I will begin this post by observing that I am not a cultural relativist (i.e. one who believes that societal beliefs and activities must be understood in light of the culture in which they happen). Some things are just plain wrong and this list includes the subjugation of women by Islamist fundamentalists and Bible thumpers. If you would like a taste of how the Good Book treats our fairer sex, check out:1 Cornithians 11 (KJV): For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1 Timothy 2 (KJV): Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Ephesians 5 (KJV) and my personal favorite: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
What got me thinking about the religious subjugation of women is the uproar in Canada today when it came to light that legislation is being introduced by the democratically elected government of Afghanistan that would reportedly make it illegal for women to refuse their husbands sex, leave the house without their permission or have custody of children.
This is a significant story because it highlights a huge problem for the Canadian government. First of all, our country has already sacrificed 116 of our brave soldiers (as of March 20, 2009) pursuing the mission in Afghanistan. We recognized at the outset that the mission would be challenged by the fact that there are light years between what is considered acceptable treatment of women in Canada and Afghanistan. Our government has gone so far as to enumerate 21 benchmark goals to attain before our scheduled departure in 2011. Go look at those goals: http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/progress-progres/benchmarks-reperes/index.aspx?menu_id=60&menu=L.
The goal I want to emphasize is Priority 5: Democratic Development & National Institutions - To help advance Afghanistan’s capacity for democratic governance by contributing to effective, accountable public institutions and electoral processes. By 2011, Canada expects that national, provincial, and local institutions, particularly in Kandahar province, will exhibit an increasing capacity for democratic governance in the deliberation and delivery of public programs and services, and in carrying out democratic elections. Please note that there is nothing in this goal which suggests that Canada is going to predetermine the outcome of Afghanistan's democratic governance. I applaud this hands off approach and, to be frank, there really isn't any other approach we could adopt unless we admitted we are on a crusade. However, the problem is that we cannot advocate true democracy in Afghanistan without being willing to accept the outcome of that process. Which begs my question tonight: do we really want Canadian husbands, fathers and sons dying for the Afghan's "right" to subjugate women?
You have pinpointed an important issue; there is a marked difference between trying to bring political democracy to a country and trying to bring our values to a country. The first is noble. The second is stupid and an excercise in futility.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, unbelievers fail to quote the rest of Ephesians 5:25-29:
ReplyDelete25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,
26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
27that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.
28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;
29for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,
Christianity liberated women from paganism, where might makes right. I think your problem is that men and women have different roles, one lovingly leads, the other lovingly follows.
The religion you ought to have a problem with is Islam, where women have to cover every square inch of their bodies (as if they didn't have faces or were individuals with personalities), cannot be educated, and a treated as second class citizens....that is subjugation. Don't lump Christianity in with that abusive treatment.
Tirian, I never suggested that the Bible didn't tell us to love our wives. However, the suggestion that men lead while women follow belongs in the stone age ... like many of the other teachings of the Bible. The subservience of women preached by fundamentalist Christianity has far more in common with Islam than it does with today's modern secular world.
ReplyDeleteI have been persuaded by many of the comments made by Rabhimself on other threads. What makes you so sure that the Bible is the one true word of God? Doesn't your worldview fall apart if the Bible (of course, there are dozens of versions we could choose from - take your pick) is shown to be what I believe it to be: a collection of largely mythical tales written by a disparate group of supertitious men.
AM, first of all, you quoted the verse in order to portray Christianity as subjugating women. You quoted half the verse, without the important qualifying portion of it--which is that husbands are not to treat their wives like slaves, to be bossed around and oppressed.
ReplyDeleteThat's a twisting of Scripture. Husbands are to love and cherish their wives even as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for it. That is a dying, sacrificial love. Now the other verses you quoted have to be seen in light of this. This is not a matter of inferior/superior, it is a matter of male and female roles in the family and in the church. Your assertion on the Christian treatment of women is ignorant. Christ was very compassionate toward women, and He minstered to them in a way (treating them with respect and dignity) that was scandalous in His day because men did not even speak with women in public.
Compare that with the pagan treatment of women in those days, and the Islamic treatment of them then and now.
Re: Rabhimself, if you were pursuaded by his comments, that doesn't speak well of your understanding of the issues he was raising. What "dozens" of versions are you referring to? The English translations? Could you cite an example where the *meaning* of a verse is changed because of the English translation? Could you also further cite an example of how a Christian *doctrine* is changed by the English translation?
Thanks.
If Canadian soldiers weren't there do you think Afghan women would be better off?
ReplyDeleteThe law is disgusting of that point you'll get no debate but the fact is that if we have a presence there we are in a better position to effect change.
Let's wait and see what happens with the pressure that the West is bringing to bear on the issue before we decide if we're making a difference over there.
To Tirian:
Spare me. For every rotten thing the Bible says you can always find it saying something decent but that doesn't change the rotten a bit. That's how religion survives making no sense; theists can always pick and chose the reasonable bits that fit their culture and mores while cheerfully ignoring the illogical and offensive crap.
And why does the Bible have instructions on how to be slave master rather than a commandment that slavery is wrong? It's odd that your god put worshiping him as a greater priority isn't it?
Salvage,
ReplyDeleteSpare me the indignation.
Slavery existed in biblical times, the Bible doesn't command it, or promote it, or make light of it. In fact, slaves are encouraged to seek their freedom if they can, but whether you are slave or free you can still serve the Lord. Slavery in the Bible wasn't the racist, odious slave system that existed in the South (US). You were a slave primarily if you were a defeated nation in a war, or you had a debt you couldn't pay.
But who are you, as an atheist, to be offended by slavery? Why should anyone be concerned about your subjective feelings about it?
Been checking out your page lately. Mentioned you in my own:
ReplyDeletehttp://thesnarkywriter.blogspot.com
Awesome. You prove my "pick and choose" point with random precision.
ReplyDelete>Slavery existed in biblical times, the Bible doesn't command it, or promote it, or make light of it.
No? Then what would you call this gem from Leviticus:
44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
And this my personal fave from Exodus:
7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
>In fact, slaves are encouraged to seek their freedom if they can,
You're joking right?
Slave: Hey master? This whole slavery thing really sucks, the whiping the beating I've had enough, can I go now?
Master: Hmmm no and if you try and leave I'll beat the shit out of you or maybe just kill you as an example. Of course I am going to whip you for even bring up the topic.
Slave: Ah well, I tried.
> but whether you are slave or free you can still serve the Lord.
Well that's the important thing isn't it? That's why the 10 Commandments say nothing about slavery and all kinds of things about worshiping your god.
You ever wonder why your god's ego is so demanding? It's like you worship Tom Cruise.
>Slavery in the Bible wasn't the racist, odious slave system that existed in the South (US).
Ooohhhhh as long as slavery isn't race based it's cool! I did not know that! But while we're on the subject:
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.
See what I mean about pick and choose? You don't like slavery so you insist that your Bible "doesn't command it" Davis on the other hand loved slavery and he insisted that his Bible does command it.
Gosh, isn't it weird the way your holy perfect book can be so radically different in its interpretation? You'd think a supreme being would have no problem in communicating with his creation.
>You were a slave primarily if you were a defeated nation in a war, or you had a debt you couldn't pay.
Once again I did not know that there were ways to make slavery okay. So I guess that means if America started importing Iraqi slaves it'd be okay? Heck I'm Canadian and we kicked Germany's ass twice, I wonder why I don't have my own Teutonic servant because my apartment is a mess! I sure could use one. As for debt, hmmm well maybe there's the solution to the mortgage crisis. If you can't pay off you loan just become the bank's slave for seven years. You really can apply Biblical solutions to today's problems.
>But who are you, as an atheist, to be offended by slavery? Why should anyone be concerned about your subjective feelings about it?
Making sense, not one of your strong points is it?
@CKDC
ReplyDelete"there is a marked difference between trying to bring political democracy to a country and trying to bring our values to a country. The first is noble. The second is stupid and an excercise in futility."
How can the first be noble and the second not? Democracy is a political idea. Values are moral ideas. There is no difference.
A crusade for christianity and a crusade for democracy, are still crusades. The belief behind it is different but the idea is the same. The idea is that the aggressor's belief is supreme to the victim's belief.
Because christianity is the true religion the crusader is saving the soul of the victim, thus murder is justified. Or because democracy is the best government the democratic soldier is improving the life of the victim, thus murder is justified.
The belief is so "good" that one will kill to force it on another. But democracy is rule of the majority and any rule is tyranny.
I like your post Salvage
ReplyDeleteThanks Brian! And thanks for the opportunity to blog-whore because if you like that post there's more of my poorly spelt snarky theist (among other subjects) bashing here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hairyfishnuts.com/
Salvage,
ReplyDeleteThe verses you quoted from Leviticus are in regard to defeated (see war) pagan nations.
Your personal fave from Exodus is laying down safe guards to protect female slaves.
Could you advise me where Christians are commanded to take slaves? Could you point me to this open ended command that slavery continue indefinitely?
In fact, the reason slavery as an institution has for the most part eroded away is because of the gospel. Since all men and women are made in the image of God, because all people have value and dignity, slavery has faded over time.
However, as an atheist, how do you justify human dignity and human rights?
You may *think* slavery should have been abolished back in the OT, but overturning the whole social order of the day was not God's purpose at that time. I think I'll take His judgment over yours.
Salvage said:
>In fact, slaves are encouraged to seek their freedom if they can,
You're joking right?
Nope, 1 Corinthians 7:21
21Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
Clear enough, isn't it? I didn't say slaves were going to be freed simply by asking. I trust you're not normally this dense?
And by the way, the Atlantic Slave trade was abolished in the British Empire by William Wilberforce--a Christian who dedicated his life to abolishing it...and John Newton, a converted slave trader.
I don't really care what Jefferson Davis thought of slavery. He incorrectly understood his Bible and twisted it for his own purposes.
So, please humor me and mount your case for why slavery is wrong in an atheist universe? You're fine at having a lot of bluster, now's your chance for substance.
Let's see if making sense is one of your strong points.
>The verses you quoted from Leviticus are in regard to defeated (see war) pagan nations.
ReplyDeleteYes, I understand that the Bible says it's okay to make slaves out defeated peoples. That's why I've asked the military to get me a German slave.
>Your personal fave from Exodus is laying down safe guards to protect female slaves.
Yes, I'm sure there was nothing safer in the Bronze Age than being a female slave.
So your Bible obviously encourages slavery if it's telling you how to keep them safe. Thank you for confirming that.
>Could you advise me where Christians are commanded to take slaves? Could you point me to this open ended command that slavery continue indefinitely?
I already did in Leviticus and I had no idea that there was an expiration date on the Bible's decrees! See what I mean by pick and chose? Things like slavery you'll say no longer applies but what about the commands in Leviticus against homosexuality? I bet those go on for infinity.
>In fact, the reason slavery as an institution has for the most part eroded away is because of the gospel.
I guess you missed that Davis quote, him and many Confederate preachers would say the exact opposite. Some would go further and claim that Blacks were obviously the decedents of Cain because they bear his mark and are ordained to be the hewers of wood etc.
And once again religion is the ultimate Transformer, whatever shape you need it to be that's what it is.
>Since all men and women are made in the image of God, because all people have value and dignity, slavery has faded over time.
So let me see if I've got this right, slavery used to be good but now it's bad? How'd that happen? Did you god change his mind? Did your god's ethics evolve? How does that make sense? Isn't your god infinite and perfect? If so how is change possible much less needed?
>However, as an atheist, how do you justify human dignity and human rights?
This is a fun red herring, theists often think that their religion (not the religion of others that came before or after of course) is the wellspring of all morality. Never mind the historical fact that religion and crimes against human dignity and rights are often intertwined. Yes, yes, Stalin and Mao, let's not go down that very silly road. They had religions of their own only they cut out the middle man and made themselves the gods.
>You may *think* slavery should have been abolished back in the OT, but overturning the whole social order of the day was not God's purpose at that time. I think I'll take His judgment over yours.
So your god makes allllll of creation in a mere six days (having to rest on the seventh which is weird, why would an infinite being have to rest?) but when it comes to freeing slaves? Well that shit takes time! Hell he's still working on it to this day. Can't rush justice!
Your god's purpose and judgment seems rather scattered doesn't it? Perhaps he needs some Ritalin to help focus.
>Nope, 1 Corinthians 7:21
>21Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
>Clear enough, isn't it?
Er no, not really. A modern version would be "Don't worry, be happy." and when you're a slave that just isn't possible.
>And by the way, the Atlantic Slave trade was abolished in the British Empire by William Wilberforce--a Christian who dedicated his life to abolishing it...and John Newton, a converted slave trader.
It sure was and many more theists helped to not only end it but run the underground railroad. Furthermore religion kept the slaves spirits and hopes up.
And all the slave owners went to church, prayed to their White Christ and thought themselves good and decent heaven bound believers.
And once again we come back to my point that religion can be shaped to justify anything because it's not actually real. Real things can't be so easily twisted, fantasy, delusion and lies? Why that's the silliest of putties.
>I don't really care what Jefferson Davis thought of slavery. He incorrectly understood his Bible and twisted it for his own purposes.
And you haven't? Is it possible like Davis you too incorrectly understand? Nah, of course not, you are right, he was wrong but again how odd that you both read the same perfect god written / inspired book and came away with radically different interpretations.
Your god sucks at communicating.
>So, please humor me and mount your case for why slavery is wrong in an atheist universe? You're fine at having a lot of bluster, now's your chance for substance.
The Golden Rule baby, do unto others.
See you silly twit that idea actually occurred to people before Jesus.
No!
Yes!
Really?
Uh huh.
That idea and others like it can be found in writing that predates Jesus by thousands of years as far away as China. That's the thing you theists don't get, your religion is nothing new it's just a reinterpretation of the religions that predated it.
Kinda like James Bond movies, it's the same story and situations slicked up for modern consumption but it's still the same stuff at its core.
Or do you really think it never occurred to people that stealing was bad until Moses came along with his stone tablets that really are more about protecting your god's power than anything else?
Salvage said:
ReplyDelete"Yes, I understand that the Bible says it's okay to make slaves out defeated peoples. That's why I've asked the military to get me a German slave."
Apparently you can't seem to grasp the cultural context in which the OT was written. You want to read your *morality* back into the past. Slavery was never established or commanded as a perpetual institution in the Bible. It is acknowledged as an existing fact, and commands are given to both masters and slaves. You are conflating OT acknowledgment of slavery with NT Christianity. The OT theocracy has been done away with, there is no slavery in Christianity.
Salvage said:
"Yes, I'm sure there was nothing safer in the Bronze Age than being a female slave"
In pagan, godless nations it was a slow death sentence. Had you lived then, you would have no problem with it.
Salvage said:
"So your Bible obviously encourages slavery if it's telling you how to keep them safe. Thank you for confirming that."
No, it doesn't encourage it. It acknowledges it's existence and addresses it. You do know the difference between *encourage* (that is, positively support and promote) and *acknowledge* (to admit the existence, reality, or truth of)?
Salvage said:
"I already did in Leviticus and I had no idea that there was an expiration date on the Bible's decrees! See what I mean by pick and chose? Things like slavery you'll say no longer applies but what about the commands in Leviticus against homosexuality? I bet those go on for infinity"
Your ignorance is showing. Leviticus primarily deals with civil and ceremonial law. The OT civil and ceremonial laws have been done away with and fulfilled in Christ. I'm not picking and choosing anything. This is what the Bible teaches, perhaps you should read it a little more carefully. The only "laws" of the OT that are perpetual are moral laws. The OT theocratic system is gone, thus it's civil and ceremonial laws are gone. Homosexuality is a moral issue, not civil or ceremonial. Basic OT theology 101.
Salvage said:
"I guess you missed that Davis quote, him and many Confederate preachers would say the exact opposite. Some would go further and claim that Blacks were obviously the decedents of Cain because they bear his mark and are ordained to be the hewers of wood etc."
No, I didn't miss the quote, I addressed it. It doesn't matter what Confederate preachers would say. "What they would say" is not an argument for your position. I could quote atheists who contradict you, does that disprove atheism?
Salvage said:
"And once again religion is the ultimate Transformer, whatever shape you need it to be that's what it is."
Most of the OT is the historical account of the nation of Israel and God's dealings with it. The moral law is *set in stone*. Atheism is the ultimate Transformer, whose morality will rule the day today?
Salvage said:
"So let me see if I've got this right, slavery used to be good but now it's bad? How'd that happen? Did you god change his mind? Did your god's ethics evolve? How does that make sense? Isn't your god infinite and perfect? If so how is change possible much less needed?"
No, nowhere is slavery pronounced "good" in the Bible. If you disagree, please find me the text. Again, it was acknowledged and addressed in the cultural context in which it existed. Please pay attention to the argument so I don't have to keep repeating myself. The cultural context has changed, the message of the cross has been preached throughout the world, and slavery has slowly evaporated.
Salvage said:
"This is a fun red herring, theists often think that their religion (not the religion of others that came before or after of course) is the wellspring of all morality."
Saying it's a red herring doesn't make it so. How do you, as an atheist, justify human rights and human dignity? You can't, so it's a "red herring". That's your escape device.
Salvage said:
"Never mind the historical fact that religion and crimes against human dignity and rights are often intertwined."
What does that have to do with the truth claims of Christianity? It's also a historical fact that atheism and crimes against human dignity and rights are often intertwined. You know, Mao and Stalin and all that, but let's not go down that silly road.
Salvage said:
"So your god makes allllll of creation in a mere six days (having to rest on the seventh which is weird, why would an infinite being have to rest?) but when it comes to freeing slaves? Well that shit takes time! Hell he's still working on it to this day. Can't rush justice!"
God didn't have to rest because He was tired. You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you? God works through means in human history, except for those rare cases in which He performs a miracle.
Salvage said:
"Your god's purpose and judgment seems rather scattered doesn't it? Perhaps he needs some Ritalin to help focus."
Given your level of argumentation thus far, I think you need the Ritalin to help focus.
Salvage said:
"Er no, not really. A modern version would be "Don't worry, be happy." and when you're a slave that just isn't possible."
The point made was that if you can obtain your freedom from slavey, obtain it. If not, serve Christ as a slave. You suggested that I was "joking" when I said the Bible encourages slaves to seek their freedom. I quote the text, you obfuscate.
Salvage said:
"And once again we come back to my point that religion can be shaped to justify anything because it's not actually real. Real things can't be so easily twisted, fantasy, delusion and lies? Why that's the silliest of putties."
It's people that do the twisting, because they are sinners in a fallen world. The objective morality of the Bible hasn't changed. It's atheistic materialism that's the silly putty, where morality changes over time. That's how we get Mao, Hitler, Stalin, oh but wait, let's not go down that silly road.
Salvage said:
"And you haven't? Is it possible like Davis you too incorrectly understand? Nah, of course not, you are right, he was wrong but again how odd that you both read the same perfect god written / inspired book and came away with radically different interpretations. "
I don't claim infallibility, I'm open to correction. If I'm wrong make your biblical case, the text is objective.
Salvage said:
"Your god sucks at communicating."
Why does God suck at communicating? Perhaps you suck at understanding what He said.
Salvage said:
"The Golden Rule baby, do unto others.
See you silly twit that idea actually occurred to people before Jesus"
You skirted the question. I gave you the chance to inject some substance into your argumentation and you copped out. Justify the Golden Rule in an atheist universe.
Salvage said:
"That idea and others like it can be found in writing that predates Jesus by thousands of years as far away as China. That's the thing you theists don't get, your religion is nothing new it's just a reinterpretation of the religions that predated it."
Actually, that only proves the universality of biblical morality. It's written upon the heart of man. What you atheists don't get is that you really judge *morality* by the biblical standard. That's why AM and others here think their morality is superior to other cultures, because theirs is closer to the Ten Commandments (the ones dealing with how we treat other people). Without realizing it you try to line up your subjective morality with the Bible's objective morality.
Salvage said:
"Or do you really think it never occurred to people that stealing was bad until Moses came along with his stone tablets that really are more about protecting your god's power than anything else?"
Of course I don't think it never occurred to people that stealing was bad until Moses came along. But it's a lot more common place in countries where the gospel has been sparsely preached. Perhaps you've never been outside of Canada or the US? In Mozambique they'll steal whatever you set down and take your eyes off from.
> Apparently you can't seem to grasp the cultural context in which the OT was written.
ReplyDeleteNo, I can totally grasp it, I’m actually a big fan of history and that era in particular but what you are indulging in here is “moral relativism” which is something you theists of the fundy stripe often frown upon.
>You want to read your *morality* back into the past. Slavery was never established or commanded as a perpetual institution in the Bible.
Oh so a little bit of evil, as long as everyone in the society goes along with it is okay?
> The OT theocracy has been done away with, there is no slavery in Christianity.
Hmmm there was about 1,800 years of it in fact but why quibble over nearly two millennium? Or was Europe not a Christian continent while the slave trade was flourishing?
>In pagan, godless nations it was a slow death sentence. Had you lived then, you would have no problem with it.
Quite right but we’re not talking about pagan godless nations we’re talking about the nation(s) established by your god where slavery was not only approved but sanctified by your god.
But apparently he changed his mind right around the same time we did because of course religion morphs to fit the culture its infecting.
>No, it doesn't encourage it. It acknowledges it's existence and addresses it. You do know the difference between *encourage* (that is, positively support and promote) and *acknowledge* (to admit the existence, reality, or truth of)?
No, it encourages it by explaining how to do it “right” See if it didn’t approve of slavery it would say so wouldn’t it? I mean your Bible isn’t short on rules, laws, judgments, decrees and the like yet slavery, one of the foulest things one person can do to another gets a pass. Why? Your god goes crazy at the idea of two men loving each other and having sex but if one man whips another into servitude he makes no comment?
And you worship this creature why again?
>Your ignorance is showing. Leviticus primarily deals with civil and ceremonial law. The OT civil and ceremonial laws have been done away with and fulfilled in Christ. I'm not picking and choosing anything. This is what the Bible teaches, perhaps you should read it a little more carefully. The only "laws" of the OT that are perpetual are moral laws. The OT theocratic system is gone, thus it's civil and ceremonial laws are gone. Homosexuality is a moral issue, not civil or ceremonial. Basic OT theology 101.
This is great! You contradict yourself in one solid paragraph of bullshit. So “Leviticus primarily deals with civil and ceremonial law.” and yet where is the law condemning homosexuality again? And why did Christ do away with and fulfill some laws but not others? Did he leave behind a list or did someone else decide what he meant? More pick and chose, you really confirm my point, keep it up!
And there’s no morality to slavery? Really?
>No, I didn't miss the quote, I addressed it. It doesn't matter what Confederate preachers would say.
Why? Why can their words be so casually dismissed and other not so much? I know why because like everything else in your silly delusions once again you pick and chose the bits that fit. A theist says slavery is bad or does something about it because of their religion you jump up and down going “See? See? The spirit of Christ! Hallelujah!” but if a theist says slavery is good or participates in it because of their religion you say “Oh, they just don’t get it.”
Convenient huh?
>"What they would say" is not an argument for your position.
That’s not what I said, what is said is what they said is that slavery was approved by the very same Bible that you say doesn’t approve it. So it is an excellent argument that clearly demonstrates that your Bible is a Rorschach blotter and anyone can read anything they like into it.
And the final tombstone on any argument against is of course the Reformation. You know about that? 1500s? Monk suddenly realized that the Vatican had started just making shit up? Then your religion splintered into endless factions clearly demonstrating that the truth of Christianity is most certainly multiple choice and thus obviously flawed and nowhere near divine.
>I could quote atheists who contradict you, does that disprove atheism?
Um… that doesn’t actually make any sense see atheism is very simple; there are no such things as gods.
That’s it.
It makes no further comment on morality, astronomy, evolution or anything else you theists like to bolt on to it.
Gods are not real. Not yours, not the Native Americans, not the Vikings none of them.
So if you can find a quote that disproves that idea I’m like Obama gene spliced with an elephant; all ears.
>Most of the OT is the historical account of the nation of Israel and God's dealings with it.
It most certainly is not. While the Bible certainly has some historical note in places it is un-sourced for the most part and contradictory to real evidence in other places so as a historical document its use is quite limited.
>The moral law is *set in stone*.
Except for slavery, there seems to be some flex there.
> Atheism is the ultimate Transformer, whose morality will rule the day today?
As I explained but I’m sure you don’t get atheism has no more to do with morality than pi has to do with how much the last Indian Jones movie sucked. No gods, nothing more and nothing less does atheism address.
>No, nowhere is slavery pronounced "good" in the Bible. If you disagree, please find me the text.
I’ve already shown you the text, it tells you what kind of slaves to take, that is approval the same approval that many Christians in the last 2,000 years used to justify their crimes. Your denial of that reality is par for the course.
>The cultural context has changed, the message of the cross has been preached throughout the world, and slavery has slowly evaporated.
So why did you god take some 1800 years to do it?
>Saying it's a red herring doesn't make it so. How do you, as an atheist, justify human rights and human dignity? You can't, so it's a "red herring". That's your escape device.
Yeah, here’s me escaping.
Human rights are justified the same way we approve of anything else moral, natural law and common sense. See if you look at the crime statistics there are no more atheist criminals than theist ones. I don’t need your angry sky god threatening to torture me for infinity to be a good person apparently you’re so morally bankrupt the only thing that keeps you on the right side of the law is that crazy threat.
Sad.
>What does that have to do with the truth claims of Christianity?
Everything. You think that morality springs forth from your superstitions and ridiculous myths when the reality is that morality is found in cultures and times that never heard you your god. You’re like a marketer, you need to find a use for your product to sell it, monopoly on morality is one of the ways this is done.
>God didn't have to rest because He was tired.
Really? Then why did he rest?
>God works through means in human history, except for those rare cases in which He performs a miracle.
Yes, very rare, he hasn’t miracled anything in quite some time. Why is that I wonder? In the old days he’d be all over humanity killing babies, blowing up towns, flooding the planet in fits of rage but lately not a peep. Strange that. Seems that all stopped the minute we figured out disease, natural disasters and the like were the products of our environment not some psycho egoist mass murdered living in the clouds.
>The point made was that if you can obtain your freedom from slavey, obtain it. If not, serve Christ as a slave.
Ooooh I get it now! Your god likes slaves! He wants us to be his slaves that’s why he never says that slavery is bad in the Bible!
Wow your god is a jerk.
>It's people that do the twisting, because they are sinners in a fallen world.
Who made those people again? Who made this fallen world? So your god is punishing us for his screw ups? Wow your god is a twisted jerk!
>The objective morality of the Bible hasn't changed.
But I thought you said it did! That slavery was slowly done away with because it slowly became bad.
Very confusing.
>It's atheistic materialism that's the silly putty, where morality changes over time.
It sure does, that’s called reality by the way. The universe is a place of constant and violent change and we being products of it are subjective to those same forces.
No cloud dwelling crazy sky god needed.
>That's how we get Mao, Hitler, Stalin, oh but wait, let's not go down that silly road.
Hitler raised as a Catholic and supported by the Vatican so you may want to take him out of that loop there. While in his later years he drifted into atheism he never stopped using religion as a tool and what a great tool it is! You can get people do to all sorts of crazy shit as long as you tell them the sky god approves.
>I don't claim infallibility, I'm open to correction. If I'm wrong make your biblical case, the text is objective.
No case can be made, your Bible can say whatever the reader wants it to say, you are living proof of this. I’ve shown you were the Bible approves of slavery and you simply say “No it doesn’t!” but the fact that it explains how to be a proper slave master obviously shows approval. Again you will clap your hands over your ears and yell “The Bible tells me so, Jesus says it’s so!” over and over again.
>Why does God suck at communicating? Perhaps you suck at understanding what He said.
Ah but I’m not an omnipotent universe creating supreme being am I? The onus would be on him to be clear about his existence and what he wants from me.
>You skirted the question.
More ear clapping, no I didn’t, I answered It directly.
> I gave you the chance to inject some substance into your argumentation and you copped out.
Uh oh, you’re starting to try my patience, I can only take so much theist reality denial before I get rude.
>Justify the Golden Rule in an atheist universe.
I only have to justify the golden rule in my own universe, I treat people how I want to be treated because it’s a system that actually works. Gods not needed.
If you want to get Darwin about it altruism has been shown to give an evolutionary edge from that the golden rule evolved.
>Actually, that only proves the universality of biblical morality. It's written upon the heart of man.
Awesome.
So then why didn’t the other cultures hear from your god? Your Jesus? Your Bible? See the problem with that argument is branding, your god says he must be worshiped this way and that way yet he only gave those instructions to a tiny sliver of humanity. The rest he left to their own heretical devices? Why no Jesus for the Native Americans (well the Mormons have something to say about that) or the Far East? Or the Aboriginals in Australia? Why didn’t they get a savior I wonder?
So if it’s written in the heart of man (which is weird considering how evil man can be) why do we need your Bible and Jesus?
>What you atheists don't get is that you really judge *morality* by the biblical standard.
Nope, you’ve it upside-down, human morality shaped the morality of the Bible, we know this to be a fact because description of morality predated the Bible in the ancient Middle East and all over the world.
>That's why AM and others here think their morality is superior to other cultures, because theirs is closer to the Ten Commandments (the ones dealing with how we treat other people).
What percent of the 10 Commandants deal with morality again? Why does your god's ego get top billing again?
>Without realizing it you try to line up your subjective morality with the Bible's objective morality.
No, I do realize that and the Bible’s morality is lacking in so many places from baby killing to genocide.
>Of course I don't think it never occurred to people that stealing was bad until Moses came along. But it's a lot more common place in countries where the gospel has been sparsely preached. Perhaps you've never been outside of Canada or the US? In Mozambique they'll steal whatever you set down and take your eyes off from.
Once again awesome! I have in fact been all the way to the Middle East (where my atheism was confirmed in Israel, holy irony!) and you really are a very stupid person if you think this argument holds any weight or are you suggesting that there is no theft in America? Italy? Israel? Any other country where the gospel is heavily preached? Does Mozambique have no laws against theft? Are thieves not punished there? Is everyone there a thief or criminal? Are there no Christian criminals?
Salvage said:
ReplyDelete"I only have to justify the golden rule in my own universe, I treat people how I want to be treated because it’s a system that actually works. Gods not needed.
If you want to get Darwin about it altruism has been shown to give an evolutionary edge from that the golden rule evolved."
This does not even begin to justify the Golden Rule in an atheistic universe. Do you think "because it works" is an argument? Would you accept such an argument from your opponent? You can't justify it in your *own universe* and you can't justify it in the real, objective world either.
When you're ready to begin to even mount an argument, please let me know.
Take care,
>Do you think "because it works" is an argument?
ReplyDeleteUm yes, why wouldn't it be? See that's how evolution works, if there is a feature that benefits the reproduction of genetic materiel it's kept, if it doesn't it's lost. Altruism is on of the many features of human beings that has allowed us to prosper as we have.
Put it another way, why do we have opposable thumbs? Because they work, if they didn't we wouldn't have them.
You don't like any answer that doesn't end with "God did it!" and thus will reject it reason notwithstanding but that's why we have morals, they are beneficial to survival again no gods required.
Without even getting into the philosophical/metaphysical problems an atheist has in asserting there is such a thing as *morality*, and bypassing the holes in altruism as an attempt to explain why morality supposedly exists, if this is the level of argumentation then my reply is--I hold to the objective moral standard of the Bible "because it works".
ReplyDeleteWe wouldn't have opposable thumbs if they didn't work! That's profound.
>I hold to the objective moral standard of the Bible "because it works".
ReplyDeleteAnd what morals are you talking about in the Bible? Not stealing, murdering and the rest? Well have you noticed that people still do that stuff? So how do you claim that it "works"?
>We wouldn't have opposable thumbs if they didn't work! That's profound.
No, it's simply how evolution works and can you actually find a flaw with the reasoning of it?
Salvage said:
ReplyDelete"And what morals are you talking about in the Bible? Not stealing, murdering and the rest? Well have you noticed that people still do that stuff? So how do you claim that it "works"?"
It works if you obey it. In fact, it would be a perfect world. Since it is not obeyed and man is corrupt by nature, we have a messed up world. This only confirms the Bible's testimony. Thankfully though, the objective morality of Scripture still stands.
And you did notice that people still steal, murder, etc. under your toothless subjective morality, right? And they don't even really need to feel bad about it, because, well, it's OK to them. To each his own, different strokes for different folks...
Salvage said:
"No, it's simply how evolution works and can you actually find a flaw with the reasoning of it?"
"Because it works" is no argument for the existence or purpose of something. Chairman Mao found that military power "works" quite well when he ruthlessly established his power in China, does that justify his use of it? Must be evolution. The reason we have opposable thumbs is because God designed us that way. Can you cite the scientific evidence that will show me how "evolution works" and where specifically we see the development of opposable thumbs? I mean, you don't take anything on faith, right? You must have empirical evidence.
>It works if you obey it.
ReplyDeleteAh, so the Bible doesn’t actually have anything to do with making people moral as we’ve already established that its morality is universal, that is it can be found in time and places that were never exposed. The Bible itself doesn’t make someone automatically moral correct?
>Since it is not obeyed and man is corrupt by nature, we have a messed up world.
Did we? Really? How did we do that then?
>This only confirms the Bible's testimony.
No it doesn’t, since we’ve confirmed that people who read the Bible have no more or less likelihood of being moral that non-readers.
>And you did notice that people still steal, murder, etc. under your toothless subjective morality, right? And they don't even really need to feel bad about it, because, well, it's OK to them. To each his own, different strokes for different folks...
And this is silly jibber-jabber as my morality is enforced by society’s laws so no, not toothless at all. In fact far more toothfull because jail is actually real whereas your Hell makes no more sense than your Heaven or any other myth.
Unless you think we should let criminals go because their real punishment awaits them in their next life?
>"No, it's simply how evolution works and can you actually find a flaw with the reasoning of it?"
"Because it works" is no argument for the existence or purpose of something.
Um… yes, yes it is and a very good one in fact.
>Chairman Mao found that military power "works" quite well when he ruthlessly established his power in China, does that justify his use of it?
Where does justification come into the argument?
But yes, military power is one way of getting political power, it works, that’s why it exists and people use it.
You do a lot of work in this debate for me.
>Must be evolution.
Sure. Warfare has most certainly evolved or haven’t you noticed? Everything evolves, the universe does not stand still anymore than we do. That’s why religion is obviously false; it resists change and yet it changes anyway. And it your thinking no way than I have to ask what sect of Christian are you? There are dozens upon dozens of factions, are they all right? If so why so much variation?
>The reason we have opposable thumbs is because God designed us that way.
Nope.
But if your god designed us why did he do such a piss-poor job of it? Why do I need contact lenses? Why do appendixes explode? Why is the nasal system so stupid (just ask any plumber)? Why are our knees so vulnerable? Why do we have an obesity issue? Why do we have to yank out our wisdom teeth? Why do we get sunburnt? Why do we have remains of a tail? Why are there handicapped people? Why do babies suddenly die? Why do many women have miscarriages in the first trimester?
And so on.
>Can you cite the scientific evidence that will show me how "evolution works" and where specifically we see the development of opposable thumbs?
Yup:
http://www.athro.com/evo/pthumb.html
http://www.scientistlive.com/European-Science-News/Genetics/Evolution_of_human_opposable_thumb/21015/
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kemmer/Evol/opposablethumb.html
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/09/05/like-your-opposable-thumb-thank-your-junk-dna/
Make sure not to read them! They’re probably traps laid by Satan to lure you away from Jesus.
> I mean, you don't take anything on faith, right? You must have empirical evidence.
Tons of the stuff! From DNA to social anthropology into the study of the great apes to how butterflies got the image of owl’s eyes on their wings, the proof of evolution’s veracity is overwhelming.
See that’s the point of science, anyone can look at it and challenge its findings. Anytime a scientist says something new a dozen scientist are all over it trying to rip it to pieces and that’s how truths are found. Truths that split atoms, puts men on moons and porn on the Internet.
You know what really convinced Darwin who started off a god believer that there was no such being? When he studies a species of wasp that laid its eggs in the paralyzed yet living body of another creature. The eggs would hatch and the babies would eat their host alive.
Basically Charles thought “What sick bastard would design such a thing?” certainly not any being with a conscious. Nope, that is the work of evolution because evolution does not feel all it does it makes sure that DNA is reproduced anything else is none of its concern.
That’s the nature of reality and it scares the hell out of people like you and that’s why you resist the truth, you need your god like a child needs its parents.
Salvage said:
ReplyDelete"Ah, so the Bible doesn’t actually have anything to do with making people moral as we’ve already established that its morality is universal, that is it can be found in time and places that were never exposed. The Bible itself doesn’t make someone automatically moral correct?"
Whoever asserted the Bible itself makes people moral? Do laws make people obey them? The Bible contains the binding, objective morality from the transcendent God. It is found in various times and places which were never exposed to Scripture because it is written upon man's heart, albeit marred by our fallen human nature.
Salvage asked:
"Did we? Really? How did we do that then?"
Read Genesis chapter 3
Salvage said (in response to "this only confirms the Bible's testimony):
"No it doesn’t, since we’ve confirmed that people who read the Bible have no more or less likelihood of being moral that non-readers."
Yes, it does confirm it since the Bible asserts man's depravity. No man can perfectly obey the Ten Commandments, not in the spirit or the letter of them. That is why we need a Redeemer, a man without sin, Jesus Christ.
Salvage said:
"And this is silly jibber-jabber as my morality is enforced by society’s laws so no, not toothless at all."
How does your society enforce it's morality on other societies? What gives your society the moral high ground?
Salvage said:
"In fact far more toothfull because jail is actually real whereas your Hell makes no more sense than your Heaven or any other myth."
So, sitting in a cell, having all your needs met, is your version of "toothful"? And that's only if your society can manage to get a conviction in a court of law. Otherwise, you can get away with murder (see OJ).
Criminals get punished here for their crimes, and if they don't repent and turn to Christ, they get punished for eternity. That morality has teeth.
Salvage said:
(in response to)
"Because it works" is no argument for the existence or purpose of something.
"Um… yes, yes it is and a very good one in fact."
You don't need to be an atheist to assert a "because it works" argument. It doesn't further your position at all.
Salvage said:
"But yes, military power is one way of getting political power, it works, that’s why it exists and people use it"
Does "because it works" make it wrong or right?
Salvage said:
"And it your thinking no way than I have to ask what sect of Christian are you? There are dozens upon dozens of factions, are they all right? If so why so much variation?"
I'm a Reformed Protestant. Some denominations are more right than others, I'm in the one that most reflects biblical teaching as I understand it. Why so many variations? Because you can't split rotten wood...and there is room for differences on non essential matters (which is primarily why there are denominations). The essentials of the faith (i.e. the Trinity, the Person and Work of Christ, etc.) are held by all.
Salvage said:
"But if your god designed us why did he do such a piss-poor job of it? etc"
That has nothing to do with God's design, but the corruption that came into all of creation because of sin. The eye is a most amazing creation.
After your web addresses you say:
"Make sure not to read them! They’re probably traps laid by Satan to lure you away from Jesus."
Scientific facts must be interpreted. Naturalists have ways in which they disregard contrary evidence. I'll be happy to take a look at those when I have time.
Salvage said:
"Tons of the stuff!"
You mean you have empirically observed the change of great apes into another species? You can explain where the information we get from DNA comes from? Please advise.
Charles Darwin's judgment doesn't exactly sway me. Why should wasps eating a paralyzed host offend an atheist's sensibilities?
Salvage said:
"That’s the nature of reality and it scares the hell out of people like you and that’s why you resist the truth, you need your god like a child needs its parents."
Thanks for the psychoanalysis, Freud. Why would the meaningless, empty existence which you espouse *scare* me? Is it not you that is scared of God?
>Whoever asserted the Bible itself makes people moral?
ReplyDeleteYou do with your 10 Commandments and the nutty idea that morality comes from your crazy ass mass murdering god.
> The Bible contains the binding, objective morality from the transcendent God.
Like killing babies because their parent’s government won’t do what your god tells them to? Like letting the devil kill people to win a bet?
>Read Genesis chapter 3
You mean that silliness with the apple and the sneaky snake? That story asks more questions than it answers, like why did you god make it an fruit? Why not a rock or something inedible? Why smack dab in the middle of the garden? Why not up high? If you have poison and children you don’t put the poison in the toy room telling them not to drink it do you? How did the snake ninja his way into the joint anyway? Isn’t your god all knowing? Speaking of that wouldn’t your god know exactly what was going to happen? So didn’t he really set mankind up for the fall?
Salvage said (in response to "this only confirms the Bible's testimony):
>Yes, it does confirm it since the Bible asserts man's depravity. No man can perfectly obey the Ten Commandments, not in the spirit or the letter of them. That is why we need a Redeemer, a man without sin, Jesus Christ.
More stuff that doesn’t make a lick of sense. Jesus was your god wasn’t he? So it’d be easy to be “without sin” wouldn’t it? And what redemption? What has changed in the world since Jesus was allegedly on the scene (strange that there was no historical record of him, we know more about Caesar, Augustus and many others from that era)? If you boil it down to its basic parts your god sacrificed himself to himself so he wouldn’t be angry with the creation he created exactly how he wanted it to be.
>How does your society enforce it's morality on other societies? What gives your society the moral high ground?
See the recent Afghan “rape” law for clarification on that point.
>So, sitting in a cell, having all your needs met, is your version of "toothful"? And that's only if your society can manage to get a conviction in a court of law. Otherwise, you can get away with murder (see OJ).
Yes! Prison is like a holiday! It’s strange that people spend so much time and effort in avoiding it and yes! No one guilty has ever been punished!
>Criminals get punished here for their crimes, and if they don't repent and turn to Christ, they get punished for eternity. That morality has teeth.
Yeah, more sense making. So let’s say your Chinese in some rural part where the local Commie Party has sway and you never even hear of Jesus. You live your life as a good person, obey all the 10 Commandants… well the ones that don’t have anything to do with kissing god’s ass and you die.
Then you go to Hell.
Yeah, that makes perfect sense, quite the moral god you have there.
>You don't need to be an atheist to assert a "because it works" argument. It doesn't further your position at all.
Once again, atheism’s ONLY argument is that there are no such things as gods, it makes no comment on evolution, morality, astronomy or anything else.
Atheists do not say there are no such things as gods “because it works” we say it because there is no one shred of any proof whatsoever that there have ever been anything close to magical universe creating drama queen beings like the ones you worship.
But as far as evolution goes? “Because it works” is exactly spot on. Why do giraffes have long necks? Because they work in their environment.
>Does "because it works" make it wrong or right?
Not in this context.
>I'm a Reformed Protestant.
I’m reading about the Reformation in Germany right now, fascinating stuff. You do know that as far as Catholics are concerned you are a heretic and you are going to hell right? Fortunately you’re right and they’re wrong of course but weird that your god didn’t set the church up proper in the beginning isn’t it? That he let all that Roman paganism corrupt it with the statues and that baptisms and all that malarkey?
>Some denominations are more right than others,
Oh, so I guess in the afterlife some denominations are treated to nicer heavens?
> I'm in the one that most reflects biblical teaching as I understand it. Why so many variations? Because you can't split rotten wood...
I’m afraid I don’t understand what you mean here.
>and there is room for differences on non essential matters (which is primarily why there are denominations).
Really? All those wars and revolts and bloodshed over “non-essential” matters?
>The essentials of the faith (i.e. the Trinity, the Person and Work of Christ, etc.) are held by all.
Oh I don’t they are sir. I think there’s a real split about works v. faith and some Christians don’t think much of the Holy Ghost.
Then there are Mormons, Jesuits, Snake handlers, Baptists and all the others. Odd that your moral religion can foster unity isn't it?
>That has nothing to do with God's design, but the corruption that came into all of creation because of sin.
So we were physically perfect then Adam ate the apple and boom! Appendix! Wisdom teeth! Poor eyesight! DNA that’s 97% the same as great apes!
>The eye is a most amazing creation.
And yet they’re still deeply flawed but more magic fruit stuff huh?
>Scientific facts must be interpreted.
No. A fact is a fact you can’t interpret a fact to be anything else
>Naturalists have ways in which they disregard contrary evidence.
Some do and every time they do a dozen of their colleges call them on it. Nothing a scientist loves to do more than show another scientist to be in error.
I think it's their substitute for sex.
When it comes to evolution the vast majority agrees; that’s what happened.
> I'll be happy to take a look at those when I have time.
No, you won’t read them, your kind never does.
>You mean you have empirically observed the change of great apes into another species?
Did you see OJ butcher his victims? You didn’t?!?! Well then how do you know he should be in jail?
> You can explain where the information we get from DNA comes from? Please advise.
Like everything else alive it evolved from simple chemicals coming together over millions upon millions of years via gravity, combination that couldn’t handle the environment vanished, bits of code that worked hung around, evolving endlessly and here we are.
>Charles Darwin's judgment doesn't exactly sway me. Why should wasps eating a paralyzed host offend an atheist's sensibilities?
Again I refer you to the golden rule.
>Why would the meaningless, empty existence which you espouse *scare* me?
Because we’re born with a stubborn sense of survival that permeates every fiber of our being, the idea of not-existing is intrinsically terrifying and religion is one of the features we’ve evolved to deal with it. There are some fascinating psychology papers and books about it, I’d link them but… well you won’t read that either.
> Is it not you that is scared of God?
If your god was real oh you bet I’d be scared shitless of that lunatic! He flooded the whole planet because he was pissed off with what he made! Like a child smashing his Legos! He murdered babies in their cribs! He destroyed cities, encouraged genocides, he’s homophobic, misogynistic and so bi-polar one would have to make his meds the size of Jupiter just to level him out.
And to top it all off if you don’t love him he’ll torture you forever!
Your god is more like a stalker than a savior so yeah, he is very scary good thing he ain't real.
First of all, let me say that I am humbled that two intellectual heavyweights (Tirian and salvage) would take the time to slug it out on my humble blog. I love a good toe to toe match and you both give as good as you get. It will come as no surprise to anyone as to who I think scored the victory although Tirian refuses to get knocked down (kind of reminds me of Tex Cobb).
ReplyDeletesalvage had my favorite quote: Anytime a scientist says something new a dozen scientists are all over it trying to rip it to pieces and that’s how truths are found. Truths that split atoms, puts men on moons and porn on the Internet. If you're not already earning a living as a writer, you should be.
salvage hit on two of my favorite points: why is God such a piss poor designer? and why does poor Fung Woo go to hell when he lived a saintly life but never had the chance to accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior? I just don't get it.
The comment from Tirian that causes me the most distress is: You mean you have empirically observed the change of great apes into another species? You can explain where the information we get from DNA comes from? Please advise.
I will advise. I no more need to watch evolution happen, frame by frame, to be convinced of its truth than I need to fly in the space shuttle to be convinced that the earth is round. If you can read Jerry Coyle's Why Evolution is True and not be utterly convinced in the truth of evolution, nothing will convince you. However, I understand why you are reluctant to embrace the truth of evolution - that fact provides a wholly naturalistic explanation for what many of your brethren would like to chalk up to an intelligent designer. Which brings me to your question about the origin of DNA. Well, let's see, we have two options: we can assume that an intelligent designer started the ball rolling and not bother asking any more questions (i.e. the science stopper approach) or we can continue the mind blowing research into how organic matter can begin spontaneously replicating. Do we have all the answers yet? No. Does your God explanation appeal to my sense of reason? Not even remotely.