philh

i think you exxagerate when you say perhaps millions of years. best estimates are that modern humans have only been around about 200,000 years. Had old religions are is an open question we cant really answer at the moment. they are at least as old about 5,000 years old but beyond that there are no written languages so its hard to verify there were actual religions although its likely there were rituals. the oldest religion that is still widely practised is hinduism. So if one extends your critique that the flying spagetti monster is too new you would be forced to conclude thast Hinduism is the most legitmate due to its age. I think we owuld all agree that the age of a belief has nothing to do with its validity. i think a better rebutal still is that weather is caused by god or gods, that is an idea that is very old and very wrong.

"We were OK with firebombing Dresden and nuking a third of a million innocent people, because "winning the war" was a noble enough cause to us." These are not comparable to the attrocities the bible at all. The reason is the hebrew armies had the deliberate policy of leaving no one left alive. That was not the policy of the RAF or the USAf in WWII. there is a big difference between having civilains as collateral damage and targettng all civilains for death. genocide is the intention or wiping out an ethnic groups I dont see that as anyway like what happened at dresden or Hiroshima. Let me add that I do not condone what happened at these places.

"My history book speaks of genocide and the book is not immoral. " which book are you talking about? does this book mention/describe genoicde as a historical act or does it glorify it? The bible does the latter and that is why it is immoral. "I believe many acts of the Hebrews were immoral. Which acts?The genocide of many nations? let not forget god wanted to carry out terrible punishment for worshipping the godlen calf but he did nothing about genocide. The bible claims he ordered it. Now either the bible is wrong or its immoral, either way we should not consider it as some holy scripture. " Can the Bible be a moral guide when parts may not be accurately attributed to God? Truth is truth regardless of who says it. " The two statemtns here are unrelated. That Hitler ordered mass murder is true but does that make it a moral guide. I agree truth is truth but the bible is not a true story. 'The judgment of God is not an immoral act. IMHO any more than the death penalty for a child abuser " On that basis no act is an immoral act, perhaps all acts are judgments of god. The death penaly for a child abused is not at all comparale. In the death penalty cases this is a punishment for a crime. Answer me whhat crime a new born baby has committed that it deserves death for the actions of a Pharoh? what crime has a mother committed that she must have her child killed because of the actions of a pharoh? To compare the two is absurd in the extreme.

Given that you dont defend the genocide in the OT, I presume you agree that genocide is immoral. Given there is genocide in the bible (not just described but glorified) isnt it reasonable to conclude the bible is immoral? An example: So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40 Now either they were lying when tey say god commanded it, in which case the bible is not reliable or he did command it and in that case it is immoral. But we also have the acts carried out by god himslef. One obvious example is the massacre of the Egyptian first born. Exodus 12 29And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. So if Jesus is god then jesus goes around killing children, not sure I want to worship that kind of being. Why didnt he kill the Pharoh?

I just reread your post annd Im still not clear. Do you defend the genocide found in the OT? Is Jesus and the god that commaded, condoned or caused the genocides the same being? If you cant give a clear answer then please dont give us the argument that people have fought over Christian theology because of their own failings, maybe you should consider it is the texts themsleves that are at fault.

Nice slight Steve Lets just recap here. I asked Are jesus and the god of the Ot one and the same or not? you answer But in a quick answer ... no. There are incidents of the preincarnate Christ in the OT, but JC is not God the Father. I then point out many Chrsitians belive he is and it implies that in John you then say: First, I didn't say JC wasn't God. I said JC was not God the Father Are you still claiming the bible is clear in its message? Still claiming its consistent?Think by adding the word father at the end it all makes sense? i dont think so. i dont accept your translations either. Most biblical scholars refer to different names for god Jahwi and Elohim as referring to the same god but written by two different authors. They even refer to these two different authors as J and E naming them after which word they use for god. So to suggest there is consistent message with one language implying two different beings is rather misleading. If indeed that is what you are suggesting, quite frankly i find the Christian theology so inconsistent that its sometimes ahrd to make sense of what Chrsitians are even claiming and you wonder why they often fight each other, oh sorry i forgot that for greed and power never over doctrine. In all my years of hebrew study I have never heard of there being more than one form of god. There is only one god in Hebrew theology and if Christians are claiming that god of hebrew theology is also Jesus in human form then it was Jesus who commanded all the death and destruction found in the OT. So Ill ask you again Steve are Jesus and the god of the OT one and the same or not?

Well its interesitng you say god and jesus are not the same, many Christians disagree with you.Maybe this is because in John 1, 10 it says" He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." Maybe this is a metaphorical world or maybe made doesnt really mean made. If there really was a jesus who has whatever you think he is maybe he could have explained things better. Its not a question of having free choice, just state plainly what it is you are claiming to be, thats not asking to much.We can still reject your claims. On the issue of god wanting man free choice why then did god give us insticts? Why did he give some different instincts to others?

Are jesus and the god of the Ot one and the same or not?

"I'm convinced the majority of those who did harm in the name of the Christian faith were motivated by things other than following the teachings of Christ. Their motivation was greed and power. " One other point on this issue if religious people fight wars for greed and power then why has there been so much conflict over Isreal? If its all about greed and power then one would expect a distribution of global conflict that is not concentrated around lands considered holy. If it is religiously motivated then one would expect the opposite and gues what thats exactly what we find.

I dont agree the equal rights and the KKK interpreted MLk's words differently. I think they both thought MLk was pushing for equal rights for . Its just the KKK didnt like the idea and others did. Thats not the same as interpreting it differently. So again I dont think your analogy works. even if it did work these examples you give are all fallible humans. If jesus message was so important why did it not rise above what fallible humans could acheieve. If jesus message was so important why did he only give surmons in one country? Why not teleport to every country? The whole story is consistent with a fallible human being and not supernatural god. Ok I didnt think Cs Lewis comments were funny, the irony is they were childish. Not that i dont like CS Lewsi, I loved all the Narnia books despite their Chriistian message. Its ok I have a thick skin in the right context but its hard to get tone on the internet, so one cannot always what is implied in text rather than voice. Enjoy the DZ its till too cold o jump over here for us fair weather jumpers.

"'m convinced the majority of those who did harm in the name of the Christian faith were motivated by things other than following the teachings of Christ. Their motivation was greed and power. " Yet again Steve another statement based upon no evidence whatsoever. I'm glad we don't our courts based upon your method of deduction ,is there evidence against the accused? No but be feels guilty, ok send him to the chair. "A cursory look at the actual teachings of Christ would lead people to lead live's of service and peace, not power and conquest. " i don't see that. Sure Jesus said some great things, but he also said those that don't follow him will have an eternity in hell. Christians who have fought wars of conquest who have burnt people at the stake, who have oppressed and killed their opponents could easily follow this logic:yes we are creating suffering on earth but we avoid the far greater eternal suffering of hell if we fight for Christianity. Now i cant get inside peoples heads and neither can you.But to simply assume that the above logic was not considered and to simply assume they were lying to themselves when they fought in the name of the cross is yet again without foundation. You also conveniently ignore all the violent behaviour either done, commanded or condoned by god in the OT. If the Christian bible did not include the OT you may be entitled to do this, but it does. More importantly Jesus and the god of the OT are often assumed to be one and the same, if one agrees with that assumption one must agree that Jesus is a violent and jealous god . Steve this comment "... if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them." - from Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis come on mate, this is beneath you. I made a serious point critiquing Lewis's theology and all you can do is come back with a personal insult, I don't appreciate that, nor do I go to Star Trek conventions as you imply. Your analogy about Martin Luther King inspiring some to struggle for civil rights and others to dress in white sheets is no way comparable to the confusion caused by Christs vague teachings. The difference if you cant see, and Id be amazed if you really can't , it is that the KKK did not claim to be followers of MLK. On the other hand those that defended slavery claimed to be followers of Christ, they used the bible to defend slavery. Moreover Jesus could presumably see the future, so he would have known his words would have been used to defend slavery and could easily have said "slavery is wrong, period" but he didn't.Jesus could have ensured slavery never happened in Christian countries by uttering a few words but he could not be bothered.

"Example of correcting the original teaching: love your neighbor and hate your enemy corrected to love everyone. (too bad most Christians do not follow this teaching) " yes that is too bad. Perhaps thats further evidence that the bible is not very clear in its message. It also contradicst CS Lewis style arguments that we have an innate moral law in us.

Yes Ive read Cs Lewis his argument is seriously flawed. When we make moral choices he assumes that we have inside some objective morality programmed from god. If that were so why do many people disagree with each other on what is moral. Dont forgest Christians defended slavery on the basis of their religious beliefs, they thought it wa moral; other Chrsitians took the opposite view based uon the same belief! If Lewis was right this wouldnt happen.

"I've defined it quite rationally for me and about 90% of the population." So by just saying its rational it becmes rational? i dont think so. i dont want to measure everything in scientific terms. In fact if you read some of my replies you will find i categorically state some things cant be measured scientifically. However what i do want is scientific evidence when claims are made about somethings existence especially when its of vital importance to the planet to know whether those claims are true. If someone says I love that painting i dont ask for them to quantify it, I dont ask them to prove it. But If someone says the world is warming and we need to take very expensive action to do something about it then its right to demand evidence. Simlarly its right to demand evidence for the existence of god and the sould. whether they exist or not has huge consequencs for our society and for the world. This is true for these issue probably more so than any other. Anyone who has read through these posts will see not a drop of any evidence for either concept. Just look at any other belief that has no evidence whether its a diffent religion than yours or blief in astrology or whatever and you will see they are absurd. Now turn that back on your beliefs. "The funny thing is you probably think I'm a religious nut w/o the ability to reason logically. " I wonder if thats your own cosncious talking there, if you imagine thats how your arguments sounds maybe its not without foundation. But i dont think you r nut i think you are like so many people able to reaosn very well, you just switch off that reason when it comes to religion perhaps becuase you need religion or it makes you feel good or...well i dont know why. Anyway i wish you peace as well.

So lets get it straight. You accept there is no evidence of a soul You're not even sure how to define a soul. Yet you are still convinced it exists? What evidence there is suggests that human nature comes from a number of factors including our enviroment -definitley not invariant- and our genes - defintely something which is part of biological make up and hence unlikely to survive our physical death except in the act of mating and the replication thereof. Moreover, neuroo chemistry and brain mapping show stacks of evidence that damage to the brain can lead to huge changes in behaviour. For example those who have experienced damage to the frontal lobe show marked increases in violent behaviour, those that have damage to the Wemicke area in the temporal lobe cannot understand what is being said to them, damage to the oribto frontal cortex impaires social behaviour, amygdala damage impairs eotional regontion etc etc etc The scientific facts are that your behaviour is a function of at least your enviroment, your genes and your brain chemsitry. The concept you mention of an invariable human nature has no basis in reality and one that transends death is even more of a fantasy.

Can you be more specific? What more than consicousness? I presume part of this definition involves it survivng physical death? if you can give us a more precise deifnition we can have a more meaningful debate. vague definition such as "essence fo who we are" arent really helpful for debate.

yes i think we just have a semantic problem. I didnt mean to imply that you felt the sould resided in the brain, only that it is some form of consciousness, is that fair?

thank u jack , im really confused as how steve and is definition of the soul differes. Can u enlighten us Steve? Im not trying to be sarcastic I would like to know.

Im sure we all agree that in a debate between atheist and Christians that sould refers to some form of the mind that survives physcial death. All the evdience of neuro chemistry indicates that mind acitivty occurs in the brain. No brain=no mind=no soul. Thats what I mean when I deny the existence of the soul. I challenege anyone to show me any compelling evidence otherwise.

From JC himself ... "whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven" Matthew 10:33 A bit vindictive this Jesus chap isnt he? To deny someone who I have never seen is not equivalent to deny someone who is standing in front of me. I guess hes not good at logic either. So JC denies me infornt of his father what happens to me after that, am I going to hell or not?

Steve we went over all this already. check out page 14 and 15 of this very thread. To recap in case you cant be asked. there is plenty of evidence for love, apart form simple behavioural changes like self sacrifice MRI scans have shown people in love have activity in the same part the cortex, check out the research done by zeki and Bartel. new research by Dr Enzo Emanuele showed those newly in love have elevated levels of nerve growth factor.

Well we agree on something finally. there is no emperical evidence for a soul. Now why should we believe in something when there is no emperical evidence for it? particularly something as important as this? I think we need to address the wider issue of belief. Why believe anything ? I think a reaosnable position is : I believe in X in relation to the evidence for it, the more the evidence the more I believe. Zero evidence=zero belief. What would be your equivalent of this statement? To deny JC would mean to deny he existed or to deny he was devine. I do this so where am I going in the after life acoridng to Christian theology?

Im no t saying the bible is a self help book Im merely saying that your quote: "I believe the Bible to be "authoritative" in the manner that it shows how to be made whole (mentally, physically & spiritually)" implies that. What do you mean by spiritually whole? What evidence do you have that a spirit exists? What evidence do you have that even if a spirit exists you need JC to have a whole one? "You hear Christians talk of being "saved" Many equate that to being saved from Hell. The actual Greek word (sousa) means "made whole" I think being a follower of Christ completes me. " True or false those that deny JC are going to hell?

Well Im an atheist and in my opinion this discovery has very little signifance because there seems to be no real indepenedt verification that inscriptions are genuine,that the tombs came from the same place and the child is related to both man and woman in the tombs. the only DNA evidence was that the man and woman were not related. The fact that Camereon et al did not subject their thesis to proper critical review indicates thery are not serious about historical truth. Id love it if there were concrete proof that Jesus was buried and didnt rise from the dead but i dont think its wise to get suckered in to any old claim just because you want it to be true.

Sounds like you did. Are saying that all your achievements would have been impossible without the bible?