If you would like an example of why I lean towards the view that religion can offer nothing useful to humanity, please read the following article (warning - this is really vile): http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/646579835.html
University of Minnesota biologist and Pharyngula blogger P.Z. Myers had this to say about the article:
Once again, I am confirmed in my opinion that Christianity is a breeder of evil, a cesspit in which the most hateful and inhuman commitment to lies and delusions can ferment. Don't ever preach at me about Christian morality: I've seen it, and it is empty of love for humanity, replaced with sanctimonious idolatry and commitment to dead, dumb superstition.
Harsh words ... but I am inclined to agree.
40 comments:
"I don't want to turn this tragedy into some creepy spiritual I told you so moment" - then what the f**k was the point of that piece of crap?
Is it not anti-Christian to take glee in the death of any of God's children, even abortionists? I guess not.
I don't think there was any glee in the quotes cited in the article, you're reading that into the statements. All the guy is saying is the abortionist was warned about God's judgement upon those who murder innocent unborn children, and he chose to ignore those warnings. Lesson: God judges sin. Repent.
It isn't anti-Christian to be thankful for the death of a murderer. An unrepentent abortionist lining his pockets with blood money is no child of God in the Christian sense.
It's ironic that an atheist would be so offended, or pronounce this "vile". Hey, to each his own. Who are you to judge? Why should the person quoted in the article submit to your *morality*?
Who is PZ Myers to call anything evil? That's just his subjective opinion...
How are the children who died on the plane any different than aborted foetuses if we accept that foetuses should be accorded personhood? Of course, there is absolutely no difference. That is why the author of the article is sick. You are entitled to your opinions and, unlike many religiot bloggers that edit out comments they don't like, I encourage you to express them. That being said, I could not find a more worthy Exhibit "A" in my case against religion than this article.
P.S. All opinions are subjective.
Did I assert there was any difference between the children that sadly died in that plane crash and unborn children that sadly die because of abortion? Did not the article you referenced focus on the abortion clinic owner?
However, if this is your Exhibit "A" then your case isn't very strong. Was this man innocent of the blood of unborn children?
PS. If there is no objective morality, why get offended? Why denounce something as evil? What is evil in a materialistic, atheist universe? Upon what objective criteria do you judge something to be evil? Is it because you *think* and *feel* something is evil? Why should I be subjected to what you think and feel?
As a Christian, I have an objective standard by which to make such judgments. You don't.
Even though there is no objective morality, I have an evolved sense of decency that was offended by this article. Kind of like the same sensation I get when I see someone gratuitously beating an animal .... I know it's wrong and I don't need anyone to tell me it's wrong.
Your evolved sense of decency has no universal value. Other people have no problem beating animals. What makes your sense of decency better than theirs? Are you more "evolved" than they are?
Tirian, I am not a cultural relativist so I would say that cultures which discourage the gratuitous beating of animals are more "evolved" (a better term would be "advanced") than those which don't discourage such behavior. In my view, this could be compared to a culture which has developed the ability to read and write and one which was not. I don't need the concept of God to tell me that beating animals is bad just like I don't need God to tell me that literacy is preferable to illiteracy.
AM, again you are using terms that indicate that a certain morality can be better than another, whether it's "evolved" or "advanced", but upon what basis do you make this judgment? How do you know that being kind to animals is better than beating them? Says who? When you say "I just know it's bad", what bearing does that have on anyone else? When morals (which are not physical entities, so I don't know why you're trying to live as if they exist) are simply subjective in nature they have no meaning outside of the individual who has them.
Well Tirian, if you are trying to assert that all morality is based on a religious viewpoint and is absolute, how do you account for the varied moral opinions within the christian religion? Why do some progressive churches perform gay marriages while others denounce homosexuality as a sin against god? Is one more right than another, and how do YOU know? They are all reading the same scripture you are, and it hasn't changed in a couple centuries.
There are moral traditions such as humanism and other secular philosophies that do not require belief in the supernatural. Not all non-theists are moral relativists. You may have heard of this thing they do in universities called philosophy (you can do it at home, too!) that is a constant struggle to determine what is a moral action and what is not. And yes, surprisingly, it does come down to the individual for the most part, because we are all moral agents. I find it much more heartening to believe there are people out there working through thorny moral issues from an intellectual standpoint rather than relying on a book written 2,000 years ago. In what other area of our lives do we rely on such old thinking? Philosophy and science look to both the past and the future. Religion only looks to the past.
Oh, and this: "When morals are simply subjective in nature they have no meaning outside of the individual who has them." Is just plain misguided. And incorrect. The sugjective moral attitude has meaning because that individual acts in the world with other subjective moralities. And he or she is punished by others for acting immorally, both by law and society in general. Your argument is sustainable if there is only one person in the world, that second person completely obliterates your argument.
Nick wrote to Tirian: "how do you account for the varied moral opinions within the christian religion?"
Obviously because his version of religion is right and all the others are wrong.
Nick, as I read your comments, I was reminded of the sign recently posted at a Baptist Church in Arkansas: Reason is the Greatest Enemy Faith Has. This is the way religiots think. They will debate with you to the point where they realize that there is no logical justification for their superstitions.
Tirian, unless you want us to accept the Bible as being literally true, you don't get to first base with your argument. If you want us to accept the Bible as being literally true, you have two big problems:
1. the literal truth of the Bible is unanimously rejected by anyone who can seriously call themself a scientist. The vast majority of Christians don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible because they know that position cannot be defended; and
2. Which version of the Bible is the "end all, be all"? How do you know that is the right one? Once you pick one, you have to deal with all the contradictions within your chosen version.
So Tirian, I will repeat Nick's excellent question for any Christian to answer if they can: "how do you account for the varied moral opinions within the christian religion?"
I forgot to mention a third insurmountable problem if you use the Bible to ground your sense of morality: the fact that it espouses a moral code that only the likes of Hitler or Mao could appreciate (stoning homosexuals, stoning adulters, child sacrifice, etc.).
Nick asked:
"how do you account for the varied moral opinions within the christian religion?"
Depends on the varied moral opinion. Different Christians have a different understanding of various moral issues.
Nick asked:
"Why do some progressive churches perform gay marriages while others denounce homosexuality as a sin against god?"
Some "progressive" churches has left the Scriptures as their infallible rule of faith and life, and therefore are no churches of Christ. The Scriptures are clear about homosexuality, there is no question about it.
Nick asked:
"Is one more right than another, and how do YOU know? They are all reading the same scripture you are, and it hasn't changed in a couple centuries."
Yes, one is more right than another. I know because of what the Bible says. Would you care to defend homosexuality from the Bible? I challenge you to.
Moral traditions have no bearing on anyone. After all, traditions can be broken, or changed, or ignored. All non-theists have to be moral relativists, they have no other option. If you deny this, please mount your case. Upon what basis is there absolute morals in an atheist universe?
You want to leave your moral system to philosophy academics? No thanks. The Bible is God's supernatural revelation of Himself to man, it looks to the past and the future. That's why it contains prophecy, and deals with things that have not yet come to pass (See Revelation).
Nick said:
"The sugjective moral attitude has meaning because that individual acts in the world with other subjective moralities. And he or she is punished by others for acting immorally, both by law and society in general. Your argument is sustainable if there is only one person in the world, that second person completely obliterates your argument"
OK, so I guess you can't condemn societies like Nazi Germany then because all the subjective moralities in Germany at that time came to a mutual consensus. I suppose you also cannot condemn American racism in the 60's because that was the moral consensus recognized by law--shame on MLK, jr.
My argument wasn't quite obliterated, was it?
AM quoted:
"Reason is the Greatest Enemy Faith Has"
That is an ignorant statement put forth by that Baptist church (unfortunately). You cannot properly reason without faith, because without God you can't prove anything. You can't justify morality, cannot explain the existence of universal, invariant, abstract entities like the laws of logic, cannot utilize scientific induction or deduction, cannot assume the uniformity of nature, cannot have the preconditions of intelligibility, in short, you cannot have rationality.
You really shouldn't apply a saying found on a church sign in Arkansas to all Christians.
The fact that you debate with anyone, that you try to *logically* justify anything, is proof of the theistic worldview. Your worldview cannot account for what you are doing.
I accept the Bible as literally true.
Your 2 points:
"1. the literal truth of the Bible is unanimously rejected by anyone who can seriously call themself a scientist. The vast majority of Christians don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible because they know that position cannot be defended; and"
Your assertion is simply not true, the literal truth of the Bible is not unanimously rejected by scientists. And scientists don't exactly dictate my acceptance or denial of truth claims, many of which have to do with the supernatural, that is, outside of nature--which cannot be held under a microscope. I'm not a naturalist, remember? Christians believe in the supernatural...
"2. Which version of the Bible is the "end all, be all"? How do you know that is the right one? Once you pick one, you have to deal with all the contradictions within your chosen version."
There are several accurate, literal translations of the Bible, like the New American Standard, New King James, and the English Standard Version, for example.
What contradictions are you talking about? The Bible has paradoxes, but no contradictions.
AM asked:
"So Tirian, I will repeat Nick's excellent question for any Christian to answer if they can: "how do you account for the varied moral opinions within the christian religion?"
See my response to Nick.
AM Said:
"I forgot to mention a third insurmountable problem if you use the Bible to ground your sense of morality: the fact that it espouses a moral code that only the likes of Hitler or Mao could appreciate (stoning homosexuals, stoning adulters, child sacrifice, etc.)."
Where is child sacrifice commanded in Scripture? Where is stoning commanded in Scripture? Old Testament Israel's civil codes had a purpose--to distinguish God's people as holy. God has the right to dictate the punishment that ought to be meted out for any particular sin. However, stoning was the responsibility of the governing authorities, not a rite of personal vengeance. In addition, it had a time, purpose, and place that have all passed away. No where are Christians called to stone anyone. Our moral code is the Ten Commandments, they reflect God's holy character and are perpetual.
Before you go there, because the objection is so predictable, Abraham was called to sacrifice his son Isaac (the only particular case you could possibly be referring to, since human sacrifice is everywhere condemned in the Bible) as a test of his faith. God prevented him from going through with it...
Tirian, the Bible is clear: Abraham was commanded by God to offer his son up as a sacrifice in the land of Moriah. If there is a God and this story is true, he/she/it is one sick puppy. That makes pulling legs off bugs look like child's play.
"God has the right to dictate the punishment that ought to be meted out for any particular sin." This is all fine and good, except that his so-called punishment is meted out by fallible humans, who may interpret his commands incorrectly.
You're not really arguing, Tirian, you are simply asserting that your opinions are true because the bible tells you so. I guess you can't really argue with a literalist, because they can't separate a text from it's context. And yes, you are cherry-picking.
"Different Christians have a different understanding of various moral issues." Hmmm, sounds a little relativistic to me. Basic question: does every single person in your church agree with you on every single one of your opinions?
AM Said:
"If there is a God and this story is true, he/she/it is one sick puppy. That makes pulling legs off bugs look like child's play."
Exactly what immoral act do you charge God with here? What crime was committed? Please elaborate...
Nick said:
"God has the right to dictate the punishment that ought to be meted out for any particular sin." This is all fine and good, except that his so-called punishment is meted out by fallible humans, who may interpret his commands incorrectly."
No, they understood Him correctly. Otherwise the whole narrative history of Israel wouldn't make sense.
Nick, please point out where and how I am cherry picking. I am not asserting anything without argumentation. You stated "having a second person" obliterates my point about individual morality. I then pointed out a culture and a society that committed gross atrocities, which you would rightly condemn as immoral and evil. That refutes your point about a second person obliterating my argument about individual morality. Care to respond?
Tirian, David Hodgson (philosopher and Australian judge) does a much better job describing the "one sick puppy" scenario than I can:
In the Old Testament story of Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 22, referred to by Dawkins at pp242-43), God tells Abraham to offer his son for a burnt offering. Abraham builds an altar, prepares wood for a fire, ties Isaac up, lays him on the altar, and takes a knife to kill him. Only then, an angel tells Abraham not to harm Isaac, and Abraham sees a ram caught in a thicket; and Abraham sacrifices the ram instead of his son.
This story is apparently considered an example of meritorious sacrifice and obedience to God, carrying also the message that even if what God requires seems difficult to understand, God will make sure it turns out for the best. To my mind, its message about both God and Abraham is abhorrent, and has the potential for great evil.
About God, it says that God expects obedience to God’s command to kill an innocent child, where there is no discernable reason for this except that it would please God (!) to have the child killed and to have obedience shown in this way; that God expects followers to respect a God who would be pleased to have an innocent child killed for no better reason than this; and that God would without good reason subject an innocent child to a terrifying ordeal.
About Abraham, it says that he had respect for such a God to the extent that he would, on the basis of such a capricious order, kill an innocent child. And that is quite apart from the point that Abraham, as a human being with no more than our capacities for perception and reasoning, could not have had any reasonable basis for believing in the existence of a God who would have such expectations or issue such an order, or for believing that such an order had actually been issued to him.
Even if Abraham had seen a great face in the sky speaking to him and had heard the words spoken, it would have been more reasonable for him to believe this was a dream or hallucination than to believe that a God, conceived of as good, would have such expectations and would issue such an order. And even if Abraham was justified in believing that what he saw and heard was not a dream or hallucination, the reasonable conclusion for him to reach would have been that this supernatural phenomenon was a manifestation of evil not of good.
It’s been suggested that Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice the child he loved is admirable. But that assumes Isaac was Abraham’s to sacrifice; whereas in truth no person belongs to another in that way. It has also been suggested that killing an innocent child is not wrong if God has commanded it. But that assumes it is God’s command that makes things right or wrong; whereas, as I have argued, there would be good moral reasons to obey God’s commands only if morality had force independently of God’s commands. And this suggestion also ignores the point that human beings only have their perception and their reasoning to ascertain whether there is a God and if so what its commands are; and reason is strongly against there being a God who would issue such commands.
So this story is about a God unworthy of respect, and an Abraham who was prepared to do something grossly immoral, to kill an innocent child, for no good reason that he could have apprehended. And it has the potential to inspire great evil in its message, apparently accepted by some people today, that it is OK to kill innocent people if you believe God has told you to.
Nick said:
"Different Christians have a different understanding of various moral issues." Hmmm, sounds a little relativistic to me. Basic question: does every single person in your church agree with you on every single one of your opinions?"
Not at all, different Christians have different perspectives on applied ethics (that is, what ought a christian think about Mixed Martial Arts, for example). The Bible doesn't directly address that topic, so we must apply biblical principle with regard to life in general. However, the Ten Commandments are clear, there is no debating whether or not murder is wrong, adultery is wrong, etc. and upon this issue all Christians who believe the Bible agree.
I never claimed infallibility, nor do I claim that every Christian agrees with every position I hold (although I go to a Reformed church where there is much doctrinal agreement). I'm arguing the Christian position I understand and embrace, just as you are doing with the atheist position you understand and embrace...
Hodgson continues:
It is right for Christians and Jews to condemn genocide and terrorism. But I suggest that to be consistent they should, with no ifs or buts, squarely acknowledge the following eight 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.
Tirian, are you willing to acknowledge these statements and, if so, why not?
David Hodgson said:
"To my mind, its message about both God and Abraham is abhorrent, and has the potential for great evil."
To his mind, yes, but I don't judge God through the mind of an atheist. He doesn't know God's plan or purposes.
David Hodgson said:
"and that God would without good reason subject an innocent child to a terrifying ordeal."
Who said God didn't have "good reason"? Who is David Hodgson to determine that?
DH Said:
And that is quite apart from the point that Abraham, as a human being with no more than our capacities for perception and reasoning,"
How does David Hodgson know that Abraham had no more than our capacity for perception and reasoning? That is not what the Bible says. Abraham enjoyed direct revelation from God. Abraham is the father of the faithful, he is the patriarch of those who believe.
DH Said:
"...could not have had any reasonable basis for believing in the existence of a God who would have such expectations or issue such an order, or for believing that such an order had actually been issued to him."
How does David Hodgson know that Abraham could not have had any reasonable basis for believing in this God? Does he have some special insight into Abraham's psyche?
DH Said:
"the reasonable conclusion for him to reach would have been that this supernatural phenomenon was a manifestation of evil not of good."
Upon what basis does David Hodgson judge evil and good? And why is what is *reasonable* to him have to be reasonable to everyone else?
DH Said:
"It’s been suggested that Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice the child he loved is admirable. But that assumes Isaac was Abraham’s to sacrifice; whereas in truth no person belongs to another in that way."
I wonder if this guy supports abortion? That would be odd given this statement, wouldn't it?
DH Said:
"But that assumes it is God’s command that makes things right or wrong; whereas, as I have argued, there would be good moral reasons to obey God’s commands only if morality had force independently of God’s commands."
This is basically a restating of the Euthyphro dilemma posited by Plato, however God is the source and standard of all good--so it is God's commands that make something right or wrong.
DH Said:
"So this story is about a God unworthy of respect, and an Abraham who was prepared to do something grossly immoral, to kill an innocent child, for no good reason that he could have apprehended. And it has the potential to inspire great evil in its message, apparently accepted by some people today, that it is OK to kill innocent people if you believe God has told you to."
David Hodgson doesn't know what Abraham apprehended, nor is there a blanket command to kill innocent people in Scripture. This is one incident for which God had a purpose. Any other suggestion is just plain stupid.
AM, I am not willing to acknowledge those statements, they are false.
God did not leave those commands open ended. He had a purpose for them, among which was THE most important purpose, the birth of His Son, the Savior of sinners.
From my above comments, which applies here as well:
God is the source and standard of all good--so it is God's commands that make something right or wrong.
Tirian, you are obviously intelligent and yet you refuse to unconditionally acknowledge the 8 statements posed by Hodgson above. Your refusal scares the hell out of me but, if you are correct about my worldview, I guess I could just as easily be cheering you on. But I'm not. I am scared for the future of my kids in a world where someone like you can attempt to defend the indefensible because the Bible told you so.
Tirian wrote: "God is the source and standard of all good--so it is God's commands that make something right or wrong"
Tirian, you are Exhibit "A" in my case against religion. It is precisely because of thinking like this that religion is dangerous and ought to be eradicated. God says kill the homosexuals and adulterers. God tells Abraham to kill his son. God says genocide is ok (see Exodus 34:11-14 and Leviticus 26:7-9). Oh, I don't want to forget my personal favorite, Deuteronomy 7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Just nasty stuff.
AM, as I've said before, those commands were not open ended, they had a time and a place, in order to fulfill God's purposes in the world. God established his kingdom as a nation (Israel) and sustained it through the line of David in order to bring about the birth of His Son (THE greatest good that has ever been accomplished), and by so doing He saved His people from eternal destruction. I would recommend looking up "theodicy" in a theological dictionary for a fuller treatment of the subject.
The Old Testament theocracy has been done away with in Christ. The civil penalties that applied then, which you find so repugnant, are no more. There is no stoning or genocide commanded in the New Testament. The birth and sacrificial death of Christ has already been accomplished.
No one should ever think that God has commanded him to kill anyone. That is utter nonsense.
Tirian, although I am in agreement with you that the civil penalties that applied back then do not apply now, I find it troubling that you cannot apply that to other facets of the bible. Generic Christianity views homosexuality as a sin. I do not know what your views are, nor do I know what your church teaches. But what I do know is that, millions of people commit to hate in the name of your lord. When dealing with religious folk to which I cannot reason with, I usually only part with one message of thought: Take everything you know about why other religions are wrong, and then apply it to your own religion. Everybody is an atheist... Some just happens to believe in ONE more god than others.
Hey Tirian,
Let's just assume that your god is right and that he is infallible.
Have you ever spoken to him directly? Or him to you directly?
I guess not. So i assume the only way your god is talking to you is via the bible you are reading.
Here's my train of thought.
All men are fallible.
All bibles of all versions are written at some point by men.
And by that, there are mistakes in the bible.
Unless you are saying they are infallible which makes them god, now that is just nonsense.
You are human and are fallible.
Therefore your interpretation of bible is fallible.
Unless you are saying you are infallible which makes you god, now that is just nonsense.
So my conclusion is:
Even if your god is infallible and is real,
Unless your god appeared infront of your eyes and told you directly,
i call into question the accuracy and validity of the words in your bible and
i call into question the accuracy and validity of your interpretations of the said bible.
Yes, yes, you take it on faith and you may believe it is true. That doesnt make the bible accurate representation of the message of god.
Unless you are telling me every word of it was written by god himself, now that is just nonsense.
Dont bother about what i believe or what i stand for, so dont bother asking what my moral values are. Dont bother attacking me.
I call into the defence of the accuracy of the bible in conveying god's words and your interpretation of the bible. Defend that and i will go to church this sunday.
Pardon me for my poor English.
PT,
I'm not attacking anyone, I'm challenging atheists to be consistent with their worldview. They can't be, which is a defeater for atheism. Atheists have no real answer for the holes in their worldview, yet they continue to blindly hold to atheism by faith. As you can see by some of it's adherents here...
But to address your statements about the Bible. God inspired men to write what they wrote by the Holy Spirit, utilizing their unique personalities as individuals. The Scriptures are "God-breathed". Everything we need for faith and life is in the Bible. That doesn't mean that everything in the Bible is equally clear. We should be teachable, humble, careful about areas where we cannot be dogmatic. However, the essentials of the faith are clear. God has spoken, He has revealed Himself through the Scriptures to man.
I would recommend that you accurately study the Christian position before attempting to ridicule that which you don't understand.
Take care,
"I would recommend that you accurately study the Christian position before attempting to ridicule that which you don't understand."
;) Knew you would say that. Half my family is Christian. I'm not. As i said, i'm not saying i'm all knowing. I have QUESTIONS and DOUBTS.
"God has spoken, He has revealed Himself through the Scriptures to man."
His message maybe real and good. I just doubt the scriptures which was written by fallible men and interpreted by fallible men.
Until i find a better source about god's message, i will remain in doubt about religion.
Leviticus 20, 13:
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Sounds quite immoral to do as Lev. 20,13 commands?
Deuteronomy 2, 34:
At that time we captured all his towns, and in each town we utterly destroyed men, women, and children. We left not a single survivor.
Genocide, eh? Massacre of a city? This was Moses' doing, by the way. That too, sounds quite immoral. If this happened today, Moses would be charged as a war criminal.
So tell me then, Tirian, how these passages of the bible are moral, seeing as how you claim infaillibility for the bible. If the bible is infallible, then why is genocide not appropriate to do?
Furthermore, you claimed the bible didn't condone sacrifice: check again.
Leviticus 17, 3-6:
3 If anyone of the house of Israel slaughters an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or slaughters it outside the camp, 4 and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting, to present it as an offering to the Lord before the tabernacle of the Lord, he shall be held guilty of bloodshed; he has shed blood, and he shall be cut off from the people. 5 This is in order that the people of Israel may bring their sacrifices that they offer in the open field, that they may bring them to the Lord, to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and offer them as sacrifices of well-being to the Lord. 6 The priest shall dash the blood against the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting....
Leviticus 1, 14-17:
14'If the offering to the LORD is a burnt offering of birds, he is to offer a dove or a young pigeon. 15The priest shall bring it to the altar, wring off the head and burn it on the altar; its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar. 16He is to remove the crop with its contents and throw it to the east side of the altar, where the ashes are. 17He shall tear it open by the wings, not severing it completely, and then the priest shall burn it on the wood that is on the fire on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.
Hmm. Blood sacrifice. Of animals, true, but still blood sacrifice. When was the last time you brought a dove for burnt offering to your priest, Tirian?
You would have to agree, lest you condone the torture and killing of animals, genocide, and killing of people for reasons such as lifestyle, that these views present in the bible are far antiquated. Yet you claim it is infallible. Both, in my opinion cannot be held as true viewpoints at the same time. If it is infallible, it cannot be antiquated, and if it is antiquated, it cannot be infallible.
And finally, a quote, just for flavour:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
~Epicurus (341 BC – 270 BC)
Greek phiolospher.
philosopher*.
Post a Comment