Dan Klarmann posted a short thought provoking article over at Dangerous Intersection. In the article, he also posted the YouTube video below. Since I love irreverant music, I thought I'd post it here as well. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
73 comments:
Why don't bees get organ transplants? Why don't bees have the right to vote? Why don't we prosecute people who kill bees? Why don't you set a place at the table for all the insects in your home?
BECAUSE THEY AREN'T PEOPLE!
They have no soul. This video is stupid.
Anonymous,
I'll believe you if you can prove to me that humans have a "soul" that lives on after we die.
So do you believe bees should get organ transplants, vote, and be avenged for their merciless deaths? If they are "just another animal" just as humans are "just another animal" then I should be asking you why YOU have a double standard.
Anonymous,
Of course not, and I have reasons.
But, what makes you think that humans have a soul that lives on after death? What proof does religion have of this?
Humans are self-aware and intelligent, but that does not make us the "masters of the universe". We are as bound to this planet as any other life form. We die like every other life form on this planet.
BTW, organ transplant, voting, and revenge are human inventions (and red herrings). I'm sure bees have no concept of those things.
Please don't answer my question with a question. I would like to hear your reasons. If it's simply because they are unaware, then are African tribe members not qualified for these things either?
Will you give evidence of a soul, or will you continue to avoid the questions posed to you? I know the answer. Since you don't have any evidence for a soul, you are forced to try to put off the question.
He and I neither answered one anothers question. Why are you only jumping on me for it?
Asking for physical proof of a soul is like asking for physical proof of feelings. You can point to outward behaviors that indicate them, but can't really prove the item itself.
Can you not tell that there is more to your body than just parts and processes?
Trying to explain a soul to someone who doesn't believe in God is like trying to explain a particular color to a blind person. How could you ever make them understand what "red" if they had they never seen any color?
For what it's worth, most M.D.'s that I've talked with don't doubt the existence of a soul, even if they are not "religious."
"He and I neither answered one anothers question. Why are you only jumping on me for it?"
Frankly, because Robert's question is a lot more pertinent, and your questions sound absurd.
"Asking for physical proof of a soul is like asking for physical proof of feelings. You can point to outward behaviors that indicate them, but can't really prove the item itself."
Any proof (really evidence) would do. In the absence of evidence, I would wonder why you believe in it. Are you aware of the brain studies, for instance, that cast doubt on the idea of souls? That one's whole entire personality can be altered by altering the brain?
"Can you not tell that there is more to your body than just parts and processes?"
In what sense?
"Trying to explain a soul to someone who doesn't believe in God is like trying to explain a particular color to a blind person. How could you ever make them understand what "red" if they had they never seen any color?"
So, belief in god allows one to feel, see, or have a soul?
"For what it's worth, most M.D.'s that I've talked with don't doubt the existence of a soul, even if they are not "religious.""
And, this is pertinent how?
I think my questions are quite pertinent. The video he posted is saying that if humans get to go to Heaven, then so should other creatures. If you're going to classify all living things as equal, then the things I asked must be done as well. Robert will answer, I'm sure.
----------------------------------
GC T said,
"And, this is pertinent how?"
-----------------------------------
It is pertinent, because these are folks who are around life and death all the time. They would have a good point of view.
-----------------------------------
GC T said, "So, belief in god allows one to feel, see, or have a soul?"
----------------------------------
No, everyone has a soul. Belief in God (or more accurately belief ON God) allows one to have an understanding of "eternity" which is a key piece of understanding what a soul is, and why it's important.
I've already answered your silly question, Anonymous.
I said, "BTW, organ transplant, voting, and revenge are human inventions (and red herrings). I'm sure bees have no concept of those things."
I agree with you that bee's aren't people. However, you made a further claim that they do not have souls, which I also agree with. But, by making the claim that insects have no souls you also implied that humans do.
Your questions were red herrings. Since you persisted in pushing the questions, I assume you didn't look up the definition (which I linked to).
From Wikipedia:
Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion[1] or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.
...
Similar to ignoratio elenchi, a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.
In other words, you chickened out of the answer.
The argument does not qualify as a red herring, because all it does is show you how silly it is to equate humans as "just another animal" who happens to have higher brain function.
"... equate humans as "just another animal" who happens to have higher brain function."
Yes, exactly. What's your proof that that's not exactly what we are?
Your argument that we should treat all animals as people is silly and also an attempt to make the logical conclusion appear absurd. When I can sit down and have a meaningful conversation with a cranefly, then I might consider them people.
I really do agree with your first post up to the point you start talking about souls. That's why I asked for proof that humans have souls.
Maybe, instead of demanding proof (darn my fundytastic childhood), I should have asked instead why do you believe that humans have a soul?
Well,
Why do you believe that humans have a soul that lives on after we die?
Because I believe the Bible. Sorry I don't have some glorious scientific answer for you, but I believe it because I believe the Bible is God's Word, and it says that we do.
I am not trying to make the logical absurd, the "logical" IS absurd. So the only reason you don't consider a cranefly your equal is because you have the ability to reason and speak and it does not?
So a mentally disabled mute-deaf person would not get the same rights as you either then, right? Should a human who is born a vegetable have any rights? I'm not sure why you think so lowly of yourself. You are not just some animal who hit the lottery and got all the good features! You are a beautifully designed creation, so loved by God that it says he knows how many hairs are on your head. You take beautiful pictures, and yet can't appreciate the amazing creation all around you. You are so smart you get in your own way.
"If you're going to classify all living things as equal, then the things I asked must be done as well."
Equal in what regard?
"It is pertinent, because these are folks who are around life and death all the time. They would have a good point of view."
So are morticians.
"No, everyone has a soul. Belief in God (or more accurately belief ON God) allows one to have an understanding of "eternity" which is a key piece of understanding what a soul is, and why it's important."
I doubt that you have any better understanding of eternity than I or Robert have. That said, what is it about understanding eternity that is gained through belief in god, and how does it help with the soul concept?
"Because I believe the Bible. Sorry I don't have some glorious scientific answer for you, but I believe it because I believe the Bible is God's Word, and it says that we do."
IOW, you have no evidence for the soul, just your beliefs.
"I'm not sure why you think so lowly of yourself."
On the contrary, I find it is Xians who have the low opinion, what with us all being sinners that are deserving of eternal punishment and all.
"You are not just some animal who hit the lottery and got all the good features!"
This is a gross misunderstanding of life, evolution, etc. Good features? No, we simply have the features we have. I would love to be able to fly, but we didn't evolve that feature.
"You are a beautifully designed creation, so loved by God that it says he knows how many hairs are on your head."
Yup, so loved that he'll throw us into hell for thought crime. So well designed that we get back pain from standing on two legs, women have significant pains in child birth from the same reason, we suffer from cancers and heart attacks, our eyes have blind spots, etc. etc. etc. What we see is a body that is cobbled together from evolutionary scraps and fits and starts, not a design.
"You take beautiful pictures, and yet can't appreciate the amazing creation all around you."
Oh, I appreciate nature just the same as you. Simply because I don't beg the question and make unfounded assumptions as to where it comes from doesn't diminish the beauty of it. In fact, it can increase the awe and wonder and beauty of nature.
"Equal in what regard?"
In the regard that this topic is titled "If there's a heaven, why can't every innocent organism go?"
The question is absurd, so I gave you an equally absurd question in return.
I honestly can't believe you think there is anything accidental about the way human beings are designed. Or even that we are simply designed "different" and not better than any other creature on the planet. No other creature can experience the joy of love the way humans do. No other creature feels gratitude. I would never trade what I CAN do for the ability to fly, breathe underwater, or any other animal trait.
Obviously, if you don't think every living creature should be granted the same inalienable rights that people have, you are acknowledging that there is something major that separates us from them. The difference is, your world-view, and theories on origin of life don't agree with that acknowledgement, and the Christian's do.
"The question is absurd, so I gave you an equally absurd question in return."
Why is it absurd? Why would a omni-benevolent deity not provide for eternal bliss for all living things?
"I honestly can't believe you think there is anything accidental about the way human beings are designed."
Let's be careful here. Natural selection does not operate by accident. And, please tell me why an omnipotent god would design my eye so that it is backwards or why this god would make it so that women have pain at childbirth, even though they wouldn't if we still walked on all fours. Maybe you can explain why bats, whales, and dolphins all have 5 fingers.
"Or even that we are simply designed "different" and not better than any other creature on the planet."
All creatures are fully evolved and evolving still (not saying that we've all reached some sort of pinnacle). IOW we are not more evolved than other animals or plants.
"No other creature can experience the joy of love the way humans do."
Are you sure of that? Apes hold wakes for departed members of the tribe, for instance.
"No other creature feels gratitude."
You've never given a hungry cat a meal, have you? Or, given a dog a treat or taken it to the dog park?
"I would never trade what I CAN do for the ability to fly, breathe underwater, or any other animal trait."
The point is that we are what we are. We aren't some lottery winners.
"Obviously, if you don't think every living creature should be granted the same inalienable rights that people have, you are acknowledging that there is something major that separates us from them."
A different degree of consciousness is undeniable. What's your point? Does that mean I should go around and torture "lesser" animals? And, what should an omni-benevolent god do?
"The difference is, your world-view, and theories on origin of life don't agree with that acknowledgement, and the Christian's do."
Don't agree with what "acknowledgement?" I've just told you that there's a difference in cognitive ability that manifests in different degrees of conscience. I don't see why you think atheists can't notice this pretty evident fact. You can claim it's some sort of soul, but you have no evidence for it, and the evidence that we do have seems to contradict your beliefs. So, now what?
"Why is it absurd? Why would a omni-benevolent deity not provide for eternal bliss for all living things?"
Why don't you buy filet mignon for your dog? Because he's not equal to you in any way! The world was created for people. The animals and plants are only there to help us survive.
"And, please tell me why an omnipotent god would design my eye so that it is backwards"
See http://www.icr.org/article/2476/
"or why this god would make it so that women have pain at childbirth"
Genesis 3:16 KJV
"Maybe you can explain why bats, whales, and dolphins all have 5 fingers."
Every mammal does. They are all used for more precise movement of their appendages. Vestigial features are a bad argument to begin. Not very convincing.
Yes I have fed a hungry animal. How you are asserting they understand gratitude is beyond me.
"All creatures are fully evolved and evolving still"
I'll keep waiting on that extra arm then.
"A different degree of consciousness is undeniable. What's your point?"
My point is that there are people that are in comas who have less consciousness and understanding of humans than a lapdog. You wouldn't dare consider the dog to be equal to the human. There is more than just their consciousness that separates them. Is there not?
"Does that mean I should go around and torture 'lesser' animals?"
You eat them don't you? You keep your dog contained somehow. Why do you do this? Could it be that the same things the dog looks at as "torture" could simply be you looking out for him because you have a better understanding of the big picture than he does?
"Why don't you buy filet mignon for your dog?"
I don't buy filet mignon for myself!
No one is denying that there are differences between animals. Dogs and humans have differences. Dogs are also different from elephants. Does that mean that dogs have souls or this world was made for them? Any evidence that this world was designed and that it was designed for us?
"http://www.icr.org/article/2476/"
Cephalopods don't seem to have the problems that Bergman says they should have, so WTF mate? Also, he says that blind spots are not a problem because the brain compensates, but that uses extra energy from the brain to make an external solution for a problem that is internal to the eye. IOW, he's admitting there's a problem in the eye that the brain has to compensate for. Oh, and there's this.
"Genesis 3:16 KJV"
Which doesn't make sense. Why would an omni-benevolent god cause pain at childbirth for all women for the sins of one woman? Is that justice to you? If your great, great, great, great grandfather killed someone, should we hold you responsible for the murder?
"Every mammal does."
Exactly. It's called homology.
"They are all used for more precise movement of their appendages."
Ah, I didn't realize that dolphins could give you the finger.
"Vestigial features are a bad argument to begin. Not very convincing."
Only because you've decided a priori that it's not convincing. Vestigial organs show us what has been left from our evolutionary heritage.
"Yes I have fed a hungry animal. How you are asserting they understand gratitude is beyond me."
Are they not thankful for the food? Haven't you ever had a cat purr appreciatively or rub up against you?
"I'll keep waiting on that extra arm then."
Wow, a creationist who doesn't understand evolution but is convinced it is wrong...Oh yeah, they're a dime a dozen.
"My point is that there are people that are in comas who have less consciousness and understanding of humans than a lapdog. You wouldn't dare consider the dog to be equal to the human. There is more than just their consciousness that separates them. Is there not?"
There's also potential. But, look at the case of Terri Schiavo. She was a vegetable, with no brain function. She was not going to wake up. I fully support euthanizing her.
I see what you are trying to do. You're trying to make me say that humans are qualitatively different in some way and that I don't know how or why, so that you can pounce with, "It's our souls, dummy." Yet, that simply still wouldn't follow. Gaps in our knowledge don't give you license to pronounce that "goddidit." That's god of the gaps reasoning and it's fallacious.
Either way, I fully acknowledge that animals are different from each other. Hell, you are different from me, so maybe that difference means I have a soul and you actually don't. See what I'm getting at?
"You eat them don't you?"
Not very often, but alas, it is a sordid affair that this supposedly omni-benevolent god of yours set up a system whereby we have to survive by taking sustenance from other living things. If I were an omnibenevolent god, I would not have designed in so much death and all that.
"You keep your dog contained somehow. Why do you do this?"
I keep my dogs in my house. What's your point?
"Could it be that the same things the dog looks at as "torture" could simply be you looking out for him because you have a better understanding of the big picture than he does?"
Well, this is a rather silly argument. You're using the, "We can't hope to understand god, so we can't say he's evil," argument. Yet, implicit in that is the idea that you can understand god enough to say that he's good. Well, sorry, but that's a contradiction. If we can't understand god, then we have no standing to say god is good or evil. If we can understand god's actions enough to judge them as good, then we can similarly judge them as evil when they are evil.
All living animals have souls. That is what defines our personality; it makes you different from me. Also, every innocent organism will exist in the millenniel reign. ISA 11:6 mentions them. Besides, they did not committ sin and deserve to be tossed out of Eden. We did that for them.
"Why would a omni-benevolent deity not provide for eternal bliss for all living things?"
He does! Why don't judges let everybody go free without a penalty just because mankind is basically good? Our judge not only will allow everyone to go free, He provides the payment for the penalty. How much more benevolance do you want?
"All living animals have souls."
That's a departure from Xian doctrine and different from what you seem to have been arguing. I thought you were trying to argue that humans and bees were different because humans have souls and bees do not. So, now I'm confused as to what you think separates us.
"That is what defines our personality; it makes you different from me."
Then how do you explain people who undergo drastic personality change from brain injury?
"Also, every innocent organism will exist in the millenniel reign."
Then, why have you been fighting so hard against that idea from the start?
"Why don't judges let everybody go free without a penalty just because mankind is basically good?"
I wasn't aware that judges tortured people for any length of time, let alone eternity.
"Our judge not only will allow everyone to go free, He provides the payment for the penalty."
Except for all those people who end up in hell of course. And, what is the crime? How did we inherit this crime? Was that just? What was the payment and how does it make any sense? Why did god require a human/god sacrifice to himself in order to convince himself to forgive us for "transgressions" that he himself was a party to? Also, how is it possible for us to transgress against god in any way to begin with?
"How much more benevolance do you want?"
More than what your story suggests. We've got a deity that knows what will happen but allows it to anyway - he actually set it up to happen as it did (set us up for a fall). Then, he turns around and punishes 2 people that had no concept of right and wrong until after their supposed transgression. But, that's not enough as he's got to punish all people for their supposed mistake, only because he can't take the blame he rightly deserves. Then, after thousands of years, he decides to forgive some, but only after making a big show by coming down and telling us all that it's our fault, but he's the big man and will sacrifice himself to himself to save us, thus putting into our collective consciousness a blame the victim mentality. Then, he'll still go on putting the majority of people in hell in order to make the suffer for all of eternity? And for what - for being born, something that they had no control over. god creates us as somehow deserving of hell, and that's our fault? I think not. Further, we are convicted on the basis of thought crime, guilty until proven innocent (not really proven, but selected), and the punishment is infinitely unjust, as no finite human can do anything that justifies infinite punishment.
Your god is not benevolent. Your god is malevolent and vindictive. He's a dictator that specializes in blaming the victim, much like a person who has just got done beating his spouse says, "You made me do it." I expect a benevolent god to own up to the moral obligation that it incurred when it created us. I expect a benevolent god to create worlds that don't rely on death and destruction. I expect a benevolent god to not convict us simply for being human or hold us to impossibly high standards. Etc. etc. etc.
Anonymous has been talking to his pastor.
I think he means "New Earth" instead of "millennial reign". Those are two different concepts. The millenial reign is when God chains up satan and throws him into the bottomless pit. Then after a thousand years God decides that all that peace is too much for him, then he lets Satan go again. The New Earth is after the final judgement when God throws everyone who is not in the book of life into the Lake of Fire. Then he burns up Earth and the Sky and creates them anew. For some reason there will be no oceans on The New Earth.
Yes, it's in The Bible.
Anonymous said, "They have no soul. This video is stupid"
Now, Anonymous says, "All living animals have souls."
Sorry,
Different anonymous. I am Debbie. All living being have souls. Mankind possesses a spirit. That is our connection to God. Because we are born with the imputed sin of Adam and the inherited sin of our biological fathers, we are spiritually dead. When we are born-again, we are made spiritually alive. That is why people say, "he acts like an animal."
ISA 11:6, is a reference to Christ's millenniel reign on earth. With the absence of evil, things will begin to revert to paradise once again, thus, the lion will lay down with the lamb, etc.
There are people who go to prison for life who would gladly love to be redeemed and if you think it is not torture, go live there.
Robert, I am sorry that your experience with God in your youth was conducted in such a negative light. Petacostal's tend to allow the emotions to rule their soul and that can make for a very frustrating experience. The soul is comprised of the emotions, spirit, mind and will. The emotions tend to operate in the shallow end of the pool while the mind and will operate in the deeper end. It is much more joyful when approached from a viewpoint of knowledge and Bible study in the original languages and grammar. MARANATHA
The last post was from a different anonymous. There appears to be three of us. I have been doing the bulk of the discussing up until the last two posts by others. Animals do not have souls.
I did want to address something GCT said, "I expect a benevolent god to not convict us simply for being human or hold us to impossibly high standards. Etc. etc. etc."
Impossibly high standards? Believe on Christ and be saved. That's it. It's doable, and I've done it. You and Robert can too. As far as all the other stuff in the Bible, while I'd advise you to follow it, it is in no way required to know you are going to Heaven when you die. Just believe Jesus died for your sins, and that's it. You don't even need an "easy button" for that.
Debbie,
"All living being have souls. Mankind possesses a spirit."
Hmmm, so now we have a "soul" which has no evidence as well as a "spirit" which has no evidence. Well, what if I claim that we also have a glubnurthump?
"There are people who go to prison for life who would gladly love to be redeemed and if you think it is not torture, go live there."
And, this compares to hell how? Yes, prison is bad. No, I don't want to go there. Yes, I think it's a sorry state that our prisons are so bad. Still, to compare it to the tortures that await unbelievers for eternity in hell is rather absurd.
"It is much more joyful when approached from a viewpoint of knowledge and Bible study in the original languages and grammar."
What knowledge would this be? What knowledge have we gotten from religion?
"The last post was from a different anonymous. There appears to be three of us. I have been doing the bulk of the discussing up until the last two posts by others. Animals do not have souls."
Then, I shall call you anon1.
"Impossibly high standards?"
Yes. We are all judged guilty, as the Bible claims - everyone falls short of the glory of god.
"Believe on Christ and be saved. That's it. It's doable, and I've done it."
It's thought crime if one doesn't believe in Jebus and worthy of eternal torment and punishment? Let me ask you this; what is it about disbelief in Jebus that merits eternal torment. And, are you writing from heaven?
"You and Robert can too."
Why should I? What evidence do I have to convince me that I should believe? Why shouldn't I believe in Mohammed or Allah? Further, is belief something you simply choose to do? Can you believe in Zeus for a day?
"As far as all the other stuff in the Bible, while I'd advise you to follow it, it is in no way required to know you are going to Heaven when you die."
You "know" nothing of the sort.
"Just believe Jesus died for your sins, and that's it."
How does that even make any sense? How does Jebus being tortured and crucified absolve me of my supposed sins? Why does your supposedly benevolent god require human/god/blood sacrifice in order to convince himself to forgive us of the sins that he placed upon us?
Hey guys, I do allow you to post with the Name:Email:URL option. That would avoid this confusion and you could still remain anonymous and you wouldn't have to get a blogger account. I think you can leave the url blank. If not put google in there or something. I don't see the email adresses and even if I did, I wouldn't bother you or share it.
Debbie said, "Petacostal's tend to allow the emotions to rule their soul and that can make for a very frustrating experience."
I wasn't raised as a pentacostal. IFCA International. However, I did attend pentacostal churches occasionally throughout my life.
"Petacostal's tend to allow the emotions to rule their soul and that can make for a very frustrating experience. "
My experience growing up as a fundie, was lacking in emotion. The church leaders were dismissive and legalistic. I was micromanaged in every aspect of life. That was also a frustrating experience.
"The soul is comprised of the emotions, spirit, mind and will."
Emotions are in the brain. If you change your brain chemistry, your emotions can change too. I know because I take anti-depressants. I imagine freewill is also dictated by the brain. A spirit is another matter entirely, because no one has ever proven that one exists.
The other anonymous said, "Believe on Christ and be saved."
How do I make myself believe something that seems so wrong to me. See, I have never found the belief button that I can push to myself believe.
"Just believe Jesus died for your sins, and that's it. You don't even need an "easy button" for that."
Now, I know better than that. That's not all there is. After that, you have to bobblehead through sermons about creationism and talking donkeys and snakes. You have to bobblehead when the minister says that homosexuals are demon possessed. You have to believe what you are told and never question it. I can't do that anymore.
Robert here. Just showing that you can comment with the Name/URL option. It doesn't even ask for an email address and the url is optional.
""Just believe Jesus died for your sins, and that's it. You don't even need an "easy button" for that."
Now, I know better than that. That's not all there is. After that, you have to bobblehead through sermons about creationism and talking donkeys and snakes. You have to bobblehead when the minister says that homosexuals are demon possessed. You have to believe what you are told and never question it. I can't do that anymore."
-----------------------------------
You don't have to bobble-head through anything. If you will believe that Christ, the Son of God, died on the cross for your sins you are saved. You could never go to a church service, never evangelize, never do one thing for God, and still go to Heaven. All those other things are "acts of obedience" that I agree we should follow, but if you honestly, in your heart, don't feel as though you should do them, then by all means don't.
It seems that people think "believing on Jesus" is some big mystical discovery. All you are doing is believing a fact. No big emotional experience. Some claim them, and I won't argue with them. But the act of getting saved is actually just making a decision.
Anonymous said, "You don't have to bobble-head through anything. If you will believe that Christ, the Son of God, died on the cross for your sins you are saved."
My point is that when you are an active christian you are expected to believe all kinds of absurd things. When I started voicing doubts about some doctrines, I was put down, shamed, and shunned. If you don't believe me, try it. Pretend to express doubts about creationism (or another -ism) to your pastor to test his reaction. See what happens.
Belief is not equal to morality
I love the loophole though. Believe what you want and do what you want and you get heaven. Believe the wrong thing and it doesn't matter what you do or who you are, you go to hell. god is trying to control our beliefs by virtue of holding a gun to our heads. Nice guy, that god.
"But the act of getting saved is actually just making a decision."
Then, please choose to believe in Zeus for a day.
><>J said, "But the act of getting saved is actually just making a decision."
Could you decide to believe in Ganesha? If not, why not? Could it be that you'd find it impossible to believe in something that you find absurd? That's my dilemma. I find Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost just as absurd as you'd find Ganesha, Odin or Zeus. There's plenty of gods to choose from and I reject them all for being absurd. I can't just decide to believe. I need some reason to believe it and nothing short of positive physical evidence is going to convince me.
Robert,
Legalism is no better than laciviousness. I must agree with that. My church experience has been difficult as well. However, that is because I am dealing with men and we all have old sin natures. I am sorry that you could not find a mature enough Christian to answer your questions about doctrine without belittling you. The group I study with questions different doctrines all the time and we don't always agree on every jot and tittle, but "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." (PROV 27:17)
We can argue back and forth forever, as you will ask for physical evidence from me and I will ask for the same from you. How did it all get started and how did we end up where we are? Guess each individual must come to some answer for themselves. I have chosen to spend the rest of my life translating Scripture from the Hebrew and Greek. I would really love to delve into Gematria, because mathematics is a universal and absolute science. Some of the numbers used in the Bible are incredibly accurate and of a supernatural power.
You and I are in agreement concerning religion. This is what the Scripture has to say about "religion." I appreciate the fact that you do not exclude all points of view.
THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGION
a. Religion is man seeking to gain the favor of God by human works,
(ROM 4:4; 11:6) in reference to salvation and spirituality
b. Christianity is God doing something for man through his good grace and God doing it entirely
c. Religion is a universal phenomenon found in all nations in all stages of development. All believe in right and wrong; although not clearly defined and subject to change. All believe there is an after life with
happiness or misery, in some measure, dependant upon conduct or
observance of ritual in this lif
d. Religion is the Satanic counterfeit of a personal
relationship with God
e. Religion expresses itself in dignified or crude ritual by means of emotional domination of the soul
f. Religion is the greatest opposition to God’s view today
g. Human good production is the basis of religion
h. Religion appeals to the lusts of the old sin nature and the emotions disoriented by the old sin nature
i. Religion is the greatest persecutor and murderer of human life
j. Religion is money minded
k. Religion is a mass solution while Christianity is a personal solution
l. Nothing Satan has ever done has been so successful in blinding
men’s minds to spiritual truth as has religion
m. Religion over a period of time has a tendency to degenerate and
become corrupt in practice
Debbie said, "How did it all get started and how did we end up where we are?"
I don't know. I don't think you actually know either.
"Religion is man seeking to gain the favor of God by human works ..."
Isn't accepting Jesus as your saviour a work? Isn't it seeking to gain the favor of God by doing a human work? Religion is religion. It doesn't help to deny that your particular set of beliefs and rituals are not a religion. I hear this religion denial all the time. As a matter of fact, the very denomination I was raised in denies that it is religious and also denies that it's a denomination (it's both of those things in reality). I have already been through all that.
"Christianity is God doing something for man through his good grace and God doing it entirely"
Which type of christianity? Are the pentacostals True Christians™? How about Mormons? Or Seventh Day Adventists? True Christianity is always the group or denomination the person debating me belongs to.
"Religion is a universal phenomenon found in all nations in all stages of development. All believe in right and wrong; although not clearly defined and subject to change. All believe there is an after life with
happiness or misery, in some measure, dependant upon conduct or
observance of ritual in this life"
Yep, everybody else is religious! Not me (us)!
"Religion is the Satanic counterfeit of a personal
relationship with God"
Whew! Good thing I'm not religious!
"Religion expresses itself in dignified or crude ritual by means of emotional domination of the soul"
Is baptism a crude or dignified ritual? How about communion? Is an altar call dignifed or crude? Oh I forget! Rituals are of satan, no matter how crude or dignified. Thanks, I won't do any rituals like getting baptized or repenting of my sins, or praying.
"Religion is the greatest opposition to God’s view today"
So how do you know what God's view is so you can recognize what is in opposition to it?
"Human good production is the basis of religion"
Ewwww! Bad grammar! I don't understand what that means. Good human production? That doesn't make sense either. Where did you cut and paste this from?
"Religion appeals to the lusts of the old sin nature and the emotions disoriented by the old sin nature"
I don't believe that humans have a "sin nature". Humans are human and some humans do bad stuff. Also humans are not always so consistant. Sometimes we're bad, sometimes we're good. There's some all bad people out there, but most people are bad sometimes and good other times. That's why you see so many "backsliden christians". They are just being human and they can't help it. Then they get guilted by their church instead of receiving actual help. Hopefully, I'm more good than bad.
"Religion is the greatest persecutor and murderer of human life"
I couldn't agree with you more.
"Religion is money minded"
Again, I couldn't agree with you more.
"Religion is a mass solution while Christianity is a personal solution"
I like that subtle bash against Catholicism. I know, they're not True Christians™. Hah, mass!
"Nothing Satan has ever done has been so successful in blinding
men’s minds to spiritual truth as has religion"
Yeah, trying to get Jesus to jump off of the temple didn't work so good.
"Religion over a period of time has a tendency to degenerate and
become corrupt in practice"
Wow! I agree completely!
Now, why do you not think that what you practise is not a religion?
Robert,
The one thing I notice about aetheist posts is that they are all derogatory toward any information presented and that there is an edge of anger? Why is that? I do not post toward your views with sarcasm. But, that is your right to do so and I defend your right to do that. It is impossible for us to come to any common ground except on a couple of points concerning the Doctrine of Religion so I would wish you well in your endeavors.
I don't practice religion. I do not coerce anyone into rituals like baptism, communion, altar calls, prayer or eternal life. I do not need a church building or any other person with me to practice my faith. Ultimately, that is all it is, faith. Peace out...
"Isn't accepting Jesus as your saviour a work?"
No. A work is something you do with your body. Accepting Jesus is something done with your (insert favorite term here i.e. heart, mind, soul, spirit.)
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but Mr. Madewell, I honestly read your posts and get the impression you are somewhat waivering back and forth. You are strongly an athiest, but it's as if you want to believe, but just refuse to do so unless you get some undoubtable physical evidence. I wish that was an option, but for whatever His reason, God doesn't have it working that way until the end.
For me, the creation alone is the obvious physical evidence, but if you can't see that, then I don't know what else I can offer you. You've had a horrible religious experience, and I can't apologize enough for that. I can honestly say that I've seen my own pastor's sister gradually leave the church over struggling with her faith, and I've seen her return a year later because rather than abuse her mentally for it, and make her some sort of example, he simply told her, "We love you, and hope you can regain the relationship with God you once had. We're here for you if you need us."
For a year she was out of "fellowship" with the church. I don't know that she would ever consider herself an athiest, but I do think she would say she didn't have a personal reason for believing, and previously had only believed because she was told to. The separation in the long run was very beneficial because now she believes for herself, and nobody else. I pray this is what happens for you. And no I'm not just saying that. I sincerely have prayed and will continue to pray for you. God is always waiting, and if you decide to come back to him, it'll be as though you never left. I just hope you don't get back into the situation you were in previously.
Debbie,
I'm sorry that I offended you.
I was wanting to point out that, yes, what you practice and what I use to practice is a religion. You can deny it all you want, but I was not convinced by the time I had finished reading your material. I know I was sarcastic, but I tend to be with material that has been cut and pasted. I didn't find a website that matched your material, but I did find a blog comment that you posted on GotQuestions.org
THere's some irony here. Remember that denomination that I was raised in? GotQuestions.org is run by S. Michael Houdmann who got his degrees from a college that is run by that denomination. That means that the website is probably run by that denomination. I almost went to that same college.
Well, go on thinking that you are not religious. You have that right.
Good luck,
Robert
"For me, the creation alone is the obvious physical evidence, but if you can't see that, then I don't know what else I can offer you."
I assume by creation you mean the universe.
The universe is vast, beautiful, and amazing beyond imagining. To believe that it is only 6-10 thousand years old is absurd. There are galaxies that it takes the light billions of years just to get here. To think that God created the light in transit to make us think that the universe is older is a silly doctrine (Omphalos hypothesis). To think that out of the trillions of galaxy that contain trillions of stars each, were created just 6000 years ago and that humans are the center of all that, is laughable. To think that all the possible lifeforms (many of which may be intelligent) out there are doomed because a female primate on one tiny little world ate the wrong fruit, is beyond ridiculous. Religion cheapens the universe.
I'm glad you do appreciate the beauty of creation. I hope you can relate that as absurd as it seems to you that something so amazing could have been created in 6-10,000 years, it seems equally absurd that it was created without someone intending that level of beauty.
I am not here to discuss the age of the earth, or human descent. I simply want you to allow yourself to believe in God, free from any particular religion. I'm not asking you to obey any certain pastor, or to change your political beliefs. I simply want you to consider that there is a maker who made all you see.
"I simply want you to allow yourself to believe in God, free from any particular religion."
Is that possible? Maybe. I can respect someone believing in God free from restraints of organized religion. Still, I want evidence. I don't even deny that there's the possibility of there being a god-thing out there that created everything. I think it's unlikely, but I really don't know whether or not there is one. However, one thing I am certain of is that that god-thing that may have made the universe is not the God of christians. That's not what most christians believe God is. Christians usually believe in a personal saviour God that can save you from himself. Or something like that.
I don't deny believing in that myself, and I feel that you would probably come to that conclusion naturally if you'd believe in God at all. But that's just my opinion.
Debbie,
"The one thing I notice about aetheist posts is that they are all derogatory toward any information presented and that there is an edge of anger? Why is that?"
It's because of the bigoted view that most people have towards atheists. The "angry atheist" is a stereotype that is not particularly apt. Some atheists are angry or whatever, and some are not. The cross section rather looks like the cross section of any group.
IOW, it's your own preconceptions getting in the way.
"I don't practice religion."
Yeah, actually you do.
"We can argue back and forth forever, as you will ask for physical evidence from me and I will ask for the same from you. How did it all get started and how did we end up where we are? Guess each individual must come to some answer for themselves."
Except we have physical evidence for one position and none for the other. Your position is lacking any evidence. Do not try to equate the two positions.
"I hope you can relate that as absurd as it seems to you that something so amazing could have been created in 6-10,000 years, it seems equally absurd that it was created without someone intending that level of beauty."
What is absurd is your assertion of this with no evidence to back it up. The "beauty" that we attribute to the universe is due to our human sensibilities. There is no intrinsic beauty. To convince anyone otherwise, you would have to present evidence, and yes, the burden of proof is on you to present evidence of your positive claims. Until then, your beliefs are absurd and irrational.
"No. A work is something you do with your body. Accepting Jesus is something done with your (insert favorite term here i.e. heart, mind, soul, spirit.)"
A "work" is something you do, period.
"The "beauty" that we attribute to the universe is due to our human sensibilities"
Well praise God that He decided to create the world the way He did and then give us the sensibility to think it's beautiful. Thanks for pointing that out.
"Well praise God that He decided to create the world the way He did and then give us the sensibility to think it's beautiful. Thanks for pointing that out."
Begging the question...
Occam's Razor neatly cuts that idea out as well.
The most we can say is that we feel awe at the world simply because we have evolved that way. Inserting god into the mix is a useless layer that adds nothing to the conversation and provides no further explanation. As such, because it gives us nothing, it can be excised without losing any of the explanation we have. Hence, it is excised by Occam.
And, in order to put god in there in the fist place, it requires one to assume that this god exists and does these things for us, which is begging the question.
Sorry, but your god belief is simply irrational and the argument from subjective beauty is a non-starter.
LOL! You absolutely are in love with this stuff. Occam's razor, begging the question, red herring. If you spent half the time actually pursuing these items as you did trying to find ways to dismiss them, you might learn something.
After all, I was not making the statement about the earth's beauty as an argument of any kind. Robert said it seemed absurd it could happen in such a short time period, and I said it seemed just as absurd to me that it happened without some thought-out design.
Put your sword away for a minute. SHEESH!
This whole comment thread started with a red herring.
Bursley,
My big problem with young earth+universe creationism is the wholesale denial of science. They can't stop with just biology. They have to branch out to astronomy, geology, and many more, because, the other sciences confirm some things that make evolution possible.
Saying "Goddunit!" stops any investigation. Once you say "Goddunit", no more thinking is needed. It's willful ignorance.
I honestly think the original comment does not qualify as a red herring. It's is an extreme analogy, but still appropriate.
I understand that you don't want to stop thinking and assume God did it. I think the whole problem is that you assign God your own way of thinking. You say that it wouldn't make sense for God to do things in a way contrary to science because it'd make it harder to believe. While I understand your point, this is assuming that God would act as you or I would, which is simply not the case. The Bible says His ways are not our ways, nor His thoughts our thoughts. Couldn't it be that we are but a snowglobe on God's desk, and are blinded to the big picture?
Brothers in Christ,
We have gone way beyond TITUS 3:10"Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him."
We are called to present the gospel, not to argue or cajole those who are not interested. They will reject anything we say because, "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1COR 2:14)
"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart," (HEB 4:12) then it discerns there is no living human spirit in their souls and their attitude toward God is one of anger and rebellion.
Therefore, "If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town." (MATT 10:13-14)
Let them win the argument and perhaps it will bring them happiness. As for us, who are born-again exclaim the prayer of Hannah, "And Hannah prayed, and said, My heart rejoiceth in the LORD, mine horn is exalted in the LORD: my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies; because I rejoice in thy salvation." (1SAM 2:1)
Charis humeis kai eirene apo theos hemeis pater!! MARANATHA
Dankon, Debbie, por alportanta mi mia ĉiutaga postulo de juĝa kondamno!
SHILOH
That Shiloh Baptist sign is awesome. Thanks for the link! So true!
Robert,
"I don't see the email adresses and even if I did, I wouldn't bother you or share it."
Liar....
Debbie?
What are you talking about?
Your welcome, anonymous.
I wouldn't sympathize with Shiloh Baptist too much, if I were you. I have some suspicions about them, but I have no proof.
Do you like it that he misrepresents a group of people and basically lies about them on every line?
Here's my response to the sign.
Here's my letter to the pastor.
Here's his reply.
The shiloh link was a pun actually. Debbie signs her comments "MARANATHA" and since it's a common name for protestant churches, I used "SHILOH" (another common church name) to sign off my comment. Yes, I know that maranatha means "our lord comes" or something like that. The language I used is Esparanto (not latin).
Bursley,
"LOL! You absolutely are in love with this stuff. Occam's razor, begging the question, red herring. If you spent half the time actually pursuing these items as you did trying to find ways to dismiss them, you might learn something."
So, I have to commit logical fallacies to learn something? What is it that I'm supposed to learn anyway? BTW, it took no time to point out your very common logical fallacies. Further, what makes you think that I don't know anything about these items? I would have thought that my detailed explanations would have put that idea to rest.
"After all, I was not making the statement about the earth's beauty as an argument of any kind. Robert said it seemed absurd it could happen in such a short time period, and I said it seemed just as absurd to me that it happened without some thought-out design."
Point of fact, but you were. It was a statement about the natural world, which is open to analysis as to the factual nature of that statement. By making your claim, you did make an argument (assertion really, since the "argument" is the support for it).
The reason it is absurd that it could happen in a short time period is because that would contradict the mountains of physical evidence that we have for a universe on the order of about 14.5 billion years old.
Your assertion that it's absurd to think it happened without some designer is completely without support, i.e. it's not absurd at all, which is what my response was pointing out to you.
"Put your sword away for a minute. SHEESH!"
Back up your assertions.
"I understand that you don't want to stop thinking and assume God did it. I think the whole problem is that you assign God your own way of thinking. You say that it wouldn't make sense for God to do things in a way contrary to science because it'd make it harder to believe."
Um, no. I would say that science contradicts what you say god did and how he did it. We have evidence for the former, but none for the latter. So, which should we accept as the most correct and most likely answer?
"While I understand your point, this is assuming that God would act as you or I would, which is simply not the case."
It's not assuming anything. It's noticing that you are claiming that god has done things that simply are not supported by actual evidence.
"The Bible says His ways are not our ways, nor His thoughts our thoughts. Couldn't it be that we are but a snowglobe on God's desk, and are blinded to the big picture?"
This opens you up to other problems as well. I can go into them if need be. Quickly though, if you are going to assert that god is good, then what's to keep me from saying that you can't know that, since you admit that god's "thoughts are not our thoughts."
"Let them win the argument and perhaps it will bring them happiness."
You don't need to "let" us do anything, we're winning on our own. It's the total lack of evidence for any of your (collective) assertions that defeats you.
"That Shiloh Baptist sign is awesome. Thanks for the link! So true!"
And, I suppose that bald is a hair color and not collecting stamps is a hobby?
No, but going to Creationist blogs trying to convince others to believe as you do is pimping your atheist religion.
"No, but going to Creationist blogs trying to convince others to believe as you do is pimping your atheist religion."
No matter how hard you wish it to be so, atheism is simply not a religion, just as not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Rejecting your religion does not entail that I'm practicing a religion of my own.
I think Eric Hovind's blog is the only one I've been cruising lately. Well, I'm not actually trying to convince anyone. I just want to point out that Hovind uses terrible logic and has a willful ignorance of science. It's not that I want to convince anyone that I'm right. I want to point it out when someone is wrong. And, Hovind is so wrong. Listen, you guys have the right to believe what you want about the universe, but you're not preaching it in a vacuum. There are people out there who will point it out when you are wrong. What's worse is that evangelists like Hovind want to indoctrinate every kid in public school with the stories from the bible. That has the potential of being devastating to our country.
Hovind does not promote teaching it in schools. His position is to get macroevolution removed, not to get Christianity inserted.
And what other point could you have by going to his blog and pointing out where you think he's wrong, if not to convince others there that he's wrong?
Yeah, he is wrong. I am not actually trying to make anyone be an atheist by pointing out that Hovind is wrong.
Trust me, he wouldn't have a problem at all if creationism was taught in public schools. Look at what McLeroy was doing in Texas. Creationist do want religion taught in the science class. Just ask my dad, he'd be glad to see noah's ark taught as history.
"Trust me, he wouldn't have a problem at all if creationism was taught in public schools. "
is a completely contrary statement to
"What's worse is that evangelists like Hovind want to indoctrinate every kid in public school with the stories from the bible."
Unlike your father, I honestly think that most fundamental Christians simply want macroevolution removed.
"Unlike your father, I honestly think that most fundamental Christians simply want macroevolution removed."
That's pretty naive. Look at the tactics employed by creationists sometime, and it should be enough to disabuse you of that notion. Look at the wedge document of the DI, the Dover case, or the fights over the Kansas board of education, for just a few examples.
And, removing macroevolution from the science curriculum is basically removing evolution. Even this is not acceptable, because it's dumbing down science education in deferrence to a particular religious sentiment. This can not be allowed, or will we also stop teaching about the age of the Earth and the universe?
Lastly, what I find particularly ironic is that these people don't want to teach about macroevolution, but then turn around and claim that all of us are descended from Noah and his family, which would require evolution on a scale much larger/faster than what they claim is possible.
"Look at the wedge document of the DI, the Dover case, or the fights over the Kansas board of education, for just a few examples."
Just because some are the loudest, does not mean they represent the majority. If that were the case, I could say most atheists are mean-spirited, which I don't believe.
"Just because some are the loudest, does not mean they represent the majority."
That's true, but we don't have much evidence going the other way. Where are the fundies that don't want creationism taught in schools?
"If that were the case, I could say most atheists are mean-spirited, which I don't believe."
Oh really? Where are the mean-spirited atheists that you allude to? PZ Myers perhaps? He doesn't seem at all mean-spirited to me. Maybe myself? I certainly don't feel mean-spirited. How about Hitchens? Yeah, I'm sure he's so mean-spirited for standing up and talking about how evil the Xian conception of god is. Please.
Don't mistake passion and concise or even pointed argumentation for mean-spiritedness.
I wasn't speaking of you, or them at all. I was speaking of those I have come in contact with personally. Down boy, down.
"That's true, but we don't have much evidence going the other way. Where are the fundies that don't want creationism taught in schools?"
I can honestly say that I don't know personally of anyone I've had a conversation with who wants creationism taught in schools. Really, most don't even care that much about the macro-evolution teachings, because the majority of Bible-believing, fundamental Christians are in favor of home-schooling. My child attends public school, and I would like macro-evolution removed, but that's just me.
"I wasn't speaking of you, or them at all. I was speaking of those I have come in contact with personally. Down boy, down."
Yeah, because atheists are always angry and hateful, right? Just as I said above, it's a stereotype.
"I can honestly say that I don't know personally of anyone I've had a conversation with who wants creationism taught in schools. Really, most don't even care that much about the macro-evolution teachings, because the majority of Bible-believing, fundamental Christians are in favor of home-schooling."
They homeschool because the public schools won't teach their religion!
"My child attends public school, and I would like macro-evolution removed, but that's just me."
Why? Don't you want your child to be taught actual science that backed by empirical evidence?
"Yeah, because atheists are always angry and hateful, right? Just as I said above, it's a stereotype."
That was my point originally that you attacked. It's a stereotype and so is "Every Christian wants religion taught in schools."
Trust me, he wouldn't have a problem at all if creationism was taught in public schools. "
is a completely contrary statement to
"What's worse is that evangelists like Hovind want to indoctrinate every kid in public school with the stories from the bible."
Not they're not. Read them again.
"That was my point originally that you attacked. It's a stereotype and so is "Every Christian wants religion taught in schools.""
It's a good thing that I don't and didn't say that then, isn't it? Don't try and change my words or move the goalposts.
Post a Comment