Who Made the Ruels? Why Must there be Conseqeunces form My Actions?

There's a whole range of questions here that atheists ask about why did Jesus have to die on the cross? Sometimes they ask things like "what did he sacrifice?" In an attempt to emphasize the the fallacious understanding that "God could do it any way he wanted to" one CARM atheist (Ron Webb) puts it in terms of "who made the rules?"

Who makes the rules?

One thing I've never understood about the monotheist religions, and Christianity in particular, is the strange and arbitrary rules under which God apparently operates. Here are a few examples:

1. Apparently somebody decided that "the wages of sin is death", i.e. that people deserve to die for even the most trivial of sins. Who came up with that, and why? Was it God? And if so, why would He be so cruel -- especially considering that He Himself created us and surely knows that it is unreasonable to expect anyone to completely avoid sin?

2. Apparently somebody also decided that I no longer need to be punished for my sins if somebody else dies in my place. Again, who decided that, and does this make sense to anybody? If God wants to forgive my sins, why doesn't He just do it? How does somebody else's death "pay" for my sins?

3. Throughout the Christian religion there is a general theme of the sins of the parents being passed down to their children. Why? Is this fair? Why am I the inheritor of "original sin" just because Adam and Eve did something wrong ages ago? Would an reasonable and loving God judge me by what my ancestors did, "even unto the third and fourth generation" (Exodus 20:5)?

It almost seems that the Gnostics were right, that the God of the Bible is actually just a demigod, operating within the constraints of an unknowable Supreme Creator. In other words, God makes the rules, but Someone Else tells God what rules He can make.

Here's my original answer:

Originally Posted by Ron Webb

One thing I've never understood about the monotheist religions, and Christianity in particular, is the strange and arbitrary rules under which God apparently operates. Here are a few examples:

That's becuase Christianity is based upon a 4000 year old religion with a set of documents that are no younger 2000 years old, from an ancient far away culture in a language very few Christians actually know (two languages actually). It's been cultivated by some of the most brilliant minds in human history.

makes it hard to understand the perspective it's coming form.

1. Apparently somebody decided that "the wages of sin is death", i.e. that people deserve to die for even the most trivial of sins. Who came up with that, and why? Was it God? And if so, why would He be so cruel -- especially considering that He Himself created us and surely knows that it is unreasonable to expect anyone to completely avoid sin? 

 It puzzles me why atheists think that having consequences to actions is cruel? We are given free will so we can avoid making the wrong choice, yet we make it out of our own selfish desires then say "why does that have to be consequences?"

It's the way things work. It's not something God set out and said "I'm going make sinners really suffer forever." It's just a fact of the workings of being, that if make God our enemy are separated from him and cease to be. If we cease to be we are going forever. God is not trying to save us from that, we have our own selfish pride that doesn't want saving unless its on our terms.

If you were Moral and just and the basis of all that is would you really let a bunch of selfish babies dictate how you run the universe?

2. Apparently somebody also decided that I no longer need to be punished for my sins if somebody else dies in my place. Again, who decided that, and does this make sense to anybody? If God wants to forgive my sins, why doesn't He just do it? How does somebody else's death "pay" for my sins?

that's just an over simplification. It works like this:

(1) Christ's death on the cross is a statement of solidarity that shows us graphically that God is on your side. He is willing to identify with us and our problems to the extent of becoming one of us and dying as we die.

(2) When we accept God's solidarity we make our own statement of solidarity with God by committing our lives to his service.

(3) the making of solidarity between the two parties creates the ground upon which forgiveness is possible. In Biblical terms this is called "covenant." With solidarity comes amnesty. But that only comes when we are willing ot make the commitment. that's the phrase "New Testament" (covenant) means. Its' an agreement.

3. Throughout the Christian religion there is a general theme of the sins of the parents being passed down to their children. Why? Is this fair? Why am I the inheritor of "original sin" just because Adam and Eve did something wrong ages ago? Would an reasonable and loving God judge me by what my ancestors did, "even unto the third and fourth generation" (Exodus 20:5)? 

You are not. the notion of original sin originally pertained to the capacity to sin, not the actual guilt. We inherit the capacity as part of our human nature, which is inherited.

It almost seems that the Gnostics were right, that the God of the Bible is actually just a demigod, operating within the constraints of an unknowable Supreme Creator. In other words, God makes the rules, but Someone Else tells God what rules He can make. 

But you are reacting to simplified teachings that don't really capture to the full meaning. It's not your fault you are just going by what you have been given. Most people are not through and unfortunately most religious people are more into emotion than analysis.

here's the final round where I answer the answers he made to this post:

Originally Posted by Ron Webb

Well, maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that if I am separated from God I will suffer somehow in this life. That's just not happening.

No! I don't think that because I'm suffering!

But if you're saying that if I am separated from God then God won't let me into heaven in the next life, then again I have to ask, who made up that rule and why? Wouldn't it be more fair to judge me on whether I have actually lived a good life, been kind to others, etc., rather than simply whether I am able to believe a two thousand year old tall tale? 

1) I'm saying that the automatic force of reality will take the enemy of God into non existence. Its' not some plan God had to set up, like gravity will take you off a cliff, God doesn't have to make special angels to push you off.

(2) You think you know what good is but rejecting God is by definition the antithesis of a good life. So in being an atheist and encouraging others to abandon their faith you are making yourself an enemy of God in a major way and living the opposite of a good life. The garbage and lies that angry atheism spews over the net do a hell of lot of damage to people's souls and cause them to abandon their fiath and drift away form God. Some atheists are actually causing people to sin and to risk going over the cliff.

(3) when you start thinking that "I know what good is. I don't God to tell me that" it's just almost a virtual certainty that your moral compass is screwed. we can't help but be mixed up morally becasue we are sinful creatures. What seems good to us is seemingly good because we are filtering ot through a messed upon moral sense.

(4) it's undoubtedly that there's an overlap between the "good" moral sense and the "messed up" moral sense. I'm sure that you get some things right. But wouldn't you like to get it all right? not that we can but to have a shot at it, to do the best the very best a person can do. you are missing out on knowing the source of all love and goodness, how can you have a valid moral compass?

"Overtures"? When I wanted to solidify my relationship with the woman who eventually became my wife, I would meet with her for coffee, talk with her, do things together, etc. That's how I "made overtures". I suppose having myself nailed to a cross would have impressed her, but not in a good way.

so rather than meet with the creator of you soul you call him names, spit in his face, mock and ridicile all who believe in him, and work at derailing the faith of anyone who cares about truth. that's brilliant. how do I know you are mocking ridiucling?

(1) you are an atheist right?
(2) your lips are moving (I'm kidding1 I'm kidding) ;-)

I kid because I love!

Either Christ's suffering and death was necessary or it was not. If it was necessary, then I'm asking why, and who made up that rule. If it was unnecessary -- well, that takes this discussion in a totally unexpected direction for me. I've never heard a Christian suggest that.

It was necessary to make the most powerful statement of solidarity possible and that was it.

Adam and Eve obviously could sin because they did sin, didn't they?

A/E are mythological archetypes. you can't read the story as a literal history of real humans you have to understand the theological implications.

If you would cite the actual Biblical reference then we could compare them, but Exodus 20:5 is pretty clear. I don't see how you could dispute it.

to what?


Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What exactly do you mean by "automatic force of reality" here? It doesn't seem to be a logical necessity that the enemies of God (or even those who just don't see any reason to believe he exists) should have to eventually cease to exist. So how is this "automatic force of reality" not a limitation of his alleged omnipotence? Isn't God supposed to be able to do anything which doesn't imply a contradiction?

Sure but having your cake cake and eating it too is a contradiction. By that I mean God can't have a moral universe and make everyone be a robot. "moral" means one chooses of one's own free will, but chooses the values of the good. So no free will, no moral choice, no moral universe.

That implies that there are consequences to choosing wrongly. Those consequences have to be allowed if the wrong choice must be allowed. the wrong choice must be allowed if we are to have a moral universe.

If God said 'Ok I'll just let everyone in no matter what they have done and how they feel about it" then where's the moral nature in that? Now evil is rewarded along with good? Or suppose he did that now all the evil people live forever, but they have to punished, hence eternal conscious torment. which is more humane and loving? you expect to cease to be anyway right? that's the consequence of believing there's no God isn't it? What are you complaining about?

Why, for instance, couldn't God have arranged it so that his enemies would end up in a sub-universe of chocolate and marshmallow for eternity instead?

It rewards evil choices. Why shouldn't people who choose evil have to embrace the consequences of their actions?

God is the basis of being. reject the basis of being you rect your own existence. It's just gravity. like stepping off the cliff.

Atehist Response to my comments about their hate speech

One of the atheists I spoke of on CARM put up a post discussing what I said here. I responded to his post and this is that post that I put up in response.words in blue are what I said before on CARM

Default Responses for Metacrock

http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/201...-asked-to.html

I noticed that you took some of my posts and responded to them on your blog. I'm going to respond to them here; I think you deserve a response since you took the time to make sure that the posts you took were displayed in context and that you didn't do anything like try to misrepresent what I was saying (see, sarcasm doesn't translate well into text). 

o yes very clever. I don't think I did. If you think so I shall be happy discuss it with you.

the first atheist answer on the htread "what If I said atheism is eivl." is this:

No, I'd ask why you thought there was some sort of unifying belief shared among people who don't believe in gods. 

you know that's really a secondary issue, atheism doesn't have to be an ideology for the atheists on carm to tolerate hate speech.

refuses to even answer the question.

I didn't refuse to answer the question, I just answered a different one first. 

I don't think you got around to the answers I wanted at all.

You asked several questions in that OP. The one my initial response was aimed at was "Would you say 'this is wrong?'" And I eventually did address your hate speech question. 

As I recall three people who made some attempt at answering it. Hans, Diet Coke, I guess you (I can't recall the third). But none of them really confront it in strong terms. I guess you can't have everything.

So, you think that the best way to get certain atheists to make sweeping, defamatory statements about Christians is to make sweeping, defamatory statements against atheists? Do you think it's working? 

that's the exact opposite of what I said and ask, that's why its so unfair. you are saying that my motive for pointing out the hate speech is to illicit more hate speech, which is a lie and slander and something you can't nkow anyway. why the hell would you think I want more hate speech anway? why would you think I want you to be "defamatory" *(is that a word?) when what I ask for was a dennunciation of hate?

that's trying to turn the slander upon the one who seeks to stop slander.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that whenever you make your spite-filled posts attacking atheists, you're doing it as some part of a larger object lesson to show that it sucks when people do that. You do it far too often for me to think that you don't mean it. 

that's your problem. atheism exists to vent hatred, it is hate. you can't accept that because it's your thing you are brain washed into the cult so you can't accept the evil of it. so therefore anyone who is critical of it must be evil. So you to turn the slander on me. that's to be expected.

And if you actually don't mean it, and if you really are trying to make a point and care that we get it, I'm going to recommend that you reconsider your strategy because right now it just makes you look like a hypocrite. 

yea how? that's so stupid. the person who denounces hate speech is the hypocrite what sense does that make? Was Martin Luther King forcing white people to sit at the back of the bus becuase he said he didn't want black people there? Maybe you do buy into the reverse discrimination thing. Do you have some special support for "white power?"

that's in response to "why don't you denounce hate speech?" When I say atheist are making hate speech and it's odd that not one of them can denounce it they say this stuffs bout "defamatory statements" and even though they started it with the "Christianity is evil" thread, they blame me as though I started by saying my attempts at getting them to denounce hate speech are really attempts to make them utter more of it!

No, that was not in response to "why don't you denounce hate speech?" That was in response to you claiming that the only reason you make those defamatory comments is because you desire to "motivate" people. And I'm still wondering, have all of the defamatory statements you've made about atheists been a part of this desire to "motivate" people, and do you think it's working?

let's deal with the assertion that I say any "defamtory." what do I say?

(1) that you are brain washe
(2) that atheism is ideoloyg
(3) atheism is a hate group

I'll stand behind those that is what I believe, is that as bad as saying "atheism is evil?" I don't think so. It think those are valid criticisms and I've proved them over the years, many times. I show the definition how they match atheist behavior on message boards all the time. I've proved this over and over. the truth is slander.

I have not made a blanket statement "all atheists evil." like your comrade did. I say some are some aren't. I've pointed out many many times that it's a segment of atheism not all atheists. It's only within the last months  I dropped the qualifying statements because atheists told me they don't accomplish anything. They don't appreciate them they want it to be all or nothing. so so its' all.

Does anyone understand these idiots? why would my attempt to get them to denounce hate speech be an attempt to make them utter more?

that's what I said on my blog. you don't have a right to put it over here. I didn't' put it here because I don't want to get banned it. you don't have a right to bring it over here. I've seen other stuff atheists from this board say on other board I don't' post them here in an attempt to get them banned.

he actually apologized for this in his response to this post.

I've explained this. It's because you've made so many of these comments in the past that it's hard to believe that they were all a part of some grand plan to "give us a taste of our own medicine" rather than something you actually meant. 

that is shallow and hollow. what possible difference could it make to my motive how often I do it? you guys never change your tactic. you are mocking and ridiculing all the time. you never stop. so why should I stop. you stop I stop. understand that? you want to be nice nice I'll be nice nice. get ot it? you guys never try that. you don't' believe in it, you are not here for a nice time you are here to slander Christians.

then ther's this both by Valhekai

again you don't have the right to put stuff I say on my blog on this board. you could link to it.

I thought about that, it could be hypocritical of me because I'm putting his stuff here. The difference is I'm going to ban him. I'm not going to get him banned over there. He could get me banned by putting it there so it's not fair. I'm not going to ban him here and I"m not going to do anything to get him banned over there. So that part was unfair, but as I say he apologized. so its' cool.

How can it not reflect on me if I call myself an atheist? I define "atheism" as "not having a belief in gods." Most definitions I hear are on par that (except for those who insist that it means "someone who believes that gods don't exist"). If you're going to cast atheism as an ideology, you're adding to the generally accepted definition, and when you do that, you're just begging for communication difficulties.

that's a real fallacy to think that defining atheism as just the absence of belief keeps from having an ideology. This is a reality that most modern thinkers understand it goes to Derrida. When you make an absence in something absence becomes a presence. The absence of belief in God takes on life of its own and becomes a shared belief through argument, practice and sloganism and propaganda.

So, tell me, what are the tenants of this atheist ideology? If I disagree with them, I must not be an atheist in your eyes, so what would that make me? 

(1) hate religion and religious people
(2) any bad thin done by any Christian becomes the guilt of all Christians, but anything an atheist does is just that individual's action.
(3) there is no such thing as a true Christian, all Christians are evil all Christianity is brain wshign.
(4) atheism is feeling form the evil chains of darkness and superstition in religion
(5) science is the only form of knowledge and the only thing that can be trusted to give us positive knowledge
(6) atheism is just the absence of belief in God, so atheists can't be collectively guilty the way Christians can be.
(7) no truth, no morality, no over arching meaning of the universe


you will deny all of this but anyone with half a brain can see it's said by atheist every single day on a thousand message boards all over the net. you deny there's an ideology but you act exactly like brain washed lackeys, saying the same things in the same phrases all the time.

Yea that's really important there. should have thought of that before you starting calling Christians evil.

I dare you to find one post where I've called Christians evil. 

You have not denounced it. You never said "this is wrong to say that I'm not part of saying it." That's another aspect of the ideology, they way atheists take up for the cause it's so obvious a shared sense of comradery in working for a joint end.

"Sot the totally reaosnable position of "we should denounce hate speech" enrages them agaisnt me. They equate my saying they have an ideology with hate speech but saying that Christianity is evil is not hate speech-- hu?"

No, what "enrages us against you" is that you're just as guilty, if not more, of making blanket comments that you now characterize as "hate speech." 

Every single time I spoke of "Hate group atheism" I qualified it to say "a segment" "a part." "not all but some" you can look back on atheist watch and see that all over the early posts. Until they started ridiculing that and saying it's half heated an exclusive does not good hypocritical so I ether have to stop ever saying there's any hate in atheism or make it cover all, so hey it covers all because it's clearly there.

someone up a thread "Christianity is eivl." this is typical for you way you cover for each other. some will stop in and say I didn't say that'" and then defend like it's not a bad thing but you can always fall back on "hey it wasn't my thread." while the guy that did say it is long gone. It's a big game and we all know it. we all get it we all see it. all Christians know these things. anyone who has been on message boards knows I'm saying the truth. any Christian who has gotten mocking ridicule treatment by atheists knows I'm right. you are not fooling us.

these are the things we saying behind closed doors.

And I don't equate your saying that we have an ideology as hate speech. I thought that post of mine you quoted was rather straightforward, and I really wish that you would give a straightforward response.

which?

What's going on there is obvious. All the atheists on that board, even the reasonable ones. hate Christianity and want to destroy it and can't bring themselves to disassociate with the idea that Christianity is evil; even when they know its wrong. they are outraged by pointing out that they have an ideology becasue part of their ideology is that they don't have one, and they feel they are betraying the brain washing if they admit they do. They turn the attention to personal against any critic because they have no honor and that's the way they think. Anyone who is not in the ideology if the evil outsider. Any religious person is par to of the great evil they see themselves valiantly standing up to.

Their struggle is so valiant it justifies bulling, slander, lies, person insults, mocking, ridicule, hate speech ect ect.

This is nonsense. My entire family, all of them, on both sides, are Christians. I don't think they're evil. I don't mock and ridicule them. Most of my friends are Christians. I don't think they are evil or mock them. What you are saying here is simply not true.

but you are also not willing to brake ranks with your comrades. Its' not uncommon for people two be different on message boards than they are in real ife. that happens a lot. maybe not in an extreme say it doesn't have to be extreme. who is standing up among the atheist and saying "let's put the troll stuff away and deal with solid ideas and arguments not ad hom?" I don't' see that anywhere among you.


Ok first of all I was heartened that he actually went to the trouble to respond. I also see that he has his own issues that should be mindful of, such as not understanding certain approaches I take or not trusting my motives. He responded to this post in a somewhat favorable as as though he's willing to consider that I might be sincere. I responded to him extending the possibility of friendship or at least understanding, he reciprocated. So he has a standing invite to come to my boards and I will regard him as a friend.


Moral: it takes two sides to make a squabble. both sides usually have their own justification, we should give each other a break, communication is possible.

Atheist Reaction When Asked to Dennounce Hate

why is Christiantiy evil?

why is atheism a hate group?

what if I said this?

Originally Posted by Diet Coke              

Sorry, when I disagree with someone I generally just keep to the point without unnecessary verbal Diarrhoea.

Besides, his statement was flawed not hateful.

It was certainly provocative, especially posted on this site, but not hateful.

yet what did this same guy say about my statement atheism is evil? To say Christianity is evil is not hate speech it's just wrong. But what about saying "atheism is evil?"

he said:

It would be wrong, I'm not sure on hate that would probably depend on the context in which your statement is made.

Something along the lines of "...will make you want to kill christians, so we should kill all atheist first" would make it a statement of hate.

"Christianity is Evil" should have said "Christianity can lead people to commit evil acts, they may be flawed in thinking Christianity supports what they do. This doesn't change the fact that they were inspired by christianity."

I would contend there is nothing about atheism that should lead people to hate non atheists, however, people being people tend to persecute those who are not a member of their group, this happens in almost all groups to a greater or lesser extent. Atheism doesn't stop you being human.

Also no doubt there are certain atheist philosophies which have persecuted other people, however people who don't subscribe to that philosophy can say "Sorry, not a communist. Doesn't apply to me." just as you could say "Sorry, not a satanist. Doesn't apply to me."

Somewhat reasonable. But he doesn't see the hate content in saying Christians are evil. That's obvious but he does try to be consistent. I have to give him that. No other atheist on the board was able to anywhere that consistent.

Not a single atheist said that saying Christianity is evil is hateful.


the first atheist answer on the htread "what If I said atheism is eivl." is this:

No, I'd ask why you thought there was some sort of unifying belief shared among people who don't believe in gods.

refuses to even answer the question. btw what makes them unified is they say the same things all the time.

another one

If? You've already started threads that say more or less the same thing, with even flimsier logic behind them.

so they are not even going to try.

So, you think that the best way to get certain atheists to make sweeping, defamatory statements about Christians is to make sweeping, defamatory statements against atheists? Do you think it's working?
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that whenever you make your spite-filled posts attacking atheists, you're doing it as some part of a larger object lesson to show that it sucks when people do that. You do it far too often for me to think that you don't mean it. And if you actually don't mean it, and if you really are trying to make a point and care that we get it, I'm going to recommend that you reconsider your strategy because right now it just makes you look like a hypocrite.

that's in response to "why don't you denounce hate speech?" When I say atheist are making hate speech and it's odd that not one of them can denounce it they say this stuffs bout "defamatory statements" and even though they started it with the "Christianity is evil" thread, they blame me as though I started by saying my attempts at getting them to denounce hate speech are really attempts to make them utter more of it!


Does anyone understand these idiots? why would my attempt to get them to denounce hate speech be an attempt to make them utter more?


then ther's this both by Valhekai

How can it not reflect on me if I call myself an atheist? I define "atheism" as "not having a belief in gods." Most definitions I hear are on par that (except for those who insist that it means "someone who believes that gods don't exist"). If you're going to cast atheism as an ideology, you're adding to the generally accepted definition, and when you do that, you're just begging for communication difficulties.
So, tell me, what are the tenants of this atheist ideology? If I disagree with them, I must not be an atheist in your eyes, so what would that make me?

Yea that's really important there. should have thought of that before you starting calling Christians evil.

Sot the totally reaosnable position of "we should denounce hate speech" enrages them agaisnt me. They equate my saying they have an ideology with hate speech but saying that Christianity is evil is not hate speech-- hu?


What's going on there is obvious. All the atheists on that board, even the reasonable ones. hate Christianity and want to destroy it and can't bring themselves to disassociate with the idea that Christianity is evil; even when they know its wrong. they are outraged by pointing out that they have an ideology becasue part of their ideology is that they don't have one, and they feel they are betraying the brain washing if they admit they do. They turn the attention to personal against any critic because they have no honor and that's the way they think. Anyone who is not in the ideology if the evil outsider. Any religious person is par to of the great evil they see themselves valiantly standing up to.

Their struggle is so valiant it justifies bulling, slander, lies, person insults, mocking, ridicule, hate speech ect ect.


look at what this guy says. this guy being "secularone"

According to your logic, I guess we wrongfully accussed Nazism of being evil. After all we shouldn't condemn Nazism just because a few Nazis murdered millions of people. That would be guilt by association. And as you seem to think, guilt by association isn't being fair.

I would be honored if you do not reply to any of my posts in the future as I find nothing in your intellect or character to admire. In fact, I observe that the only reason you post in atheist threads is to belittle and abuse as much as possible.

So He 's saying I'm on a par with Hitler because I said he should denounce hate speech and he thinks saying atheist use guilt by association is like denying the Holocaust. The worst thing I did was to say that atheism is an ideology and they are brain washed, they put that on  a par with Hitler.


 Bully line

Most organisations have a serial bully. It never ceases to amaze me how one person's divisive, disordered, dysfunctional behaviour can permeate the entire organisation like a cancer."
Tim Field

"The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance my deride it, but in the end, there it is."
Winston Churchill

"Lack of knowledge of, or unwillingness to recognise, or outright denial of the existence of the serial bully is the most common reason for an unsatisfactory outcome of a bullying case for both the employee and employer"
Tim Field

Here's one that describes message board atheits pretty well.
# displays a compulsive need to criticise whilst simultaneously refusing to value, praise and acknowledge others, their achievements, or their existence
# shows a lack of joined-up thinking with conversation that doesn't flow and arguments that don't hold water
# flits from topic to topic so that you come away feeling you've never had a proper conversation
# refuses to be specific and never gives a straight answer
# is evasive and has a Houdini-like ability to escape accountability
# undermines and destroys anyone who the bully perceives to be an adversary, a potential threat, or who can see through the bully's mask
# is adept at creating conflict between those who would otherwise collate incriminating information about them
# is quick to discredit and neutralise anyone who can talk knowledgeably about antisocial or sociopathic behaviors (Ibid.)

Who Represents Christianity? Antoher Dialgue with Loren

 
 Dorothy Day--Founder of Catholic Worker

 There's a new spate of "I hate Christabella" on the message boards. the ignorant know nothings who don't believe they need to read history are flapping their unread gums again about all the evils that Christianity has done. Of cousre how could we help but have a go round with our own loyal skeptic Loren?

Loren said... Metacrock, your complaint would be a little bit more convincing if you directly found fault with the likes of Helen Ukpabio and pushed for witchcraft-debunking efforts -- and efforts against the Religious Right in general. Instead, all you do is indulge in the No True Scotsman fallacy and patting yourself on the back about what a wonderfully virtuous religion you believe in.

So insulting and stupid to assume that I don't find fault with that. But atheist are not denouncing hate group expressions on message boards, as I not make the assumptions about them they make about me?

Loren

You seem to imply that Christianity should be given credit for just about every good thing that anyone has ever done, but some of your claims are just plain wrong.

 Meta:
Christianity is a major part of the human experience. It is responsible for most of the good in the world.

Loren
Let's see about some of your examples.

Hospitals were invented by pagans, like worshippers of Asclepius. Where do you think that medical-emblem coiled snakes came from? And the Hippocratic Oath? Though his oath invoked some Greek gods, Hippocrates nevertheless took a scientific and rationalistic approach to medicine that continues to be a big success. Although epilepsy had gotten called the "sacred disease", Hippocrates had found that rather unconvincing.

 Meta
All of that went away with the fall of Rome. In the dark ages learning was dead, the knowledge of the Greco-Roman world was lost. It was the Church that created the hospital in the modern world and on a scale much more massive than the Greeks ever dreamed of doing.


Loren

It also must be noted that though Jesus Christ was described as practicing exorcism, that therapy is no longer very popular. Neither is salivary therapy, which JC was described as having practiced.

Meta

He didn't kill anyone doing it either. That was a major thing in his milieu. It probably has literary symbolic value as authority to cast out evil in indicative of being of God.

Loren

Public schools? That's a secular thing, and something distinct from church-run schools. Furthermore, look who invented schools -- Greco-Roman pagans. Guess what was first called "Academy" -- anything in the Bible?

Meta;
Amazing how little you know of the history of social movements. you keep trying to somehow impose the Greek world upon the modern world. If pagan Greeks has something and it was wasn't seen for a thousand years you still count it as a boost for the Greeks even though they had nothing to with bribing it into the world. Public schools, labor unions, votes for women, abolition of slavery were among many other things, temperance, a whole network of social movements that Christians fought for in the 19th century. Christians were miners they were workers they were labor union people. Labor workers have always been religious the majority so. The actual people the do gooders try to do good to believe in God even the do gooders don't, there have been more Christian do gooders than atheist by far.


Loren

Labor unions? Don't make me laugh. That's a largely secular sort of thing.

Meta
you know you are really quite ignorant. Not very good at reasoning either. Just becuase ruinous are secular doesn't mean spit about who supported them. You know so little, ever heard "Mother Jones?" You don't know the magazine do you? She was a Christian minister who fought for labor. So was Walter Rauxchenbuch a lot of Christians fought for labor.

Read about Dorothy Day, Christian Socialist, devout Catholic who worked for labor unions and in the labor struggle for years  ran a pro union magazine and started a political-religious community. founder Catholic Worker movement! you need to learn about that too! (that link is to the Catholic Worker homepage).

Also see Walter Rauschenbusch  Theolgoian of the Social Gospel, supported labor struggles and helped organize Christian socialism.



Loren

Abolition of slavery? That was Christian vs. Christian. A common pro-slavery argument was that God had cursed Ham with the curse that Ham's descendants (black people) were to be servants and slaves of Shem's and Japheth's descendants (white people). Is that a secular sort of argument?

Meta

What does that have to do with it? It's Christians who gianed nothing followign the teachings of Jesus to oppose socail ills, vs people who had financial gain from salvery using religion as an excuse to support their prophet motive. What did the abolitionists gain frmo oppossing salvery? many of them were killed for it, why did they risk death?

you want us to believe that Christianity makes you be a slaver it makes you into an oppressive person in spite of the fact that the teachings are explicitly liberationists. You can't expalin how that is, but you have two groups, one tries to follow the reightous patht he other uses reliogino as an excuse. but you dogmaically assume the negative one reprsetnes the natuer of Chrsitiantiy and the others guy just absorbe into the paradigm as a mere anomoile,k why?

by what perverted logic do you pretend to justify the arbitrary move of using only the negative to represent Christianity?

evidence:


The Jubilee Centre is a Christian social reform organization. We seek to equip the Church by providing a biblical perspective on issues and trends in the world around us.

The year 2007 marks the 200 th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade by the British Parliament. The campaign for abolition was spearheaded by devout Christians, and it stands to this day as perhaps the finest political achievement of what would now be called faith-based activism. But who were the abolitionists, and how did their Christianity motivate them to campaign against the slave trade? This paper examines the Christian mind of the abolitionists, and ponders the lessons for today.

Wikipedia

William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was a British politician, a philanthropist and a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade. A native of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, he began his political career in 1780 and became the independent Member of Parliament for Yorkshire (1784–1812). In 1785, he underwent a conversion experience and became an evangelical Christian, resulting in major changes to his lifestyle and a lifelong concern for reform. In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Charles Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition, and he soon became one of the leading English abolitionists. He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty-six years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act 1807.

The Evangelical Christian Church in Canada believes from church history that the first U.S. abolitionist was Samuel Sewall, who published The Selling of Joseph: A Memorial in Boston in 1700. However, the first abolition organization formed in the United States was the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, originally known as the Society for the "Relief for Free Negroes unlawfully held in Bondage", in 1775.

The Second Great Awakening at Cane Ridge, Kentucky helped advanced the liberation of both black slaves and women's rights within American cultural society. Several African American Christians who were born in slavery went on to become prominent figures in society. This became the "central and defining" moment in the development of Afro-Christianity. In Laura, Ohio, in 1854, many African American ministers were welcomed to preach in the pulpits of various Evangelical Christian Churches while many white Evangelical Christian Church's clergy continued to minister to mixed congregations which was formerly unheard of in the United Sates.

In the midst of shifts in theology and church polity, the Evangelical Christian Church became the first institution where both women and blacks made an important contribution in leadership roles. Women in many black churches became, to an even degree than in white churches, the backbone of church life; many became preachers. Black women so reared upon joining integrated churches, found it difficult to accept less crucial tasks where men dominated. The Evangelical Christian Church exercised its independence under God by becoming one of many Restoration Movement denominations to recognize the ordination of women.

Library of Congress: African American Oddesy

Black and white abolitionists in the first half of the nineteenth century waged a biracial assault against slavery. Their efforts proved to be extremely effective. Abolitionists focused attention on slavery and made it difficult to ignore. They heightened the rift that had threatened to destroy the unity of the nation even as early as the Constitutional Convention.

Although some Quakers were slaveholders, members of that religious group were among the earliest to protest the African slave trade, the perpetual bondage of its captives, and the practice of separating enslaved family members by sale to different masters.

As the nineteenth century progressed, many abolitionists united to form numerous antislavery societies. These groups sent petitions with thousands of signatures to Congress, held abolition meetings and conferences, boycotted products made with slave labor, printed mountains of literature, and gave innumerable speeches for their cause. Individual abolitionists sometimes advocated violent means for bringing slavery to an end.

Although black and white abolitionists often worked together, by the 1840s they differed in philosophy and method. While many white abolitionists focused only on slavery, black Americans tended to couple anti-slavery activities with demands for racial equality and justice.

Randy Hardman Asbury Theological Seminary

Last of all, the historical basis by which the abolitionist movement came into existence cries out to say, “It was Christianity through man that sought and worked to abolish slavery, not man through Christianity.” It was the moral principle of the characters of the leaders of the abolitionist movement that caused them to act. This is not the same with any other world religion. Slavery has never escaped polytheism due to moral religious disagreement. Slavery was never banned in Islamic countries due to the will of Allah. In the vast history of this world it has only been within Christianity that slavery was every regarded sinful and immoral and successfully sought to ban it from society.[3]

It can be safely said that the moral position of Christianity was the foundational point in the abolitionist movement. Economic reasons may have stopped the spread of slavery and, perhaps in time, it would have eventually caused it to cease as a working institution. Nonetheless, in answering for time and place, without the driving force of Christian principles the North would not have had neither a case nor manpower and the South would not have given up the institution.

Loren

Votes for women and feminism in general? I have to suppress a very loud laugh here, because women voting and feminism were fought very hard by much of the clergy, who were presumably very expert on Christianity.

Metacrock, your argumentum ex cerasicarptione won't work.

 Meta

your ignorance is so very appalling. you literally know next to nothing about the history of the thing you pretend to care about. How do you expect us to believe you care about this stuff when you don't know shit about it? The fact that some Christians took oppresive stands has absoutley nothing to do with anything. Anyone who seeks to prevent justice for his own power will sue whatever mean he can or she. Such a person will use the Bible for Bible believers. Buddhism for Buddhist believers and atheism for atheists. Its stupid to argue that this the essence of Christanity when there are contradiction to every singel one.

the first woman's suffrage group in America was also the first abolition group. the same people, led by Phebe Palmer who was a Methodist and it was a Methodist woman's organization. The fact that you find Christians doing oppressive things has no more bearing on Christianity than Stalin has on atheism. By the very same logic I can easily say atheism murdered 100 million people! you don't stick atheism with guilty of those murders why? you do stick Christianity with being oppressive and dismiss the counter examples as meaning  nothing. that's so obviously not right!

evidence:

see Awakenings in America by William G. McLaughlin

Loren

 Metacrock, there you go again, with your rewrites of history and your cherry-picking and your excessive literal-mindedness about the No True Scotsman fallacy and your willingness to believe that atheists are all evil, subhuman monsters.

Meta

What you are calling "cherry picking' an atheist tactic for avoiding having to admit you can't answer the examples, if you will observe, shows hat in ever single case where you show Christians acting oppressively I can show Christians fighting the oppression. Yet arbitrarily just refuse to allow the martyrs for humanity who were Christians to represent their own faith but insist that the bad one's represent the faith,. That is so obviously arbitrary and narrow minded!

You are doing what Thomas Kuhn says you will do and hinging the counter examples, absorbing the paradigm as anomalies. That's what Kuhn says happens to anomalies until there become too many and then paradigm shifts. When the anomalies of liberation theology get to be well known this paradigm will shift and young people in your children's day will think of you as an old foggie and they will be Christians.



Loren

And also your much greater indignation against atheists than against the Helen Ukpabios of the world. If I was in your position, I'd be pissed like hell at her for defaming my religion. You must be aware that some atheist messageboard admins have shown much more tolerance of your beliefs than some Christian ones.

Meta

that's not your place to discuss. You are pretending to know what I feel and what I think tha'ts silly. That shows the arrogance of the ignorant.


Lorden

You amy want to read Exodus 22:18 about what to do about anyone who practices sorcery. Nowhere does the Bible state that people should not be punished for that, and that sorcery is psychological warfare -- at best -- and not worth losing sleep over.

Meta

originallanguage doesn't say that.


Loren

BTW, what religion did the witch-burners believe in?

Meta
which witch burner is which?

More Hate Group Atheism still there

 Valenkhai

Of course, Christians have responded by saying that this person is not a "true" or "real" Christian.  How very convenient for them, and who knows?  They might actually be right.

Meta:

you are just in the process of forming the same special pleading by saying the commies aren't the kind of atheist you are or that they had other concerns that your kind of atheist doesn't have. but you want to be able to make the same unqualified simplistic diatribe against Christians that you will allow others to make about atheists.

can't you see that posting this started it. you are blind?

Valenkhai

The thing is, from my perspective, I can't make the distinction between a "true" Christian and a "fake" on because I don't think that Christianity itself is true. 

Meta:

is that really the only kind of distinction you can think of here? We have an example of a person from a third world country, primitive view point no real education and ancient primitive tribal beliefs you are going to compare that to the people who teach at Southern Methodist and Harvard and Yale divinity school?

Valenkhai

If someone says that they believe that God became human in Jesus Christ, was crucified to pay for the sins of the world and then rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, I have to take them at their world and call them a Christian if they so label themselves.  If that person does things that are obviously outside orthodox (or at least modern interpretations of orthodox) Christianity, I can recognize that, but it doesn't really matter.  Not one of you follows your religion perfectly.  That fact that you are "closer" to orthodox than someone else or that you think you fall into some sort of "close enough" version of your Christianity while they fall outside into some "not true believer" category is really not relevant to me.

Metaso shallow and simplistic. how can you not lie awake at night in shame over the simplistic nature of your thinking? You are saying if someone believes the core of what Evangelicals say is the Gospel then they can't be effected by any other form of social training or conditioning or socialization or brain washing. It's just that Chrsitian thing and nothing else? That's what is so simpistic and silly. your implication is that beileving that makes you like this, into a murderer:

(1) you can't show me how believing that makes you a murderer.

(2) you assume there can't be any other basis for social behavior but that belief, that is totally irrational. The African cultures in that part of the continent have a hsitory of fearing witchcraft. why are not you not slandering African religion?


Valenkhai

I know that most interpretations of Christianity look down on the whole witch hunting thing, and that they can back that up with scriptures and theology.

Meta:
you know that but you are going to generalize anyway, but you don't want me to that's it right?
you are basically contradicting yourself. you assume that Christian bleief will make you murder and yet you agree that most Christians don't' hunt witches I presume you know most Christians don't want to murder children right? Did you not see the document I posted that said Catholics are fighting it?

The only thing I see atheists doing is using it to slander Christians.

Originally Posted by Valekhai

Cool. Could you give me a hypothetical situation to show how someone can get from a position of "I don't believe in gods" to a position where they feel it is necessary to commit mass murder? In the interest of fairness, I'll give a hypothetical to demonstrate how someone can go from basic Christian beliefs to burning witches.

Meta

what you are leaving out is the fact that witch burning in the West was stopped by Christians! it was primarily Christian thinkers i the enlightenment who stopped the practice in Europe. you wan tot label all Chrsitians in the same way, you want to put out that all Christians would burn witches. you have no facts, you have not stats. European pagans burned witches. all cultures in the world have had periods of fear of witch craft.
The atheists under Stalin thought they were right and that anyone supporting Christianity was an obstructionist who was holding up the revolution.

Valenkhai

Say there's a person living in Africa who has grown up with local superstitions, including believing in witches. Eventually this person meets Christian missionaries who tell him the story of the Gospels.

 Meta

here's another level of your naivete. it's not missionaries who take the Gospel to Africa. It has been generically African since the time Christ. The part of Africa where they took the slave trade from was Christian and had Christians in it.

But it has also had indigenous African religion which has always ben hysterically afraid of Witches.

Valenkhai

The person learns that the world and everything in it was created by the one true God, that mankind sinned against God, and the Jesus the Son of God, came to Earth and performed miracles, was crucified to atone for mankind's sin, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. The person also learns that the Bible is God's word. The person believes all of this, repents for his sins, and becomes baptized.

 Meta:

you are trying to stick Christianity with being a causal agent in oppressive acts because you don' t like it's doctrine and so you are trying to hand the problem so the doctrine you don't like. But you don't have any data to support you in doing this. That's the kind of thing that could be learned through polls and surveys. Yet you have no data to back it up at all. My stuff against Zuckerman's lies offers concrete data agaisnt the hypothesis.

not all Christians would say that. if you knew even a tiny bit about Christianity beyond the simplistic garage your atheist brain washers have told you you would know that that is a stereotype and exaggeration and it doe not fit most Christians.

Valenkhai

This person is by no means a theology scholar, but he has gone through all of the basic qualifications to say that he a believer, that he is "saved."
Now, lets also say that this person receives a Bible printed in his own language. He begins to read it and comes across Deuteronomy 18, which supports his previous belief that witches are real. He also comes across Exodus 22:18 that states "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Believing that the Bible is the Word of God, this person concludes that it is morally correct to kill witches.

what does that mean in a 3d world country with no real education (not to say that 3d word has no real education but it just depends) and where they might have a Christianity mixed up with native ideas.

Now, you can argue that if this person continued reading the New Testament and had a better understanding of the scriptures and their context, the fact remains that a Christian, using nothing except basic Christian concepts and verses from the Bible, can indeed think that killing witches is acceptable, even commanded. To say that Christianity provides no support for those actions is false.

Meta

how many overall have been killed by the witch hunters? No where near 100 million right? right.NOWHERE NEAR THAT MANY!

you are also trying to say that any exposure to Chrsitain thinking will lead to this kind of thing even though the wrong understanding? Why don't the majoity of Chrsitians kill children?




here's what they wound up saying:

Originally Posted by souper genyus

I know a Dutch person that uses that phrase a lot. Is that a popular saying over there?

I'll also advise Meta to build a bridge and get over it.

 two different one's said that.

Hate group still there

 Christian apologists confronts
message board Athesits



I thought I perceived an actual decline in the hate group effects of atheism, but of cousre just when you start relaxing a bit here it comes back on you.

Username the anti-education guy posts this on CARM:

A Nigerian Witch-Hunter Defends Herself
Michael Stravato for The New York Times

HOUSTON — At home in Nigeria, the Pentecostal preacher Helen Ukpabio draws thousands to her revival meetings. Last August, when she had herself consecrated Christendom’s first “lady apostle,” Nigerian politicians and Nollywood actors attended the ceremony. Her books and DVDs, which explain how Satan possesses children, are widely known.

So well-known, in fact, that Ms. Ukpabio’s critics say her teachings have contributed to the torture or abandonment of thousands of Nigerian children — including infants and toddlers — suspected of being witches and warlocks. Her culpability is a central contention of “Saving Africa’s Witch Children,” a documentary that made its American debut Wednesday on HBO2.

Those disturbed by the needless immiseration of innocent children should beware. “Saving Africa’s Witch Children” follows Gary Foxcroft, founder of the charity Stepping Stones Nigeria, as he travels the rural state of Akwa Ibom, rescuing children abused during horrific “exorcisms” — splashed with acid, buried alive, dipped in fire — or abandoned roadside, cast out of their villages because some itinerant preacher called them possessed.

In the past when this kind of charge has been made I have responded:  Atheist murdered 100 million, they will say, as they have said before, "those are a special type of atheists that aren't' like us. they are making a special kind of argument called "special pleading." Of cousre we are supposed to think this is really representative of all Christianity. He doesn't make any attempt to qualify it. Nigerian witch hunter Pentecostals are really so much like the White upper middle class professors I had at Perkinks. They are not even like the Balck prof I had at Perkins.

Originally Posted by Username

First, the major mistake you make in thinking that Christians through the years have fought the good fight. They have fought a fight that THEY THOUGHT was good. Fighting against homosexual marriage, gay adoption, condoms, sex education, teaching evolution, etc (And at times fighting against women's rights, equal rights, etc.)

 Meta:
and of course that's a silly little selective BS list that has nothing to do with Chrsitians.
The real list of Christianity's accomplishments.

(1) most world hunger organizations
(2) red cross
(3) YMCA
(4) modern hosptials
(5) public schools
(6) labor unions
(7) abolition of slavery
(8) votes for women
more

Username

See, to Xians they think the whole world is evil and they have done nothing but tried to bring Goodness and Lollipops in the world via God, prayer and sugary sweetness. Oh, the poor Xians, they have only wanted what is Good and Right and Just... meanwhile we look at the history and we see some of the greatest atrocities commited and only after the rest of society said "Enough!" did they stop and suddenly make the counter position their official platform. Slavery is one of those very obvious ones.

of cousre that's not a bais apprasial that sees only the funides as crhistians is it?

Meta
you are so ignorant. this is the kind of narrow minded hate group banter that makes me talk aobut how ignorant atheists are.

this is just a hate group atheism thread started by some guy who needed in fix for venting his hatred agsinst thigns he doesn't understand.



Michigan Sate University

"A hate crime (bias crime), loosely defined, is a crime committed because of the perpetrator's prejudices. This is a controversial political issue within the US. The US Congress (HR 4797 - 1992) defined a hate crime as: "[a crime in which] the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals." In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act added disabilities to the above list. Visit the Hate Crime entry from the Wikipedia for more information."

U. of Oklahoma Police Dept

"Not limited to individual activity, many organizations have been labeled as "hate groups" where their group objectives and activities promote prejudicial behavior and even organized criminal activity targeting groups of citizens."

I don't really think it's a hate group, and I know most atheists don't "Hate" Christians. but these provocative threads that are intended to stir up feeling of mocking and ridicule against Christianity as a whole, when what the mean is one extreme type, have got to go. I do think a segment of atheist community is becoming a hate group.

you don't like being treated unfairly through guilt by association, but you are willing to do that to Christians.

this is just a taste of your own medicine (for those who would put up threads like that--which I know is not all atheists).



I have mad this post in response to the thread "why is Christianity evil?"

Three points to make:

(1) that OP has no analysis at all so to Why!. NO social theory is discussed, no sociological analysis is given.

(2) the thread is pure hate. it's put up becuase teh author needed his mocking ridicule fix. this is the kind of garbage that I started atheist watch for and it's proved it's case. Atheism is a hate group. you despise Christians, most of you becuase you are gay and tey think they would stop you from that, or other things. most of your complains about the evils of Christianity revolve around their take on your pet sin.

The social take on most such threads is always historically shallow and superficial. Christianity is always viewed as only the extreme fundies and all other contributions (such as abolition of slavery) are just sweep aside and they pretend the don't exist because they know nothing of history.


(3) It's pretty well proved that practicing abuse of particular groups is addictive and leads to the need to mock ridicule more.

Atheists mock and ridicule because they need to feel good about themselves and they can't. They are bound up with guilt to suppress the guilt they have to pick out a target hated group to better than.

"The greater the feeling of inferiority, which has seen the most powerful is the desire of conquest and the more violent the emotional agitation." — Alfred Adler

source of quote an article here


they are so concerned about it:


Valekhai



Valekhai is online now
Atheism Forum Member Reputation: 24

"Dear oh dear. Atheist have made sweeping generalizations about Christians that are not so! Whatever shall we do? I know, I shall make sweeping generalizations about atheists that also are not so! That will fix it!"

U. of Oklahoma Police Dept

http://www.ou.edu/oupd/hate.htm

"Not limited to individual activity, many organizations have been labeled as "hate groups" where their group objectives and activities promote prejudicial behavior and even organized criminal activity targeting groups of citizens."


I don't really think it's a hate group, and I know most atheists don't "Hate" Christians. but these provocative threads that are intended to stir up feeling of mocking and ridicule against Christianity as a whole, when what the mean is one extreme type, have got to go.

you don't like being treated unfairly through guilt by association, but you are willing to do that to Christians.

this is just a taste of your own medicine (for those who would put up threads like that--which I know is not all atheists).


they can't analyze it fairly:

Oh yes. Combat the generalization by putting up one of your own. Helpful, much?

O did i? I thought I put up a definition. where is the generalization?

in the old days we used to say "if the shoe fits..." do you know that one? Is that a generalization?

What I did was to document that hatred agaisnt religion is the kind of hate our society is agaisnt, and they can't stand and label is as "generalization" against them!

CARM atheist Donald, one of the few rational ones

The athist argument:
the argument was teh atheist say "resurrections form the dad don't happen,therefore, Jesus' resurrection probably didn't happen.
My argument: you can't use that (world view--naturalism) to dismiss the evidence for the Res because it's begging the question. The issue we are disputing is Resurrection did in fact happen and the evidence demonstrates it, the argument that you do't see it happen you do't believe in it is not evidence that it didn't happen. you still have to examine the evidence.

My dialogue on carm with Donald.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

but you didn't do anything with that. nothing in an approach framework or assumptive is going over come the evidence. the only way you can under it is to disprove the actual parasitical documents.

so far none of you have even tried!

 Donald

Why should we assume the validity of your approach?

Meta

how can you go back in time and verify it? you have to get on the TARDIS with the doctor. do you know the Doctor? I haven't seen him around in a long time. of cousre that's no problem for him.

Donald

It has nothing to do with going back in time. It is easily observed, empirically, that miracles are infrequent at best.

Meta

what's wrong with you? I answer them as they come. I have answered the arguments the ignorant one's have given. Blame your colleagues for the qualities of the arguments I have to deal with.

Donald

Okay- then feel free to show me where one of my "colleagues" has presented an argument like you suggest in the following:

Meta

"we know you are atheists so saying you don't believe it is not an argument and not new info, so it's not telling us anything. your refusal to believe is not proof. Saying it doesn't happen enough is merely begging the question. Because it happened once and that's all needs to happen. "

go read it! 

 Donald

Sure- just as soon as you tell me what you were referring to by this:

"we know we have different world view. merely telling me you don't accept mine is not a reason to reject my view."

Meta

well that you may have won given the approach being used before I got involved, ok I have to give you some points.

 that is the reference to the fact that the therad was long already before I got into it.

But then I got into I mean come there's nothing unfair about a team sending in the first string when the second string isn't doing well (ooooooo swordsman,---sorry I was just kidding!)

Swordsman is another Christian who was already arguing, he might not like me saying I'm the first string and he's the second!

Meta

O well armatures what can you do? 

 Donald

This is part of the problem. When you state that the atheists lost the res debate, you don't qualify it. Which res debate did we lose? Did we lose the debate regarding Swordsman's claim that the historical evidence is of the type and quality that the only reasonable conclusion is that the resurrection occurred? That the historical evidence, in and of itself, proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus was resurrected? I should say not- I would hope that you'd be able to see how absurd this is.

Did we lose the debate concerning whether it's only by means of naturalistic assumptions that one could reasonably deny the resurrection? Again, I would hope you realize the flaw with this argument as well- it is addressed by the probability argument which, again, makes no naturalistic assumptions- rather, that it only assumes that miracles of this type are rare.

But if the argument is that it's not unreasonable for Christians to accept the historical evidence for the resurrection as further confirmation of their beliefs, then that's fine. I'm not arguing against it- but, then, I haven't seen such an argument presented.

that is pretty much what I'm concerned with. I think Christians are unwise to try and argue for proving the resurrection as an apologetic tool to prove the Bible.

Meta

both sides have our boosters and those whose contributions would be better spend supplying the tea and cookies, you know what I mean? 

 Donald

Yes- but it would be nice if you could make this clear- call them out on their bad arguments, rather than giving the strong impression that you believe they have bested us.

Meta

I didn't have to. I cut all that stuff out when I denounced the idea whole hog, the idea that it has anything to with probability. trying to pin God down to probably is a flood errand.it's like trying weigh a scale with itself.

You can't translate into probability the will of mystical reality. you can't do it. ti's beyond our understanding.

Meta

I did say that. my position assumes all probability stuff is down the dumper. 

 Donald

Yes- assumes. I understand your position that probability doesn't apply to the supernatural itself- in other words, if we were to deny the resurrection on the grounds that resurrections are improbable, in and of themselves, then you'd have a point. A resurrection would be a supernatural event, and to declare supernatural events to be improbable, a priori, would require acceptance of a naturalistic foundation. To declare that they are rare (which would mean that the truth of any PARTICULAR resurrection claim is improbable), however, makes no naturalistic assumptions. You are free to dispute the premise- but you are not. You are disputing a whole different premise. You have asserted, without support, that this approach is invalid, despite the fact that it's been explained and supported by those who propose it (including myself). No refutation has been forthcoming, aside from bald denial. Reality rules, Honor the Truth.

 Meta

 what doyou mean without support? what without support? Neither you nor a single perosn on your side in this thread has done one single bit of analysis concerning the historical evidence for the res. The support we have for it has gone untouched it's a total joke to even say that.

In this debate atheists are trying to use Probability to  say that the presumption has to be agaisnt the believer because the idea of a resurrection is totally against the grain of all of our experiences. Jesus resurrection is unique so being rare has nothing  to do wtih it, that's not even a mark agianst it.

The atheists in this thread are trying to use the rarity of it to express a presumption against belief, but the presumption has to go with the preponderance of the evidence you have not touched the evidence. you are still trying to lionize your world view and make the assumption of naturalism the framework in which to examine the resurrection, with the conclusion that it must no have happened already made before the debate begins.

More Atheist Incredulity: when an Arguement is Too Good

We need to be aware of the games atheist play and know how to defeat them rhetorically. One of the major games they play is argument form incredulity. That's becuase that's the only real argument they have. The argue form incredulity almost all the time. I say " real argument" its' not a real argument and the better more reasonable one's don't' use it. But unfortunately many do. I have discussed on this blog before how to spot it in it's many forms. Here's another one. On CARM an atheist lays down the challenge that John did not record all the symptoms that a corpus would undergo in the hours that Jesus was dead. He doesn't get rigor mortis, he doesn't have post mortim livitiy, no pools of blood, ect ect. I put down a long quote by Stroble quoting a Forensic pathologist saying that one aspect of John's recored does indicate what a dead body would do when the flouid comes out of his side, indicating a lung was priced.

The atheist comes back let's take it from there:


Originally Posted by Username

Strobel can't be trusted. And a doctor giving his impression of the gospel writing, which, frankly also can't be trusted (did you see the part about Zombies walking around the city?!?!) doesn't help.

Meta:

now you are just indulging in open argument from incredulity and poisoning the well. "Well if you have evidence that disproves my thing then I'll refuse to believe it."

Notice the immediate groundless attack on the sources. We can't trust the sources, why? he doesn't  know but we just can't. That's part of the incredulity thing, which means "I refuse to believe no matter what." I point out,

that's not an argument, in fact that hurts your position a lot. becasue the only thing you can say to counter a disprove is 'I refuse to believe it, that can't be trusted."

its' silly to throw in the bible can't be trusted becuase you that tack then why speak about the nature of the text anyway? In other word you will never allow anything to count against you because as soon as it does you start whining "no fair ir use good evidence."

even if the NT did have a perfect forensic description of the corpus you would say "O they just made that up." So there can never be evidence.

that just demonstrates the atheist inability to argue fairly!

how do you know stroble can't be trusted? probably because he disagrees with you, right?

Username

See, Meta, nothing you are saying helps.

Meta

ahahahahah of course not, but then I don't nee help, you beat self fine. You simply cannot refuse to allow anything to ever counter against your case. remember the little word "falsifiable?" That goes for arguments to. you will not allow your arguments to be falsifiable, because they are disproved you whine it cant' be so. That means nothing more than the fact that your arguments are not logical, they have no basis in logic.

to make a logical argument there must be the possibility it can be beaten. If every time the evidence counts against your argument the evdience must be wrong, doesn't mean you have a good argument, it's the death knell for it.

You this is the rhetorical way to handle it. Don't just say "you don't make sense" tell them you jsut undercut your own argument. why? because if "nothing helps" in other words "nothing can ever count against my position" then it's not falsifiable and it can't be proved either. He just made it unprovable. I just today saw good article all Christian apologists should read, Karl Popper explaining why things have to be falsifiable.

Username:

Think carefully about it. You are trying to give established scientific facts about how a person dies on the cross, then you REJECT the scientific facts of what happens after being dead for 3 days.

Meta

(1) There is no record given either way. you are merely asserting that it should be.nothing actually contradicts scientific fact. its' merely omission.

In other words what I meant was John doesn't say "there was no rigor moritis" there's no contrdition its omission but there's no reason to expect him to include such detail. He did with the fluid in the side that was just luck. They guy was not a Forensic Pathologist so there' no reason to expect him to record all these tell tale signs.

(2) there's no reason to expect that they would have forensic evidence becasue John was not a forensic pathologist and they did not have the scinece at that time.

(3) I prove (with expert opinion from a pathologist) one thing John said does happen to coincide with what would be the scientific fact of a corps so that means there's a good indication he was dead that assertion that he was not is groundless.

Username

It's called SPECIAL PLEADING!!!!!

I can accept that everything the Good Doctor says is true, if it really happened. But then you have a CONTRADICTORY account of MEDICAL FACTS: That Jesus didn't exhibit ANY of the signs of having been dead for 3 Days.

Meta

you don't know that he didn't (in fact what I talk about is one so he did exhibit one of them). There is fact no reason why they would have recorded that. they didn't contradict it, just doesn't say so you don't' have an argument.

Username

Just because someone should have died under those conditions doesn't mean they did, or that it was the same person who came back to life, or that the stories are even true.

Try again.

Meta
the medical examiner says he did. because you whine and refuse to believe it:


Look at the arrogance on this turkey!

here's another source.

While death on the cross may have been caused by any number of factors, and likely would have varied with each individual case, the two seemingly most prominent causes of death probably were hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia (DePasquale, 1963; Davis, 1965). Others have proposed dehydration, cardiac arrhythmia, and congestive heart failure with the rapid accumulation of pericardial and pleural effusions as possible contributing factors (Lumpkin 1978; Clements, 1992, pp. 108-109. The ability of Christ to cry out with a loud voice indicates that asphyxia was probably not the major causative factor.

The finality of death upon the cross often was accomplished by the breaking of the legs of the victims, which caused still more traumatic shock and prevented an individual from pushing up in order to fully respire. In an effort to get the bodies off the crosses before the Sabbath day,

the soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified with him: but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: howbeit one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and straightway there came out blood and water (John 19:32-34).

Much speculation has centered on the exact location of the puncture wound and thus the source of the resulting blood and water. However, the Greek word (pleura) that John used clearly denotes the area of the intercoastal ribs that cover the lungs (Netter, 1994, p. 184). Given the upward angle of the spear, and the thoracic location of the wound, abdominal organs can be ruled out as having provided the blood and water.

A more likely scenario would suggest that the piercing affected a lung (along with any built-up fluid), the pericardial sac surrounding the heart, the right atrium of the heart itself, the pulmonary vessels, and/or the aorta. Since John did not describe the specific side of the body on which the wound was inflicted, we can only speculate about which structures might have been impaled by such a vicious act. However, the blood could have resulted from the heart, the aorta, or any of the pulmonary vessels. Water probably was provided by pleural or pericardial fluids (that surround the lungs and heart).

CONCLUSION

It is with both medical and biblical certainty that we know Christ died upon the cross at Calvary. He was laid in a tomb with nail wounds in His hands and feet, and still possessed those scars following His resurrection. The extreme physical insults to Christ’s body left Him ragged, torn, bleeding, and tormented with pain. Yet He endured willingly all the agony and torment of the cross for each one of us. As Paul wrote:

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity (Ephesians 2:14-16).

We would do well to heed the advice of the writer of the book of Hebrews, who said:

Let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God (12:2).

Oh, the overwhelming love that God showed each one of us when He allowed His only begotten Son to suffer that excruciating (Latin, excruciates, or “out of the cross”) pain and agony—for our sake!

Tomorrow I'll deal with a more rational argument