like He was not going to kill him really, Isaac was going to be replaced or resurrected, Isaac was not innocent, etc; there is no excuse for a being, with the attributes he is suppose to have, to tell Abraham to kill his son.

    What was god trying to prove? How come, in his wisdom, god didn’t use another less traumatic way to test Abraham? Couldn’t god just read Abraham’s heart?

    Will you ask your wife to kill your son to prove she loves you? Even though, you are planning to hold your wife’s hand with the kitchen knife. Imagine the picture and the trauma.

    In god’s test, tell me where is the wisdom?
    How come god kills babies because of the sins of their parents? Isn’t that crazy?
    ReplyDelete
  18. @Michael: It states Paul is going to interpret the story allegorically, but that does not means it's an allegory in essence. Notice what it says in verse 24, "Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants." He is saying this may be interpreted allegorically, and here's how, these women are two covenants. Why would Paul continually point out that he was from the lineage of Abraham if believed he was just part of an allegory? The whole story is about his lineage. Or why would he say that those who are of faith are Abraham's seed if the story of Abraham is an allegory? Why would he use Abraham's example of righteousness to give an example of how a man is justified?

    I just skimmed Matthew Henry's commentary, and this is what he says, "These things, says he, are an allegory, wherein, besides the literal and historical sense of the words, the Spirit of God might design to signify something further to us, and that was, That these two, Agar and Sarah, are the two covenants, or were intended to typify and prefigure the two different dispensations of the covenant."

    "It does not matter if _really_ didn't happen, the only point is the moral of the story." That is only true if it's an allegory or fable, and these verses you gave do not prove the Bible means for it to be an allegory only, but rather it intends for them to be seen as real, literal events that can also have other meanings.
    ReplyDelete
  19. @Brian: You really pose a great question that I really can only answer by saying we are not God and he is not us, his ways are not our ways, and his purposes may not be revealed completely to us. Deut. 29:29, "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." If he is infinitely wise, he does the right thing all the time where we may not be able understand why or how. We can understand, however, that he is working throughout history to display his glory through creation and circumstances and he does that with both good and bad events. That does not mean he is author of the evil done, though. You get into all the hairy stuff here with God's sovereignty and man's free will, which we could talk for a while about :)

    I go back to the verses I pasted above:

    Romans 9:14-18, "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

    So couldn't God just read Abraham's heart? Sure! He could have also not made him the father of many nations. Is there really no excuse for God telling Abraham to kill his son? The only excuse is so that God could display his glory and bring good about. If for any other reason, it would be unjust.

    So it may sound like a cop-out :) I hope it doesn't seem that way. I'm just not able to question the ways of an infinitely wise, infinitely good, and infinitely powerful being when my wisdom, goodness, and power are all finite and fallible.
    ReplyDelete
  20. I am shocked and disappointed how eager people are to defend such evil-doings just because they are in the bible. In any other situation, these actions would be considered morally indefensible.
    ReplyDelete
  21. Steve,

    I was reading something and I thought of you and other theists. I hope you have a few minutes to read it.

    I still don't understand how a loving god will do things that only a ver low man would do to show his glory. He has displayed emotions that are ugly in a human being.

    http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2009/03/unlikelihood-of-christianity-vis-vis.html
    ReplyDelete
  22. @Brian, I appreciate the article, I'll take a look when I get home (just got back to work, but wish I was home!). Just skimming the article quickly, it seems it is talking about God having human-like attributes. Usually, we ascribe these to anthropomorphism. I'll read it in-depth later.

    Thanks!
    ReplyDelete
  23. I have a bigger problem with the torture of Job and the murder of Job's family because God and Satan were having a pissing contest.
    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm glad I don't have to warp my mind and come up with all these wacky interpretations to justify all the craziness in the bible.

    All you guys should be lawyers, because I'll know who I'm coming to when I need the law bent to my needs.
    ReplyDelete
  25. I have already commented on this in another thread here, but without understanding "theodicy" or "compatiblism" (both biblical concepts), you will not understand God's purposes with Abraham and Isaac.

    Of course, if you just want to find uninformed reasons to accuse God of "immorality" (which is ludicrous), you will simply buy this profound analysis from Hodgson. Most of you, I assume, were already looking for an intellectual, *rational* reason not to believe in God anyway, were you not? However, if you're intellectually honest you will give a careful study to the 2 subjects I mentioned above.

    Again, it is ironic that an atheist would charge anyone (God or otherwise) with immorality. Morals are not physical entities, cannot be explained by natural means, and do not exist in an atheistic, material universe.
    ReplyDelete
  26. Why do religious people think they are so important that there is a god of all things that has created them? People are ignorant, inferior-minded, brutal beings that I believe are only beginning their evolution into what we could become.

    Look back into history and see all the things about our natural world that religious figures and the religious populace were wrong about but "knew" was true. If they couldn't muster the intellect or divine knowledge that our earth was round or that the fires in the 'heavens' were other stars, I surely will not be taking anyone's word for it when it comes to the entire beginning of all things.

    Other than the ability to put into writing our thoughts and things we have learned for future generations to build upon, there is almost no difference in us and animals. Other than the fact we destroy our planet and kill not for our food, but instead for our irrational beliefs.
    ReplyDelete
  27. @Tirian said:
    "Again, it is ironic that an atheist would charge anyone (God or otherwise) with immorality. Morals are not physical entities, cannot be explained by natural means, and do not exist in an atheistic, material universe."

    I hate to tell ya, morals definitely DO NOT come from God. Funny, but, even before the bible was cobbled together, humans, people, were living in communities and had morals. They were necessary for their group to survive. Individual groups had morals that were developed to foster the common good, otherwise they would not have survived. They often clashed with other groups, tribes, whose morals were not for each others survival. We get war from these meetings.

    Xtians, no old guy in the sky created morals. Learn what they were, and have become....survival traits for groups of individuals so they grew and prospered and not die off. Those that did not....well, they died off.

    Zel
    ReplyDelete
  28. "Theodicy" and "compatiblism" are not biblical concepts. They're philosophical concepts attempting to rationalize why there is evil in a world with an all powerful, all good god and the existence of free will vs. determinism. I really don't see how they apply to Abraham or Isaac. If anything, they're arguments FOR the atheists side.

    These concepts were troublesome for believers who couldn't rationally understand how these things could exist AND what they believed about their God to be true.
    ReplyDelete
  29. Sorry but that is absolutely wrong. What is not understood is the justice of Allah in all of these matters. The Torah plainly teaches that Allah does not desire the suffering of the good or the bad, however, man's sin must be accounted for. America was an evil nation who refused to follow Allah's law. Allah gave it chance after chance to make it right but it refused. America brought punishment upon itself, this was no arbitrary vengeful lash from Allah but a just recompense for atrocities.

    I actually don't believe a word of this, I would just like to point out to @Brad up there that regardless of what you call your imaginary friends, murder, genocide and terrorism are never justified in their name.
    ReplyDelete
  30. @Zel: Morals as we know it may exist in an atheistic world to an extent (e.g. killing is bad), but there cannot be an objective, absolute morality without a moral law giver (God). For example, if the group of people I live in says rape is wrong, and the group of people you live in says rape is good and ok, who's right? How can you ever tell someone they are immoral if morals come from man? Who has the right to impose a morality on me when that person is just a man like me? Even if a group of people decides collectively, who says they are right or wrong? If a country rises up, takes over the world and says rape is good and right, will they be right or wrong? With the definition you gave, they'd have to be right. In this world, then, morality is completely up to the person.

    Men may act morally or immorally, but it is only because they have the moral law within them. Man is born knowing what is right and wrong. You are right, the Bible just contains the moral code given from God, but man has been well aware of that moral code before the first words were penned in the Bible.
    ReplyDelete
  31. To steve43 and others doing the "where do you get your morals without god?" thing.

    Well, I'm an atheist and I also believe that morality is objective. (Well... the specifics of that is a long conversation...)

    However, here, I'm simply going to argue that the existence or nonexistence of god is separate (or at least not obviously linked) on the objectivity or morality.

    Let's say I asked "why do you do what you do"/"why do you consider what you consider moral to be moral"/etc... some variation of that. You'd probably answer something to the effect of "because god said so"

    At which point, I'd just like to put forward an additional question: "so?"

    ie, why do you think you should obey god?

    If you say "heaven if you do, hell if you don't" or some variation their of, then that's not morality, that's just pragmatism. No different than obeying a local thug who'll beat you up if you don't.

    If you say something like "You owe god because he created you" or something like that, you're invoking the concept of "owe", debt, obligation, at which point I might ask. "so what? even if in some sense that's true, why should I care one bit about obligations, etc etc?"

    ie, you're appealing to some other principle of morality.

    If you say (this is the way I used to think when I was younger and religious (Orthodox Jew, FYI) "Well, if god's so smart and wise and so on, he probably understands morality a whole lot better than I do, so if he says something's right or wrong, even if I don't understand it, well, he probably knows what he's talking about."

    But even _THAT_ appeals to the idea of a morality that god merely was smart enough to "figure out" and nice enough to share with us.

    In other words, still it appeals to a morality that is not _defined_ as "whatever god says"

    This would all seem to show that while there may be conceptual difficulties with regards to "morality without god", those difficulties don't go away even with the notion of god added into the mix. The existence of a commanding god (ie, one that gives orders and so on) would seem to not, in and of itself, imply morality, or lack theirof automatically imply lack of morality.

    In other words, seems to me there are four basic possibilities (some, based on observation, I consider far more probable than others but we'll ignore that for now) some of which can be subdivided further.

    1. God exists and morality exists.

    2. God exists and morality does not exist.

    3. God does not exist and morality does exist.

    4. God does not exist and morality does not exist.

    The first option can be further subdivided into "god is moral" "god is immoral" "god is amoral" and various combinations of those, and probably an "other options I haven't thought of yet.

    Now, all of the above relates to morality existing, rather than to what extent humans can or do (accurately) know morality. This again is a different (though strongly related) question.
    ReplyDelete
  32. @Steve43 - Egads, that's ignorant. Just look at the changing moral landscape in the last few centuries alone. It is so clearly a social construction mixed with genetic survival, but so what? What was the moral situation before the bible? Q: What if you were born in Pakistan instead of America? A: You would be muslim, beholden to Allah and the Koran. Everything is context.
    ReplyDelete
  33. Psy-Kosh,

    Where do you get an objective morality without God? Please explain.
    ReplyDelete
  34. @Psy-Kosh: That's deep and very thought out :) I am not sure what I believe fits into any one of those listed. I believe God and morality are inseparable, meaning that morality is not a set of regulations created apart from God, but rather it is a representation of the very nature and character of God. It is who God is in his moral goodness. We see this in Jesus, as he lived as a man who lived by these morals perfectly, and yet was fully God. Rather than being an arbitrary set of rules created by God to control man, it is a picture of the nature of God and window into his good character.

    Now the question of why should I follow these morals from God. Well, if God is the supreme being both in and outside of creation, and he is perfectly good, then his character (his moral goodness specifically) is the standard at which we should strive towards. Living apart from him would be living in opposition to his character and goodness, and this would be sin (since there is a standard I see is better than his). So I suppose why I follow his morals is a combination of several of your answers, with God's glory being the chief end of it all. I live according to God's morals because I want to be like him, and display him to the world through my life; I want to praise and honor him for saving me from the punishment I deserved through Christ; I want to live like him because he commands me to; and I want to live like him because Christ lived like him and bore my iniquities.

    If there is no God, I don't see how there can be an objective moral standard. I would like to hear or read how there can be without a moral law giver if you have any articles or links to give.

    @Nick: Just because morals of men have changed does not nullify a moral law from God. The moral situation before the Bible was as I explained, man knows the law of God from birth, it is “written on his heart.” It doesn't matter where you are born, you know what you do is either good or evil. You know murder is wrong, lying is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. The answer to your question would be that you would be obligated to the moral law of God—there is only one law.

    “It is so clearly a social construction mixed with genetic survival, but so what?” That is an observation there. Again, back to my points, you cannot have an objective morality without a God. If morality is constantly changing, then it is subjective in its nature. We wouldn't be able to tell Nazi Germany they were wrong because they are just another social group with their own morals. You can't even say those acts in the Bible that people here are saying are wrong are immoral because they are products of the culture of that time. In that thinking, those acts moral during that era but maybe not now.
    ReplyDelete
  35. One day i believe religion will eventually die it. Not any time soon, but it will come. Modern day humans, atheistic or not, have no problems laughing about the gods of the ancient civillisations. Zeus, apollo, aries, aphrodites, ra, horus etc etc etc.

    Everybody accepts including modern day theists that they quite CLEARLY do not, and never have existed, they've probably made a few jokes with friends about Zeus smiting sinners with his lightning bolts. For some reason, however, sadly modern day theists deem it acceptable to believe in 'God', which is quite clearly no different to any of the ancient civillizations believing in their 'God'(s).

    I suppose the same logic can be applied to modern day religions, look at the amount of different gods that exist in todays world. God, Allah, Ganesh etc etc. Theists are all happy to disregard the existence of each others gods, but hold tight the belief their own.

    Based on what i've just written, there can be no argument that justifies the belief of one of these gods over any other. They are quite clearly, just like Zeus and Horus, man made entities that do not, and never have existed.
    ReplyDelete
  36. edit, they will die out, not die it. :)
    ReplyDelete
  37. Tirian: Do you really want me to do another overly long comment? :D

    (There's a looooooooong discussion elsewhere on this that basically has (frankly, helped crystalize) my views on this, I'm trying to see if I can find one or two postings that really summarizes it, though. Ah, here. Though it still may be dependent on being familiar with some previously discussed notions, or at least the hypothetical "Pebblesorters" used to illustrate some of the concepts: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/08/arbitrary-bedro.html )

    My point was "morality with god" doesn't really do any better than "morality without god". That is, Saying "because god said so" doesn't actually seem to be a reasonable source of morality _on its own_... you seem to have to go a bit farther to get it. In other words, let me flip that around and ask "where do you get the idea that obeying god is a good thing?" ie, can you explain why you think that to answer to the question "why is it moral to obey god?" is so much easier than to answer "what's moral?" without a god being involved? (or do I misstate your position?)
    ReplyDelete
  38. @Rabhimself: What are you trying to say exactly? Since there are so many beliefs about God that none of them can be true? Is your belief about God and religion included in this group?
    ReplyDelete
  39. steve43: Thanks. I'm not sure I understand the argument you're making, though.

    "It is who God is in his moral goodness."

    ...

    "it is a picture of the nature of God and window into his good character."

    Where, by "good", you mean "moral", right?

    So... to me these statements seem to translate to saying "morality is who god is in his moral moralness, morality is a picture of the nature of god and a window into is moral character."

    I don't get it. That is, that sequence of words isn't resulting in a concept in my head. Mind clarifying? Thanks.

    The best I can make out is that you seem to be saying "define morality as what god does. Then, by definition, that stuff's moral"

    Then you seem to be saying "So obviously since god is perfectly good (by definition) it is 'good' to obey him. (where 'good' is _defined_ in terms of god's character, etc)"

    Is that, essentially, your argument?
    ReplyDelete
  40. Most of these examples come from the old testament. The new testament's entire purpose was to rewrite some of the laws and practices that the old testament set down. You really cant say that this shows that Christians believe in genocide, that is a ridiculous stretch.
    ReplyDelete
  41. Mr. Hodgson Makes two very important presumptions in the article that are completely false. If these presumptions were true then yes God would be a most evil and immoral entity. Happily, they are not true and so God's actions turn out to be not immoral.

    1. He presumes that God and man are equals. That they share the same authority, rights and privileges as each other. If this were true and one person who is equal to another took their life then the killer would be evil. Since it is not true (truth here is limited to the descriptiion of God in the Bible. The questions raised by Mr. Hodgson deals with the description of actions by characters in the Bible so in order to address them we must limit ourselves to the definitions of the characters in the story as described in the same book.) God (as described in the Bible) is the creator of man. Man (as described in the Bible) is a constructed being with no rights to life or authority of anykind. The creator like all creators has complete authority and right of disposal for his creations. Ergo, God killing a man is no more immoral than Ford Motor Company disassembling a welding robot from their assembly line. Likewise, is it immoral for a farmer to spray roundup (weedkiller) on a weed that is growing in his field?. The relationship between God and man viewed from the aspect of rights and authority is like the relationship between man and a plant in a garden. Does a man have a right to plant any plant he wants? Does he have the right to uproot/kill any plant that he previously planted in his garden? Does the plant have any right to life? Is the gardener immoral?

    2. He presumes that man has a right to life. There is nowhere in the Bible in which God grants man the right to life. Life is a free gift from God to man. No human being has ever been born who has purchased his life ahead of time. Nor has there ever been any incidence in which a non-human entity has approached a man after his birth and demanded payment for life. Life is Free, you did not ask for it, you did not pay for it, no one has ever demanded payment for it. As a free gift you have no right to it. You cannot demand that you be given life. Since you have no right to life then is it immoral when the entity that does have authority over your life gives it, or takes it?
    ReplyDelete
  42. ive always said. The bible is either 100% true or 100% false. there is no question about it. a purelly mythological story derived from other mythological stories.
    ReplyDelete
  43. @ Tirian, you said: "I want to praise and honor him for saving me from the punishment I deserved through Christ; I want to live like him because he commands me to"

    Are you a moral person because you are afraid of god's punishment?

    God saved you from punishment? What did you do so bad to deserve eternal punishment? Couldn't he just forgave you without killing himself or killing his own son?
    ReplyDelete
  44. first.. you guys go somewhere and study about religion, story and human behavior.. oh and literature.. the bible.. specially the firts part isnt to be read and followed like it is, is to be understood and think about what is written and so we do not repeat the story. God asked Abraham to kill his son to prove he was loyal.. obviously it was just a test, and with that the rest of us learn that we have to be loyal and hav faith in God no matter what, cuz he is good, he would never take a son of us, instead he sent his own child to die and sufer and teach us what is really good because in the first part of the bible the humans where almost monkeys.. i mean they had troubles with organization and moral and that stuff, bud God cant just change us, he had to do it slow.. and by the time Jesus came humans where smart enough (or some of them) to acept that things are diferent.. that mariage is important, that women have a place and other stuff. the first part of the bible God have to deal with humans who are very stuborn.. so he had to take some several metods. and well like i said. is to be understood , not to be followed.

    thnx
    ReplyDelete
  45. Liliana, Have you studied about religion and history?

    Have you ever thought that you might be worshipping the wrong god?

    How come this god test Abraham with such a inmoral act? Will you test your kids the same way? Couldn't god use a better way to test Abraham?

    "he sent his own child to die and sufer and teach us what is really good"

    Again, how come this god kill his own son to teach you good? How come you don't see the stupidity of this?

    I will never kill our dog to teach my kids that I mean business. Will you?

    You see? you and mee have better moral standards than god.
    ReplyDelete
  46. @Brian: I think you meant me there :) I am not a moral person because I am afraid of God's punishment. Maybe at a time I was afraid, but not since he has saved me. Also, that quote is from a list of several reasons why I try to live morally.

    I deserved eternal punishment because I sinned against God. Sin is deserving of an infinite punishment because we have sinned against an infinite God. Sin is of the heart and action, so both my thoughts and deeds were before him. I was guilty before God (and so are you and everyone else) because I had been his enemy for my entire life. The reason the punishment is so great is because the person the crime was committed against is so great. To pay an infinite debt would take eternity. So it was God's wrath that I was under and deserving of.

    Now it would be illogical and immoral for God to just forgive with no punishment, he says in Proverbs 17:15, "He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord." If he were to make me right before him and turn his eye to my sin, he would be unjust and an abomination to himself. Example, if a judge in our legal system just decided to let a a murderer go free for no reason he would lose his job. That murderer could even apologize all he wanted, but he'd still be guilty. Same goes for us... God must punish evil (if not in this life, then the life to come).

    We all stand before God guilty, and we all deserve his punishment. This is why Jesus came to die. On the cross, he bore the wrath of God, which was the very wrath I deserved. He was a substitute in my place (called penal substitutionary atonement). I am free from condemnation from the law now because of what Jesus did. I do not need to fear him or his wrath. This gift of salvation is free to all who will turn from their ways and believe in the work of Jesus.
    ReplyDelete
  47. For those who equate morality with god please refer to this:

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
    ReplyDelete
  48. I am still waiting for Tirian's answer to Psy-Kosh's question: can you explain why you think that the answer to the question "why is it moral to obey god?" is so much easier than to answer "what's moral?" without a god being involved?

    Liliana, can't you see that asking somebody to murder their son to prove their loyalty (or even suggesting that symbolically) is demented?

    Brian, my wife wanted to kill our dog today but that was just because she was sick of the barking. That's just what happens when you're married to The Atheist Missionary and don't have the Bible to use as your moral compass.
    ReplyDelete
  49. @Brian: You said, "Again, how come this god kill his own son to teach you good? How come you don't see the stupidity of this?" He doesn't do it to teach you good or show good (although he does), he did it to save people from his own justice. The atonement of Christ was not to show people how much God loves them (although he does and it does show his love), but rather the main purpose was to redeem people from the curse of the law.

    "I will never kill our dog to teach my kids that I mean business. Will you?" This is an incorrect view of the cross. He didn't send his son to die to teach us he means business.
    ReplyDelete
  50. steve43 wrote: I deserved eternal punishment because I sinned against God. Sin is deserving of an infinite punishment because we have sinned against an infinite God

    Well, I haven't done anything deserving of an infinite punishment (although this blog might be changing that). steve43, do you agree that the bush pygmy who has never heard of the Bible (or God or Jesus) but has led what all of us would consider to be a "saintly life", is eternally damned? Tirian does and I think he knows I think that thinking is twisted beyond belief. I just had to ask ... it's one of my favorites.
    ReplyDelete
  51. Steve,

    I am guilty for what? What is my sin? And why is so big?

    The murder/judge analogy does not apply. The murderer could have been found guilty after a trial.

    I have chosen not to worship god. Why would I do that? At the same time I live my life as moral as possible, I help my comunity, I love my family, I help the neighbours, etc.

    Why should I be punished? And why would my kids be punished for something my great grand father did?

    I am sorry Steve, goimg through your comment give me more questions that answers, but I am willing to listen.
    ReplyDelete
  52. @The Atheist Missionary: Sadly, yes. I would probably say, though, that this man didn't live a saintly life. I bet he actually hates the idea of God and hates God himself. Romans 1 teaches this.

    Romans 1:18-23, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."

    Why is it twisted? Men are not born good, it should be obvious by the world. Men sin pretty much from the womb. It may seem twisted if you see this guy as good, but he's not. You go to that pygmy in the bush and I bet he knows more about God than most Americans and rejects him.

    I would say you have done many things to deserve eternal punishment. You've probably lied (or thought lies), or looked lustfully at a woman, or hated someone in your heart. All these things are sin, and the punishment for sin is God's wrath.

    I do appreciate you letting me banter on and on in your comments, though :) I might be starting to sound like clanging cymbals to you all by now.
    ReplyDelete
  53. steve43, first of all, I want to let you know that we heathens appreciate it when our theist brethren are willing to engage in a reasoned discussion about their beliefs. As you can appreciate, it is sometimes difficult to coordinate these debates because so many people believe so many different things. As you have heard many times before, you and I are both atheists towards most gods, I just go one further than you (and Thor would be my personal favorite if I was going to believe in any).

    Thank-you for addressing my saintly bush pygmy example. But what about childen who die during infancy or those who are misled (perhaps by me) into disbelief? Why would your merciful God want them damned for eternity? I am really struggling with this one.

    P.S. Please don't tell me that you reject evolution because it contradicts the literal word of the Bible. We were just starting to get along so well!
    ReplyDelete
  54. @Brian: Thanks for listening :) A lot of conversations end with people throwing up their hands and calling me stupid. I'm ok with that, though, they are probably right in some areas.

    "The murder/judge analogy does not apply. The murderer could have been found guilty after a trial." No analogy is perfect I guess, especially mine here. Say the jury let him go. Or say the cop who was going to arrest him let him go. My point is just that wrong and evil have to go punished, and I think you'd at least agree with that.

    "I have chosen not to worship god. Why would I do that? At the same time I live my life as moral as possible, I help my comunity, I love my family, I help the neighbours, etc." Well, why do you live morally? For the betterment of others or for yourself? You are putting humans in the same place I have God. You are moral for man's good, I am moral (at least try to be, I fail often) for God's good. God does not accept good deeds done for the glory of another, they are like filthy rags to him.

    "Why should I be punished? And why would my kids be punished for something my great grand father did?" You should be punished because you have rejected God in all you do. As for kids being punished for great grandparents, sins are not imputed to children, but people are punished (sadly) for their parents faults. Divorce, drugs, adultery, etc. are all things that are done by parents but bring hardship to children. The decisions we make today affect our children and children's children (although, children shouldn't be having children).
    ReplyDelete
  55. @The Atheist Missionary: True, you heathens have been nice to chat with :)

    "But what about childen who die during infancy or those who are misled (perhaps by me) into disbelief? Why would your merciful God want them damned for eternity? I am really struggling with this one."

    This is a hard one! But I don't believe God punishes an infant that has never committed a sin. God is good and merciful, and he says the children are his. This is a gray area in the Bible, and we really don't have many examples except for David's son dying and David saying he would go to be with him.

    Those misled into disbelief is a tough one too, but man is without excuse. He knows good and evil and he chooses the path he takes. God would save them if they went to him, but they will not go. It saddens me to say that, though.

    "P.S. Please don't tell me that you reject evolution because it contradicts the literal word of the Bible. We were just starting to get along so well!" Another day, another time :)
    ReplyDelete
  56. The dog thing was for Liliana.
    I know what xtians believe, and the "salvation message" does not make any sense.

    No matter how much christians twist their brains to explain the bible, still does not make sense.

    Some christians go to bible colleges, some use excellent English writing skills (CS Lewis, Lee Strobel, Craig, etc), some become expert in apologetics.

    But, still the tenants of christianity do not make any sense.

    "I am a sinner because Adam and Eve (they were a myth) disobeyed god, then god sent his son to be killed so my sin is forgiven that I didn't commit. To receive this I have to accept Jesus, if not I will be punished forever" I am sorry, non-sense there.
    ReplyDelete
  57. Brian, thanks for that link to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. When I read this stuff, I have to admit that I have a grudging admiration for anyone who can read the Bible with a straight face, let alone someone who can advocate reading it literally and patterning their life on it. The admiration is similar to watching a boxer get pummelled and yet refuses to be knocked down.

    The problems with these debates is that we are arguing with people who, by and large, could never be persuaded. There is no fact that could be proven and no tragedy too immense to shake their faith. When you ask them the question: what would it take for you to cast off your religious beliefs and get on with your life with the conviction that there is no God, no afterlife and what you see is what you get? ... they are lost for words because they cannot conceive of a worldview which contradicts what they (usually) have been taught since birth.
    ReplyDelete
  58. steve43, the amount of children dying daily around the world due to poverty related causes is staggering (estimated recently at 27,000 a day by Peter Singer in his book The Life You Can Save). My reading of the Bible suggests that these innocents will be just as screwed come judgment day as me so I feel like I will be in good company.
    ReplyDelete
  59. AM,

    Here is another one:

    http://www.evilbible.com/

    The question for my chritian friends is this, or something like this:

    If you find out that there is not god, would you change the way you live your life?

    If you learn without doubt that there is not god, will you go in a killing rampage? Will you stop loving your family?
    ReplyDelete
  60. I am going to chalk this one up to Elihu's argument in the book of Job.

    To put God on trial, or to suggest that we have the moral perspective or authority to judge God's actions as just or unjust is to suggest that we ourselves are God or have some supreme moral understanding and stance. This is simply not the case.

    This would be why Christians "won't admit the immortality of what is written in the Bible".

    Though there are plenty of immoral acts committed by man and not God that are highlighted.
    ReplyDelete
  61. @The Atheist Missionary: How do you come to this conclusion from the Bible?

    @Brian: I am rather convinced there is a God, even just from creation. I'm honestly not sure how I would react if I was 100% sure there was no God. Of course, I (or someone else) would have to go to all the places God might be and see if he's there to know for sure.

    If you found there was a God, would you change the way you live your life? What would it take you to convince you?
    ReplyDelete
  62. @Steve43, the point i'm basically trying to make is that the ancient greeks would have ferociously defended the existence of their gods just as much as modern day theists. They would never accept that there is/are no god(s), just like modern day theists.

    Yet it is globally accepted now that of course zeus doesn't exist, the ancient greeks were wrong. As are every other ancient civilisation with their own god(s). Yet it is somehow acceptable for modern day theists to defend the existence of the god they believe in just as ferociously as any of these ancient civillizations. Can they not see what is wrong with this??

    What im saying is that the stern belief in modern day god(s) is no better now than it was millennia ago, and why? Simple - there is no god.

    Look at it this way, the way modern day theists look back and disregard the existence of zeus and co is just like modern day atheists disregarding them. The only difference is, the modern day atheist recognies here and now that the same non-existence of zeus and co applies to all other gods, as where the modern say theists for some reason bizarrely cant apply this.

    I wonder if in a couple more millenia people will look back and laugh at all religions, not just those of civillizations past. I certainly hope so.
    ReplyDelete
  63. @ Steve43: I forgot my closing comment, basically steve, you and I BOTH, are atherists, i just believe in one less god than you.
    ReplyDelete
  64. oops, we're not both atherists, we're both atheists :/ my bad.
    ReplyDelete
  65. @Steve43, yeah 4 posts in a row, go me! Anyway, steve, i like to pose this question to hardcore believers. I'm guessing u belong to some form of christianity so that accounts for a staggering third (approx.) of the worlds population. The remaining two thirds however, are not, whether they confrom to another religion, or dont.

    So the question is, being in the over-all minority, steve, how can you justify to me, the rest of this blog and indeed the rest of the non-christian world why your religion, your god, and your holy book are correct and all others are wrong? If you believe in god then you are intrinsically implying that all other faiths are wrong, as are non religious people not to follow a religion.

    I'm interested to see your response. Thanks.
    ReplyDelete
  66. Psy-Kosh asked:

    "let me flip that around and ask "where do you get the idea that obeying god is a good thing?" ie, can you explain why you think that to answer to the question "why is it moral to obey god?" is so much easier than to answer "what's moral?" without a god being involved? (or do I misstate your position?)"

    God is the source and standard of "good". Without Him you have no *objective* standard to determine what "good" is. Nor do you have one to determine what "evil" is either. All you have is what you *think* and *feel* is good or bad, which has no bearing upon what other people *think* and *feel*. If you think otherwise, and still want to assert you can have an objective morality without God, please mount your case.
    ReplyDelete
  67. Tirian - thinking and feeling is th source of morality. If you feel and think its bad to do something, chances are your probably right. There are plenty of people in the world that have no idea about the concept of the christian god yet they still have morals.

    Not 100% on this, but i believe australian aboriginees believe that their ancestors grew from the earth (like potatoes) and populated the land. Not sure if they actually believe in a god.

    Anyway, point is, these people i speak of, whether ive got it right with the aboriginees or not, they work together with one another as a community, care for the sick and elderly, raise their young, give each other gifts, love one another etc etc. All 'good' things, yet they havent heard of god.

    Likewise, they dont murder their friends when they lose a game of boomerang, they dont slap their old folks for the hell of it, beat their young because they want to. They know wrong from right my friend, and there aint no god telling them what to do.
    ReplyDelete
  68. Drakr2000 said:

    "Theodicy" and "compatiblism" are not biblical concepts. They're philosophical concepts attempting to rationalize why there is evil in a world with an all powerful, all good god and the existence of free will vs. determinism."

    From Acts 2:22-23

    22"Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--

    23this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death."

    If you're going to say something stupid, at least be clever about it. Theodicy and compatiblism are right on the face of the text.
    ReplyDelete
  69. @ Steve, I wouldn't change the way I live my life if there is a god. I would still be the same loving and caring human being as I am now. I live my life as if there is nothing watching me; I do what I do without expecting any reward or punishment.

    I really don't think there is a god and if there is I would require evidence. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.

    I will change my mind any time if there is evidence. By evidence I don’t mean what another human being has to say about god. I want real evidence, not as another guy might explain it to me. BTW, I wonder how come god spoke to his people through prophets. How come he never spoke to a multitude of people? Is there always someone in the middle?

    The bible is not evidence of existence of god, I don’t think the god pictured in the bible is the same Christians promote.

    I think you said before that we can’t really know all about god because we are just plain humans (or something like that), then you might be as wrong as I might be.

    The most honest way to approach a claim is to approach it as a sceptic. That should be the starting point. Unfortunately, due to historical and geographical conditions we start thinking that there is a god. Our parents (at least mine) used the wrong approach.

    Rabhimself is right; many civilizations in different eras of history have had an array of gods, how do you know you pick the right one? Have you ever thought why you believe what you believe? Where does it come from? Do you know where Judaism came from? Do you know how Catholicism started? Do you know who really wrote the books that today form your English translated bible? Will you become a Mormon or a Jehova witness without learning where they came from, and about their core beliefs?

    Before asserting that god exists and the bible is the word of god we should study history and learn how what we believe today has been shaped through centuries. That is the right approach.
    ReplyDelete
  70. Rabhimself,

    I never said atheists don't have morals, in fact they do. The problem is they cannot account for morality in their worldview.

    How would you like me to argue the way you just did in your above comments? "Well, Rab, I know there is a God because I just *think* and *feel* that there is?" Would that convince you?

    What you think and feel has no bearing upon me unless morality is objective...
    ReplyDelete
  71. @ Tirian:

    "The Acts of the Apostles is supposed to have been written by the author of the Third Gospel. Like this book it is anonymous and of late origin. It contains historical inaccuracies, contradicts the Gospel of Matthew, and conflicts with the writings of Paul. Concerning the last, the Bible for Learners (Vol. III, p. 25) says: "In the first two chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians, he [Paul] gives us several details of his own past life; and no sooner do we place his story side by side with that of the Acts than we clearly perceive that this book contains an incorrect account, and that its inaccuracy is not the result of accident or ignorance, but of a deliberate design."

    These books are anonymous. They do not purport to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their titles do not affirm it. They simply imply that they are "according" to the supposed teachings of these Evangelists. As Renan says, "They merely signify that these were the traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles, and claiming their authority." Concerning their authorship the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas says: "They appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence whatever" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 24). "
    ReplyDelete
  72. Brian,

    I would recommend reading some conservative biblical scholarship. Do you think quoting this refutes biblical inerrancy? I think you need to dig a little deeper than "Bible for Learners".

    If this is what you read to understand Christian doctrine, no wonder you don't believe it.

    Take care,
    ReplyDelete
  73. Tirian, I hope you read my post at 12:57.

    The origin of book of Acts and the rest of the bible is pretty dubious. There is not biblical scholarship required to understand this, there are not original manuscripts, the writings that form today’s bible have been manipulated, copied (by hand), translated, written, etc, over centuries. The catholic church had control over the writings for about 16 centuries.

    Citing the bible really has not weight in this discussion. The book you have is not the same as it was in the 4th century.

    The bible is so poorly written and compiled that has produced many different denominations and sects within the christianism. This is because what you think it says is not what another Christian think it says.
    ReplyDelete
  74. @Tirian

    I never said you did say that atheists didn't have morals. I was pointing out to you the existence of a supreme being is not necessary to account for the morals that mankind develops.

    Your 'counter' argument about saying to me that u feel and think there is a God is incomparable. The feeling and thought about whether or not an action is wrong or right, is completely different to the feelings or thoughts about th existence of something, thats just nonsense to throw that at me.

    As for morality being objective, well that was what my original post was trying to show you. It is, why do you think that morality MUST have stemmed from a divine creator?

    There are without a doubt places in the world were communities of people have lived for generations without the concept of a god, yet they have their own laws etc, simply because its within every person to know the difference between right and wrong in the absence of a god.

    I'm assuming you dont believe in evolution, so trying to point out to you that our cavemen ancestors looked out for one another and had their own system of morality, you must believe in the whole shebang to think that the only reason why mankind has a concept of morality is due to the existence of a god.

    If this is the case then i think i'll just cease to participate in this debate because you quite clearly have your mind made up, which i respect.
    ReplyDelete
  75. EDIT: in the same sentence where i mention our ancestors, it should read, 'so trying to point out to you that our cavemen ancestors looked out for one another and had their own system of morality would be pointless'. Thanks.
    ReplyDelete
  76. @Rabhimself

    How are thoughts and feelings about certain actions being "right" or "wrong" a source of objective morality? Thinking and feeling as I understand are individual activities.

    If cavemen have their own morality then that implies it is different than modern morality. This seems to support the idea that morality is subjective. What exactly do you mean?
    ReplyDelete
  77. I had a discussion with a particularly devout Christian about the story of Jonah once. I can't help but see it as a particularly abusive story, and tried to explain it to her: Jonah was essentially a courier - he had a message to deliver (whether he actually wanted to be a courier or not was irrelevant).

    So I asked her: if a courier refuses to send a message do you a) fire him, or b) threaten to kill him and everyone around him?

    She insisted that, because Yahweh already knew the outcome, the means were justified. I was kinda gobsmacked by that.
    ReplyDelete
  78. Another fool is the only atheist I have encountered here that is at least attempting to be consistent with his atheism. Rabhimself wants to assert that cavemen had an objective morality. Where can I download this objective morality? I would love to get my hands on it.

    Apparently Rabhimself doesn't understand what *objective* morality is...hence the confusion.
    ReplyDelete
  79. Brian,

    The Bible is the most well preserved book from antiquity. Anyone in the field who studies the manuscript evidence does not even question this. That is not even taking into account God's divine superintendence of Scripture. You're citing a liberal source that has shoddy scholarship. You're also making a bunch of assertions without studying how the canon of Scripture was produced. Until you study the conservative scholarship, you're assertions bear little weight. If you're a person of intellectual integrity, I would recommend "The Canon of Scripture" by F.F. Bruce and D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo's "Introduction to the New Testament" for starters. However, if you prefer to only read the books that confirm your preconceptions about the Bible, you will have a difficult time convincing your opponents.

    Take care,
    ReplyDelete
  80. Thank you for the book recomedation Tirian, I went to amazon.com to read the reviews just to have an idea. It seems like the book mentions how the bible was put together, how the books were chosen and how plain human beings made the decisions about what books to include.

    My point is still valid. Regular people like you and me making decisions based on their own assumptions.

    I have no preconceptions, I was christian too, I have a few books on both sides of the fence before making my decision of becoming an atheist.

    As per "God's divine superintendence of Scripture" I strongly don't think so.

    There are so many contradictions and inmoral acts that convinced me that the god you market is so different than the one portrayed in the bible.

    http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

    I think you should read from both sides of the fence too and do the honest thing, approach everything as an sceptic without precoceptions.
    ReplyDelete
  81. I would also like to recommend two books to Tirian then:

    http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Scriptures-Books-that-Testament/dp/0195182502/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t

    and

    http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t

    take care
    ReplyDelete
  82. Tirian.

    Alright, i'm big enough to admit when i've got the wrong end of the stick. Prior to reading this blog, i'd never heard the term 'objective morality'. So when i read it, i translated objective in the sense of something that is presented factually, or based on something observable. i.e. morality based on what we see around us, our world. So when you state without god there can be no objective morality, i'm sure you can appreciate (despite my misinterperatation) why i wrote what i wrote.

    Now that i realise objective morality is actually a term, and now that i know what it means properly, then i do not think there is any such thing as objective morality. Morality by its very nature is surely completely subjective. It's wrong to kill but is that still the case when ur victim would kill your children if u didnt kill them first? The list of examples could go on and on.

    I apologise to all on both sides of the fence for any confusion caused. Everyone makes mistakes.

    I believe that identifying god as the standard by which we judge good and evil is nonsense. Which returns me to things i said earlier regarding those who in the absence of god, ( i dont mean atheists, i literally mena people who have had no exposure to the concept of god) still have morals.

    Also, i never said cavemen had objective morality, only that they clearly had morals in their society. I believe the more our species has evolved, the more we think about our morals. Which is only natural given our intellect. Like i said previously though, if you think our morality has stemmed from god, then you likely are a creationist too, so what i've just written would spark an entirely different debate with you entirely.
    ReplyDelete
  83. Brian,

    Thanks also for the book recommendations, I am familiar with Bart Ehrman.

    Supposed contradictions can be explained. I would recommend that you read the books I mentioned for yourself and not skim Amazon's book synopsis. You wouldn't accept my arguments against atheist material based upon an Amazon.com summary, would you?

    And how can you, as an atheist, define "immoral acts" objectively? Do you see the dilemma you're in? You want to pronounce God immoral based on what you *think* and *feel*. Why should God be judged by your subjective morality? Remember, your morality has no bearing upon others in an atheist, materialist universe. In fact, morality doesn't exist in a universe where nothing is accepted unless empirically observed and naturally explained. Think about it.
    ReplyDelete
  84. Rab,

    No problem, everyone makes mistakes.

    As I've said on other comment threads here, I never said atheists aren't moral. Of course they are, because atheists cannot live according to their own worldview.

    How can you, as an atheist, define good and evil outside of what you subjectively *think* and *feel*? I may think and feel murdering someone you don't like is OK. You call my mother a bad name, and I bash your skull in. That's "good" in my book. Who are you to say that I'm wrong?

    Another Fool gets it. Why don't you?
    ReplyDelete
  85. I just went to Amazon to know what the book was about. I am not judging it based on someone else comments. I will have to go to my library first, lol.

    I don’t agree with you when you say that “atheists cannot live according to their own worldview” and “morality doesn't exist in a universe where nothing is accepted unless empirically observed and naturally explained”
    I can live fearless and happy as a secular humanist without believing in any goods.

    Why should god be judged based on my subjective morality? Because based in my own morality I live my life; I care for others, I care for my family, I care for the environment, I help my community (I pay taxes, I live in Canada, lol), etc, etc; and it’s highly probable that I live my life like you do without causing any harm to anybody.
    God, as it is portrayed in the bible does not fit my definition of morality, it does not fit in my worldview; and I care about that.

    No matter how much biblical scholarship, theology and philosophy you use to explain and excuse the inmoral/criminal acts by god in the bible they are still what they are. I don’t want to write a list of examples here. (Job’s story is probably my favourite).

    The only logical explanation is that the bible was not inspired by a god and it was only written by ignorant illiterate men pretending having heard from god to control and dominate their people.

    That brings me back to my point, there is not god, and if there is one, NOBODY knows about it.

    And, if there is god and is the god of the bible, I am sorry, and I don’t want to do anything with him. Why should I? Why should you?

    Question for you: If you find out that there isn't a god, will you change the way you live your life? Will your morality change?

    Think about it.
    ReplyDelete
  86. Tririan,

    Thats two posts now you have said to me that you never claimed atheists aren't moral. I politely point out again i acknowledge this. I notice you again evade my comments about creationism, and i don't want to debate about this. I just feel if you are a creationist then the morals debate isnt going to be resolved.

    The fact is, generally, it's in peoples nature to be goodwilled. I keep saying there are plenty of people in the world, jungle tribes etc, that have no concept of a god, yet they have the same morals we do. They don't steal from one another, they don't murder one another etc etc.

    How do you account for people who have had no exposure to the concept of a divine creator? They live from their own, godless, world view. How do you explain the fact that these people realise that murdering someone off the cuff is wrong? etc..
    ReplyDelete
  87. Brian,

    If there was no God, and I was left to my own corrupt heart, I sure would live differently. I did before I was a Christian, but God changed my heart. Before I was converted, I didn't like kids, didn't like old people, I only wanted to do things that pleased me. I only loved myself (and my immediate family) and lived for myself.

    So, yes, I would live quite differently were there no God.
    ReplyDelete
  88. Rabhimself,

    One's view of creationism has nothing to do with this issue.

    If you think human nature is basically good, you must not watch the news or read the newspaper very often. Look at this world. What a mess. Furthermore, consider your own heart, by whose standard do you think you are good? Your own? Every individual in general thinks very well of themselves. But what does God think of you and your "goodness"?

    There is no one who doesn't have exposure to a divine creator. There is natural revelation, the perfect order and beauty of the world we live in that points to a divine creator. That is the biblical testimony in the book of Romans. Furthermore, according to Scripture, the law of God is written on the heart of man (the moral law, the 10 commandments), so every man knows (to some degree) right from wrong. That's why we have a conscience. It is marred by our sin, and can be seared as with a hot iron so that it becomes dull or numb, but every man has one. So, I explain atheists having morals the same way the Bible does...
    ReplyDelete
  89. Tirian wrote: I would live quite differently were there no God.

    Tirian, perhaps you are correct in one respect. Some people (like you apparently) need to believe in God and need somebody to set out a moral code under which to live. That fact lends absolutely no credence to your arguments about the logical likelihood of the existence of God. I could set out today to develop a far superior and cogent moral code than the one laid out in the Bible. I could even emulate Jospeh Smith Jr. or L. Ron Hubbard and start my own religion. That would not result in the tenets of my religion being anything more than a fantasy even though it could well be that the moral code which I lay out for my followers provides, to use your words, an objective standard of morality.

    My friend, you are living a lie but I have to respect your moxy.
    ReplyDelete
  90. Well Tririan, i've got news for you buddy, i do watch the news. You're right, our world seems to be in a sad state of affairs with all the badness put forward to you but let me put forward two points.

    Firstly, news usually highlights the bad happenings in the world, not the good. Obviously at any given moment, there is more good going on than bad otherwise the world would be in an even more awful state than it is currently in, so don't overlook that, not saying you did, just pointing out that unfortunately, bad happenings generally make great headlines.

    Secondly, a large proportion, and indeed some of the worst atrocities i see on the news are comitted by...... religious extremists. In the name of their god they are willing to sacrifice themselves as well as the lives of innocents, and you know what tririan? They believe fullheartedly in their god just the same as you do, but i bet u have an equally negative opinion towards them as i do. Objective morality obviously doesnt apply to them, good luck on a response to that.

    With regards to the exposure individuals have to the concept of a god, natural revelation as you put it means nothing. It also backhandedly answers my question regarding your creationist beliefs. You may not think that your belief in creationism has anything to do with the debate regarding objective morality, but on the contrary, if you are willing to believe that the earth is less than ten thousand years old and that all living persons on the planet ae descendants of the same two people, then i believe that your view on the world is so horribly twisted that no points i, nor anyone else could put forward to you would even make you reconsider your position let alone change it entirely. As Atheist Missionary states, you are living a lie.

    Furthermore, you seem to think that stating contents of the 'scripture' make everything jusifiable which is of course nonsense. It is no better than me claiming that wizards are real, only to refer to the 'scripture' from J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series.

    You do not seem to see the serious flaw behind using the 'scripture' as you're sole evidence for your entire argument.

    Open your mind, use the intellect that you as a human being have evolved. How can you neglect so many things that point to the extreme improbability of a god and hold tight to a book?

    Also, seeing as you seemt o refer to the 'scripture' so much, and seeing as the earth is such a mess, then why doosn't god order some poor soul to construct a giant ark and fill it with two of every animal again, then flood the earth. Sigh, you'd think with the immense power he surely has that he'd just snap his fingers and erase all the bad from existence instead.... but no, that'd be too easy.

    Forgive my sarcasm Tririan but it's late here in Scotland and it just dumbfounds me that there are so many people out there like yourself that can have such a view on life.
    ReplyDelete
  91. AM and Rabhimself,

    The fact that both of you *think* I'm living a lie carries no intellectual weight whatsoever, although you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Does it shake your atheism when Christians stop in and tell you "you're living a lie"? Didn't think so.

    Any moral code you could come up with would be skin deep at best, but the objective morality of the Bible touches the heart. It doesn't stop at condemning adultery, but condemns lust in the heart. It doesn't stop at condemning stealing, but condemns coveting what doesn't belong to you. "Atheist morality" certainly stops short of loving your enemies.

    Be that as it may, I've enjoyed the interaction. I hope I've given you something to think about. At least I've helped increase your comment count.

    God bless,
    ReplyDelete
  92. We know that you living a lie is just an opinion, but sorry Tririan. That last post of yours is just a cop out, you completely ignored all the points except one line where i say you are living a lie. You've completely bypassed everything else, i've written responses to all your previous points but you quite clearly don't want to address mine.

    Again, you refer to the bible, which as i've tried to show you, is nonsense.

    All you have given me to think about is why you have decided to stop the debate all of a sudden although i have to admit, i'm not surprised, this happens all the time.

    Makes me think you have no answers other than your blind faith, which ultimately, is what Atheist Missionary is challenging and encouraging people around the world to question.

    I hope you reconsider ending the interaction, but if not, then thanks for your time anyway.

    God certainly won't be blessing neither myself nor Atheist Missionary, good job we find the chances of him being there let alone blessing us negligibly small.
    ReplyDelete
  93. Rabhimself,

    I guess I didn't think anything you raised in your last comments was all that compelling, but if you are asking for a response because you are genuinely interested...

    You said:

    "Firstly, news usually highlights the bad happenings in the world, not the good."

    I was making a point about human nature being innately corrupt and fallen. Simply looking at the news confirms this, no indepth study is needed. It's a plain fact. Did I say nobody ever does anything good? No.

    You said:

    "Secondly, a large proportion, and indeed some of the worst atrocities i see on the news are comitted by...... religious extremists."

    The actions of some adherents to "religion" has nothing to do with the truth claims of the religion they profess. However, most religious extremists who harm people or cause destruction are not of the Christian stripe, and those who profess to be are disobeying the Word of God if they do so.

    You see, as a Christian, I have an objective morality by which to judge the actions of other professing Christians.

    You said:

    "With regards to the exposure individuals have to the concept of a god, natural revelation as you put it means nothing."

    That's an assertion minus an argument.

    You said:

    "It also backhandedly answers my question regarding your creationist beliefs. You may not think that your belief in creationism has anything to do with the debate regarding objective morality, but on the contrary, if you are willing to believe that the earth is less than ten thousand years old and that all living persons on the planet ae descendants of the same two people, then i believe that your view on the world is so horribly twisted that no points i, nor anyone else could put forward to you would even make you reconsider your position let alone change it entirely."

    I do believe that God created all things, otherwise I couldn't very well profess to be a Christian, could I?. Could you explain what that has to do with objective morality? If you could prove that objective morality is possible without God, I would relinquish my beliefs. Go ahead. I've been waiting...

    You said:

    "Furthermore, you seem to think that stating contents of the 'scripture' make everything jusifiable which is of course nonsense. It is no better than me claiming that wizards are real, only to refer to the 'scripture' from J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series."

    Scripture is the source of truth, it is God's divine revelation of Himself to man. How is that related to Harry Potter? Does JK Rowling claim to be God's prophet or something?

    You said:

    "You do not seem to see the serious flaw behind using the 'scripture' as you're sole evidence for your entire argument."

    Scripture isn't my sole evidence for my arguments, it is of course my primary one. However, you cannot even refute my argument on metaphysical or philosophical grounds. You apparently don't see your serious flaw in trying to justify morality in an atheist universe, where there are no non-physical, non-empirical entities like *morality*.

    Could you tell me again why other people should be subject to what you *think* and *feel* is right and wrong?

    You said:

    "Open your mind, use the intellect that you as a human being have evolved. How can you neglect so many things that point to the extreme improbability of a god and hold tight to a book?"

    I use the intellect that God gave me. I have studied the difficult philosophical issues involved here that you skim over without much of a thought. How can you neglect so many things that point to the impossibility of there not being a God?

    You said:

    "Also, seeing as you seemt o refer to the 'scripture' so much, and seeing as the earth is such a mess, then why doosn't god order some poor soul to construct a giant ark and fill it with two of every animal again, then flood the earth. Sigh, you'd think with the immense power he surely has that he'd just snap his fingers and erase all the bad from existence instead.... but no, that'd be too easy."

    Well, for one, God said He would never flood the Earth again. I suppose if you had more than a superficial knowledge of the Bible you would know that. Secondly, God will erase all the *bad* when Christ returns to bring about the new heavens and the new earth.

    You said:

    "Forgive my sarcasm Tririan but it's late here in Scotland and it just dumbfounds me that there are so many people out there like yourself that can have such a view on life."

    No worries, I don't have a problem with sarcasm. It's a favorite literary device among ignorant atheists. It just dumbfounds me that there are so many people out there like you who have such a view of life, pointless, empty, meaningless, and you actually want to argue/debate/defend it!

    I mean, with atheism, if you lose you really lose.

    And if you win, you really lose.

    Atheism is a no-win proposition.

    I'm amazed so many want to follow you into that black hole.

    Take care
    ReplyDelete
  94. Tririan,

    You said:

    'I was making a point about human nature being innately corrupt and fallen. Simply looking at the news confirms this, no indepth study is needed. It's a plain fact. Did I say nobody ever does anything good? No.'

    You inferred that human nature was basically bad in your initial response that said human nature was good. Remember? You asked me if i watched the news? You were basically inferring that my statement about humans being generally good was false. Simply looking at the news does not sum up humanity as a whole, i tried and abviously failed to highlight this a couple posts back.

    'The actions of some adherents to "religion" has nothing to do with the truth claims of the religion they profess. However, most religious extremists who harm people or cause destruction are not of the Christian stripe, and those who profess to be are disobeying the Word of God if they do so.'

    You see, you know fine well that to them, they are OBEYING the word of god. Their god. It's neither here nor there whether the god be the christian god or not, you can't just say 'their not christians' and leave it at that. Point i was trying to make there is that they are just as pious as yourself when it comes to their god, yet you quite clearly (and rightly so) disagree with their faith.

    You said: 'I do believe that God created all things, otherwise I couldn't very well profess to be a Christian, could I?. Could you explain what that has to do with objective morality? If you could prove that objective morality is possible without God, I would relinquish my beliefs. Go ahead. I've been waiting...'

    Well you'd be surprised at the amount of christians that pick and choose what to believe and disregard in the bible, on saying that, you are still one of them, you can't honeslty believe everything the bible says? Anyway, objective morality itself has nothing to do with creation theory, all i was saying is that your opinion on objective morality is quite clearly not going to change if you ridiculously believe in creation theory. Come on man, how can you honestly justify that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? etc etc. As for proving objective morality without god, you can't prove it with god, just the same as i can't prove there is no god (only highlight evidence for him not being there), and you cant prove he is there. For which there is no evidence, i just know your going to resort to the 'scripture' again, but that is NOT evidence.

    You said: 'Scripture is the source of truth, it is God's divine revelation of Himself to man. How is that related to Harry Potter? Does JK Rowling claim to be God's prophet or something?'

    It's related to Harry Potter because the 'scripture' is man made. If the bible is the source of truth then i will gladly copy plenty of passages out of it which are quite clearly man-written lies to try and manipulate our ancestors who w