 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> BTW you forgot
> to shed doubt on the church part. Now we could read it as a confession
> that you are member of a church. ;)
In fact, I'm not.
> > There were clearly wrong assumptions being made in the video. For example,
> > there's no claim in the bible, literal or metaphorical, that people who
> > believe in God and are saved never divorce. I don't even remember hearing
> > any christian making such claim. (Well, I'm sure that there exist people
> > who make all kinds of claims, eg. that if two people divorce they are not
> > "true" christians, or whatever. But that's not what any mainstream christian
> > church teaches.)
> Matthew 19:1-12 especially 19:6
That's a command, not a promise. It commands that people should not
divorce. It doesn't promise that people won't want to divorce. If you
read the next verses you'll see a direct admission of that: People *do*
divorce, even if God has put them together, and that's why some laws were
put in place for those occasions.
If the bible made any kind of promise that people who believe in God
won't even divorce, why would there be any need for such laws?
The video asks a very loaded question: "Why do christians get divorced
at the same rate as non-christians?" It's a loaded question because it
assumes that the bible or christians teach that God doesn't allow christians
to divorce. Nowhere is there such a promise. On the contrary, it's readily
admitted in the bible that people divorce even though God wouldn't want
them to.
I suppose the correct answer to the question would be: "Because people
don't always follow God's will." The answer the video gives to the question
is inconsequential.
> > I really can't understand why they included that one. Even I can think of
> > plenty of tougher questions.
> The assumption is that people who believe that God united them in
> marriage will be more hesitant to divorce, more so because God
> explicitly forbids it. Divorce rates were indeed much lower in the first
> half of the 20th century because of this here. Apparently the words of
> Matthew became less important during the last century.
> The only accepted reason for divorce was adultery (following Matthew
> 19:8). My mother even mentioned the existence of the concept of the 'big
> lie' (or a name something like that). If two people decided that they
> had to divorce but this condition did not apply, one or both would admit
> adultery that had never taken place.
Even if all that is true, how does the "answer" given in the video, ie.
"God is imaginary", related to this? It doesn't make God imaginary if people
don't follow what the bible says.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-7-2009 16:19, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> BTW you forgot
>> to shed doubt on the church part. Now we could read it as a confession
>> that you are member of a church. ;)
>
> In fact, I'm not.
Oh no, you shouldn't say that either. ;)
>>> There were clearly wrong assumptions being made in the video. For example,
>>> there's no claim in the bible, literal or metaphorical, that people who
>>> believe in God and are saved never divorce. I don't even remember hearing
>>> any christian making such claim. (Well, I'm sure that there exist people
>>> who make all kinds of claims, eg. that if two people divorce they are not
>>> "true" christians, or whatever. But that's not what any mainstream christian
>>> church teaches.)
>
>> Matthew 19:1-12 especially 19:6
>
> That's a command, not a promise. It commands that people should not
> divorce. It doesn't promise that people won't want to divorce. If you
> read the next verses you'll see a direct admission of that: People *do*
> divorce, even if God has put them together, and that's why some laws were
> put in place for those occasions.
>
> If the bible made any kind of promise that people who believe in God
> won't even divorce, why would there be any need for such laws?
I can only assume that you contrasting commands and promises relates to
some theology that I am not familiar with. It appears that your claim
that it is a 'clearly wrong assumption' that Christians should not
divorce somehow rests on this distinction. So enlighten me.
> The video asks a very loaded question: "Why do christians get divorced
> at the same rate as non-christians?" It's a loaded question because it
> assumes that the bible or christians teach that God doesn't allow christians
> to divorce.
Actually He wouldn't. He accepts it reluctantly only when one party has
already broken it's vows. Which is sort of logical because the unity of
the two people has already been compromised.
> Nowhere is there such a promise.
there is that promise again.
> On the contrary, it's readily
> admitted in the bible that people divorce even though God wouldn't want
> them to.
Also note that Jesus here overrules Moses, at least that is how I read it.
> I suppose the correct answer to the question would be: "Because people
> don't always follow God's will."
And that is, I think, the point the guy is trying to make. That God
forbids it has zero effect on the Christians. As such it is a
reiteration of the well known fact that even the people who say they
take the bible literally still pick and choose what suits them. Again,
apparently a century ago this command was in the set of things to follow
and now it has joined the food-laws. Another reason for inclusion might
be that this change has take place within living memory (just as the
acceptability of gays and unmarried living together here in the
Netherlands), but I think I might be grossly overestimating the
intelligence of the creator of this video with that.
> The answer the video gives to the question
> is inconsequential.
What answer? I didn't see one. There is only the somewhat over the top
'To explain this, you have to create some convoluted rationalization'
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> As long as we take one another's religion serious and don't try to make
> fun of what differs from what we believe, there should not be a problem.
I don't think the atheists would have a problem with it if the faithful
everywhere were tolerant as well. When it's still the death penalty to
change which prophet you believe in large parts of the world, there's still
good reason to argue it, methinks.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> http://warp.povusers.org/OpenLetters/ResponseTo10Questions.html
"""
Let me repeat: There's no such a thing as a "universal moral code".
"""
I think that right there distinguishes you from the Christians at whom this
video is aimed. You don't think Jesus' message is universal? You don't think
the ten commandments apply to everyone? OK, then most folks who agree with
that don't have a problem with your beliefs.
"""
While some christians believe that, that doesn't automatically mean that
christianity, as a religion, teaches that, or that (assuming God indeed
exists) it's true.
"""
And yet, that's exactly what Jesus tells people in the Bible, and that's the
excuse some crazy people use for killing their children.
"""
Question #1: Why Won't God Heal Amputees?
"""
This is more a specific instance of a more general question (as explained in
the extensive web site referenced in the video). Basically, the actual
question is "why doesn't God answer prayers that pray for things that don't
happen statistically as often as chance?" I.e., not that God doesn't heal
anyone, but nobody can actually detect prayer having an effect on reality.
"""
In internet parlance this is called trolling.
"""
That's pretty insightful.
"""
You make an assumption of what the viewer believes and doesn't believe.
"""
I don't think the video is addressing those who don't believe that
statement. Obviously, you can't address a video to every Christian (or every
atheist), when even those calling themselves Christian can't decide who is a
Christian and who isn't.
"""
Innocent of what? You are now talking about this "universal moral code" of
yours, which doesn't exist.
"""
If you look at the arguments the video is based on, it's a traditional
argument. The Bible has God promoting genocide, slavery, mass slaughter of
infants, rape, etc. Why is that good? Is it good because God does it? If
not, isn't God doing bad? Or are you in agreement that slavery and genocide
*can* be good?
That last seems to be what you're arguing with your ice cream analogy.
> My point is that the *way* they are saying it is wrong because
> they present a bunch of fallacious distorted arguments and outright straw
> men, and then present questions and conclusions based directly on them.
I think it's more like they're summarizing a whole bunch of well-known and
extended arguments and presenting them as a monologue, so it comes across as
a straw-man argument. Were the author capable of hearing and replying to
you, there are good arguments against what you're saying, and said responses
are scattered about the internet. You just can't do that in a 10-minute video.
> The people who made the video are trying to be clever, and to many people
> (especially fellow atheists) they do it rather convincingly, but they are
> still basing their arguments on fallacies and straw men.
It's only a straw-man if you don't agree with the exageration. When someone
argues "Yeah, and the Bible says the world is only 6000 years old, and it's
easy to refute that," you only get to call that a straw-man if there aren't
people in a position of power arguing the world really *is* only 6000 years old.
You only get to call an argument against a universal moral code a straw man
if there really aren't people in a position of power arguing that their holy
book is a universal morality code to be enforced via violence.
> Some christians understand that the bible uses a lot of metaphors and
> similes, but they believe that the *message* these metaphors and similes
> are expressing is true.
But then they argue over which are literal, which are metaphors, and what
those metaphors mean. And then they punish you for disagreeing with their
evaluation.
> Of course you have to understand that it *is* a
> metaphor, and what it is trying to say. (Naturally different people may
> have different interpretations, which is why we have a myriad of different
> churches, branches, sects and whatnot.)
A myriad of different churches, branches, sects, explosions of airplanes,
murders of abortion doctors, and beheadings of apostates.
> Some christians take some metaphors too literally and they are way too
> dogmatic about them. Some of them are so fanatic that it seems like they
> thought that anyone who didn't interpret these parts literally is claiming
> the bible contains lies. Ironically, they are themselves most probably
> misinterpreting and distorting the bible by obscuring the true message
> these metaphors are trying to convey and replacing it with their own
> interpretations.
Then you're not the type of person this video is addressed to. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Ok, so you are from the metaphor interpretation side of the church. That
>> is good to know. ;)
>
> I don't really like being categorized based on belief systems.
>
>> Under your interpretation (that the bible contains metaphors and that it
>> is the underlying message that is important) the assumptions made in the
>> video are wrong. But does that mean that the arguments are absolutely
>> wrong or that the maker used 'Christians' where he should have used a
>> much more elaborate definition to make sure you were not included but
>> the ones he meets everyday were?
>
> There were clearly wrong assumptions being made in the video. For example,
> there's no claim in the bible, literal or metaphorical, that people who
> believe in God and are saved never divorce. I don't even remember hearing
> any christian making such claim.
I've never been to a Christian wedding that says "What God has joined, let
no man put asunder." Plus, of course, we have entire wars in Ireland and
such over Catholic royalty trying to get divorced and such. Better to behead
the wife than divorce her, because God doesn't like that.
In this country, Christians fight hard to keep gay people from marrying
because God doesn't like it. However, God apparently does nothing to help
the Christians follow God's law either. It's the hypocracy being pointed out.
Now, if you live in a country where Christians don't stick their fingers
into the private lives on non-Christians, then sure.
> I really can't understand why they included that one. Even I can think of
> plenty of tougher questions.
Because you live in a country where Christians aren't trying to amend your
highest laws to prevent people from getting married based on their holy books.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> If the bible made any kind of promise that people who believe in God
> won't even divorce, why would there be any need for such laws?
Because even in the Bible, it is acknowledged that God cannot affect things
on earth, and that humans need to enforce with violence their interpretation
of God's will against one another. That's pretty much what people who don't
believe in that book dislike about it.
> The video asks a very loaded question: "Why do christians get divorced
> at the same rate as non-christians?" It's a loaded question because it
> assumes that the bible or christians teach that God doesn't allow christians
> to divorce.
I think it's more the "if marriage is a holy gift from God, why don't those
married in God's eyes have better marriages?"
I.e., it's more along the lines of "if you're not going to follow God's will
in *your* marriages, what right do you have to impose God's will on the
marriages of people who don't believe in your God to start with?"
> Even if all that is true, how does the "answer" given in the video, ie.
> "God is imaginary", related to this? It doesn't make God imaginary if people
> don't follow what the bible says.
It makes God "imaginary" in the sense that God has no physical effect or
cause any change in the world. If nothing God commands comes to pass, why
believe in God's ability to command things?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> http://warp.povusers.org/OpenLetters/ResponseTo10Questions.html
Ooops.
"""
Just because the same word, "slave", is used, doesn't automatically mean the
situations were comparable.
"""
OK, so you're of the feeling that slavery *can* be good and moral. Now, how
about the genocide, rape and pillage attacks, and murder of thousands of
innocent babies? :-)
"""
And what kind of evidence do you want?
"""
So, Jesus brings people back from the dead, cures illness, has a lecture
with thousands of people in attendance, and then comes back from the dead
himself. Yet none of the scholars and historians of the day mention him, the
head priest of the town where he overturns the tables of the money lenders
mentions the event, and in the whole of historical documents, there's maybe
one sentence that could be interpreted as a reference to Jesus, maybe.
"""
Question #9: Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?
I can't believe how fast these "questions" are degrading in quality.
What do you not understand about symbolism? Do you have some kind of
difficulty in understanding metaphors?
"""
Maybe you missed this story, wherein a student takes a piece of bread, and
the priest is as upset as if Jesus himself was kidnapped:
http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html
"It is hurtful," said Father Migeul Gonzalez with the Diocese. "Imagine if
they kidnapped somebody and you make a plea for that individual to please
return that loved one to the family."
Gonzalez said intentionally abusing the Eucharist is classified as a mortal
sin in the Catholic church, the most severe possible.
A week later:
"One week after a University of Central Florida student snatched something
sacred from church, armed UCF police officers stood guard during Sunday Mass
to protect what Catholics call "The Body of Christ.""
OK, so we're ready to shoot someone who attempts to take home a piece of
bread given to him, because you know, it's just a metaphor.
Just be glad you don't live in the religious nuthouse that's America these
days. When the religious leaders don't understand the metaphor, and are
ready to shoot at you for kidnapping Jesus himself, then this question makes
complete sense.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I've never been to a Christian wedding that says "What God has joined,
> let no man put asunder."
"""
Petitio principii. You assume that:
* All christian marriages are caused by God.
* God never allows two people to divorce.
"""
You're also pulling a straw man here, btw. It's not necessary that *no*
Christians get divorced. Only that a statistically valid deviance exists
between those married in the eyes of a God who doesn't want divorces and
those married in sin.
I.e., it's the same bit as prayer. Surely if 50% of the Catholics with
cancer who prayed for remission got better, and only 10% of the non-Catholic
population got better from the same kind of cancer, you'd say "Hey, maybe
the Catholics are on to something." But when there's no difference at all,
you kind of have to discount the effacy of prayer.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I especially like the video called "10 questions that every intelligent
> Christian must answer". It's completely full of fallacious argumentation,
Just to be clear, I'm not bashing you or any of your beliefs. I'm just
trying to point out how a "reasonable" Christian who uses the metaphors and
lessons of peace and love from the Bible isn't who that video is addressing.
It's the fanatical evangelists in America who are trying to control the
lives of non-Christians by quoting the Bible as literal truth that the video
is trying to shame.
I think few people here have problems with the kind of Christians who behave
like most european christians seem to, any more than most people have
problems with the jewish folks who wear yamacas and won't eat bacon compared
to the jewish folks who invade foreign countries because their God promised
them it belonged to them a few thousand years ago.
If the muslims here were rioting and murdering in the name of Islam here,
I'm sure there would be videos of ten things intelligent muslims need to
address, too. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-7-2009 19:03, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> As long as we take one another's religion serious and don't try to
>> make fun of what differs from what we believe, there should not be a
>> problem.
>
> I don't think the atheists would have a problem with it if the faithful
> everywhere were tolerant as well.
Many religious people are very tolerant. Problem is that you mainly hear
the others.
> When it's still the death penalty to
> change which prophet you believe in large parts of the world, there's
> still good reason to argue it, methinks.
With China a nice example that a government can be atheist and still put
people to death for having a religion with one or more gods. And you
don't even need a god, a little collective exercise may be enough. The
main reason most intolerant groups and governments are religious is
simple because also most tolerant ones are.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
