Jdg 21:10 And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children.
Jdg 21:11 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man.
Jdg 21:12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan

this episode was not God's orders............this was sinful men's ideas

sartrain is blaming God for things that sinfull men chose to do............so, again, sartrian is resorting to lying to prove his point

sartrian is as evil as he claims God is

sartrian, stop lying...........you're hurting people and yourself

sartrian's posts are not helping anybody,,,,,,,,and they are hurting people, including sartrian himself

sartrian is adding to his punishment on JUDGEMENT DAY

some debates help us,,,,,,,,,,they promote bible-study...........but sartrian is not an earnest, honest seeker,,,,,,,,,,he's just a wicked , deliberate liar

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...amp;version=45;
Proverbs 27;17 amplified bible
17Iron sharpens iron

when men debate, they sharpen each other...........thank God! for this forum!

but Sartrian's deliberate lies sharpen no-one,,,,,,,,,,,,he's just wasting our time

I cannot blame Sartrian for his positions. If someone does not believe in God, and his wisdom, what other conclusion can be drawn when reading the scriptures in the previous posts. It would seem on the surface that this God was extremely cruel and intolerant.

I was thinking that had I made man, given him a planet that I created to be a paradise for my finest creation, and he rebeled against me and grew populous all while ignoring me and ignoring those who I sent to get them back on track, while allowing themselves to be influenced in the most base of manners by an angel that also rebelled against me and convinced 1/3 of my angels to mutiny against me, when I had only love and wonderful intentions and plans for all of them, I'd see them as an unredeemable infestation upon the earth, like rats or cockroaches. I might just raise up a new people and make sure that they were different by giving them entirely different cultural protocols and practices that would ensure that they would have to keep me in mind, every week with yearly festivals to steer them back on track.

Then I might raise up this new people to do some exterminating, in order to protect them from the influences that I know would destroy them. Later, people who didn't believe that I even existed might think (as they pondered claims about me by my people) that I was a cruel genocidal God, who repeatedly let the population grow just to unleash wrath upon them. Does this really sound so unreasonable?

I think that we must refute atheists like Sartrian, with a goal of convincing him to take another look, while praying for his eyes to be opened by a real God who really loves and cares about him. We must also represent our God in a manner that is attractive, not in a way that will only reinforce their opinions about us as a people.

I've been privately cooresponding with Sartrian, and find that he is an engaging person with a keen mind and who is willing to be subjected to ridicule in order to debate with us. He/she is somewhat antoganistic at times, but I would probably be so as well if I was spoken to by many Christians as he has been, faceing hostile, uncaring unChristlike attitudes that we often have been guilty of having toward people like him.

Weren't we also lost without hope in this world as former unbelievers ourselves? Jesus instructed us to be wise as serpents yet gentle as doves, and Paul instructed us to wear our armor. Let us emulate Christ as we deal with those who he died to save.

Couldnt agree more chrio39. Nicely summed up.

We should be ready to answer Sartrian and every evil dart which comes our way.

We also have to compare the military campaigns of Israel with the conventions of those times. In those days and in fact in most wars, women were routinely raped and were regarded as simply the spoils of war. None of this happens with Israel. Women are not raped but if a man fancied a women then he had to take her back to the camp, then she had to be checked out to ensure she was a virgin, then he had to agree to support her for the rest of her life. He could not rape her then cast her off or kill her.

In fact the rules of Israel were extremely humane. Soldiers would think twice before letting the lust come over them knowing that they would have to take responsibility for the woman. We must remember too that the Israelites were not Christians filled with the holy spirit. They had just come out of the cruel and barbarous treatment in Egypt. It was hard for Moses and his generals to control them as it was. Telling them that they could not have the "spoils of war" would have been too much.

If Israel was a perfect society with no evil then why would we need a saviour to come and reconcile us to God and to give us the Holy Spirit so that we may live holy lives. In fact that is the point of the whole account of Israel. To show that the LAW written in stone brings no salvation or life but only constant rebellion and sin.

In fact it has been shown that atheists who lack the moral constraints which Christians have are sent into battle and war, they often behave in atrocious manner. Even Satrian is expressing moral values here. He is saying that rape, murder and executions are great evils. However atheism has no basis for any moral judgements whatsoever. What makes rape wrong? What makes murder wrong? Why is it wrong to execute by stoning? By what authority does Satrian make these claims. In the "survival of the fittest" "might is right". The weak and the poor have no voice.

Satrian points the finger at the God of Israel even as he advances the moral vacuum of atheism.

Not good enough.

Good post however I would not like to see our forum invaded by non christians who are simply bent on discrediting and attacking Christianity. Personally I do not believe that Satrian is trying to learn about God or christianity. I think he just wants to attack and wound the Christian faith. There are plenty of forums with thousands of threads discussing every aspect of the creation V evolution debate. We really don't need our forum to become just another one of them.

The difference between us and people like Sartrian is that we have had personal and experiential encounters in our lives with the Supernatural Presence of the Holy Spirit and God through Christ His Son. We and many others throughout the world and ages past have testified to these experiences as a witness of God's existence. So our belief is galvanized without question regardless of the mortal "logic" of outsiders lacking that personal and experiential reality. Yet, we and “they” must understand that “before” a Christian becomes a Christian, he too was in the world, for many of us “before” were in Sartrian’s camp. The two camps are two different worlds that collide in opposition and cannot merge or integrate into one. But those who become Christian, leaving the former existence, know this is only possible by the working of the Holy Spirit that “transformed” our minds, and once this happened, we SUDDENLY realized the delusion that gripped our minds when we were in the former camp. But at that time we could not have comprehension of the Truth, for we all thought the ways of God were foolish and nonsense, just as Sartrian currently believes. He doesn’t know it now, but in the future this will change, just as it did for us.

-7

Very nicely put, and very accurate i think. I think the best course of action in cases like this with Sartrian is prayer, as without the spirit to open Sartrians eyes our arguments and debates are totally pointless. Only when the spirit is on his case will he be able to fully appriciate what we are saying to him, so I would encourage everyone to pray for Sartrian anyway. As he doesnt believe I dont see him objecting to this, and if he does, do it anyway!

God bless

Thedoubter

I totally agree, Thedoubter. Sartrian doesn't know it now, but God has cleverly gravitated him to this site, because God wants him. And guess what? God NEVER looses. My suspicion is that God's plan is to use Sartrian's great passion and zeal in the realm of science to prove to the world’s Atheists that God is REAL. This is how God always works. He takes the one person who is at the greatest opposition to Him and turns them around for His use and purpose. That is what happened to one of Christianity's greatest persecutors, Saul, who God converted and transformed him into Christianity's greatest vanguard and apostle... Paul of Tarshish. So, to the untrained eye, there is actually a method to God's “apparent” madness.

-7

Excubitor, 7 thunders and the doubter, I think your posts are spot on. And Ex, I agree with your assesment of his motives (though we could be wrong about that), yet his willingness to engage in debate with us likely poses no danger when we are ready to give a reasoned defense of the faith.

when i was an un-believer, i don't remember telling deliberate lies against God and Bible.............what good is it to tell lies to myself?

Sartrian tells lies deliberately, to prove his point.............what good is that to anybody?............i don't make excuses for deliberate liars

Nope. I never claimed god was “sinful.” I claimed that he was a genocidal maniac and to follow his commands would be tantamount to raising your hand to Hitler and chanting “Sieg Heil!”



So little boys and non-combatants are considered “irredeemably wicked” and are to be slaughtered? The writers of the Geneva Conventions would like to have a word with you. In fact, I think most reasonable human beings would like to have a word with you.



I bet it just burns you up that I’m a godless queer and live a perfectly happy, contented life, doesn’t it?



“I disagree with you. Therefore, you’re evil.”

Lovely logic.



Incorrect on multiple levels. If what the tribe of Benjamin did was seen as immoral, why did none of the other tribes chastise them for their actions? If Yahweh took a direct hand in guiding the morality of the Israelites, why did he not stop the tribe of Benjamin if what they did was immoral? And if the pre-Kings period was supposedly evil, why did the prophet Samuel decry the Kingship as an institution that would inevitably divide Israel?



You never responded to:
“Moses was furious at army commanders who had returned from the battle.’ Why have you spared the lives of all the women?' Moses asked. 'Kill all the male children! And kill all the women who have had sex with a man!' said Moses. 'But spare the lives of the young girls who have never had sex with a man. Keep them for yourselves. The women who had never had sex with a man numbered 32,000. Half were assigned to those who had fought in the war.”

and

“They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.”



Sticks and stones will break my bones, M’sieur Dennis…



If Satan is opposed to God, and God condemns me, wouldn’t Satan do his best to make sure I had a pleasant afterlife, if only to stick it to God’s judgment?

Just a random thought—take it as you will.



One can only read the surface. By applying interpretations, you change the meaning of the text entirely. Probably towards the fluffy idea of a less insane Iron-Age deity.



If you’re perfect, why do you need to create anything, let alone fallible entities that can suffer tremendously?



And if you were convinced that you needed to make beings, why not make them incapable of evil? Or just make them capable of realizing what evil is, but make them incapable of choosing it? Why allow your creations to suffer and inflict suffering on others?



That you created, knowing full well that he’d do that.



The Holocaust?



Anybody who kills their children and claims that they are an unredeemable infestation is truly, and horrifically insane.





Knowing full well that the other people are your creations and children as well, and that you have the omnipotence necessary to correct viewpoints without genocide?

Which shouldn’t bother you if you’re a being with the power to create and unmake universes. If so, you’d be incredibly vain.



If you commanded them to act in a way contrary to their ideas of empathy and communal kindness, then yes, it would sound unreasonable.



Slavery was a convention up until the 19th century. Does that mean that slavery was correct until the 19th century?

Your argument is moral relativism, which is evil.



I am certainly glad that you never had the opportunity to write the Geneva Conventions.

Here’s something—if you take a little girl and forcibly marry her (with marriage, of course, being consummated by sexual congress) after killing her family and people, then you are raping her. Beyond children’s lack of consent, you have the lack of consent that comes from extorting people (“I killed your family. You will now have sex with me.”).



Humane? You call forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker permanently, or allowing the sexual slavery of women to be humane? You call slaughtering non-combatants and male children, while dividing the little girls as booty to be humane? You’re a sick, sick person for trying to justify that as humane.



They were being directly ruled over by an omnipotent and presumably omnibenevolent god. Why did he not stop them from acting inhumanely?



IT’S A GOOD THING THEY HAD AN ALL-POWERFUL BEING RULING OVER THEM THEN, HUH, INSTEAD OF MOSES? Oh wait. You just claimed that they didn’t. Oh well.



Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being need to update his rules and practices through the medium of a savior?



Egads! And an all-knowing being should have known that and sent his messiah instead of the Law. That’d make sense, wouldn’t it? But then you wouldn’t be able to co-opt the Tanakh to support your Gospels if that were the case.



LIES AND GARBAGE. I defy you to provide evidence of that, rather than slander the name of the brave men and women who’ve died for my country.



By saying that non-Christians have no morals, you claim that the Ancient Greeks and the Chinese and Native Americans, et cetera, were completely degenerate societies that could neither hold themselves together nor progress beyond the stone age.

And besides, my ethical system is Secular Humanism. It derives from the conclusion that human beings are the center of all ethical considerations, not pleasing an invisible man in the sky. Secular Humanism works on the assumption that all human actions are permissible, except for those that infringe on another’s right to live their life as they want. Murder is unethical, rape is unethical, and stoning is unethical, all because they deny human beings a fair and balanced chance to live their lives the way they choose to.


The Abrahamic religions work off of the assumption that because god has all the power, that gives him the right to abuse it the way he chooses! That is the moral relativism that allows dictators and monsters to run countries!

If your beliefs were strong enough, you wouldn’t be threatened by me poking holes in them.



Like devout Muslims and Hindus and Wiccans have had "personal and experiential encounters in their lives with the supernatural presence of their gods and spirits?"



A million people can believe that they can sprout wings and fly to Jupiter, but that doesn’t make that belief any more correct.



And yet, I could simply say that you’re a schizophrenic, and the only claim that you could make against that would be that “I would have to experience the magic voices for myself.”



I doubt that any of you have even vaguely questioned your beliefs. If I had to make an educated guess, I’d have to say that if you rejected god at all, it was probably some emotional fit done out of not getting your way—and I would say that you picked him right back up when something good happened for you.



Debates are totally pointless with you because you refuse to even accept the possibility that you might be wrong. Unless you go into a debate with the intention of at least considering the opposite side’s argument, you’re just a big self-deluded liar.



Except against iron chariots.

Moderators note; I have edited Sartrians last three posts due to hostile, provocative and ad hominem posts and will place him on moderator preview. He had been warned of this over a week ago. There are limits to our tolerence of anti christian views being debated here and the manner of posting. The deleted parts were overly blasphemous and/or very degrading comments about our members. Chrio39

Nope… wishful thinking. You're not gonna get off the Divine Hook that easily, Mister, because your disqualifications and inadequacies are His FIRST REQUIREMENTS. Nice try, though, but no cigar.

God has converted worse people than you, mass murderers, cannibals, headhunters, Satanists, Mob lords, prostitutes, pimps, porn stars, cocaine addicts, pedophiles, you name it. In God's Eyes you'll be a piece of cake. Time will tell.

-7

Now I understand a little more about Sartrain and his position, and it is as I thought. Much of this argument to deny God is about what is perceived as evil. I can deeply understand a lot of these underlying issues and at the same same time there is so much that I do not know.

The idea comes from a classic argument that can be found in Wikipedia, the problem with evil, and it goes as follows:



There are other arguments listed as well with the Evidential problem of evil argument, Argument from evil natural laws and processes, Inductive argument from evil, Argument from the biological role of pain and pleasure, but all of them argue with the same consequence that because there is "evil" in the world the is no God, which I personally reject. So what then is evil?

For one many people cannot accept that God is real with all the pain and suffering in the world because people naturally perceive that the pain and suffering in this world is evil and is caused by evil. I tend to agree as I do not like pain (despite what Sartrain may have said about me), nor do I think that Jesus liked pain or that he was a masochist, after all Christ did ask God to take the cup of suffering away (Luke 22:42) but only by his will.

Yet that I may believe pain is evil and is caused by evil certainly does not make me correct, because it does not fully reconcile my faith in Christ due to several inconsistencies.

Argument One. "If God caused pain to his only begotten Son does this make God evil?" After all one cannot say that pain is good unless they think masochism is a good thing, but one cannot say that pain is evil being Christ had suffered pain.
Counter Argument "God did not cause the pain but the devil that influenced men did". The failing of this argument is it implies God was powerless to stop men or the devil which is not true (Matthew 26:53)

"God let his Son suffer pain and die for my sake in love of me." Very close but it doesn't fully answer an argument another atheist had because it still suggested that God was a masochist to let his own Son suffer in the first place even if it be out of love.

God is Jesus This is my reason to argue that despite the pain Christ had suffered, be it for my sake, God is good for it not only means Jesus died on the Cross for my sins, that God had died on the cross for my sins (puts Nietich's quote in a different perspective, doesn't it?). God loves me so that he died for me? Amazing. The problem with this argument is one of acceptance as many believers still hold the idea that God and the Son are separate entities "acting as one" (whatever that means) and that God never died or never dies.

Argument Two. "The world suffers pain is evil meaning if there is a God he's evil."
Counter Argument "God does not cause the pain in the world but the devil that influences men does." The failing of this argument is the same above for when Christ suffered on the Christ.

"Pain is a part of life as it is a part of God's perfect plan." Close, but it does not fully satisfy to the atheist as to why even consider pain as the reason to believe in God. In a way I see that the atheistic argument to believe that God does not exists because there is pain preserves the understanding that God IS good because one would rather not believe in a God than believe in a god that is evil.

There is pain in the world because God suffered pain This is my reason to believe why pain happens. My pain and suffering only identifies with God's pain and suffering, and only in the smallest fraction of what God has experienced, at least that God had suffered pain as Christ. Again, the problem with this argument is of acceptance because believers hold that God does not suffer or never has suffered pain. In fact I find no direct scripture that supports that God never had suffered pain, though I have found a few where God does grieve, which to me is pain, as I have grieved and know the pain that comes from it.

So, God is Christ, and God suffered pain. Two very untraditional views about God and Christ amongst believers, consequential to the atheistic argument.

But above all, the belief that ties it all together for me is that I believe God is good and I trust him. I see perfection in His plan like no other plan that I may know.

God bless to all

Love HB

Fair enough, though qouting something you wrote in relation to knowing God:



Cant say it really seems you were considering that argument, sounds like you'd already made up your mind a long time ago, just thought i'd mention it

sartrain is fighting very hard to defeat a god who, he claims , doesn't exist

his war against god is Proof that he believes:......... that God exists


why fight so hard against an imaginary "nothing"?

there's only 2 possibilities:
1. sartrian has read the bible and has lied against it

or
2. sartrian has not read the bible , and he claims that the bible says: god is a murderer/rapist/genocider

either way, sartrain is an un-repentant deliberate liar/deceiver, who can't prove his point without lying


he can't debate.............liars can't debate

Sartri, you don't seem very happy and contented at all... There seems to be much unresolved anger, hurt, and conflict within you that you enjoy projecting on others here on this forum. No amount of self-reveling in your homosexuality can cover this past up and make it go away, only the love of Jesus Christ can heal you and free you from this.

Caneman

Certainly it is possible to talk about something that doesn't exist.

For example, we could have a conversation on whether Mickey Mouse has lust for Minnie Mouse or not, even though neither Mickey Mouse nor Minnie Mouse exist.

In fact, we can have conversations about the Islamic God, Allah, whom condones eating meat, and allows husbands to beat their wives, and parallel to the Old Testament God, allowes slavery.

So yes, it is possible to talk/debate about something that exists or not exists.


I'm not sure I understand this.


You're trying to squeeze every incident into a 'big picture.' Try not to think of it like that.

Everything we say is our point, so we may not try to put what we say into a 'big picture.'


And when Sartrians lies about what the Bible says, you are welcome to point out his lies.


That's why we need people like you to point out what those lies are.


I disagree, Down's Syndrome people can't debate.

Which god’ll headhunt me first? Allah? Ahura Mazda? Vishnu? L. Ron Hubbard?



The ethical considerations are only one part of my disbelief. My second consideration is the logical inability to reconcile the idea of a perfect being acting on an imperfect whim to create an imperfect universe, ostensibly for the vain act of being endlessly loved.



Flawed logic on multiple levels. The God in question not only created the devil, but also the gullibility inherent in human beings, thus making him ultimately responsible for the suffering present in creation, thus making him evil.

Secondly, to say that god is “powerless” to do something denies that he is omnipotent.



If God found a messiah a more adequate way to promote ethics, then why create the law of the Tanakh in the first place? Why not just send Jesus to the ancient Israelites?



God created both the world’s capacity for pain, and a devil whose sole capability is to inflame that pain. Why would a perfect being find it necessary to create either?



How do you hurt the feelings of a being that is so complete, in both physical capacity and mental capacity, that he can literally create a universe down to the last atom with little more than a command? It does not follow.



All I’ve ever observed god to be is “an illusory concept used as social control by people in authority and as a mental crutch by the downtrodden.”

If you provided evidence of god to me, or a logical argument that refuted my observation, I’d be more than happy to consider it.



This coming from a person who refuses to answer any of my refutations?

Dear Sartrain, I'll just answer this part because it really is important to me



If there be a God, which I believe there is one, then He is a God by the way no one had ever created Him, and He is alone. Before creation there was only God and none other. An eternity of solitude before the first angel was ever created by His hand.

My very limited understanding could probably never conceive the vast loneliness and perhaps the pain from it that would ensue.

It is not out of God's need that I am here or that you are here, Sartrain. It is out of love.

Sartrian,


The following quotes of yours were directed to someone else, but I feel the need to respond to them anyway. So, I will.

QUOTE

You still don’t answer why Yahweh commanded his followers to kill little boys and then rape the little girls....

I just wanted to mention that I myself already pointed out to you that the verses you quoted in support of your contention that God commanded His followers to rape little girls (or to rape anyone, for that matter) do not support your contention. You have yet to prove from Scripture that God has commanded, or even allowed, His followers to rape anyone.

QUOTE

I bet it just burns you up that I’m a godless queer and live a perfectly happy, contented life, doesn’t it?

I am certain that you do not live a "perfectly happy, contented life" (and one reason I am certain of this is your behavior and attitude here on this forum). But it does not "burn me up" that you are a "godless queer". My younger brother is a homosexual (he is 40, and revealed his orientation around 8 years ago, to our family's surprise). I still love him, and do things with him, and joke with him, but he knows that I consider homosexuality a sin (a disgusting sin, at that), and that according to the Bible it is an abomination to the Lord. I don't berate him or preach to him about changing his lifestyle, but I do try to get him to see that it is possible to hate the sin, yet love the sinner. And it is. He's a good kid, other than that - kind, helpful, etc.. I just finished beating him at pool on Mother's Day (one thing I don't do is let him beat me at anything). He tried to beat me at arm-wrestling, but I wouldn't let him.

Anyway, for my part, it doesn't burn me up that you're a godless queer. There's hope for any sinner, if they are willing to repent of their sin - all of us here who genuinely accept Jesus as our Savior are sinners who have been forgiven of our sin...none of us are "saints", in the sense of being untouchably holy. I know I'm not. But I'm still smarter than you, and could probably beat you at arm-wrestling.

I have edited 3 of Sartrian's last 4 posts and placed him on moderator review.

And the fraudulence of those trapped in Bad Faith comes to light. I was wondering how long it'd take for you to respond to my prods to your rickety status quo.

sartrian said :........"This coming from a person who refuses to answer any of my refutations?"

this is a lie...........i answered one of his lies, in Judges

Sartrian is not a debater.............he is an im-mature liar, .............and he gets his Joy from hurting others

lying is not debating

if i were the moderator, i would banish the Liar

The vast majority of men who died for our country were Christians to one degree or another and had at least some concept of a moral God who judged men for evil deeds. This belief, however tenuous restrained our soldiers from some of the excesses of barbarity that are seen in the heathen nations. The few atheists that fought in the wars alongside Christians were restrained by those around them. When we compare our society with Russia during the communist period we see a stark contrast. The atheistic communistic government hated all religion and destroyed churches and slaughtered Christians. These communist leaders used to have meetings where they discussed their atheistic views in the evening and where they raged against the Christian God of their fathers. The next day they went out slaughtering and imprisoning their own people. 18 million prisoners passed through these camps. Over 20 years almost 2 million died. Millions more were exiled to remote parts of Russia such as Siberia. The gulags enforced labour camps of Stalins reign are the direct product of atheism in its unrestrained form.


You powers of comprehension are very poor. I did not say that non-Christians had no morals. I said that atheists often exhibit a lack of morals because of their belief system. I never said that Ancient Greeks or other believers in a god lacked morals. Nor did I say that all atheists lack morals.



Is insulting people and calling them evil, conniving and a "waste of time" ethical?

What is secular humanism anyway? Who sat down and figured out the ethics of that system? Who is the arbitrator and judge of secular humanism? I'll tell you what secular humanism is. It is the ethics, morals and virtues of Christianity with all of the references to God taken out and replaced with man. Secular humanists reject God but hang onto the ethics and virtues of our society which suit them. They do not realise or want to know that all of these values are hand-me-downs which they got from the grandparents and great-grandparents and which all have their roots in the fact that we were once a Christian nation.

Humanists like certain of these Christian values but disown God as the originator of them claiming that they all originated from modern man alone.
The trouble is that without God, humanist values have no teeth and NO authority.
Without a divine authority behind it man is then free to adapt its precepts at his own whim and fancy to suit his own personal chosen ideaology. Having then constructed a code for himself he then attempts to satisfy his conscience. Therefore man makes himself his own master, Lord and God.

This kind of system does not work because whenever under duress through trial or temptation the humanist will simply rewrite his own code and justify within himself his new interpretation of secular humanist doctrine (whatever that is).

Secular Humanism is in fact a religion, no different to any other religion, except that God is not the object of worship. Humanity is the object of worship, and in particular the SELF is the main object of worship.

What difference does it make if humans *coincidentally* agree with something God feels?

If you ask a 1-on-1 interview with God, and men, and ask them the exact questions, regarding ethics, morality, etc., if the values of God and men match - then what difference does it make whether God came up with them or not?

If great minds think alike, then a non-great mind that agrees with the great mind has the same opinion.


Or he simply makes his own laws. Calling himself a god, well no, that's nonsensical.


Okay you seem to argue that with flaws in personalities of humans, it could be hard for humans to reach a consensus on something.

Like throwing a bunch of lawyers, judges, or law makers, and argue they will have flaws in their moralities, ethics, etc.


Careful, what you are saying might disagree with the article on secular humanisn on Wikipedia, where they don't worship anyone or anything, period.

If Wikipedia has any mistakes, let me know.

Neal C.

This comment scores ten out ten for uselessness. This is an utterly absurd argument. If an artist creates a painting and then a shabby forger copies it, are you saying that the fact that they bear a resemblance means that it makes no difference which one you hang on the wall. Surely in a just world the artist should get credit for his excellent work and the forger should be reprimanded. What man has done is reject the true artist, trample on his beautiful painting, hang the shabby forgery on the wall and the praise and honour the forger. Yes I say it does make a very big difference.
Particularly when the forged ethics of humanism are so far compromised from the laws of God and are steadily eroding with each passing generation.



They may agree in some small ways which gives a show of morals and ethics, but as I said it is a counterfeit which only attempts poorly to soothe the conscience. I have given an explanation of where humanistic ethics come from. What is your explanation. It is similar to Caneman's question on what is the source of human logic? Who encoded the precepts and rules with determine what is logical and illogical? Equally, who came up with and encoded the precepts and rules which determine what is ethical and what is unethical, good and evil, right and wrong? Just as an example. If a tiger in the wild kills a deer for food it is considered natural. If a man kills another man and eats him it is considered a vile evil. Why? If there is no God, how do we know that cannibalism is evil for humans? Male animals in the wild repeatedly rape the female of the species and yet in human society rape is considered a grave evil. Why? Where did such ethics come from?


Of course he does not knowingly call himself god, anymore than pagan religions knowingly call themselves false religions. Are you claiming that human beings are not capable of being deceived en masse?


Precisely. If we take our doctrine from humans we will inherit all of their flaws into our ethics, morals and societal values. As humans we must look to God if we are to find a universal set of values which are perfect and authoritative.


I use the term worship loosely of course. To worship is to love, serve and obey the creator of the universe. Humanists love, serve and obey nothing and nobody except their own lusts. Even the love they show to their relatives is a selfish extension of their ego. Even if they perform great works, they do so to soothe their crippled conscience. Throwing themselve into their work they obtain a shadowy fulfillment which is a sham compared to the joy and fulfillment we who love serve and obey God receive. The humanist gets what he needs for himself. He looks after himself because nobody else will. The Christian loves and serves God above his own desires. He considers his neighbour's interests equally or above his own. He does these things because he is obedient to a universal standard of law, ethics, and values which never changes. A standard by which every man and woman will be judged in the last day.

You have wikipedia. I have the Bible. The Bible has no mistakes and the promises of God are sure and certain.

The Bible was originally written in Hebrew or something. Would it be okay to translate it word for word in English?

Yes of course it is.

In any event, I do agree with your *specific* analogy of forged painting, but not the idea in principle. If humans and God could come up with the same ideas and principles, what would be the argument against if humans came up with them on their own?


Human ethics can also come from humans, or from scriptural text.

But the thing is, humans have the ability to evaluate ideas. So supposed humans could never come up with the same ideas of morality and ethics from scriptual text like in the Old Testament. They can evaluate them. Whether they can do it ethically, is another story.

Whether or not plagiarism is involved, that shouldn't be the issue. So what if secular humanists stole a lot of ideas from God and put them in their own laws? What's wrong if the U.S. Constitution was based off England's Magna Carta?

If God says thou shall not kill, then it is absolutely okay for humans to steal that philosophy - even if they didn't come up with it, in my opinion.

So the source of human logic can come from humans. However, when starting a system of ethics, surely we won't think of every law possible at the time of writing it. But when new circumstances come up, such as new ideas to break or bend the laws, then new laws can be made as a result of them.

Curfew laws probably didn't exist thousands of years ago, but they do now.


For me to argue against that God says cannibalism is evil for humans, that would require me to agree with that.

I'm not sure the Old Testament God is against cannibalism to begin with.

Because of the suffering that your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you. Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities. The most gentle and sensitive woman among you - so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot - will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For she intends to eat them secretly during the siege and in the distress that your enemy will inflict on you in your cities. Leviticus 26:29.

I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives. Jeremiah 19:9.

With their own hands compassionate women have cooked their own children, who became their food when my people were destroyed. Lamentation 4:10.

Therefore in your midst fathers will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers. I will inflict punishment on you and will scatter all your survivors to the winds. Ezekiel 5:10.

Also see, 2 Kings 6:26-29?

*But*

But but but.

I do agree with you. I do agree human cannibalism is evil, and shouldn't be allowed. Or in other words, I'm intelligent enough to *disagree* with the Bible (or have the free will too, if you'd rather call it).

So to answer your question, if there is no God, how do we know human cannibalism is evil?

Simple - we have something called the Golden Rule.

The Greek philosophers came up with tons of variations of the Golden Rule.

Here's 1 from Thales:

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing."

Here's 1 from Isocrates.

"Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others."

Here's 1 from Epictectus.

"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others."

(Yes, not even I have heard of them all.) These are some copy and pastes from Wikipedia, and I do note an error in their golden rule article.


Humans are capable of being deceived yes.


I can come up with my own system of ethics, morals, values, etc. (And I have.) I do not feel I must look to God to see if those set of values I came up with are wrong.

And I'm certainly willing to share them with you, so you can interpret them yourself, like in another thread or so.


If your only criticisms of secular humanists are because they reject God, then I'm not 1 to argue with you on that. That's something for Sartrian to do.

But if you have criticisms on their ethical/moral values, then I'd be willing to interpret those criticisms of course.

Neal C.

Reply: You called me a liar and it is you that has been lying from the moment you began writing on this web site.

To begin with every thing I wrote is true. The anglerfish does use her worm to catch her food but she also shoots her eggs into a certain kind of fish's mouth and they stick to his gills until they are hatched.

I taught evolution and often debate evolutionist that are honest and understand what they are talking about, and you do not understand the things you write about. You make up replys or copy text out of text boos that are either obsolete or your replys are taken out of context.

Miller's experment did not produce any anino acids that are used in living things. He also built a trap to catch his ammino acids, because if he didn't catch them they would be killed as soon as they encountered the lightning that created them n the first place.

Your totally unscientific statement about the early earth not having oxygen is plain stupid and that is commonly known by all earth scientists. If there was no ozone a cell could not ever be created because the radiation would klll anything created. There were volcanos that produced oxygen and there are massive amounts of iorn in the mantle. To say that there was no oxygen shows that you are the one that is stupid.

I do not debate stupid people that uses lies and nonsense to answers questions. What is your education? Did you graduate from high school? Did you ever attend college? I did and was an honor student in all my years in science classes. Some of my instructors were icons of evolution. [size="3"][/size]

For someone who is questioning the level of education of a fellow poster you sure take a lot of 'ahem' liberties with the English language.

Oh, the irony ! or is that ironknee.

I did a spell check on your post and my keyboard melted and let's not even start on your syntax.

So I am just going to say it Hammer and this will be a golden opportunity for you to call me a liar.

I don't think you have had any type of higher education and I don't believe for a minute that you 'taught' evolution.

So, let's hear it Hammer boy.
Credentials please. (verifiable ones)


V.

Ozone is not the same as oxygen, ozone is quite toxic.

Now, the moment ozone existed, then it would do just as you say - prevent the radiation from killing any cell.


Is this an argument about oxygen never currently existing or never existing?

It was Sartrian that originally said, "Early earth was completely devoid of atmospheric oxygen. In fact, the appearance of oxygen in the atmosphere triggered a biological crisis on the planet [...].

So certainly when oxygen existed, is it no surprise that life became possible?

Sartrian talked about the appearance of oxygen - so what is the argument when you say volcanoes produced oxygen? And a lot of iron in the Earth's mantle?


I suppose you guys are in fact, arguing when life on Earth was created. In this case, Sartrian argues life did not start at the time of Earth's creation.

I suppose you would argue life in fact started right at Earth's creation, and you will back up Genesis. So this doesn't become a science vs. science debate but a Genesis vs. science debate.

Neal C.

Vissarion,

QUOTE

For someone who is questioning the level of education of a fellow poster you sure take a lot of 'ahem' liberties with the English language.

Oh, the irony ! or is that ironknee.

I did a spell check on your post and my keyboard melted and let's not even start on your syntax.

Hammer claimed to be trained as a scientist. Many scientists, engineers in particular, are notorious for being poor spellers, and having bad syntax or grammar. Not all, but a higher percentage than is usual in the educated.

QUOTE

So, let's hear it Hammer boy.
Credentials please. (verifiable ones)

And what is your educational background, Vissarion? Law? Logic? Religion? Any verifiable answer will do.

I agree with you on my spellng and suntax. But a lot of my bad spelling is because I hit the wrong keys. Words like iron is an example of miss typing of a word. When I first begin teaching as a graduate student my wife, who is retired from the University of Oklahoma, proof read and typed all my papers. Later my daughter did all my proof reading and correcting my bad grammer and spelling. I have never had to do my own final copy of anything.

My scientific studies were mostly in geology connected to oil exploration, but I had to take dozens of other science courses in order to get my degree in geology. I taught graduate students evolution and I have kept up with the latest data for the past fifty-eight years.

If you know any, so called fact, that any living species changed into another living species tell me about it. I would also be very interested to know what you thing is the reason that there are no half species in the fossil record. I am not able to take the time to reply to your post right now because of personal problems, but I will copy them and answer when I get the time.

As for you not believeing me that really upsets me. I have always been fond of clowns and I'm not used to one of your caliber being rude to me.

PS: Please proof read this for me and correct any errors in it so that I will appear to be as intellegent as you think you are.