The Naked Emperor Forum - A Bravenet.com Forum

bud

Dec 21, 05 - 9:57 AM

new thread

jim you said.
"Publicly Hitler appealed to the support of Christians - but then, would you trust Hitler?

don't see your point here jim. seems to me the only thing that matters is a majority of the german people did trust him.
enlighten me??

i'm not well educated or historicly well read but ww 11 is sort of a hobby of mine so i do know a few things about it.

you said
"Bud, you have failed to provide any evidence that Hitler did what he did as a result of his being part of a theistic religion (much less Christianity!).
"
absolutly correct jim but you're going to have to explain the relevence of this to me please??

you are aware my point was that he used the relegions, both the jewish and christian to achieve power???. i got lots of evidence of that jim. answer my questions here and i'll share if you like.

Jimbojsr

Dec 23rd, 2005 - 3:40 AM

Hitler's use of Christianity

"you are aware my point was that he used the relegions, both the jewish and christian to achieve power???"

Actually I thought that you meant that he was driven by a Judeo-Christian worldview. I wouldn't mind seing evidence of Jews supporting him, as that concept is strongly at odds with a few other things that Hitler did in his lifetime...

As for Christianity, Hitler did appeal to Christians by twisting and abusing some parts of the NT (e.g. to justify his dislike of Jews). Quite how this reflects badly on the Christian worldview, though, is beyong me - rather, it reflects badly on those who were gullible enough to be drawn in by Hitler's rhetoric. Indeed, we've already seen that Hitler HATED christianity, as many of its teachings went directly against him. Saying that Christianity is somehow "bad" because it has been altered and then misused is like saying that atheism is bad because some idiot uses Darwinistic evolution as an excuse to go off and shoot black folk because they are more "primitive". Any atheist with two grey cells to rub together could see that the problem lies not with the worldview, but with the HUMAN whose greed and selfishness motivates him to abuse a paticular belief system.

bud

Dec 24th, 2005 - 8:25 AM

Re: Hitler's use of Christianity

you said jim.
"Actually I thought that you meant that he was driven by a Judeo-Christian worldview. I wouldn't mind seing evidence of Jews supporting him, as that concept is strongly at odds with a few other things that Hitler did in his lifetime.

jim i gotta ask are you really being honest with me here?? i mean i don't know how i could have made it any more simple. i'll try again. germany is and was a predominatly christian country. hitler used the christian relegion to influence christians, and the jewish relegion agenst the jews, and without the relegions THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A WAR. it was at the time, just the latest in our unending series of relegiously inspired wars.

you say;
Any atheist with two grey cells to rub together could see that the problem lies not with the worldview, but with the HUMAN whose greed and selfishness motivates him to abuse a paticular belief system.

of course all this is true jim but you are very conviently ignoring how these idoits come to power. it is relegion jim. the only thing that enables these people to con the masses into these brutle irrational illogical wars is the brutle, irrational, illogical FAITH BASED BELIEF SYSTEMS. and please don't keep assuming i'm singling out "christianity" jim cause i'm not. it is just one of hundreds of superstitions, past and present that enable these despots to twist the facts to fit any pattern they want and no more or less effective at that than any other. you ever vote for an atheist jim???

Jimbojsr

Dec 25th, 2005 - 11:15 AM

Re: Re: Hitler's use of Christianity

"it was at the time, just the latest in our unending series of relegiously inspired wars."

You have consistently failed to provide ANY evidence that Hitler was inspired by the Christian religion or message to start WWII. You have failed to provide ANy evidence that the teachings of Christianity support what Hitler did. Hitler MISused and twisted some parts of Christianity, whilst completely ignoring others, in order to manipulate people and provide support for actions which Christianity as a whole was dead against (as he well knew - see his Table Talk quotes). The Jewish example is even more ludicrous - haven't you ever heard of the Holocaust? How on earth do you think that Hitler could have justified his treatment of the Jews by quoting the Jewish scriptures at them?! In any case, in the absence of Christianity or Judaism, Hitler would simply have performed the same manipulation to whatever prevalent belief systems existed in Germany - atheism included.

"it is just one of hundreds of superstitions, past and present that enable these despots to twist the facts to fit any pattern they want and no more or less effective at that than any other."

Begged question of the rationale behind particular religions aside, atheism can be treated in exactly the same way. By the above logic, the fact that someone can twist, change and abuse the teachings of atheism means that atheism is responsible for any war in which atheists were even remotely involved!

"you ever vote for an atheist jim???"

I don't know. Probably. I don't generally make enquiries into whatever belief system a politician claims allegience to, I pay attention to their policies and past record of delivery.

bud

Dec 26th, 2005 - 9:38 AM

Re: Re: Re: Hitler's use of Christianity

"you have consistently failed to provide ANY evidence that Hitler was inspired by the Christian religion or message to start WWII."

yes i have jim, just as you have consistently failed to address my actual points. wish you would do that??

the " protocoles of the wise men of zion" are part of the jewish relegion. haven't read them cause never found them but the essence is they are a plan for jewish world domomation & hitler used them and whatever other jewish relegious tenents to sway the christian majority agenst them. that ludicrous jim??

and i truly wish you could try to understand that atheism is NOT a belief system but rather a lack of belief. you believe in santa claus?? is it a "belief system" if you don't?? can you even address the thought that to an atheist your own and all gods and the relegions they are based on have exactly the same creadence for us as santa claus??? with the exception that people are not killing each other over santa???

Jimbojsr

Dec 30th, 2005 - 8:19 AM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitler's use of Christianity

“yes i have jim, just as you have consistently failed to address my actual points”

I’ve had a look over the discussion between us, and your point seems to be “Hitler used the religion of the people to convince them that what he wanted to do was ok – therefore, religion is bad”. My response to this has been to say that 1) Hitler HATED organised religion (and Christianity in particular) and what he did went directly against the genuine message of Christianity; and 2) the way that Hitler changed and twisted bits of the Christian message and abused it for his own purposes can be done with ANY religious belief / worldview – atheistic humanism included. I had been puzzled as to why you refused to accept this pretty obvious statement (ie. that atheism can be altered and manipulated in exactly the same way), UNTIL I read your comment:

“atheism is NOT a belief system but rather a lack of belief”

Aside from the fact that I DO ACTIVELY believe that there is no Santa Claus, I think that the majority of atheists would disagree with you. For example, a Mr. W. Adkins from Missouri, USA:

“Webster’s defines an atheist as “one who believes that there is no deity”. I have read various definitions of the word by people who don’t want to be pinned down as saying that there is no God. They will say that it means they don’t believe that the God described in the Bible exists. Some try to play semantics with it and say that it does not mean that they believe that God does not exist, only that they do not believe that God does exist. That way they are claiming a lack of belief in someone else’s idea and not making an affirmative statement about what they believe. Let me be clear on this point: I believe that God does not exist. I believe that no god exists. I believe that no god could have existed before all matter existed.”
(Wayne Adkins, “The Emperor Has No Clothes”, http://www.nakedemperor.netfirms.com/atheist.htm )

Anyone’s views on the existence of God – and the impact that view has on their life – can be manipulated and exploited, especially when that person is factually misled, as the Germans were by Hitler. An atheistic worldview is, in this regard, no better or worse than Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism or whatever.

“the " protocoles of the wise men of zion" … are a plan for jewish world domomation & hitler used them and whatever other jewish relegious tenents to sway the christian majority agenst them. that ludicrous jim??”

Well, I believe that it happened, but how this shows Christianity to be “bad” when followers of it were convinced (against the teachings of the Bible, by the way) to attack a misrepresentation of Judaism (The book was a 19th century forgery, actually – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_elder_zion) is beyond me. Again – Hitler could easily have exploited ANY OTHER philosophy or religious worldview, atheism included, to achieve his ends. Christianity happened to be the most common belief in Germany at the time, as you say, and so he looked for ways to trick Christians into anti-Semitism, even though Hitler saw Christianity as a major obstacle to his goals, as I have already shown.

bud

Dec 30th, 2005 - 6:39 PM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitler's use of Christianity

i stand corrected jim. didn't see this post til after i did the last one.

you said;
I’ve had a look over the discussion between us, and your point seems to be “Hitler used the religion of the people to convince them that what he wanted to do was ok – therefore, religion is bad”.

NO jim. i simply used hitler as the most contempory and most documented, sensationalized example we have today of the thousands of despots, using the thousands of relegions ( your own very promonitly) to make the thousands or wars we've had through out history, AND STILL HAVE TODAY. his (hitler's) motavation, beliefs, etc.etc. totally irrelivent. he was simply one creep amoung thousands, one of which i'm beganing to think might be my own president. well actually not mine. i sure as hell didn't vote for him. anyhow jim, my POINT IS,and PLEASE bare this in mind in future posts NO RELEGION, NO WARS.

i've perused the rest of your post jim and i sill gotta say atheism is NOT a relegion. for me you could say atheism is the basis for an anti relegious belief system based on what i've said above but many atheists don't give a flying fufu one way or the other about relegion or give it any more thought than you give to the fact you don't believe in santa claus.
oh and jim. if you think war & atrodity is agenst the teachings of the bible, well all i can say is PLEASE, PLEASE READ IT. ever hear of relegious appologests jim?? they're very real and very necessary to the care & maintainance of your own and all the other superstitions.

Jimbojsr

Jan 4th, 2006 - 8:27 AM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitler's use of Christianity

"i sill gotta say atheism is NOT a relegion"

I suppose it's not 'religious' in as much as having rituals, traditions and creeds (mind you, the Humanist Manifesto, declaring the commonalities followed by all non-believers, looks pretty much like a creed to me...) - perhaps 'worldview' would be a more accurate word. Anyway, the point still stands that one's worldview (be it theistic or not, very individual or the same as many other people) will direct the way one lives one's life = and can be manipulated, often regardless of exactly what is taught by that particular view.

For example... let's substitute "religion" with "Darwinism". In the 19th century, the notion of 'survival of the fittest' was used as an excuse by white Australians to beat and abuse Aborigines; to quote one letter-writer from 1880 -

"Nothing that we can do will alter the inscrutable and withal immutable laws [evolution andsurvival of the fittest - J] which direct our progress on this globe. By these laws the native races of Australia were doomed on the advent of the white man, and the only thing left for us to do is to assist in carrying them out with as little cruelty as possible … We must rule the blacks by fear"

And another says of killing blacks:

‘to the sentimental it is undoubtedly an iniquity; to the practical it represents a distinct step in human progress, involving the sacrifice of a few thousands of an inferior race. … But the fact is that mankind, as a race, cannot choose to act solely as moral beings. They are governed by animal laws which urge them blindly forward upon tracks they scarce can choose for themselves."

(both quoted in 'Aborigines in White Australia: A Documentary History of the Attitudes Affecting Official Policy and the Australian Aborigine 1697–1973', Edited by Sharman Stone, Hienemann Educational Books, Melbourne, 1974)

The situation here is analogous to that of Hitler and Christianity. Darwinistic thinking, with its 'animal laws' is being appealed to (successfully) as justification for evil, and those who disagree are 'sentimental'. By your thinking, then, no darwinism = no genocide! A closer look at the situation shows that it just isn't as simple as this - Does Darwinism ACTUALLY justify what's being done, or is it simply being manipulated and used as an excuse to justify the white man's greed, superiority complex and racism? If it's the former, then we have a problem with the belief system in question; but if it's the latter (like religion in WWII) then I fail to see why I should be particularly concerned about Darwinism, especially when we are ignoring the point about whether it's all true or not!

"if you think war & atrodity is agenst the teachings of the bible, well all i can say is PLEASE, PLEASE READ IT"

I have done, and I've studied it (and its context and message) enough to understand that the commands to war (actually, the majority of stuff in Deuteronomy) don't apply to us Christians in 2005. Do some contextual study of the whole Bible, and you'll find out too - I suggest starting off by finding what genre of book Deuteronomy is... or you could ask me nicely, and I'll fill you in ;)

bud

Jan 5th, 2006 - 8:45 AM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitler's use of Christianity

well jim all i can say about the darwinism thing is i really don't think it's very relevent here. don't doubt it was used as an excuse to commit the attrocits you mentioned but neither do i doubt the christian relegion was right in there also. it seems that acknowledging that different races have evolved with some differences is not very political correct these days but the fact is that there are differences. however superior & inferior are reletave terms that can be spun any way the user wants. and as i've said many, many times my beliefs are based on empirical scientific evidence. there is lots of EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for darwinism jim, and ZERO for your superstition. can you deny it?? you familiar with the term 'consensum gentium" jim?? that's your evidence,and it's all you got.

one of the more glaring inconsistancies in your bible jim, would be the story of a believer transporting the arc of the covinent in a horse drawn cart. the cart hit rut & the man grabbed the arc to prevent it falling from the cart. this pi**ed god off cause the man was not one of the people god said could touch the thing and he struck him dead on the spot. this while in other scripture it was taken & held for a period of years by heathens in one of the incessent wars, obviously touching, and defiling the silly thing all over the place & nothing happened to them. sorry i can't quote chapter & verse. however both things are in your bible and the language unmistakable. i've asked several of the faithfull in other posts to explain, or rationalize this and have yet to recieve a response. can you??

Jimbojsr

Jan 7th, 2006 - 1:51 PM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re... ah, ya get the idea...

"well jim all i can say about the darwinism thing is i really don't think it's very relevent here. don't doubt it was used as an excuse to commit the attrocits you mentioned but neither do i doubt the christian relegion was right in there also. "

Which proves my point exactly – regardless of what a belief system actually teaches, and regardless of whether it incorporates a God or not, it can be misused.

"...it seems that acknowledging that different races have evolved with some differences is not very political correct these days but the fact is that there are differences. however superior & inferior are reletave terms that can be spun any way the user wants. "

Again, this is exactly my point. Just because unwarranted extrapolations can be drawn by someone willing to twist any and every belief system in existence to their own selfish ends, does not automatically mean there is a problem with the belief system in question. Despite the use of Darwinism to justify atrocities, it is plain silly (on this volume of evidence) to say “NO DARWINISM = NO GENOCIDE” – and just as silly to say “NO RELIGION = NO WAR”

"my beliefs are based on empirical scientific evidence. there is lots of EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for darwinism jim, and ZERO for your superstition. can you deny it??"

Naturally, I disagree, though we haven’t actually touched on any of the evidence base for Christianity yet, as that wasn’t the purpose of the thread.

"you familiar with the term 'consensum gentium" jim??"

Nope, though I suspect that’s because you’ve mis-spelled it; for a native of the country that invented the spelling bee, reading the last few posts of yours has been pretty tortuous. I pasted the term into Google, and came up with a bunch of hits, all of which seem to be in Latin. And since I haven’t done any Latin since I was 15... (Ecce! In pictura est puella, nomine Cornelia. Cornelia est laetae – Cornelia cantat!!! Ah, I still got it...

And no, for the record I did not go to a catholic school)

"...in other scripture [the ark] was taken & held for a period of years by heathens in one of the incessent wars, obviously touching, and defiling the silly thing all over the place & nothing happened to them."

Hmm... I thought you had read the whole Bible…

In 1 Samuel 5, we have accounts of how, when the Philistines captured the ark and put it in their own temple, God struck them with disease, death and panic for what they had done. They subsequently got rid of the ark and sent it back to the Hebrews.

bud

Jan 8th, 2006 - 9:49 AM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re... ah, ya get the idea...

hay jim; so we agree any belief system can be spun any way anyone wants??? as far as comparing darwinism to relegion as rationalizions for wars jim you've given me ONE for darwinism as opposed to THOUSANDS for relegion. again i gotta ask would the war we are in today be possible without the relegions???

"consensum gentium" well i've spelled it the way it was spelled by my source. the meaning being "everyone says so". it's evidence of a sort jim but not "empirical scientific evidence". in that respect my friend your relegion is still batting ZERO. can you give me a single bit of that??

Hmm... I thought you had read the whole Bible… In 1 Samuel 5, we have accounts of how, when the Philistines captured the ark and put it in their own temple, God struck them with disease, death and panic for what they had done. They subsequently got rid of the ark and sent it back to the Hebrews.

no i haven't read the whole bible. i'm only up to the book of jeremaih. i reread the scriptures in samuel and you're right about arc thing. i quoted it from memory when i read how god killed the believer for touching it. why you think he did that??? to me it's like most of the things he does in the bible, what i consider the acts of a spoiled, sadistic & psycotic child. as i think they would seem to you and any other reasoning person had they been done by a human. no?? oh and jim. i hope you arn't to offended by my english cause it's the only way i know and i do enjoy our discussions.

Jimbojsr

Jan 10th, 2006 - 1:48 PM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re... ah, ya get the idea...

"hay jim; so we agree any belief system can be spun any way anyone wants??? as far as comparing darwinism to relegion as rationalizions for wars jim you've given me ONE for darwinism as opposed to THOUSANDS for relegion. again i gotta ask would the war we are in today be possible without the relegions???"

Meh, I can give you more examples if you want – there’s even good evidence that Hitler himself was heavily influenced by evolutionary thinking of the time, which is a bigger deal to me as this thinking was directly involved in the origin of the war, rather than a more “incidental” factor, as Christianity was in WWII… Regarding the war in Iraq, I strongly believe that it WOULD be possible – the fact is that this was has precious little to do with any given organised religion (or even religious belief), and plenty to do with man’s inherent ability to mess other men around as a result of their own greed and lust for power – the same man who keeps being touted by humanism as the most advanced life form on the planet… I’m as well asking “would the abuse of aborigines have been possible without Darwinism?”

""consensum gentium" well i've spelled it the way it was spelled by my source. the meaning being "everyone says so". it's evidence of a sort jim but not "empirical scientific evidence". in that respect my friend your relegion is still batting ZERO. can you give me a single bit of that??"

I can’t say I’ve ever appealed to that line of thinking myself… I personally base my belief on a variety of scientific, philosophical, archaeological and historical evidence.

"to me it's like most of the things he does in the bible, what i consider the acts of a spoiled, sadistic & psycotic child. as i think they would seem to you and any other reasoning person had they been done by a human. no?? "

At first glance, I’d agree with you… and the key to realising the difference is, I believe, recognising 1) that this ISN’T another human we’re talking about – it’s God, who laid down the rules very clearly, and (if He is who the rest of the Bible says he is) deserves to be treated with at least an element of respect; and 2) when we look at the other rules he laid down, and the behaviour of David and his crew, the whole episode shows him to be extremely lenient! Glenn Miller has already covered this aspect in the bottom third of www.christian-thinktank.com/gutripper.html … and if you compare with what the Hebrews “did do” with “should have done” (for example, see the rules in Number 4, amongst other places), we get a picture of a God who, rather than smiting people for any petty infringement, persistently gives his people the benefit of the doubt… holding off punishment (that, lets face it, they really deserve) until He MUST satisfy justice. To quote more succinct summation than I could manage:

'So, according the law, they should have died as they started the journey. But as it stands, they probably traveled 12-14 miles without God's judgment...Only at the end, after perhaps a day or two of slow travel, when the final one--and the most significant one--was violated, did Yahweh have to draw the line.

I can almost feel the decision-tension within God as they start out..."Well, they mean well...I will cut them a lot of slack here...I am a little concerned that they think I am like those pagan gods, who are dead and lifeless...they need to take me seriously, so they obey the rules and I can bless them, according to the promises...I will go along with this unless it gets out of hand..." And, He has the draw the line at violation of the holiest of holies--He must maintain before them that He is different and not their stereotypical god-who-does-not-mean-what-he-says...(Personally, I have had plenty of opportunities to experience this 'tension' myself, in trying to decide when/if to "bring up an issue" with my growing children.)'

I completely agree with his analysis on this one. The best bit of all, though, is that David (in 1 Chronicles 15) recognises his fault, and gets the priests to do things properly… and, bizarrely, it comes off without a hitch… as the poster says, “If all else fails, follow instructions”…
Is this a sadistic God who delights in torturing his subjects? Or a just and fair God, who does everything logically possible to be forgiving, patient and gracious? The data strongly suggest the latter.

bud

Jan 11th, 2006 - 8:20 AM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re... ah, ya get the idea...

you said;
At first glance, I’d agree with you… and the key to realising the difference is, I believe, recognising 1) that this ISN’T another human we’re talking about – it’s God, who laid down the rules very clearly,

god isn't another human?? well i agree it's not. however, and with all due respect to yourself i gotta say that god is a nothing more than a figment of the imagenation of the superstitus and my feelings about it can be nothing other then contempt for what is by any reasonable human terms exactly the despot i've described. that is if it actually existed. again with respect for you. yeah jim it sure ain't human.

and laid down the rules "very clearly" jim??? assuming that by "very clearly" you mean very clearly, i gotta say you gotta be kidding me. you can't possably be un aware of the incredatable number of different superstitions derived from these "very clear rules" of which you speak???? or the wars fought over the differences??? being faught right now???

www.christian-thinktank.com/gutripper.html … and if you compare with what the Hebrews “did do” with “should have done” (for example, see the rules in Number 4, amongst other places), we get a picture of a God who, rather than smiting people for any petty infringement, persistently gives his people the benefit of the doubt… holding off punishment (that, lets face it, they really deserve) until He MUST satisfy justice. To quote more succinct summation than I could manage:

just one more thing jim. "the benifit of the doubt??? this mean your omnescient god had a doubt??? how you gonna spin that jim???

Jimbojsr

Jan 12th, 2006 - 1:11 PM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re... ah, ya get the idea...

“my feelings about [God] can be nothing other then contempt for what is by any reasonable human terms exactly the despot i've described.”

Sorry dude, but argument by outrage isn’t the way to work out arguments. You have to show that what God did really does conflict with the image of him as a loving and just (and therefore, not sentimental) God. As described in the article, the surrounding events show Him to be the perfect definition of ‘agape’ – looking out for what’s best for everyone, dispensing justice as needed, but also being much more eager to bless than to judge.

“and laid down the rules "very clearly" jim??? assuming that by "very clearly" you mean very clearly, i gotta say you gotta be kidding me. you can't possably be un aware of the incredatable number of different superstitions derived from these "very clear rules" of which you speak???? or the wars fought over the differences??? being faught right now???”

Have a read at the relevant passage in Deuteronomy 4. It tells you how exactly how to handle the ark, as David recognised! Wars fought over the interpretation of the OT law (if such things exist) aren’t relevant to our discussion of Uzzah.

“just one more thing jim. "the benifit of the doubt??? this mean your omnescient god had a doubt??? how you gonna spin that jim???”

Heh – perhaps the wrong choice of word. “Leniency” is probably better – but then, surely you would have gathered what I was on about from reading what I said in its context? (i.e., the rest of the post!)

bud

Jan 13th, 2006 - 5:54 AM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re... ah, ya get the idea...

Sorry dude, but argument by outrage isn’t the way to work out arguments. You have to show that what God did really does conflict with the image of him as a loving and just (and therefore, not sentimental) God. As described in the article, the surrounding events show Him to be the perfect definition of ‘agape’ – looking out for what’s best for everyone, dispensing justice as needed, but also being much more eager to bless than to judge

argument by outrage?? not sure i get that jim but it appears you may have taken some offense to my last post and i can only say again my "contempt" is for the religion, rather than yourself and i would be less than honest if i failed to express it. i do still consider this to be a discussion rather than an argument. as for this "just and loving god" jim, i've read about two thirds of the bible and have yet to see anything i would consider just or loving. as for the arc thing you're right about the rules concerning it however i've got to ask what senseable person would create a bunch of rules for a box, then kill people over it?? i mean whatever else it may be it's still just a thing, a lousy box. which brings to mind the fact the box, noah's arc, the stone tablet god supposedly wrote the ten commandments on with his very own hand, any thing and every thing that might present some physical evidence for your god's existence, are conviently MISSING. doesn't that give you even a tiny little hint jim??

Jimbojsr

Jan 16th, 2006 - 9:53 AM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re... ah, ya get the idea...

“it appears you may have taken some offense to my last post”

No offense taken – what I meant was that the argument / discussion point you presented was one largely based on your own sense of moral anger and assumption that what happened could never possibly be justfied, regardless of circumstances and possible alternatives. What the skeptic really needs to do is show conclusively that a given action WAS, in the context, really unfair or undeserved – though, sadly, a lot of people will start off reading the story of the Amalekites with the assumption of “the punishment is undeserved, and can never be justified”, rather than “are there any circumstances in which this can be reconciled with a loving God?”

“i've read about two thirds of the bible and have yet to see anything i would consider just or loving.”

Well, the cases of the Amalekites and Uzzah show God delivering justice to those that deserve it, and that He is as merciful as He can reasonably be in each case. When people love God, he blesses them – but when people turn their back on him, he turns his back on them (the Israelites are not exempt from this, remember). For an early example, have a read at Genesis 6:5-21 – bad folk punished, good folk saved. Also, Exodus 2:24. It’s maybe worth pointing out that the Greek word used for “love” in the NT is ‘agape’ – which, rather than sentimentality, carries connotations of ‘tough love’, a character looking out for what is best for the other people involved, including justice if need be.

“whatever else it may be it's still just a thing, a lousy box.”

Sometimes I feel the same way! The key is to try to imagine the significance of the ark to the Israelites. The ark was symbolic of God, as it held the tablets which recorded the foundations of the covenant God had made with the people (i.e. the 10 commandments – Exodus 25:16). The ark was kept in the tabernacle, (sort of a mobile temple) which was also referred to at the Tent of Meeting – this was where God would meet with Aaron and the priests (Ex. 27:21; also 29:42-46). Now, to a certain extent this is fairly arbitrary, as God is omnipresent (see 1 Kings 8:27!) – so what’s the point of all this?

The point was that God deserved this respect from his subjects. This is a little hard for us to understand, in these days of televangelists who insist that God is our “friend” or “buddy”. In fact, when we reflect on the character of God, we realise that those who are portrayed as “good guys” in the Bible are often described as “God-fearing” – not being scared, but having due reverence and respect for the creator of the universe who is perfectly holy and knows what’s best for us! When it comes to the meaning and function of the expensive (in all meanings of the word!) tabernacle, I think the Westminster Shorter Catechism summed it up the best – it points to our chief aim and purpose in life, “to glorify God and enjoy him forever”. By means of this tabernacle (constructed by the Israelites as a sign of their loyalty to God) – compare this with the golden calf that they built as a sign of loyalty to their invented god), the omnipotent, transcendent God came to “dwell” with Israel when they drew near to him, showing us that he graciously draws alongside us when we need Him. To quote Youngblood & Kaiser in their contribution to the NIV Study Bible: “God is not only mighty on Israel’s behalf; he is also present in her midst”. (see also Exodus 2:24 again!)

“any thing and every thing that might present some physical evidence for your god's existence, are conviently MISSING”
So? The original works of Tacitus are also missing – does that mean he never existed? 6 of the 7 wonders of the world are no longer with us, but the list still manages to do the rounds. Entire cities have disappeared for generations without a trace, only to be uncovered after more searching (e.g. Troy). In any case, we DO have archaeological evidence supporting many of the Bible’s assertions – for example, ruins of places described in the Bible have frequently been found (I can gather some examples if you want), and there are numerous books out there that detail archaeological support for the historical claims of the OT and NT. In the specific case of the ark of the covenant, the odds are that it was destroyed by the Babylonians when they sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple in around 587BC. If it hadn’t been destroyed (which seems unlikely given what happened back then), this would only be because the Jews had hidden it prior to the siege – in which case it would certainly have been used in the Second Temple (which the Jewish historian Josephus tells us it wasn’t – Jewish Wars 5:219).

bud

Jan 17th, 2006 - 10:18 AM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re... ah, ya get the idea...

lots of retoric here jim. i'll try to respond to your main points.

"No offense taken – what I meant was that the argument / discussion point you presented was one largely based on your own sense of moral anger and assumption that what happened could never possibly be justfied, regardless of circumstances and possible alternatives. What the skeptic really needs to do is show conclusively that a given action WAS, in the context, really unfair or undeserved – though, sadly, a lot of people will start off reading the story of the Amalekites with the assumption of “the punishment is undeserved, and can never be justified”, rather than “are there any circumstances in which this can be reconciled with a loving God?”

well jim, as for my attitude, you've got it pritty well right.

to me the amalekites are just another of the unpronceable words that i skip over in my reading.
however i'm assuming this is about one of the incessent wars in which, in some cases your god DEMANDS IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS the deaths of every man, woman, child, and animal including even the total descrution of buldings, crops, everything???. wars jim. the destruction of nations, civilizations.
you gonna tell me every single one of these people were vile evil people??? deserving of destruction?? you know of any nation today or any time in history (other than the bible) composed of nothing but evil people?? does it even occure to you that like in any war, past, present, even biblical, the vast majority of casulities are innocent women, children, even a few good decient men?? you think your bloody god did anything for them??? in any of his wars??? amalekites or any other??? yeah jim. there is not a single war in your bloody bible that can possibly be justified by any of the cercumstances given for them other than your own "god did it and whatever god does is cool". not for us to question???

Tacitus?? never heard of him jim. however did you notice you mentioned "some of his WORKS being missing. not any proof of his existence?? maybe you can figure out the difference for yourself???.

Jimbojsr

Jan 22nd, 2006 - 8:27 AM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re... ah, ya get the idea...

"...does it even occure to you that like in any war, past, present, even biblical, the vast majority of casulities are innocent women, children, even a few good decient men?? you think your bloody god did anything for them??? in any of his wars??? amalekites or any other??? "

I’ve covered most of this in my response to wayne, actually, but to summarise:
> The culture of the Amalekites was an evil, destructive one. They went out of their way to raid and plunder nations who had never done them any harm (including the Israelites, who would have lived in a different part of the area altogether, and not posed them a threat), and had a record of following the Israelites on the Exodus and killing the young / old / lame individuals who lagged behind. (Deut 25:18 – and see 1 Samuel 15:5-6 for an example of Israel’s relationship with peaceful nations) and were still at it 200-300 years later!.
> They had plenty of access to the truth that the Hebrews were supposed to inherit their land (Jacob’s land promise occurred 400 years earlier), and the miraculous stories of the Exodus would have given them ample warning – as it did to most other nations. (Joshua 2:10) In other words, they had plenty of chances to repent (the incident in 1 Samuel above would also have served this purpose)
> The “slaughters” described in Deuteronomy were first and foremost relocations, designed to dismantle the aforementioned culture which was both sinful to God and harmful to everyone else – NOT to kill as many folk as possible. The vast majority of Amalekite people would have left before the Hebrews arrived – no big deal, since whole tribes of people could be mobilised in a matter of days. Those that did fight and were killed (only about 5% of the population) were those who would rather stay and protect this culture – the social elite who lived in walled cities and were the fiercest examples of the evil that the Amalekites were known for. Had the Israelites not killed THESE guys, they themselves would have been attacked.
> Lastly, we DO have examples of nations like the Amalekites who repented and turned from their evil ways – and were forgiven by God (e.g. Ninevah in the book of Jonah).

SO, relatively few people were actually killed; none of them were at all innocent; and they had many, MANY chances to repent for what they did.

"there is not a single war in your bloody bible that can possibly be justified by any of the cercumstances given for them other than your own "god did it and whatever god does is cool". not for us to question???"

It is perfectly good for us to question whether God was just and fair in what he did – it’s also important to be prepared to entertain the possibility that God’s commands WERE justified. By refusing to even consider this, and assuming that these actions must be evil and unjustifiable without taking an objective look at the evidence, you’re being as “fundamentalist” as the christians who you complain about!

"Tacitus?? never heard of him jim. however did you notice you mentioned "some of his WORKS being missing. not any proof of his existence?? maybe you can figure out the difference for yourself???."

Tacitus was a famous Roman historian, who we only know about because of what he wrote. Playing by your rules, one could demand that, unless we have the original works (or, indeed, his corpse!) he could just have been made up by some guy hundreds of years ago – and I’d love for you to show me the historian who doubts the existence of Tacitus because we don’t have archeological evidence for him. Perhaps not the best example, cos we're talking about a big chest rather than a human, but the rest of the paragraph still stands…

bud

Jan 23rd, 2006 - 9:50 AM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re... ah, ya get the idea...

well jim i won't question the first part of your post cause again i'm not familiar with the amalekites except to say if "not one innocent" was killed it had to be one unique war. and just one of hundreds in your bible, many initatied by the israiles at the order of your god. and it still does nothing to explain or justify why this "all powerful entity" of yours has to use war,the greatest horror imaginable to any rational human being to achieve his ends. you know jim if i were to somehow become convenced of the actual existance of this magical god of yours it would scare the hell out of me, but failing some devine brain washing i'd hate his guts. as would any other rational person, including yourself sans the life long conditioning. ie. all christians "know" how wrong the islamists are & vice versa.

It is perfectly good for us to question whether God was just and fair in what he did – it’s also important to be prepared to entertain the possibility that God’s commands WERE justified. By refusing to even consider this, and assuming that these actions must be evil and unjustifiable without taking an objective look at the evidence, you’re being as “fundamentalist” as the christians who you complain about!

an objective look at the evidence jim?? please tell me specificly what evidence i'm failing to look objectively at???? as briefly as possable please.

Tacitus was a famous Roman historian, who we only know about because of what he wrote. Playing by your rules, one could demand that, unless we have the original works (or, indeed, his corpse!) he could just have been made up by some guy hundreds of years ago – and I’d love for you to show me the historian who doubts the existence of Tacitus because we don’t have archeological evidence for him. Perhaps not the best example, cos we're talking about a big chest rather than a human, but the rest of the paragraph still stands…

well i'm not, as i'm sure you know, going to question the existance of a person i'v never heard of b4. 'everyone says so' that my friend the evidence for the existance of your god. that is the evidence fot alla. that is the evidence for zuse, jupiter, & all the rest of the gods of what we now call greak & roman mythology. and it is the only evidence there is. NOT ONE BIT OF ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE JIM. tell me i'm wrong??? people wrote your bible jim for people reasons. it justified and justifies the horrors we commite agenst each other. and my point is we are trapped by these superstitions in the status quo, ie. we gotta have these stupid wars to control the population so god likes them. they, your relegions jim are tiny, nasty little boxes, keeping this increditable intelligence we've evolved from even considering WE CAN DO BETTER. we really do not have to have wars, starvation, death itself.

Jimbojsr

Jan 29th, 2006 - 3:18 PM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re... ah, ya get the idea...

Actually, the reason I've not stuck up a reply was because I've been very busy recently - that, and you've not actually answered any of my points other than by saying "God did that, and that's bad", without even considering the possibility that he MAY have had perfect justification for doing what the Bible records. Oh, and for the record, I have never claimed that "everyone else says so" is a reason for me believing the truth of the Bible, so please stop bringing it up and try to address the points I DO make. Anyway, where were we...

"i'm not familiar with the amalekites except to say if "not one innocent" was killed it had to be one unique war. and just one of hundreds in your bible,"

'One of hundreds'? A vague rant with no substance. Stick to specifics please - if you have a particular act that you find puzzling, let's talk about it; but saying "ooooh, bad stuff happened!" is no way to objectively look at a subject.

"it still does nothing to explain or justify why this "all powerful entity" of yours has to use war,the greatest horror imaginable to any rational human being to achieve his ends."

War? Relocation, really; those that died were those who wanted to fight to the death rather than move over a bit and let the Hebrews live peacefully in the land they had been promised. This was laid out in my post... Also, you still seem to think that the Amalekites were doing nothing but making daisy chains and singing Kumbayah around a campfire when the Israelites showed up. And sure enough, a wee bit further down...

"an objective look at the evidence jim?? please tell me specificly what evidence i'm failing to look objectively at???? as briefly as possable please."

As was in the previous post (which by now I'm a tad suspicious you didn't actually read...), in the case of the Amalekites: the fact that they were an incredibly destructive, predatory culture, who were subsequently punished (in a way that neighbouring nations would have deemed extremely merciful) after being given many, many chances to change their ways. This is the last time I'm gonna put this up; if you want to challenge any of the particuar points then that's fine, but if you can't even read what I type up in fornt of you then that's not my problem.

"NOT ONE BIT OF ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE JIM. tell me i'm wrong??? "

You're wrong. Satisfied? Oddly enough, all you’ve done with this is yell that “there’s no evidence”, whilst never actually addressing the arguments people tend to put forward for the existence of God – heck, you haven’t even asked me for any reasons here! Personally, I go with historical, archeological, scientific and philosophical evidence, with the main one being the life, death and resurrection of Jesus (and, of course, the reliability of the evidence for those things).

"people wrote your bible jim for people reasons. it justified and justifies the horrors we commite agenst each other."

So Moses said to Aaron – "Let’s write a big book of rules which tell us not to do that stuff we like to do, and which (the odds are) we will continually fail to adhere to... in order to justify our doing anything we want." Hmmm... and don't even try that with the Gospels!

"my point is we are trapped by these superstitions in the status quo, ie. we gotta have these stupid wars to control the population so god likes them. they, your relegions jim..."

I have more than one religion? Must have missed that post… Heck, you can go ahead and criticise Islam all you want', I don't care. Maybe THAT religion DOES teach us to do nasty things. Frankly, though, it's irrelevant to me seeing as how I don't try adhere to its rules.

"...are tiny, nasty little boxes, keeping this increditable intelligence we've evolved from even considering WE CAN DO BETTER."

So Christianity is designed to stop people from fulfilling their (good) potential? John 10:10 would seem to disagree with you, as would much of my experience with other Christians. Being a born again believer sure doesn’t make you perfect (and just saying that you’re one DEFINITELY doesn’t!), but I’ve seen time and time again that it can massively change people for the better. "Fundamentalist" christianity (or any worldview based on blind belief) can of course be bad - but I do my best to hold to no such blind belief (see above).

"we really do not have to have wars, starvation, death itself."

If it weren’t for people screwing up (like the Amalekites, for example) then we wouldn’t have wars, or starvation – or even (if a literal reading of Genesis is to be believed) death itself. Are these things automatically caused by religions, or religious belief? Hardly. They are caused by human nature, and our propensity to be cruel to each other which can flourish with or without adherence to a religion; but which, in my experience, can be greatly affected by a living, saving faith in Christ which changes our l

Jimbojsr

Jan 31st, 2006 - 7:22 AM

Above post cont.

...Are these things automatically caused by religions, or religious belief? Hardly. They are caused by human nature, and our propensity to be cruel to each other which can flourish with or without adherence to a religion; but which, in my experience, can be greatly affected by a living, saving faith in Christ which changes our lives (including the way we treat others) for the better. I agree with you in that a “fundamentalist” mindset, where nothing is ever questioned and a belief pattern is blindly followed, can cause a lot of evil – however, I’ve seen enough atheists live and think like this to realise that this is no reason to toss all religions down the toilet.

[PS. - Sorry for the double post, I thought I had edited this enough so that it would all fit into the one post. Apologies for the awkwardness}

bud

Jan 31st, 2006 - 9:12 AM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re... ah, ya get the idea...

Actually, the reason I've not stuck up a reply was because I've been very busy recently - that, and you've not actually answered any of my points other than by saying "God did that, and that's bad", without even considering the possibility that he MAY have had perfect justification for doing what the Bible records. Oh, and for the record, I have never claimed that "everyone else says so" is a reason for me believing the truth of the Bible, so please stop bringing it up and try to address the points I DO make. Anyway, where were we...

'god did that and that's bad' YES JIM!!! PERFECT BEINGS DON'T DO BAD THINGS!!! ERGO YOUR PERFECT BEING IS A MYTH.!!! PLAIN SIMPLE COMMON SENSE JIM.
aparently you, like most of the superstitous expect me to read about the wars & attrocities in your bloody bible with an "open mind" ie. look for and find excuses, rationalizations for the attrocities, as you do. assuming the "points i've failed to address" has to do with the amilkite war?? you find god perfectly justified in destroying these people. i could read it and find the obvious. it is a war and wars are bad. even assuming the bad guys were totally evil & deserving of destruction, as you say, do you also imagine that lots of the good guys wern't slaughtered as well?? so again i ask why does this "mighty, all powerful god" gotta use war to achieve his ends??? i mean he can kill some poor slob who grabs his holy box to keep it from falling of the cart. how come he didn't simply kill the amilkites?? incendently does it occure to you what those barbarians would have done to the guy if he hadn't grabbed it and it had fallen to the ground?? and does it occure to you jim that our ansesters, yours & mine, WERE the heathen, evil, uncercomsized ,gentiles that god was telling the isralies to kill in many of his wars????

'One of hundreds'? A vague rant with no substance. Stick to specifics please - if you have a particular act that you find puzzling, let's talk about it; but saying "ooooh, bad stuff happened!" is no way to objectively look at a subject.

a vague rant jim??? how bout wars suck. any war. that specific enough?? as you've noted later in your post, it is a very human thing and humans are imperfect. created by a perfect god?? please explain to me how a "perfect being" creats imperfect beings??? and b4 you use the "free will" garbage please just think about it a while. again plain and simple PERFECT BEINGS DO NOT CREATE IMPERFECT BEINGS. IF THEY DO THEY AIN'T PERFECT THEIR SELVES. gotta go now i'll try to address the rest of your post later.

bud

Feb 1st, 2006 - 11:37 AM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re... ah, ya get the idea...

to continue

Oh, and for the record, I have never claimed that "everyone else says so" is a reason for me believing the truth of the Bible, so please stop bringing it up and try to address the points I DO make. Anyway, where were we...

"everyone says so" right jim. you haven't claimed it.

but my friend if you truly think you would believe your superstition without the "everyone says so" thing, you're kidding yourself big time. you think you would even have heard of this magical mythical god if someone hadn't told you about it??? would god or one of his angels have come down and told you all about it?? you gonna tell me that the fact there are billions who believe in one or another version of your relegion don't have any influence on you??? are not our cultures, yours and mine litterly permiated with references to one or another to one or another biblyical figure???

War? Relocation, really; those that died were those who wanted to fight to the death rather than move over a bit and let the Hebrews live peacefully in the land they had been promised. This was laid out in my post... Also, you still seem to think that the Amalekites were doing nothing but making daisy chains and singing Kumbayah around a campfire when the Israelites showed up. And sure enough, a wee bit further down...

your bible actually says all that??? what's it say about the rest of the wars "relocations" etc.?? you sure we're reading the same bible??

As was in the previous post (which by now I'm a tad suspicious you didn't actually read...), in the case of the Amalekites: the fact that they were an incredibly destructive, predatory culture, who were subsequently punished (in a way that neighbouring nations would have deemed extremely merciful) after being given many, many chances to change their ways. This is the last time I'm gonna put this up; if you want to challenge any of the particuar points then that's fine, but if you can't even read what I type up in fornt of you then that's not my problem.

i do read your entire posts jim. and if the amalekites thing is in the part of the bible i've read, i read it also and i've simply lumped it into the rest of the wars, relocations, what ever you want to call them. as far as specific details i'm thinking you will continue to do the ones that justifies god, and i will continue to point out the brutility & stupidity of them considering an all powerful, loving, mercyful,& perfect being. endlessly. gotta go now. but will continue as best i can to address all your points

Jimbojsr

Feb 8th, 2006 - 2:40 PM

update

Hi ho,

I've been watching the last few posts of yours, and was waiting until you were finished before I responded... but what I'm gonna do is post up a few general points, rather than a line-by-line commentary on what you've written (seeing as how similar themes are being repeated, and need to be looked at in depth). Apologies if you've not finished your response; you'll have plenty of time to continue, since I'm pretty busy at the moment with various other pursuits which take precedence over this. Or, if you have urgent news, you could always email me.

Jsr

bud

Feb 2nd, 2006 - 8:22 AM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re... ah, ya get the idea...

As was in the previous post (which by now I'm a tad suspicious you didn't actually read...), in the case of the Amalekites: the fact that they were an incredibly destructive, predatory culture, who were subsequently punished (in a way that neighbouring nations would have deemed extremely merciful) after being given many, many chances to change their ways. This is the last time I'm gonna put this up; if you want to challenge any of the particuar points then that's fine, but if you can't even read what I type up in fornt of you then that's not my problem.

well again jim i'm not seeing anything here to justify a war when your magical god could have simply killed the bad guys. (if they were as evil as you've depicted them to be) think i've covered it earlier??

You're wrong. Satisfied? Oddly enough, all you’ve done with this is yell that “there’s no evidence”, whilst never actually addressing the arguments people tend to put forward for the existence of God – heck, you haven’t even asked me for any reasons here! Personally, I go with historical, archeological, scientific and philosophical evidence, with the main one being the life, death and resurrection of Jesus (and, of course, the reliability of the evidence for those things).

been re thinking this jim. i'm sure there are some historical chacters about whom we have no physical evidence. however i think that for most we have records written in their own hand, graves with their remains, the actual clothing they wore in life, etc.. and for those without any of these we have the evidence of the records of others as with your jesus & god but without the claim of any supernatural powers which of course makes them lots more believable for those of us who don't believe in magic. sorry you're taking offense at my caps jim. i actually do them for emphasis rather than to yell, but i'll try to cool it some. "no physical evidence" jim. you say i'm wrong and tell me all of your sources that prove me wrong. only thing missing jim is. ONE SINGLE BIT OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. there ain't none jim. can you even admit or accept that increditably simple, obvious fact?? we on the same page here as to what constitutes "physical evidence" jim?? it ain't what sombody wrote "about" god or jesus. rather something written "by" god or jesus in their "own hand" the physical remains of jesus, anything that can actually be seen and touched??? i'll finish the response to the rest of your posts jim. hope it ain't for nothing & i've lost you???

Dave

Jan 7th, 2006 - 8:43 PM

Re: new thread

"Which proves my point exactly – regardless of what a belief system actually teaches, and regardless of whether it incorporates a God or not, it can be misused."

Which tells me that any belief system that has fundamental obayance to an invisible daddy in the sky (or on the ground) should be abandonded quicker than a pair of 1983 parachute pants.

The fact of the matter is that many types of Christianity tell it's adherants that no matter how ridiculous something sounds, if it says it in the bible, you do it. You leave your mind at the doorstep of a fundamentalist church, because you only get into trouble with it inside.

Atheism in and of itself is no different than Theism, but the two most popular specific types of theism (Christianity and Islam) have enough of a track record that one should approach them with caution and a good stout pair of gloves.

Dave

bud

Jan 8th, 2006 - 9:56 AM

Re: Re: new thread

hay dave; welcome. hope to see more. this makes it three to one agenst jim but i hope we don't run him off cause christians who will even talk to an atheist are few and far between. by the way i've noticed getting into a theist board is almost impossable unless you can prove you are a believer. you know any??

Jimbojsr

Jan 9th, 2006 - 4:11 AM

Boards

How about Theologyweb? www.theologyweb.com is run by Christians, but has a healthy dose of various other belief systems represented, atheism included. Also, there are quite a number of really smart folk in there, and a lot of the debates are very good reading. Not a member myself (if I was, I SERIOUSLY wouldn't have a life...) but I occasionally pop by to read what's going on.

PS. Dave - good to see you! Not got a reply yet, because I'm busy with other stuff, and I do try and take my time over these things to make them as lucid as possible. Check back in the next couple of days!

Jimbojsr

Jan 10th, 2006 - 1:50 PM

Theistic belief system = bad! Or does it...

"' …regardless of what a belief system actually teaches, and regardless of whether it incorporates a God or not, it can be misused.' - Which tells me that any belief system that has fundamental obayance to an invisible daddy in the sky (or on the ground) should be abandonded quicker than a pair of 1983 parachute pants.2

Er… Gotta admit, I fail to see how you arrive at that conclusion from my quote. Personally, I’d say the same for any belief system that relies on human beings, a race which (history has taught us) have a quite magnificent record of destructive, selfish behaviour, ESPECIALLY when anti-religious philosophies are employed (e.g. Hitler, Stalin, etc etc). FWIW, though I agree with you on the parachute pants. MC Hammer was a tool.

"The fact of the matter is that many types of Christianity tell it's adherants that no matter how ridiculous something sounds, if it says it in the bible, you do it. You leave your mind at the doorstep of a fundamentalist church, because you only get into trouble with it inside."

Sadly, some do, and I share your frustration. Then again, isn’t that exactly what’s happening with ID in the states? People refusing to even accommodate stickers on evolution books which have the audacity to suggest that some scientists disagree with its conclusions? Whilst I think it’s essential that evolution isn’t removed from the curriculum, this really does sound pretty dogmatic to me. The comeback to this, of course, is that there is the evidence to back Darwinism up - and, similarly, I strongly believe that the Bible should be evaluated and subjected to a reasonable degree of scrutiny. I can assure you that there are churches which are far from “fundamentalist” – and there are many close-minded “fundies” in atheism as well as Christianity!

"Atheism in and of itself is no different than Theism, but the two most popular specific types of theism (Christianity and Islam) have enough of a track record that one should approach them with caution and a good stout pair of gloves."

Hmmm… a bit simplistic, I’d suggest. You’re ignoring the benefits the world (and individuals) has been brought by Christianity - as well as the problems that organised atheism has caused. To dispense of any given religion, you have to show that it has caused more “bad” than “good” - a very difficult thing to do, unless we could tell the future, and interview everyone in the whole world! Of COURSE bad things have been done in the name of religion – some have even been inspired directly by one. However, as I’ve shown, this really doesn’t make it any different from a myriad of other worldviews / systems of thinking, and it is extremely naïve to use such broad brushstrokes to dispense with “religion” – especially when you’re neatly sidestepping the much more important issue of whether the claims of a given religion are actually true or not, which (as Wayne and I have agreed) is the REAL issue at hand.

	The Naked Emperor Forum You know what I believe. Feel free to post what you believe.
Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website