[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

What is an Agnostic? By Khayyam and Bertrand Russell
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Philosophy and Religion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Atheism is a belief in nothing, that life is meaningless and ultimately the individual human is worthless. On this I agree with the deep insights of Nietzsche;


Atheism is not a belief in nothing. It is a belief in the non-existence of God. To say nothing is erroneous.

Also, I think it results in the opposite of your claim that “life is meaningless and ultimately the individual is worthless.”

Why would life be meaningless? Life is to be celebrated and appreciated because of life itself, not because it is the consequence of creation by another entity. In fact, I think that once the puppet master behind the curtain is removed, only life itself remains. It can thus be better appreciated.

Certainly, it does not lead to the conclusion that “the individual human is worthless.” Again, I think the opposite. Because there is only man, and no creator above him, man stands alone as the most remarkable entity (with the exception of any possible aliens that may or may not exist). If God doesn’t exist, the most powerful and capable entity becomes man. In a much less potent way, man himself becomes God, or the closest thing to him. I therefore think that atheism elevates man, instead of rendering him worthless as you claim. Theists claim that God created man in his image. I think it’s the reverse: that man created God in his image.

I think that by believing in God, we render life meaningless and man worthless. By believing in God, we see the afterlife and our place in it as the ultimate goal and of utmost importance. The Kingdom of Heaven is what we seek. The glory and glamour of the afterlife makes our existence here dwarf by comparison. Our life here on earth loses its importance. Man as he exists in this world becomes worthless compared to his existence in Heaven. If you don’t believe me, just look at history. The people who have always been most willing to fight and die (especially in the name of God) have been the ones who strongly believe in God and place a large importance on religion. Just look at the people who now throw their lives away in suicide bombings. Why do they do it? Because of their strong belief in God, and the hope of joining him in Heaven. Their earthly existence has become worthless, and their lives meaningless.

Quote:
From the standpoint of a theist who believes in one eternal God, Christian morality can be derived rationally and systematically.


I don’t challenge the morality that follows the belief in God. What I challenge is the basic premise from which this morality follows: belief in God. It is this first basic and fundamental premise which I suggest is irrational and illogical. Belief in God is inconsistent with the available evidence, and the way that God has been created and defined is contradictory with itself. It is these contradictions and inconsistencies that render belief in God irrational.

Quote:
If we believe that God is self contained and existed for an eternity before our existence, we will by necessity arrive at the conclusion that God is not a needy soul who needs to be praised and obeyed to be happy. God has no fragile ego which I will damage if I reject Him or even refuse to believe in Him.


If God existed for an eternity before our existence and is not needy, then why did he create us? Perhaps you’ve heard that “necessity is the mother of invention.” It is unimaginable that anyone or anything would create anything else without wanting to fulfill a desire. So what was his motive? Boredom? Entertainment? To fulfill a parental urge? No matter what the answer, he was fulfilling a “need.” That makes him “needy.”

I’m not sure if his ego will be damaged or not, but I do know that he places great emphasis on humans believing in him. According to all monotheist religions, disbelief in God is sure to land one in Hell. I think it is logical to deduce that it is very important to him that we believe in him. And let’s not forget the first commandment: “I AM THE LORD THY GOD, THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME.”

Quote:
There is no selfish reason whatsoever for God to interact with His creation. It was a voluntary act, not driven by his need or weakness but by His love; to postulate otherwise would be to redefine God’s nature itself. The only reason a complete and self sufficient God would contact His creatures would be the same reason he created the universe in the first place, as an act of His free will to see His creation flourish.


Here you are trying to explain God’s motive for creating the universe and man. If I understand you correctly, you claim that his motive was love. But when anyone does something even out of love, it is to fulfill a need: and the need here is love. Love is very much a need. We seek love, because it creates a joyful state of mind. And so, we humans feel a “need” for love. A need to give love, and a need to receive love. God is no different. If God does something out of love, it is because he has a “need” for it. That’s not a bad thing, but it does negate the belief that God is not in any way needy. And if he has any needs, he cannot be omnipotent or “perfect.” Yet another contradiction in the concept of God.

Quote:
God created man in His own image also with a will which is free, at least some of the time


This makes no sense. Either we have to believe in the concept of fatalism or that of free will. If only some of the time we have free will, then we really don’t have free will. If we have free will, that free will must exist always, otherwise ultimately we are bound by fatalism.

And like I said, I think that man created God in his image instead.

Quote:
Freedom and love are the foundational principles of Christian morality. This gives us the confidence to explore the universe knowing we are safe in God’s love and leads us to expect consistent rules which guide God’s dealings with His creatures and bring order to His universe. This is the basis for science and philosophy in the world created by the loving God.


It is illogical to think that God created a world in which science exists. That’s because science is no friend to God. Science is the medium by which many of the erroneous beliefs of theism have been repeatedly exposed and discounted. It has shown much of the opinions regarding the universe as held by theists to be false. So, why would God create a world with science, which acts to discredit him? This is another example of the self-defeating nature of God, which would be illogical.

Quote:
The opposite theistic morality from what I have described would be a perfect God making arbitrary rules, not for our own good, and not based on His love for us, but arbitrarily for no reason whatsoever. One could even imagine a sadistic God who gloried in the suffering of His creatures, like a spectator at the arena, glorying in the suffering and death of the gladiators before him. If this is indeed the case, then theism is indeed the most terrible belief system imaginable.

How such a God could be in any way understood as perfect or even complete is difficult to understand. If God is really self sufficient, why would He need to watch his creatures suffer to gain satisfaction. If God really is a sadist, why would anyone believe for a minute such a God would fulfill His promises to His creatures concerning heaven and hell? What greater sadistic pleasure could come to such a being than to promise people that if they were cruel and miserable on this earth He would be kind to them and give them complete happiness in the next, only to treat them with the same cruelty in the next life as they exercised in this life? If God is not by nature good and loving, why should we expect Him to be truthful towards His creature and why should we believe in His holy books? This approach to God is completely irrational by it’s very nature and makes progress in science difficult since God’s dealings with us are arbitrary and beyond reason.

The cruel God would not defend man’s freedom but would try to stifle it by punishing us when we showed initiative or questioned anything He said. Based on this character, God’s “love” is also arbitrary, used as a tool to manipulate His creatures and is not love at all. The only genuine love is unconditional love, any other love is counterfeit. If one believes God will love you if you follow the rules and will not love you if you disobey the rules you know He really doesn’t love you at all but is manipulating you and robbing you of your freedom. In reality you really don’t know the rules since such a God is naturally not going to be honest with his creatures. One of the things a dependent needs the most is consistency so he can know how to act to earn the love of the master. The best way to destroy the happiness of the creature and to bring stress and suffering is to change the rules periodically and punish the creature for not fulfilling the new rules which he didn’t yet know existed. Why God would make up the specific rules is unknown and unknowable since they were invented only for our suffering anyway. Our only requirement is to follow the rules without question and without understanding and hope for the best. This type of morality is irrational and rigid causing dysfunctional families and societies, destroying the possibility of genuine intellectual advancement and social goodness. Only a God who wished to hurt His creatures and to destroy His own creation would make up this type of morality.


So you’re saying that the existence of this “sadistic God” is irrational, right? Do I understand you correctly?

I say almost the same thing. The existence of such a God is illogical. Yet, judging by the facts and events of this world, we are faced with explaining the evil that exists. Evil exists because either

- God is not all love and goodness; that he is a “sadistic God”, or
- God is powerless to rid us of evil, so he is not omnipotent, and not truly a “God” that can do anything, or
- God does not exist

You point out that the existence of this sadistic God is irrational, and I agree. I think of the three possibilities, the third is by far the most likely. Though I have many arguments against the existence of God, I think this is the strongest. The presence of evil in this world was what initially drove me to question God’s existence.

Quote:
Indeed, there are atheist Christians just as there are atheist Jews, but the intellectual foundations for the belief system is absent. Many atheists are caring persons who do have human sympathy for others, but so far no one has been able to build a solid moral foundation which will withstand the challenge of the real world.


Just because atheists don’t need a God to hand them their moral code doesn’t mean that atheists’ foundations for their belief system and morality is any less valid or strong. But like I said before, the search for that morality comes from within, not from without. The self-realization makes it even stronger than a set of codes that’s simply handed to us by a God.

As I said previously, morality, freedom, democracy existed before Christianity and will continue even without it.

To say that a solid moral foundation cannot exist without Christianity is to say that over 80% (I don’t know the exact number of non-Christians, but I think this is a close estimate) of the world’s population is living without “solid moral foundation.” Are you really saying this, that 80% of humanity is living without morality? Is the morality practiced by Christians of America or Europe better than that practiced by the Hindus and Buddhists of Asia?

Quote:
Here is an example of how secularists view the value of individual humans and even our existence as a species.http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45968
Quote:
"We have set up this exhibit to highlight the spread of man as a plague species and to communicate the importance of man's place in the planet's ecosystem," a statement from London Zoo said.


I read the article. It sounds more like a few hippies trying to have some fun than secularists trying to make a statement.

Regardless, I see nothing wrong with it. I think anyone that denies that man has at many times acted as a plague in this world refuses to acknowledge the truth. The fact is, man is the only creature in this world to wage war, to purposely destroy, to use the resources of this world for selfish and excessive gain and greed, to excessively pollute, to endanger or drive to extinction so many species, and to completely dominate this world and all of its other inhabitants. Is that not a plague?

But, that’s only one side of man’s complex existence. To say that man is a plague, and just a plague, is also inaccurate. Man has also been the only creature to ever cultivate and improve parts of this earth and to save and protect its inhabitants.

Man is truly complex, capable of such beautiful deeds, as well as such unspeakable horrors.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_11910.shtml

Secular Prayer
Jan 1, 2006
Bahman Aghai Diba PhD International Law - Persian Journal



On the occasion of saying good bye to 2005



I pray to all Gods of all religions in the world to let the people of all states live in peace and do not divide them according to self-centered religions

I pray to all Gods of all religions in the world to ask the religious institutions, as the units claiming to have the monopoly of truth, to stay away from the administration of the states.

I pray to all Gods of all religions in the world to accept their mistakes in creating the world and their failure to establish justice.

I pray to all Gods of all religions in the world to respect the human rights as envisaged in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I request all Gods to go back to their temples and let the peoples of all states live in secularism .

I ask all Gods to stay away from the politics in order to preserve the respect for religions.

I pray to all Gods to free all countries from the scourge of the medieval ideologies based on the vague messages.

I ask all Gods to start talking directly with the people and put an end to the lies told by the brokers of heaven and hell.

I request all Gods to stay away from the private life of the people.

I pray to all Gods to find a way of living together, because they are all going to die under the present conditions.

I warn all Gods to stop persuading the people to dominate and kill each other in order to spread your words. (In other words, if what the religious leaders claim to be your words are true, then please keep them to yourself).

I request Satan and of his unholy angels to make their relations with Gods clear and do not blame the human beings for their failure to hammer out a kind of compromise formula.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
American Visitor



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 224

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Before responding to your arguments I want to emphasize once again the basis for a rational theistic moral system. Since Western Civilization is based on monotheism and since this is my own personal belief, I will base my arguments on this principle. Other theists could make the argument for their alternative systems better than I.

Beings of inferior status are free to hate, envy, fear, envy, dominate or torture others. There are few indeed who can’t find someone who is vulnerable to exploit. On the other hand, unconditional love is the true prerogative of power. Only a truly powerful individual can make himself vulnerable to this extent. The only being who is capable of loving unconditionally is the most powerful being in the world, God himself. Along with this power also comes the ability to grant and respect freedom in lesser beings. An all powerful being has no reason personally to fear our freedom although because of His love he might have to take steps to protect others from the abused of freedom by His underlings. This understanding of God as the underwriter of goodness serves as the foundation for a rational theistic morality.

Quote:
Atheism is not a belief in nothing. It is a belief in the non-existence of God. To say nothing is erroneous.


It is interesting how inexact language can be at times and the same sentence can mean different things to different people. Here is the online dictionary definition of nothing:
Quote:
1. Something that has no existence.

I’m not saying atheists have no beliefs, but atheism as a belief is a single idea about a specific object, God. Atheists may have many other beliefs, but atheism itself is a belief that God has no existence, in other words a belief in nothing. Since theism underlies the moral system upon which most moral systems including that upon which Western Civilization is originally based, atheism undermines the ability of those moral systems to survive.

From an existentialist standpoint, you are “free” to choose to think of your life as meaningful (provided you believe in freedom), whether there is or not any objective evidence to support that belief. Doing things which would cause other people to remember you after your death could provide a certain degree of meaning in a larger context, but once your brief life is ended your family and friends will remember you for awhile, but soon will soon move on into their lives or will die. A famous person such as Aristotle will be remembered longer, but most people don’t achieve that degree of notoriety. Even they will gradually fade into the mists of time.

Meaning for a theist, especially one who believes in life after death, is much different since for him what he does in this life will affect his next phase of existence. Although Hitler appears to have escaped with little loss to himself and never really answered for his crimes, his choices in this life will affect his status in the future. In contrast for an atheist, in the long run moral decisions are also meaningless. There is no difference between Hitler and his victims, they have all moved into the same state of oblivion. So Hitler killed a few million innocent people, he didn't care then and he still doesn't care. He lived his life the way he wanted to and got a great deal of satisfaction from his actions while he lived it. So what difference does it make how he lived? He chose how to live and followed his dreams. When he died, he died at his own volition in the manner of his choice. In the long run, moral decisions had less impact on his life than they had on his victims..

Quote:
Certainly, it does not lead to the conclusion that “the individual human is worthless.” Again, I think the opposite. Because there is only man, and no creator above him, man stands alone as the most remarkable entity (with the exception of any possible aliens that may or may not exist). If God doesn’t exist, the most powerful and capable entity becomes man. In a much less potent way, man himself becomes God, or the closest thing to him. I therefore think that atheism elevates man, instead of rendering him worthless as you claim. Theists claim that God created man in his image. I think it’s the reverse: that man created God in his image.


You may decide you are the most powerful being in the universe and that you are of great worth, but other people can just as easily decide you are worthless. As an atheist there is no objective standard which states you have worth, it is up to other people or society in general to decide whether they wish to value your life or not. If they decide you are worthless, you have no right of appeal or even any intellectual basis to make your case.

The Jews thought their lives had worth but the Germans wanted them dead. From the standpoint of the atheist, who is to say the Germans were wrong? If the Americans had minded their own business, Germany today might be on top of the world, free of Jews and glad of it. This applied not only to the Jews but to others who the German elite decided weren’t worth keeping alive. When they destroyed the mentally ill and those who were handicapped, one of the favorite sayings of the Germans and other eugenisists was that they were destroying "lives not worth living." As an atheist, since you believe people ultimate beings, there is no higher moral order to which to appeal. Morality becomes the whim of the majority or the elites depending on who has the power in a particular society.

Quote:
I think that by believing in God, we render life meaningless and man worthless. By believing in God, we see the afterlife and our place in it as the ultimate goal and of utmost importance. The Kingdom of Heaven is what we seek. The glory and glamour of the afterlife makes our existence here dwarf by comparison. Our life here on earth loses its importance. Man as he exists in this world becomes worthless compared to his existence in Heaven. If you don’t believe me, just look at history. The people who have always been most willing to fight and die (especially in the name of God) have been the ones who strongly believe in God and place a large importance on religion. Just look at the people who now throw their lives away in suicide bombings. Why do they do it? Because of their strong belief in God, and the hope of joining him in Heaven. Their earthly existence has become worthless, and their lives meaningless.


This is a very good point. There is a song which I enjoy, “he’s so heavenly minded, he’s of no earthly value.” I have trouble placing myself into the mind set of the suicide bombers, but your point that religion can be used destructively is certainly supported by history. My view is that eternity is made up of days which are in many ways much like today, and we should live each day to the fullest. If God loves us unconditionally, we can walk in His love now, we don’t have to wait for the future. Belief in God does not automatically lead to a higher level of behavior or a better civilization, only a belief in a good God.

Some of your argument is almost a tautology, that only theists are willing to die in the name of God. That is almost self evident. However, history tells us that many wars have been fought over greed, lust or desire for power sometimes with religion used as justification. During the twentieth century, I've seen numbers something like 100,000,000 people who have been killed by Nazis or Communists neither of which fits your stereotype of the holy warriors for God. In fact, the communists who killed more innocents than the Nazis were avowed atheists. Might I even venture that the total number killed in religious wars through the history of the world is less than those killed by Stalin alone?

Holy wars based on principle can be wrong but also can be necessary for the advancement of mankind. For instance, the American Civil War can be thought of a holy war since it was fought partly over the argument about whether slavery was consistent with the moral values of American society. The main ones who stirred the consciences of the people were Christians such as Harriet Beecher Stowe, daughter of a Christian pastor, was herself a seminary graduate, and wife of a Christian pastor, who wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin in almost Biblical language. The original argument was moral, but when the South began to lose they decided to succeed. This sparked the American Civil War. I personally believe a war over liberty and freedom is of much more justifiable than one over power, glory or plunder. The issue is to be sure when you enter a war over principles you are on the right side, the side of the good God or on the wrong side.

On the other hand, wars to force other people to accept your personal beliefs in God are wrong. If God honors our freedom and loves us unconditionally, it is hard to understand how killing or persecuting other people to get them to accept our beliefs advances God's will. That would be the activity promoted by the evil God, not the infinity God of the universe who loves us unconditionally.

Quote:
I don’t challenge the morality that follows the belief in God. What I challenge is the basic premise from which this morality follows: belief in God. It is this first basic and fundamental premise which I suggest is irrational and illogical. Belief in God is inconsistent with the available evidence, and the way that God has been created and defined is contradictory with itself. It is these contradictions and inconsistencies that render belief in God irrational.


If belief in God were really irrational, I would agree with you, but I really don't think you can make that case. Are you prepared to argue that folks such as Sir. Isaac Newton, Descartes, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr. were all irrational? Many irrational people have irrational faith in God but to go the next step and say all religious people are irrational, at least in their belief in God, is not supported by the evidence. If that were the case, there would not have been so many people of great genius who have who have believed in God.

We tend to judge reality by our own experiences, and since you have experienced religion as an irrational belief, you naturally assume all religious people operate on the same basis. What would you do if you actually met a spirit being? Many people have reported just that type of experience, are they all hallucinating or are they all irrational also?

Quote:
If God existed for an eternity before our existence and is not needy, then why did he create us? Perhaps you’ve heard that “necessity is the mother of invention.” It is unimaginable that anyone or anything would create anything else without wanting to fulfill a desire. So what was his motive? Boredom? Entertainment? To fulfill a parental urge? No matter what the answer, he was fulfilling a “need.” That makes him “needy.”


Why God created the universe is not known, but whatever His reason, he clearly couldn’t be defined as “needy” As you know, “needy” is used to describe a person who either because of insecurity or selfishness is demanding upon others for his or her own benefit, not for the benefit of the other person. That certainly can not apply to all powerful God.

Whether He needs to create is a question which I’m not certain I can answer, but your point seems reasonable. On the other hand, by loving me, I would conclude that God has made Himself vulnerable to my happiness or sorrow to some extent and needs me to be happy. In fact that is how I like to imagine God, as my personal friend. But on the other hand, we are dealing with a being who can simultaneously live the past, present and future for one or probably multiple universes simultaneously.

Quote:
Here you are trying to explain God’s motive for creating the universe and man. If I understand you correctly, you claim that his motive was love. But when anyone does something even out of love, it is to fulfill a need: and the need here is love. Love is very much a need. We seek love, because it creates a joyful state of mind. And so, we humans feel a “need” for love. A need to give love, and a need to receive love. God is no different. If God does something out of love, it is because he has a “need” for it. That’s not a bad thing, but it does negate the belief that God is not in any way needy. And if he has any needs, he cannot be omnipotent or “perfect.” Yet another contradiction in the concept of God.


As I pointed out, unconditional love can only originate from a position of power. I see no contradiction between an infinite God and His love and indeed believe that only an all powerful God is capable of unconditional love. Of course you do understand that the love in the Bible is "agape" love which is different from "eros." Agape is based on the principle of caring for other beings, not on emotions.

Quote:
This makes no sense. Either we have to believe in the concept of fatalism or that of free will. If only some of the time we have free will, then we really don’t have free will. If we have free will, that free will must exist always, otherwise ultimately we are bound by fatalism.


I have never heard anyone who believes in human freedom of the will who will take the extreme position you are claiming. For instance, am I free to decide to stop breathing?

Quote:
It is illogical to think that God created a world in which science exists. That’s because science is no friend to God. Science is the medium by which many of the erroneous beliefs of theism have been repeatedly exposed and discounted. It has shown much of the opinions regarding the universe as held by theists to be false. So, why would God create a world with science, which acts to discredit him? This is another example of the self-defeating nature of God, which would be illogical.


Why would God be afraid of science? Science has not disproven God or even attempted to disprove Him. Science is the study of how the universe operates, but can not answer why the universe exists. By studying how the laws of nature work, scientists are studying God's creation.

It is true that people have had to revise some of their concepts about God as we learn more about the universe. That is good and in no way disproves God's existence. Part of a progressive faith in God is to maintain the ability to grow in knowledge, not to maintain a rigid belief system which is not based on reality.

Quote:
I say almost the same thing. The existence of such a God is illogical. Yet, judging by the facts and events of this world, we are faced with explaining the evil that exists. Evil exists because either

- God is not all love and goodness; that he is a “sadistic God”, or
- God is powerless to rid us of evil, so he is not omnipotent, and not truly a “God” that can do anything, or
- God does not exist


I believe most Western theists believe evil exists because God has given us the power of freedom. It is up to us to choose right from wrong, and that only comes from experience and knowledge. This earth is a place where we can make choices and experience the results.

Quote:
Just because atheists don’t need a God to hand them their moral code doesn’t mean that atheists’ foundations for their belief system and morality is any less valid or strong. But like I said before, the search for that morality comes from within, not from without. The self-realization makes it even stronger than a set of codes that’s simply handed to us by a God.


As I pointed out, the atheist has no higher principle to point to for morality than his own opinion or the majority opinion of his community. The concept of the good all powerful God gives us the ability to rise above our environment and to point out evil even if we are in the minority.

Also I believe a materialist has to be a fatalist by definition. Am I wrong? If so, as Nietzsche pointed out, what you are really talking about is following your instincts. As the Nazis showed us, human instincts are often very racist and violent.

Quote:
Regardless, I see nothing wrong with it. I think anyone that denies that man has at many times acted as a plague in this world refuses to acknowledge the truth. The fact is, man is the only creature in this world to wage war, to purposely destroy, to use the resources of this world for selfish and excessive gain and greed, to excessively pollute, to endanger or drive to extinction so many species, and to completely dominate this world and all of its other inhabitants. Is that not a plague?


When I was younger I thought people were inherently good, but as I learn more I agree with your assessment more and more. That inherent evil in man is what the Bible calls original sin, and that is why theists have turned to the perfect God to lead us away from those evils. Inherent in each of us by nature is racism, sexism and hatred of what is good. Only by turning to love can we overcome those flaws.

You pointed out earlier the "hypocrisy" of the founders of our country. From that standard, every Christian should consider himself a "hypocrite" since no human is capable of the unconditional love which only an all powerful God possesses. That is why Christians live daily in God's forgiveness, because none of us are perfect and fall prey to the evil inherent in our nature. As humans, our country and our society also daily falls short of the ideal. The question for those who take such delight in pointing out those failings is whether they would rather live in a society which has high ideal but falls short, or would they rather have one which has low ideals and succeeds perfectly in reaching them.

Quote:
Obviously, Constantinople did not fall until 1453. And it fell not to the Arabs and Seljuks (the recipients of the wrath of the crusades), but to the Ottomans. The Ottomans were a new Turkish tribe that arrived on the scene centuries later, and was as much a menace to Arabs and Seljuks as it was to the Christians of Byzantine.


So far as I can tell, Islam has always has the goal of conquering the world peacefully if they can or with the sword if people will not submit peacefully. One of the first foreign military actions by the United States was against the pirates of the Mediterranean who were Muslims taking our sailors as slaves. Although the United States has never waged war against Islam, a large portion of the Islamic world seems to believe they are called by God to destroy our system of laws and replace them with Sharia law. So far as I can tell, that has never changed. The issue is whether Islam as it is now practiced is fighting for human freedom and goodness, if so we should support them, if not then we should resist vigorously.

Quote:
Yes, I recall well that the discussion originated with your quote from the DI. But at the risk of repeating myself, I contend that it is somewhat unfair to use the DI as an example of justice and equality, even though the literal document itself points to equality and justice. Because the writers of that document did not truly practice it, and because the nation that this document founded did not truly practice it for many years, we unfortunately cannot refer to the DI as an example of “equality and justice.”


I understand your argument is that because the founders of this country were not perfect we can discount their ideas. Should we do that with everyone who promoted freedom? What about those who have pointed out Martin Luther King's flaws, are they doing the nation a service? Nelson Mandela was certainly not perfect in his younger days, shall we discount him also?

Should we apply the same principle to scientists, and discount their ideas if they don't live up to a certain standard? Let's say a physicist is shown to be a racist, should we discount his ideas in physics? Although I don't have the reference anymore, I understand that Mendel fudged some of his data on genetics, which is really a problem in science as you know. So this imperfect man came up with laws of inheritance, should we discount him also?

Quote:
And to Cyrus, thank you for providing us with this impartial forum, which allows us all to express freely our thoughts and opinions.


I too would like to thank Cyrus for this interesting forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:04 pm    Post subject: This Thread Is A Good Sample For How To Discuss Reply with quote

American Visitor wrote:


AmirN wrote:
And to Cyrus, thank you for providing us with this impartial forum, which allows us all to express freely our thoughts and opinions.


I too would like to thank Cyrus for this interesting forum.



Dear American Visitor and Amir,
Both of you are most welcome. I would like to thank both of you for your contributions and taking time to discuss one of the most complex and controversial subject objectively without insulting each other. We will use this thread as good sample for educating others how to discuss complex subjects without dogma , without using threat and creating fear to win their own argument.
Regards,
Cyrus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
An all powerful being has no reason personally to fear our freedom although because of His love he might have to take steps to protect others from the abused of freedom by His underlings.


So he has given us freedom, but limited our freedom. Is that really freedom?

The flip side is that actually, he has not properly taken steps to protect others from the abused freedom of his underlings. He has done a very poor job of that. Many suffer ruthlessly at the hands of others. So what happened to the “protective steps?”

Quote:
Since theism underlies the moral system upon which most moral systems including that upon which Western Civilization is originally based, atheism undermines the ability of those moral systems to survive.


I’ve disagreed with similar statements of yours in the past. I feel I must again take issue with this assumption you portray. Although western civilization and Christianity have much interdependence, western civilization is not based upon Christianity. The moral system of the west, and really of the world, began its development before Christianity. As such, it can easily survive without Christianity. Though morality has a strong relationship with religion, it is not bound by religion, and can certainly exist without it.

Quote:
From an existentialist standpoint, you are “free” to choose to think of your life as meaningful (provided you believe in freedom), whether there is or not any objective evidence to support that belief. Doing things which would cause other people to remember you after your death could provide a certain degree of meaning in a larger context, but once your brief life is ended your family and friends will remember you for awhile, but soon will soon move on into their lives or will die. A famous person such as Aristotle will be remembered longer, but most people don’t achieve that degree of notoriety. Even they will gradually fade into the mists of time.


Your point is a good one. If I am correct, once we die, nothing exists, and everything just goes dark; the lights just go out.

I am reminded of Homer’s Iliad. As a digression, without much to bear on our discussion here, I think Homer’s Iliad and to some extent Odyssey are much more than just entertaining stories. Much hidden philosophy, and even theology is present there. But I’ll save that for later…

Your paragraph reminds me of Achilles. Before setting off for Troy, he consulted his mother Thetis, who was not a mortal. She told him he had two possible paths. One was to stay in Greece, and not partake in this war. The other was to set off to conquer Troy.

If he chose the former, he would have a wonderful, fulfilling, and peaceful life. He would have many children and grandchildren, live a loving life for many years, but when he died peacefully, he would soon be forgotten.

If he chose the latter, he would result in the conquest of Troy, and would be overwhelmed with glory and fame. He would live a very short life, and would not return from Troy alive. However, his NAME would last forever in history. He obviously chose this latter path. And though we know these are all myths and fictional, interestingly Thetis’ prophesy has come true in real life…3000 years later, Achilles’ name still lives on.

Many concepts from Greek mythology resonate inside me, especially from the Iliad. This concept of Achilles’ fate is one of them. I have often wondered which path I would take if in Achilles’ position. I think I would have chosen to stay behind, live a long and fulfilling life, and eventually fade into oblivion. Definitely not the path of a hero.

Why? As you said, existentialism. A theist looks to the afterlife for meaning to his current life. And what of that afterlife? How long does it last? It is eternal, from what theists say. What does that mean, to be eternal? Let’s just assume for argument sake that it’s a really really really long time.

So compare a really long time of the afterlife to the relatively short time we have here on earth. The theist does things in this life to reach his goals in the long afterlife. The atheist does the same, but his goals are limited to this life. The difference then becomes just a matter of length of time. As far as I’m concerned, my lifetime is “my eternity.” My eternity is a lot shorter than a theist’s, but no less important.

And that is why I would have not chosen Achilles’ path. What good is fame, fortune, glory, and remembrance of my name, if it results in shortening my life, or “my eternity?” You see, atheism has again made me chose life over death. It has given more meaning to my life. A theist is more likely to choose Achilles’ path that leads to his glorious demise, for he thinks he will merely transform to a new existence, and may even enjoy his new found glory and fame by peaking down at earth.

A natural reply of a theist to my viewpoint might be the following: “If you base all importance on only your own lifetime, and your eternity ends when you die, you must also not care what happens to the world after you die…so pollute, use and abuse and destroy this world without caring of the future and subsequent generations…”

I’ll address this self-imposed question together with my reply to your comments in the next paragraph.

Quote:
Meaning for a theist, especially one who believes in life after death, is much different since for him what he does in this life will affect his next phase of existence. Although Hitler appears to have escaped with little loss to himself and never really answered for his crimes, his choices in this life will affect his status in the future. In contrast for an atheist, in the long run moral decisions are also meaningless. There is no difference between Hitler and his victims, they have all moved into the same state of oblivion.


Yes, this is a legitimate concern. For an atheist, death is the end, and devoid of any consequences. So what keeps the atheist from running amok, killing and pillaging, devastating and polluting the world? It is his current existence. His actions may not be judged after his life, but they will be judged by himself in this life, and during his current existence. That is of utmost importance to the atheist (maybe not every atheist, but I can only speak for myself). As I previously pointed out, “my eternity” is this life, which gives this life more profound importance. The role I played while present in this life is very important to me. I strive to attain a certain individual and emotional goal, a goal of self-fulfillment. A goal of living my life to its fullest extent. Part of this self-fulfillment is my morality, my conscience. If my sense of morality and conscience is not satisfied, I have fallen short of living life to its fullest, and failed my self-fulfillment.

Getting back to Hitler, you raise an interesting point. According to atheism, once he died, it was all over. He never answered for his crimes, and never will. It does seem unfair and unjust, doesn’t it? But just because it is unfair, it doesn’t make it any less true. Perhaps if we “invent” a God and an afterlife, we may draw personal satisfaction from the idea that the wicked shall be punished, but if it isn’t true, what good is that?

Now let’s continue with the afterlife as a road to morality for the theist. The reason the theist is moral in this life is because he is commanded to do so by a God. And his motivation for obeying that command is his fate in the afterlife. So, the theist is not moral because he truly understands the appeal to morality, but because he is told to obey. He is offered reward for obeying (heaven) and punishment for disobeying (hell). It is this superficial desire to seek pleasure (heaven) and avoidance of pain (hell) that is his real motivation to morality. Furthermore, since the theist acts morally in this life in order to get a reward or avoid punishment in the afterlife, one could deduce that God has used coercion and bribery to get humans to do what he wants.

By contrast, the atheist who acts morally does so because of a deep and true understanding for the need to be righteous. That is a step above blind obedience. It marks true appreciation and embrace of righteousness, and superior enlightenment.

Quote:
You may decide you are the most powerful being in the universe and that you are of great worth, but other people can just as easily decide you are worthless. As an atheist there is no objective standard which states you have worth, it is up to other people or society in general to decide whether they wish to value your life or not. If they decide you are worthless, you have no right of appeal or even any intellectual basis to make your case


This is just as true in the realm of theism as it is in that of the atheist. Religious people have traditionally always also devalued the worth of another’s life when it was convenient to do so. In fact, it is truer with the theistic realm. Religion and man’s interpretation of God has led to another justification for devaluing the worth of certain humans, especially those belonging to a different religion. Even those belonging to the same religion can be deemed “worthless,” if their “religious judges” have deemed them heretics simply because they oppose their views.

Quote:
When they destroyed the mentally ill and those who were handicapped, one of the favorite sayings of the Germans and other eugenisists was that they were destroying "lives not worth living." As an atheist, since you believe people ultimate beings, there is no higher moral order to which to appeal.


So who is it that a theist can appeal to…God? God has either chosen not to listen to any of these appeals, or he is incapable of acting on behalf of these appeals (or he simply doesn’t exist). When was the last time that a person or group of people who were unjustly persecuted appealed to God to be saved, and God answered their call?

Therefore, whether a theist or atheist, if we are to “appeal” to anything, and have even the smallest expectation of results, we had better do it to another human being. An appeal to humanity is often ignored, but sometimes accepted and answered. An appeal to God has never been answered.

Quote:
Some of your argument is almost a tautology, that only theists are willing to die in the name of God. That is almost self evident. However, history tells us that many wars have been fought over greed, lust or desire for power sometimes with religion used as justification. During the twentieth century, I've seen numbers something like 100,000,000 people who have been killed by Nazis or Communists neither of which fits your stereotype of the holy warriors for God. In fact, the communists who killed more innocents than the Nazis were avowed atheists. Might I even venture that the total number killed in religious wars through the history of the world is less than those killed by Stalin alone?


You are correct in that religion accounts for only one reason among many for which murder and wars are based upon. Like I said in prior post, intelligence has led to civilization, culture, religion, material and ideological structures which in turn are a motivation for fighting and wars. You’ll notice that I named religion as only one of these pillars of motivation for war, and other factors are even bigger contributors.

But the point is that even though other motivations for murder also exist in this world, the role that religion has played and continues to play in propagating murder cannot be excused, justified, or downplayed in any way. We cannot excuse a murderer who has killed only one person simply because he points to his neighbor, who happens to be a serial killer with many more kills.

I agree with your assessment of Stalin. Unfortunately, the world’s public awareness of that monster is not as high as it should be. Everyone knows of Hitler, but not as many are aware of Stalin’s huge crimes against humanity. I honestly think that they are very comparable, and are in the same class. What’s more unfortunate is that people such as these have been extremely plentiful in the world’s history.

People like Ghengis Khan, Teymour, Vlad the Impaler, Stalin, Hitler, Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Milocevic, and countless others who have acted as a plague on humanity.

But although the communists were atheists, and they killed many people, they did it irrelevantly of their atheism, not because of it. They didn’t use atheism as their justification and motivation for killing. Their motivation was political suppression. Atheism had nothing to do with it. In fact, even though the stance of communism was to adopt atheism as the portrayed religion of the state, this was only a charade. The vast majority of the countries of the communist eastern block (Russia included) remained theists in reality and practiced their religion. In fact, their predominant religion was and remains Christianity.

Quote:
Holy wars based on principle can be wrong but also can be necessary for the advancement of mankind. For instance, the American Civil War can be thought of a holy war since it was fought partly over the argument about whether slavery was consistent with the moral values of American society.


No way. Holy wars are NEVER justified; EVER. I understand a holy war to be one that is fought to either defend or propagate a religion. I don’t equate a “just war” (if there really is such a thing) with holy war. The civil war was fought over the principle of justice and equality. Many Christians may have agreed with it because it overlapped with their ideas about justice also, but the issue would have been raised whether or not Christians existed.

The war was fought between north and south, both of which were Christians. In fact, Christian faith is stronger in the south than the north, and southerners are probably more religious and devout.

Was the Civil war a holy war? I don’t think so.

Quote:
On the other hand, wars to force other people to accept your personal beliefs in God are wrong. If God honors our freedom and loves us unconditionally, it is hard to understand how killing or persecuting other people to get them to accept our beliefs advances God's will. That would be the activity promoted by the evil God, not the infinity God of the universe who loves us unconditionally.


I’m glad we at least agree about this. We both know that these types of “holy wars” have been present in history. Let me think of instances:

Jewish holy wars: if they exist, I am not aware of them.

Christian holy wars: Roman holy wars against the Sassanids, as it related to the control and faith of the people of Armenia. The Crusades, which were initiated to uphold and propagate Christian faith, even though the true motivation was greed and conquest.

Moslem holy wars: No need for me to give an example. Islam’s foundation has been “conversion by force or death” from its inception 1400 years ago to the present. The concept of islam and holy wars cannot be separated. They are one and the same.

Quote:
If belief in God were really irrational, I would agree with you, but I really don't think you can make that case. Are you prepared to argue that folks such as Sir. Isaac Newton, Descartes, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr. were all irrational? Many irrational people have irrational faith in God but to go the next step and say all religious people are irrational, at least in their belief in God, is not supported by the evidence. If that were the case, there would not have been so many people of great genius who have who have believed in God.


No, I do not claim that such people were irrational. These are obviously some of the greatest minds that ever lived. There are three people I consider as the top three “liberators” of humanity, as I said in a post somewhere else. They are Cyrus the Great, Lincoln, and MLK.

I would have even added Einstein to your list of brilliant people who had faith in God. Other than the three I just mentioned, Einstein to me is the most remarkable person that ever lived.

But even though these people were brilliant and not irrational, it doesn’t mean they couldn’t have been wrong about anything. It doesn’t mean that they were not irrational when dealing with one particular issue. Being less than rational in relation to one specific subject does not make them irrational people.

One of your examples is Newton, a brilliant mathematician and physicist. But he was also an alchemist. He thought he could change mercury to gold, which seems ridiculous to us now. His pursuit of alchemy was not based on any rationality. It was based on the irrational notion that somewhere in Greek mythology laid a secret code to unravel the mysteries of alchemy. He thought that references to Haphestus the smith god, and Helios the sun god were secret recipes to alchemy. Is that rational? Obviously, perfectly rational people can sometimes be less than rational in specific situations.

Some of the most brilliant people that lived over 600 years ago also thought that the earth was flat, and they were wrong. Can we use this single instance of error in judgment to call them irrational?

How do I explain that so many people are “irrational” when it comes to religion? I think that religion demands blind faith. All their lives these people were brought up by others who have presented God to them as the unquestionable truth, and most simply accepted it (with the exception of Descartes). In reality, I think that faith blinded them when it came to theology.

Quote:
What would you do if you actually met a spirit being? Many people have reported just that type of experience, are they all hallucinating or are they all irrational also?


I cannot generalize about everyone without knowing the specific claims they make and the specific circumstances. However, from what I have seen from prior claimants of spirit witnesses, I would say that either they witnessed a hallucination or an illusion, and based on their belief in spirits extrapolated to assume that what they witnessed was a spirit.

I may similarly ask you what you think of people who have witnessed aliens and alien abductions. If aliens exist, that would revolutionize our understanding of the universe and man’s place in it. It would certainly put a huge damper on our belief in God. And if you want to know why I think that, we can discuss it in a future post if you are interested.

In any case, do you consider alien sightings as irrational and hallucinations, or do you accept them as true?

Quote:
Why God created the universe is not known, but whatever His reason, he clearly couldn’t be defined as “needy” As you know, “needy” is used to describe a person who either because of insecurity or selfishness is demanding upon others for his or her own benefit, not for the benefit of the other person. That certainly can not apply to all powerful God.


The American Heritage Dictionary defines “needy” as:
1. Being in need
2. Wanting or needing affection or attention.

You say God created the universe and man out of love. That’s very noble, but it implies that God wanted to extend his love to someone or something. One only does that if he has a desire or need to do so. His desire for love places him in a position of “being in need” of love. Hence, he is needy.

I agree with you that a God that has any needs is inconsistent with an all powerful God. That is precisely the point I raise, this inconsistency.

Quote:
Whether He needs to create is a question which I’m not certain I can answer, but your point seems reasonable. On the other hand, by loving me, I would conclude that God has made Himself vulnerable to my happiness or sorrow to some extent and needs me to be happy.


Again here, if he “needs you to be happy,” he has a need, and is therefore needy.

Also, if God has made himself vulnerable to your happiness or sorrow, he is no longer all powerful. An all powerful being cannot in any way be vulnerable. Again, I point to this inconsistency.

Quote:
But on the other hand, we are dealing with a being who can simultaneously live the past, present and future for one or probably multiple universes simultaneously.


If he simultaneously exists in the past, present, and future, he knows all that has ever transpired and will ever transpire. Yet he is able to show approval or disappointment. If God already knows all the future’s outcomes, how can he portray approval or disappointment? Furthermore, if God already exists in the future, why bother with a Judgment Day? And if God has access to a future, it must mean that the future already exists, but is inaccessible to us, while God has access. If so, our future is predetermined, and we are bound by fatalism. If so, there is no free will, and God never gave us free will. It follows that free will cannot explain away the presence of evil in this world as you claim.

Quote:
As I pointed out, unconditional love can only originate from a position of power. I see no contradiction between an infinite God and His love and indeed believe that only an all powerful God is capable of unconditional love. Of course you do understand that the love in the Bible is "agape" love which is different from "eros." Agape is based on the principle of caring for other beings, not on emotions.


Since I understand Greek, I understand very well the difference between Agapy and Eros, or Erotas. Agapy is the love which is Platonic, such as love of a father for his son, or a person for his neighbor. Erotas is a non-Platonic love, usually with sexual and lustful connotations, such as “falling in love” with one’s significant other.

For our discussion’s purposes, it is a given that we are both speaking about Agapy, not Erotas.

In the above paragraphs I showed why doing anything out of love is an indication that God has a desire or need for love, and thus cannot be perfect and all powerful.

You speak of “unconditional” love. What is unconditional, according to the dictionary?
-“Without conditions or limitations; absolute.”

This means he loves us no matter what. No conditions must be met in order for him to love us, am I right? And you can’t say, “yes but he’ll love you more if you meet certain conditions and love you less if you do not meet those conditions.” We cannot tier this love, or break it down into different degrees, or else it again becomes “conditional.” If he loves us unconditionally, he must love ALL of us absolutely and without any limitations, and EQUALLY.

So how does anything we do in this lifetime really matter? He will love us all equally and unconditionally, no matter what we do. Hitler and Stalin will be treated the same and loved the same by God as all their victims, the Pope, and Mother Theresa. The concept of the theist’s morality just imploded. The premise of Heaven and Hell (no matter how you define heaven and hell), reward and punishment just collapsed!

I thought my notion of reality when we die was unfair. That Hitler simply ceases to exist, and does not have to answer for his crimes. Based on a God giving “unconditional” love, reality becomes even more unfair. Hitler now goes to God and is accepted by him with unconditional love. He thumbs his nose to all of his victims while sitting just out of their reach, who are just as equally accepted by God unconditionally in the afterlife.

So which is it? Is God really prepared to give us “unconditional love,” in which case the theist’s moral system dissolves? Or does he give us “conditional” love, based on whether we have fulfilled his moral code, by presenting us with heaven and hell (however defined) which is based on justice, not complete love, and is therefore no longer an “all-loving” God?

You can have one or the other, but not both. They are mutually exclusive.

Quote:
Why would God be afraid of science? Science has not disproven God or even attempted to disprove Him. Science is the study of how the universe operates, but can not answer why the universe exists. By studying how the laws of nature work, scientists are studying God's creation.


You are correct that science has not COMPLETELY disproved God. It Also did not set out to disprove God, at least not intentionally. Also, it doesn’t have all the answers pertaining to the universe. But what it has done is enriched our knowledge, and continues to do so on an exponential basis.

Though most of our acquired knowledge is irrelevant to God’s existence, some of that knowledge has repeatedly shown that much of the views on this world as taught by religion are incorrect.

Here are just a few examples. The theory of evolution has destroyed the concept that God created man distinctly from the beasts. It showed that man, like all animals, evolved from an earlier life form. Our understanding of geology has shown the earth to be 4.5 billion years old, which is very different from the belief based on Genesis that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Astronomy has shown that the earth is yet another planet circling yet another star in yet another galaxy. Quite different than the theological view that the earth is the center of the universe.

Science has repeatedly disproved the teachings and dogmas of religion. If the dogmas, or absolute truths held by religion are repeatedly exposed as false, that hints to the falsity of religion, and ultimately God himself.

Quote:

Quote:
I say almost the same thing. The existence of such a God is illogical. Yet, judging by the facts and events of this world, we are faced with explaining the evil that exists. Evil exists because either

- God is not all love and goodness; that he is a “sadistic God”, or
- God is powerless to rid us of evil, so he is not omnipotent, and not truly a “God” that can do anything, or
- God does not exist


I believe most Western theists believe evil exists because God has given us the power of freedom. It is up to us to choose right from wrong, and that only comes from experience and knowledge. This earth is a place where we can make choices and experience the results.


Yes, I have heard the argument that evil exists because of free will. But that explains only a part of what I consider “evil,” and later I’ll even argue that it doesn’t truly even do that. You speak only of “man-made evil.” I am speaking of a broader evil. By evil I am including everything that causes human suffering, pain, death, and destruction. Whether it is caused by man, nature, or accident.

For example, the calamity and misery caused by a natural disaster such as earthquake, flood, hurricane, etc. The suffering caused by famine and disease. Human misfortune and pain brought about by accidents, birth defects, or medical conditions. Most of these things are irrelevant to human behavior and free will. How do you explain their existence, without contradicting a benevolent and omnipotent God?

Quote:
Also I believe a materialist has to be a fatalist by definition. Am I wrong?


I do believe you are wrong, if you are using the term “materialist” interchangeably with “atheist.” I can answer based on atheism. But I don’t know what you really mean by “materialist” here.

Again, atheism is simply the denial of God, and no more. I don’t see atheism itself tipping the scales in either direction when it comes to deciding between fatalism and free will. Each person will have to hear the arguments for each and decide independently which makes more sense after taking God out of the equation.

Personally, I find the arguments for free will stronger, and am not a fatalist.

Quote:
When I was younger I thought people were inherently good, but as I learn more I agree with your assessment more and more. That inherent evil in man is what the Bible calls original sin, and that is why theists have turned to the perfect God to lead us away from those evils. Inherent in each of us by nature is racism, sexism and hatred of what is good. Only by turning to love can we overcome those flaws.


Oh yes…original sin. I’ve been waiting for it to pop up in our discussion, and it finally did. Original sin, combined with free will are the cornerstones to explaining evil (or specifically man-made evil), as you and many theists before you have done. I’ll show you the problem I have with this explanation.

First, the problem of free will as it explains “man-made evil.” God gave us free will to choose. But, why did he make the world such that evil is one of the choices? We could easily have had free will to choose, provided all available choices were good ones.

Second, the problem of original sin as it explains “man-made evil.” God created everything, including man. He had COMPLETE control over how we were created and the end result called “man.” Why create a man that has “original sin?” Why did he create us in such a way that as you say “Inherent in each of us by nature is racism, sexism and hatred of what is good?” If God is all-good, why would he endow his creation with inherent evil? Only an evil God would do that. Unless, he erred when he made man, in which case he cannot possibly be omnipotent.

The problem of the existence of evil, whether man-made or natural-made simply cannot be reconciled with the presence of an omnipotent and benevolent God.

Quote:
So far as I can tell, Islam has always has the goal of conquering the world peacefully if they can or with the sword if people will not submit peacefully.


That is a correct assessment. Although, I might slightly modify it by dropping the word “peacefully.”

Quote:
Although the United States has never waged war against Islam, a large portion of the Islamic world seems to believe they are called by God to destroy our system of laws and replace them with Sharia law.

That would be a correct assessment as well. If they had the power, they would have done so already.

Quote:
I understand your argument is that because the founders of this country were not perfect we can discount their ideas. Should we do that with everyone who promoted freedom? What about those who have pointed out Martin Luther King's flaws, are they doing the nation a service? Nelson Mandela was certainly not perfect in his younger days, shall we discount him also?


Again, perhaps you are over-generalizing what I previously said. I simply said I could not accept their call to “equality and inalienable rights” as stated in the DI when they were slave owners. I never said we should discount their ideas as a whole.

We certainly cannot do anything of the sort in regards to MLK. MLK never contradicted himself. Perhaps he was not perfect, as no one really is so. But his imperfections were not in direct violation of his message. If he called an end to discrimination and racism that African Americans were subjected to, yet portrayed the same bigotry at another minority, such as the Hispanics for example, then yes, he would have lost much credibility. But he never did such a thing. So I take what he said and did at face value, and I view him as one of humanity’s saviors.

Quote:
Should we apply the same principle to scientists, and discount their ideas if they don't live up to a certain standard? Let's say a physicist is shown to be a racist, should we discount his ideas in physics?


No, not at all. Because a physicist’s racism is completely irrelevant of his contribution to physics. Racism and physics have nothing to do with each other. We may choose to criticize him personally on his racism, but his research in physics is not open to be discredited based solely on his racism.

However, if a civil rights leader who is calling to an end to racism and inequality is shown to indeed be a racist himself, the situation is very different. Not only will he be personally criticized for his racism, but his credibility as an “opponent of racism” will also be destroyed and his work will be viewed as a mockery.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
American Visitor



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 224

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So he has given us freedom, but limited our freedom. Is that really freedom?

The flip side is that actually, he has not properly taken steps to protect others from the abused freedom of his underlings. He has done a very poor job of that. Many suffer ruthlessly at the hands of others. So what happened to the “protective steps?”


The protective steps are to provide us with moral guidance and to provide us with the opportunity to carry through with those moral principles. Clearly if He used force to prevent ruthless behavior, that would prevent us from learning the necessary moral lessons.

Quote:
I’ve disagreed with similar statements of yours in the past. I feel I must again take issue with this assumption you portray. Although western civilization and Christianity have much interdependence, western civilization is not based upon Christianity. The moral system of the west, and really of the world, began its development before Christianity. As such, it can easily survive without Christianity. Though morality has a strong relationship with religion, it is not bound by religion, and can certainly exist without it.


You are correct that moral development preceded Christianity. Christianity is a branch of Judaism which reaches back much farther. Judaism almost certainly drew from their cultural milleau in formulating many of their ideas including, I suspect, from Persian culture.

Your next point is much more difficult to sustain. To blot out the biggest religion in the world with a rational moral system which has evolved over thousands of years would certainly have a profound effect on the world. Your position is about as probable as taking the position that the eradication of Islam would have no effect on the world.

I do agree that morality would persist without any of the present forms of religion. Morality and religion seem to be hardwired into the human brain, so neither will ever be eradicated. Secularism with the worship of gia or nature is a form of religion. The question is not whether people will have a religion, but what form will the religion take. Will it be positive and result in human freedom and goodness or will it be destructive. What I have not seen yet from the secularists is a rational moral system or even any basis for forming one.

Quote:
A natural reply of a theist to my viewpoint might be the following: “If you base all importance on only your own lifetime, and your eternity ends when you die, you must also not care what happens to the world after you die…so pollute, use and abuse and destroy this world without caring of the future and subsequent generations…”


I agree with much of what you say here.

Quote:
Now let’s continue with the afterlife as a road to morality for the theist. The reason the theist is moral in this life is because he is commanded to do so by a God. And his motivation for obeying that command is his fate in the afterlife. So, the theist is not moral because he truly understands the appeal to morality, but because he is told to obey. He is offered reward for obeying (heaven) and punishment for disobeying (hell). It is this superficial desire to seek pleasure (heaven) and avoidance of pain (hell) that is his real motivation to morality. Furthermore, since the theist acts morally in this life in order to get a reward or avoid punishment in the afterlife, one could deduce that God has used coercion and bribery to get humans to do what he wants.


Excellent point! I couldn't have made it better myself, in fact perhaps not as well. That is why Christianity has, to a large extent, separated the rewards in the afterlife from behavior in this life. Since the great commandment which I quoted in the last post is to "love God with all our hearts" it is impossible to induce obedience by punishment or rewards. God can only teach us to love Him by loving us unconditionally. That is why salvation is by faith in Jesus' love and forgiveness, not by our righteousness. None of us love enough to earn God's rewards.

Quote:
By contrast, the atheist who acts morally does so because of a deep and true understanding for the need to be righteous. That is a step above blind obedience. It marks true appreciation and embrace of righteousness, and superior enlightenment.


Logically, I'm not sure there is such a thing as righteousness in materialism. That is a major weakness of materialism.

Quote:
This is just as true in the realm of theism as it is in that of the atheist. Religious people have traditionally always also devalued the worth of another’s life when it was convenient to do so. In fact, it is truer with the theistic realm. Religion and man’s interpretation of God has led to another justification for devaluing the worth of certain humans, especially those belonging to a different religion. Even those belonging to the same religion can be deemed “worthless,” if their “religious judges” have deemed them heretics simply because they oppose their views.


Clearly, religion can be a two edged sword. From my perspective, those who believe in the bad god would clearly not improve their morality by holding this belief. On the other hand, the belief in a God who loves us unconditionally gives added value to human life which is unmatched by secularists.

As I pointed out, a belief in a good God gives one a standard of morality which transcends the opinions of the society and gives an absolute standard by which to judge behavior and values. For the secularists, the cultural elite or the majority set the moral standards and the values. I'm not sure how for the secularist that can be avoided.

Quote:
So who is it that a theist can appeal to…God? God has either chosen not to listen to any of these appeals, or he is incapable of acting on behalf of these appeals (or he simply doesn’t exist). When was the last time that a person or group of people who were unjustly persecuted appealed to God to be saved, and God answered their call?

Therefore, whether a theist or atheist, if we are to “appeal” to anything, and have even the smallest expectation of results, we had better do it to another human being. An appeal to humanity is often ignored, but sometimes accepted and answered. An appeal to God has never been answered.


The appeal I was referring to was an intellectual and moral appeal. A belief in God gives us a higher standard than the whims of society.

The Bible teaches God has intervened in history at times, however He doesn't prevent innocent suffering since the whole purpose of life on this earth is to learn moral lessons. If we were free from suffering by following God, that would be an inducement to obey from self interest, not from love.

Quote:
You are correct in that religion accounts for only one reason among many for which murder and wars are based upon. Like I said in prior post, intelligence has led to civilization, culture, religion, material and ideological structures which in turn are a motivation for fighting and wars. You’ll notice that I named religion as only one of these pillars of motivation for war, and other factors are even bigger contributors.


I agree that forcing your religion on other people is a crime against humanity. If you believe in the good God, you can not justify that type of behavior since only voluntary worship is of benefit to the theist. That Christians have done this at times seems wrong.

As I pointed out earlier however, people do have the right to defend themselves when attacked, so some religious wars are inevitable so long as there are folks who don't respect other people's freedom to believe or not to believe according to their own conscience. In many ways, war fought because of differences of moral principles can be considered "religious wars" since they are based on moral principles. To a large extent, the United States fought WWII as a religious war since our own financial well being was not directly affected by the outcome of the war in Europe. Hitler would have been very glad to make peace with us if we had been willing to overlook his crimes against humanity.

Quote:
But although the communists were atheists, and they killed many people, they did it irrelevantly of their atheism, not because of it. They didn’t use atheism as their justification and motivation for killing. Their motivation was political suppression. Atheism had nothing to do with it. In fact, even though the stance of communism was to adopt atheism as the portrayed religion of the state, this was only a charade. The vast majority of the countries of the communist eastern block (Russia included) remained theists in reality and practiced their religion. In fact, their predominant religion was and remains Christianity.


The western secularists appear to be largely guided by Marxism even today. People have to have some rational basis for their world view and moral outlook, and Marxism seems to be the most compelling theory out there for the majority of secularists. The French seem to think they have their own version of secularism of which they are very proud, but it doesn't seem to be functioning very well right now. I'm not sure they have a very strong intellectual foundation for their beliefs.

Quote:
No way. Holy wars are NEVER justified; EVER. I understand a holy war to be one that is fought to either defend or propagate a religion. I don’t equate a “just war” (if there really is such a thing) with holy war. The civil war was fought over the principle of justice and equality. Many Christians may have agreed with it because it overlapped with their ideas about justice also, but the issue would have been raised whether or not Christians existed.

The war was fought between north and south, both of which were Christians. In fact, Christian faith is stronger in the south than the north, and southerners are probably more religious and devout.

Was the Civil war a holy war? I don’t think so.


It depends on how you define "holy war." If you define "holy war" as an attempt to impose your religion on someone else, then we are in agreement. However, if a "holy war" is a war fought to promote human freedom, then they can be justified.

Since Judeo-Christian morality was the dominant moral standard in the US, the civil war was ultimately about the interpretation of the Bible, whether slavery was justified or condemned. After the civil war, there has been no question, the Bible condemns slavery, before the pro-slavery option was still open. The civil war was first fought in the churches and in the court of public opinion. When the South realized they were losing the moral battle, they took their option of leaving the Union. Lincoln had other ideas, and the rest is history.

Would slavery have been banished if it weren't for Christianity? History has not supported that viewpoint. Slavery was almost a universal institution around the world which had not been questioned up until then. To actually ban slavery was a genuine moral break through. Incidentally, do you know of any other group which has fought a civil war and sacrificed many thousands of their lives in order to liberate another people of a different race?

Quote:
I would have even added Einstein to your list of brilliant people who had faith in God. Other than the three I just mentioned, Einstein to me is the most remarkable person that ever lived.

But even though these people were brilliant and not irrational, it doesn’t mean they couldn’t have been wrong about anything. It doesn’t mean that they were not irrational when dealing with one particular issue. Being less than rational in relation to one specific subject does not make them irrational people.


I wish I could claim Einstein, but I'm not sure about him. He did use the term God at times but I'm not sure he was a believer. I suspect he was an agnostic. The people I mentioned were committed believers.

Quote:
One of your examples is Newton, a brilliant mathematician and physicist. But he was also an alchemist. He thought he could change mercury to gold, which seems ridiculous to us now. His pursuit of alchemy was not based on any rationality. It was based on the irrational notion that somewhere in Greek mythology laid a secret code to unravel the mysteries of alchemy. He thought that references to Haphestus the smith god, and Helios the sun god were secret recipes to alchemy. Is that rational? Obviously, perfectly rational people can sometimes be less than rational in specific situations.


It is possible, perhaps probable, that Newton used ideas he gleaned from alchemy in his physics. Things we dismiss as irrational are sometimes based on sound observations. Alchemy clearly had its charlatans, but perhaps at it's best it was the predecessor to modern chemistry.

Exactly what is an irrational belief? Let me give a some examples of what would be considered irrational if they were held by anyone else.
1. Einstein said space is "curved." How can empty space have any shape?
2. Hawkins radiation. From empty space two "virtual" photons emerge, one is trapped in a black hole and subtracts from it's mass, while the other becomes a real photon. How can there be "virtual" photons which spontaneously arise from empty space and then one become real?
3. Dark matter. So far, it has never been seen or detected in any way, yet physicists believe exists.
The rational human mind is capable of believing many wonderful and mysterious things.

Quote:
How do I explain that so many people are “irrational” when it comes to religion? I think that religion demands blind faith. All their lives these people were brought up by others who have presented God to them as the unquestionable truth, and most simply accepted it (with the exception of Descartes). In reality, I think that faith blinded them when it came to theology.


I agree with you completely. However, all people of faith are not blind in that sense. Many people accept religion based on experiential reasons, but they don't have to be blind either. I have asked theists from various Christian or quasi Christian faiths whether they believe God loves us unconditionally and they have all confirmed that is their belief. So I know I'm not alone although as you have pointed out there are clearly Christians who have had different life experiences and would therefore strongly disagree with me.

Quote:
I cannot generalize about everyone without knowing the specific claims they make and the specific circumstances. However, from what I have seen from prior claimants of spirit witnesses, I would say that either they witnessed a hallucination or an illusion, and based on their belief in spirits extrapolated to assume that what they witnessed was a spirit.

I may similarly ask you what you think of people who have witnessed aliens and alien abductions. If aliens exist, that would revolutionize our understanding of the universe and man’s place in it. It would certainly put a huge damper on our belief in God. And if you want to know why I think that, we can discuss it in a future post if you are interested.

In any case, do you consider alien sightings as irrational and hallucinations, or do you accept them as true?


I do neither. I keep an open mind, but haven't seen convincing evidence concerning aliens. That is just the problem in trying to decide reality, our personal experience influences our beliefs so much. Philosophy helps us in our search for truth, but ultimately it comes down to personal experience and personal choice.

Quote:
The American Heritage Dictionary defines “needy” as:
1. Being in need
2. Wanting or needing affection or attention.

You say God created the universe and man out of love. That’s very noble, but it implies that God wanted to extend his love to someone or something. One only does that if he has a desire or need to do so. His desire for love places him in a position of “being in need” of love. Hence, he is needy.

I agree with you that a God that has any needs is inconsistent with an all powerful God. That is precisely the point I raise, this inconsistency.


Here's the online dictionary definition of "needy."
Quote:
needy (ne'de)
adj., -ier, -iest.
Being in need; impoverished. See synonyms at poor.
Wanting or needing affection, attention, or reassurance, especially to an excessive degree.

God isn't impoverished and doesn't need affection to an excessive degree.

I'm not sure I can buy your second point. My understanding of a perfect God based on my own thinking and on the Bible is not one who can not think, learn or feel. That is closer to the Greek ideal of God than to my understanding of the Christian God who can do all those things. It appears you are trying to define God out of existence. Clearly if we accept your definition of God, He would be a mythological being who couldn't possibly exist by definition.

Quote:
Again here, if he “needs you to be happy,” he has a need, and is therefore needy.

Also, if God has made himself vulnerable to your happiness or sorrow, he is no longer all powerful. An all powerful being cannot in any way be vulnerable. Again, I point to this inconsistency.


It does appear that your definition of God is inconsistent with what I understand are the prevailing beliefs about God.

Quote:
If he simultaneously exists in the past, present, and future, he knows all that has ever transpired and will ever transpire. Yet he is able to show approval or disappointment. If God already knows all the future’s outcomes, how can he portray approval or disappointment? Furthermore, if God already exists in the future, why bother with a Judgment Day? And if God has access to a future, it must mean that the future already exists, but is inaccessible to us, while God has access. If so, our future is predetermined, and we are bound by fatalism. If so, there is no free will, and God never gave us free will. It follows that free will cannot explain away the presence of evil in this world as you claim.


I actually didn't state my position carefully enough here. I believe God knows the future to a great extent, but that He has given us free will. Since our choices haven't been made yet, that aspect of the future is still unknown. However, God knows the future of the universe as a whole. It is somewhat like natural gas laws, where the behavior of a whole aggregate is very predictable even if the behavior of an individual unit is seemingly random. Some Christians believe God known their own future choices, but I don't agree for the reasons you offer.

Quote:
This means he loves us no matter what. No conditions must be met in order for him to love us, am I right? And you can’t say, “yes but he’ll love you more if you meet certain conditions and love you less if you do not meet those conditions.” We cannot tier this love, or break it down into different degrees, or else it again becomes “conditional.” If he loves us unconditionally, he must love ALL of us absolutely and without any limitations, and EQUALLY.


That's exactly what I mean.

Quote:
So how does anything we do in this lifetime really matter? He will love us all equally and unconditionally, no matter what we do. Hitler and Stalin will be treated the same and loved the same by God as all their victims, the Pope, and Mother Theresa. The concept of the theist’s morality just imploded. The premise of Heaven and Hell (no matter how you define heaven and hell), reward and punishment just collapsed!


Not at all. If we chose to separate ourselves from God, we suffer the consequences. The punishment is self imposed by our choices.

Quote:
So which is it? Is God really prepared to give us “unconditional love,” in which case the theist’s moral system dissolves? Or does he give us “conditional” love, based on whether we have fulfilled his moral code, by presenting us with heaven and hell (however defined) which is based on justice, not complete love, and is therefore no longer an “all-loving” God?

You can have one or the other, but not both. They are mutually exclusive.


Not at all. We have the opportunity to partake of God's love or to separate ourselves from God. The loss is of our own making.

Quote:
You are correct that science has not COMPLETELY disproved God. It Also did not set out to disprove God, at least not intentionally. Also, it doesn’t have all the answers pertaining to the universe. But what it has done is enriched our knowledge, and continues to do so on an exponential basis.

Though most of our acquired knowledge is irrelevant to God’s existence, some of that knowledge has repeatedly shown that much of the views on this world as taught by religion are incorrect.

Here are just a few examples. The theory of evolution has destroyed the concept that God created man distinctly from the beasts. It showed that man, like all animals, evolved from an earlier life form. Our understanding of geology has shown the earth to be 4.5 billion years old, which is very different from the belief based on Genesis that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Astronomy has shown that the earth is yet another planet circling yet another star in yet another galaxy. Quite different than the theological view that the earth is the center of the universe.


We agree that science has not disproved God and indeed was not developed for that purpose.

I believe one mistake theists have made is to tie theology into science too closely since science changes frequently. If your theology is tied into the scientific theories of the day, you will end up compromising your theology when science changes. Each branch of learning should be left to develop on it's own without too much interference from the other.

The examples you give illustrate that point very well, science is a fickle partner. There is nothing in theism which demands the sun circle the earth, that came from the scientific thought of the day which was carried into theology. When scientists changed their viewpoint, the secularists don't claim science is disproved since scenists were wrong for so long, instead they use that scientific error to "disprove" theism.

The history of life on this earth is clearly older than Christians originally expected. That error was based at least on part on their interpretation of the Bible and had to be changed.

The theory of evolution is a powerful theory to explain much about life and as I have pointed out greatly weakens the possibility for a "scientific" moral system since it predicts total selfishness based on the selfish gene and continued conflict between individuals for survival based on the most trivial differences. Even anti-religious people like Dawkins admit there has to be a moral system outside of science.

Also, the theory of evolution so far will not serve as the "theory of everything" biological. As I pointed out, so far there is no satisfactory explanation of the human mind. As you know, Descartes who is considered by some to be the philosophical father of modern science began his search by discarding everything which he couldn't prove. All that was left was his own consciousness. From there he moved to a belief in God and then into belief in the truth of the senses. People are much more than just selfish genes.

Quote:
Science has repeatedly disproved the teachings and dogmas of religion. If the dogmas, or absolute truths held by religion are repeatedly exposed as false, that hints to the falsity of religion, and ultimately God himself.


From my perspective, science has not disproved the central beliefs in Christianity. If so, I would agree with you, but that is not about to happen. Science is the study of how things in the universe operate, but it can not explain why they exist. If you believe in a God who is consistent in His dealings with His creatures, you have a philosophical basis for the laws of science. Newton studied the laws of nature which he viewed as God's laws, but he didn't claim to know why they worked. Why are two massive objects attracted to each other? Saying space is curved doesn't alleviate the mystery.

Quote:
Yes, I have heard the argument that evil exists because of free will. But that explains only a part of what I consider “evil,” and later I’ll even argue that it doesn’t truly even do that. You speak only of “man-made evil.” I am speaking of a broader evil. By evil I am including everything that causes human suffering, pain, death, and destruction. Whether it is caused by man, nature, or accident.

For example, the calamity and misery caused by a natural disaster such as earthquake, flood, hurricane, etc. The suffering caused by famine and disease. Human misfortune and pain brought about by accidents, birth defects, or medical conditions. Most of these things are irrelevant to human behavior and free will. How do you explain their existence, without contradicting a benevolent and omnipotent God?


Actually, for me, human suffering is more understandable since we gain moral lessons from it. God created a real world with real consequences so we could develop morally.

Quote:
I do believe you are wrong, if you are using the term “materialist” interchangeably with “atheist.” I can answer based on atheism. But I don’t know what you really mean by “materialist” here.

Again, atheism is simply the denial of God, and no more. I don’t see atheism itself tipping the scales in either direction when it comes to deciding between fatalism and free will. Each person will have to hear the arguments for each and decide independently which makes more sense after taking God out of the equation.

Personally, I find the arguments for free will stronger, and am not a fatalist.


Interesting. I thought an atheist would be logically forced into a materialist viewpoint that would obviate free will. Apparently you do accept that the human mind is more than just a complicated chemical computer. From the standpoint of quantum physics, perhaps one could argue that the mind could be free and be completely explained by the laws of physics, but it would be a hard slog I'm afraid. To be free means to break the chain of cause and effect, or in reality to become an uncaused cause. As Descartes showed, that is just one short step from accepting the existence of God.

Quote:
Oh yes…original sin. I’ve been waiting for it to pop up in our discussion, and it finally did. Original sin, combined with free will are the cornerstones to explaining evil (or specifically man-made evil), as you and many theists before you have done. I’ll show you the problem I have with this explanation.

First, the problem of free will as it explains “man-made evil.” God gave us free will to choose. But, why did he make the world such that evil is one of the choices? We could easily have had free will to choose, provided all available choices were good ones.

Second, the problem of original sin as it explains “man-made evil.” God created everything, including man. He had COMPLETE control over how we were created and the end result called “man.” Why create a man that has “original sin?” Why did he create us in such a way that as you say “Inherent in each of us by nature is racism, sexism and hatred of what is good?” If God is all-good, why would he endow his creation with inherent evil? Only an evil God would do that. Unless, he erred when he made man, in which case he cannot possibly be omnipotent.

The problem of the existence of evil, whether man-made or natural-made simply cannot be reconciled with the presence of an omnipotent and benevolent God.


Actually, my understanding is that evil proceeded man since there are evil spirit beings. So my understanding of "original sin" does not place man as the original source of evil. Man has a choice which God he will follow, the good God or the evil God, the God of love or the God of hate.

If God had made us without the possibility of evil, we would have never had the possibility of complete moral maturity. To pretend to know exactly God's motives for creating anything including morally competent beings is somewhat presumptions since we don't know everything there is to know about God. I imagine He created us because He enjoys the company of free sentient beings.

Quote:
Again, perhaps you are over-generalizing what I previously said. I simply said I could not accept their call to “equality and inalienable rights” as stated in the DI when they were slave owners. I never said we should discount their ideas as a whole.

We certainly cannot do anything of the sort in regards to MLK. MLK never contradicted himself. Perhaps he was not perfect, as no one really is so. But his imperfections were not in direct violation of his message. If he called an end to discrimination and racism that African Americans were subjected to, yet portrayed the same bigotry at another minority, such as the Hispanics for example, then yes, he would have lost much credibility. But he never did such a thing. So I take what he said and did at face value, and I view him as one of humanity’s saviors.


Regardless of the flaws of the original founders, the document they produced has been the guiding light by which our country has lived. The intellectual foundation they laid has stood the test of time and produced a bountiful harvest of freedom and prosperity. It was to their statements that MLK appealed when it was time for him to stand against racism and to appeal to the conscience of the nation. MLK could not have prevailed if it weren't for the understanding of human freedom and human rights which were our common heritage. Not only did he accept the validity of their ideas, he built on the foundation they had laid to move the cause of civil rights forward.

Their thinking was based directly on the belief that there is a good God who has ordained moral laws for us to follow. This creator is the guarantor of those rights which they claimed are "self evident." Although the country was not ready yet to deal with the full implications of those beliefs, they were the guiding light which has led us all these years.

The ultimate freeing of the slaves took another hundred years of moral discussions and the loss of thousands of lives. The founders of our country had risked much to liberate our nation and found us on a constitutional government, they just were not able to do it all. We still haven't accomplished those ideals fully.

Quote:
No, not at all. Because a physicist’s racism is completely irrelevant of his contribution to physics. Racism and physics have nothing to do with each other. We may choose to criticize him personally on his racism, but his research in physics is not open to be discredited based solely on his racism.


Ideas have to be evaluated for their own merits regardless of the source. As I have pointed out, my own observation is that there are few people who are not racist whether they realize it or not. If a person speaks out against evil and is not completely free from that evil themselves, that does not detract from the validity of their message. If people are afraid to take a moral stand because someone will expose their own human flaws, that essentially eliminate all of us from standing up against evil.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Morality and religion seem to be hardwired into the human brain, so neither will ever be eradicated.


Dear Visitor,

Happy new year, been a while....noted a few of your posts and I thought I'd respond to the point you made above, which in a parallel aspect, I've been considering for a long time, as one of my interests is anthropology.

Got a theory on the origins of religion....kind of touches on the DNA thing, but only in the sense that man became sentient, with an "Id" ...I think therefore "I am" and all that.

First question sentient man asked himself was "where am I?", and the second was "Oy ve, why does this s-hit keep happening to me?" ....chuckle....I'm paraphrasing of course.

Where? , why? and what is responsible for the things man experienced in the world, but couldn't grok.

generally if someone doesn't understand something, two reactions take place...curiosity and fear.

So then perhaps some 200,000 years ago...and probably longer than that....lightning was one of those natural phenomena that man instinctively feared...as was fire....

So one day a man (or a woman) was out and about...doing their daily hunting or gathering....and it was cold out....storm came up...took shelter under some trees....lightning struck and started a fire....afraid but curious, the human noticed this fire, but it was small and knew he/she could run faster than it could.

so curiosity overcoming fear caused approach , and noticing that he/she was no longer cold, and the fire among the branches in the downed tree was actually comforting...so he/she came closer and reached out....ouch! Hot! run away! but not too far, becoming cold, he/she returned and was warm again....

What gave this human the inspiration to pick up a branch and carry the fire to the cave to show his/her tribe was probably the cold itself, knowing that the others were cold, and in doing so remained warm during this short journey.

This human had no idea what would come of this, for when he/she came back, those she had known all his/her life were shocked and amazed, and treated her as someone special because he/she was holding, and in control of, something that was a force of nature....something they did not understand.....so they, in their quest to understand this event....decided that the force of nature had caused this human to become it's messenger of fire.

Human nature being what it is, everyone wanted a "fire stick" to keep warm, so they gathered branches and eventually they figured out that if they put the branches together, the fire would spread to everyone's stick...but eventually they could not hold them....too hot! so they tossed them down in a pile, and low and behold, the first bondfire was built.

And being warm, they were happy with the gift the messenger had brought, so the danced around this fire, and eventully this became ritual, a comunication with the fire in thanking it for it's warmth.

Next day, the fire seemed dead, so they strirred it with a stick to see if it was, sparks flew up, and the stick was dropped in surprise, something was glowing where the branches had been, eventually the stick burst into flame and these humans reasoned that fire was a living thing, which is why ritual in communication with it was eventually deemed nessesary to the tribes survival. The fire kept predators away they found out, and so it became a great protector of the tribe, with great power and the ability to hurt if a human "angered it" or came too close.

The human that brought fire to the cave was in fact the first "prophet" in a sense, messenger of a living force in nature...and so it has been down the ages that teachers arise among humanity, special in a connection with something that eventually was regarded as "God" for lack of a better explanation.

And in a sense you are right, it is "hardwired" just as fire changed man's eating habits, and his dental structure as a result.

One creates their own reality, and sometimes by accident.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
American Visitor



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 224

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The human that brought fire to the cave was in fact the first "prophet" in a sense, messenger of a living force in nature...and so it has been down the ages that teachers arise among humanity, special in a connection with something that eventually was regarded as "God" for lack of a better explanation.

And in a sense you are right, it is "hardwired" just as fire changed man's eating habits, and his dental structure as a result.


I enjoyed your input. I agree with you that God is hardwired into the human brain. I haven't seen any evidence yet that human society can function without a belief in God or some substitute authority, so for me the real question is what kind of God will we believe in. Although I believe there is ample evidence of God's existence, I don't consider that the most important question. Whether we can prove that God actually exists in nature is less important than how do we form the most advanced and caring society and what place does religion play in that quest. Helping people here and now is the mission God has given us.

I do want to clarify my understanding of what God may or may not need. A supreme being doesn't need to be praised since He already knows He is the greatest. He doesn't need to be believed since He already knows He has all truth. He doesn't need to dominate us since He knows He is all powerful. He doesn't need our love since He is all loving. By His own sovereign will He has extended unconditional love to us. Because He loves us, the only thing we can do for Him which He needs is to love each other.

Incidentally, I imagine your grandfather knew Einstein. Do you know what Einstein's belief on God actually was, or did his opinion vary at different times in his life?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know they met a few times, but as far as Einstien's view on God? I really hadn't thought about it until now...If I were to guess...I'd say it was probably "relatavistic"....chuckle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
American Visitor



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 224

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In case a person of a more fundamentalist outlook might think I have misunderstood the Bible, I want to do an exegesis of a passage from the apostle Paul which I quoted earlier. Although this is not a religious site, I hope the readers will grant me this small indulgence.

Quote:
1 Cor 13
13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
NIV


I personally view the apostle Paul and John the Beloved as the leading theologians of the New Testament church. I also believe Paul claimed to be a prophet in his own right and his writings are considered authoratative in all Christian circles of which I'm aware. This passage makes several points completely clear:
1. No good work, even martyrdom, is of any use unless it is motivated by love. The context makes it clear that this "love" refers to love of your fellow men not just love of God.
2. Even apostles and prophets "know in part and prophesy in part," in other words, there is "no holy book scribed by God." This does not mean the Bible authors are not inspired or are not authoratative, but this inspiration did not lead to a perfect knowledge or perfect teachings. There is room to learn and reinterpret the Christian scriptures without fear of invalidating them. Changing one's beliefs on various points dosn't invalidate Christianity any more than changing scientific beliefs invalidates science. The search for truth is an ongoing journey, not a completed act.
3. No individual is "infallible." If Paul and the apostles acknowledged their own fallibility, no prophet or religious leader has any precedent to claim perfection.
4. Fuller knowledge will only be attained in the afterlife, no one has or will ever gain complete knowledge about God during this life.
5. The Christian life involves growth. So long as people are sincere in their love of God, it is wrong for those who are more mature to criticize those who are still "children" and it is just as wrong for "children" to criticize those who have a more mature understanding.
6. Because of this passage and many more like it, every statement in the Bible and every commandment has to be interpreted in light of God's infinite love. God asks us to love each other because He first loved us. If our understanding detracts from an understanding of God's love or leads us to love others less, we need to re-interpret that passage.

I believe these same standards should apply to all religious traditions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great post Visitor!

Nicely thought out interpretation as well...

It is said that Buddhism is a practice of "exausive investigation and grinding disipline."

Indeed it is.

The nature of the human condition is such that one is immersed in duality...life, death...a cycle if you will of a changing of seasons.

In fact time itself is dualistic in past and future....it is only the moment that is one that one can be one with.

The past guides the moment into the future, thus time flows like water throughout the human condition, as a function of the physical laws of the universe..memory, hopes, dreams, experience, and as a father having also been a child, I know that in saying "no" to correct wrong action, wrong thinking, or to make safe those I care about is a function of love, yet this too may be considered "criticism" as it is not possible for me to interpret that for them, but only explain the reasoning behind my action in the moment.

Love and hate as a dualistic function of the human condition in action through the moment in which time flows is relatavistic in application.

Love of country has caused many wars, love of one's "god" has created more than that which love of country has.

Sometimes a conscious mind can construct great changes, with a
single question, asked at the right moment, to the right people.

"What is the alternative?" one asks?

But words are all too often giving way to the sword, silenced in utterance,
and stilled with overwhelming force. Words even of good will, with hope for the future.

I believe in, and practice balance in all aspects of my life, as a function of understanding these things.

Thus as I look into a mirror, I become the mirror. A reflection of my true self.

In Buddhist training, a student is given a Koan, a question to
meditate on and learn understanding of the source of all things, life being
dualistic in nature, this is the essential struggle for enlightenment into the human condition, and the nature of the universe around us.

Thus, I humbly ask my fellow humans on this planet to find balance in all things, and answer the following Koan:

"When Battleships give way to Sailboats, how does the world realize
its true self?"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The protective steps are to provide us with moral guidance and to provide us with the opportunity to carry through with those moral principles. Clearly if He used force to prevent ruthless behavior, that would prevent us from learning the necessary moral lessons.


But if he takes certain “steps,” he is not entirely leaving us to our own devices. So in a way, he is intervening. And if he is intervening, he is using force, though in a limited way. So my point is that according to that reasoning, we really don’t have free will from God.

Quote:
You are correct that moral development preceded Christianity. Christianity is a branch of Judaism which reaches back much farther. Judaism almost certainly drew from their cultural milleau in formulating many of their ideas including, I suspect, from Persian culture.


You are quite correct in these assertions. I think Judaism drew much of its aspirations from three other beliefs: the Greeks’, the Egyptians’, and the Persians’. From Zoroastrianism it drew its belief in the “duality.” Good and evil. God and Satan. The concept of angels, and a few others.

Quote:
Your next point is much more difficult to sustain. To blot out the biggest religion in the world with a rational moral system which has evolved over thousands of years would certainly have a profound effect on the world. Your position is about as probable as taking the position that the eradication of Islam would have no effect on the world.


I would never make an unfounded assumption that the eradication of either Christianity or Islam would have no effect upon the world. Obviously it would. All I’m saying is that morality will not disappear simply if Christianity disappeared.

Quote:
Morality and religion seem to be hardwired into the human brain, so neither will ever be eradicated. Secularism with the worship of gia or nature is a form of religion. The question is not whether people will have a religion, but what form will the religion take.


I completely agree with you there. If you recall from my original post of “atheist,” I said:

“ Some people think that because I am an atheist I have no religion. This is not true. I define religion as a belief system. We all believe in something that we hold dear. For some, it is out of sight, and in the sky. For me, it is more tangible. My religion is my love for my family, love for Iran, love for science, and love of my history.”

Quote:
That is why Christianity has, to a large extent, separated the rewards in the afterlife from behavior in this life. Since the great commandment which I quoted in the last post is to "love God with all our hearts" it is impossible to induce obedience by punishment or rewards. God can only teach us to love Him by loving us unconditionally. That is why salvation is by faith in Jesus' love and forgiveness, not by our righteousness. None of us love enough to earn God's rewards.


Wait…Perhaps I’m not understanding you well enough here, in which case please clarify.

Am I to deduce from your statement here that Christianity doesn’t base its “merit system” in the afterlife upon the life we lead here on earth? Does our fate in the afterlife not depend on our thoughts and actions in our lifetime? Because I am honestly under the impression that Judaism/Christianity/Islam all teach that.

If you claim that salvation is not dependent upon our righteousness, or doing what’s “good,” then the theist's concept of morality becomes unfounded. Religion’s role in morality becomes unfounded. We are back to the dilemma that people who commit evil can have a possible salvation, by simply accepting faith in Jesus’ love. Assume that Hitler had kept faith in Jesus, and in his last moments was prepared to forgive everyone as well as ask for God’s forgiveness. Would he then be accepted by God with open arms?

It seems suspect that a “good” God would offer salvation based on our faith and love in him and his son, instead of salvation based on our good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. Seems to me that a God that offers salvation not on merit, but on our acceptance of him is a selfish God, perhaps an “evil” God.

Quote:
Logically, I'm not sure there is such a thing as righteousness in materialism. That is a major weakness of materialism.


I suppose how we interpret things depends a lot on how we define them. I’m defining righteousness as moral and ethical behavior. I’m not sure how you are defining “materialism.” But if you are defining materialism as the equivalent of atheism, then I can answer. I don’t see how theism has any more claim to morality than atheism, as I’ve tried to illustrate in my prior arguments. But if you define materialism another way, please elaborate that definition so I can fully understand what you refer to when speaking of “materialism.”

If you define materialism in its philosophical sense:

“The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.”

Then I again say that so much as it is tied into atheism, theism has no stronger claim to morality than materialism.

Quote:
As I pointed out, a belief in a good God gives one a standard of morality which transcends the opinions of the society and gives an absolute standard by which to judge behavior and values. For the secularists, the cultural elite or the majority set the moral standards and the values. I'm not sure how for the secularist that can be avoided.


Let me point out what I see as the flaw here. Based upon your prior posts, I understand that you have maintained that the holy scriptures are not literal, and were not written by God himself. They were written by men, with a limited understanding of God. I have pointed out previously that if one takes this position, one cannot truly claim to know God or his instructions to us. It thereby weakens the basic premise of theism, that there are absolute truths.

Here is another example of how maintaining a position that the scriptures are not a work of God works against the theist when the theist attempts to claim absolute truths.

You claim in the above paragraph that belief in God gives one a standard of morality which transcends society, and gives us an absolute standard by which to judge. But, how can you claim to KNOW what this absolute standard is in fact? If this absolute standard exists, and God knows it, we could only know it if we were in direct communication with him, and it were specifically spelled out for us, as in a holy text. If not, and the holy texts are just our interpretations of God and his standards, then we cannot claim to know the absolute standard.

So, the moral standard that theism sets becomes similarly set by a type of “cultural elite.” That elite being the clergy, who have devoted their lives to the understanding of and closeness to God. The theists’ standards, in short, are also man made, and no better than that of the secularist’s. I would go a step further, and say that the secularist’s is actually better. That’s because the secularist’s is based upon a majority, which though not always right, is frequently right. Or, it is based upon a “cultural elite,” one that has become elite hopefully because of the majority’s wishes and based upon true competence, not because of corruption and force. I venture that the opinions of this cultural elite, who have demonstrated competence on many other levels, are better qualified to guide our morality than a group of clergy, who have dedicated their lives to the study of only one subject: God. I understand that the consequence of a “cultural elite” may not necessarily be the best moral outcome, but it is the best we can hope for. And clearly, it is superior to that of “clerical elitism.”

Quote:
The Bible teaches God has intervened in history at times, however He doesn't prevent innocent suffering since the whole purpose of life on this earth is to learn moral lessons. If we were free from suffering by following God, that would be an inducement to obey from self interest, not from love.


Right, the bible teaches divine intervention at times to save his people. He saved the Jews from the Egyptians. I would add, at no less than unleashing devastation at the Egyptians, with plagues, death, etc. The manner by which he saved the Jews shows he cannot possibly be all good, or all loving.

Furthermore, according to the Bible, he has not only intervened to save some people, but instead just to unleash his wrath. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah comes to mind. God destroyed those two cities and its inhabitants because of “immoral behavior.” How can anyone claim that such a God has given us unconditional love? Did the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah receive unconditional love?

Now, I know I frequently ask “why did God do this, or why did he do that?” To clarify, I’m not really asking to seek his true motive. I know that no-one can claim knowledge of his true motive. I ask, only to show that whatever his motive, it is illogical, or at least unfair.

So now I ask, why would God save the Jews from simple captivity millennia ago, yet did not save them from Hitler’s genocidal wrath sixty five years ago? Why does he intervene sometimes to save someone, yet allows the cries of others go unanswered? Seems illogical, or at least unfair, and thus the work of an evil God.

You say there is suffering in this world because that is how we learn moral lessons. Why, when God created us, did he not endow us with this moral knowledge at the beginning? So we wouldn’t have to suffer to earn it. He created everything, and set all the rules. Why would morality learned by anguish have to be more valuable than that which was granted? Why the lessons? And even if there is a need for lessons, why not positive and fulfilling lessons? Instead of death and destruction. It makes no sense. Only an evil God would force us to learn by undergoing pain and anguish first.

And another question is, why does he even care if we have morality or not? The purpose of morality is to minimize the pain and anguish of others. Its purpose is only to improve the fulfillment of humans’ lives, and prevent us from doing evil to each other. If not that, then what? If the purpose of morality is not to minimize human suffering, but its importance is seen by God as “lesson learned,” then we are really dealing with an evil and cruel God.

If the purpose of morality is to minimize human suffering, then it becomes contradictory that God has allowed, or rather created suffering in order to teach us about morality. Illogical, for a good God.

Quote:
I agree that forcing your religion on other people is a crime against humanity. If you believe in the good God, you can not justify that type of behavior since only voluntary worship is of benefit to the theist. That Christians have done this at times seems wrong.


Agreed. Sad and wrong.

Quote:
In many ways, war fought because of differences of moral principles can be considered "religious wars" since they are based on moral principles. To a large extent, the United States fought WWII as a religious war since our own financial well being was not directly affected by the outcome of the war in Europe. Hitler would have been very glad to make peace with us if we had been willing to overlook his crimes against humanity.


I think we may just be arguing semantics here, on what each of us defines as a “religious war.” You define a war based on moral differences to be a religious one, but I do not. It may be because I clearly divorce morality from religion, whereas you hold the two inseparable. In any case, it’s just semantics.

But I have to disagree with your take on WWII. I don’t think the US got involved with that war simply out of a moral quest, although morality probably did play a role. I think the US wisely understood that Hitler had to be stopped then and there, because if not, he would conquer Europe and become even more powerful. Within a few years after that, he would have been knocking on US’ door.

Similarly, Hitler would have never been content to just make peace with the US. His plan was WORLD domination, not European domination. He may have pretended he wanted peace with the US temporarily, until he dealt with Europe. But he would have soon broken his word yet again and invaded the western hemisphere.

The US involvement was a wise political and military decision, and no less.

Quote:
After the civil war, there has been no question, the Bible condemns slavery, before the pro-slavery option was still open.


So, before the civil war, the bible allowed slavery, but after the civil war the bible condemned slavery? Obviously, the content of the bible never changed.

So, what did change? Man’s interpretation of the bible. If our interpretation of the bible and God’s code is so open to interpretation that it can once allow slavery but later condemn it, what good is that moral standard? It definitely cannot be absolute, or truly set by God. It is set by man, based on what we THINK God wants. So, how is that any better than any other morality, set by other men, even though God is not invoked?

Quote:
Would slavery have been banished if it weren't for Christianity? History has not supported that viewpoint. Slavery was almost a universal institution around the world which had not been questioned up until then.


I don’t agree. Slavery’s existence or banishment has been irrelevant of Christianity. I contend that even if America was not Christian, slavery would have eventually been banished. And although slavery was a universal institution in the world, I can think of a non-Christian who banned slavery. He was Cyrus the Great, an Achaemenid who lived over five centuries prior to Christ, and was the founder of the Persian Empire. It is clearly delineated on his famous Cyrus Cylinder, the first charter of human rights in history.

Furthermore, history has shown that slavery and Christianity have co-existed for a very long time. Christianity existed for almost two millennia along with slavery before it got banned in the US. Two millennia! Was Christianity really the enemy of slavery? Also, the ones who promoted and intensified the slave trade to an art form were members of two world religions who claim “equality.” The Turkish and Arab Moslems of the middle ages, and the Christians of the post-renaissance era. These two groups were the backbones of the evil of slavery.

Quote:
Incidentally, do you know of any other group which has fought a civil war and sacrificed many thousands of their lives in order to liberate another people of a different race?


I don’t know one who fought a civil war. But I do know of another who fought a war to liberate the people of another race. That would again be Cyrus the Great, who fought the Babylonians, and freed the Jews.

Quote:
Exactly what is an irrational belief? Let me give a some examples of what would be considered irrational if they were held by anyone else.
1. Einstein said space is "curved." How can empty space have any shape?
2. Hawkins radiation. From empty space two "virtual" photons emerge, one is trapped in a black hole and subtracts from it's mass, while the other becomes a real photon. How can there be "virtual" photons which spontaneously arise from empty space and then one become real?
3. Dark matter. So far, it has never been seen or detected in any way, yet physicists believe exists.


You make a very valid point. It is one that I struggled with myself when attempting to learn modern physics.

Modern physics is a field that is capable of shattering our perception of reality. And the more physics advances, the more it begins to merge with philosophy.

I’ll tell you how I reconcile such concepts of physics with my concept of reality or rationality.

I think that such examples of physics are not necessarily irrational, but “counter-intuitive.” I hold a difference between intuition and rationality.

Your examples 2 and 3 have not been supported or refuted by any evidence (that I know). As such, they exist only in the realm of “theoretical physics,” and their rationality cannot be judged, unless we know the reasoning that the physicists used to make these deductions.

As for example 1, as well as Einstein’s theory of relativity, these are counter-intuitive, but rational and “real” nonetheless. That’s because experimental evidence, observations, and data all support it. And that’s what defines the rationality, or reality, of a scientific theory. Our ability to reproduce it, and use it to predict future events, and our observations which support it. If so, even if counter-intuitive, we hold it as true. At least, until new evidence arrives which refutes all of it, or part of it.

As for alchemy, the reasoning which led alchemists to their beliefs were irrational. Furthermore, the results and evidence did not support their presumptions, which should have led them to rationally abandon them. Instead, they continued to hold on to those beliefs, which is the real evidence of their irrationality.

Quote:
I'm not sure I can buy your second point. My understanding of a perfect God based on my own thinking and on the Bible is not one who can not think, learn or feel. That is closer to the Greek ideal of God than to my understanding of the Christian God who can do all those things. It appears you are trying to define God out of existence. Clearly if we accept your definition of God, He would be a mythological being who couldn't possibly exist by definition.


I’m not trying to define God out of existence. The definitions of God were not made by me, but by the creators of religion. I am only using the definitions that were handed to me to show how such a God’s existence is illogical.

My understanding of the definition of the Christian God is that he is and always was “perfect.” PERFECT, which means according to the dictionary:

“-Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.
-Being without defect or blemish.”

A being which is defined as absolutely PERFECT has already achieved the ultimate status in any and every aspect or field. As such, such a being cannot possibly learn anything new. How could he? If he learns anything new, that means he lacked that knowledge before, which by definition means he was never truly perfect. He cannot create man because he “enjoys the company of sentient beings.” This implies that after man’s creation, since he now has an enjoyment which he did not have before, that he now has achieved a higher state: a relative state of increase of enjoyment. It would thus exclude him from having been PERFECT at he beginning.

This is another way of expressing also his “neediness” as a means to show the inconsistency of such a God. I am not using “needy” to define a state of impoverishment specifically, but in its broad definition which stems from the word “need.” Needy can also be used to define a state of need for anything, and not necessarily to an excessive extent. If I need air to survive, I am needy, but only in the sense that I need air. Similarly, if God needs love, we can say he is needy, as specifically relating to only his need for love.

But no matter how we define “needy,” my premise is still the same. That a PERFECT being cannot have ANY need whatsoever, and if it does, it is no longer perfect.

Quote:
I believe God knows the future to a great extent, but that He has given us free will. Since our choices haven't been made yet, that aspect of the future is still unknown. However, God knows the future of the universe as a whole. It is somewhat like natural gas laws, where the behavior of a whole aggregate is very predictable even if the behavior of an individual unit is seemingly random. Some Christians believe God known their own future choices, but I don't agree for the reasons you offer.


I understand your analogy of the natural gas laws. But that knowledge is in relation to a human’s knowledge. A human is not necessarily an all knowing being. He knows as much as he is capable to know, but it may have limitations.

God, however, cannot have any limitations whatsoever. He is the ultimately powerful and knowledgeable being who by definition knows EVERYTHING. And by that, he must have not only knowledge of everyone’s individual future actions, but also the behavior of every single atom and sub particle which exists in every single person. There is NOTHING which he cannot know. And that is the way the Christian God is defined, not by me, but by Christianity.

And that, I think, is why the definition of the Christian God actually binds humanity to fatalism. There is nothing that God cannot do, and there is nothing he cannot know. There is nowhere he cannot be. Thus, he can go to the future, as well as the present and the past. He can know all the outcomes. If he knows all the outcomes, they must already exist. And if they already exist, we are bound by fatalism.

And that’s why I think belief in God binds us to fatalism. And if we are bound by fatalism, then the explanation of free will in relation to the existence of evil according to theism becomes inadequate.

Quote:

Quote:
So how does anything we do in this lifetime really matter? He will love us all equally and unconditionally, no matter what we do. Hitler and Stalin will be treated the same and loved the same by God as all their victims, the Pope, and Mother Theresa. The concept of the theist’s morality just imploded. The premise of Heaven and Hell (no matter how you define heaven and hell), reward and punishment just collapsed!


Not at all. If we chose to separate ourselves from God, we suffer the consequences. The punishment is self imposed by our choices.


But, If he loves us all equally, regardless of what we do, how can there be any separation from God, regardless if it is we who separated ourselves or God who separated us?

If our actions have a consequence, whether self imposed or not, it has led to a state where God’s love for us has become tiered, and no longer unconditional.

It is similar to a child, who we claim to love unconditionally. But when he misbehaves, and we deny him our love, claim that his state of denial was self-imposed, by misbehaving. How is that unconditional love?

Quote:
I believe one mistake theists have made is to tie theology into science too closely since science changes frequently. If your theology is tied into the scientific theories of the day, you will end up compromising your theology when science changes. Each branch of learning should be left to develop on it's own without too much interference from the other.


I agree with you. But that’s a mistake that we see theists make over and over again, from the beginning of civilization. There is a natural tendency for theists to do this, because most of them wish to assert their authority by portraying themselves as “answer men.” People of faith have always turned to their theologians for all sorts of answers. And theologians have been all too eager to provide those answers, to the best of their ability. But once they provide such answers, it becomes theological dogma, or an absolute truth. And when that truth….changes with time, the dogmas are exposed as a fallacy. And by association, theism is exposed as a fallacy.

I think theologians would do much better if they followed your advice, for your advice is very sound.

Quote:
The theory of evolution is a powerful theory to explain much about life and as I have pointed out greatly weakens the possibility for a "scientific" moral system since it predicts total selfishness based on the selfish gene and continued conflict between individuals for survival based on the most trivial differences.


Just as atheism is not a moral guide, but serves a different purpose, so I think science is not a moral guide, and similarly only serves a different purpose. As you so eloquently put it before, the answers to ethics will come from a different realm, a realm of morality.

I’ve seen your reference to the “selfish gene” before, and I’m sure I understand your meaning of the term. That according to evolutionary theory, survival of the fittest demands that genes that promote selfishness, or survival to be preserved and selected. And selfishness is a constituent of the antithesis of morality. Thus, according to the evolutionary theory, we are selecting ourselves for becoming more and more immoral. Do I understand you correctly?

Although your presentation of the selfish gene makes sense, and falls completely within the realm of evolution, it is not the only possible scenario. Let me describe my personal alternative scenario, which also fits the evolutionary theory.

The evolutionary theory maintains for the propagation of a species, not that of an individual. Admittedly, the two usually go hand in hand. Success of the individual usually translates into success of the species as a whole. But not always.

Consider the case of the sockeye salmon. When it’s time to spawn, it swims upstream a river in order to procreate, and die. And not only the weak die…they all die. But in the final act of death, it has ensued success of the species, which will continue because of its spawning just prior to dying. And many individuals don’t even get to spawn before being easily picked off by bears, which means that on an individual basis, those specific salmon didn’t even get to pass on their genes. But the success is measured as a whole, at the level of the species.

One would consider the biologic drive to commit this suicide to be the complete opposite of possessing a “selfish gene.” Yet, it fits evolutionary models.

Such “unselfish genes” become evident even more when dealing with social animals. As we know, humans are the most social animals of all. Though they may possess “selfish genes” that drive the survival and propagation of the individual, there may also be “unselfish genes” which serve to propagate the species as a whole. It is not unimaginable to consider that morality developed as a consequence of some “unselfish genes.” Morality may allow for better co-operation among highly sophisticated pack animals such as humans, insuring better survival of the species instead of just the individual. Now, I’m sure that selfish genes also exist, for they are necessary for survival of the individual in many circumstances. But these genes may both co-exist, and serve their purposes independently to propagate the species. Sometimes, such genes may be in conflict with each other.

I do not hold this theory to be true. I don’t have any data to support it. But it does fit with my understanding of sociology and biology.

But whether or not science can explain morality is not that important. What’s important is that we realize that science exists to give us knowledge and technical advancement, while morality exists to guide us in our existence and our proper use of such new-found knowledge.

Quote:
People are much more than just selfish genes.


Agreed.

Quote:
Science is the study of how things in the universe operate, but it can not explain why they exist. If you believe in a God who is consistent in His dealings with His creatures, you have a philosophical basis for the laws of science. Newton studied the laws of nature which he viewed as God's laws, but he didn't claim to know why they worked. Why are two massive objects attracted to each other? Saying space is curved doesn't alleviate the mystery.


I am reminded of a song. I don’t quite remember it, but it goes something like this:

Tell me why the stars do shine
Tell me why the ivy twines
Tell me why the sky’s so blue
Then I will tell you why I love you

Because God made the stars to shine
Because God made the ivy twine
Because God made the sky so blue
Because God made you, that’s why I love you

It’s a very cute song. But it illustrates that our true need to know WHY is not really satisfied by the answer “Because of God.”

I agree with you, that science teaches us the HOW, but not the WHY. I think that the universe is such that even the most obvious question, if backtracked far enough with another WHY, will lead to the realm of unanswerable. Every answer relies on another premise. Eventually a fundamental premise will be reached which cannot be explained further.

But in this respect, I think that theism and atheism are equally inadequate in explaining this final why. Bringing God into the equation doesn’t satisfy our desire to know the fundamental explanations. If the final answer to a fundamental question posed to a theist is “because God made it so,” that solves nothing. It only leads one more step back to another fundamental issue, that of God. One could follow up with the question, “but why did God make it so?” We will be no closer to understanding the real WHY. Unless God specifically comes down to answer that question, and a moment of epiphany suddenly occurs, after which no whys are necessary, the theists are just as much at a loss as to all the WHYs of the universe as the atheists.

Quote:
Interesting. I thought an atheist would be logically forced into a materialist viewpoint that would obviate free will. Apparently you do accept that the human mind is more than just a complicated chemical computer. From the standpoint of quantum physics, perhaps one could argue that the mind could be free and be completely explained by the laws of physics, but it would be a hard slog I'm afraid. To be free means to break the chain of cause and effect, or in reality to become an uncaused cause. As Descartes showed, that is just one short step from accepting the existence of God.


Actually, I think that according to the reasoning that I gave above, a theist is more obligated to fatalism than an atheist.

I don’t see how by considering the mind to be a complicated chemical computer I am admitting to fatalism. The key word here is “complicated.”

If you consider the case of a “simple” computer, one could make the argument that it is bound by fatalism. If it only has very stringent rules with which to operate, it is forced into a predetermined result. If A, then B.

But now consider a super complex computer. One that is…self-aware. Alternatively stated, one that has consciousness. Such a computer is not bound by simplistic rules of reaction. It can analyze a situation, and because of its consciousness, take itself out of the equation. As such, not act as simply an intermediary of a series of events, but as a gatekeeper of events. By realizing its own consciousness, it can make independent decisions to allow certain events to pass, while blocking others.

As such, I think consciousness, or self-awareness is a pre-requisite of free will. Although, as you pointed out, fatalism can also be challenged from the standpoint of quantum mechanics and probability theory. And I don’t think that challenge is particularly weak. There is a certain randomness to the universe, as supported by quantum mechanics. That inherent randomness challenges fatalism in the realm of inanimate objects and events in nature. One may even logically extend the argument of quantum mechanics to challenge fatalism in the realm of man, but I don’t think it is necessary. The answer to “free will” is choice; the choice made by a self-aware being.

In a fundamental way, the answer to free will is self evident. “Freedom,” and “will” are only relevant in relation to a self-aware being. Without self-awareness, the term “free will” loses its meaning. It is no coincidence that what saves “free will” is self-awareness itself.

As you are well aware, fatalism and free will is a very complex subject matter. Entire books and lifetimes (not to mention entire university philosophy courses) are dedicated to its study. We could spend the rest of our debate just talking about this subject. In the end, I think there are good arguments on both sides, though I am biased to think that the weight of the philosophical evidence lies slightly on the side of free will. But I understand the arguments for fatalism, and I do not criticize fatalists for their position.

Quote:
Actually, my understanding is that evil proceeded man since there are evil spirit beings. So my understanding of "original sin" does not place man as the original source of evil. Man has a choice which God he will follow, the good God or the evil God, the God of love or the God of hate.


When you were talking about the “evil God” previously, I thought you were speaking about him only hypothetically. That if the Christian God was actually evil instead of good, we would expect certain consequences, x, y, and z. But that since x, y, and z don’t occur or are illogical, then the Christian God is a good God. Did I misunderstand you, or is this what you were saying a few posts ago?

This above quote makes me think that perhaps I misunderstood you. That you believe that there are two Gods, a good one and an evil one. And we choose which to follow. Is that correct? This brings us to the question of the devil. What are your thoughts on the devil? Does he exist, and what role does he play in the cosmos?

Regardless of where this “original sin” originated, man or “evil spirits,” the dilemma of the existence of evil is still apparent. Because even if you say that evil comes from evil spirits, I am forced to ask: where did evil spirits originate from? If God created EVERYTHING, then he must have also created these evil spirits. How could an all-good God create evil spirits? Whether original sin was placed into man by God, or if it was placed into evil spirits by God, the answer is the same: it ORIGINATED from GOD.

Quote:
Regardless of the flaws of the original founders, the document they produced has been the guiding light by which our country has lived. The intellectual foundation they laid has stood the test of time and produced a bountiful harvest of freedom and prosperity. It was to their statements that MLK appealed when it was time for him to stand against racism and to appeal to the conscience of the nation. MLK could not have prevailed if it weren't for the understanding of human freedom and human rights which were our common heritage. Not only did he accept the validity of their ideas, he built on the foundation they had laid to move the cause of civil rights forward.


The way you now present this issue is in such a way that I can agree with you. And if you recall from many posts ago, I initially said that the as a “free standing document” without the historical context which surrounded it, the DI is a beautiful piece of work. And in today’s context, it is still beautiful. I only criticized the historical context during which it was forged. That’s all.

Quote:
If a person speaks out against evil and is not completely free from that evil themselves, that does not detract from the validity of their message.


I understand your message, but only partially agree. I think that by using the term “evil” you provide a very broad coverage. Obviously, no one can truly claim that they are and always have been completely free from committing any evil act, no matter how small. As such, no person is completely without evil, and it is unreasonable to require everyone to not speak out against anything. So in that sense I agree with you.

But instead of using a very broad term such as “evil,” I would say that it is reasonable to relinquish the validity of a person’s message if he is speaking out against a specific type of evil which he himself commits. For example, if someone speaks out against child abuse. If he is shown to commit child abuse himself, then his message will lose its momentum. The fact that child abuse is wrong doesn’t change. But the credibility of that messenger is compromised. We may still hold that child abuse is wrong, but we have to look to other sources to validate that point (unless of course it was self evident to us all along, in which case the original person who was promoting his message against child abuse becomes irrelevant).

Quote:
there is "no holy book scribed by God."


I suppose Judeo-Christians have some play room here. Although most of Judeo-Christians don’t agree with you, I suppose some such as yourself can make such statements, because there is nothing that specifically refutes your statement. Although, the practice of Christianity in the past refutes your assumption.

I can confidently say that Islam can certainly not make a similar claim. Anyone who understands Islam knows that its primary premise is that the Quran is straight from God’s mouth.

Quote:
Changing one's beliefs on various points dosn't invalidate Christianity any more than changing scientific beliefs invalidates science.


Christianity is based on faith. What is faith? Here’s the dictionary definition:

“1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”

Confident belief that does not rest on any material evidence. As such, it is not new EVIDENCE which supports or refutes faith. If one chooses to accept God based upon faith, what new evidence or persuasion can shake that faith? And if that faith is shakable, was it really faith?

Contrast that with science. What is science? Here’s the dictionary definition:

“The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.”

It is based on observation and investigation. It is never presented as the absolute truth. It lies completely in man’s realm. It demands that ideas or beliefs be constantly investigated by observation and amended as necessary. Inherent in science is the premise of the growth of knowledge. So you see, changing scientific beliefs does not invalidate science. On the contrary, the process of changing scientific beliefs is the foundation of science.

Quote:
2. Even apostles and prophets "know in part and prophesy in part," in other words, there is "no holy book scribed by God." This does not mean the Bible authors are not inspired or are not authoratative, but this inspiration did not lead to a perfect knowledge or perfect teachings. There is room to learn and reinterpret the Christian scriptures without fear of invalidating them. Changing one's beliefs on various points dosn't invalidate Christianity any more than changing scientific beliefs invalidates science. The search for truth is an ongoing journey, not a completed act.


But you also say:

Quote:
As I pointed out, a belief in a good God gives one a standard of morality which transcends the opinions of the society and gives an absolute standard by which to judge behavior and values.


So, if God provides an ABSOLUTE standard, how is it really absolute? If our understanding of God is open to interpretation, there can be no absolute standard. Our understanding of his standard becomes open to questioning according to your reasoning. He thus loses any claim to a higher moral standard.

Quote:
No individual is "infallible." If Paul and the apostles acknowledged their own fallibility, no prophet or religious leader has any precedent to claim perfection.


And yet, the history of religion does not support this. Religion was forged by those who claimed “infallibility.” How is the Pope viewed by Christians? Is he not viewed as infallible?

What are your thoughts about Jesus himself? Was he a man, and therefore potentially fallible, or God, and therefore infallible?
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
American Visitor



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 224

PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But if he takes certain “steps,” he is not entirely leaving us to our own devices. So in a way, he is intervening. And if he is intervening, he is using force, though in a limited way. So my point is that according to that reasoning, we really don’t have free will from God.


I'm afraid I don't follow your argument here. God makes human freedom possible.

Quote:
I would never make an unfounded assumption that the eradication of either Christianity or Islam would have no effect upon the world. Obviously it would. All I’m saying is that morality will not disappear simply if Christianity disappeared.


I agree, as the Europeans are learning, Islam is eager to supply the deficit which secularism has failed to fill. The question is how do we wish to live in a Christian culture or an Islamic culture?

Quote:
I completely agree with you there. If you recall from my original post of “atheist,” I said:

“ Some people think that because I am an atheist I have no religion. This is not true. I define religion as a belief system. We all believe in something that we hold dear. For some, it is out of sight, and in the sky. For me, it is more tangible. My religion is my love for my family, love for Iran, love for science, and love of my history.”


I don't mean this critically since you come across as a highly moral and admirable individual, but this statement could be summarized as "I love my selfish gene." It appears that what you are describing is a gradually expanding circle of love which weakens as it grows.
1. Love of selfish genes.
2. Love of immediate family who share many of my selfish genes is second.
3. Love one's tribe which shares fewer genes but are still related is third.
4. Love one's country is next where the country stands for an extended tribe.
Although you disagree with them, there is nothing in your statement which the Nazis would have disagreed with. They loved their families, they loved their country so much they sang about it and died for it, they loved science and they loved their history. They didn't love the Jews because they were not part of their family or their tribe.

Quote:
If you claim that salvation is not dependent upon our righteousness, or doing what’s “good,” then the theist's concept of morality becomes unfounded. Religion’s role in morality becomes unfounded. We are back to the dilemma that people who commit evil can have a possible salvation, by simply accepting faith in Jesus’ love. Assume that Hitler had kept faith in Jesus, and in his last moments was prepared to forgive everyone as well as ask for God’s forgiveness. Would he then be accepted by God with open arms?


Do you find this hard to accept, here is a Bible verse which teaches this very thing?
Quote:
Eph 2:8-10
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
NIV


Morality is about the state of heart, whether we love. Outward behavior is just a reflection about what has already happened inside and often represents opportunity not desire. The same activity can be good or bad depending upon the intentions of the actor.

Quote:
It seems suspect that a “good” God would offer salvation based on our faith and love in him and his son, instead of salvation based on our good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. Seems to me that a God that offers salvation not on merit, but on our acceptance of him is a selfish God, perhaps an “evil” God.


Because God is supreme, His character defines the perfect morality. Since He loves us unconditionally that is the ideal for which we as humans should strive. His love enables us the lesser creature to love Him which then gives us the ability to love other people who we wouldn't otherwise love.
Quote:
1 John 4:7-12
7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
NIV


Quote:
If you define materialism in its philosophical sense:

“The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.”

Then I again say that so much as it is tied into atheism, theism has no stronger claim to morality than materialism.


I agree with this definition of materialism. So far as I'm aware, there are few atheists who are not materialists. If one believe there is a spiritual realm, it is only natural to recognize the greatest spirit of all, God.

As an individual, I believe an atheist can be moral. The problem is when one tries to define a rational basis for morality based on the materialist or atheistic view point. So far I haven't seen anything very persuasive from the secularists that could serve as a viable alternative to theism. I wish there were one since a scientific secular basis for morality would make life in a world with many religions much easier but unfortunately atheism has failed and there is no prospect that it will ever succeed in providing a sound basis for a highly advanced civilization.

Quote:
Let me point out what I see as the flaw here. Based upon your prior posts, I understand that you have maintained that the holy scriptures are not literal, and were not written by God himself. They were written by men, with a limited understanding of God. I have pointed out previously that if one takes this position, one cannot truly claim to know God or his instructions to us. It thereby weakens the basic premise of theism, that there are absolute truths.


God is absolute; He is absolute truth. Human language reflects human experiences which is limited by our own abilities and our own understanding. It is impossible to describe God accurately in human language. That claim of absolute truth seems to reflect a limited understanding of God's unlimited nature.

Quote:
So, the moral standard that theism sets becomes similarly set by a type of “cultural elite.” That elite being the clergy, who have devoted their lives to the understanding of and closeness to God. The theists’ standards, in short, are also man made, and no better than that of the secularist’s. I would go a step further, and say that the secularist’s is actually better. That’s because the secularist’s is based upon a majority, which though not always right, is frequently right. Or, it is based upon a “cultural elite,” one that has become elite hopefully because of the majority’s wishes and based upon true competence, not because of corruption and force. I venture that the opinions of this cultural elite, who have demonstrated competence on many other levels, are better qualified to guide our morality than a group of clergy, who have dedicated their lives to the study of only one subject: God. I understand that the consequence of a “cultural elite” may not necessarily be the best moral outcome, but it is the best we can hope for. And clearly, it is superior to that of “clerical elitism.”


Depending on the majority for morality or the culturally elite is equivalent of the blind leading the blind. The cultural elite in the US have almost nothing to offer except their own prejudices and have shown minimal competence. If you notice, most of the people who are openly anti-American in our own country and love dictators and killers, such as Chi Guevara and Castro, are the cultural elite who have taken their clues from the European cultural elite. In the past their great love was folks like Stalin and Mao Tsetung who were so much morally superior to our own ignorant Judeo-Christian culture. They are very good at attacking our culture but have made few beneficial contributions except to prepare the way for an Islamic takeover if that is an improvement. As time goes by, the secular elites look more and more clueless as Europe and later in the USA gradually sink into third world status and totalitarianism.

I have stated as accurately as I could what I believe is the basis of morality derived from the Bible and upon my understanding of the infinite God found there. Although Christians vary on many things, they generally understand that all morality is based on the understanding of God's love. Up until the Baby Boomer generation, this was the basis of morality in the United States and was the standard to which people appeal when they wish to decide if a behavior is moral.

Quote:
So now I ask, why would God save the Jews from simple captivity millennia ago, yet did not save them from Hitler’s genocidal wrath sixty five years ago? Why does he intervene sometimes to save someone, yet allows the cries of others go unanswered? Seems illogical, or at least unfair, and thus the work of an evil God.


You are correct, that from my perspective, there are at times moral difficulties in understanding the relations between Israel and their God and surrounding countries as presented in the Hebrew scriptures. We don't know enough about the circumstances in which these events occurred to make firm judgments. To try to explain the reasons for every act of God with limited knowledge of the circumstances and before we know the details of how things all end is impossible and any answers must be tentative. To pretend we know exactly why God chooses to intervene in one instance and not another is also a mistake.

The Bible tells us why God chose the nation of Israel:
Quote:
Gen 18:18-19
Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him."
NIV

By freeing them and establishing them in their own homeland, God fulfilled His purposes to a degree which Abraham could have never imagined. The fact that we live in a democratic free country is largely the result of this promise made to Abraham thousands of years ago. The Jews were chosen to bless all mankind, not just to use their special relationship with God for their selfish purposes.

Although many of the Jews who died in German death camps probably thought their deaths were in vain, the moral lessons humanity have learned are very valuable. Contrary to your position, it reflects badly not on Christianity and its God but on overtly anti-Christian secularism. It shows the results of rejecting the good God and following an anti-Christian morality based on unbounded faith in scientific materialism as the only source of truth along with a secular religion based on racism combined with atheism or neopaganism. The only way a good God could be blamed for crimes committed by those who rejected Him would be because He allowed them the freedom to follow their own anti-Judeo-Christian morality.

Quote:
You say there is suffering in this world because that is how we learn moral lessons. Why, when God created us, did he not endow us with this moral knowledge at the beginning? So we wouldn’t have to suffer to earn it. He created everything, and set all the rules. Why would morality learned by anguish have to be more valuable than that which was granted? Why the lessons? And even if there is a need for lessons, why not positive and fulfilling lessons? Instead of death and destruction. It makes no sense. Only an evil God would force us to learn by undergoing pain and anguish first.


That is an interesting question. As you know, it is possible to postulate a situation in which we and our world were created just a moment ago in which our memories of the past are all false memories. Philosophically, there is no way to disprove that scenario. This seems to be one of the issues Descartes was dealing with when he said "God doesn't lie."

Quote:
And another question is, why does he even care if we have morality or not? The purpose of morality is to minimize the pain and anguish of others. Its purpose is only to improve the fulfillment of humans’ lives, and prevent us from doing evil to each other. If not that, then what? If the purpose of morality is not to minimize human suffering, but its importance is seen by God as “lesson learned,” then we are really dealing with an evil and cruel God.

If the purpose of morality is to minimize human suffering, then it becomes contradictory that God has allowed, or rather created suffering in order to teach us about morality. Illogical, for a good God.


From my understanding of what it means to be human, the alternative to freedom and morality is not to exist at all. To completely protect us from the consequences of our own actions would prevent our own maturity.

Quote:
I think we may just be arguing semantics here, on what each of us defines as a “religious war.” You define a war based on moral differences to be a religious one, but I do not. It may be because I clearly divorce morality from religion, whereas you hold the two inseparable. In any case, it’s just semantics.


You are completely correct. I chose to state my position in those terms to enable us to explore reality in a new way. I wanted to demythologize the term.

Quote:
But I have to disagree with your take on WWII. I don’t think the US got involved with that war simply out of a moral quest, although morality probably did play a role. I think the US wisely understood that Hitler had to be stopped then and there, because if not, he would conquer Europe and become even more powerful. Within a few years after that, he would have been knocking on US’ door.

Similarly, Hitler would have never been content to just make peace with the US. His plan was WORLD domination, not European domination. He may have pretended he wanted peace with the US temporarily, until he dealt with Europe. But he would have soon broken his word yet again and invaded the western hemisphere.

The US involvement was a wise political and military decision, and no less.


From reading Hitler's table talk, it is clear Hitler had no designs whatsoever on our territory or even on England. He openly discussed his hope for an alliance with the US and England, who he saw as natural allies. His "lebensraum" was to Germany's east including Poland and Western Russia. Since England and the US were largely populated by Germanic tribes, Hitler regarded us as natural allies. The fact that the US was attacked by Japan clearly gave us reasons of self interest as well as moral reasons to participate, so it would be wrong to describe WW II as exclusively a "holy war."

Quote:
So, before the civil war, the bible allowed slavery, but after the civil war the bible condemned slavery? Obviously, the content of the bible never changed.

So, what did change? Man’s interpretation of the bible. If our interpretation of the bible and God’s code is so open to interpretation that it can once allow slavery but later condemn it, what good is that moral standard? It definitely cannot be absolute, or truly set by God. It is set by man, based on what we THINK God wants. So, how is that any better than any other morality, set by other men, even though God is not invoked?


The answer is simply this, the abolition movement arose in Christianity and not elsewhere. That alone shows the value of the understanding of the good God. Christianity is a living religious tradition which means that there should be continued progress into the future. The concept of a progressive understanding is that you always believe your present positions are better than those held previously and that those in the future will be better than those held today and is foundational to moral and intellectual growth. Your question seems to presuppose the superiority of a static religion of which the Islamists are an excellent example.

Quote:
I don’t agree. Slavery’s existence or banishment has been irrelevant of Christianity. I contend that even if America was not Christian, slavery would have eventually been banished. And although slavery was a universal institution in the world, I can think of a non-Christian who banned slavery. He was Cyrus the Great, an Achaemenid who lived over five centuries prior to Christ, and was the founder of the Persian Empire. It is clearly delineated on his famous Cyrus Cylinder, the first charter of human rights in history.


Cyrus the Great's place in history is well established and I certainly wouldn't want to distract from the respect he deserves. My best wishes go to those brave Iranians who are trying to restore their freedom and their culture. Based on the Cyrus cylinder it is evident that he did indeed free slaves. That is a good thing.
http://www.ahura.info/cylinder.html

Here are some statements in the Bible about Cyrus:
Quote:
Isa 44:28
28 who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd
and will accomplish all that I please;
he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt,"
and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid." '
NIV
Isa 45:1
"This is what the LORD says to his anointed,
to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of
to subdue nations before him
and to strip kings of their armor,
to open doors before him
so that gates will not be shut:
NIV
Isa 45:13
3 I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness:
I will make all his ways straight.
He will rebuild my city
and set my exiles free,
but not for a price or reward,
says the LORD Almighty."
NIV


As you know, I said:
Quote:
Slavery was almost a universal institution around the world which had not been questioned up until then.

So far as I can tell, you haven't challenged the validity of my statement.

The claims that you make, that Americans would have abolished slavery irrelevant of Christianity, is of course complete speculation since that never happened, whereas the fact that Christians were often leaders in the abolition movement, based on Christian teachings and Christian morality is well supported by history as I have demonstrated.

Quote:
Furthermore, history has shown that slavery and Christianity have co-existed for a very long time. Christianity existed for almost two millennia along with slavery before it got banned in the US. Two millennia! Was Christianity really the enemy of slavery? Also, the ones who promoted and intensified the slave trade to an art form were members of two world religions who claim “equality.” The Turkish and Arab Moslems of the middle ages, and the Christians of the post-renaissance era. These two groups were the backbones of the evil of slavery.


That is true in regards to the African slave trade at least. Slavery has existed in Africa for much longer, but those two groups turned it into big business. It was also Christians who discovered the evils of the slave trade and put an end to it.

Quote:
I don’t know one who fought a civil war. But I do know of another who fought a war to liberate the people of another race. That would again be Cyrus the Great, who fought the Babylonians, and freed the Jews.

Are you saying the primary purpose of the Persian war with the Babylonians was to free the Jews?

Quote:
You make a very valid point. It is one that I struggled with myself when attempting to learn modern physics.

Modern physics is a field that is capable of shattering our perception of reality. And the more physics advances, the more it begins to merge with philosophy


Or could we say with theology. It is no accident that many of the greatest scientists have been Christian clergymen. I just discovered recently that the Big Bang theory was invented by a Catholic priest.

Quote:
I think that such examples of physics are not necessarily irrational, but “counter-intuitive.” I hold a difference between intuition and rationality.


This should be interesting, exactly where do you draw the line?

Quote:
As for alchemy, the reasoning which led alchemists to their beliefs were irrational. Furthermore, the results and evidence did not support their presumptions, which should have led them to rationally abandon them. Instead, they continued to hold on to those beliefs, which is the real evidence of their irrationality.


I'm not sure I know enough about alchemy to argue the point. I understand there was a considerable time in the beginning of each science where observations exceeded theory. Since science is largely based on inductive reasoning, that is almost inevitable.

Quote:
A being which is defined as absolutely PERFECT has already achieved the ultimate status in any and every aspect or field. As such, such a being cannot possibly learn anything new. How could he? If he learns anything new, that means he lacked that knowledge before, which by definition means he was never truly perfect. He cannot create man because he “enjoys the company of sentient beings.” This implies that after man’s creation, since he now has an enjoyment which he did not have before, that he now has achieved a higher state: a relative state of increase of enjoyment. It would thus exclude him from having been PERFECT at he beginning.

This is another way of expressing also his “neediness” as a means to show the inconsistency of such a God. I am not using “needy” to define a state of impoverishment specifically, but in its broad definition which stems from the word “need.” Needy can also be used to define a state of need for anything, and not necessarily to an excessive extent. If I need air to survive, I am needy, but only in the sense that I need air. Similarly, if God needs love, we can say he is needy, as specifically relating to only his need for love.


Your definition of a perfect being would be like the Greek philosophical ideal for all objects in which the perfect prototype could not move or change in any way. That is not the Biblical view of God. The classical definition of God, which many if not most Christians accept, (which is not found directly in the Bible by the way), defines God as omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. I accept that definition if omniscient means that God knows everything which can be known and omnipotent means God has all power which exists. If you take those ideas to their extreme without that qualification you run into logical conundrums such as, "can God create an object which is too big for Him to move?" To me a God who could not think or learn would be an inferior being not a perfect one. A God who didn't have the ability to create and to enjoy His creation would be imperfect. Since God has chosen to love us and to make Himself vulnerable to our needs, that is by definition "perfect" since it is God who has made that sovereign choice.

Quote:
I understand your analogy of the natural gas laws. But that knowledge is in relation to a human’s knowledge. A human is not necessarily an all knowing being. He knows as much as he is capable to know, but it may have limitations.

God, however, cannot have any limitations whatsoever. He is the ultimately powerful and knowledgeable being who by definition knows EVERYTHING. And by that, he must have not only knowledge of everyone’s individual future actions, but also the behavior of every single atom and sub particle which exists in every single person. There is NOTHING which he cannot know. And that is the way the Christian God is defined, not by me, but by Christianity.


Since I don’t understand God completely, I know of no way to refute the argument that God knows the individual future of everyone, however that is not my understanding. I believe that when God gave us free choice, He voluntarily gave up His ability to predict our future choices. Also I believe God Himself has a free will which is a prerequisite for genuine creativity.

Quote:
And that, I think, is why the definition of the Christian God actually binds humanity to fatalism. There is nothing that God cannot do, and there is nothing he cannot know. There is nowhere he cannot be. Thus, he can go to the future, as well as the present and the past. He can know all the outcomes. If he knows all the outcomes, they must already exist. And if they already exist, we are bound by fatalism.

And that’s why I think belief in God binds us to fatalism. And if we are bound by fatalism, then the explanation of free will in relation to the existence of evil according to theism becomes inadequate.


That is a good observation. I don't buy the concept that God already knows the results of my free will so I don't get stuck in that trap. I have had discussions with people who take the opposite side and claim God knows my choices but I’m still free to make them. That I can’t understand. They may be correct, but I don’t understand it and therefore I don’t accept their position.

Quote:
But, If he loves us all equally, regardless of what we do, how can there be any separation from God, regardless if it is we who separated ourselves or God who separated us?

If our actions have a consequence, whether self imposed or not, it has led to a state where God’s love for us has become tiered, and no longer unconditional.

It is similar to a child, who we claim to love unconditionally. But when he misbehaves, and we deny him our love, claim that his state of denial was self-imposed, by misbehaving. How is that unconditional love?


God doesn't deny the sinners His love, they reject His love. The rejection is on their part and the suffering which results is self induced.

Quote:
I agree with you. But that’s a mistake that we see theists make over and over again, from the beginning of civilization. There is a natural tendency for theists to do this, because most of them wish to assert their authority by portraying themselves as “answer men.” People of faith have always turned to their theologians for all sorts of answers. And theologians have been all too eager to provide those answers, to the best of their ability. But once they provide such answers, it becomes theological dogma, or an absolute truth. And when that truth….changes with time, the dogmas are exposed as a fallacy. And by association, theism is exposed as a fallacy.

I think theologians would do much better if they followed your advice, for your advice is very sound.


Thank-you. The same applies to scientists who think they can define a scientific morality. The results have been disastrous. Science and religion can not ignore each other completely since that would also lead each astray but each must respect the freedom of the other to grow and change unimpeded.

Quote:
Consider the case of the sockeye salmon. When it’s time to spawn, it swims upstream a river in order to procreate, and die. And not only the weak die…they all die. But in the final act of death, it has ensued success of the species, which will continue because of its spawning just prior to dying. And many individuals don’t even get to spawn before being easily picked off by bears, which means that on an individual basis, those specific salmon didn’t even get to pass on their genes. But the success is measured as a whole, at the level of the species.

One would consider the biologic drive to commit this suicide to be the complete opposite of possessing a “selfish gene.” Yet, it fits evolutionary models.


This fits perfectly with the selfish gene. The selfish gene is interested in its own survival, not with the survival or even the welfare of the individual. So long as an individual survives long enough to propagate and produce offspring which contain his genome that satisfies the needs of the selfish gene.

Code:
Such “unselfish genes” become evident even more when dealing with social animals. As we know, humans are the most social animals of all. Though they may possess “selfish genes” that drive the survival and propagation of the individual, there may also be “unselfish genes” which serve to propagate the species as a whole. It is not unimaginable to consider that morality developed as a consequence of some “unselfish genes.” Morality may allow for better co-operation among highly sophisticated pack animals such as humans, insuring better survival of the species instead of just the individual. Now, I’m sure that selfish genes also exist, for they are necessary for survival of the individual in many circumstances. But these genes may both co-exist, and serve their purposes independently to propagate the species. Sometimes, such genes may be in conflict with each other.


Scientifically, I don’t believe unselfish genes exist but it is an interesting idea. Pack behavior among animals will get you as far as the head hunters of New Guinea but it doesn't explain human morality in more civilized parts of the world or in more advanced societies. That is one of the weaknesses of the theory of evolution as a theory of everything biological.

Quote:
But whether or not science can explain morality is not that important. What’s important is that we realize that science exists to give us knowledge and technical advancement, while morality exists to guide us in our existence and our proper use of such new-found knowledge.


Excellent. My belief exactly! If our understanding of God helps us to advance in our understanding of morality, then so much the better. Why not accept theism as a necessary tool for our survival and try to find the best possible form of theism possible?

Quote:
I agree with you, that science teaches us the HOW, but not the WHY. I think that the universe is such that even the most obvious question, if backtracked far enough with another WHY, will lead to the realm of unanswerable. Every answer relies on another premise. Eventually a fundamental premise will be reached which cannot be explained further.

But in this respect, I think that theism and atheism are equally inadequate in explaining this final why. Bringing God into the equation doesn’t satisfy our desire to know the fundamental explanations. If the final answer to a fundamental question posed to a theist is “because God made it so,” that solves nothing. It only leads one more step back to another fundamental issue, that of God. One could follow up with the question, “but why did God make it so?” We will be no closer to understanding the real WHY. Unless God specifically comes down to answer that question, and a moment of epiphany suddenly occurs, after which no whys are necessary, the theists are just as much at a loss as to all the WHYs of the universe as the atheists.


Philosophically I agree completely, we can never know the whys completely because we can never understand God fully. The theist has an advantage since we know the ultimate cause even if we don’t understand Him. Ultimately if you don't believe in God, the universe becomes completely unintelligible. To an extent this is where we are at with our counterintuitive scientific discoveries. If we don't know the first cause it is ultimately impossible to predict the future accurately since we can't know for sure the same laws of physics we observe today will apply tomorrow. I think this is why Descartes established his own existence as a free thinking individual first, then moved to a belief in a good God before establishing the philosophical foundations of modern science. Some moderns think Descartes put God into his philosophy to mollify the Catholic church, but I don't accept that proposition. A belief in a good God who will not lie to us and who deals with us consistently lays a strong foundation for modern science.

Quote:
But now consider a super complex computer. One that is…self-aware. Alternatively stated, one that has consciousness. Such a computer is not bound by simplistic rules of reaction. It can analyze a situation, and because of its consciousness, take itself out of the equation. As such, not act as simply an intermediary of a series of events, but as a gatekeeper of events. By realizing its own consciousness, it can make independent decisions to allow certain events to pass, while blocking others.

As such, I think consciousness, or self-awareness is a pre-requisite of free will. Although, as you pointed out, fatalism can also be challenged from the standpoint of quantum mechanics and probability theory. And I don’t think that challenge is particularly weak. There is a certain randomness to the universe, as supported by quantum mechanics. That inherent randomness challenges fatalism in the realm of inanimate objects and events in nature. One may even logically extend the argument of quantum mechanics to challenge fatalism in the realm of man, but I don’t think it is necessary. The answer to “free will” is choice; the choice made by a self-aware being.


I agree with you here. The real issue is where does this "self awareness" come from? From my own thought experiments I've come to the understanding that human consciousness, by it's very nature must come from a force field, not from the static arrangement of the atoms in the brain. As a force field, it can not be localized to any one brain region, but will be able to draw from all parts of the brain simultaneously. If you agree with that proposition, then the issue becomes, where does this force field come from. Is consciousness a fundamental property of the material world like gravity or the electromagnetic forces, is it unique to living matter related to that mysterious thing called life, or is it completely independent from the material world temporarily united to my body? For me all those options are still open.

Quote:
In a fundamental way, the answer to free will is self evident. “Freedom,” and “will” are only relevant in relation to a self-aware being. Without self-awareness, the term “free will” loses its meaning. It is no coincidence that what saves “free will” is self-awareness itself.

As you are well aware, fatalism and free will is a very complex subject matter. Entire books and lifetimes (not to mention entire university philosophy courses) are dedicated to its study. We could spend the rest of our debate just talking about this subject. In the end, I think there are good arguments on both sides, though I am biased to think that the weight of the philosophical evidence lies slightly on the side of free will. But I understand the arguments for fatalism, and I do not criticize fatalists for their position.


Ultimately, this is the most interesting question. Who is this living being who thinks? Where did he come from?

Quote:
When you were talking about the “evil God” previously, I thought you were speaking about him only hypothetically. That if the Christian God was actually evil instead of good, we would expect certain consequences, x, y, and z. But that since x, y, and z don’t occur or are illogical, then the Christian God is a good God. Did I misunderstand you, or is this what you were saying a few posts ago?

This above quote makes me think that perhaps I misunderstood you. That you believe that there are two Gods, a good one and an evil one. And we choose which to follow. Is that correct? This brings us to the question of the devil. What are your thoughts on the devil? Does he exist, and what role does he play in the cosmos?

Regardless of where this “original sin” originated, man or “evil spirits,” the dilemma of the existence of evil is still apparent. Because even if you say that evil comes from evil spirits, I am forced to ask: where did evil spirits originate from? If God created EVERYTHING, then he must have also created these evil spirits. How could an all-good God create evil spirits? Whether original sin was placed into man by God, or if it was placed into evil spirits by God, the answer is the same: it ORIGINATED from GOD.


The evil God is a hypothetical since there is only one supreme being and He is good. However the Bible does lead one to believe there are lesser spirit beings who do not have our best interest at heart and do not love us unconditionally. They might pose as God and someone who doesn't understand that the supreme being is always loving might mistake such a being for God Himself.

Quote:
The way you now present this issue is in such a way that I can agree with you. And if you recall from many posts ago, I initially said that the as a “free standing document” without the historical context which surrounded it, the DI is a beautiful piece of work. And in today’s context, it is still beautiful. I only criticized the historical context during which it was forged. That’s all.


I suspect we agree on many things since we both love freedom and human goodness. The question is which will get us there anti-Christian secularism or Judeo-Christian morality. We know Judeo-Christian morality works since we live in a country founded on those concepts. So far the ability of secularism to produce a good and just society is in serious question.

Quote:
I suppose Judeo-Christians have some play room here. Although most of Judeo-Christians don’t agree with you, I suppose some such as yourself can make such statements, because there is nothing that specifically refutes your statement. Although, the practice of Christianity in the past refutes your assumption.

I can confidently say that Islam can certainly not make a similar claim. Anyone who understands Islam knows that its primary premise is that the Quran is straight from God’s mouth.


As I have shown in a previous post in the context of I Corinthians 13 there is Biblical evidence to support my position. In addition, Jesus made statements along the same line. I can't speak for all other Christians, but I do know that few Christians take the stance which Islam takes. Since my argument comes directly from the Bible itself I am very confident in these positions. From statements I have read from the present pope, I'm quite certain he would agree with my positions. Many Protestants would also concur entirely.

Quote:
Christianity is based on faith. What is faith? Here’s the dictionary definition:

“1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”

Confident belief that does not rest on any material evidence. As such, it is not new EVIDENCE which supports or refutes faith. If one chooses to accept God based upon faith, what new evidence or persuasion can shake that faith? And if that faith is shakable, was it really faith?


My faith is according to definition #1; I have a confident belief in the truth, value and trustworthiness of God. On the other hand, I do not have confidence in my own or anyone else’s perfect understanding of God so there is plenty of room for growth based on real life experiences and continued revelation of God's will. Christianity is a living tradition which has not yet and never will on this earth attain to perfect knowledge.

Quote:
“The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.”

It is based on observation and investigation. It is never presented as the absolute truth. It lies completely in man’s realm. It demands that ideas or beliefs be constantly investigated by observation and amended as necessary. Inherent in science is the premise of the growth of knowledge. So you see, changing scientific beliefs does not invalidate science. On the contrary, the process of changing scientific beliefs is the foundation of science.


I beg to disagree with you here. Scientists are just as prone to grow attached to their ideas as do many theist. That is human nature. When a person has built a career and a reputation teaching one thing and some smart upstart shows they are wrong, they naturally rally to the defense of their beliefs. Also, if people have believed wrongly and have to change their minds, whether you call it science or religion, logically it does indeed tend to discredit your other claims. Let me give an example, medical science is constantly announcing new things which are bad for you and then another study shows the first study was wrong. Then a third study supports the first. How can anyone claim that doesn’t correctly weaken people’s confidence in medical studies? Scientists have cried wolf in so many things now that the public has come to ignore them to a large extent.

Quote:
So, if God provides an ABSOLUTE standard, how is it really absolute? If our understanding of God is open to interpretation, there can be no absolute standard. Our understanding of his standard becomes open to questioning according to your reasoning. He thus loses any claim to a higher moral standard.


Any rational field of thought will have certain starting axioms including religious thought. Although I haven't given it a great deal of thought, these are probably quite close to mine.
1. Almighty God exists who is the creator and sustainer of the entire universe. This is basic to monotheism.
2. God is a personal God whose nature is love. This is foundational for my ability to practice agape love and to be a moral person.
3. As a loving God, He acts to protect my freedom of will and makes provision for me to learn about His character. This is basic to morality maturity.
4. Jesus is the human embodiment of God's character and lived His life to demonstrate God's love fully. This is fundamental to Christianity.
5. The Bible is inspired by God and is doctrinally authoritative. This is foundational for Protestantism.

Although the Reformers claimed the scriptures as infallible as a guide to salvation against the alleged infallibility of the Pope, I do not think the Bible is otherwise infallible in either words or thoughts. To the best of my knowledge, there are very few Christians who would make the same claims for the Bible the Muslims make for he Koran. Some very conservative Christians claim the original autographs of the Bible were perfect but since those are all gone, there is plenty of room for scribal errors, translation errors etc. Also these same people usually believe in dispensationalism which gives them enough room to drive a fleet of trucks through. I personally believe in covenant theology which presupposes a gradual unfolding of God’s character and will over time as people’s understanding of God evolves. Covenant theology is well supported in the Bible itself.

Quote:
And yet, the history of religion does not support this. Religion was forged by those who claimed “infallibility.” How is the Pope viewed by Christians? Is he not viewed as infallible?

What are your thoughts about Jesus himself? Was he a man, and therefore potentially fallible, or God, and therefore infallible?


When I mention the infallibility of the pope to my Catholic friends they start laughing. Many American Catholics don't even seem to know that doctrine exists and few if any actually believe that.

Since Jesus didn't write anything down, probably on purpose, we don't know exactly what He said, so that question is hypothetical. However He did answer that question:
Quote:
Mark 13:31-33
31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
KJV

I believe Jesus lived a life which perfectly reflected God's character. I have seen nothing yet which would make me think differently. He Himself stated that there was something which He didn’t know at that time which was known to the Father.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

Quote:
But if he takes certain “steps,” he is not entirely leaving us to our own devices. So in a way, he is intervening. And if he is intervening, he is using force, though in a limited way. So my point is that according to that reasoning, we really don’t have free will from God.


I'm afraid I don't follow your argument here. God makes human freedom possible.


My argument is this. You claim that God has given us free will. You also claim that God intervenes to prevent some from trampling on others at some times. My point is that if God intervenes sometimes, then he has not given us true free will. A “limited free will” is not free will. It also follows that if we only have “limited free will,” then free will cannot explain away the existence of evil.

Quote:
I agree, as the Europeans are learning, Islam is eager to supply the deficit which secularism has failed to fill. The question is how do we wish to live in a Christian culture or an Islamic culture?


You make it sound as if secularism has failed. If a society has shortcomings, we must seek out the specific shortcomings. Just because a society that is secularist has certain failings doesn’t translate into secularism having failed. If we follow your reasoning, one could also say that since the Roman Empire eventually failed, it was Christianity that failed, or caused its failing. Well, that is not necessarily the case. I don’t agree that secularism has left a vacuum which must be filled either by Christianity or Islam.

Quote:
I don't mean this critically since you come across as a highly moral and admirable individual, but this statement could be summarized as "I love my selfish gene." It appears that what you are describing is a gradually expanding circle of love which weakens as it grows.
1. Love of selfish genes.
2. Love of immediate family who share many of my selfish genes is second.
3. Love one's tribe which shares fewer genes but are still related is third.
4. Love one's country is next where the country stands for an extended tribe.
Although you disagree with them, there is nothing in your statement which the Nazis would have disagreed with. They loved their families, they loved their country so much they sang about it and died for it, they loved science and they loved their history. They didn't love the Jews because they were not part of their family or their tribe.


I see what you are saying. I follow your reasoning, but I don’t think you are painting a complete picture here.

You are choosing to look at my presentation only through biologic glasses. In a sense, you could make the argument of the selfish gene. But that is not the whole story.

I say I love my family, then Iran, then science, then history. First point is that the last two are subject matters, and have nothing to do with me personally or my genes. They are areas of interest to me, subjects which I respect and to which I pay homage.

Second, we are now left with the first two loves: family and Iran. Let’s focus on Iran. Perhaps I do share a few more genes with Iranians than with others. Perhaps,….and perhaps and more likely not. This goes back to our argument about genetic diversity within various races. As you recall, I hold that the amount of genetic material which is unique to a particular race is negligible compared to what is shared among humanity as a whole. So from this standpoint, my love of Iran has nothing to do with genetics. Furthermore, you must understand that Iran is a wide mixture of ethnic groups: Farsi, Baluchi, Azari, Turkish, Caucasian Mazandarani, Kurdish, Arabic, Armenian, etc. These are all different ethnic groups, but constitute the whole of Iran. I don’t favor one group over another (although others might). When I say Iran, I mean all of these people. So even if you don’t agree with my point about genetic homogeneity among various races, the fact that my love of Iran constitutes many different ethnic groups negates your argument regarding the “selfish gene.”

Third, we are now just down to my first love: family. What is family? Is it just my children, siblings, parents, cousins, aunts and uncles, etc with whom I share a genetic bond? Although these people are my family, they are not my only family. What about my wife? What about my in-laws, whom I love at least as much as my own parents? What about my sister in law, whom I love as much as my own sister? What if I had an adopted daughter…do you think I would love her any less than my biologic daughter? What about my best friends, whom I love as much as my siblings? Etc, etc, etc.

You have defined family as a very narrow biologic network, when in fact it is much more. The people we all love most, our family, are really the people that we share our lives with the most, and the people that touch our lives the most. That is irrespective of the genes we share. In fact, at the top of the family pyramid is one’s spouse, who (hopefully) is not a genetic relative.

And so, yes, I love my family more than anything else in this world or any other world. I ask you, if I am not to love my family first and foremost, then whom or what should I love most? God? A God which is not a part of my life, or anyone else’s (though many try to convince themselves otherwise)?

I am more than convinced that God doesn’t exist. But, even if one day theoretically God proved his existence to me directly, I still would not place my love for my family below him. And if theism demands otherwise, this is yet another reason I am glad not to be a theist.

So the question is, does God demand us to put him above our families? Let’s see what Jesus said:

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”
Matthew, 10:34-38


Quote:
Although you disagree with them, there is nothing in your statement which the Nazis would have disagreed with. They loved their families, they loved their country so much they sang about it and died for it, they loved science and they loved their history. They didn't love the Jews because they were not part of their family or their tribe.


You may be correct that the Nazis probably agreed with the things I love. But again, you are not painting a complete picture. People may be polar opposites on many fundamental issues, yet find common ground elsewhere. I could claim that the Pope and Hitler both enjoy(ed) a cool, refreshing drink on a hot summer day. Does that mean that the two liked the same things, and that Nazi ideology is the same as Christianity?

You show that I love many things that the Nazis also loved. But the picture is not complete, because there’s more to the story. After pointing out the things I love, I stopped. I didn’t also make a hate list. That’s where the Nazis defined themselves. They hated the Jews, the gays, the handicapped, the communists, etc.

So long as we are on the subject of Nazis, there is an interesting article I found on the web I’d like to share. It points out that Hitler was a Christian, and how Christianity and Nazism were holding hands in Europe. I find it interesting that at that time, Christianity never waged a “crusade” against Nazism. On the contrary, in many ways it supported it. However, after the Nazis lost the war, and the world defined Nazism as evil, Christianity tried its best to distance itself from it.

Let’s not forget that Nazi Germany went by the name of “Third Reich.” Does everyone wonder, if they were the third reich, what were the first two?

The first reich was the “Holy Roman Empire” (9th century-1806). As the name implies, this was a Christian empire. The second reich was the German Empire from 1871-1918, which was created by Otto von Bismarck. So, the third reich of the Nazis, according to the Nazis themselves, was a continuation of a HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, which embraced Christianity.

I am well aware of the debate that continues regarding Hitler’s true religious convictions. I am aware of the many points and Hitler’s own quotes which suggest that Hitler was anti-Christian. Some suggest that he was pagan, atheist, or a believer in the occult. I think an argument can be made on all these possible accounts.

But I think that the other side of the argument must also be shown. It can just as easily be debated that Hitler was a Christian.

Now I’ll post this article by Christopher Baba. The bold print is his article.

Hitler Was a Christian
The Holocaust was caused by Christian fundamentalism:

History is currently being distorted by the millions of Christians who lie to have us believe that the Holocaust was not a Christian deed. Through subterfuge and concealment, many of today’s Church leaders and faithful Christians have camouflaged the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and have attempted to mark him an atheist, a pagan cult worshipper, or a false Christian in order to place his misdeeds on those with out Jesus. However, from the earliest formation of the Nazi party and throughout the period of conquest and growth, Hitler expressed his Christian support to the German citizenry and soldiers. Those who would make Hitler an atheist should turn their eyes to history books before they address their pews and chat rooms.
Considering that Christianity has thus far been incapable of producing an unbiased, educated follower which speaks the truth, (I haven’t encountered any), I have been forced to dispel the myth by writing this essay. It is not until I bring up his speeches, my personal info on the Nazi regime and their tactics that a Christian will begin to question what their clergy told them. (I am the offspring of a German soldier. My Opa served under Hitler in WW2 and my father was raised during the time of the Nazi regime. This is important information to take into consideration for I am privy to some info that most Americans do not know. It is common for American media and education institutions to lie to their citizens concerning Nazi Germany.) So, in presenting this information I must break it into four parts: 1) Facts about Hitler and his involvement with the Church. 2) How the Church was the catalyst for anti- Semitism. 3) Facts concerning how the Nazi regime drilled these beliefs into Germanic society. 4) Quotes Hitler made which prove he had a disdain for atheism/occultism, upheld his Christian faith, and hated Jews due to his Christianity.

Hitler’s involvement with the Church:
a) Hitler was baptized as Roman Catholic during infancy in Austria.
b) As Hitler approached boyhood he attended a monastery school. (On his way to school young Adolf daily observed a stone arch which was carved with the monastery’s coat of arms bearing a swastika.)
c) Hitler was a communicant and an altar boy in the Catholic Church.
d) As a young man he was confirmed as a “soldier of Christ.” His most ardent goal at the time was to become a priest. Hitler writes of his love for the church and clergy: “I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.” -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
e) Hitler was NEVER excommunicated nor condemned by his church. Matter of fact the Church felt he was JUST and “avenging for God” in attacking the Jews for they deemed the Semites the killers of Jesus.
f) Hitler, Franco and Mussolini were given VETO power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany, Spain and Italy. In turn they surtaxed the Catholics and gave the money to the Vatican. Hitler wrote a speech in which he talks about this alliance, this is an excerpt: “The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie.” Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party
g) Hitler worked CLOSELY with Pope Pius in converting Germanic society and supporting the church. The Church absorbed Nazi ideals and preached them as part of their sermons in turn Hitler placed Catholic teachings in public education. This photo depicts Hitler with Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in Berlin. It was taken On April 20, 1939, when Orsenigo celebrated Hitler’s birthday. The celebrations were initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) and became a tradition.
Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send “warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany with “fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars.” (If you would like to know more about the secret dealings of Hitler and the Pope I recommend you get a book titled: Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, by John Cornwell)
h) Due to Hitler’s involvement with the Church he began enacting doctrines of the Church as law. He outlawed all abortion, raged a death war on all homosexuals, and demanded corporal punishment in schools and home. Many times Hitler addressed the church and promised that Germany would implement its teachings: “The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavor to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of today.” –Adolf Hitler, on 26 June 1934, to Catholic bishops to assure them that he would take action against the new pagan propaganda “Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.” -Adolf Hitler, reportedly to have said in Berlin in 1936 on the enmity of the Catholic Church to National Socialism

How Christianity was the catalyst of the Holocaust:
Hitler’s anti-Semitism grew out of his Christian education. Austria and Germany were majorly Christian during his time and they held the belief that Jews were an inferior status to Aryan Christians. The Christians blamed the Jews for the killing of Jesus. Jewish hatred did not actually spring from Hitler, it came from the preaching of Catholic priests and Protestant ministers throughout Germany for hundreds of years. The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews and their Jewish religion. In his book, “On the Jews and their Lies,” Luther set the standard for Jewish hatred in Protestant Germany up until World War 2. Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther constantly quoting his works and beliefs.
Now, you must remember before Hitler rose to Chancellor of Germany the country was in a deep economic depression due to the Versailles treaty. The Versailles treaty demanded that Germans made financial reparations for the previous war and Germany simply was not self sufficient enough in order to pay the debt. Hitler was the leader that raised Germany out of the depression and brought them back to a world recognized power. Due to his annulment of the financial woes of the Germanic people he became their redeemer and they anointed him as the leader of the German Reich Christian Church in 1933. This placed him in power of the German Christian Socialist movement which legislates their political and religious agendas. It united all denominations, mainly the Protestant/Catholic and Lutheran people to instill faith in a national Christianity.

How the Nazi Regime converted the people:
a) In the 1920s, Hitler’s German Workers’ Party (pre Nazi term) adopted a “Programme” with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a “positive” Christianity: “We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession...”
b) The Nazi regime started a youth movement which preached its agenda to impressionable children. Hitler backed up the notion that all people need faith and religious education: “By helping to raise man above the level of bestial vegetation, faith contributes in reality to the securing and safeguarding of his existence. Take away from present-day mankind its education-based, religious- dogmatic principles-- or, practically speaking, ethical-moral principles-- by abolishing this religious education, but without replacing it by an equivalent, and the result will be a grave shock to the foundations of their existence.” – Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
c) The Nazi regime began to control schools insisting that Christianity was taught.
d) The Nazi regime included anti-Semitic Christian writings in textbooks and they were not removed from Christian doctrines until 1961.
e) The Nazi regime having full blown power over the people began to forcibly convert all its military.
f) The Nazi regime forced the German soldiers to wear religious symbols such as the swastika and they placed religious sayings on military gear. An example here is this German army belt buckle (I believe my Opa had one) which reads “Gott Mit Uns”. For those of you who do not speak German it is translated as “God With Us”.
g) The German troops were often forced to get sprinkled with holy water and listen to a sermon by a Catholic priest before going out on a maneuver.
h) The Nazis created a secret service called the “SS Reich” that would act as spies on the dealings of other citizens. If anyone was suspected of heresy (Going not only against the Socialist party but CHURCH DOCTRINE) they would be prosecuted.

Quotes from Hitler:
Hitler’s speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of their faith So they try to pin him on other theistic views. The following words from Hitler show his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and reveal the strength of his Christian feelings:
“National Socialism is not a cult-movement-- a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship... We will not allow mystically- minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else-- in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will-- not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord… Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.” -Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept.1938. [Christians have always accused Hitler of believing in pagan cult mythology. What is written here clearly expresses his stand against cults.]
“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933 [This statement clearly refutes modern Christians who claim Hitler as favoring atheism. Hitler wanted to form a society in which ALL people worshipped Jesus and considered any questioning of such to be heresy. The Holocaust was like a modern inquisition, killing all who did not accept Jesus. Though more Jews were killed then any other it should be noted that MANY ARYAN pagans and atheists were murdered for their non-belief in Christ.]
Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)
“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
"…the fall of man in paradise has always been followed by his expulsion." -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (See Genesis Chapter 3 where humankind is cast from Eden for their sins. Hitler compares this to the need to exterminate the Jews for their sin against Christ.)
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” –Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
“The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (This quote is very interesting for it disperses the idea that Hitler raged war due to being an Aryan supremacist. He states quite clearly that he has a problem with Jews for their belief not race. That is why many German Jews died in WW2 regardless of their Aryan nationality.)
“Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (Here Hitler is admitting that his war against the Jews were so successful because of his strong Christian Spirituality.)
Quotes from Other Nazis about Hitler and Religion:
"Around 1937, when Hitler heard that at the instigation of the party and the SS vast numbers of his followers had left the church because it was obstinately opposing his plans, he nevertheless ordered his chief associates, above all Goering and Gobbels, to remain members of the church. He too would remain a member of the Catholic Church, he said, although he had no real attachment to it. And in fact he remained in the church until his suicide." (Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer page 95-96)


Quote:

Quote:
If you claim that salvation is not dependent upon our righteousness, or doing what’s “good,” then the theist's concept of morality becomes unfounded. Religion’s role in morality becomes unfounded. We are back to the dilemma that people who commit evil can have a possible salvation, by simply accepting faith in Jesus’ love. Assume that Hitler had kept faith in Jesus, and in his last moments was prepared to forgive everyone as well as ask for God’s forgiveness. Would he then be accepted by God with open arms?


Do you find this hard to accept, here is a Bible verse which teaches this very thing?
Quote:
Eph 2:8-10
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
NIV


The Bible verse you quote doesn’t show that my reasoning above is wrong. This verse only points out your claim that salvation is not dependent on righteousness. But it doesn’t solve the problem I presented. That if acceptance of Jesus, and not righteousness leads to salvation, people can do whatever they want and be saved so long as they have faith in Jesus. How does that lead to a moral path?

Quote:
Because God is supreme, His character defines the perfect morality. Since He loves us unconditionally that is the ideal for which we as humans should strive. His love enables us the lesser creature to love Him which then gives us the ability to love other people who we wouldn't otherwise love.


I follow your reasoning. But to me this sounds like his ultimate goal is for us to love each other. By your reasoning, God is the middle-man for achieving the ultimate goal of loving each other. So, salvation ought to be offered based on our love for each other. And how do we love each other? By acting without injustice, hate, and violence, among other things. In other words, acting in a moral fashion. So, salvation really ought to be offered based on our moral acts. Yet, it seems God is stuck on the transitional point of loving him, because he is offering salvation based on our love for him, instead of love for each other. Only a superficial and selfish God would do that.

Your argument holds water when we imagine a person who loves both God and his fellow man (by acting ethically). There is no contradiction at that point. But what about the person who loves and accepts God, but acts immorally? – and such a person is not a rare find. A conflict now occurs. Does God offer him salvation because he had accepted and loved God? Or does he shun him, because he did not act ethically? According to your reasoning, he must accept him. But in doing so, God has turned his back on his ultimate goal, us loving each other and treating each other well. Hence, there is a contradiction.

Quote:
As an individual, I believe an atheist can be moral. The problem is when one tries to define a rational basis for morality based on the materialist or atheistic view point. So far I haven't seen anything very persuasive from the secularists that could serve as a viable alternative to theism. I wish there were one since a scientific secular basis for morality would make life in a world with many religions much easier but unfortunately atheism has failed and there is no prospect that it will ever succeed in providing a sound basis for a highly advanced civilization.


You say that an atheist can be moral. This means that you realize that morality can and does exist independently from religious theism.

The point I have repeatedly made is that we do not need atheism to guide our morality. Atheism is independent from morality. Morality is an entity of its own. Religion has tried repeatedly to merge with morality, but history has taught us that it actually had the opposite of the intended effect. Immoral behavior and edicts arose from theistic religions over and over again.

So, neither atheism nor theism have a great claim to morality, in so far as they differ in the belief in the existence of God. Again, morality exists and has always existed outside of the theistic realm. In fact, I think morality exists in its purest form when it stands independently, free from the grasps of religion.

Quote:
God is absolute; He is absolute truth. Human language reflects human experiences which is limited by our own abilities and our own understanding. It is impossible to describe God accurately in human language. That claim of absolute truth seems to reflect a limited understanding of God's unlimited nature.


It’s fine to hold this view. However, there is a consequence to this view. Since we cannot really understand God, how can theists claim an absolute and higher moral standard? If we do not understand God, how can we claim to understand what he really commands and asks of us? We are again left to our own devices.

God can be as absolute as he wants, but how does that affect us or help us if we cannot communicate with him and understand him? He might as well not exist.

Quote:
Depending on the majority for morality or the culturally elite is equivalent of the blind leading the blind. The cultural elite in the US have almost nothing to offer except their own prejudices and have shown minimal competence. If you notice, most of the people who are openly anti-American in our own country and love dictators and killers, such as Chi Guevara and Castro, are the cultural elite who have taken their clues from the European cultural elite.


I agree with you in that the majority is not always correct or moral. I agree that the cultural elite are also susceptible to corruption and evil. But my point is that we simply don’t have a better system to institute. If we turn to theism, as I said before, we are left with no better than a different set of cultural elitism. The cultural elitism of the clergy and theists. And since you yourself claim that we cannot truly understand God because we lack the ability to do so, we are no closer to a higher moral standard by following the theists.

So take your pick. Should we follow the cultural elites, who obviously are not perfect and prone to possible deviation from morality? Or, should we follow the religious elites, ie clergy, who are also not perfect and also prone to possible deviation from morality? Unless I’m missing something, what other choices do we have?

I’ll take my chances with the secular cultural elites, thank you very much. I’ve seen what happens when the world has tried to follow the religious elites and clergy.

As I said, cultural elites are also prone to possible immorality. That is why we the people have to always be vigilant in policing our elites, and oppose them if we feel they are deviating from their true purpose or morality, even if we are in the minority.

Quote:
To pretend we know exactly why God chooses to intervene in one instance and not another is also a mistake.


As I said before, when I ask why God did something, I am not really asking for the real reason. I am only illustrating that the way he acted is illogical. I do not need to know all his reasons. But from what I see, his behavior is illogical and contradictory to himself and his own nature. And since I don’t think that an illogical God exists, I can only conclude that God does not exist.

Quote:
The Bible tells us why God chose the nation of Israel:


God offers us unconditional love, but chooses one group of people over another? He shows favoritism to some? How is that unconditional love? Such a God is not a fair or good God.

Quote:

Quote:
Gen 18:18-19
Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him."
NIV


I find it both convenient and humorous that the race from which a certain religion originated from also claims that they are God’s chosen people. Coincidence?

Quote:
Although many of the Jews who died in German death camps probably thought their deaths were in vain, the moral lessons humanity have learned are very valuable.


I see. So God likes to “teach us a lesson.” The lesson being, “I will teach humanity that genocide is bad, by allowing a massive genocide to occur in Germany. But wait, they didn’t learn…OK, I’ll allow another genocide to occur in the Balkans…Still haven’t learned their lesson?...Fine, I’ll let the genocide in Africa unfold as well…When will these slow-witted humans learn this lesson?...I knew I should have made them smarter!” And that’s just the twentieth century. Genocides have been occurring since the dawn of civilization.

Quote:

Quote:
You say there is suffering in this world because that is how we learn moral lessons. Why, when God created us, did he not endow us with this moral knowledge at the beginning? So we wouldn’t have to suffer to earn it. He created everything, and set all the rules. Why would morality learned by anguish have to be more valuable than that which was granted? Why the lessons? And even if there is a need for lessons, why not positive and fulfilling lessons? Instead of death and destruction. It makes no sense. Only an evil God would force us to learn by undergoing pain and anguish first.


That is an interesting question. As you know, it is possible to postulate a situation in which we and our world were created just a moment ago in which our memories of the past are all false memories. Philosophically, there is no way to disprove that scenario. This seems to be one of the issues Descartes was dealing with when he said "God doesn't lie."


Your statement doesn’t address the issue I posed: the issue of human suffering. Please elaborate your point so I can understand you better.

Quote:
From my understanding of what it means to be human, the alternative to freedom and morality is not to exist at all. To completely protect us from the consequences of our own actions would prevent our own maturity.


Freedom can exist without evil. God created everything, so he could have prevented the existence of evil from the beginning. He could have then created us and given us freedom. The freedom to choose our lives. Just take evil off the menu. How would that diminish our existence? Why make us suffer during a “maturity quest?” We could have easily been made at whatever maturity level he meant for us to achieve from the start.

This reminds me of “pledge week” of college fraternities. A time where new pledges are abused and humiliated during their initiation, before they gain acceptance as a member of the fraternity. I believe we ought to expect more from a good God than to act like a college fraternity member.

Quote:
From reading Hitler's table talk, it is clear Hitler had no designs whatsoever on our territory or even on England. He openly discussed his hope for an alliance with the US and England, who he saw as natural allies.


I cannot agree. Even though the US was not on Hitler’s immediate target, my understanding of Hitler leads me to think that eventually he would have found new targets. He was a megalomaniac who was dedicated to “world domination,” not just eastern European domination. He envisioned a Germany without borders. I believe that if he was successful, eventually he would have probably even turned on his own allies to subjugate them.

Quote:
The answer is simply this, the abolition movement arose in Christianity and not elsewhere. That alone shows the value of the understanding of the good God. Christianity is a living religious tradition which means that there should be continued progress into the future.


I don’t agree with you that abolition was a result of Christianity. Although the movement involved Christians, those Christians are also people. And good people are good people, regardless of their Christianity. The abolition was the result of the conscience of some good people, because they were good people.

As far as the claim Christianity is progressing, I think that’s good but it points to an underlying flaw of theism. The flaw is that theism tries to convince us that it is privy to a higher absolute morality and truth, but since it changes its viewpoint it shows that it never had any better claim to a higher standard.

Quote:
Cyrus the Great's place in history is well established and I certainly wouldn't want to distract from the respect he deserves. My best wishes go to those brave Iranians who are trying to restore their freedom and their culture. Based on the Cyrus cylinder it is evident that he did indeed free slaves. That is a good thing.

As you know, I said:
Quote:
Slavery was almost a universal institution around the world which had not been questioned up until then.

So far as I can tell, you haven't challenged the validity of my statement.


You say that slavery was universal in the world, and had not ever been questioned up until the US abolition of the nineteenth century. I point to Cyrus, who obviously abolished slavery in Persia 2500 years ago. How is that not a valid challenge of your statement?

Quote:
The claims that you make, that Americans would have abolished slavery irrelevant of Christianity, is of course complete speculation since that never happened, whereas the fact that Christians were often leaders in the abolition movement, based on Christian teachings and Christian morality is well supported by history as I have demonstrated.


My claim is not just speculation. It is based on the fact that AMERICA abolished slavery, regardless of its religion.

You claim Christianity abolished slavery. The abolishers of slavery (the northerners) fought with the upholders of slavery (the southerners). THEY WERE BOTH CHRISTIANS. The winning side got its way. And since they were both Christians, no matter who the winner would have been, the outcome would have been presented as “the Christian way.” I wonder, if the south had won, would slavery still be the “Christian way?”

Quote:
Are you saying the primary purpose of the Persian war with the Babylonians was to free the Jews?


No, that was not the only purpose, and perhaps not even the primary purpose. But it was part of his agenda. And his agenda was not just the freeing of the Jews, but the liberation of the weak in general.

One could argue that Lincoln’s war’s primary purpose was not to free the slaves. He took action to free the slaves, which then led to the cessation of the south from the union. Freeing the southern slaves which were now at the mercy of the confederacy may have been on his agenda. But we all know that the primary reason he went to war was to preserve the union.

Though the “primary purpose” of Lincoln’s war was not to free the slaves but to preserve the union, his role in completely freeing them as a result of the war should not be downplayed. Similarly, Cyrus’s role should not be downplayed in freeing the Jews.

Quote:
I accept that definition if omniscient means that God knows everything which can be known and omnipotent means God has all power which exists.


Let’s look at the dictionary definitions:

Omniscient:

“Having total knowledge; knowing everything”

Omnipotent:

“Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.”

I see nothing in there about “that can be known” or “of power that exists.” These “limiting factors” seem like an attempt by theists to try to reconcile certain inconsistencies.

But even so, these attempts only raise other problems and questions. What does it really mean “to know everything that can be known?” Everything that can be known by WHOM? I may argue that a dog cannot possibly know or ever comprehend the theory of relativity. That dog may have reached the limits of what he can know; does that mean he is omniscient? Obviously not. That example can also be applied to humans regarding another bit of knowledge which a human can never really know. If we ever reach the limits of discovery, and progress stagnates, does that mean we have become omniscient? If someone or something reaches the limits of its knowledge, and knows everything it can possibly know and no more, has he or it become omniscient?

Assume for a minute there is no other being in this universe but man. If man ever reaches that pinnacle where no progress can be made in knowledge or science, has man become omniscient? According to your definition, yes.

You are defining omniscience in the sense of its relation to the nature and capabilities of a particular entity. What CAN be known is only relative to WHOM we are referring. And if a God exists, but has the same limitations as us, but is a few steps ahead, what kind of GOD is he really? Do we now define God to be an entity that is in some ways superior to another, yet itself has certain limitations?

If you define omniscient the way you are defining it, it becomes contrary to its intended meaning. It loses its meaning. It becomes irrelevant. We are forced to abandon the concept of omniscience. The same principle applies to omnipotence. In the process, we have to re-examine God.

Quote:
If you take those ideas to their extreme without that qualification you run into logical conundrums such as, "can God create an object which is too big for Him to move?"


Conundrums indeed, my friend. But atheists didn’t create these conundrums. They were created by the original theists when they made up the concept of God. These conundrums have forced subsequent theists to come up with “limiting factors” to reconcile the problem. But I think such “limiting factor” explanations only place a band aid on a mortal wound.

Quote:
To me a God who could not think or learn would be an inferior being not a perfect one.


If God is able to learn, there was obviously something that he didn’t know but actually CAN be known. This contradicts even your own definition of omniscient. You stated “I accept that definition if omniscient means that God knows everything which can be known.”

So, if God learned anything, he was not omniscient prior to learning it. Did he become omniscient after he learned it? What if he learns something else next week?

Quote:
To me a God who could not think or learn would be an inferior being not a perfect one.


This statement would be true ONLY IF we assume that there are things that God doesn’t know yet, because he has yet to learn them. This would thus negate his omniscience. However, if we assume that he is omniscient, then he cannot learn anything new, and he is perfect because he lacks nothing, love, knowledge, etc.

The point is, his omniscience (even by your definition) and his ability to learn are contradictory.

Quote:
I believe that when God gave us free choice, He voluntarily gave up His ability to predict our future choices.


Let’s examine this thought. “He voluntarily gave up his ABILITY to predict our future choices.” This means that he had a potential power, which he no longer possesses.

By your definition of omnipotence, “omnipotent means God has all power which exists.” So he gave up a potential power, a power which has the potential to exist and is attainable, although God chose not to retain that power. He has lost an attainable power. As such, God cannot be omnipotent even by your own definition.

Quote:
That is a good observation. I don't buy the concept that God already knows the results of my free will so I don't get stuck in that trap. I have had discussions with people who take the opposite side and claim God knows my choices but I’m still free to make them. That I can’t understand. They may be correct, but I don’t understand it and therefore I don’t accept their position.


I commend you for recognizing the dilemma. You have realized that acceptance of free will lays a trap for the theist. You have attempted to side-line that trap. But upon closer examination, have you really avoided that trap without compromising theism?

The way you solve the dilemma undermines the basic concepts of theism. You solve it by saying God cannot know your choices. By doing so, even by the way you define omniscience and omnipotence, you are denying one or both of these two premises. If God gave up his power to know our choices, he gave up a potential power, which refutes his omnipotence. If knowledge of our choices was attainable, but God chose to not have this knowledge, he doesn’t have a knowledge which CAN be known, which refutes his omniscience.

These are difficult dilemmas indeed. These dilemmas cannot be satisfactorily solved without either accepting fatalism or redefining God. And if we redefine God, that opens up a whole new can of worms.

Quote:
God doesn't deny the sinners His love, they reject His love. The rejection is on their part and the suffering which results is self induced.


But if God is offering UNCONDITIONAL love, that means there can be no strings attached. So even if we reject that love, because it was unconditional, we cannot be held to pay any penalty. Hence, if rejection of an unconditional love results in any form of suffering, that love was never really unconditional.

Quote:
Thank-you. The same applies to scientists who think they can define a scientific morality. The results have been disastrous. Science and religion can not ignore each other completely since that would also lead each astray but each must respect the freedom of the other to grow and change unimpeded.


I’m not really sure what you refer to when you mention “scientific morality,” so I can’t specifically comment. But I agree that generally speaking, morality cannot be derived from science. The purpose of science is different altogether. Morality is derived from self-reflection. Science is derived from outward observation of the universe. Though there may be occasional intersections, generally that is not the case.

However, what you call “religion” in your statement, I would instead substitute it for the word “ethics” or “morality.”

Quote:
Scientifically, I don’t believe unselfish genes exist but it is an interesting idea. Pack behavior among animals will get you as far as the head hunters of New Guinea but it doesn't explain human morality in more civilized parts of the world or in more advanced societies. That is one of the weaknesses of the theory of evolution as a theory of everything biological.


Like I said, the concept of the “unselfish gene” is something I’m making up, and is not based on any widespread accepted theory. But I still think that it makes good sense, and in some ways explains the existence of morality.

Another way to look at it is this. Morality developed as a “side-effect” of higher intelligence. A particular trait can have multiple consequences. And as long as those other consequences are not deleterious, they don’t select the trait out. And if one of those consequences is advantageous, it selects the trait.

Intelligence obviously has a huge advantageous consequence, and will be selected. Coming along for the ride could easily be other consequences, such as morality.

Again, these are just my thoughts that I’m throwing out; maybe I’m right, or maybe I’m wrong.

Regardless, even if the theory of evolution cannot definitively explain the existence of morality, that doesn’t mean that the existence of morality refutes the evolutionary theory.

Besides, the theory of evolution was never meant to explain “all things biologic.” It explains a big part of it, but it is not the only theory that exists in biology. Similarly, the theory of relativity does not explain “all things physical,” but only focuses on one specific aspect of a wide subject matter.

Quote:

Quote:
But whether or not science can explain morality is not that important. What’s important is that we realize that science exists to give us knowledge and technical advancement, while morality exists to guide us in our existence and our proper use of such new-found knowledge.


Excellent. My belief exactly! If our understanding of God helps us to advance in our understanding of morality, then so much the better. Why not accept theism as a necessary tool for our survival and try to find the best possible form of theism possible?


Wait a minute….How did God get mixed up in there? I’m saying that science and morality are usually independent. Why do we have to drag in a God? I cannot agree that our understanding of God improves our understanding of morality. I believe that is the big argument that you and I are pushing.

Quote:
Philosophically I agree completely, we can never know the whys completely because we can never understand God fully. The theist has an advantage since we know the ultimate cause even if we don’t understand Him.


I can’t imagine anyone gaining any satisfaction to the answer WHY by always meeting with the answer “because God…” If that’s the case, actually, theists should never ask why at any time. They already know the answer, and the answer is always the same. How boring.

If a parent always answers the inquisitive child’s “why” question with “because I said so,” is that child really any closer to the truth? I think the child will actually be pushed away from inquiring about the world. He always gets the same non-sense answer. Furthermore, it’s another way to say to the child “stop asking me questions.”

Theistic advantage? Or, perhaps, disadvantage?

Quote:
Ultimately if you don't believe in God, the universe becomes completely unintelligible.


The “intelligence” which is injected into our understanding of the universe based on the theistic principles has actually always sabotaged our understanding of the true nature of the universe.

A flat earth, which is only a few thousand years old, lying at the center of the universe, which is also only a few thousand years old, with everything else rotating around it, with all its creatures (and man) created as they now exist instantaneously.

Quote:
A belief in a good God who will not lie to us and who deals with us consistently lays a strong foundation for modern science.


When God told Abraham that he wanted Abraham to sacrifice his child, and yet later substituted for a lamb, was he being truthful? Did he not lie to Abraham?

Does God really deal with us consistently? He saves the Jews sometime, yet leaves them to perish in Auschwitz another time.

By the way, since I am reminded of Abraham, consider the following:

"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you FEAR God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

Genesis, 22:12

God wants to know that Abraham FEARS him. What happened to the love?

“15 The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that BECAUSE you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies,”

Genesis, 22:15-17

Note the BECAUSE. You did such and such for me, and so I will do such and such for you. A system of reward (or punishment). Where does UNCONDITIONAL love come in here? Clearly, from the beginning, God’s pact with Abraham was unmistakably conditional. It doesn’t get any more conditional than that.

If Abraham had refused to kill his own son because a “little voice in his head” told him to do so ( which any normal person should have ignored), what would have been the consequences? Would Abraham not have become the patriarch of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic community? Would the Israelites not have been blessed? What happened to the unconditional love?

Furthermore, God is again showing favoritism. Abraham's "descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies.” What happened to God's unconditional love, which he must show EVERYONE EQUALLY? Are the Israelites' enemies being treated equally? Are they receiving unconditional love?

Also, consider what God just did by making the statement "your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies.” He just predicted the future of a group of people. If God gave us free will, and gave up his ability to know our choices, how could he possibly know that Abraham's descendants would take possession of their enemies' cities? And if the descendants of Abraham are pre-destined to take over these cities, are they not bound by fatalism? This is the very definition of fatalism.

Quote:
I agree with you here. The real issue is where does this "self awareness" come from? From my own thought experiments I've come to the understanding that human consciousness, by it's very nature must come from a force field, not from the static arrangement of the atoms in the brain. As a force field, it can not be localized to any one brain region, but will be able to draw from all parts of the brain simultaneously. If you agree with that proposition, then the issue becomes, where does this force field come from.


I admire this adventurous side of yours. One has to be very adventurous to explore this issue as you obviously have done.

Yours is an interesting conclusion. I really don’t have any alternative viewpoint on the explanation of consciousness, but I am always interested to hear others’ opinions on the subject. I can neither agree with your proposition nor disagree with it. But I do find it interesting.

What has freaked me out sometime in the past when I tried to dwell on this issue was this: I realized that I was using my consciousness and brain to understand my own consciousness and brain.

My own considerations have drawn me no closer to understanding the nature of consciousness than when I began. And that’s why I can neither agree nor disagree with you. I suppose I could revisit the issue again.

But this reminds me of something I heard from my modern physics professor when I was back in UCLA. He said “I believe that the human brain is still at a point that it is incapable of understanding many of the fundamental laws of nature.” That statement stuck with me, because I also believe it to be true.

Quote:
The evil God is a hypothetical since there is only one supreme being and He is good. However the Bible does lead one to believe there are lesser spirit beings who do not have our best interest at heart and do not love us unconditionally. They might pose as God and someone who doesn't understand that the supreme being is always loving might mistake such a being for God Himself.


Thanks for clarifying. By these lesser, evil spirits, do you also mean the devil? Please tell me your thoughts on the devil. I ask now not as a prelude to challenging you, but simply out of curiosity. I already know the view of the traditional theists. But I sense that you are not a traditional theist (at least not the way I define a traditional theist), and your view on the subject interests me.

Quote:
I suspect we agree on many things since we both love freedom and human goodness.


Correct.

Quote:
The question is which will get us there anti-Christian secularism or Judeo-Christian morality.


Also correct. However, no-one likes to be called “anti-something.” We all like to be “pro-something.” So, instead of calling it “anti-Christian secularism,” I would call it simply “secularism.” Just semantics.

Quote:
We know Judeo-Christian morality works since we live in a country founded on those concepts. So far the ability of secularism to produce a good and just society is in serious question.


I disagree with you here. We are both looking at the same country, but we both see what appeals to us. To you, its Christianity, so you view this country as based on Christianity. To me, its secularism, so I view this country as based on secularism. In some ways we are both right, and in others, we are both wrong.

Quote:
Let me give an example, medical science is constantly announcing new things which are bad for you and then another study shows the first study was wrong. Then a third study supports the first. How can anyone claim that doesn’t correctly weaken people’s confidence in medical studies?


Contrary to physics, mathematics, or chemistry, medical science is not an “exact science.” It relies a lot on statistical analysis, which is prone to some error. Also, in the field of medicine, there are many confounding variables which make a medical theory more prone to error. The larger the study, the larger its “statistical power,” but confounding variables and statistical variance cannot be fully controlled. This is well understood by those in the medical field, and so every study is interpreted with the appropriate grain of salt.

This is the reason that each study must be reviewed objectively not just for the conclusions, but more importantly its “power,” its strengths and weaknesses. But our culture demands quick answers. They always ask “Is so and so good for me or bad for me” without really any interest in how the answer was obtained. A good scientist does not do that. A good scientist reviews the literature not just for its conclusions, but for its methodology. And then a good scientist decides how much weight a particular answer should be given or not given.

Quote:
Although the Reformers claimed the scriptures as infallible as a guide to salvation against the alleged infallibility of the Pope, I do not think the Bible is otherwise infallible in either words or thoughts. To the best of my knowledge, there are very few Christians who would make the same claims for the Bible the Muslims make for he Koran. Some very conservative Christians claim the original autographs of the Bible were perfect but since those are all gone, there is plenty of room for scribal errors, translation errors etc. Also these same people usually believe in dispensationalism which gives them enough room to drive a fleet of trucks through. I personally believe in covenant theology which presupposes a gradual unfolding of God’s character and will over time as people’s understanding of God evolves. Covenant theology is well supported in the Bible itself.


Thank you for explaining yourself. I understand and respect your explanation, and I am not critical of it. What I still point out, though, is this:

If theists’ understanding of God is fallible and open to re-interpretation, how can theists claim access to a higher standard of truth or morality? They do not really know God or God’s word, so how can they invoke a higher authority to back up their claims? According to your explanation, the theist’s views are just as prone to error as anyone else’s.

Quote:
When I mention the infallibility of the pope to my Catholic friends they start laughing. Many American Catholics don't even seem to know that doctrine exists and few if any actually believe that.


I’m glad to hear that. Sadly, that has not been my experience. More often than not, Christians I have consulted believe in the infallibility of the Pope and of the Bible.

Quote:
Since Jesus didn't write anything down, probably on purpose, we don't know exactly what He said, so that question is hypothetical.


This raises an interesting question. Since Jesus didn’t write anything down, and we don’t know exactly what he said, how can we know anything that he said?

If we cannot know anything that he said, what then becomes the basis of Christianity?

Which parts did he say, and which parts did he not say?

If we have a hypothetical document which we know has some truths and some fallacies, but we don’t know which is which, does that not render the whole document useless? Everything becomes suspect, and we cannot rely on any of it with any kind of security.

Quote:
so that question is hypothetical.


Even if the question is hypothetical, I am nonetheless interested in your answer. Was Jesus a man, and therefore potentially fallible, or God, and therefore infallible?
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
American Visitor



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 224

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
My argument is this. You claim that God has given us free will. You also claim that God intervenes to prevent some from trampling on others at some times. My point is that if God intervenes sometimes, then he has not given us true free will. A “limited free will” is not free will. It also follows that if we only have “limited free will,” then free will cannot explain away the existence of evil.


I'm afraid I don't follow your argument here. I don't know anyone who believes human free will is unlimited.

Quote:
You make it sound as if secularism has failed. If a society has shortcomings, we must seek out the specific shortcomings. Just because a society that is secularist has certain failings doesn’t translate into secularism having failed. If we follow your reasoning, one could also say that since the Roman Empire eventually failed, it was Christianity that failed, or caused its failing. Well, that is not necessarily the case. I don’t agree that secularism has left a vacuum which must be filled either by Christianity or Islam.


Time will tell how Europe will end. By secularism I mean the anti-Christian "culture" which now dominates Europe. The European secularists have destroyed a great civilization. Europe has not died a natural death, they have committed cultural suicide.

Quote:
I say I love my family, then Iran, then science, then history. First point is that the last two are subject matters, and have nothing to do with me personally or my genes. They are areas of interest to me, subjects which I respect and to which I pay homage.


There is nothing wrong with any of the things you love. As you present it, it just does not provide a basis for a morality.

Quote:
34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”
Matthew, 10:34-38


People who are truly moral will sometimes have to be willing to lose their family or their own lives if necessary. In Muslim lands Christians are often tortured, killed or disowned if they convert to Christianity. I don't know if I have the strength to endure what some of our Christian people have had to endure in the Muslim lands, but I pray God will give me the strength if the need ever arises.

Quote:
You may be correct that the Nazis probably agreed with the things I love. But again, you are not painting a complete picture. People may be polar opposites on many fundamental issues, yet find common ground elsewhere. I could claim that the Pope and Hitler both enjoy(ed) a cool, refreshing drink on a hot summer day. Does that mean that the two liked the same things, and that Nazi ideology is the same as Christianity?


Once again there is nothing wrong with the things you love, they simply can not serve as a basis for morality. If the Nazis could claim the same loves you do, then the moral difference must be elsewhere. That is the question, as a secularist how do you construct a moral system.

Quote:
So long as we are on the subject of Nazis, there is an interesting article I found on the web I’d like to share. It points out that Hitler was a Christian, and how Christianity and Nazism were holding hands in Europe. I find it interesting that at that time, Christianity never waged a “crusade” against Nazism. On the contrary, in many ways it supported it. However, after the Nazis lost the war, and the world defined Nazism as evil, Christianity tried its best to distance itself from it.


Actually there was a religious leader who was great friends with Himler and spent WWII in Germany giving propaganda for the Nazis and probably visited the death camps, but he wasn't a Christian.

Quote:
I am well aware of the debate that continues regarding Hitler’s true religious convictions. I am aware of the many points and Hitler’s own quotes which suggest that Hitler was anti-Christian. Some suggest that he was pagan, atheist, or a believer in the occult. I think an argument can be made on all these possible accounts.


Much of the literature out there is poorly done and does not use original sources. There are many Catholic haters out there who make many wild accusations and pass many conspiracy theories about the Catholic church. To discover the truth on the matter I've tried to support my beliefs on original documents and not undocumented allegations.

That antisemitism existed among some religious people is probably easily to support. To show that Christians had anything whatsoever to do with the Nazi movement is another proposition altogether. If you or anyone else can produce a logical argument from the Bible for Christians to justify mass murder of anyone, please proceed. Although I'm not very familiar with Catholic theology I don't think the pope has justified murdering Jews either. I have read books by legitimate scholars who have demonstrated just the opposite, that the Catholic church took considerable risks to try to save Jews.

On the other hand, I can show from German writings that Darwinism and race purification had a great deal to do with their thinking. Hitler didn't keep his opinions a secret, he published them for all to know. Before he was in power, he didn't broadcast the full extent of his loathing for Christianity, but he let it be known how he felt when talking to his associates.

It was not his intent to destroy the churches immediately since he wanted to corrupt them so he could use them to subdue the people. The churches were operating under great duress during that time and their writings were censored. However the flow of ideas was not from the churches to Hitler where they had the power and he was the puppet, quite the opposite, He was in control and used the full power of the state to manipulate the churches. He was not following the teachings of the churches, but was dictating to the churches what they could and could not say so that they would appear to follow his teachings.

The first place to start finding the roots of Nazi ideology is to read the book Mein Kampf and try to find any arguments based on the Bible or from Religious leaders there. If Hitler were a practicing Christian there should be a easily discoverable body of religious work supporting his ideas. I have found no attempt by Hitler to support his teachings from the Bible. On page 307 he does use the term "Christianity" in the sense Nietzsche used it where Jesus was supposedly not the Jewish Messiah at all but an opponent of Judaism without once quoting the Bible to support his argument. On the same page, he then turned to the book PROTOCOLS OF THE WISE MEN OF ZION to support his anti-Semitism.

In Mein Kampf p 402 we find the following statement:
Quote:
...it is the function above all of the Germanic states first and foremost to call a fundamental halt to any further bastardization.
The generation of our present notorious weaklings will obviously cry out against this, and moan and complain about assaults on the holiest human rights. No, there is only one holiest human right, and this right is at the same time the holiest obligation, to wit: to see to it that the blood is preserved pure and, by preserving the best humanity, to create the possibility of a nobler development of these beings."


Where do we find this idea of a coming uberman? Is this in the Bible?

Hitler did appeal repeatedly to Darwin's ideas of the struggle of existence as the basis of his beliefs. For instance in MEIN KAMPF p. 285
Quote:
...But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice.
Therefore, here, too, the struggle among themselves arises less from inner aversion than from hunger and love. In both cases, Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development


Another statement of Hitler’s is found on page 442:
Quote:
"It would be lunacy to try to estimate the value of man according to his race, thus declaring war on the Marxist idea that men are equal, unless we are determined to draw the ultimate consequences."


What other document have we read which supports the equality of all mankind? Just where in the Bible are Christians told to organize society around race?

Quote:
Hitler Was a Christian
The Holocaust was caused by Christian fundamentalism:


The author either doesn't know anything about Christian fundamentalists or was trying to mislead the readers. Christian fundamentalists are among some of the strongest supporters of the Jewish people and of Israel in existence today. The Christians who are least supportive of Israel are those who have rejected the authority of the Bible. Because of the extreme ignorance of the basic concepts of Christianity manifested here, I would normally not waste my time dealing with this junk. However, since this is a legitimate question on your part, I will respond to many of his points.

Quote:
History is currently being distorted by the millions of Christians who lie to have us believe that the Holocaust was not a Christian deed. Through subterfuge and concealment, many of today’s Church leaders and faithful Christians have camouflaged the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and have attempted to mark him an atheist, a pagan cult worshiper, or a false Christian in order to place his misdeeds on those with out Jesus


Usually when people have to appeal to conspiracy theories to support their ideas, you know they don't have enough facts to support their claims. No one has to distort history, Hitler's writings are available for all to study and understand.

Quote:
Hitler’s involvement with the Church:
a) Hitler was baptized as Roman Catholic during infancy in Austria.


So what is this supposed to prove?

Quote:
b) As Hitler approached boyhood he attended a monastery school. (On his way to school young Adolf daily observed a stone arch which was carved with the monastery’s coat of arms bearing a swastika.)


Where did the swastika come from, not from Christianity? Shall we blame the Hindus for Hitler's ideology because he took the swastika from them? Same faulty logic.

Quote:
c) Hitler was a communicant and an altar boy in the Catholic Church.


So what?

d) As a young man he was confirmed as a “soldier of Christ.” His most
Quote:
ardent goal at the time was to become a priest. Hitler writes of his love for the church and clergy: “I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.” -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)


It would be nice if he provided page numbers so we could find the quotes. Unfortunately, Hitler didn't remain committed to the Christian ideal.

Quote:
e) Hitler was NEVER excommunicated nor condemned by his church. Matter of fact the Church felt he was JUST and “avenging for God” in attacking the Jews for they deemed the Semites the killers of Jesus.

This is completely unsupported by evidence. Where did the pope ever make those statements? Documentation please. Facts don't seem to b e a long suite of this article.

f)
Quote:
Hitler, Franco and Mussolini were given VETO power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany, Spain and Italy. In turn they surtaxed the Catholics and gave the money to the Vatican. Hitler wrote a speech in which he talks about this alliance, this is an excerpt: “The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie.” Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party
g) Hitler worked CLOSELY with Pope Pius in converting Germanic society and supporting the church. The Church absorbed Nazi ideals and preached them as part of their sermons in turn Hitler placed Catholic teachings in public education. This photo depicts Hitler with Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in Berlin. It was taken On April 20, 1939, when Orsenigo celebrated Hitler’s birthday. The celebrations were initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) and became a tradition.
Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send “warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany with “fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars.” (If you would like to know more about the secret dealings of Hitler and the Pope I recommend you get a book titled: Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, by John Cornwell)

Once again we have "secret deals." No evidence necessary since conspiracy theories never are provable. Did the Nazis and Mussolini have veto power over the Church in their areas? Undoubtedly, since they had the army, but that shows the opposite of what the author is trying to establish; the church was controlled by Hitler and Mussolini, they weren't under orders from the church.

Quote:
h) Due to Hitler’s involvement with the Church he began enacting doctrines of the Church as law. He outlawed all abortion, raged a death war on all homosexuals, and demanded corporal punishment in schools and home.


Exactly where does the Catholic church have a "death war" on all homosexuals? Unless someone can show me that the Catholic church has issued a death decree on homosexuals, I'll have to consider this a total fabrication. Now who is distorting history? As a non-Catholic I could be wrong, but I'm not aware that the Catholic church has a specific doctrine on corporal punishment in schools and home. Again, where is the documentation? I don't know about the abortion issue in Nazi Germany, I think Hitler may have outlawed abortion of Aryan women since he wanted as many aryan babies as possible. It certainly was not for the same reason the Catholic church opposes abortion, because of the Christian belief in the sanctity of all innocent human life. Once again, accuracy is not a long suite of this article.

Quote:
Many times Hitler addressed the church and promised that Germany would implement its teachings: “The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavor to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of today.” –Adolf Hitler, on 26 June 1934, to Catholic bishops to assure them that he would take action against the new pagan propaganda “Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.” -Adolf Hitler, reportedly to have said in Berlin in 1936 on the enmity of the Catholic Church to National Socialism


Hitler had no intention of following the teachings of the Catholic church. All one has to do is to read his writings to know that. So why make claims which are so easily refuted?

Quote:
How Christianity was the catalyst of the Holocaust:
Hitler’s anti-Semitism grew out of his Christian education. Austria and Germany were majorly Christian during his time and they held the belief that Jews were an inferior status to Aryan Christians. The Christians blamed the Jews for the killing of Jesus. Jewish hatred did not actually spring from Hitler, it came from the preaching of Catholic priests and Protestant ministers throughout Germany for hundreds of years. The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews and their Jewish religion. In his book, “On the Jews and their Lies,” Luther set the standard for Jewish hatred in Protestant Germany up until World War 2. Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther constantly quoting his works and beliefs.


Let's look at the book Mein Kampf and find what Hitler himself said:
Mein Kampf pp. 51-56
Quote:
" Today it is difficult, if not impossible, for me to say when the word "Jew" first gave me ground for special thoughts. At home I do not remember having heard the word during my father's lifetime. I believe that the old gentleman would have regarded any special emphasis on this term as cultrual backwardness. In the course of his life he had arrived at more or less cosmopolitan views which, despite his pronounced national sentiments, not only remained intact, but also affected me to some extent.
Likewise at school I found no occasion which could have led me to change this inherited picture. ...
Not until my fourteenth or fifteenth year did I begin to come across the word "Jew" with any frequency, partly in connection with political discussions. This filled me with a mild distaste, ...
...for the Jew was still characterized for my by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the tone, particularly that of the Viennese anti-Semitic press, seemed to me unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation. I was oppressed by the memory of certain occurrences in the Middle Ages, which I should not have liked to see repeated. Since the newspapers in question did not enjoy an outstanding reputation(the reason for this, at that time, I myself did not precisely know), I regarded them more as the products of anger and envy...
Once, as I was strolling through the Inner City, I suddenly encountered an apparition in a black caftan and black hair locks. Is this a Jew? was my first thought...but the longer I stared at this foreign face, scrutinizing feature for feature, the more my first question assumed a new form:
Is this a German?...
...Yet I could no longer very well doubt that the objects of my study were not Germans of a special religion, but a people in themselves...


Since the author of this screed quoted from Mein Kampf, he should have known of these passages. From Hitler's own testimony he didn't learn antisemitism from his home or school or church, and certainly not because of religious reasons, but because of political discussions where he realized Jews were not "German." So if the author is attempting legitimate scholarship, why does the he make claims which are contradicted by the original source documents which he himself quotes?

Quote:
“National Socialism is not a cult-movement-- a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship... We will not allow mystically- minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else-- in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will-- not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord… Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.” -Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept.1938. [Christians have always accused Hitler of believing in pagan cult mythology. What is written here clearly expresses his stand against cults.


It appears the author has zero comprehension of what this paragraph actually says. There is a total disconnect between Hitler's statement and the author's conclusion.

Quote:
“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933 [This statement clearly refutes modern Christians who claim Hitler as favoring atheism. Hitler wanted to form a society in which ALL people worshipped Jesus and considered any questioning of such to be heresy. The Holocaust was like a modern inquisition, killing all who did not accept Jesus. Though more Jews were killed then any other it should be noted that MANY ARYAN pagans and atheists were murdered for their non-belief in Christ.]
Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:


The "atheistic" movement Hitler stamped out was Communism. Once again, the author appears to have no contact with the material quoted. There is no mention of Jesus here. Blatant anti-Christian statements are made without any support from original source documents.

Quote:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)


In view of the previous distortions of facts by this author, I don't know whether this quote is accurate, but at least this passage actually has a mention of Jesus in it, so the author appears to have some contact with his material. As a mass murderer Hitler didn't have any compunctions about trying to redefine Christianity to suite his ends. What Hitler didn't do here is acknowledge of the actual teachings of Jesus or His apostles or appeal to traditional Christian beliefs to support his positions.

The Germans had spent many years indulging in the search for the "historical Jesus," not the Jewish Jesus in the Bible which they claimed was the creation of the early church, but the one which was acceptable to modern "rational' Germans. You can find the same definition of Jesus in Nietzsche's books. For instance in THE ANTICHRIST pp33-55 Nietzsche, an avowed atheist, spends many pages portraying Jesus as the anti-Jew and claiming Jesus' disciples completely misrepresented His teachings. Because Paul along with John was one of the greatest theologians in the New Testament is reserved his hatred especially for Paul. Why people who rejected everything Jesus taught would invoke His name is testimony to His power.

Since the rest of the article is a mishmash of single sentences taken out of context, I will not bother with them. However, I will quote one more thing from the article since he again makes claims which are so easily refuted.

Quote:
“The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (This quote is very interesting for it disperses the idea that Hitler raged war due to being an Aryan supremacist. He states quite clearly that he has a problem with Jews for their belief not race. That is why many German Jews died in WW2 regardless of their Aryan nationality.)


It is this kind of "scholarship" to which I was referring when I said the cultural elite are barely competent. Despite all Hitler said about racial purity, we are supposed to believe Hitler "killed the Jews because of religious ideas rather than race," the very thing which Hitler specifically denied. This guy quotes Mein Kampf, but either has not bothered reading it, or has no comprehension of what Hitler actually said. Another possibility is that he knows these statements are false but doesn't care which I suspect is the actual case. The difference between secularists and Christians is that Christians have acknowledged when they have gone wrong and repented. The anti-Christian secularists refuse to accept that their teachings have resulted in the death of millions of people and try to falsely blame other people for their own crimes.

I will close this segment with quotes from HITLER'S TABLE TALK 1941-1944. p. 143-145 we find the following quotes:
Quote:
Christ was an Aryan, and St. Paul used his doctrine to mobilize the criminal underworld and thus organize a proto-Bolshevism. This intrusion upon the world marks the end of a long reign, that of the clear Greco-Latin genius...I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of the Mahomet, but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians! ...Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A Negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation....What a happy inspiration, to have kept the clergy out of the Party!...I conquered the State despite the malediction pronounced on us by both creeds. On that day, we went directly to the tomb of the kings whilst the others were visiting religious services. Supposing that at that period I'd made a pact with the Churches, I'd today be sharing the lot of the Duce...For my part, in his place I'd have taken the path of revolution. I'd have entered the Vatican and thrown everybody out-reserving the right to apologize later:...

These quotes should lay to rest any claims that Hitler was taking orders from Rome or was an admirer of traditional Christianity.

In the same book P 287 we find:
Quote:
...I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the State in a way they would never have dreamed possible! For the moment I am just keeping my eye on them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head wherever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on wherever it does so. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews. The fate of a few filthy, lousy Jews and epileptics is not worth bothering about. The foulest of the carrion are those who come clothed in the cloak of humility, and the foulest of the foul is Count Preysing! What a beast! the Popish inquisitor is a humane being in comparison. Vileness and hypocrisy walk arm in arm...The Catholic Church has but one desire and that is to see us destroyed."

There is much more material which I could quote, but these authentic statements from Hitler to his closest confidantes and supporters should be adequate to dispel the baseless allegations of the conspiracy theorists. To arouse this kind of hatred from Hitler specifically about the killing of the Jews means the Catholic church must have been doing many things right. So just how do our anti-Christian secularists explain these quotations?

Quote:
The Bible verse you quote doesn’t show that my reasoning above is wrong. This verse only points out your claim that salvation is not dependent on righteousness. But it doesn’t solve the problem I presented. That if acceptance of Jesus, and not righteousness leads to salvation, people can do whatever they want and be saved so long as they have faith in Jesus. How does that lead to a moral path?


The moral path is love. God's appeal to humanity is not force or threats of violence but a demonstration of His unconditional love. You can not induce people to love you by appealing to selfish motives. Whether we chose to love Him in return is up to us and our free will. Any actions such as keeping a holy day, fasting, paying alms etc. are not genuine holiness unless motivated only by love.

Quote:
Your argument holds water when we imagine a person who loves both God and his fellow man (by acting ethically). There is no contradiction at that point. But what about the person who loves and accepts God, but acts immorally? – and such a person is not a rare find. A conflict now occurs. Does God offer him salvation because he had accepted and loved God? Or does he shun him, because he did not act ethically? According to your reasoning, he must accept him. But in doing so, God has turned his back on his ultimate goal, us loving each other and treating each other well. Hence, there is a contradiction.


Not at all. It is impossible to truly love God and not love your neighbor. As the text I quoted says, by accepting God's salvation, He places His love in our hearts. If we don't love other people, that shows a weakness in our love for God.

Quote:
You say that an atheist can be moral. This means that you realize that morality can and does exist independently from religious theism.

The point I have repeatedly made is that we do not need atheism to guide our morality. Atheism is independent from morality. Morality is an entity of its own. Religion has tried repeatedly to merge with morality, but history has taught us that it actually had the opposite of the intended effect. Immoral behavior and edicts arose from theistic religions over and over again.

So, neither atheism nor theism have a great claim to morality, in so far as they differ in the belief in the existence of God. Again, morality exists and has always existed outside of the theistic realm. In fact, I think morality exists in its purest form when it stands independently, free from the grasps of religion.


It is not my place to judge the morality of individual atheists since that is completely between them and God. What I'm talking about is a rational theory of morality upon which one can base a culture. I'm looking at things from the point of view of an anthropologist studying what makes a culture work.

Quote:
It’s fine to hold this view. However, there is a consequence to this view. Since we cannot really understand God, how can theists claim an absolute and higher moral standard? If we do not understand God, how can we claim to understand what he really commands and asks of us? We are again left to our own devices.

God can be as absolute as he wants, but how does that affect us or help us if we cannot communicate with him and understand him? He might as well not exist.


There is one thing which we can know about God, His unconditional love for us, His goodness, His honesty. How to apply those principles to our lives and our society is a matter of experience and meditation. This is why there is always room for Christian societies to grow and improve.

Quote:
I agree with you in that the majority is not always correct or moral. I agree that the cultural elite are also susceptible to corruption and evil. But my point is that we simply don’t have a better system to institute. If we turn to theism, as I said before, we are left with no better than a different set of cultural elitism. The cultural elitism of the clergy and theists. And since you yourself claim that we cannot truly understand God because we lack the ability to do so, we are no closer to a higher moral standard by following the theists.


The understanding of God's unconditional love and His commitment to our freedom gives us a foundation for morality which the secularists lack.

Quote:
I’ll take my chances with the secular cultural elites, thank you very much. I’ve seen what happens when the world has tried to follow the religious elites and clergy.


What if your secular cultural elites are named Marx, or Stalin, or Hitler?

Quote:
As I said before, when I ask why God did something, I am not really asking for the real reason. I am only illustrating that the way he acted is illogical. I do not need to know all his reasons. But from what I see, his behavior is illogical and contradictory to himself and his own nature. And since I don’t think that an illogical God exists, I can only conclude that God does not exist.


Do you apply the same standards to science? If you don't understand something you don't believe it? Do you believe the universe exists? Do you understand it? To me, the idea that we could understand everything God does with the limited knowledge of eternity we have is illogical. There is enough we know about God already, that it is easy to withhold judgment on those things we don't yet understand until we receive further enlightenment.

Quote:
God offers us unconditional love, but chooses one group of people over another? He shows favoritism to some? How is that unconditional love? Such a God is not a fair or good God.
Quote:

I find it both convenient and humorous that the race from which a certain religion originated from also claims that they are God’s chosen people. Coincidence?


Hardly. What they couldn't have known is how this verse would be literally fulfilled. Israel was chosen to bless the world, not for selfish aggrandizement.

Quote:
I see. So God likes to “teach us a lesson.” The lesson being, “I will teach humanity that genocide is bad, by allowing a massive genocide to occur in Germany. But wait, they didn’t learn…OK, I’ll allow another genocide to occur in the Balkans…Still haven’t learned their lesson?...Fine, I’ll let the genocide in Africa unfold as well…When will these slow-witted humans learn this lesson?...I knew I should have made them smarter!” And that’s just the twentieth century. Genocides have been occurring since the dawn of civilization.


Genocide is not about "God teaching people a lesson" as if God had committed the act. It is about people using their freedom to kill other people. People are slow learners. The screed you copied about Hitler shows how people refuse to learn the lessons of history. What we find is people taking different philosophies and applying them to government with an outcome which the rest of mankind should learn from. The first step in learning the lessons is to look at history honestly.

Quote:
Your statement doesn’t address the issue I posed: the issue of human suffering. Please elaborate your point so I can understand you better.


Human suffering is of two types
1. Suffering caused by nature, illness, old age etc. This type of suffering can be largely relieved by science and medicine.
2. Suffering caused by human evil or ignorance. This is the type of suffering which is amenable to moral learning and education.
It is by living in a real world with real consequences and real joy and real suffering that we can experience life to the fullest and mature spiritually.

Quote:
Freedom can exist without evil. God created everything, so he could have prevented the existence of evil from the beginning. He could have then created us and given us freedom. The freedom to choose our lives. Just take evil off the menu. How would that diminish our existence? Why make us suffer during a “maturity quest?” We could have easily been made at whatever maturity level he meant for us to achieve from the start.

This reminds me of “pledge week” of college fraternities. A time where new pledges are abused and humiliated during their initiation, before they gain acceptance as a member of the fraternity. I believe we ought to expect more from a good God than to act like a college fraternity member.


In "pledge week" people are put through senseless abuse which teaches them nothing except that people can be dumb. Life on this earth is more like a strenuous college course with lab where people can learn lessons and then apply them in experiments.

Quote:
I cannot agree. Even though the US was not on Hitler’s immediate target, my understanding of Hitler leads me to think that eventually he would have found new targets. He was a megalomaniac who was dedicated to “world domination,” not just eastern European domination. He envisioned a Germany without borders. I believe that if he was successful, eventually he would have probably even turned on his own allies to subjugate them.


I can quote Hitler from HITLER'S TABLE TALK if you wish to support my statement. Hitler stated exactly what his goals were, and they were quite modest. He wanted to expand German territory eastward and colonize the slaves and keep them as surfs under German domination. He admired Americans and British greatly who were largely Germanic tribes. I know of no material which indicates the Nazis had designs on America, do you have anything to support that position?

Quote:
I don’t agree with you that abolition was a result of Christianity. Although the movement involved Christians, those Christians are also people. And good people are good people, regardless of their Christianity. The abolition was the result of the conscience of some good people, because they were good people.

As far as the claim Christianity is progressing, I think that’s good but it points to an underlying flaw of theism. The flaw is that theism tries to convince us that it is privy to a higher absolute morality and truth, but since it changes its viewpoint it shows that it never had any better claim to a higher standard.


Christians made moral arguments based on Christian principles, that is a fact of history. If they had not been Christians they would not have had those arguments. Would they have rejected slavery if they had been Muslims or Hindus? I can't tell you it is impossible, I can only tell you what actually happened. Our culture is what it is because of Judeo-Christian morals. The fact that you have chosen to live in our country indicates that you appreciate the results of that morality, whether you personally choose to accept it for yourself or not.

Quote:
You say that slavery was universal in the world, and had not ever been questioned up until the US abolition of the nineteenth century. I point to Cyrus, who obviously abolished slavery in Persia 2500 years ago. How is that not a valid challenge of your statement?


I actually said slavery was ALMOST universal in the world. I believe some small groups may not have had slaves for various reasons. On the other hand I don't know of any society which actually rid itself of slavery because the people decided slavery was immoral.

I don't believe it is obvious that slavery was abolished in Persia 2500 years ago. That is your area of expertise, but from what I've read, I believe the Persians continued to hold slaves throughout their history until they were overthrown by the Greeks. The URL below has information which looks quite balanced. If you have information which supports the general abolition of slavery please let me know The Greeks also were slave owners. http://hsc.csu.edu.au/ancient_history/societies/near_east/persian_soc/persiansociety.html
As I understand history, Cyrus was a progressive and enlightened leader for that time period. Historic figures should be judged according to the state of human society in their days. It is unfair to judge them by today's standards. For me to respect him doesn't mean I believe he was a modern liberal thinker.

Quote:
My claim is not just speculation. It is based on the fact that AMERICA abolished slavery, regardless of its religion.

You claim Christianity abolished slavery. The abolishers of slavery (the northerners) fought with the upholders of slavery (the southerners). THEY WERE BOTH CHRISTIANS. The winning side got its way. And since they were both Christians, no matter who the winner would have been, the outcome would have been presented as “the Christian way.” I wonder, if the south had won, would slavery still be the “Christian way?”


As I said, this was a debate within Christianity which degenerated into civil war. It happened among Christians who were debating Christian principles and Christian morals. These weren't atheists or agnostics having this debate.
Your second question is a good one. If the south had won, they would have continued slavery for an indefinite time after the war since their economic self interested supported that stance and would have pushed a Biblical interpretation which supported their position. How long they could have continued this line of reasoning is questionable. Unfortunately, the South was on the wrong side of history.

Quote:
No, that was not the only purpose, and perhaps not even the primary purpose. But it was part of his agenda. And his agenda was not just the freeing of the Jews, but the liberation of the weak in general.

One could argue that Lincoln’s war’s primary purpose was not to free the slaves. He took action to free the slaves, which then led to the cessation of the south from the union. Freeing the southern slaves which were now at the mercy of the confederacy may have been on his agenda. But we all know that the primary reason he went to war was to preserve the union.

Though the “primary purpose” of Lincoln’s war was not to free the slaves but to preserve the union, his role in completely freeing them as a result of the war should not be downplayed. Similarly, Cyrus’s role should not be downplayed in freeing the Jews.


I don't think I downplayed his roll in history. He was certainly an important ruler by any standards.

Quote:
But even so, these attempts only raise other problems and questions. What does it really mean “to know everything that can be known?” Everything that can be known by WHOM? I may argue that a dog cannot possibly know or ever comprehend the theory of relativity. That dog may have reached the limits of what he can know; does that mean he is omniscient? Obviously not. That example can also be applied to humans regarding another bit of knowledge which a human can never really know. If we ever reach the limits of discovery, and progress stagnates, does that mean we have become omniscient? If someone or something reaches the limits of its knowledge, and knows everything it can possibly know and no more, has he or it become omniscient?


I don't know what you mean about "attempts." I not only attempted to state my understanding but succeeded. To me my statement seems quite clear. According to my understanding, if anyone knows everything which can be known, they would be omniscient. In the other hand, if there is more to know but because of my incapacity I don't know it, that would not be omniscient.

Quote:
You are defining omniscience in the sense of its relation to the nature and capabilities of a particular entity. What CAN be known is only relative to WHOM we are referring. And if a God exists, but has the same limitations as us, but is a few steps ahead, what kind of GOD is he really? Do we now define God to be an entity that is in some ways superior to another, yet itself has certain limitations?

If you define omniscient the way you are defining it, it becomes contrary to its intended meaning. It loses its meaning. It becomes irrelevant. We are forced to abandon the concept of omniscience. The same principle applies to omnipotence. In the process, we have to re-examine God.


I find it interesting that an atheist would be concerned about my definition of God. If you really believe God doesn't exist, any arguments about God's attributes would be like arguing about the attributes of a unicorn. Logically, how can you possibly have any opinions about the subject?

Quote:
Conundrums indeed, my friend. But atheists didn’t create these conundrums. They were created by the original theists when they made up the concept of God. These conundrums have forced subsequent theists to come up with “limiting factors” to reconcile the problem. But I think such “limiting factor” explanations only place a band aid on a mortal wound.


This is an interesting argument but it completely ignores the history of man's understanding in God at least in the Judeo-Christian culture. Jehovah was a very approachable being who actually appeared to folks such as Abraham and Moses and talked to them. It was later theoreticians who came up with a more unapproachable definition of God. The God you are talking about is very similar to the Greek philosophical ideal where everything on earth was represented by a perfect model which never changed or moved. That is not the God one finds in the Bible.

Quote:
If God is able to learn, there was obviously something that he didn’t know but actually CAN be known. This contradicts even your own definition of omniscient. You stated “I accept that definition if omniscient means that God knows everything which can be known.”

So, if God learned anything, he was not omniscient prior to learning it. Did he become omniscient after he learned it? What if he learns something else next week?


If God has given us freedom, and if I am correct that a free decision can not be known before it is made, than my definition is completely logical and is not self contradictory. My free decision can not be known until it is made. After I have made it, God will certainly know what I have done. It is my understanding that God does learn something every time we make a free decision.

Quote:
This statement would be true ONLY IF we assume that there are things that God doesn’t know yet, because he has yet to learn them. This would thus negate his omniscience. However, if we assume that he is omniscient, then he cannot learn anything new, and he is perfect because he lacks nothing, love, knowledge, etc.

The point is, his omniscience (even by your definition) and his ability to learn are contradictory.


I believe I answered this above.

Quote:
Let’s examine this thought. “He voluntarily gave up his ABILITY to predict our future choices.” This means that he had a potential power, which he no longer possesses.

By your definition of omnipotence, “omnipotent means God has all power which exists.” So he gave up a potential power, a power which has the potential to exist and is attainable, although God chose not to retain that power. He has lost an attainable power. As such, God cannot be omnipotent even by your own definition.


This depends upon whether a free decision is knowable before it is made. Since I don't think it is possible, there is no contradiction.

Quote:
I commend you for recognizing the dilemma. You have realized that acceptance of free will lays a trap for the theist. You have attempted to side-line that trap. But upon closer examination, have you really avoided that trap without compromising theism?

The way you solve the dilemma undermines the basic concepts of theism. You solve it by saying God cannot know your choices. By doing so, even by the way you define omniscience and omnipotence, you are denying one or both of these two premises. If God gave up his power to know our choices, he gave up a potential power, which refutes his omnipotence. If knowledge of our choices was attainable, but God chose to not have this knowledge, he doesn’t have a knowledge which CAN be known, which refutes his omniscience.


I actually don't take my position because of any desire to save theism. I think those who believe God knows our choices before we make them and yet they are free choices are very intelligent and logical people. I don't think I'm by necessity right and they are wrong, but that is not a position which comes easily to me. I don't like the concept of the Greek God who can not learn or think. Whether they realize it or not, it is nothing but a description of the universe itself, not a personal God. I much prefer the Hebrew God to the Greek ideal.

Quote:
But if God is offering UNCONDITIONAL love, that means there can be no strings attached. So even if we reject that love, because it was unconditional, we cannot be held to pay any penalty. Hence, if rejection of an unconditional love results in any form of suffering, that love was never really unconditional.


Why not? I'd rather live in a real world with real choices and real consequences than to live in the ideal world you are describing.

Quote:
I’m not really sure what you refer to when you mention “scientific morality,” so I can’t specifically comment. But I agree that generally speaking, morality cannot be derived from science. The purpose of science is different altogether. Morality is derived from self-reflection. Science is derived from outward observation of the universe. Though there may be occasional intersections, generally that is not the case.

However, what you call “religion” in your statement, I would instead substitute it for the word “ethics” or “morality.”


I believe many people at the turn of the twentieth century thought science was going to solve all problems and I wish they had been correct. Unfortunately they were wrong. The Enlightenment which began with great hope but ended in bitterness.

Quote:
Regardless, even if the theory of evolution cannot definitively explain the existence of morality, that doesn’t mean that the existence of morality refutes the evolutionary theory.
Besides, the theory of evolution was never meant to explain “all things biologic.” It explains a big part of it, but it is not the only theory that exists in biology. Similarly, the theory of relativity does not explain “all things physical,” but only focuses on one specific aspect of a wide subject matter.


Good point, this is something we agree on.

Quote:
Wait a minute….How did God get mixed up in there? I’m saying that science and morality are usually independent. Why do we have to drag in a God? I cannot agree that our understanding of God improves our understanding of morality. I believe that is the big argument that you and I are pushing.


Until I hear a rational theory of morality without God, I'll continue to bring God into the discussion. Instincts aren't a satisfactory basis for morality.
I've offered a rational basis of moral behavior based on God.

Quote:
If a parent always answers the inquisitive child’s “why” question with “because I said so,” is that child really any closer to the truth? I think the child will actually be pushed away from inquiring about the world. He always gets the same non-sense answer. Furthermore, it’s another way to say to the child “stop asking me questions.”

Theistic advantage? Or, perhaps, disadvantage?


I believe we have both agreed that the ultimate understanding of the universe is unattainable.

Quote:
When God told Abraham that he wanted Abraham to sacrifice his child, and yet later substituted for a lamb, was he being truthful? Did he not lie to Abraham?

Does God really deal with us consistently? He saves the Jews sometime, yet leaves them to perish in Auschwitz another time.

By the way, since I am reminded of Abraham, consider the following:

"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you FEAR God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

Genesis, 22:12

God wants to know that Abraham FEARS him. What happened to the love?


The drama between God and Abraham is based on an early moral understanding of God. After the covenant at Sinai the thought of killing your innocent child would be unthinkable. I understand the word "fear" in the Bible to indicate awe and respect rather than being afraid.

Quote:
If Abraham had refused to kill his own son because a “little voice in his head” told him to do so ( which any normal person should have ignored), what would have been the consequences? Would Abraham not have become the patriarch of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic community? Would the Israelites not have been blessed? What happened to the unconditional love?

Furthermore, God is again showing favoritism. Abraham's "descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies.” What happened to God's unconditional love, which he must show EVERYONE EQUALLY? Are the Israelites' enemies being treated equally? Are they receiving unconditional love?

Also, consider what God just did by making the statement "your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies.” He just predicted the future of a group of people. If God gave us free will, and gave up his ability to know our choices, how could he possibly know that Abraham's descendants would take possession of their enemies' cities? And if the descendants of Abraham are pre-destined to take over these cities, are they not bound by fatalism? This is the very definition of fatalism.


To me, material such as this is a strong indication of the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible. It includes material such as this which is clearly a relic of an early stage of moral development. One can trace the gradual revelation of God's character as one studies through the Bible from earlier passages to later writings.

Quote:
I admire this adventurous side of yours. One has to be very adventurous to explore this issue as you obviously have done.

Yours is an interesting conclusion. I really don’t have any alternative viewpoint on the explanation of consciousness, but I am always interested to hear others’ opinions on the subject. I can neither agree with your proposition nor disagree with it. But I do find it interesting.

What has freaked me out sometime in the past when I tried to dwell on this issue was this: I realized that I was using my consciousness and brain to understand my own consciousness and brain.


I was hoping to discuss this in more depth since it is such an interesting subject. We have beat some of the other topics to death, but this one is still deeply interesting to me. I enjoy talking to you largely because we don't agree on some things. That makes life more interesting. I can imagine God watching us with amusement and pleasure as we experiment and learn about this great universe He has made for us.

Quote:
Thanks for clarifying. By these lesser, evil spirits, do you also mean the devil? Please tell me your thoughts on the devil. I ask now not as a prelude to challenging you, but simply out of curiosity. I already know the view of the traditional theists. But I sense that you are not a traditional theist (at least not the way I define a traditional theist), and your view on the subject interests me.


I do believe in the Devil.

Quote:
Also correct. However, no-one likes to be called “anti-something.” We all like to be “pro-something.” So, instead of calling it “anti-Christian secularism,” I would call it simply “secularism.” Just semantics.


I consider myself a secularist since I'm a firm believer in classic liberalism. When I talk about anti-Christian secularists it doesn't necessarily apply to you. However, there are many folks who are extremely negative and appear to they define themselves more by what they are against than what they are for.

I
Quote:
disagree with you here. We are both looking at the same country, but we both see what appeals to us. To you, its Christianity, so you view this country as based on Christianity. To me, its secularism, so I view this country as based on secularism. In some ways we are both right, and in others, we are both wrong.


We're both right I think. Protestant Christianity is firmly committed to secular society by their theology. My theology is exactly the same, I do not want clergymen dictating my beliefs or my behavior. The strongest guarantee of the secular society in America are the Christians who believe as I do.

Quote:
Thank you for explaining yourself. I understand and respect your explanation, and I am not critical of it. What I still point out, though, is this:

If theists’ understanding of God is fallible and open to re-interpretation, how can theists claim access to a higher standard of truth or morality? They do not really know God or God’s word, so how can they invoke a higher authority to back up their claims? According to your explanation, the theist’s views are just as prone to error as anyone else’s.


The more we know of God the more we realize we don't know. However, theology provides a basic foundation for studying the universe. It is similar to the scientific method which builds on certain assumptions.

Quote:
This raises an interesting question. Since Jesus didn’t write anything down, and we don’t know exactly what he said, how can we know anything that he said?

If we cannot know anything that he said, what then becomes the basis of Christianity?

Which parts did he say, and which parts did he not say?

If we have a hypothetical document which we know has some truths and some fallacies, but we don’t know which is which, does that not render the whole document useless? Everything becomes suspect, and we cannot rely on any of it with any kind of security.


I'll quit here. I believe Jesus didn't write anything down because He knew his followers would commit idolatry with His words. Watching the mental traps the Muslims have fallen into illustrates just how wise Jesus really was. It is terrible when people substitute the written word for a relationship with the living God.

Here is my belief in Jesus.
Quote:
Isa 9:6-7
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David's throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this.
NIV
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Philosophy and Religion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 4 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group