Thursday, February 25, 2010

No horror too vile to be defended if contained in Bible


If you are a fundamentalist Bibleist, there is no perversion described in your good book that you will not be willing to defend. But surely there is no way that anyone could defend dashing children on stones? Think again: http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/job-song-solomon/why-does-psalmist-speak-about-killing-children

I'm still wondering why we didn't discuss this one in Sunday school.
Posted by The Atheist Missionary at 10:03 PM
Labels:

48 comments:

  1. To Tam PSALM 137:9 is Davids felling towards
    Babylon read from verse 8 and you will see this is clear, so its not necessarily Gods feeling its Davids feeling. Its just like the many verses which say Jesus has a demon, does Jesus have a demon or is it just the opinion of his detractors.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Exodus 4:24-26.

    Poor Moses.
    ReplyDelete
  3. marton, why are you unable to admit the immorality of this passage, the immorality of God seeking to kill Moses in Exodus 4:24-26 and the immorality of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son in Genesis 22? I suggest that it is because, when it comes to the interpreting the Bible, your mind is impervious to reason.
    ReplyDelete
  4. To TAM AND CKDC- read 2 kings 19:35 God killed
    185,000 in one night , you see he is God he can do as he wishes. You may think this is immoral, evil, and insane but if he is real he created the universe, all living creatures, mankind , morality etc so he can do what he knows is right. we in our limited capacity sit in judgement of him and say look at what God did with Moses or Abraham He surley is vindictive or evil. what would either of you done to the tutsis in rwanda during the genocide.Even hollywood knows how hard it is to be God I am sure you have all seen Bruce almighty , but maybe you both would make better Gods.Please let me know how you would run the world
    ReplyDelete
  5. TAM,
    Was is it "immoral" to kill children?
    ReplyDelete
  6. To TAM AND CKDC. You should read 2nd corinthians 4:16-18 it gives a perspective on this life and the next . This life it temporal passing away and any real investment in hanging onto all the things that man sees as important money, fame , beauty [just look at cosmetic surgery business] sex , drugs , rock and roll is just an investment in futility and will always be subject to the law of diminishing returns.wereas an investment in love, peace, kindness, faithfulness, self control, generosity, unselfishness,and service to God is an investment in eternal life.
    just a comment on how sad and pathetic we are as a race the next time you go into your local newsagent just look at the shelves of magazines
    and see just how many are dedicated to sex, gossip, celebrity,looking beautiful and all the dross of life , and how many are dedicated to real people who help the sick, feed the poor
    work with the handicapped and less fortunate,perform heart transplants, and generally try make the world a better place.Any
    comments boys
    ReplyDelete
  7. To us all - and just in case we think we are immune to the frivolity of life next time a beautiful girl pays us a compliment would we prefer it to be- you are realy good person with admirable qualities, or you are a very good looking and sexy man. we are pathetic
    ReplyDelete
  8. martin, you wrote: how many are dedicated to real people - who help the sick, feed the poor, work with the handicapped and less fortunate,perform heart transplants, and generally try make the world a better place. None of the aforementioned requires religious belief and, in fact, I argue religious belief gets in the way of good works. I will leave it to others reviewing this thread to determine who is pathetic.

    Paul, if the killing is at the whim of your lordy, there is nothing immoral about it. I have a learned and evolved sense of decency that tells me it is wrong to smash "little ones against the stones". Nobody had to tell me that.
    ReplyDelete
  9. "Because God knows what's best for you" (!?) My Christian friends so many times have told me whenever I ask them a too-hard-to-answer question. And geee... I've got so many of them. All I need to do is opening up a Bible, almost any page I can find a question to ask... :-)
    ReplyDelete
  10. Martin,

    I read the passage you referred me to. Thank you for the reference. The fact that God slaughtered tens of thousands does not make me less concerned that he tried to murder Moses.

    I think we will have to agree to disagree on that one.
    ReplyDelete
  11. TAM,
    What if I were to say, and feel totally convicted, that killing kids is perfectly acceptable? I am just as evolved as you, and probably have the same amount of education. I have family whom I love just as much as you love yours. But I just think that killing kids with rocks isn't that big of a deal. My God isn't commanding me to think this way, neither is some book. It's just that my evolved sense of decency doesn't think this is all that horrible.
    Why am I wrong? What makes your "learned and evolved sense of decency" any better than mine? Or is it morally justifiable, if one's learned and evolved sense of decency thinks it's okay, to kill kids?
    ReplyDelete
  12. Paul, you wouldn't be wrong in the sense that I would expect there to be any karmic or metaphysical consequences arising from your kid killing whims. Society would just lock you up and throw away the key (or perhaps send you on the same work crew as the prison officials did with Jeffrey Dahmer).

    What makes my "learned and evolved sense of decency" better than the kid killer's? Simple answer - it is a behavior which is more likely to propagate my selfish genes. However, I would not want you mistaking this comment as suggesting that humans always act in a way which maximizes the chances of propagating their genes - adoption, contraception and voluntary celibacy are three examples that come readily to mind.

    Is it ever morally justifiable to kill kids? Well, it was certainly considered justifiable by many ancient societies. If you want to play theoretical games, I am sure that I could come up with circumstances that would justify killing children: such as to prevent the transmission of a deadly pathogen to the general population or perhaps to spare the children from greater suffering. No doubt you are aware of Sophie's Choice - I trust you will agree that it was morally justifiable for the mother to single out one child for execution rather than allow two to be killed. My friend, everything is relative ... your lordy of the Bible sure didn't mind smiting kids when it suited his holy fancy to do so.

    I should add that your lord has come up with some really nasty ways to propagate genes - check out the parasitic larvae of the Ichneumonoidea.
    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm not talking about killing kids to save lives, I'm talking about going to the mall and picking kids off with my rifle. All because I think it would be fun, and my learned and evolved sense of decency has no qualms with it. Would that be wrong?
    Oh wait, you believe that your "learned and evolved sense of decency" is better than mine because not killing kids "is a behavior which is more likely to propagate my selfish genes." But then you say that humans don't always act in a way that propagates genes. So which is it? If your opinion on killing kids is better than mine because of wanting to propagate genes, than contraception and abortion would be the highest of evils. If "everything is relative" then morality does not exist and you, my friend, are making things up as you go along.
    ReplyDelete
  14. Paul, you're starting to get it. Each individual makes up their own morality, based on their evolved instincts and learned behaviors - the latter heavily influenced by societal norms. We all "make it up as we go along" - you don't need a celestial daddy to tell you right from wrong. We each decide for ourselves. Some choose to be ax murderers, but most (thankfully) don't.
    ReplyDelete
  15. You still didn't answer my question. Why is your evolved sense of decency better than mine? If everything is relative, then it isn't better, nobody's is better. Meaning that you have no basis in your claim that dashing children upon stones is immoral. Why should I believe you when you say this is wrong if you cannot prove it to me?
    ReplyDelete
  16. To Nguyen Nhan Tri - what question do you have
    as I can open a maths books and have questions from every page so specifically what questions do you have
    ReplyDelete
  17. Paul, now you're running around in circles. "Better" is a term that can't be used without a term of reference. If (as I contend) morality is determined by the individual, it can only be considered from the perspective of the individual. So, in your example, I and most other members of modern society consider dashing children on stones to be immoral while you consider it to be Hunky-dory. Which view is better? That answer depends on who is making the determination. If the voters are comprised of a set of sociopaths, they would probably say that your preference or killing kids is better.

    Once again, what does your god add to the equation? Do you need him to tell you that dashing kids on rocks is wrong? If so, you must accept that it is ok for him to decide that dashing kids on rocks is fine in particular circumstances.

    Because I know you have a fondness for the concept of "objective" right and wrong, I thought you would like this article: http://users.tpg.com.au/raeda/website/Dawkins.htm My question to you is why won't Christians admit the immorality (as defined by Christians) of what is written in the Bible?
    ReplyDelete
  18. Why do you believe that killing kids, just for fun, is wrong? Your opinion is worth nothing, and so is the argument about propagating genes(unless you want to concede contraception and abortion). Why should I believe you when you tell me that arbitrarily killing kids is wrong? Unless it isn't wrong.
    ReplyDelete
  19. Paul, I believe (actually "feel" is a better term) killing kids, just for fun, is wrong because I have an evolved and learned sense that it is wrong. I accept that evolution and my environment could have combined in a way that I would consider indiscriminate killing just fine. I do not believe it is objectively wrong (but it is inherently wasteful) because I do not believe that there is such a thing as an objective right and wrong. I believe that all of morality is subjective, as formulated by an individual.
    ReplyDelete
  20. Paul, Once again, what does your god add to the equation? Do you need him to tell you that dashing kids on rocks is wrong? (however, you want to define the word "wrong") If so, you must accept that it is ok for him to decide that dashing kids on rocks is fine in particular circumstances.
    ReplyDelete
  21. Why should I, or anybody, believe your feelings? You have no concrete bases for these feelings yet you criticize anybody who does not share the same sentiments. I feel discriminated against. You support laws that ban the killing of kids, when there is no real reason why it is wrong. Why should Stalin or Timothy McVeigh be punished for wanting to kill people when there "evolved and learned sense of decency" felt that it was okay?

    Tell me again why you want to get rid of Christianity.
    ReplyDelete
  22. Hold the phone! God wanted to dash kids on rock! Where did you learn how to read God's mind? Did you learn it from the same place the psalmist who wrote that verse did? Your as good at prooftexting scripture than any baptist minister I know.
    ReplyDelete
  23. Paul, I couldn't care less what you think of my feelings. I support laws that ban the killing of kids because I have instincts that find those acts repulsive. My instincts have been reinforced by my parents, teachers, peers and society at large.

    Why do I want to get rid of Christianity? Let me share just a few reasons:

    1. It is a worldview that minimizes the importance of life on earth in circumstances where I am quite certain that is the only life we will ever have.

    2. It is a belief system that suggests we can have a metaphysical get out of jail free card because of the substituionary atonement relating to the death of a single man. I will take responsibility for my own actions, thank-you.

    3. It is based on the myth of a man dying, starting to rot and then coming back to life. If you saw that trick performed live in Vegas, you would look for a natural explanation. Why do you throw away your natural sense of skepticism to accept supernatural accounts from a 2000 year old text?

    4. Moderate Christian beliefs enable extremist ones - see Sam Harris' The End of Faith.

    5. Christian faith is, by definition, belief in what cannot be proven. That approach is diametrically opposed to the worldview which I espouse, one based on the application of skepticism, reason, critical thinking and the scientific method.

    6. Christianity is based on the Bible. In the words of Richard Dawkins, "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully".

    7. God is imaginary and I don't believe people should waste their time on imaginary things. For 50 proofs to support this position, please visit www.godisimaginary.com

    8. Christianity wastes resources on building churches and paying clergy when that money could be better spent on helping those in need.

    9. The Catholic Church doctrine which prohibits condom usage has contributed to the spread of AIDS and overpopulation in the Third World.

    10. Catholic Church doctrine that encourages healthy males and females to lead sexless lives.

    I could go on and on. That list above took me less than 2 minutes. There is no question that the world would be better off without religious irrationality. The good news is that the tide is finally starting to turn in this direction.

    By the way, I am sick of always answering your questions while you dodge mine. I am still waiting for you to explain why you need lordy to tell you it's wrong to dash children on stones.
    ReplyDelete
  24. Paul, as far as God killing children is concerned, please see:

    1 Samuel 15:3

    Exodus 12:29

    Hosea 13:16

    [and my personal favorite] Exodus 20:5 Don't you think punishing the third and fourth generations is a bit of overkill?
    ReplyDelete
  25. Your feelings about killing kids are no different, and just as irrational, than my feelings about Christianity. My Christian beliefs "have been reinforced by my parents, teachers, peers and society at large." Why is it my instincts and feelings that need to be gotten rid of? You are living your life based on personal feelings and opinions that are just as unprovable and "irrational" as a belief in a God, yet you condemn anybody who does not agree with you.
    ReplyDelete
  26. Hold the phone! God wanted to kill kids! Where did you learn how to read God's mind? Did you learn it from the same place the ancient writers and interpreters who wrote those verses did? Your as good at prooftexting scripture than any baptist minister I know.
    Please stop making up your own god from your own opinions and then telling me that your TAM's god is the Christian God.
    ReplyDelete
  27. Paul, there is no onus on me - I don't seek to prove anything.

    The only thing I condemn is accepting anything without sufficient evidence. Your suggestion that my beliefs are just as irrational as belief in a god creates a false dichotomy. My beliefs are based on the reality that I perceive. If your lordy speaks to you, then I would be the first to concede that your belief is based on reality as you perceive it (perhaps induced by psychosis or a head injury). All I can tell you is that your lordy doesn't speak to me.

    Anyone who review this thread will conclude that you refuse to answer questions that are squarely put to you, such as: why do you need a god to tell you whether it is right or wrong to dash children on stones?
    ReplyDelete
  28. My beliefs are also based in the reality that I perceive, therefore just as legitimate and rational as your reality. So why, my friend, do you continue to attack my reality?

    I have not answered because the question is irrelevant. If everyone is living in their own reality, where morality is based in whatever we want it to, then neither morality or reality truly exist.

    But I will give you a brief summery of Christian morality. "Right and wrong" is revealed to humanity through revelation, reason, and natural law. So my will is inherently oriented towards the good(natural law), I take what is presented to me in revelation and reach a conclusion based in reason.
    ReplyDelete
  29. I wish you the best of luck in a life governed by revelations from an imaginary friend.
    ReplyDelete
  30. To Tam - are you suggesting Jesus Christ was not a real person, and only imaginary.
    ReplyDelete
  31. "He (an Atheist) doesn’t merely lack belief in a divinity; he positively believes in the absence of a divinity." -Colin McGinn

    "The purpose of this website/blog is to inform atheists and CONVERT THEISTS. Posts on this blog should interest those who are questioning their FAITH IN IRRATIONAL BELIEF SYSTEMS and those who have already FREED THEMSELVES FROM SUCH SILLINESS." -TAM (emphasis added)

    "My beliefs are based on the reality that I perceive. If your lordy speaks to you, then I would be the first to concede that your belief is based on reality as you perceive it." -TAM

    "I do not believe that there is such a thing as an objective right and wrong. I believe that all of morality is subjective, as formulated by an individual." -TAM

    "If (as I contend) morality is determined by the individual, it can only be considered from the perspective of the individual." -TAM

    "Each individual makes up their own morality, based on their evolved instincts and learned behaviors" -TAM

    "My friend, everything is relative." -TAM

    You are living your life based on a belief system that is just as "silly" as Christianity. You cannot prove anything to be absolute, because everything is relative. Morality and reality simply do not exist. Yet you attack my beliefs when they are based in the reality that I perceive, therefore just as legitimate and "rational" as your reality. Why, my friend, do you continue to attack my reality?
    ReplyDelete
  32. Paul, your error lies in suggesting that my beliefs are just as legitimate and rational as yours. This is a false dichotomy. Just because I cannot prove anything with absolute certainty does not mean that your delusions rank equally with my beliefs. My beliefs are based on the bext evidence available. Your suggestion is like saying my belief that fairies live in my backyard deserve just as much respwect as your belief that they don't exist. The fact that you can't absolutely disprove the existence of fairies in my backyard wouldn't stop you from chuckling at the suggestion that they exist.

    Which brings me to my next question for you: what is the most compelling evidence that you rely on to support your belief that god exists?
    ReplyDelete
  33. martin, I have difficulty answering your question because I am not an expert on the historicity of Jesus. With my limited knowledge, I would tend to believe that a human being by the name of Jesus of Nazareth lived and was cruicifed by the Romans. If you believe that fellow rose from the dead, I have some ocean front property in Arizona that might interest you.
    ReplyDelete
  34. TAM,
    You said yourself "My beliefs are based on the reality that I perceive." And then continue with "If your lordy speaks to you, then I would be the first to concede that your belief is based on reality as you perceive it." I have "perceived" and experienced God making Him a very real part of my reality. By your definition, that is enough "evidence" that my belief is equal to yours. Why is your "reality" better than mine?
    ReplyDelete
  35. Paul, that is like a paranoid schizophrenic telling me that I should accept that he is five different at the same time. If your reality is based on make-believe notions, you cannot expect others to accept them. However, if fairness, your delusions are shared by millions. A mass delusion is still a delusion.
    ReplyDelete
  36. You have a belief that killing kids for fun is wrong, that belief is also "based on make-believe notions." If every individual makes up their own reality, then all of our realities are equal because everything is relative. What makes your reality better than anyone else's?
    ReplyDelete
  37. All realities are not equal. To suggest that they are equal would mean that a person's belief in the theory of evolution is equal to a creationist's belief that man was created by the wave of a wand. To suggest that they are equal would mean that the schizophrenic's belief that they are five dfferent people is equal to the psychiatrist's conviction that they are only one person. The "best reality" is the most likely bet - the one which is based on evidence, not faith which, by definition, is belief without evidence.
    ReplyDelete
  38. "He (an Atheist) doesn’t merely lack belief in a divinity; he positively believes in the absence of a divinity." -Colin McGinn
    Belief implies faith. Atheism is faith based.

    How are all realities unequal? A schizophrenic reality is based on what he perceives. How is that any different than your reality?
    ReplyDelete
  39. My reality is based on what I can perceive (the same as a schizophrenic and religious faithful) and supplemented by results of testing, othrwise known as empirical evidence (for example, results which suggest that the supposed power of prayer is sterile). Schizophrenics and religious faithful have no empirical evidence to support their delusions.
    ReplyDelete
  40. Okay. Please tell me, empirically, why killing kids, just for fun, is wrong. Your "learned and evolved sense of decency" is not empirical.
    ReplyDelete
  41. I will repeat: "I do not believe that there is such a thing as an objective right and wrong. I believe that all of morality is subjective, as formulated by an individual."

    An individual's learned and evolved sense of decency most certainly could be empirically tested. The ony problem is that modern scientific ethical constraints would prevent the testing from ever being carried out. If the testing were carried out, I have no doubt that it would show that individuals have a natural aversion to indiscriminate killing, regardless of whether they believe in a god(s) or not.

    The reality I am referring to is one which, based on empirical evidence, suggests that there is no Judeo-Christian god. Once again, I'll use the example of prayer. To your knowledge, what empirical evidence exists to show that prayer has any more power than pissing in the wind?
    ReplyDelete
  42. I did not ask if you believed in an objective right and wrong. I merely asked you to give me empirical evidence for your claim that killing kids, just for fun, is wrong. You said, "I believe (actually "feel" is a better term) killing kids, just for fun, is wrong because I have an evolved and learned sense that it is wrong." You did not give me empirical evidence, you gave me a "could be." Last time I checked "could be" is not classified as empirical.

    "If the testing were carried out, I have no doubt that it would show that individuals have a natural aversion to indiscriminate killing, regardless of whether they believe in a god(s) or not." Hitler and Stalin(among others) were individuals that probably did not have an aversion to" indiscriminate killing." What makes your "individual reality" better than theirs?

    Here's a new study that shows that belief in a God can relieve depression: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/25/research-indicates-belief-in-god-relieves-depressi/?feat=home_headlines
    And there have been other studies, which I can get for you if you ask, that show that meditation will increase one's memory, among other things.

    Again I ask, why do you feel the need to attack Christians when you live in a "reality" that is just as irrational?
    ReplyDelete
  43. Paul, my "attack" on Christianity is based on my disdain for irrationality and, to be specific, living one's life based on belief in a deity who I believe (based on empirical evidence) is very likely non-existant.

    In this thread, I gave you 10 reasons why I would be happy to rid the world of Christianity. If you are truly interested in more reasons, I commend a reading of Sam Harris' The End of Faith and/or Chistopher Hitchens' Why God is Not Great. In my experience, Christians are surprisingly ignorant of the critiques of their faith. That is why I spend a great deal of time reading material intended for theists (the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Purpose Driven Life, William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith and, most recently, Tim Keller's The Reason for God).

    You have been indoctrinated (likely since birth) to believe in the existence of god and to believe that Christianity (and likely Roman Catholicism) is a good thing for the world. When I ask you to provide the best evidence you can in support of your belief in god, you write: I have "perceived" and experienced God making Him a very real part of my reality. That is unmitigated b.s. and you know it. Does your god actively intervene in the world of humanity - how? Does he answer prayers - how? Does he heal the sick - show me please. Your god is a figment of your imagination, no differently than Thor was the figment of the imagination of my Norse ancestors.
    ReplyDelete
  44. Friend, you have missed the point yet again. Maybe this will clear it up.

    You have been indoctrinated (likely since birth) to believe that the indiscriminate killing of children is wrong and to believe that is a good thing for the world. When I ask you to provide the best evidence you can in support of your belief that the indiscriminate killing of children is wrong, you write: "My beliefs are based on the reality that I perceive." That is unmitigated b.s. and you know it.

    Your feelings and beliefs about your perceived reality are completely irrational, yet you push your beliefs and feelings on the world around you. Then you tell Christians, or anybody who disagrees with you, that they are wrong, even though their reality is just as irrational as yours.

    You cannot have it both ways. You cannot ask me to give you empirical evidence for my beliefs when you do not give me evidence for yours. If the world is completely relative then one individual's opinion is no better then the next persons. You have no rational bases for attacking Christianity, or any opinion. The only reason you have is that you do not like us, and to that, my friend, I ask for you to grow up. If you want to live in a relative reality then you need to start accepting everybody's opinions as equal, because you cannot empirically prove any different.
    ReplyDelete
  45. Yes Paul, David Hume would agree that we are all irrational. You obviously find the topic of moral philosophy interesting. I suggest that you spend less time trolling the web and more time reading what the world's greatest thinkers have had to say on this subject. I suggest that you start with Aristotle and then move on to Spinoza, Kant and Hume. If you can get your head around that stuff, you might like to move on to Nietzsche and modern scholars like Tom Regan and Peter Singer. I have previously recommended that you read Hugh Mackay's (very accessible) Right & Wrong but I doubt that you have.

    You are young and obviously quite bright. Don't let a Catholic theology program stifle your thinking. Don't let anyone tell you what to believe. Read all you can and then arrive at your own conclusions about whether Christianity (or any other religion) is something worth pursuing. Good luck with your journey. TAM.
    ReplyDelete
  46. Good job at completely ignoring the question.
    For whatever reason you have a vendetta against Christianity. Good for you, I have a vendetta against the meaningless slaughter of human lives. However, you are not using logic to to back up your incessant assault, merely your opinion. Having different beliefs does not give you the right to be childishly disrespectful to something you obviously do not, or do not want to, understand. If you do ever get the inkling to venture beyond your ignorance, please read "Atheist Delusions" by David Hart. This is a graduate-level theology book, and it may reveal to you a piece of reality.

    Good day my friend. May the God of my reality bless you.
    ReplyDelete
  47. To Paul you have called it as it is Tam will discuss the topic back and forth but when its time to admit what the conclusion might be he runs away and hides behind so call experts and great thinkers as if their words and thoughts are more valuble , important or relevant than yours, mine or his.He asks you not to let catholic theology stifle your thinking I could say the same about Tams love for Dawkins theology because Tam believes Dawkins, but cannot explain what Dawkins teaches, but just keeps directing us to Dawkins books.
    ReplyDelete
  48. Paul, I will pick up ma copy of Hart's book - thanks for the recommendation. I trust you will also read some Harris and Hitchens.

    You are correct - I have a vendetta against Christianity (along with all other belief systems that emphasize the importance of the afterlife over life on earth). However, I have no vendetta against Christians and can count many of them among my closest friends.

    May Thor bless you.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)