Let me begin by getting a few things out of the way. I am a gay atheist and have no love for religion of any type, but this isn't a discussion about why I am an atheist. I was raised in a conservative christian family, and this is a discussion of why I find the christian religion to be particularly incompatible with my personal values and ethics.
When I was very young, I was schooled extensively in both the old and new testament. I attended bible studies twice weekly, and went to school in a private christian academy. In my studies, there was one particular story that was commonly discussed, but which always left me feeling out of sorts... uncomfortable... confused by the seeming inconsistency between what I was told to believe, and what the bible actually seemed to say.
That story, of course, was Exodus.
11:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Yet will I bring one plague more upon Pharaoh, and upon Egypt; afterwards he will let you go hence: when he shall let you go, he shall surely thrust you out hence altogether. 11:2 Speak now in the ears of the people, and let every man borrow of his neighbour, and every woman of her neighbour, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold. 11:3 And the LORD gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians. Moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh’s servants, and in the sight of the people. 11:4 And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt: 11:5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts. 11:6 And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more. 11:7 But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel. 11:8 And all these thy servants shall come down unto me, and bow down themselves unto me, saying, Get thee out, and all the people that follow thee: and after that I will go out. And he went out from Pharaoh in a great anger. 11:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you; that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt. 11:10 And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.
12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. 12:30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. (Exodus 11:1-10, 12:29-30)
http://ebible.org/bible/kjv/
Now, even as a non-christian, I still have sympathy for the ancient Israelites the same as I would have for any enslaved people. And, I think that the condemnation of the Egyptians and their Pharaoh is justified for their practice of slavery. But, the one thing in this story that I simply can't reconcile is the idea that even if someone is doing harm to you, that an acceptable response is to target and kill their infant children as a form of punishment.
Through the many years of my biblical studies, I encountered a great many arguments offered to whitewash this story. I was told for example that "god can do no wrong," and since god sent his 'angel' to kill these Egyptians (they were never called 'people'), the death of these children was something to be praised, and that my revulsion at the idea was in and of itself "sinful." I was further told that this and many other stories of the Old Testament "didn't count" anymore, because Jesus took the punishment of the "vengeful God" of the OT onto himself when he died on the cross.
The problem to me was that neither of these arguments (nor any of the others) addressed the basic reality (and at the time I believed in the literal reality of the bible) of the events described in this story. No matter how this story was spun, I was invariably drawn back to the fact that the targets of "God's vengeance" in this story were the children of his follower's enemies.
Whever I hear christians talking about "God's love" and "God's forgiveness," I am drawn back to this story. The inconsistency of christian platitudes measured against the worship of a figure that murders the infant children of his follower's enemies is simply irreconcilable to me. I do try not to be unreasonable about this kind of thing, and can accept the idea that modern christians don't support the idea that the children of their enemies should be murdered if those children's parents do something wrong, but I never ceased to be surprised at how few christians are willing to admit that this act of their "God" was not worthy of praise, much less that it was an evil and repuslive act.
Whenever a christian gets on their high horse with me (and really, the christian soldier's standard issue horse is REALLY high), I tend to ask them their opinon of the story of the Exodus. And if they are unwilling to condemn the actions described in this story, I really can't bring myself to give their moral remonstrances much credit. Even if I were a theist, I could not be a christian for the simple reason that I would very much rather "burn for all eternity" than to worship a "God" that murders innocents as a punishment for their parents.
percivale
You certainly make a good point! I struggle with some of the same things as well. This story is much like a story in Numbers, where the ground opens up and swallows the enemies of God's people. There's more to the story than that, obviously, but it's been awhile since I read it. I'll look for it though.
I struggle with the image of a God who does things like that, too, so I totally understand where you are coming from. But, the reality is really that God does no wrong (there's one of those arguments you don't like) and there may be way more behind it than we read in the Bible. (I do believe that the Bible is perfect as well, but that doesn't mean that something wasn't purposely left out.)
So if you are asking real Christians to denounce the actions of their God, even if only in this particular area, you'd be asking them to state that their God is NOT perfect, which would make God a lot like us. That really doesn't fly then, you see? Saying that God was at fault here kind of denounces the whole authority of the Bible and sets an earthquake upon the foundation of people's relationships with God. So we may not like it, and we may not understand it, but saying that God was wrong is kind of out of the question, because if one is to believe what the Bible says, He wasn't. I hope I'm making sense...do you get what I'm saying?
God did love Pharaoh and He is a forgiving God, but He admits to being an angry and jealous God, too. So what is He to do when Pharaoh continually lies to Moses & Aaron and refususes to let the slaves go....even after all of those other plagues? It called for some pretty desperate action- an outpouring of God's power, if you will- for the Pharaoh to let the slaves go. And even after he DID let them go, he came chasing after them! Had he not learned his lesson? You don't mess with God!!
God also took away Pharaoh's free will in Exodus. Remember that Pharaoh was going to let the slaves go several times, but God 'hardened his heart', essentially taking away his free will.
~C
Visit my blog.
> Saying that God was at fault here kind of denounces the
> whole authority of the Bible and sets an earthquake upon
> the foundation of people's relationships with God. So we
> may not like it, and we may not understand it, but saying
> that God was wrong is kind of out of the question, because
> if one is to believe what the Bible says, He wasn't. I hope
> I'm making sense...do you get what I'm saying?
Actually, I DO get it, which is why I have to reject the christian faith in particular. Essentially, you are saying that no matter how inconsistent, irrational or downright evil a particular action described in the bible might be, you would rather cling to your religion's literal history and dogmas rather than to actually stand up for the values that your religion CLAIMS to advocate. This is why I have so little respect for christians, in general.
Being an atheist can be a little depressing at times, but at least I don't have to give praise to a murderous tyrant to be one.
percivale
For 400 years the Jews were in Egypt after Joseph had his fathers family brought there. During the life of Joseph, things must have been very good for them, especially during the time of the Pharaoh who placed the ring upon Joseph and put him in charge over the land. Then things started going downhill. New "kings" came into power and though it was due to the work of the Jews that the Egyptians were saved from the famine, they forgot and decided that there were just too many of the Jews around.
What did they do to stem the rising tide of the Jewish people? Pharaoh ordered the midwives to kill them if they were boys.
From the Torah beginning in Shemos Chapter 1 verse 6;
Verse 6: Yoseif died. All his brothers and all that generation [also died.]
Verse 7: The B'nei Yisrael were fruitful and prolific, and their population multiplied. They were exceedingly mighty, and the land was filled with them.
Verse 8: A new king came into power over Egypt, who did not know Yoseif.
Verse 9: He said to his people, "Behold, the people of the B'nei Yisrael are becoming too numerous and strong for us.
Verse 10: Come let us deal wisely with him. Lest he increase so much, that, if there is war, he will join our enemies and fight against us, driving us from the land.
Verse 11: They appointed conscription officers over him to oppress him with their burdens. He [B'nei Yisrael] built supply cities for Pharaoh, Pisom and Ramseis.
Verse 12: But the more [the Egyptians] oppressed him, the more [the B'nei Yisrael] increased and spread. [The Egyptians] came to loathe the B'nei Yisrael.
Verse 13: The Egyptians enslaved the B'nei Yisrael, with body-breaking labor.
Verse 14: They made their lives bitter with harsh labor involving mortar and bricks, and all kinds of work in the fields. All the work they made them do [was intended] to break them.
Verse 15: The king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives. The name of one of them was Shifrah, and the name of the other was Puah.
Verse 16: He said, "When you deliver Hebrew women, you must look at the birthstool. If it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live."
Verse 17: The midwives [however] feared El-him and did not do as the Egyptian king had told them, and they kept the infant boys alive.
Sheini (Second Aliyah)
Verse 18: The king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, "Why did you do this? You let the infant boys live."
Verse 19: The midwives said to Pharaoh, "The Hebrew women are not like the Egyptians. They know how to deliver. Even before a midwife gets to them, they have already given birth."
Verse 20: El-him was good to the midwives, and the people increased and were very mighty.
Verse 21: Because the midwives feared G-d, He gave them houses.
Verse 22: Pharaoh then commanded all his people, saying, "Every boy who is born must be thrown into the river; but every girl shall be allowed to live."
http://www.tachash.org/metsudah/s01t.html
For the sake of argument, lets say that you were the leader of the Jews in trying to escape from the oppression they had been under. The boss man had already enslaved them for a long time and beaten them with whips and forced them to do more than anyone could reasonably be made to do. And he killed all of their male children, so that they couldn't keep growing as a people. Even the slave-owners in America tried to make sure that their slaves had as many baby's as they could, especially males, for the free labor pool and financial gain from the sale of them. It's not right but it happened.
So you got this big evil boss, who you want to get your people away from and he is already killing your baby's (probably bashing their heads against walls, disemboweling them, be-heading them and burning the bodies), and you have tried through diplomatic ways to allow him to let you go to pray to your God, and he won't even let you do that. He doesn't want you to have any more babies but he doesn't want to let his free labor roam around either. So your God shows him what He (God) can do.
Honestly, if Pharaoh wanted to keep his slaves happier and productive, he would have just let them procreate and let them go into the wilderness and pray or tried to appease them by building them a temple in the city. But he sure shouldn't have killed the babies. There is nothing more calculated to infuriate and put in a killing mood than to harm children.
But I digress.
God shows Pharaoh miracles and signs in order to convince him, though God already knows that Pharaoh will not give in because Pharaoh had already hardened his heart against God as a foreign god in his land.
Note: Since God gave man freewill in the Garden, and has never taken it away, God cannot harden the heart of anyone to the point that that person cannot make their own decisions. If God had taken away the gift of freewill at any time prior to this event, which He didn't, then, and only then, He could have hardened Pharaoh's heart. Each person opens or closes his heart to God, or any idea or belief, of their own volition. No one else can do it for them.
After God showed the Egyptians and Pharaoh all the plagues and Pharaoh still would not let the Jews go, He resorted to the final act, which actually was just a repeat of what Pharaoh did, turned back upon him. And God did not take all the male children, just the first born.
Any Questions Class?
...but it doesn't really speak to the issue that I have presented at some length above.
The "moral" issue that I have with the biblical story of the Exodus is that the targets of the retribution were essentially the ONLY people involved who hadn't done anything wrong in first place. Essentially, your rebuttal amounts to "they killed our babies, so I'm going to kill your babies as an act of revenge." And I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound like a partucularly "moral" response.
You also seem to be focused on the actual historical events (which are at best questionable, since no primary source accounts exist concerning any of the events recounted in the book of Exodus. My objecton is (and remians as I have elaborated upon previously in this thread) that I find the idea that someone would consider the slaying of an enemies infant children to be not only justifiable but actually an act worthy of praise, to be utterly repugnant.
As the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right, and if the best response that your religion can muster is an act of revenge directed at the children of your enemies, then I really can't bring myself to have any sort of respect for your beliefs.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Ok, I'll respond to jlang1985's quote of "God did love Pharaoh" -- is this not the typically christian hypocrisy? Ok next time I'm "Angrey and/or Jealous" of my daughter I guess I'll just have to kill her.
"and He is a forgiving God," -- ok, so he will forgive me, no matter what -- if he exists that is.
This one really points it out the best for me -- "but He admits to being an angry and jealous God, too." -- What I find so astonishing is anger and jealousy are HUMAN emotions, GODS should be above the pettiness of such emotions.
Ceila
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ceila30
Ok next time I'm "Angrey and/or Jealous" of my daughter I guess I'll just have to kill her.
No, no, no, no, no.... You kill her first born, not her. You're supposed to teach her a lesson here.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
First:
"Religion is opium for the masses"
People need to believe in a higher power for serveral reasons.
Second:
I went to a christian school till my fourth grade year, and I'm very educated in the christian religion.
Third:
Now, god put us here on earth because of what Adam and Eve did, not exactly how it happened, but I do not wish to type it all. We all know the story. Well, bottom line, punishment. So in the bible, why does god interfer with going ons back then. Why does he assist entire cities of people and smite others?
Fourth:
I don't believe in god for two reasons: One, because everything in the bible has been scientifically proved wrong and I've never had any proof that a god really exsists. Second, if such a god does exsist, he does not deserve to be worshipped. If god is so powerful and could do all those things in the bible, why does he let thousands, millions, of children starve in 3rd world countries?
A few questions-
How old are you now? If you only went to a Christian school until your fourth grade year, it's likely that you were not taught much in-depth stuff. And it's also not extremely likely that you remember all of it.
I don't understand your Adam & Eve reasoning. You said yourself that it wasn't exactly the way it happened, so why did you write that at all? More humans would've inhabited the world anyways, that wasn't a punishment for the sin that both Eve & Adam committed. And why shouldn't God interfere with HIS own creation? He assissted the people that were true to Him, and disliked those who looked the other way.
OK----I laughed when I read your sentence, "One, because everything in the bible has been scientifically proved wrong." Just where did you find that? You show me how the entire Bible has been "scientifically disproven" and maybe I'll stop laughing. Why should He not be worshipped? God is all-powerful and He DID do all of the things recounted in the Bible. But here's the key- He gave us free will. The first two humans took that, fell into temptation, and began a long history of sin that plagued the creation that God intended to be perfect. So the world isn't perfect, and the bad things in the world today are a result of sin. I have a penpal from Uganda who loves God with all of her heart, but her family is desperately poor and can barely afford the necessities that we take for granted here in America. But you know what? She doesn't complain one bit about God "not helping" her monetary situation. She accepts it and continues to love Him. Interesting, eh?
I was a Christian for 16 years. The problem with Judeo-Christian religion, It pollutes everyone minds and makes them think that God is one huge contradiction. God does exist(in my experience), but not in the way s/he is described in the bible. many of those bible stories are ridiculous. besides the one about the first born sons. The one about god feeding little kids to a bear because they made fun of a preacher. turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, even the story of adam and eve being cast out of the garden does not make sense. The only trait the god of the Bible possesses is jealousy. He's basically saying to people you have free will, but if you don't do exactly what I say you're dead meat. That's why I only believe in God/dess the way I see Him/Her. The bible's just an opinion.
Brains Before Books
I'm not familiar with the story of the children and the bears, could you tell me where in the Bible that is located? Why does the Adam & Eve story not make sense? God gave them the ENTIRE garden of Eden to roam and live in. All he said was "Don't eat from this ONE tree!" There were probably a thousand trees there, so it wasn't like they were going to run out of food and be FORCED to eat from it. They broke the only rule God gave them, so why shouldn't they be punished?
God knows that he is a jealous God, and it is even admitted in the Bible. He's just like a parent. Most of us have free will, but if we choose to not do what our parents ask us to do, we get in trouble. So how is this suddenly so unreasonable? What a double standard!
You're statement that the Bible is just an opinion...is merely your own opinion. :D
I can't remember where I read that story but I did a lot when I was in Sunday school. I think someone else has it in their post.
The Adam and Eve story. To clarify, the story itself makes sense. But it being looked at as a sin for them to eat of the tree does not make sense, from a logical perspective. First, let me say that I am a polytheist, so to me the god in genesis is only one of many gods and goddesses. My interpretation of the story is that the (JudeoChristian)creator god told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because then, they would know that he is not the only god as he claimed and they would be as gods and goddesses themselves. He lied to them and told them they would die. Then a god in the form of a serpent told them that they would not die and that the tree was good. They ate from the tree, got kicked out but did not die, and now people know good from evil. We can follow our own morals.
And about that parent comment. If my mother or father told me to do something that I truly believed was wrong, I would not do it. It would be unreasonable for me to do or believe something I find wrong.
"You're statement that the Bible is just an opinion...is merely your own opinion."
I know that statement is merely my opinion. Just as your statement is merely an opinion.
Were sent to avenge the prophet Elisha.
A fact is always better than an ideal
"Avenge" is rather a strong word for 42 children being mauled to death for making fun of Elisha's bald head, don't you think?
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Id heartily agree with you on that one. They don't even teach it in Sunday school. Maybe it would make apropriate ciriculum for REFORM Sunday school.
"Little vicious minds abound with anger and revenge, and are incapable of feeling the pleasure of forgiving their enemies."
Lord Chesterfield
> They don't even teach it in Sunday school.
...or at least, they taught the story of Elisha and the Bears in the Sunday School that I attended, and in this one as well:
Sunday School Audio
Welcome to our free Sunday school audio page. We hope to be the central location for your search for audio lessons.
2Kings 2: This chapter is made up of three very familiar stories. Elijah is taken to heaven in a whirlwind, Elisha heals the waters of Jericho and Elisha cursed the little children and bears came out and devoured them. So often you only hear of the love of God, but God is also a God of judgment. Listen Download
Nothing like a lttle threat to keep the kids in line, yes?
Enjoy!
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
They taught it in my Sunday School and we weren't any kind of fringe church.
Satan is crying on the side of the road:
Passerby: "Why are you crying?"
Satan: "They always blame everything on me"
I emailed my pastors about this and asked for their take on it, and here's what they had to say....
#1
"The first thing that comes to my mind is God’s
judgment didn’t just fall on infants, but on every
first born male. He could have been thirty, fifty,
twelve or infant there was no age restriction here.
Secondly I wonder if this plague was a reflective
response to what Pharaoh did in the first chapter of
Exodus starting with verse 15 when he ends up having
all the boys killed and Mosses only escapes because of
the Pharaohs daughter. Not that it’s an eye for an eye
but that for each decision we make in life, there is a
consequence.
Thirdly I believe that people have only an earthly
mindset and that even though the thought of children
being killed is horrific, the fact is when we go from
this life to the next we live forever and in the case
of these children they are spending eternity in
heaven. Isn’t that our ultimate goal anyway? So from
an eternal perspective they have already accomplished
what most of us spend an entire life time trying to
accomplish.
I’m not saying it wasn’t tragic for those parents
who lost their child, but from an eternal perspective
they are in heaven."
#2
"If people want a nice, neatly-wrapped tidy God, then that is not the God we read about in scripture. The Exodus is called the beginning of salvation history, where God redeems a people for himself. Salvation is costly, as evidenced in the plagues, and in the death of God's own Son. God is often raw in the way He redeems His people, and there are elements of the scripture that are paradoxical. The main thing to note is that God will do whatever it takes to create a people with whom He can live in relationship. God did not spare His own Son in this process.
So if the person wants a nice neat life philosophy, they won't find it in the God of the scriptures. But they will find a God desperate for relationship with His people. I will keep thinking on this one."
Reponse to #1: I think you missed the point entirely. It doesn't matter if older people were murdered TOO, the fact remains that (according to the story) the victims INCLUDED the infants who were among the Egyptians' firstborn. I don't generally make a big deal about the adults who were murdered because at least an adult in Egyptian society would be at least partially responsible for the policies and actions of his country, but the infants could not be reasonably argued to have done anything to anyone, and thus to kill seems ethically undefendable. As for your idea that at least the murdered children are "spending eternity in heaven," I can't honestly say that I have every heard a more disturbing, disgusting and reprehensible statement. If we were to accept that line of reasoning, then we would have to accept that you could murder ANYONE in the name or your religion.
Response to #2: If there is a cost to be paid for your "salvation," then may I humbly suggest that it is YOU that should be paying it, not the children of your enemies. I am quite aware that the "god" of the scriptures isn't a "nice" being, and is in fact a rather blood-thirsty chracter that represents a great many attitudes that are quite frankly repugnant to anyone who TRULY values concepts such as "peace" and "love." That's the whole point of this dicussion, and thanks for confirming that my rejection of christianity is justified.
Your arguments represent religious fanatacism at its worst, and such attitudes are a true blight upon humanity.
percivale
Your argument makes it sound like you feel God just up and killed thousands of people without warning. You are forgetting that God sent nine plagues before this, each more severe than the one before it.
About "the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart": I looked this up in several commentaries, and they said that a more literal translation would be "the LORD allowed his heart to be hardened." So this does not indicate God taking away Pharaoh's free will, but rather the opposite. He allowed Pharaoh to make his own decision, but he make the wrong one.
Once again, I think you guys are missing the point. Can you honestly sit there and say that it is a praiseworthy act to kill an INFANT because his or her PARENTS didn't obey? Now, I'm not a biologist, but I'm pretty certain that a very young child doesn't possess the capacity for high level reasoning or capacity to understand things like "plagues." So, please explain to me how it isn't EVIL to kill a CHILD because his or her PARENTS have done something you don't like.
percivale
P.S. Another thanks is in order for showing me that I was right to leave the christian religion.
Try this one.
God has purposes that are larger than individuals. The parable as it relates to the Egyptians as a whole all the way from Pharaoh to these babies is that if you get in the way of God (AKA The Cold Hard Truth) the punishment is not minor or limited. You can screw up so bad that everyone around you is punished for it.
For example if your mommy is driving a car that is in a high speed head-on collision everyone dies. If you think it is 'unfair' that is really unimportant. Compared to reality your desires are immaterial.
A fact is always better than an ideal
So your God is a terrorist too.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Terror is a valid reaction to God, so I can't argue with that.
Terrorist would describe George Washington also.
"Little vicious minds abound with anger and revenge, and are incapable of feeling the pleasure of forgiving their enemies."
Lord Chesterfield
Your God's "indifference to some human values", makes it such that he promotes suffering that leads to no higher good. That makes him not worthy of worship. He is a god that deserves to have his magic powers revoked and spend a couple of million years in solitary confinement with nothing but books and videos on ethics look at.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
You seem to be implying that simply because the "god" you envision is capable of doing bad things to people, that those people should do what "he" says, or in other words, "Might = Right." That doesn't seem like a very "good" (in the moral sense) argument to me.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
"That doesn't seem like a very "good" (in the moral sense) argument to me."
I'm against car crashes just like you are. Unfortunately they exist, even if I disbelieve them.
As a non-superstitious entity God has all the aspects of reality. Science is used to understand and explain reality, not deny it. If you wish to hate reality rather than love it you are doing fine. It seems disingenuous to pretend you are logical or scientific while you do it.
Might makes Right would make a good blog. Plenty to argue about there.
"Little vicious minds abound with anger and revenge, and are incapable of feeling the pleasure of forgiving their enemies."
Lord Chesterfield
But MORALITY is an ideal. And what percivale was talking about was the morality of your God.
God as a non-superstitious entity does not exist. And it is a bit disingenuous of you to put on the mantle of science to claim otherwise.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"God as a non-superstitious entity does not exist. And it is a bit disingenuous of you to put on the mantle of science to claim otherwise."
So, if we follow this all the way arround.....God must be superstitious!
WOOHOO! PROOF!
Are you missing the humor of your 'logic' or should I explain it in smaller words?
"Little vicious minds abound with anger and revenge, and are incapable of feeling the pleasure of forgiving their enemies."
Lord Chesterfield
Well let me explain it to you and please let me know if I have used too large a word for you.
(1) No one said anything about "PROOF" except you.
(2) You made an assertion (sorry I couldn't come up with a smaller word) that, "As a non-superstitious entity God has all the aspects of reality". That statement is based on nothing and is plainly meaningless.
(3) All one need do to refute a baseless assertion is to make a counter-assertion. It holds just as much weight as does the original assertion.
(4) The only person who sees "logic" in "following [it] all the way around" is you.
(5) So the logic you find humorous is yours not mine. I'm not surprised ... having read your posts before, I would be surprised if a lot of people didn't find your logic funny.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
> I'm against car crashes just like
> you are. Unfortunately they exist,
> even if I disbelieve them.
And of course, the reason your statement about the existence of car crashes is likely to go unchallenged due to the fact that there is actual, objective evidence in the world that proves to a relative certainty that cars do exist, and that sometimes they crash. The "god" you speak of, however, is not so lucky in "his" support.
> As a non-superstitious entity
> God has all the aspects of reality.
> Science is used to understand
> and explain reality, not deny it.
If you wish to employ the scientific method in support of your hypothesis, the next step for you would be to come up with a falsifiable test designed to produce empirical results that would lead towards the establishment of the truth-value of your proposition. If you cannot do this, then your appeal to the scientific crediblity of your argument seems ill supported.
> If you wish to hate reality rather
> than love it you are doing fine. It
> seems disingenuous to pretend
> you are logical or scientific while
> you do it.
Sometimes I really wonder where you come up with this crap. How is it "hating reality" to grasp firmly those aspects of reality that are known and can be proved to a reasonable certainty as a basis for understanding the rest?
> Might makes Right would make a
> good blog. Plenty to argue about there.
Since that is the essence of the position you defended above, perhaps you should expand upon the idea.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I think the bottom line with god killing the firstborn child here is that, he did, indeed, without deniability, K-I-L-L-E-D. Are you saying all the egyptians were as bad as the pharaoh? I really don't believe that. The bible is nothing more than a fairy tale, just like jack and the bean stalk. He killed. He gave us free will, but when the eygptians choose to be against "Gods people", he killed them?! But wait...I thought we were all gods children? You know, christian beliefs contradict themselves.
I'm an atheist, are you saying that god's going to kill me and other atheists because we do not choose to worship him?(haha, and ironicly I am a the first child in my family) Or is he going to kill all the murders or rapists or cerial killers? Then why do we have jails? I could just go on about this. But I won't.
"...ironicly I am a the first child in my family..."
Ironically, so am I. Perhaps being "firstborn" helps to put this crime into perspective.
percivale
I'm my mom's firstborn, but not my dads...
Would I survive?
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
"So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it!"
You would go to hell anyway for being a bastard (just kidding)
I'm also my mom's firstborn but not my dad's.
Denken. Nicht lesen.
They were married :P
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
"So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it!"
The story I found morally abhorrent was the Noachian flood. There God kills the entire world except eight people and 2 pairs of all animals (except possibly 7 pairs of the clean ones), simply because if an election had been held for God, God would only have received 8 votes against a field of imaginary opponents.
I was appalled that so many theists thought (1) it was a true story, and (2) that God's actions in it were justifiable. It was here that I first began to think that the religion meme has something in it that causes people infected by it to be incapable of rationally examining it.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
Great Minds think alike. ok, maybe that was a pathetic stab at innocents. I truely understood the point you were making and completely agree with you. I was raised Protestant Chritian --whatever that means-- and now find that the ultimate concept of god, if one exists, is far too big to fit into any one paticular religion. And my perception of Organized Religions in general, in my opinion, they are detroying the World. I write a little about that in my Worldview blog. Great Blog, I enjoyed it.
Ceila
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ceila30
you make perfect sense.
God can kill babies but abortion is 100% wrong.
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
"So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it!"
I believe in a god (so obviously, I'm not atheist), but I do NOT believe in the biblical portrayal of whatever-he-or-she-may-be. I think the bible has got it horribly wrong (or at least I hope it does). I think that a lot of whats in the bible is directly related to how the people who wrote it interperetted what was going on around them. So you have to take into account the time period and other factors. I think the historical aspect is probably right, and they probably have some other things right too (by sheer luck, on my guess.)but as a whole I think that it's fully acceptable to pick and choose what to believe from what good ol' Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, and all the other authors who contributed to the bible had to say.
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
"So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it!"
who don't take the story literally? I'm not trying to sway you one way or another, but if you didn't take the story literally (meaning choosing not to assume that God really DID kill all those people), then what other problem could you have with it?
...but I think that one has to engage in some pretty impressive mental gymnastics to suggest that the OT account of Exodus was intended to be a parable.
Even so, what does it change, really? I mean, as an atheist, I aready don't believe that "God really DID kill all those people" because I don't really believe that the entity you call "god" actually exists. But the essence of my contention is with the principle that is espoused. Even viewed metaphorically, the events describe a mentality where it is acceptable to view the children of your enemies as a valid target to be used to force compliance with your goals. That I think is a despicable position to espouse.
And lets fact it, the story DOES espouse violence against your enemies as a "moral" act. "God" is praised for "killing" the firstborn children of Egypt. Even as "just a story," that's pretty sick, in my humble opinion.
percivale
The exodus, like the rest of the old testament, had a god with no problem killing people if they weren't his chosen people. The new testament introduced an updated version of god, with love and humanity. God 2.0. Christians should follow this one, the other one is deprecated and just in the bible for backwards compatibility.
Christianity updated the old testament. They follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Judaism follows the old testament.
...still had the Old Testament in their bibles. Also, the "god" of the OT is still considered by christians to be the same being descibed in the New Testament, so the differences doesn't really seem relevant to me. Unless a christian is willing to denounce the actions attributed to their "god" in the OT as immoral and in fact "evil," then any attempt to hide behind the marginally more tolerant stories of Jesus (and even he used violence to force compliance with his religious beliefs in the story of the money changers) seems rather disingenous.
percivale
And lots of other books and writings that Christians have probably never heard about.
I've always been curious why there's such a shift in the perception of God in the OT and NT.
~C
Visit my blog.
Did God supposably just go "Ok, well THIS isn't working out"
and then become the God of the NT?
Because if he did he is NOT all knowing because he would have known that it wouldn't have worked out to begin with. And he's NOT all good, because those things in the OT went against his very own rules of what is "good".
So I'm pretty sure that Christians aren't willing to put it in that context...so...what then?
Let us remember that God put Jesus on the earth (via Biblical claims, anyway), so he's the one who decided that to "fix" his own creation he had to have someone, his own son by Biblical definition, tortured and killed. That doesn't sound too good...and if you're all knowing why would you create something that would have to be fixed? If you were all powerful why would you chose to make something like that?
It's not even possible to be all powerful. Thanks to a nice little paradox my Philosophy professor pointed out: If you told God to create a rock that was too heavy for him to move, what would happen? If he couldn't create the rock, that means he's not all powerful because he can't create it. If he can create a rock too heavy for him to move, that means that he's not all powerful because he can't move the rock.
Wow I went off on a tangent...lol.
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
"So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it!"
Hello peoples. Interesting converstation here.
First off, I am a Christian. I agree that the idea of God killing first-born children seems very wrong nowadays.
I would also say that stories like Noah's Ark might be a better argument for this, or the battle of Jericho, etc.
But what a lot of you seem to forget is the time period all of this was written/happening in. This is an ancient culture you're dancing around here. Not rural Kansas or a 1 street town. You would be hard-pressed to find anything from those days that you would truly be happy with morally frankly (talking to atheists mainly here). Religion and culture are not seperate things here. One feeds off of the other. To think that the moral standards of the day had nothing to do with the growth of the Israelites as a people and Judaism/Christianity/Islam as religions is crazy. You are not going to find women's rights in very many places in the ancient world. Heck you wouldn't find it in early America. You won't find gay rights or anti-slavery. They didn't have that mindset so why would their religion have it?
I personally don't put much weight in that God sent the Angel of Death to kill Egyptians. It's more likely that it's an interpretation of what really happened, a story about a story. To think of it as fact by fact reality of what happened is kinda silly.
The Bible isn't some clean short story about the history the world. It's very complex, made up of many different books, by many different authors, taken from many different maunscripts. Point A doesn't always get to point B. Points don't always match. But if you know how to read it, know the history behind it, it makes sense and is quite spectacular. No it's not clean-cut, but show me one thing that is.
I can't say that I've ever met a christian who presented "moral relativism" as a biblically valid position.
When you speak of the bible as a fable or myth, then your arguments have some weight. In fact, it would be refreshing to meet a christian who actually viewed their religious texts as such. But as it has most often been presented to me, the "god" described in the bible is an "actual" being, and the stories in the bible represents "his" actions and commandments.
I also note that when you referred to the killing of the first-born children of Egypt, you say that it, "seems very wrong." That tells me that you aren't willing to that the ethically responsible step of actually holding your "god" and your your religion responsible for its actions.
You see, I don't think that this "seems" wrong at all. I think that killing a child as a means of punishing a parent is plainly abhorrent. And I think that anyone who would praise (or even simply fail to condemn) a "god" for doing something like this---even metaphorically in a the context of mythical worship--lacks the moral credibility to stand in judgement over ANYONE.
Either you think that killing children as a way to punish their parents is wrong, or you don't. Which is it?
percivale
My comments on the evolution of morality is very simple. What is considered right and wrong today is different than what was considered right and wrong in ancient times.
Also I did not speak of the entire Bible as fable or myth. When you talk about the Exodus out of Egypt then, yes, you are very likely dealing with some sort story/tale. Many biblical scholars believe there was never an exodus to begin with. Making the story of Moses a 'national epic' for Israel.
Also when you talk about God and how God is portrayed in the Bible, especially within the earlier books, you HAVE to understand where it is all coming from.
Let me illustrate my point:
First off, during this time period that Exodus would have taken place, the Hebrews were moving out of the polytheistic beliefs that most, if not all of their neighbors had. They focused on one god, Yahweh. Thing is, they didn't deny the existence of the gods, Baal for example. So if you're trying to compare the early god of the Hebrews and the god portrayed in the Gospels, you're going to get two different gods. In truth, the Hebrews were Henotheists (that is devotion to one god, but believing in the existence of others), not Monotheists. They wanted to portray their god as one who could beat the crap out of all the other gods. Which would explain why they portray him to be so malevolent against Egypt in the story you describe in your post. They didn't believe him to be god of all mankind, but just their own god. a god that had no ties to Egypt, so they thought he could do what he wanted. They portrayed god in such a way as to show superiority over the stronger nations that surrounded them. But even to say that the god portrayed in the OT is all bad is too simplified. There is plenty in the OT that paints god as kind and loving.
And yes, I think that killing children is wrong.
Now if I understand correctly the point of your post, you claim to be an atheist because of the stories in the Bible in which god is portrayed as violent, angry, jealous, etc. Here is my problem with that:
1. You don't believe god exists, therefore the killing of the first-borns in Egypt never happened
2. Furthurmore, it is believed by many biblical scholars that the exodus in egypt never actually took place as there is little evidence to suggest it did. Therefore, again the entire event probably never happened.
3. If god never existed to do any of those acts how can you blame him for doing them?
It seems as if you are angry at the things that never happened by a god that never existed.
Nevertheless, you wanted an explanation so here it is.
1. The story you are refering to probably never happened.
2. Understanding that it's a story, the person(s) who wrote most likely wanted to portray their god as the strongest and one who would protect the Israelites. They did so for many reasons, one being competition with other neighborhood gods. They didn't want their people to sway their faith to another god, Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai for example.
I don't know what else you really want. The Bible isn't all roses and candy. Neither is the history of the world or mankind. It's not meant to be pretty. And for all of the weird, beautiful, violent things in the Bible you'd be hard-pressed to find a better thesis. Love your neighbor. The true meaning of being a Christian can be defined in one word, agape. Christian or not it's hard to disagree with that no?
> Now if I understand correctly the point of your post,
> you claim to be an atheist because of the stories in
> the Bible in which god is portrayed as violent, angry,
> jealous, etc.
No. I am an atheist because there is no evidence that suggests that supernatural forces or beings exist.
This blog was specifically a critique of christianity.
As I pointed out in the opening paragraph of the original blog, "I am a gay atheist and have no love for religion of any type, but this isn't a discussion about why I am an atheist. I was raised in a conservative christian family, and this is a discussion of why I find the christian religion to be particularly incompatible with my personal values and ethics."
> 1. The story you are refering to probably never happened.
>
> 2. Understanding that it's a story, the person(s) who wrote
> most likely wanted to portray their god as the strongest
> and one who would protect the Israelites. They did so for
> many reasons, one being competition with other neighborhood
> gods. They didn't want their people to sway their faith to
> another god, Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai for example.
Your explanation of the story itself represents a fairly reprehensible ethic, IMHO. To use fear and threats of violence and death as a means to prevent people from converting away from a religion says to me that the religion really isn't worth a whole lot.
This story says that it is morally acceptable to murder the children of your enemies if they don't obey the commandments of your god. Now, you may say that this is "just a story," but it doesn't take a master historian to look at the history of your religion and see the millions upon millions of people who have been converted by force, or tortured and killed if they refused (or even if they just tried to worship your "god" a little differently).
You say that you, "think that killing children is wrong." But I notice that you worded the statement in such a way that you avoided actually saying that the "god" in which you claim to believe was wrong when "he" killed the children in this myth. I think that is interesting.
This has nothing to do with whether or not the stories in the bible actually happened. This has to do with modern christians and the values that they express when they present this story to young christians being raised in the faith.
I know that when I was a young child sitting in bible study, I was taught quite specifically that the "fault" attached to this story lay with the Egyptians. I was taught that it was their own fault for defying "god" that justified an "angel" entering their houses by night and killing each of their firstborn children.
Well, I'm sorry, but in my opinion that is an evil lesson, and it is the moral of this lesson that revolts me. This story teaches that anything that you do to your religious enemies is automatically justified simply because they believe something different. This moral is the root of all religious intolerance and violence.
percivale
By killing the first-born of the Egyptians, he broke one of His own commandments.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
God gives and takes away. He can destroy His own creation because it is His.
I would never condemn an action of God.
If you don't see killing a child as a punishment for the parent as wrong, then there is somehting wrong with you. This is the kind of mentality that breeds fanatacism. It is also the mentality that has made christianity one of the bloodiest religions in history.
percivale
The Jews believe it too, and since the Christians took over, they are hardly among the bloodiest of offenders. They may have been during the early times of the OT (the whole conquest of Israel and that...), but they certainly aren't in recent history.
~C
Visit my blog.
If you believe that killing a child as a means of punishing a parent is a "moral" act, then your beliefs are "fundamentally" (pardon the pun) 'effed up.
percivale
I wouldn't expect you to understand. And I'm not in a debating mood. So I'm leaving it where I was.
Either you think killing a child as a way to force the compliance of a parent to your religious goals is morally abhorrent, or you do not. It really isn't a very complex question at all. Do you, or don't you?
percivale
Who are you to define morals? And why are you on my case? I'm not fighting.
...my definition of moral principles carry just as much weight as anyone else. As to why I am on your case, let's review.
> God gives and takes away. He can destroy His own creation
> because it is His.
The logical extension of this statement is the root of all religious violence. Even ignoring the inherently tyrannical nature of claiming "ownership" of human beings, it strikes me as--to be frank--foul to suggest that it is "moral" to kill someone's child as a punishment for not obeying your commands. In any other situation, such an act would be plainly abhorrent. That it is not viewed such when your "god" does it is the height of hypocrisy.
> I would never condemn an action of God.
Then you are either A) a "moral" coward, or B) a bloody zealot. Take your pick.
percivale
"> God gives and takes away. He can destroy His own creation
> because it is His."
This is like the parents who say "I brought you into this world, so I can take you out."
If they really meant that, would they be justified? Hell no. We don't let parents run around slaughtering their children just because it's THEIR children!
There's something to be said for the fact that even "worldly" morals go against what the Biblical God has done throughout history.
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
"So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it!"
Parents are guardians on Earth but do not OWN and did not create the very life and being of their children.
...do you think it would be "moral" to kill them as a way to punish someone else for doing something you didn't like?
And for that matter, don't you find the very idea of owning a human being to be morally repugnant? Oh, wait, the bible advocates slavery, too.
percivale
How do you expect Christians to answer for some abtract story written thousands of years ago? Killing and the degradation of humans originates in human nature, not religion. To accuse religion of advocating the killing of innocent or the slavery human beings is an incredibly stupid argument.
If the problem were religion then, all non-religious people would be non-violent, equal rights, etc. That is not the case, nor has it ever been the case.
I agree that many evil things have been done in the name of God and Christianity. But to blame God or Christianity for the acts of human beings is naive on your part.
I suppose that all atheists should have to answer for Stalin as well by your logic.
> How do you expect Christians to answer
> for some abtract story written thousands
> of years ago?
Perhaps my views are colored by the fact that I live in a part of the country with a very high number of fundamentalists, but from a very young age I was taught to accept the stories of the bible as literally true. Now, fortunately I was able to noodle my way OUT of that idiocy, but the fact remains that a great many christians DO take the bible as a literal account, and even those who do not claims to ascribe a positive interpretation to the words and actions of "the LORD," even if they view the events in question as metaphorical.
> Killing and the degradation of humans
> originates in human nature, not
> religion.
Perhaps, but that's not what the bible says. What it does say is that "the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt..." So, in order for your agrument to have meaning you must either A) deny that the account of the bible is accurate, or B) accept that "the LORD" did as the bible says.
Even taken metaphorically, I find it abhorrent to suggest that the children of your enemies are the appropriate target for any purpose intended to punish a parent. Do you disagree?
> To accuse religion of advocating the
> killing of innocent or the slavery
> human beings is an incredibly stupid
> argument.
All I am doing is pointing out the actual contents of the bible. You might think the claim is stupid, but it is the bible that makes that claim, not me. If you think that the contents of your religion's single instructive text is "stupid," then perhaps you should advocate for its change, or at least stop defending the passages which themselves make the very statements you deem stupid.
> I suppose that all atheists should
> have to answer for Stalin as well
> by your logic.
There is of course one significant flaw in your comparisons. Atheists do not belong to an organization that instructs them how to behave. As an atheist, I have no problem whatsoever condemning the likes of Stalin. That he and I share a belief on a particular point of reason is coincidental, and unlike the christian religion, atheism does not have a central figure or doctrine around which we define our lives and "morality."
The atheist makes his own choices about what is moral and what is not, and so falls or stands upon his own responsibility. In fact, it is the construction of religion that allows christians to place the blame for the evil acts described in the bible onto the "will" of "the LORD" that makes these bloody events so common in its history.
percivale
1) I already said that the exodus into Egypt very likely never happened, making the story you cling to inaccurate.
I'm not a fundamentalist. I don't hold the intrepretations of the Hebrews as word for word truth because I don't believe it is word for word truth. If you want to attack fundamentalists, then do so, but you attack the idea of god or any religion.
What you seem to be unable to fathom is that religion changes over time dependent upon history of mankind. People four thousand years ago, ALL people, thought killing and sacrifice and slavery were OK. So it only makes sense that the beliefs of the people of that would reflect that. When I say:
> To accuse religion of advocating the
> killing of innocent or the slavery
> human beings is an incredibly stupid
> argument.
I mean that suggesting modern day Christians believe in the above is idiotic. While you try to define Christianity by the earliest texts of the Hebrews, what you seem to forget is what Christ says of the above. "Love Try Neighbor." That is the basis of the Christian faith.
The Bible did not come down from heaven and written by God. It was put together by early religious leaders, transformed, changed, translated. It is an early account of what early people thought. Not a play-by-play. The Bible is a complex collection of writings and you only take for face value without looking at the why, when, and hows. You argue against fundamentalism, yet use fundamentalist tactics for your arguments.
>Atheists do not belong to an organization that instructs >them how to behave.
While I'm sure you don't have an atheist service every Sunday, while Christians believe in the laws of God (Love they neighbor), atheists and all of mankind are apart of the human community and slaves to human nature. It is this human nature that is inherently evil. Human nature that caused Stalin to commit mass murders. Human nature that causes slavery, hatred, and the murder of innocent people.
And frankly have I no problem focusing my "morality" around the message of Jesus. I would have a problem if I defined my life around myself.
The only one blaming the acts of humans on God is you. The acts of humans are the resposibility of humans. If you want to BLAME something for evil in the world, blame human nature.
Perhaps you can explain to me how you blame a god you don't think exists.
If god doesn't exist then the quotes you point to never happened. So how you can blame something that doesn't exist for something it never said?
If you were a true atheist you would say that since the idea of god is invented by mankind, any evil religous acts would be derived from human nature. Instead of blaming religion and the nonexistent entities, you would blame human nature for all the suffering in the world. But you seem to believe religion is sqaure one. So frankly I would describe you as an angry theist, not an atheist.
...Go get your copy of the bible off the shelf and tell me, "Is the book of Exodus included in your bible?"
Though you have ignored it, I have already addressed the fact that my contention has nothing to do with a question of whether the events in the bible actually happened or not. The point is that the story is a part of the religion, and is taught as an example of something that "god" did.
It also has nothing to do with what I believe. I'm not the one saying that "god" is a moral being, or trying to use the bible as a measure against which to judge the moral worth of myself or those around me. The christian is the one who makes this claim, and it is that claim which I am addressing.
Now, if you are a christian in ANY sense of the word, it follows that you must believe that the being known as "god" that is described in the bible actually exists, and must at least on some level accept that the bible represents an accurate (if not literal) account of the morals and beliefs of the christian religion. Do you disagree?
Assuming that you do in fact believe these things (and I don't see how you could seriously suggest otherwise), then it seems perfectly reasobable to attribute the acts described in your religion's primary theological text with great significance.
If you believe that the bible is in ANY way a representation of the morals which your "god" has at various periods instructed "his" followers to adhere, then you simply cannot avoid the parts that make up an undeniable part of the theological history of your beliefs.
Are you prepared to say that the bible is INCORRECT? ARe you saying that the stories in the bible are actual FALSE, and that when we read in the bible that it says that "the LORD" did something, that on a theological and level those stories are actually pure invention and never represented somethign that "the LORD" would have approved? If so, then why are these stories STILL in the bible?
I know that when I was young and forced to go to bible school, we were taught that these stories were literally true and that the killing of the firstborn children of Egypt was something that we should rejoice in.
You can squirm and wriggle all you want, but you can't escape the fact that the book which in every sense defines what it is to be a "christian" attibutes this story with complete veracity. Whether that veracity is literal or merely metaphorical, the moral which it teaches is the same.
Kill your enemy's children and he will do as you say.
percivale
Just because Exodus is in the Bible doesn't make equally significant as the Gospels.
I'm amazed at how you group the Bible as if it were one book. We have no idea who wrote what in the Old Testament, or when exactly it was written, very likely after the fact, much after the fact.
Your post was about Exodus and God's treatment of the Egyptians. I am telling you that there is no concrete evidence that the exodus even happened. Much like the creation story or Adam and Eve, or Cain and Abel. This is oral tradition you're putting under scrutiny here.
I'm sorry that when you were very young you were taught that the entire Bible was literally true and that God actually did tell the Israelites to kill everybody. And that it was a glorious thing that it happened. That's not my take on the book of Exodus or Christianity, nor the take of many other Christians.
I've already explained why the writers of Exodus would portray God in that way. I've explained how they were still polytheistic in thinking and that they had to portray God as a tough ass in order to compete with more popular gods. I'm not surprised given the circumstances of the era that god, something hard to define even these days, would be portrayed in such a barbaric way. If you don't want to learn the history behind this, then you don't really care.
I'm not wiggling and squirming about anything. I've given what I thought about the issue. I think by focusing on a story in Exodus you miss what is important.
I'm sorry if you've had a bad experience with Christianity and how you've been taught. It's unfortunate that you've been subjected to such harsh conditioning. But the fact remains that Christianity, as a creed, deals with agape, love for your brother. That is the core of Christianity. And you have to agree that if that creed was followed, regardless of religion, the world would be a better place.
...to skinny boxes. Response below.
percivale
> If you were a true atheist you would say
> that since the idea of god is invented by
> mankind, any evil religous acts would be
> derived from human nature.
Go back and read the orignial blog and the subsequent discussion. I have already addressed this point several times.
> Instead of blaming religion and the nonexistent
> entities, you would blame human nature for all
> the suffering in the world.
Your hyperbole is unwarranted and misplaced. I never said that religion was resposible for "all the suffering in the world." Once again, I must direct you to the orignial blog, where the actual nature of my contention is very plainly expressed.
> But you seem to believe religion is sqaure one.
Obviously, you are not reading very closely (if at all). I very clearly stated that this discussion was offered in the context of my christian upbringing, and not in the context of my non-theism.
> So frankly I would describe you as an angry theist,
> not an atheist.
Your belief is incorrect. I am angry at the people who try to use their bible as an excuse to make moral judgements about my life. The very act is hypocritical, when the ruler against which they measure me is painted with the blood of their many victims, metaphorical and literal.
percivale
"Your belief is incorrect. I am angry at the people who try to use their bible as an excuse to make moral judgements about my life."
I think you're being clearer here. First off, I can't answer for people who misuse the Bible to such judgements. Jesus himself said (Matthew 7:1-5):
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Jesus tells us not to judge. I'm sorry if people have judged you in the past. It is wrong and unfair to do so. But blaming God and Christianity is not going to get you anywhere.
See my response, below...
percivale
BUT I must tell you(Percivale) that recently I asked myself the same question about God. Why would a loving God do these things?
Do you remember the story where David was moving the arc and Uzziah reached out to steady it with his hand and God zapped him dead for it? David was horrified about his friend being zapped by God and refused to take the arc to Jerusalem as he originally intended.
Much later on, David changed his mind. Do you remember this story? It corresponds, I think, to the question of whether God (whether or not he exists) is really not nice at all.
Things are not as they appear to be at all times.
> Why would a loving God do these things?
The obvious answer is that the character of "god" described in the bible is not very nice at all.
> Things are not as they appear to be at all times.
That may very well be true, but the evidence in this case is fairly conclusive. Whether or not you believe that the story of the Exodus actually happened, modern christians are faced with a very simple question.
Do you believe that the intentionally killing of an enemy's children in order to gain their compiance is a "moral" act, or is it not?
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I think you unwittingly just ended the abortion debate...
--Mike
Your comment ignores the fact that it cannot be objectively argued that an embryo is a human person. Even IF we accepted that a zygote was a human person with all of the commensurate rights (which biologically and legally, it isn't), it wouldn't be the same as targetting someone else's children as a way to punish the parent. Attacking the children of your religion's enemies is an aggressive attack. A woman making a choice about her own body, and even about her own child (if you consider an embryo as such) is a very personal decision.
Of course, if you DO consider the arguments to be equivalent, that would mean that any christian who was anti-abortion would be a hypocrite, since it would (per that argument) an ethically and morally consistent choice to act as "god" did. That the whole problem with the anti-choice/pro-life camp in THAT argument. Their entire argument relies on a religious assumption about the origin of "life" which cannot be objectively supported, much less consistently applied.
That however is a subject for another blog.
percivale
The first half of the last paragraph was my point.
--Mike
...for misunderstanding you. :)
percivale
Don't apologize, I left very little substance to be understood. Fun that you reached the same comclusion eventually, though.
--Mike
and on and on and sometimes on again before finally getting to the point. :)
perci
> Just because Exodus is in the Bible
> doesn't make equally significant as
> the Gospels.
Its not a question about which books are more significant. If the "god" of the Old Testament is considered the same "being," as the "god" referenced in the New Testament, the it seems reasonable to hold "him" accountable for his actions. Or do you think that human sacrifce should be assigned a statute of limitations? A murder who turns "nice" in his old age is still a murderer. And anyone who isn't willing to hold a murderer accountable for his crimes doesn't have very much moral credibility in my book.
> I'm amazed at how you group the Bible
> as if it were one book. We have no idea
> who wrote what in the Old Testament, or
> when exactly it was written, very likely
> after the fact, much after the fact.
For all practical purposes, it is one book. The books of the bible are the collected works that have been officially adopted by the various christian sects (with some variation, which is why I didn't include any examples from the catholic's book of Wisdom, for example...I stuck with the ones that are in all of the disparate versions of the bible).
And, you are still missing the point entirely. Do you or do you not think that the events described in Exodus relating to the story of the death of the firstborn are immoral, or do you not? If you do, then why is it so difficult for you to make a clear statement denouncing the described events? The simple fact is that the vast majority of christian denominations officially ascribe to the validity of this story. YOU might disagree personally, but if you belong to ANY christian sect of ANY significant size, your theological leaders would be appalled at the suggestion that this story did not represent the actual will of "god."
> Your post was about Exodus and God's
> treatment of the Egyptians. I am telling
> you that there is no concrete evidence
> that the exodus even happened. Much
> like the creation story or Adam and Eve,
> or Cain and Abel. This is oral tradition
> you're putting under scrutiny here.
Well, it stopped being an oral traditon when it was written down, but you are still missing the point entirely. It doesn't matter if it actually happened or not. Like ALL religious myths, the stories in the bible represent a means of teaching the followers of a religion certain lessons about morality and how to live one's life. What is the moral of this story? This story says that if someone disobeys "the LORD," that their children will pay the price with their deaths. That is a really crappy moral, if you ask me.
> I'm sorry that when you were very young
> you were taught that the entire Bible was
> literally true and that God actually did
> tell the Israelites to kill everybody.
> And that it was a glorious thing that it
> happened. That's not my take on the book
> of Exodus or Christianity, nor the take
> of many other Christians.
Are you aware of the sheer size of the fundamentalist movement? And, I have to remind you that both the catholic and orthodox churches also adhere to the official doctrine that this story is both actual and true. That means that by definition the vast majority of christians adhere to this belief (at least theologically). I am not making any radical theological leaps, here. The story of Exodus is a consistently held theological element in virtually every christian sect on the planet. In fact, I would be impressed if you could even find one that took an official stance stating that the story was simply a metaphor, much less that it respresents a morality that is incompatible with their beliefs.
> I've already explained why the writers of Exodus
> would portray God in that way. I've explained how
> they were still polytheistic in thinking and that they
> had to portray God as a tough ass in order to compete
> with more popular gods. I'm not surprised given the
> circumstances of the era that god, something hard to
> define even these days, would be portrayed in such
> a barbaric way. If you don't want to learn the history
> behind this, then you don't really care.
I think I am quite well informed about the relevant history to these eras. In fact, I would suggest that I am probably more informed that anyone else that you will meet on this site. But the actual history STILL isn't the point. It has to do with the unwillingness of christians to just admit that the events described in this story are abhorrent, without trying to make excuses about it.
> I'm not wiggling and squirming about anything. I've
> given what I thought about the issue. I think by
> focusing on a story in Exodus you miss what is important.
I disagree entirely. As I stated in my original blog, this is about confronting the hypocritical high ground that christians tend to take when discussing their religion. It is about credibility, and confronting people who like to lie and give the people they want to convert only half of the story about what they believe. It would be different if I was just plucking some obscure, out of context story out of the bible. But I'm not. The story of the Exodus represents a KEY element of ever single major christian denomination on the planet. As such, it is of great relevance if one wants to understand the christian mind-set.
I know that many modern christians would like everyone to foget the bloody swath that their religion has cut across the last 2000 years of history, but this story in particular is one of the primary sources behind the religiously motivated violence that fills the annals of Western History.
> I'm sorry if you've had a bad experience with
> Christianity and how you've been taught.
My experiences are far from unusual.
> It's unfortunate that you've been subjected to
> such harsh conditioning.
The "conditioning" that I overcame continues to be perpetuated against vast numbers of young people in the christian religion on a daily basis.
> But the fact remains that Christianity, as a creed,
> deals with agape, love for your brother.
Actions speak louder than words, and I think that one has to cherry-pick rather liberally in order to get that message from the bible.
> That is the core of Christianity. And you have to
> agree that if that creed was followed, regardless of
> religion, the world would be a better place.
I'm sure it would be. But that creed can never be honestly expressed by a religion based on violence and lies. If you cannot turn your eye to your own scriptures and say, "this story in the bible does not represent true christianity, and in fact describes something abhorrent and evil" then your "agape" is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
percivale
Thanks for moving this down, was getting a little cramped.
Again I can't argue for the ENTIRE Christian religion here. There are a lot thing I disagree with as well.
> it seems reasonable to hold "him" accountable for his
> actions.
What actions did he commit? The story most likely never happened and if it did, you claim god doesn't exist, so again how could he commit any action? If God came down and started killing people, then yes I would have a problem with that like you do. But I don't think he did. I don't think it really happened. You're basing your argument on the ancient writings of an ancient people who had very little scientific progress.
The god portrayed in the Exodus story seems like a real ass. I have no problem saying that. Do I think it's an accurate depiction of god? No.
> The simple fact is that the vast majority of christian
> denominations officially ascribe to the validity of this
> story.
A lot of Christians don't know their faith all that well to begin with. I'm as frustrated with that as you are. The US has one of the lowest percentages in the world among developed nations when it comes to belief in evolution. It's sad. But it's not the fault of the texts. They're just writings. It's the misinterpretation of those texts either by fault or on purpose. No one is going to read Exodus and start killing Egyptian babies unless there is an underlying issue within their nature.
> Well, it stopped being an oral traditon when it was written > down, but you are still missing the point entirely. It
> doesn't matter if it actually happened or not. Like ALL
> religious myths, the stories in the bible represent a means
> of teaching the followers of a religion certain lessons
> about morality and how to live one's life. What is the
> moral of this story?
Well, hundreds of years of oral tradition can take a toll on any story. Every tried that whisper in somebody's ear, circle game to see if it's the same when it comes back?
I already told you that the point of the story was to make people think the god of the Israelites was one of tough love and protecting of the Israelites because they were the 'chosen people.' They wanted to strike fear into the hearts of people who worshipped other gods. They wanted to show that their god could defeat the Egyptians gods in a fight.
> Are you aware of the sheer size of the fundamentalist
> movement?
I've lived in the deep south my friend. I've been there, done that. And no I'm not an idiot. The fact that American foreign policy is determined in large part, by these fundamentalists, shows how big it is.
> The story of Exodus is a consistently held theological
> element in virtually every christian sect on the planet. In
> fact, I would be impressed if you could even find one that
> took an official stance stating that the story was simply a
> metaphor, much less that it respresents a morality that is
> incompatible with their beliefs.
The Christian church is stubborn and takes a long time to change. I'd have a hard time finding one that would officially claim the creation story was a metaphor. Does that mean that Christians can't/don't believe that it is a metaphor? I think you are forgetting that there are major disagreements in the church about everything in the Bible. Does Luther ring a bell? You're trying too hard to put us all in one basket.
> But the actual history STILL isn't the point. It has to do
> with the unwillingness of christians to just admit that the
> events described in this story are abhorrent, without
> trying to make excuses about it.
History is the entire point. How can one make a judgement on any past event if they have no idea what happened, or why it happened? If you look at the Old Testament with a 20th century mindset, then no crap you'll be horrified by the images. Not all, mind you. You can't forget that some of the images in the Old Testament are quite beautiful, but you're only focusing on this Exodus thing, so I'll stick to that. But if you recognize what kind of people these were, and what their culture was like, who lived around them, what happened among the other cultures, then you'll understand why this kind of stuff was written. History is EVERYTHING. I'm shocked you would suggest otherwise. Fundamentalists would agree that history has nothing to do with it. They view it at face-value and that's what screws up the whole thing. Certainly you can't agree with Fundamentalist of idea of ignoring the history of it?
> As I stated in my original blog, this is about confronting
> the hypocritical high ground that christians tend to take
> when discussing their religion. It is about credibility,
> and confronting people who like to lie and give the people
> they want to convert only half of the story about what they
> believe.
I fully aware of how some Christian try to convert people. I'd agree that if one wants to convert, that they do it through actions of kindness rather than holding signs on the side of the road. I try to confront people who lie about Christianity as much as you or at least those who deeply misunderstand it. But again you're dealing with the person, not the religion.
> I know that many modern christians would like everyone to
> foget the bloody swath that their religion has cut across
> the last 2000 years of history, but this story in
> particular is one of the primary sources behind the
> religiously motivated violence that fills the annals of
> Western History.
That is completely unfair. How am I supposed to answer for the violent actions of other people who lived hundreds of years ago? People kill and destroy in the name of Christianity. And that is wrong and against what Christianity is about. But that killing and destruction does not come from god but from man. And while the Church has been misused a great deal over its history, the message that was ignored, the message of love has been there throughout, does not change. And it's not like non-religious people have been on their best behavior either mind you.
> My experiences are far from unusual.
Didn't say they were. And again, it's unfortunate and frustrating that so many people are mislead like you were.
> Actions speak louder than words, and I think that one has
> to cherry-pick rather liberally in order to get that
> message from the bible.
Actions do speak louder than words. You're being a bit dramatic in your 'cherry-pick' metaphor though. It's hardly cherry-picking when it's the main message of the central figure of the religion. You are kinda pushing Jesus to side here. You know, they call it CHRISTianity for a reason.
> I'm sure it would be. But that creed can never be honestly > expressed by a religion based on violence and lies
> If you cannot turn your eye to your own scriptures and say,
> "this story in the bible does not represent true
> christianity, and in fact describes something abhorrent and
> evil" then your "agape" is nothing more than smoke and
> mirrors.
Based on violence and lies? Come on, what are you expecting here? Tell me this, where do violence and lies derive? What causes the violence? The parables of Jesus, some story in Exodus? Violence and lies derive from the sinful nature of man. No one can argue that man is a naturally loving being. We are cruel, hate-filled, greedy, and unforgiving. We've been given the answer to change all of that but we throw it away.
And frankly, who are you judge me in my beliefs? Just as you ask not to be judged of your beliefs, should you not show me the same respect? And for you to suggest that the idea of love thy neighbor is nothing more than trickery on my part, I am deeply offended. I've made it known that I don't care what you call yourself, atheist, buddhist, christian, whatever. If you believe that one rule of brotherly love, then you're alright with me.
OK, if I understand you properly, you say that at least part of the bible is not only NOT inspired by God but has a terrible message.
I applaud you for that. However, you are still a believer. Why? Do you consider any of the bible to be an inspired message from God? If so, how do you justify dismissing the parts of the bible that you do but keeping the parts that you keep? If not, then what justification do you have at all to call yourself "Christian"? What reasons do you have to believe that what you believe is true?
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
I believe that to do good to others is the highest calling for all people. I find that to be the inspired message from God. To love your enemies, to turn the other cheek, to show compassion to others, and help those who are less fortunate than I. That is the message I find in the Bible.
I don't dismiss any of the Bible. It is what it is. What I try to do is put it into perspective. When you read a story filled with imagery such as the creation story you read it with some level of interpretation. When Jesus says, "Love thy neighbor," I read it as it reads. Different parts of the Bible require different levels of interpretation.
Christian, in and of itself, is nothing more than title, a label. Labels are meaningless. If you call an apple an orange, the taste doesn't change. I call myself a Christian because that is what I grew up with and what I know. It's not so much what you call yourself, but what you actually believe.
While I have no problems with your sentiments, I have a BIG problem with your logical justification.
You have already told us that the Exodus didn't happen, but even the part of the bible that you DO believe literally, the New Testament, refers to Moses. Jesus' ancestry is traced back through all the patriarchs back to Adam himself.
You acknowledge that the Torah (aka the Law) has some bizarre and untenable laws but Matthew 5:17-19 has Jesus saying that we should not relax the Law one bit.
You take what you like and then say that what you don't like should be "interpreted". I think it quite clear that the authors of those objectional verses MEANT for them to be taken literally.
I laud your professed values. I see no need to be a Christian to hold them. The same values can be derived from universal principles, and can be done so without having to sacrifice your intellectual integrity rationalizing the horrendous biblical stories and their message away. I see no value in your "Cafeteria Christianity".
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
You misunderstood me. I do not claim the entire New Testament should be taken literally.
As for the lineage of Jesus, I don't see how the lineage of Jesus helps me understand the message of Jesus any better. I don't know enough about that to really comment on it. My basic understanding is that it is to fulfill prophecy in that Jesus had to born in line of David. There are two different lineages given, one from Matthew, one from Luke. They are considered different as one uses Mary's and one uses Joseph's. I'm not sure.
As for the Matthew reference: Yes Jesus seems to say that he isn't here to refute the law. But that doesn't take the following lines away either. I don't know why he seems to contradict or whether he contradicts himself. I'm not sure.
I'm not picking and choosing what I believe in. The people who wrote these books did not all sit down together and put together a clear, concise, pain-free book. We're talking about a span of thousands of years, hundreds of stories, many chances for miscommunication and error. There are contradictions, false statements, and some pointless material in the Bible.
The writers of Genesis didn't sit down with writers of the Gospels and Revalations to decide what everyone was going to say. What you have is a lot of documents from long ago. Some writers use imagery to make a point, some use letters, some change facts to strengthen their thesis. The only way to read the Bible is through interpretation and study. You can't read it cover to cover like a Dr. Suess book and expect for it to all come together.
The people who wrote these 'books' had their own beliefs. The Israelites didn't like pork. Paul didn't like women speaking in church. These people had THEIR interpretations of God, and so do I. The Bible isn't some formulaic device to use so you can get to heaven. It's a tool to use so you can have a better understanding of your relationship with God, others, and yourself. A tool to better understand your place in this universe and your purpose in it. You may not find "value" in that, but I do.
(1) There are two different lineages. Both go back to the Abraham. Luke goes all the way back to Adam. They are irreconcilably different beginning after David. The "one through Joseph and the other through Mary" is a ridiculous rationalization with no merit what-so-ever.
However, the point behind mentioning Jesus' lineage is to show evidence that the authors of the bible MEANT for the passages you dismiss as needing "interpretation" to be taken literally.
(2) Er ... you are picking and choosing. You say, "There are contradictions, false statements, and some pointless material in the Bible". But who determines what are the "contradictions, false statements, and pointless material[s]". You do. What do you base your choices on? What you already think is right. You are not learning from the bible. At best you are letting it confirm what you already know.
(3) Either the bible has a message from God, or it doesn't. If it does, then God is the ultimate author. It makes no sense that he would embed that message in a mass of contradiction and irrelevant crap. It makes no sense that God would allow his message to be degraded over time. Humans can do better than that. Why can't God.
If the bible doesn't contain a message from God then why should we put any more faith in that book than other early writings? By what intellectual right do you have to believe in Yahweh and dismiss Zeus, Odin, Krishna, or any other ancient God?
(4) You are a little hard on Paul. The lines that denigrate women come mainly from 2 Timothy if I recall correctly. This book is a forgery. It was not written by Paul. In epistles that are considered authentically Paul's, Paul often refers to women such as Priscilla who were leading members of their respective churches.
(5) If you want a book that let's you better understand your place in the universe I would recommend THE FIRST THREE MINUTES by Steven Weinberg or A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME by Stephen Hawking. A book that shows you how to choose a purpose-filled life much better than the bible is Steven R. Covey's 7 HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PEOPLE.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
1. I said there were two different lineages. I merely stated what some scholars take from that. I don't know personally what the lineages. I haven't spent any time learning or studying it. And frankly, whether or not I know the lineage of Jesus doesn't exactly affect my beliefs does it?
"However, the point behind mentioning Jesus' lineage is to show evidence that the authors of the bible MEANT for the passages you dismiss as needing "interpretation" to be taken literally."
And I suppose those writers wrote their entire Gospel the same way then? The fact that the Bible we are all refering to is based on a translation or a very different and ancient language demands that it be interpreted. Who reads anything and doesn't interpret it on some level? Do you read literature literally? Do you read "Animal Farm" and come away thinking it's a nice story about farms and animals? No you don't.
"But who determines what are the "contradictions, false statements, and pointless material[s]". You do. What do you base your choices on? What you already think is right. You are not learning from the bible. At best you are letting it confirm what you already know."
Though you may think differently, religion is a personal thing. How do I base what I read on? When it comes to contradictions, the issue is pretty obvious.
The Gospel of John places the day of crucifixion on a different date than the other gospels. That's something you can pick up on, by reading them, understanding how they measured days, what they named days. Once you come to that conclusion, you wonder well why is that. You take a look at the Gospel of John to see what may be different or what stands out. You begin to pick up on the imagery of Jesus as the Passover Lamb and how it is significant to the message John is trying to portray. Then you realize why he would choose the day he did for the crucifixion, to strengthen symbolism of Jesus as the Passover Lamb. Just because I'm religious, doesn't mean I throw factual data, science, and reason out the window. Why should religion require that we forget reason?
3. Why does it have to be one way of the other? Why does it have to be all true, or not true at all? God didn't write the Bible and mail it to some guy. Man wrote the Bible. Excluding Jesus, the Bible doesn't contain direct words from God in my opinion, but it contains peoples' perception of God. I believe that there are many ways to experience God other than through words and letters. Perhaps God doesn't so much speak but feel. When I look at a flower and think of the complexity and and find the beauty in that complexity, I feel a connection with God. When I listen to Beethoven, Debussy, or Bill Evans I feel a connectoin with God. That's how I perceive God. Title has nothing to do with it. God and Yahweh are human titles given to the abstract. You have to ask yourself how you would describe God without language, without words, or titles.
"By what intellectual right do you have to believe in Yahweh and dismiss Zeus, Odin, Krishna, or any other ancient God?"
I didn't realize I needed permission to think.
4. I believe I was refering to Paul's belief on women speaking in church. This would be found in 1 Corinthians 14:33-35. It is a general concensus that Paul authored 1 Corinthians.
5. While I appreciate your summer reading list, I'm quite alright on my own.
Why is it you feel the need to pressure me so on my beliefs? It almost feels as if you're trying to convert me.
(1) No the Gospel authors did not write the Gospels the same way. Neither did the authors of the 15 or so Gospels we know of that are non-canonical. They are contradictory in many regards.
You acknowledge this but you excuse it as justifiable because of some message that the author was trying to convey. But this is not justifiable. Supposedly this an historical event. Someone is lying. The real story did not have that message in it. It is never OK to lie to make a point.
Of course I didn't read Orwell's ANIMAL FARM as a literal story. No one does. But why not? The answer is that its context makes it obvious that the story was meant to be allegorical. The context of the biblical stories we have talked about and the references to these stories in other parts of the bible make it clear that these stories were meant to be taken literally. There are some biblical stories that were obviously meant to be taken allegorically. The most obvious examples are Jesus' parables. Job, because of the conversation at the beginning between Satan and God, could qualify as a story that was meant to be taken allegorically.
(2) Sorry, but it is not "obvious" when it comes to contradictions. Why would the author NEED to lie in order to make a point? Was the story not good enough in the first place? These are simple questions that one ought to ask. You don't.
(3) Why SHOULDN'T it be all true if the bible is an inspired message from God. Why isn't that God cannot seem to get a coherent message to us?
No one has said that there is not anything true in the bible. You and I agree there is a lot that is NOT true. You have tried to justify this as some type of strength. You claim it is wrong to criticize God because his purported message has errors in it. I am saying that your justification does not make any sense.
I find your whine, "I didn't realize I needed permission to think" a bit disingenuous. No one is denying you the right to think. I am denying that you have thought ENOUGH. You make these claims without asking yourself simple questions to see if they really withstand scrutiny.
(4) If memory serves me correctly, the passages in 1 Corinthians are thought to be a later interpolations. I could easily be wrong about that, however. Plus it is not a point I think worthwhile arguing. I'll concede that point to you if you wish.
(5) EXCUSE ME!! But weren't you the one who began this by mounting a defense of God and biblical stories. Isn't part of your defense that the bible has stories inspired by God that tell one of his place in the universe and his purpose? If I am wrong about that then please correct me.
I am saying that I disagree with your assessment. My disagreement is based on the observations that (A) if any stories in the bible do exist then they are effectively obscured by crap stories, (B) there are human stories that do a MUCH better job of that than the bible.
You are free to believe whatever it is you want to believe, but you are not free to have your assertions go unchallenged. Look, I doubt if I am going to convince you of anything. I doubt if you are going to convince me of anything either. But I do expect you to challenge what I say with a logical argument and I expect to challenge what you say with a logical argument. The only reason I can think of for you to feel like I am trying to convert you is that my argument has made you uncomfortable. If so ... GREAT. It will cause you to think and that is always a good thing. You will only change your mind if you think you are wrong. If you can rationalize errors on the part of "God's word" I suspect that you can rationalize away any argument anyone could make against something that you really want to believe.
You seemed like an intelligent guy, you seem mostly rationale. You are a believer. I'm not. That makes me uncomfortable. Unlike most people I never claim to KNOW the truth. I always leave room for the possibility that I may be wrong. I have thought about this stuff pretty deeply however and think my arguments are sound. If my argument is sound then yours isn't. Conversely if your argument is sound then mine isn't. I read what you have to say, think about it, and develop counter-arguments to test my thinking. I agree with Socrates that an unexamined life is not worth living.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle