FSTDT Forums
Community => Religion and Philosophy => Topic started by: Ultimate Paragon on November 06, 2014, 11:56:11 am
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/10/28/pope-francis-evolution-big-bang/18053509/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/10/28/pope-francis-evolution-big-bang/18053509/)
VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis has waded into the controversial debate over the origins of human life, saying the big bang theory did not contradict the role of a divine creator, but even required it.
The pope was addressing the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which gathered Monday at the Vatican to discuss "Evolving Concepts of Nature."
"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so," Francis said.
"He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment."
Francis said the beginning of the world was not "a work of chaos" but created from a principle of love. He said sometimes competing beliefs in creation and evolution could co-exist.
Fun fact: this is very old news. The Catholic Church has accepted evolution since 1950, and the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Catholic Priest.
-
Now if only they would edit their damn scriptures to reflect that fact.
(Hint: They won't, because the RCC doesn't accept science that contradicts their dogma. See: original sin, a concept that makes no sense without the literal Genesis account)
EDIT: I won't even give the RCC credit for "accepting" evolution. Accepting evolution necessarily means rejecting the belief that humans were created, which the pope explicity endorses instead.
-
Technically, he is talking about intellegent design.
-
Intelligent design is not science.
-
Now if only they would edit their damn scriptures to reflect that fact.
(Hint: They won't, because the RCC doesn't accept science that contradicts their dogma. See: original sin, a concept that makes no sense without the literal Genesis account)
EDIT: I won't even give the RCC credit for "accepting" evolution. Accepting evolution necessarily means rejecting the belief that humans were created, which the pope explicity endorses instead.
Uh, you can't edit the Scriptures.
-
Intelligent design is not science.
Good thing no one in this thread said that.
-
Now if only they would edit their damn scriptures to reflect that fact.
(Hint: They won't, because the RCC doesn't accept science that contradicts their dogma. See: original sin, a concept that makes no sense without the literal Genesis account)
EDIT: I won't even give the RCC credit for "accepting" evolution. Accepting evolution necessarily means rejecting the belief that humans were created, which the pope explicity endorses instead.
A number of fundies have been blasted for their assertion that "You can't believe in God and Evolution!" Please don't make the same statement yourself. There are plenty of Christians (like myself) that accept evolution; to say that they don't really believe in evolution because they also believe God was involved would be creating the same false dilemma that the fundies did.
-
Now if only they would edit their damn scriptures to reflect that fact.
(Hint: They won't, because the RCC doesn't accept science that contradicts their dogma. See: original sin, a concept that makes no sense without the literal Genesis account)
EDIT: I won't even give the RCC credit for "accepting" evolution. Accepting evolution necessarily means rejecting the belief that humans were created, which the pope explicity endorses instead.
A number of fundies have been blasted for their assertion that "You can't believe in God and Evolution!" Please don't make the same statement yourself. There are plenty of Christians (like myself) that accept evolution; to say that they don't really believe in evolution because they also believe God was involved would be creating the same false dilemma that the fundies did.
But that doesn't apply to him because he's a New Atheist, therefore he has to be held to a completely different standard from non-atheists even when he says the exact same things, because you're totally projecting your religion on him!!111!1
-
Uh, you can't edit the Scriptures.
Sure you can. It's really easy with all the digital copies floating around. Liberal Christians would be far better off if they stopped calling themselves Christians and:
a) edited their scriptures, removing the vile instructions and replacing the false hypotheses about nature with modern scientific explanations and/or
b) put a disclaimer on the front of their book that says "This is a work of fiction."
Since most liberal Christians are unwilling to do either, I have no choice but to assume they revere their scriptures and would impose Biblical law on others the moment the wind is blowing their way.
Intelligent design is not science.
Good thing no one in this thread said that.
The Catholic Church has accepted evolution since 1950, and the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Catholic Priest.
It was all but explicitly stated by UP. The RCC does not accept evolution; they merely try to compartmentalize it away from their dogma.
UP, the Big Bang theory being suggested and validated did not hinge on its initial proponent being a Catholic priest. Claiming that as a win for the RCC is a fallacy of association.
-
...How the fuck does saying "They accepted evolution since 1950" mean "Intelligent design is science"?
-
Ya know, Chewtoy, its funny how you're quick to jump on a fallacy by association (which, in honesty, it WAS), yet you somehow COMPLETELY MISS the fact that you, yourself pulled a slippery slope from your fetid anus.
Irony is a bitch.
-
Ya know, Chewtoy, its funny how you're quick to jump on a fallacy by association (which, in honesty, it WAS), yet you somehow COMPLETELY MISS the fact that you, yourself pulled a slippery slope from your fetid anus.
Irony is a bitch.
It's not a fallacy when the association in question is important. Liberal Christians perpetuate their religion by imposing their scriptures on children before they can clearly tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Similarly, it is not a fallacy of association to say that Catholics who pay their dues to the church are supporting the acts of an international criminal organization.
-
Ya know, Chewtoy, its funny how you're quick to jump on a fallacy by association (which, in honesty, it WAS), yet you somehow COMPLETELY MISS the fact that you, yourself pulled a slippery slope from your fetid anus.
Irony is a bitch.
It's not a fallacy when the association in question is important. Liberal Christians perpetuate their religion by imposing their scriptures on children before they can clearly tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Similarly, it is not a fallacy of association to say that Catholics who pay their dues to the church are supporting the acts of an international criminal organization.
In that case, UP's association was important, too. Precisely as important as your association, too.
Logic works both ways, bucko. It doesn't believe in double standards.
-
Uh, you can't edit the Scriptures.
Sure you can. It's really easy with all the digital copies floating around. Liberal Christians would be far better off if they stopped calling themselves Christians and:
a) edited their scriptures, removing the vile instructions and replacing the false hypotheses about nature with modern scientific explanations and/or
b) put a disclaimer on the front of their book that says "This is a work of fiction."
Since most liberal Christians are unwilling to do either, I have no choice but to assume they revere their scriptures and would impose Biblical law on others the moment the wind is blowing their way.
So if liberal Christians don't abandon their faith and become atheists, they're the same as fundies? Again, false dilemma.
And thank you for claiming I'm a secret Dominionist too; that's certainly not offensive or anything.
-
But, certainly a man in a trilby can't be wrong or have laughable double standards! That's inconceivable.
-
So if liberal Christians don't abandon their faith and become atheists, they're the same as fundies? Again, false dilemma.
And thank you for claiming I'm a secret Dominionist too; that's certainly not offensive or anything.
I didn't say they needed to become atheists (though I certainly would not mind.) All they have to do to not catch the flak from the pernicious effects Christianity has had on the world is to edit their book and stop calling themselves Christians. Problem solved.
You may not be a Dominionist, but you point to the same book they do and revere it.
-
You talk about it as if it were as easy as changing socks, Chewie. PROTIP: It ain't, and insisting that they should is basically giving the regular atheists a bad name because the trilby associates itself with us despite being a distinctly different breed.
-
So if liberal Christians don't abandon their faith and become atheists, they're the same as fundies? Again, false dilemma.
And thank you for claiming I'm a secret Dominionist too; that's certainly not offensive or anything.
I didn't say they needed to become atheists (though I certainly would not mind.) All they have to do to not catch the flak from the pernicious effects Christianity has had on the world is to edit their book and stop calling themselves Christians. Problem solved.
You may not be a Dominionist, but you point to the same book they do and revere it.
In other words, they have to abandon their faith. Yeah, I'm certain most Christians would take offense to that.
And you're sounding pretty damn intolerant right now.
-
Ultimatly, this means nothing as this is the Pope saying it, not the Church.
-
You talk about it as if it were as easy as changing socks, Chewie. PROTIP: It ain't, and insisting that they should is basically giving the regular atheists a bad name because the trilby associates itself with us despite being a distinctly different breed.
The right thing to do isn't always easy...
To put this in perspective, this is similar to telling a Catholic they should stop funding the RCC, stop following their edicts, and stop calling themselves Roman Catholics in order to stop supporting an international criminal organization. It makes sense to everyone besides the indoctrinated.
In other words, they have to abandon their faith. Yeah, I'm certain most Christians would take offense to that.
If you seriously take offense to abandoning the vileness in your Bible, you should stop and consider how different you really are from the fundamentalists that point to the same book.
-
Ultimatly, this means nothing as this is the Pope saying it, not the Church.
The Pope could fix that problem by declaring he's speaking ex cathedra next time he gives lip service to progressives. That way the Church would have no choice but to accept the changes.
-
You talk about it as if it were as easy as changing socks, Chewie. PROTIP: It ain't, and insisting that they should is basically giving the regular atheists a bad name because the trilby associates itself with us despite being a distinctly different breed.
The right thing to do isn't always easy...
And what you want others to do isn't always the right thing.
Look at yourself. You're basically demanding that others conform to your sense of morality.
How the flying fuck are you not acting like a fundie? Just because you haven't ticked the "religious" checkbox?
-
Ultimatly, this means nothing as this is the Pope saying it, not the Church.
The Pope could fix that problem by declaring he's speaking ex cathedra next time he gives lip service to progressives. That way the Church would have no choice but to accept the changes.
Technically they would have the choice of having another reformation/split in the church. Personally I would like to see the worst fundies break off into their own church and have the pope stay with the "mainstream catholics."
It is very unlikely to happen, but a man can dream...
-
I'd actually like to see that... mostly because of seeing just who's willing to bend and realizing that being a decent mofo is more important than church doctrine.
-
Pope Francis has waded into the controversial debate over the origins of human life, saying the big bang theory did not contradict the role of a divine creator, but even required it.
Hahahaha no.
I guess expecting the media not to hang on to every word out of Bergoglio's mouth is too much, but here I'm actually disappointed in him*. One of the few things I sort-of expected the Pope to do is to declare the Church as officially hands-off on science. Go full separate magisteria and say "no, we are the Church, we talk souls and morality and all that crap, but science we leave to the scientists". Perhaps not in those exact words.
It's not like there's no precedent for it, their current stance on evolution is about halfway there. And sure, it's massively intellectually dishonest, but it's not like that's news. It's a decent nod to the liberals he always tries to woo, while it won't piss off the conservatives too much since, again, they're already halfway there. Most Catholics have no strong attachment to Creationism*, and those that do are free to go ignoring science and complaining about why there are still monkeys to their hearts' content. It's about as close as it gets to a win-win situation in this game.
But no, the Pope wants to think he has something relevant to say on scientific matters. Well, fuck him. He doesn't.
*Considering how low my expectations of him are, that takes some work.
**Young Earth, at least. Most of them are Old Earth Creationists, but they think they accept evolution, so either way they don't care.
-
OK, Ironchew, here's why you can't edit the Scriptures.
Because most religious people - including me - believe that they were directly written by G-d. I can't change them anymore than Harry Potter fans can edit the books so Harry and Hermione end up together. True, they could publish their own version, but it wouldn't be the original. That's the point.
-
OK, Ironchew, here's why you can't edit the Scriptures.
Oh please. You don't read the "original", and there wasn't even an original since the mostly-agreed-upon texts were compiled from a hodge-podge of competing mythologies, oral histories, and political pronouncements.
Spare me your self-righteous attitude about a book.
-
OK, Ironchew, here's why you can't edit the Scriptures.
Oh please. You don't read the "original", and there wasn't even an original since the mostly-agreed-upon texts were compiled from a hodge-podge of competing mythologies, oral histories, and political pronouncements.
Spare me your self-righteous attitude about a book.
...Says the guy with the biggest self-righteous attitude about a book in this thread.
-
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/G90gnu-aaYnned9uIUgEOh9I4cCVov1lEiLgAN6QbrDX0Dzyuq4xhZt7_MZYWCTRNaeyYUrq1IJ6pLs6SYn9_4wi9bATbmW7NAFV532YUZHaJ0duyXuPlA=w484-h540-nc)
-
I'll prepare us for the Nine Great Riders of the Church of EMACs, as appointed by his majesty Ironchew, lord of the Church Militant.
-
I'll prepare us for the Nine Great Riders of the Church of EMACs, as appointed by his majesty Ironchew, lord of the Church Militant.
By the way, do you have a box to put him in?
-
I keep confusing Ghoti for Madman because of their similar avatars @_X
-
Why would you need to edit a book if you understand that it is written metaphorically?
(Hypothetically) You don't even need to remove its divine origin.
God is a father figure, and as a father his purpose is to guild his children successfully into adulthood. As a father myself, I can tell you that you need to dumb a lot of shit down so a child can even rudimentally understand it. Sometimes you even need to make stuff up. As children get older they can handle the more complex answers and see how fictions can encapsulate a truthful underlying concept.
The bible was written for a simple and fairly brutal culture with very limited understanding of how anything works. God couldn't come down and say pork frequently contains a parasite which is undetectable given your current level of technology so you need to cook it until it reaches an internal temperature of 120C for a minimum of 7 minutes (which is also something beyond you technical capabilities at this juncture) so instead you get don't eat pork. It's telling your kid not to play with knives on a societal level.
There is no need to re-write the book. There is a need to add explanations to it. God apparently does not want to come down and say "okay guys, you're older and wiser now so I have a few more things to tell you" so I guess the job falls to the clergy. I guess they would be filling the role of older sibling -- a little bit wiser and more worldly but still a long way off from real understanding.
-
There is no need to re-write the book. There is a need to add explanations to it. God apparently does not want to come down and say "okay guys, you're older and wiser now so I have a few more things to tell you" so I guess the job falls to the clergy.
Except according to the Bible, God did in fact do that once.
-
There is no need to re-write the book. There is a need to add explanations to it. God apparently does not want to come down and say "okay guys, you're older and wiser now so I have a few more things to tell you" so I guess the job falls to the clergy.
Except according to the Bible, God did in fact do that once.
True, but for the record I meant right now.
-
Why would you need to edit a book if you understand that it is written metaphorically?
I said you could put a disclaimer on the front that says "This is a work of fiction." That isn't too hard.
(Hypothetically) You don't even need to remove its divine origin.
As that is a literal interpretation, yes, you would need to remove that. Again, the disclaimer takes care of that.
God is a father figure, and as a father his purpose is to guild his children successfully into adulthood. As a father myself, I can tell you that you need to dumb a lot of shit down so a child can even rudimentally understand it. Sometimes you even need to make stuff up. As children get older they can handle the more complex answers and see how fictions can encapsulate a truthful underlying concept.
If Christians think they have the truth, they should be okay with teaching people about Christianity at age 15 and up. I mean, it's not like it's a mountain of laughable bullshit to anybody that hasn't been indoctrinated into it at a young age. It's the truth, isn't it?
The problem isn't that children need different methods of learning than adults. The problem is that religion necessarily perpetuates itself by indoctrinating little kids during that critical stage where they uncritically absorb information from authority figures and they have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. Fundamentalist and liberal Christians alike feel this indoctrination at this age is of utmost importance; it is for any religion, simply because that religion would die within a few generations otherwise.
The bible was written for a simple and fairly brutal culture with very limited understanding of how anything works. God couldn't come down and say pork frequently contains a parasite which is undetectable given your current level of technology so you need to cook it until it reaches an internal temperature of 120C for a minimum of 7 minutes (which is also something beyond you technical capabilities at this juncture) so instead you get don't eat pork. It's telling your kid not to play with knives on a societal level.
Great. You've given a very concise explanation of why we should no longer learn about the world through reading the Bible. I don't mind throwing the whole thing out.
There is no need to re-write the book. There is a need to add explanations to it. God apparently does not want to come down and say "okay guys, you're older and wiser now so I have a few more things to tell you"
Joseph Smith would disagree. God spoke to them as late as the 1970s to let nonwhites into the priesthood, didn't he? Oh right, humans revised their religion.
I guess they would be filling the role of older sibling -- a little bit wiser and more worldly but still a long way off from real understanding.
I really can't agree with you there. Priests in that capacity can be too easily replaced with psychics, otherworldly mediums, and other charlatans. At least science is honest when it's looking for the answer but doesn't have it yet; I prefer not to get warm and fuzzy answers from bullshitters-in-chief.
-
Why would you need to edit a book if you understand that it is written metaphorically?
I said you could put a disclaimer on the front that says "This is a work of fiction." That isn't too hard.
Not only would that be offensive, it would also be incorrect. There's a huge difference between religion and fiction.
(Hypothetically) You don't even need to remove its divine origin.
As that is a literal interpretation, yes, you would need to remove that. Again, the disclaimer takes care of that.
Most Christians don't take everything in the Bible literally.
God is a father figure, and as a father his purpose is to guild his children successfully into adulthood. As a father myself, I can tell you that you need to dumb a lot of shit down so a child can even rudimentally understand it. Sometimes you even need to make stuff up. As children get older they can handle the more complex answers and see how fictions can encapsulate a truthful underlying concept.
If Christians think they have the truth, they should be okay with teaching people about Christianity at age 15 and up. I mean, it's not like it's a mountain of laughable bullshit to anybody that hasn't been indoctrinated into it at a young age. It's the truth, isn't it?
The problem isn't that children need different methods of learning than adults. The problem is that religion necessarily perpetuates itself by indoctrinating little kids during that critical stage where they uncritically absorb information from authority figures and they have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. Fundamentalist and liberal Christians alike feel this indoctrination at this age is of utmost importance; it is for any religion, simply because that religion would die within a few generations otherwise.
That's simply not true. Have you ever seen The Sound of Music? Well, what they don't tell you is that Maria von Trapp was raised an atheist and only found religion as an adult. And she's only one example.
Besides, if the human brain worked like you say it does, atheism wouldn't exist. Not only that, but the vast majority of American adults would believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
The bible was written for a simple and fairly brutal culture with very limited understanding of how anything works. God couldn't come down and say pork frequently contains a parasite which is undetectable given your current level of technology so you need to cook it until it reaches an internal temperature of 120C for a minimum of 7 minutes (which is also something beyond you technical capabilities at this juncture) so instead you get don't eat pork. It's telling your kid not to play with knives on a societal level.
Great. You've given a very concise explanation of why we should no longer learn about the world through reading the Bible. I don't mind throwing the whole thing out.
You're probably right to say that the Bible shouldn't be used as a science textbook, but that doesn't mean it's worthless. Thinking that is just plain crazy. If that were the case, thousands of philosophical books that fail to meet your requirements would also have to be "thrown out".
There is no need to re-write the book. There is a need to add explanations to it. God apparently does not want to come down and say "okay guys, you're older and wiser now so I have a few more things to tell you"
Joseph Smith would disagree. God spoke to them as late as the 1970s to let nonwhites into the priesthood, didn't he? Oh right, humans revised their religion.
There's some serious debate as to whether Mormons should be considered true Christians, primarily because of a number of significant theological differences. For example, they reject the idea of the Trinity, something that's been part of Christianity since the Fourth Century. And even if they are, to say that they represent mainstream Christianity makes no sense.
I guess they would be filling the role of older sibling -- a little bit wiser and more worldly but still a long way off from real understanding.
I really can't agree with you there. Priests in that capacity can be too easily replaced with psychics, otherworldly mediums, and other charlatans. At least science is honest when it's looking for the answer but doesn't have it yet; I prefer not to get warm and fuzzy answers from bullshitters-in-chief.
And you end by brushing off all clerics as "charlatans". How charming.
-
The definition of fiction:
Fiction is the form of any work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not real, but rather, imaginary and theoretical—that is, invented by the author.
The bible would certainly qualify there. The definition doesn't get into the intent of the work or anything like that.
-
Not only would that be offensive, it would also be incorrect. There's a huge difference between religion and fiction.
No, there isn't.
-
I said you could put a disclaimer on the front that says "This is a work of fiction." That isn't too hard.
Not only would that be offensive, it would also be incorrect. There's a huge difference between religion and fiction.
Oh come on. When Christians are backed into a corner on the heinous parts of the Bible they say not to take it literally. I enjoy fiction; I even think well-written fiction can explore moral problems in an enlightening way. Why should it be offensive to label scripture as fiction?
Most Christians don't take everything in the Bible literally.
The fiction tag shouldn't be an issue, then.
God is a father figure, and as a father his purpose is to guild his children successfully into adulthood. As a father myself, I can tell you that you need to dumb a lot of shit down so a child can even rudimentally understand it. Sometimes you even need to make stuff up. As children get older they can handle the more complex answers and see how fictions can encapsulate a truthful underlying concept.
If Christians think they have the truth, they should be okay with teaching people about Christianity at age 15 and up. I mean, it's not like it's a mountain of laughable bullshit to anybody that hasn't been indoctrinated into it at a young age. It's the truth, isn't it?
The problem isn't that children need different methods of learning than adults. The problem is that religion necessarily perpetuates itself by indoctrinating little kids during that critical stage where they uncritically absorb information from authority figures and they have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. Fundamentalist and liberal Christians alike feel this indoctrination at this age is of utmost importance; it is for any religion, simply because that religion would die within a few generations otherwise.
That's simply not true. Have you ever seen The Sound of Music? Well, what they don't tell you is that Maria von Trapp was raised an atheist and only found religion as an adult. And she's only one example.
I'm not discounting converts later in life. I just don't think there are nearly enough of them to stop a religion from dying within a century or two.
Besides, if the human brain worked like you say it does, atheism wouldn't exist. Not only that, but the vast majority of American adults would believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
The critical difference between religion and Santa Claus/the Easter Bunny is that society doesn't encourage faith in the latter for your whole life. Almost everyone grows out of it on their own and it's not a big deal.
The bible was written for a simple and fairly brutal culture with very limited understanding of how anything works. God couldn't come down and say pork frequently contains a parasite which is undetectable given your current level of technology so you need to cook it until it reaches an internal temperature of 120C for a minimum of 7 minutes (which is also something beyond you technical capabilities at this juncture) so instead you get don't eat pork. It's telling your kid not to play with knives on a societal level.
Great. You've given a very concise explanation of why we should no longer learn about the world through reading the Bible. I don't mind throwing the whole thing out.
You're probably right to say that the Bible shouldn't be used as a science textbook, but that doesn't mean it's worthless. Thinking that is just plain crazy. If that were the case, thousands of philosophical books that fail to meet your requirements would also have to be "thrown out".
Philosophical texts that cannot stand on their own merits but must instead rely on the Bible aren't worth my time. Throw them out too.
There is no need to re-write the book. There is a need to add explanations to it. God apparently does not want to come down and say "okay guys, you're older and wiser now so I have a few more things to tell you"
Joseph Smith would disagree. God spoke to them as late as the 1970s to let nonwhites into the priesthood, didn't he? Oh right, humans revised their religion.
There's some serious debate as to whether Mormons should be considered true Christians, primarily because of a number of significant theological differences. For example, they reject the idea of the Trinity, something that's been part of Christianity since the Fourth Century. And even if they are, to say that they represent mainstream Christianity makes no sense.
Oh, but no true Christian would do silly things like that.
Your theology is so riddled with disagreements that any attempt to categorize "true" Christians beyond their own say-so immediately invokes no true Scotsman.
I guess they would be filling the role of older sibling -- a little bit wiser and more worldly but still a long way off from real understanding.
I really can't agree with you there. Priests in that capacity can be too easily replaced with psychics, otherworldly mediums, and other charlatans. At least science is honest when it's looking for the answer but doesn't have it yet; I prefer not to get warm and fuzzy answers from bullshitters-in-chief.
And you end by brushing off all clerics as "charlatans". How charming.
Priests are charlatans. If you've got a problem with that, you should stop supporting them.
-
Is Greek, Egyptian or Norse mythology fictional? Those were once religions, very prosperous ones.
-
Is Greek, Egyptian or Norse mythology fictional? Those were once religions, very prosperous ones.
I don't think so. I think mythology and religion occupy a gray area between fiction and non-fiction.
-
Is Greek, Egyptian or Norse mythology fictional? Those were once religions, very prosperous ones.
Yeah, they are definitely fictional.
The question I have is, did their adherents believe they were fiction or reality?
From what I understand of the Greeks, it definitely leans more towards "Fiction." Most mythology was stories told around a campfire.
Personally, I see no problem with the fact that my mythology is fiction. Just because something is fiction doesn't mean it's worthless.
-
Is Greek, Egyptian or Norse mythology fictional? Those were once religions, very prosperous ones.
Yeah, they are definitely fictional.
The question I have is, did their adherents believe they were fiction or reality?
From what I understand of the Greeks, it definitely leans more towards "Fiction." Most mythology was stories told around a campfire.
Personally, I see no problem with the fact that my mythology is fiction. Just because something is fiction doesn't mean it's worthless.
Fiction isn't worthless. I just object to people trying to pass it off as reality.
-
Any sort of writing can have a profound effect on its readers, fiction or non-fiction.
This is just my mind wandering, so bear with me, but I don't understand why people are able to support the bible and its contents. It has horrific acts of violence committed by a... loving god? Even if there are some sensible passages that convey a certain moral or lesson, does the good outweigh the bad? Do we overlook the violence and follow the verses we deem "good"? This is a genuine question, not me being facetious.
-
Any sort of writing can have a profound effect on its readers, fiction or non-fiction.
This is just my mind wandering, so bear with me, but I don't understand why people are able to support the bible and its contents. It has horrific acts of violence committed by a... loving god? Even if there are some sensible passages that convey a certain moral or lesson, does the good outweigh the bad? Do we overlook the violence and follow the verses we deem "good"? This is a genuine question, not me being facetious.
It was the Old Testament God who did those things. He's much nicer in the New Testament.
-
Any sort of writing can have a profound effect on its readers, fiction or non-fiction.
This is just my mind wandering, so bear with me, but I don't understand why people are able to support the bible and its contents. It has horrific acts of violence committed by a... loving god? Even if there are some sensible passages that convey a certain moral or lesson, does the good outweigh the bad? Do we overlook the violence and follow the verses we deem "good"? This is a genuine question, not me being facetious.
It was the Old Testament God who did those things. He's much nicer in the New Testament.
...It's the same god.
-
Any sort of writing can have a profound effect on its readers, fiction or non-fiction.
This is just my mind wandering, so bear with me, but I don't understand why people are able to support the bible and its contents. It has horrific acts of violence committed by a... loving god? Even if there are some sensible passages that convey a certain moral or lesson, does the good outweigh the bad? Do we overlook the violence and follow the verses we deem "good"? This is a genuine question, not me being facetious.
It was the Old Testament God who did those things. He's much nicer in the New Testament.
...It's the same god.
So he ate a Snickers?
-
Any sort of writing can have a profound effect on its readers, fiction or non-fiction.
This is just my mind wandering, so bear with me, but I don't understand why people are able to support the bible and its contents. It has horrific acts of violence committed by a... loving god? Even if there are some sensible passages that convey a certain moral or lesson, does the good outweigh the bad? Do we overlook the violence and follow the verses we deem "good"? This is a genuine question, not me being facetious.
It was the Old Testament God who did those things. He's much nicer in the New Testament.
...It's the same god.
But even the Old Testament God wasn't nearly as bad as many of His detractors say.
-The Great Flood was announced 100 years in advance. The people had plenty of time to change their ways, but they chose not to.
-Sodom and Gomorrah greeted foreigners by gang-raping them. And God failed to find ten righteous individuals in the city.
-There is archeological evidence to suggest that the city of Jericho was a military outpost when the Hebrews took it.
-The Amalekites were not eliminated until 400 years after they attacked the Hebrews. Furthermore, the Kenites (a people living among the Amalekites) were warned about the upcoming destruction of the Amalekites and told to abandon them. The Amalekites would almost certainly have heard this warning. They could have taken it as a last chance to change, but chose not to heed it. And God would certainly have spared them had they taken the chance. After all, he spared Nineveh after its population repented.
And these are just a few examples that are easily debunked.
-
Any sort of writing can have a profound effect on its readers, fiction or non-fiction.
This is just my mind wandering, so bear with me, but I don't understand why people are able to support the bible and its contents. It has horrific acts of violence committed by a... loving god? Even if there are some sensible passages that convey a certain moral or lesson, does the good outweigh the bad? Do we overlook the violence and follow the verses we deem "good"? This is a genuine question, not me being facetious.
It was the Old Testament God who did those things. He's much nicer in the New Testament.
...It's the same god.
But even the Old Testament God wasn't nearly as bad as many of His detractors say.
-The Great Flood was announced 100 years in advance. The people had plenty of time to change their ways, but they chose not to.
-Sodom and Gomorrah greeted foreigners by gang-raping them. And God failed to find ten righteous individuals in the city.
-There is archeological evidence to suggest that the city of Jericho was a military outpost when the Hebrews took it.
-The Amalekites were not eliminated until 400 years after they attacked the Hebrews. Furthermore, the Kenites (a people living among the Amalekites) were warned about the upcoming destruction of the Amalekites and told to abandon them. The Amalekites would almost certainly have heard this warning. They could have taken it as a last chance to change, but chose not to heed it. And God would certainly have spared them had they taken the chance. After all, he spared Nineveh after its population repented.
And these are just a few examples that are easily debunked.
It still all boils down to "worship me or die". And besides, later in the Old Testament (Nahum and Zephaniah) God promises the destruction of Nineveh whether or not they repent again.
-
Any sort of writing can have a profound effect on its readers, fiction or non-fiction.
This is just my mind wandering, so bear with me, but I don't understand why people are able to support the bible and its contents. It has horrific acts of violence committed by a... loving god? Even if there are some sensible passages that convey a certain moral or lesson, does the good outweigh the bad? Do we overlook the violence and follow the verses we deem "good"? This is a genuine question, not me being facetious.
It was the Old Testament God who did those things. He's much nicer in the New Testament.
...It's the same god.
But even the Old Testament God wasn't nearly as bad as many of His detractors say.
-The Great Flood was announced 100 years in advance. The people had plenty of time to change their ways, but they chose not to.
-Sodom and Gomorrah greeted foreigners by gang-raping them. And God failed to find ten righteous individuals in the city.
-There is archeological evidence to suggest that the city of Jericho was a military outpost when the Hebrews took it.
-The Amalekites were not eliminated until 400 years after they attacked the Hebrews. Furthermore, the Kenites (a people living among the Amalekites) were warned about the upcoming destruction of the Amalekites and told to abandon them. The Amalekites would almost certainly have heard this warning. They could have taken it as a last chance to change, but chose not to heed it. And God would certainly have spared them had they taken the chance. After all, he spared Nineveh after its population repented.
And these are just a few examples that are easily debunked.
It still all boils down to "worship me or die". And besides, later in the Old Testament (Nahum and Zephaniah) God promises the destruction of Nineveh whether or not they repent again.
"Worship me or die"? Hardly. If that were the case, there are a lot of other peoples who would have also been on the chopping block.
And there are many interpretations of the destruction of Nineveh.
-
-The Great Flood was announced 100 years in advance. The people had plenty of time to change their ways, but they chose not to.
So genocide is totally okay if there's a little blackmail in advance? I guess if Hitler got that memo, he wouldn't have anywhere near the image problem. Also, not sure how that justifies drowning all of the non-human terrestrial species as well.
-Sodom and Gomorrah greeted foreigners by gang-raping them. And God failed to find ten righteous individuals in the city.
He also killed the one righteous guy's (Lot, was it?, or was that someone else) wife for looking over her shoulder at the city as they were fleeing.
-There is archeological evidence to suggest that the city of Jericho was a military outpost when the Hebrews took it.
Not according to the bible. It's right in there that God orders everyone, specifying that this includes women and children, killed. Unless you're now siding with Ironchew's "we should edit the Bible", that is still the official, biblical version of events.
-The Amalekites were not eliminated until 400 years after they attacked the Hebrews. Furthermore, the Kenites (a people living among the Amalekites) were warned about the upcoming destruction of the Amalekites and told to abandon them. The Amalekites would almost certainly have heard this warning. They could have taken it as a last chance to change, but chose not to heed it. And God would certainly have spared them had they taken the chance. After all, he spared Nineveh after its population repented.
So again, genocide is perfectly acceptable if an ultimatum precedes it, right? Do you honestly believe that that makes ethnic cleansing okay? Because if so, fuck me, I think Ironchew may have a point after all.
Furthermore, let's apply this sort of logic to the modern day. In most of the Middle East, they execute people (sometimes via stoning) for the crime of being gay or being raped. Similarly, in Saudi Arabia, it's illegal for a woman to drive a car and even go out in public without a niqab/burqua and accompanied by her husband, or if she's unmarried, a male relative. As such, does that justify glassing the entire region? What if we knew for a fact that every last person bar one is in complete and total support of these practices. If we could extradite that one person and maybe his family if they don't so much as glance of their shoulders on the way out, would that make it okay to kill anyone and everyone in the area? How about if we give them 100 year to change their ways. If by the end of it, they still haven't changed, should we send forth the nukes? Because if your honest answer to any of these questions is "no", then bible god is not in fact "not nearly as bad as his detractors say".
-
Any sort of writing can have a profound effect on its readers, fiction or non-fiction.
This is just my mind wandering, so bear with me, but I don't understand why people are able to support the bible and its contents. It has horrific acts of violence committed by a... loving god? Even if there are some sensible passages that convey a certain moral or lesson, does the good outweigh the bad? Do we overlook the violence and follow the verses we deem "good"? This is a genuine question, not me being facetious.
I think Matt Dillahunty said it best (http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2013/07/18/dont-be-a-dick-new-from-jezebel/):
I wonder if you’d be so charitable to other books. What’s the percentage of niceness in the Bible? How bad does a book need to be before you’ll stop making excuses for it? Why is it that “But I don’t really like the parts about slavery and misogyny…I just like turning the other cheek” somehow disqualifies their thought processes from criticism?
Meanwhile, is it wrong to try to help those people escape to reality? Is it wrong to point out that the liberal and moderate Christians, by pointing to the same holy book provide support and cover for the nastier Christians? Is it wrong to point out that they donate money and time, in the name of those good parts, to organizations that should rightly be considered criminal organizations?
-
Personally, I don't give a damn if someone believes Cthulu is about to wake up and that we should all worship him so that he'll give us a quick death.
Just leave me to my own devices, and I'll leave you to yours. Try to argue the point with me, and I will argue the point back. Try to indoctrinate anyone's children, and prepare to be struck down.
As for me, I don't plan on having children, so the indoctrination point is moot on my behalf. Though if you are curious, I am of the opinion that indoctrinating your children, even into paganism, is a violation of trust. That being said, indoctrinating your children into believing your own values, no matter what those values are, is an unfortunate aspect of human nature. And even so-called "good people" do it, too.
Regardless, religion is on a downward trend, and the sooner it releases its stranglehold on our laws, our society, and our government, the better off we'll all be. I'm fairly certain this is one point that Ironchew and I can agree on.
-
-The Great Flood was announced 100 years in advance. The people had plenty of time to change their ways, but they chose not to.
So genocide is totally okay if there's a little blackmail in advance? I guess if Hitler got that memo, he wouldn't have anywhere near the image problem. Also, not sure how that justifies drowning all of the non-human terrestrial species as well.
Most scholars believe the story of Noah's Ark was an exaggeration, as was common in those days. And they were given fair warning. God didn't get rid of them because He was a racist, He got rid of them because they were evil.
-Sodom and Gomorrah greeted foreigners by gang-raping them. And God failed to find ten righteous individuals in the city.
He also killed the one righteous guy's (Lot, was it?, or was that someone else) wife for looking over her shoulder at the city as they were fleeing.
That's not exactly what happened. Many scholars believed that it was seeing God in all of His splendor that killed her. It was hardly a unique idea in the Bronze Age. Semele, for example, was killed when she made Zeus/Jupiter swear on the River Styx that he would show her his full divine form.
-There is archeological evidence to suggest that the city of Jericho was a military outpost when the Hebrews took it.
Not according to the bible. It's right in there that God orders everyone, specifying that this includes women and children, killed. Unless you're now siding with Ironchew's "we should edit the Bible", that is still the official, biblical version of events.
Oh, so the Bible's only accurate when you want it to be?
And even if there were civilians there, it must be understood that ancient chroniclers often used hyperbole. "We killed them all" was rarely meant to be taken literally. It's like saying your baseball team got slaughtered. When an Ancient Near Eastern writer said a military leader “left no survivor” or “destroyed everything that breathed” it was a stock way of saying that they were victorious… not necessarily that they actually obliterated everything.
-The Amalekites were not eliminated until 400 years after they attacked the Hebrews. Furthermore, the Kenites (a people living among the Amalekites) were warned about the upcoming destruction of the Amalekites and told to abandon them. The Amalekites would almost certainly have heard this warning. They could have taken it as a last chance to change, but chose not to heed it. And God would certainly have spared them had they taken the chance. After all, he spared Nineveh after its population repented.
So again, genocide is perfectly acceptable if an ultimatum precedes it, right? Do you honestly believe that that makes ethnic cleansing okay? Because if so, fuck me, I think Ironchew may have a point after all.
Again, it must be said that this was probably exaggerated. If Saul exterminated the Amalekites, how did they return to menace David? Did they respawn like video game characters?
Furthermore, let's apply this sort of logic to the modern day. In most of the Middle East, they execute people (sometimes via stoning) for the crime of being gay or being raped. Similarly, in Saudi Arabia, it's illegal for a woman to drive a car and even go out in public without a niqab/burqua and accompanied by her husband, or if she's unmarried, a male relative. As such, does that justify glassing the entire region? What if we knew for a fact that every last person bar one is in complete and total support of these practices. If we could extradite that one person and maybe his family if they don't so much as glance of their shoulders on the way out, would that make it okay to kill anyone and everyone in the area? How about if we give them 100 year to change their ways. If by the end of it, they still haven't changed, should we send forth the nukes? Because if your honest answer to any of these questions is "no", then bible god is not in fact "not nearly as bad as his detractors say".
There are a lot of things wrong with your argument.
-Values are very different now. Up until the Middle Ages or so, mass slaughter was basically routine. In fact, there's some reason to believe that the Hebrews were actually bleeding-hearts by the standards of the time.
-The Middle East has shown that it can do better. Most of those I mentioned were given the chance to improve, and they failed.
-All those things happened because all or a vast majority of the people were irredeemable. Most Arabs are good people. Most Muslims are good people.
-And you're talking about on a much, much larger scale than any of these, except possibly the Flood.
-
Any sort of writing can have a profound effect on its readers, fiction or non-fiction.
This is just my mind wandering, so bear with me, but I don't understand why people are able to support the bible and its contents. It has horrific acts of violence committed by a... loving god? Even if there are some sensible passages that convey a certain moral or lesson, does the good outweigh the bad? Do we overlook the violence and follow the verses we deem "good"? This is a genuine question, not me being facetious.
I think Matt Dillahunty said it best (http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2013/07/18/dont-be-a-dick-new-from-jezebel/):
I wonder if you’d be so charitable to other books. What’s the percentage of niceness in the Bible? How bad does a book need to be before you’ll stop making excuses for it? Why is it that “But I don’t really like the parts about slavery and misogyny…I just like turning the other cheek” somehow disqualifies their thought processes from criticism?
Meanwhile, is it wrong to try to help those people escape to reality? Is it wrong to point out that the liberal and moderate Christians, by pointing to the same holy book provide support and cover for the nastier Christians? Is it wrong to point out that they donate money and time, in the name of those good parts, to organizations that should rightly be considered criminal organizations?
1. It must be taken into account that values in Biblical times were very different from what we have today. There are also other differences: differences in style (which very easily changes the meanings of certain quotes and passages), differences in definition (Biblical slavery was much less cruel than the chattel slavery on plantations in the Americas), and differences in between different groups (did you know that the ancient Hebrews were almost unique in their time and place for having laws against domestic violence?).
2. I do not "provide comfort and support" for frummers! And if this thinks so, he's a complete shithead!
In fact, I actually defended an atheist from being attacked by some fanatical Christian. And there are many, many examples of Christian groups fighting against the bigotry of the more extreme members of the faith.
Matt Dillahunty, I name thee bigot.
-
Most scholars believe the story of Noah's Ark was an exaggeration, as was common in those days. And they were given fair warning. God didn't get rid of them because He was a racist, He got rid of them because they were evil.
Yeah, they were "evil", that's always the story. Obviously, the entire global population, human and animal alike, were completely and irredeemably "evil", except for just the one, and the omniscient and omnipotent deity that created them to be exactly the way they are in the first place had no other choice nor method at his disposal.
That's not exactly what happened. Many scholars believed that it was seeing God in all of His splendor that killed her. It was hardly a unique idea in the Bronze Age. Semele, for example, was killed when she made Zeus/Jupiter swear on the River Styx that he would show her his full divine form.
Again, God is all knowing and all powerful. Even by your version of events, he knew exactly what was going to happen, including the guy's wife looking over her shoulder, and that her seeing him in his current form would kill her, yet he chose to appear in such a form in the first place. He knew exactly what he was doing and was perfectly capable of preventing it, yet he chose not to.
Oh, so the Bible's only accurate when you want it to be?
And even if there were civilians there, it must be understood that ancient chroniclers often used hyperbole. "We killed them all" was rarely meant to be taken literally. It's like saying your baseball team got slaughtered. When an Ancient Near Eastern writer said a military leader “left no survivor” or “destroyed everything that breathed” it was a stock way of saying that they were victorious… not necessarily that they actually obliterated everything.
I'm not talking about it's accuracy, I'm talking about the morality of its content. Of course it's not actually accurate. A blind amputee with parkinsons at an archery range would be more accurate than the bible. That's besides the point. The point I'm making is that the Christian god, as depicted in the bible that many people believe actually exists and is such a fantastic source of moral guidance, is a genocidal nutter.
Although this does raise the question, what about the stuff you do find morally agreeable? The "feed the poor" and "turn the other cheek" kind of stuff. Does that also supposedly mean something completely different to what is actually says or can you take that at face value?
-Values are very different now. Up until the Middle Ages or so, mass slaughter was basically routine. In fact, there's some reason to believe that the Hebrews were actually bleeding-hearts by the standards of the time.
I'm not talking about the Hebrews, I'm talking about God. That being that's supposedly benevolent, loving and orders the Hebrews to wipe out entire cultures that he's directly responsible for existing in the first place simply because he doesn't like them. Not that it justifies genocide when the Herbrews do it without divine prompting, but that's an unrelated issue.
-The Middle East has shown that it can do better. Most of those I mentioned were given the chance to improve, and they failed.
Ahem.
How about if we give them 100 year to change their ways. If by the end of it, they still haven't changed, should we send forth the nukes?
So I guess that's a yes, then?
-All those things happened because all or a vast majority of the people were irredeemable. Most Arabs are good people. Most Muslims are good people.
"Irredeemable", says the all powerful God that created them in the first place and could do literally anything besides sic his personal genocide squad on them.
-And you're talking about on a much, much larger scale than any of these, except possibly the Flood.
So what exactly is the maximum population for genocide to possibly be acceptable?
-
Most scholars believe the story of Noah's Ark was an exaggeration, as was common in those days. And they were given fair warning. God didn't get rid of them because He was a racist, He got rid of them because they were evil.
Yeah, they were "evil", that's always the story. Obviously, the entire global population, human and animal alike, were completely and irredeemably "evil", except for just the one, and the omniscient and omnipotent deity that created them to be exactly the way they are in the first place had no other choice nor method at his disposal.
Would you rather God deprive them of free will?
That's not exactly what happened. Many scholars believed that it was seeing God in all of His splendor that killed her. It was hardly a unique idea in the Bronze Age. Semele, for example, was killed when she made Zeus/Jupiter swear on the River Styx that he would show her his full divine form.
Again, God is all knowing and all powerful. Even by your version of events, he knew exactly what was going to happen, including the guy's wife looking over her shoulder, and that her seeing him in his current form would kill her, yet he chose to appear in such a form in the first place. He knew exactly what he was doing and was perfectly capable of preventing it, yet he chose not to.
She was specifically warned not to look back, but she did so anyway. Are you going to blame God for somebody else's bad decision?
And the reason God took the form He did? Simple. He wanted to send a message so that He wouldn't have to do it again. And apparently, it worked.
Oh, so the Bible's only accurate when you want it to be?
And even if there were civilians there, it must be understood that ancient chroniclers often used hyperbole. "We killed them all" was rarely meant to be taken literally. It's like saying your baseball team got slaughtered. When an Ancient Near Eastern writer said a military leader “left no survivor” or “destroyed everything that breathed” it was a stock way of saying that they were victorious… not necessarily that they actually obliterated everything.
I'm not talking about it's accuracy, I'm talking about the morality of its content. Of course it's not actually accurate. A blind amputee with parkinsons at an archery range would be more accurate than the bible. That's besides the point. The point I'm making is that the Christian god, as depicted in the bible that many people believe actually exists and is such a fantastic source of moral guidance, is a genocidal nutter.
Although this does raise the question, what about the stuff you do find morally agreeable? The "feed the poor" and "turn the other cheek" kind of stuff. Does that also supposedly mean something completely different to what is actually says or can you take that at face value?
Well, some of it. For example, the bit about how rich people can't go to Heaven. Why would an all-loving God exclude people based on socioeconomic status? The answer: when somebody dies, they leave behind their earthly riches. Therefore, they are no longer rich when they enter Heaven. Jesus is merely saying "you can't take it with you".
And you seem to have ignored the point I made about the exaggerations.
-Values are very different now. Up until the Middle Ages or so, mass slaughter was basically routine. In fact, there's some reason to believe that the Hebrews were actually bleeding-hearts by the standards of the time.
I'm not talking about the Hebrews, I'm talking about God. That being that's supposedly benevolent, loving and orders the Hebrews to wipe out entire cultures that he's directly responsible for existing in the first place simply because he doesn't like them. Not that it justifies genocide when the Herbrews do it without divine prompting, but that's an unrelated issue.
The only culture they were explicitly ordered to destroy was the Amalekites. And that was done after He had shown enormous patience with them. God did not give that command lightly.
-The Middle East has shown that it can do better. Most of those I mentioned were given the chance to improve, and they failed.
Ahem.
How about if we give them 100 year to change their ways. If by the end of it, they still haven't changed, should we send forth the nukes?
So I guess that's a yes, then?
Okay, I could have phrased that better. What I meant to say was that many among the Middle Eastern peoples have already demonstrated a willingness to change for the better. Therefore, not even the Old Testament God would have smote them. After all, He would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah if He'd been able to find ten righteous people there.
-All those things happened because all or a vast majority of the people were irredeemable. Most Arabs are good people. Most Muslims are good people.
"Irredeemable", says the all powerful God that created them in the first place and could do literally anything besides sic his personal genocide squad on them.
What could He have done that didn't deprive them of free will? And again, the vast majority of these accounts of "genocide" must be taken with a grain of salt.
-
Would you rather God deprive them of free will?
Ah yes, "free will". Again, the all knowing and all powerful God created them with the will to behave a certain way and the foreknowledge of exactly how it would turn out, down to the last tiniest detail. Free will is complete bullshit if you do indeed believe an all knowing and all powerful god exists.
She was specifically warned not to look back, but she did so anyway. Are you going to blame God for somebody else's bad decision?
Yes, I bloody well am. By your logic, if I tell you not to look at me or I'll shoot you in the head, and you do it anyway, then I'm completely blameless for killing you. Needless to say, that's fucking stupid.
And the reason God took the form He did? Simple. He wanted to send a message so that He wouldn't have to do it again. And apparently, it worked.
The only possibly way such a message could possibly be heard is if an innocent happens to see him, dies of it, and another innocent witnesses the event and somehow guesses that the cause of death is seeing God in his instant death form. I really don't buy that the all loving, all powerful and all knowing god didn't have a better way making a point.
Besides, I fail to see how demolishing the city in the first place doesn't get the point across. It's not as though "God did it" was ever in doubt before he killed her.
In any case, you're basically saying it's okay to kill innocent people for the sake of sending a message. If you honestly believe that, well, I must say you kind of scare me, and that says a hell of a lot, coming from me of all people.
Well, some of it. For example, the bit about how rich people can't go to Heaven. Why would an all-loving God exclude people based on socioeconomic status? The answer: when somebody dies, they leave behind their earthly riches. Therefore, they are no longer rich when they enter Heaven. Jesus is merely saying "you can't take it with you".
But didn't Jesus also say to give away your wealth (or at least as much as you can afford) to the poor, and the whole "it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven" line was said right when he was making that point? It would seem that if you're still rich by the time you're standing at the pearly gates, then you've clearly disobeyed a direct order from God himself. Considering what normally happens when you do that, that's barely a slap on the wrist.
And you seem to have ignored the point I made about the exaggerations.
I have a hard time buying "kill and enslave everyone, including the women and children" is a mere exaggeration. It's a wee bit too specific to be explained away as such, in my book.
The only culture they were explicitly ordered to destroy was the Amalekites. And that was done after He had shown enormous patience with them. God did not give that command lightly.
It's still genocide, and the omnipotent God could've literally done anything about it, including not creating the universe in such a way that they'd end up existing in the first place.
Okay, I could have phrased that better. What I meant to say was that many among the Middle Eastern peoples have already demonstrated a willingness to change for the better. Therefore, not even the Old Testament God would have smote them. After all, He would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah if He'd been able to find ten righteous people there.
That doesn't answer my question. One more time. If the Middle East were, as you say, unwilling to change for the better, would it then be okay to glass the entire region? Yes or no.
What could He have done that didn't deprive them of free will?
Even ignoring my earlier point about free will? Literally anything. He is omnipotent, is he not?
-
2. I do not "provide comfort and support" for frummers! And if this thinks so, he's a complete shithead!
Bullshit. Between your "God didn't get rid of them because He was a racist, He got rid of them because they were evil" and "Biblical slavery was much less cruel than the chattel slavery on plantations in the Americas", you're praising some of the most vile filth in the book. Forget defending fundamentalists -- here I am wondering just how fundamentalist you are when it comes to rationalizing genocide and slavery.
In fact, I actually defended an atheist from being attacked by some fanatical Christian. And there are many, many examples of Christian groups fighting against the bigotry of the more extreme members of the faith.
Matt Dillahunty, I name thee bigot.
Call his show the next time he's on and tell him. That would be good for a laugh.
-
*watches the fight with a huge Cheshire grin on his face*
Don't mind me, nothin to see here, folks.
-
*watches the fight with a huge Cheshire grin on his face*
Don't mind me, nothin to see here, folks.
Popcorn?
-
*watches the fight with a huge Cheshire grin on his face*
Don't mind me, nothin to see here, folks.
Popcorn?
I just made caramel corn. Is that enough?
-
*watches the fight with a huge Cheshire grin on his face*
Don't mind me, nothin to see here, folks.
Popcorn?
I just made caramel corn. Is that enough?
Yes
-
*watches the fight with a huge Cheshire grin on his face*
Don't mind me, nothin to see here, folks.
Popcorn?
I just made caramel corn. Is that enough?
Yes
And I'd just run out. Mind if I join in?
-
Shh, you guys! You're scaring them away!
-
*sits down and starts munching*
Say, did you guys know that people were casting bells for years before some asshole twisted the process and figured out how to make cannons instead? It's quite similar in many ways to how Alfred Nobel made dynamite for a long time before someone realized it might have military potential.
It's like objects and ideas themselves aren't the problem, it's how people choose to use them that makes them good or evil.
...not that this would have any relevance in an argument about a book, I just found it an interesting tidbit of knowledge.
*goes back to munching*
I brought Licorice Nibs if anyone wants some.
-
I gotta agree with the above post. Cannons are pretty damn awesome. Especially the really big ones, like the Dardanelles Gun.
-
Okay, I think I lost sight of my original point. While the Old Testament God wasn't the monster certain individuals like to portray Him as, He wasn't as cuddly as the New Testament God either.
-
New Testament God ain't cuddly either, though. Such as when he struck an older couple dead because they lied about tithing or something like that.
-
(http://iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/WWJD-flipping-tables-whip-what-would-jesus-do-13871941223.jpg?id=854)
-
Okay, I think I lost sight of my original point. While the Old Testament God wasn't the monster certain individuals like to portray Him as, He wasn't as cuddly as the New Testament God either.
It's right there in the book that he happily slaughtered entire groups of people that he created in the first place simply for the crime of existing and doing exactly what he knew perfectly well they would end up doing back when he first thought "you know, a universe or two would be nice right around here". I'm not sure who exactly is trying to paint him as even worse than that. If they do indeed exist, they're certainly a tiny minority compared to the people who actually believe that this character is all loving and a wonderful source of moral guidance.
-
Would you rather God deprive them of free will?
Ah yes, "free will". Again, the all knowing and all powerful God created them with the will to behave a certain way and the foreknowledge of exactly how it would turn out, down to the last tiniest detail. Free will is complete bullshit if you do indeed believe an all knowing and all powerful god exists.
That's an argument I've frequently heard, but it misunderstands God's nature. God is consistently in all places at all times and is not restricted by time. God is actually outside of time and therefore does not "foresee" events, but rather simply observes them all at once. Besides, free will does not stop becoming free because God knows what will happen. If I give a kid a bowl of ice cream and a bowl of dead mice, I know he or she will go for the ice cream. Does that mean I'm depriving the child of free will?
She was specifically warned not to look back, but she did so anyway. Are you going to blame God for somebody else's bad decision?
Yes, I bloody well am. By your logic, if I tell you not to look at me or I'll shoot you in the head, and you do it anyway, then I'm completely blameless for killing you. Needless to say, that's fucking stupid.
Hardly. That's more like if somebody looked at Medusa's head while Perseus was using it to kill a sea monster after he explicitly warned them to shield their eyes.
And the reason God took the form He did? Simple. He wanted to send a message so that He wouldn't have to do it again. And apparently, it worked.
The only possibly way such a message could possibly be heard is if an innocent happens to see him, dies of it, and another innocent witnesses the event and somehow guesses that the cause of death is seeing God in his instant death form. I really don't buy that the all loving, all powerful and all knowing god didn't have a better way making a point.
Besides, I fail to see how demolishing the city in the first place doesn't get the point across. It's not as though "God did it" was ever in doubt before he killed her.
In any case, you're basically saying it's okay to kill innocent people for the sake of sending a message. If you honestly believe that, well, I must say you kind of scare me, and that says a hell of a lot, coming from me of all people.
You misunderstand me. God didn't deliberately kill her, she looked back.
And one could have seen what happened from a distance without turning to stone. Or heard the sound, felt the heat, or smelled the smoke and blood.
Well, some of it. For example, the bit about how rich people can't go to Heaven. Why would an all-loving God exclude people based on socioeconomic status? The answer: when somebody dies, they leave behind their earthly riches. Therefore, they are no longer rich when they enter Heaven. Jesus is merely saying "you can't take it with you".
But didn't Jesus also say to give away your wealth (or at least as much as you can afford) to the poor, and the whole "it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven" line was said right when he was making that point? It would seem that if you're still rich by the time you're standing at the pearly gates, then you've clearly disobeyed a direct order from God himself. Considering what normally happens when you do that, that's barely a slap on the wrist.
Again, you miss my point about exaggeration. If everything Jesus said was meant to be taken literally, there'd be millions of people walking around with logs in their eyes. And it has to be remembered that Jesus was a carpenter, i.e. a small businessman. Therefore, He would know that what He was suggesting was economically unfeasible. There is a school of thought that says what He really meant was that the wealthy should take care of the poor, through charity or other means.
And you seem to have ignored the point I made about the exaggerations.
I have a hard time buying "kill and enslave everyone, including the women and children" is a mere exaggeration. It's a wee bit too specific to be explained away as such, in my book.
That's a common misconception. I used to think that was the case too. But the real picture was far more complex.
Of the general commands, only Deuteronomy 7:1-5 demands the total destruction of the Canaanites. Deuteronomy 20:10-18 qualifies this by specifically mentioning the destruction of Canaanite cities. The others concern driving them out, destroying their idols and not making any treaties with them.
And even that wasn't actually done. God’s angel did not insist on the total destruction of the Canaanites after the war (Judges 2:1-10). If slaying all the Canaanites was God’s command, the angel would have said so. God’s angel also said he would no longer drive out all the Canaanites since Israel showed little interest in doing so. In essence, the divine command of conquest was rescinded. Because of disobedience, the Canaanites remaining were now allowed to stay. They would become a test for Israel’s faithfulness to God (Judges 3:1-6). It seems unlikely God would use the Canaanites in this fashion if they were fit only for slaughter.
The only culture they were explicitly ordered to destroy was the Amalekites. And that was done after He had shown enormous patience with them. God did not give that command lightly.
It's still genocide, and the omnipotent God could've literally done anything about it, including not creating the universe in such a way that they'd end up existing in the first place.
If you take it at face value that the Hebrews massacred civilians in Jericho, then you also have to take it at face value that every single Amalekite was completely and irredeemably evil. You can't have it both ways.
And what alternative would you suggest?
Okay, I could have phrased that better. What I meant to say was that many among the Middle Eastern peoples have already demonstrated a willingness to change for the better. Therefore, not even the Old Testament God would have smote them. After all, He would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah if He'd been able to find ten righteous people there.
That doesn't answer my question. One more time. If the Middle East were, as you say, unwilling to change for the better, would it then be okay to glass the entire region? Yes or no.
Of course not. But again, that's a false equivalence.
What could He have done that didn't deprive them of free will?
Even ignoring my earlier point about free will? Literally anything. He is omnipotent, is he not?
Again, if you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them.
2. I do not "provide comfort and support" for frummers! And if this thinks so, he's a complete shithead!
Bullshit. Between your "God didn't get rid of them because He was a racist, He got rid of them because they were evil" and "Biblical slavery was much less cruel than the chattel slavery on plantations in the Americas", you're praising some of the most vile filth in the book. Forget defending fundamentalists -- here I am wondering just how fundamentalist you are when it comes to rationalizing genocide and slavery.
Again, I was merely providing context. The form of slavery that is allowed in the Bible is unusually humane for its time. A master can only have a slave for seven years, and at the end of that time, he must give the slave land and implements to work it. And remember, this was from an era where slavery was practically universal, and abolishing it entirely would have been roughly the equivalent of abolishing business and commerce altogether.
And I don't hear you calling for us to abandon Western Civilization because of what Rome did to Carthage. Double standard, much?
Also, you're a socialist, aren't you? By Dillahunty's logic, you're providing comfort and support to revolutionary communists.
In fact, I actually defended an atheist from being attacked by some fanatical Christian. And there are many, many examples of Christian groups fighting against the bigotry of the more extreme members of the faith.
Matt Dillahunty, I name thee bigot.
Call his show the next time he's on and tell him. That would be good for a laugh.
You know, maybe I will. Thanks for the idea.
New Testament God ain't cuddly either, though. Such as when he struck an older couple dead because they lied about tithing or something like that.
It's never said that God killed them. When God kills somebody, the Bible makes a point to emphasize that fact. For all I know, they might have just had heart attacks out of fear.
(http://iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/WWJD-flipping-tables-whip-what-would-jesus-do-13871941223.jpg?id=854)
Everyone has limits to their patience, with the exception of Mr. Rogers. And remember: the only thing Jesus killed was a fig tree.
Okay, I think I lost sight of my original point. While the Old Testament God wasn't the monster certain individuals like to portray Him as, He wasn't as cuddly as the New Testament God either.
It's right there in the book that he happily slaughtered entire groups of people that he created in the first place simply for the crime of existing and doing exactly what he knew perfectly well they would end up doing back when he first thought "you know, a universe or two would be nice right around here". I'm not sure who exactly is trying to paint him as even worse than that. If they do indeed exist, they're certainly a tiny minority compared to the people who actually believe that this character is all loving and a wonderful source of moral guidance.
See my above points.
-
(http://iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/WWJD-flipping-tables-whip-what-would-jesus-do-13871941223.jpg?id=854)
Everyone has limits to their patience, with the exception of Mr. Rogers. And remember: the only thing Jesus killed was a fig tree.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18948_5-real-deleted-bible-scenes-in-which-jesus-kicks-some-ass.html
-
Would you rather God deprive them of free will?
Ah yes, "free will". Again, the all knowing and all powerful God created them with the will to behave a certain way and the foreknowledge of exactly how it would turn out, down to the last tiniest detail. Free will is complete bullshit if you do indeed believe an all knowing and all powerful god exists.
That's an argument I've frequently heard, but it misunderstands God's nature. God is consistently in all places at all times and is not restricted by time. God is actually outside of time and therefore does not "foresee" events, but rather simply observes them all at once.
Meaningless distinction. Assuming that "God is outside of time" is meaningful, an obvious corollary is that he can use his knowledge of events at time t2 to influence what he makes happen at time t1*. This is functionally indistinguishable from foreknowledge, and so you can't use "didn't know that was going to happen" as an excuse for God.
Besides, free will does not stop becoming free because God knows what will happen. If I give a kid a bowl of ice cream and a bowl of dead mice, I know he or she will go for the ice cream. Does that mean I'm depriving the child of free will?
Quite right. As a related point, I hold that God can create the world in such a way that he knows people don't do bad things without depriving them of their free will.
Hardly. That's more like if somebody looked at Medusa's head while Perseus was using it to kill a sea monster after he explicitly warned them to shield their eyes.
...God is omnipotent. God can make it so looking at him does not kill people. God does not do so, knowing that people will look at him and die. Functionally equivalent to murder.
The only culture they were explicitly ordered to destroy was the Amalekites. And that was done after He had shown enormous patience with them. God did not give that command lightly.
It's still genocide, and the omnipotent God could've literally done anything about it, including not creating the universe in such a way that they'd end up existing in the first place.
If you take it at face value that the Hebrews massacred civilians in Jericho, then you also have to take it at face value that every single Amalekite was completely and irredeemably evil. You can't have it both ways.
I suspect Art's point is neither "the Bible is literally true" nor "the Bible should be interpreted metaphorically", but rather "the events of the Bible are fictional, but if real, the actions of God would be evil".
Also, God created the Amalekites. If they are all evil, his fault.
And what alternative would you suggest?
Not creating evil people would be a good start.
New Testament God ain't cuddly either, though. Such as when he struck an older couple dead because they lied about tithing or something like that.
It's never said that God killed them. When God kills somebody, the Bible makes a point to emphasize that fact. For all I know, they might have just had heart attacks out of fear.
So he didn't kill them, he just literally scared them to death. Even accepting that as a meaningful distinction, how does that qualify as "cuddly"?
Everyone has limits to their patience, with the exception of Mr. Rogers.
"We're all flawed humans" does not work when the human in question is God incarnate. That's dangerously close to heresy.
And remember: the only thing Jesus killed was a fig tree.
Or maybe a fig tree plus everyone God killed in the Old Testament, if you accept the Trinity. Or everyone who ever died ever (plus a fig tree), considering the whole "nothing happens if it's not the will of God" thing.
*Where t1<t2, of course. The version where t1>t2 is trivial. I'd say "past" and "future", but that doesn't really make sense from a timeless perspective.
-
That's an argument I've frequently heard, but it misunderstands God's nature. God is consistently in all places at all times and is not restricted by time. God is actually outside of time and therefore does not "foresee" events, but rather simply observes them all at once. Besides, free will does not stop becoming free because God knows what will happen. If I give a kid a bowl of ice cream and a bowl of dead mice, I know he or she will go for the ice cream. Does that mean I'm depriving the child of free will?
However you spin it, God created everything exactly as it is, knows exactly what the result of that will be (or is, or was, or however you want to describe it), and has the means and the know how to get a different result, if that's what he desires.
As for your example, did you create the kid from scratch, down to the very last subatomic particle? Did you build its brain in such a way that it derives happiness from eating ice cream, and is repulsed by dead mice (which you also created in exactly the way they are)? Because if so, the kid's not exactly free to act in ways that you didn't intend for it to act.
Taking this analogy a little further, if you then hide a razor blade in the ice cream, you can't somehow pretend you're completely blameless because free will when the kid somehow ends up eating said razor blade and you especially can't claim that you're omnibenevolent. Especially when you're perfectly capable of, you know, not putting a razor blade in the ice cream in the first place.
Hardly. That's more like if somebody looked at Medusa's head while Perseus was using it to kill a sea monster after he explicitly warned them to shield their eyes.
Well, no. Largely because a severed Medusa head is an inanimate object. Nobody is trying to claim it's an all loving being.
You misunderstand me. God didn't deliberately kill her, she looked back.
And one could have seen what happened from a distance without turning to stone. Or heard the sound, felt the heat, or smelled the smoke and blood.
...What? So your argument in your previous post is that God specifically used his Instant Death Glance form to send a message (on top of simply demolishing the city) to the world not to fuck with him. So knowing this, how exactly is anyone supposed to know he's in his Instant Death Glance form without someone actually looking at him and dying? If you can safely look at him from a distance (which is a news to me, but let's go with it for now) and not die, then how would you know that you will die if you look at him from close up? Though if you just meant see the city being destroyed and not God himself, then again, what the fuck is the point of his Instant Death Form? If no one is truly meant to actually see him, he might as well appear as giant rubber ducky for all it would matter. As such, the only possible reason he could have for specifically choosing the Instant Death Glance Form is that he fully intends for someone to look at him and die from it. It's not like an all knowing being needs to take precautions.
Again, you miss my point about exaggeration. If everything Jesus said was meant to be taken literally, there'd be millions of people walking around with logs in their eyes. And it has to be remembered that Jesus was a carpenter, i.e. a small businessman. Therefore, He would know that what He was suggesting was economically unfeasible. There is a school of thought that says what He really meant was that the wealthy should take care of the poor, through charity or other means.
So basically, when Jesus said "give as much as you can afford to helping the poor rather than wallowing in opulence. If you're still loaded by the time you show up at heaven, we're going to have a problem", what he really meant was "give whatever you won't really notice, but not so much that you might actually have to downsize a little, we can't have that now can we?"
That's a common misconception. I used to think that was the case too. But the real picture was far more complex.
Of the general commands, only Deuteronomy 7:1-5 demands the total destruction of the Canaanites. Deuteronomy 20:10-18 qualifies this by specifically mentioning the destruction of Canaanite cities. The others concern driving them out, destroying their idols and not making any treaties with them.
Ah, just drive them off their land, then. Yeah, that's totally not a horrible thing to do to people. I for one don't know what the fuck the Palestinians are complaining about.
And even that wasn't actually done. God’s angel did not insist on the total destruction of the Canaanites after the war (Judges 2:1-10). If slaying all the Canaanites was God’s command, the angel would have said so. God’s angel also said he would no longer drive out all the Canaanites since Israel showed little interest in doing so. In essence, the divine command of conquest was rescinded. Because of disobedience, the Canaanites remaining were now allowed to stay. They would become a test for Israel’s faithfulness to God (Judges 3:1-6). It seems unlikely God would use the Canaanites in this fashion if they were fit only for slaughter.
I guess not. Really, they're just there to "test Israel's faithfullness" (again, why does an all knowing being need to do that in the first place? Especially by displacing and supplanting an entire culture?). Totally something an omnibenevolent deity would do.
If you take it at face value that the Hebrews massacred civilians in Jericho, then you also have to take it at face value that every single Amalekite was completely and irredeemably evil. You can't have it both ways.
And what alternative would you suggest?
So are they irredeeemably evil, or is God all powerful and all loving? Because last I checked, the Bible says God can do anything. If he can't somehow redeem the Amalekites (which, again, he created to be so "irredeemably evil" in the first place), then he's not in fact all powerful.
So I'd say it's you who can't have it both ways.
Of course not. But again, that's a false equivalence.
Ah, so you would not consider it okay to wipe out an entire culture, even if they are "irredeemably evil" in your book, then. Well good. You sir, are a better source of moral guidance than God.
Again, if you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them.
Well, bearing in mind that I am neither all loving, all knowing or all powerful, I have a few. For instance, as I've said many a time before, don't create them to be so "irredeemably evil" in the first place. Or failing that (because reasons), humans are far more suggestable than you might expect. Use something like priming or the anchoring effect (or other things that modern psychology have yet to figure out) to very reliably change their ways without touching their supposed free will. Marketers have been doing it to you and everyone else for decades. Or perhaps I could say fuck free will, it's not somehow worth mass slaughter or even a thing in the first place in this scenario, and just rewire their brains to be less terrible.
As you can see, even someone who isn't even close to all knowing or all powerful can think of a few things that are far more preferable to genocide. Who'd have thunk it?
-
In fact, I actually defended an atheist from being attacked by some fanatical Christian. And there are many, many examples of Christian groups fighting against the bigotry of the more extreme members of the faith.
Matt Dillahunty, I name thee bigot.
Call his show the next time he's on and tell him. That would be good for a laugh.
You know, maybe I will. Thanks for the idea.
He's on right now until 18:30 EST (http://atheist-experience.com). Tell the call screeners you're religious and you want to talk about something in the Bible to get top priority.
-
(http://iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/WWJD-flipping-tables-whip-what-would-jesus-do-13871941223.jpg?id=854)
Everyone has limits to their patience, with the exception of Mr. Rogers. And remember: the only thing Jesus killed was a fig tree.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18948_5-real-deleted-bible-scenes-in-which-jesus-kicks-some-ass.html
You know, there's a reason those scenes were removed from the Bible.
Would you rather God deprive them of free will?
Ah yes, "free will". Again, the all knowing and all powerful God created them with the will to behave a certain way and the foreknowledge of exactly how it would turn out, down to the last tiniest detail. Free will is complete bullshit if you do indeed believe an all knowing and all powerful god exists.
That's an argument I've frequently heard, but it misunderstands God's nature. God is consistently in all places at all times and is not restricted by time. God is actually outside of time and therefore does not "foresee" events, but rather simply observes them all at once.
Meaningless distinction. Assuming that "God is outside of time" is meaningful, an obvious corollary is that he can use his knowledge of events at time t2 to influence what he makes happen at time t1*. This is functionally indistinguishable from foreknowledge, and so you can't use "didn't know that was going to happen" as an excuse for God.
You misunderstand me. But then again, considering there are a lot of complexities involved, I don't blame you.
Besides, free will does not stop becoming free because God knows what will happen. If I give a kid a bowl of ice cream and a bowl of dead mice, I know he or she will go for the ice cream. Does that mean I'm depriving the child of free will?
Quite right. As a related point, I hold that God can create the world in such a way that he knows people don't do bad things without depriving them of their free will.
But then we wouldn't have true free will. Choice must include the full spectrum of decisions.
The only culture they were explicitly ordered to destroy was the Amalekites. And that was done after He had shown enormous patience with them. God did not give that command lightly.
It's still genocide, and the omnipotent God could've literally done anything about it, including not creating the universe in such a way that they'd end up existing in the first place.
If you take it at face value that the Hebrews massacred civilians in Jericho, then you also have to take it at face value that every single Amalekite was completely and irredeemably evil. You can't have it both ways.
I suspect Art's point is neither "the Bible is literally true" nor "the Bible should be interpreted metaphorically", but rather "the events of the Bible are fictional, but if real, the actions of God would be evil".
Also, God created the Amalekites. If they are all evil, his fault.
Actually, no he didn't. There were no Amalekites in the Garden of Eden, ergo, God did not directly create them. Rather, they chose evil.
And what alternative would you suggest?
Not creating evil people would be a good start.
If God wanted to do that, He would have. But He didn't, because humanity would be nothing more than automatons. Again, choice must include the ability to choose unwisely, or cruelly. And let's not forget that a number of angels turned evil as well.
New Testament God ain't cuddly either, though. Such as when he struck an older couple dead because they lied about tithing or something like that.
It's never said that God killed them. When God kills somebody, the Bible makes a point to emphasize that fact. For all I know, they might have just had heart attacks out of fear.
So he didn't kill them, he just literally scared them to death. Even accepting that as a meaningful distinction, how does that qualify as "cuddly"?
If you read the passage, all that happens is that Saint Peter yells at them, and then they drop dead. Hardly damning evidence. There were no bears appearing out of nowhere to slaughter them, the ground didn't swallow them up, and fire didn't rain down from the sky to incinerate them.
Everyone has limits to their patience, with the exception of Mr. Rogers.
"We're all flawed humans" does not work when the human in question is God incarnate. That's dangerously close to heresy.
Jesus has a human nature, doesn't He?
And besides, it was aimed at people desecrating the Jewish temple. If I were part God, I'd be pissed too.
And remember: the only thing Jesus killed was a fig tree.
Or maybe a fig tree plus everyone God killed in the Old Testament, if you accept the Trinity. Or everyone who ever died ever (plus a fig tree), considering the whole "nothing happens if it's not the will of God" thing.
The idea of a microinterventionist God is far from universally accepted. My denomination, for example, doesn't accept it.
Oh, and Jesus is considered distinct in person from God the Father.
-
Meaningless distinction. Assuming that "God is outside of time" is meaningful, an obvious corollary is that he can use his knowledge of events at time t2 to influence what he makes happen at time t1*. This is functionally indistinguishable from foreknowledge, and so you can't use "didn't know that was going to happen" as an excuse for God.
You misunderstand me. But then again, considering there are a lot of complexities involved, I don't blame you.
Then go ahead and explain.
Besides, free will does not stop becoming free because God knows what will happen. If I give a kid a bowl of ice cream and a bowl of dead mice, I know he or she will go for the ice cream. Does that mean I'm depriving the child of free will?
Quite right. As a related point, I hold that God can create the world in such a way that he knows people don't do bad things without depriving them of their free will.
But then we wouldn't have true free will. Choice must include the full spectrum of decisions.
Read my words: I argue it's possible to create a universe such that people reliably don't do bad things without depriving them of their free will.
A) I cannot decide to step through a wall, so clearly making a universe where some things cannot be done does not contradict free will. If every time someone tried to stab someone else, a forcefield went up and stopped the knife, does that contradict your version of free will? If so, then how is that different from the fact that I cannot stab people with telekinetic abilities? God clearly has no problems stopping some forms of evildoing from being doable.
B) I have never, in my entire life, murdered anyone. The same holds for most people. This is obviously not random chance; some people, for some reason or another, choose not to murder, and others do. That "some reason or another" is important, because it means there are causal factors that influence our decisions (our personalities, our circumstances, etc.). Would creating a universe where those causal factors apply to everyone violate free will? If so, why doesn't it when it affects the majority of the population of the planet?
Also, God created the Amalekites. If they are all evil, his fault.
Actually, no he didn't. There were no Amalekites in the Garden of Eden, ergo, God did not directly create them. Rather, they chose evil.
The distinction is pointless. God created the universe in such a way that it resulted in the Amalekites existing and making the choices they did. He could have created it otherwise (unless you hold God is not omnipotent).
And what alternative would you suggest?
Not creating evil people would be a good start.
If God wanted to do that, He would have. But He didn't, because humanity would be nothing more than automatons. Again, choice must include the ability to choose unwisely, or cruelly. And let's not forget that a number of angels turned evil as well.
Choice must include the possibility of choosing unwisely, but not the fact of it. I could choose to stab myself in the leg, and I don't. This is not because I lack free will, it's because that's a stupid choice, and I know it. Thus, God can create people in such a way that they don't make choices they could have made. There's not particular reason this should be limited to me personally not stabbing myself, rather than everyone and every bad choice.
Everyone has limits to their patience, with the exception of Mr. Rogers.
"We're all flawed humans" does not work when the human in question is God incarnate. That's dangerously close to heresy.
Jesus has a human nature, doesn't He?
Still God incarnate. To say his patience has limits is to say God's patience has limits, is to say God is not omnipotent and perfect and all that jazz.
And besides, it was aimed at people desecrating the Jewish temple. If I were part God, I'd be pissed too.
If I were part God, I would remove them magically and nonviolently from the temple and then fix whichever flaw in the world resulted in something like that happening. Because omnipotence.
And remember: the only thing Jesus killed was a fig tree.
Or maybe a fig tree plus everyone God killed in the Old Testament, if you accept the Trinity. Or everyone who ever died ever (plus a fig tree), considering the whole "nothing happens if it's not the will of God" thing.
The idea of a microinterventionist God is far from universally accepted. My denomination, for example, doesn't accept it.
One does not need to posit continuous intervention by God. God is omnipotent and omniscient. He knows exactly what he wants to happen and what will in fact happen as a consequence of his actions. He can then create the universe in such a way that only those things he wants to happen, do in fact happen.
If God has a will, then that will happens. That's what omnipotence means. Ergo, if something happened, it's a contradiction to say that God wanted it not to happen.
Oh, and Jesus is considered distinct in person from God the Father.
I was going to press the point but meh, don't really care to argue the Trinity. I'll give you this one.
-
Two things -
First, if free will is such a big deal, why does God interfere with free will on a reasonably regular basis in the Bible. On several occasions it is noted that God 'hardens (someones) heart' so that he can do something (usually wipe them out or show his magnificence). The best example is with Pharoah. Where God hardens his heart so that he refuses to release the Israelites.
Second I thought almost all modern christian denominations considered Jesus both fully man and fully divine. I though this was the wash up of the Arian heresy.
-
Two things -
First, if free will is such a big deal, why does God interfere with free will on a reasonably regular basis in the Bible. On several occasions it is noted that God 'hardens (someones) heart' so that he can do something (usually wipe them out or show his magnificence). The best example is with Pharoah. Where God hardens his heart so that he refuses to release the Israelites.
Second I thought almost all modern christian denominations considered Jesus both fully man and fully divine. I though this was the wash up of the Arian heresy.
That's a common misconception. When we read that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, it's an easy mistake to assume that God did something to the Pharaoh in order to cause his heart to become stubborn and “hard.” But you can cause something to become hard just by leaving it alone, such as when bread goes stale if you leave it out on the counter. It seems more likely that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart by removing what little presence of His grace that was in Pharaoh’s heart in the first place.
And you're right. I should have phrased that better.
-
Ok but that completely changes the accepted translation from God doing something to being passive. Further by implication he altered his free will by removing part of his grace. This would also appear to alter the free will of those who are in receipt of any modicum of God's grace. So God in fact interferes in the free will of all existent humans through the disposition of his grace? Why does he make everyone suffer so much then?
-
We don't have free will in the libertarian sense. That's just leftover thinking from vitalism.
Deterministic beings with our sheer number of inputs and internal complexity are perfectly capable of acting without compulsion. I don't have a problem with that, but I would certainly have a problem with a supposedly omniscient being that set this all in motion and knew what was going to happen. Any way you square it, killing nearly everyone on the planet just to start over with "good" humans is incompetence. It speaks to the lack of imagination of the bronze age goat herders who created the scriptures.
-
Technically, he is talking about intellegent design.
I'm late to the party, but intelligent design means that there are times he tweaks creation with several "unexplainable" phenomena like the vertebrate eye. Proponents claim "irreducible complexity" and say "we can discuss it, but until you come up with proof, we win!" which is pretty much trying to cause a teetering atheist to hopefully stumble into their camp.
I believe that the Pope is trying to say that God did it without breaking the laws of science he supposedly set up the universe to run by, meaning he didn't use obvious and vulgar displays of power as Creationists would like us to believe. After all, the idea that God didn't create the universe and everything in it in under 200 hours would mean that he's not as awesome as they'd like him to believe. Like the God they've created in their own image, creationists have a horrendous lack of patience.
-
Technically, he is talking about intellegent design.
I'm late to the party, but intelligent design means that there are times he tweaks creation with several "unexplainable" phenomena like the vertebrate eye. Proponents claim "irreducible complexity" and say "we can discuss it, but until you come up with proof, we win!" which is pretty much trying to cause a teetering atheist to hopefully stumble into their camp.
I believe that the Pope is trying to say that God did it without breaking the laws of science he supposedly set up the universe to run by, meaning he didn't use obvious and vulgar displays of power as Creationists would like us to believe. After all, the idea that God didn't create the universe and everything in it in under 200 hours would mean that he's not as awesome as they'd like him to believe. Like the God they've created in their own image, creationists have a horrendous lack of patience.
Oh. I thought that Intellegent design was just that God set things in motion in a certain way.
Anyway, my personal belief is pretty much the same as yours.