Saturday, April 10, 2010

What's it all about Alfie?

Is life more confusing for the Atheist or the Christian? As much as science is teaching us it doesn't show us any purpose to our lives. And maybe that's OK for some people. We eat, drink, party and die. Science can teach us that an axe head doesn't float, or a donkey can't talk or that people who have been dead for 3 days can't come back alive. Christians aren't a bunch of dummies, we know this ordinarily is true. That's why we go to church and praise Jesus because if it happened all the time we'd be home on Sunday mornings too, catching up on sleep or getting the grass cut or whatever it is you all do?

Before you comment, please understand, I'm not saying your lives can't be fulfilling or that you can't have meaningful relationships without God. But if we miss out on the most important relationship, the one with who created you, to me, would be anti-climatic?

Does every decision we make have to be grounded in science? Can't you use your emotions and instincts to draw conclusions that differ with science?

Christians also suffer from confusion. It's just a different set of things to be confused about. Why did God allow this to happen or that to happen? What does he want from me. Am I screwing up in this area or that part of my life. How come Fred accepted Christ and his twin brother rejects Christ? When will you answer my prayer.... yadda yadda yadda.

I don't think this is Biblical or anything, but I think the Christian can go through this life a bit confused, but we are looking forward to the hope we have in Christ. While the Atheist can go through this life confidently but with no hope when it's finished?

Peace out, brown trout. feeno

34 comments:

  1. Why wouldn't we have hope regardless of Gods existence???

    Also, what of the billions of humans who lived before Christ who weren't believers? Are you implying they had no hope like the rest of the non-believers you're referring to?

    What of the billions who don't believe now? All hopeless?

    I think this question shows how Christian pessimism causes their fear of death to lead to irrational delusions and often times erratic behavior. Although many cult beliefs rest upon this basic weakness in human psychology.

    Acceptance... either in the "faith" or after death where God will be all forgiving. If I only believe this, or if I only do this... then I'll be saved.

    Sure, the goal is salvation, but salvation is basically eternal life with God, but the bottom line is, if you can't figure out how to be good, live happy, or find purpose in this life is an infinite amount more of the same going to help any? Probably not... so the purpose could be live your life to it's fullest, and flourish.

    But science CAN tell us this as well. So I don't necessarily see why it would need to be a religious issue. I think it's a human issue, and religion just has a tendency to reflect that.

    Purpose is only lacking when you have no life to to live perchance to give it purpose. If you have life... therein lies purpose enough. It's not a zen thing... you eat, drink, and be marry for tomorrow we die. I know for some, that's enough. For others, they want more to life, and so they go on to do great things.

    Your purpose it whatever you make it. You don't need God for that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And you have hit upon the question that the materialist can never answer: "Why?" That's the first question on any metaphysical journey. That is, conceding the possibility that our existence results from more than an infinite number of coin flips. Alas, that question is not one one which science can answer, assertions to the contrary, notwithstanding

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. T

    Well, I don't know? What would your hope be? That your grave wouldn't be robbed for the gold in your cavities. Or your coffin would be hermetically sealed?(Johnny Carson reference)

    Do you think Moses or Abraham or King David didn't have hope? They were before Christ.

    It's funny you say our human psychology makes us afraid of death. (fits right in with the comment I just left at your place). (Advocate Atheist). Most Christians I know are more scared of spiders than death.

    Every time this topic comes up Atheists pull the "we should live this life to the fullest" card. Like it would be impossible to believe in God and live life to the fullest.

    People, including you and me amigo, can eat, drink, be merry and if we have enough ambition go on to do great things. And yet still have a relationship with God.

    Thank you T as always for your comments. Peace, feeno

    ReplyDelete
  4. This isn't Facebook, so I can't just click on the "Like" button, but I really can't improve on or add to anything you said.

    Great Post!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Feeno-

    Actually, I didn't pull the "live life to it's fullest" card. That's the default position for anyone who wants to find happiness in life and flourish.

    You're the one who posited that we'd be hopeless without God. So I was asking why that would have to be the default position.

    So I was merely pointing that out.

    R. Sherman-

    Sometimes it's easy to get up caught in asking why, when the answers are right under your nose.

    I don't think science is as limited as you think it is. It gives us the tools to understand, the mind, and the universe, and the rest. Why becomes, as I've pointed out before, a matter of understanding how.

    So positing God in the place of scientific gaps is not the best thing to do in a debate about specific questions which most likely have specific answers; or even when it doesn't seem to have an easy answer, because that doesn't necessarily mean it won't.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why wouldn't we have hope regardless of Gods existence???

    You had better "hope" that you are correct, and that God does not exist. Or else, there might be certain uncomfortable circumstances on the horizon for yourself and others.

    But science CAN tell us this as well. So I don't necessarily see why it would need to be a religious issue. I think it's a human issue, and religion just has a tendency to reflect that

    Science CAN go out and create it's own Golden Rule or system of ethics. When that is accomplished, please let me know. 24-7. 365. I will take that particular call.

    ReplyDelete
  7. DEATH TRAP

    ******************************************

    http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/
    *****************************************


    THE REAL QUESTION:


    DOES ATHEISM HAVE A FUTURE?

    AND THE ANSWER - NO!


    Atheists

    GET OUT OF MY UNIVERSE…

    you little liars do nothing but antagonize…

    and you try to eliminate all the dreams and hopes of humanity…

    but you LOST…

    THE DEATH OF ATH*ISM - SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD

    http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=280780

    Einstein puts the final nail in the coffin of atheism…

    *************************************

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ

    *************************************

    atheists deny their own life element…

    LIGHT OR DEATH, ATHEISTS?

    ********************************
    ***************************LIGHT*********
    ************************************




    or do you want to meet our BUDDY....


    http://www.darkart.cz/artworks/tezcatlipoca_700_by_hunter.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  8. JD-

    I didn't say science creates the "Golden Rules" but people do. The fact that they exist in almost every major ethical system is proof that it doesn't require belief in God to have such axioms. My point was science can tell us why such axioms has meaning and why disobeying such axioms would have consequences.

    Actually, if God turns out to be real I'm not in any worry. I don't think any atheist is. Want to know why?

    Because at least we were honest with the evidence we were given, unsatisfactory as it may be. And an all loving God couldn't possibly punish us for keeping to intellectual honesty, reason, and good judgment. Faith wasn't meant for everyone, after all, if belief requires faith to believe in the existence of God then in every ounce of faith there will always be a degree of doubt.

    Jesus offered his wounds to Thomas who doubted him, why should we expect any less from any other skeptic now or then?

    While the Gospel account shows Jesus oblige, not tear the flesh off Thomas' bones, strangle him with chains, wrench him with hot pokers and fire. If that's the promise of your God... then you should ALSO HOPE AGAINST HOPE that God is NOT real.

    ReplyDelete
  9. JD-

    One more thing. You make the common fallacy that all atheists know or care about religious issues such as faith and belief in God.

    Some atheists are born into scientific or secular families and may know of the variety of man-made religions but see no need to investigate them since, as ubiquitous as religion is, it would both be a waist of their time to pin-point the "correct" version of faith, especially since every faith claims it is the "correct" version, and also, because to someone who is not religious they have no bias so they wouldn't necessary have reason to prefer one truth claim over another.

    So basically you're condemning people for the way they are naturally, just because they're not religious like you, and well, I see a huge problem with that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. T-Vick

    I've heard people blame God for natural disasters, birth defects, mean people, unanswered prayers and even for the family they were born into. But I think this is a first? Blaming God because he gave you the "smart" gene instead of the one we Christians got stuck with, the "to dumb to know any better gene"?

    Are you saying that you don't believe in God, but if there is one, you assume he is all loving and would congratulate you for your intellectual integrity?

    I do believe God is fair and righteous and just. I always believed that the aborted, mentally handicapped, many of those that have never heard the gospel message, or those to young to make a decision for Christ will be in heaven. I'm just not sure if the extra smart people are on that list?

    Time to make the donuts, peace, feeno

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ginx's Wager:

    I believe nothing happens after we die, which is a terrifying proposition. I do not hope I am right, I merely assume life after death is akin to life before birth.

    If I am wrong, one of many things may happen. I may be sent to hell, and certainly there are Christians and Muslims who believe this is quite likely. However, eternal suffering in hell cannot erase the seed of joy I would have knowing that there is justice, that those who do wrong are indeed punished in the hereafter, and that some of those I loved are at peace somewhere.

    Then there is the possibility that I will go to heaven. This may be the hardest laugh some of you have all day. Still, there is a non-zero chance.

    Finally, I might be whisked off by valkyries to Valhalla, or I may have to pay Charon a coin to cross the Styx, or my heart may be placed on the scales with a feather to see if I may pass on or if I will be devoured by Ammut, or maybe I'll be reincarnated, or perhaps the thetans inside me will escape to infest another host human body...

    Atheism is not appealing. I'd be more than happy to be wrong on the matter of gods. Religion is, unfortunately, the hot chick with nothing going on upstairs.

    ReplyDelete
  12. funny... you think by censoring the TRUTH it goes away....


    DEATH TRAP

    ******************************************

    http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/
    *****************************************



    THE REAL QUESTION:


    DOES ATHEISM HAVE A FUTURE?

    AND THE ANSWER - NO!


    Atheists

    GET OUT OF MY UNIVERSE…

    you little liars do nothing but antagonize…

    and you try to eliminate all the dreams and hopes of humanity…

    but you LOST…

    THE DEATH OF ATH*ISM - SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD

    http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=280780

    Einstein puts the final nail in the coffin of atheism…

    *************************************

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ

    *************************************

    atheists deny their own life element…

    LIGHT OR DEATH, ATHEISTS?

    ********************************
    ***************************LIGHT*********
    ************************************

    ReplyDelete
  13. Tristan, you misunderstand my point. I certainly acknowledge that Science can explain the "how/why," in the narrow sense, i.e. I am here because my parents met and married and chose to reproduce. Yet, that is not a "why" in a philosophical sense. With all due respect, your answers consist of declaring certain things "out of bounds," and then arguing within the confines of your specific playing field. Unfortunately, you only limit your horizons that way.

    (Please, don't assume I do the same thing. I've read more than you imagine during my on philosophical journey.)

    Ginx, if you hold that atheism is not appealing, why not explore the possibility of an alternative? After all, there is a Deity or not. It wishes to reveal itself or not. If the the answer is former, what is the nature of the revelation. To dismiss it out of hand because there is not, and cannot be mathematical proof, again, artificially limits the playing field.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  14. DM- You're just describing a certain subset of argumenative internet atheists. Some atheists are actually nice people. Confused, yes, but not necessarily bad people.

    The fact that they exist in almost every major ethical system is proof that it doesn't require belief in God to have such axioms

    And what non-Christian society has greater obedience to their moral codes than societies that are predominately Christian or historically have been until 1 or 2 generations ago?

    "Morality is not the Golden Rule, and its clear that those who think Buddhism or Hinduism feature moralities significantly akin to Christianity don't know much about the practice of those religions or the history of the fatalistic cultures wherein variants of those religions were dominant. As a Westerner, one of the funnier aspects of "The Tale of Genji" is the constant fear of Buddhist monks descending in force from their mountain monasteries and pillaging the villagers and travellors below." Vox Day

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Vox Day is an idiot. I'll come out and say it clear and loud. And it's not just an opinion. I think I can prove it objectively. But perhaps for another time.

    First off, nobody claimed morality is the "golden rule." The Golden Rule is the axiomatic wisdom not to do to other what you wouldn't want done to yourself.

    It's simply a way of living ethically for the greatest good. Something that existed for thousands of years before Christianity. I've written about this before.

    Also, reading Lady Shikibu is a must, but having lived in a predominantly Buddhist and Shinto culture for six years, and I can tell you for a fact that Vox Day is incorrect about those not knowing anything about these religions, his simple bandwagon appeals don't mean a thing to anyone who can see he's just talking out of his hat here.

    Buddhism may have fatalistic elements, since it is a religion of death, but overall it's goal is to escape suffering and become enlightened--and reach a heightened awareness in the process. What's fatalistic in that?

    Shintoism has no more fatalistic elements than any other Easter religion. And by the way, the part in Genji about the monks is a bit of satire. It was a fiction... probably the world's first actual novel. But if Vox Day would have studied "The Tale of Genji" as I have, he'd know that. So his misquoting of it sort of detracts from his point.

    JD--the Chinese have been obedient to their moral codes for tens of generations before Christianity came along, kung-fu is an expression of this obedience, the belief in the power of chi (mind and spirit), and so on. Plus the first official mono-theistic moral codes stem from Kurdish roots, not Jewish. So I don't see your point here. Maybe you had something specific in mind?

    I would also mention that obedience to a moral code doesn't necessarily make right. It just means you're obedient. So I'm not following your train of thought here. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  17. R. Sherman-

    I don't see what claims I made that are in any way limiting.

    Also, if I made some assertions then they're probably ones I have talked about and defended in other posts and so can confidently say that they are apparent. If not, please show me where you feel I'm limiting myself and I'll explain it better.

    But since I don't know what you are referring to specifically I'll just have to wait for your reply.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Feeno-

    Actually, no. I'm saying that, according to the Bible... God is supposed to be love. Not only that, God is supposedly the source of agape love.

    I'm assuming that, giving you the benefit of the doubt, that if this was true, then honest people who were simply doubting Thomas's wouldn't really have anything to worry about. My point was, Thomas wasn't punished for his skepticism, he was rewarded with the truth (according to the Gospel story).

    That was my gist.

    However, if it turns out not to be the case and God isn't love, but turns out to be real... then we'd all better start to worry.

    That was my point.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thanks T

    I'm sure you remember the story of Doubting Thomas. Thomas told the other disciples that he wouldn't believe it was really Christ until he actually touched the the wounds Jesus received upon the cross. When Christ did make an appearance to Thomas a week or so later Thomas, instantly recognized Christ as Lord. Do you remember what the Lord said next? "Because you have seen me you have believed, blessed are those who have not seen me and yet have believed".

    Up until about 2 years ago, I really had no idea about all the reasons why people were atheists. And after spending time on the internet and discovery Atheist sites and then reading Mr. Loftus' book I had a lot of questions that needed to be answered. Much like our boy Doubting Thomas. But because of my doubts I began to look at my relationship with the Lord very differently. And it started me on a journey to seek for myself why I am a Believer. And through this experience (tho I had doubt in the beginnings) my relationship with the Lord has only gotten stronger and I feel more than ever that Christ is who he claimed to be. And I really never thought my relationship could get any better with Him.

    I guess what I'm saying is that (if their is a God) you wont be "punished" for doubt but for rejecting Christ?

    There is a story in Mark about a boy who had an evil spirit. before Christ healed the boy because of the boys' fathers request, Jesus tells the father "Everything is possible for him who believes". The fathers reply was "I do believe, help me overcome my disbelief".

    Disbelief is nothing new. And only God knows those that truly are seeking Him. So go ahead and have doubts. But I believe that once we quit seeking Him then we will be with out excuse.

    Peace be wit ya bruhda, feeno

    ReplyDelete
  20. the Chinese have been obedient to their moral codes for tens of generations before Christianity came along

    To what moral code are you referring to?

    Would the ghoulish topic of infanticide be included in this moral code?

    How about prostitution?

    Or how about the continued murder of Christians by the Chinese that you mention?

    Is obedience to this code that you mention to be found at it's very core?

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sorry for the previous deletions, I found some gaping errors that I somehow missed.
    ***
    JD-

    Infanticide was a practice which came with social programs guided by a totalitarian state of a failed Communism. Before the 20th century there was no infanticides like today.

    You specifically mentioned Christian moral codes, so I was thinking in terms of ethical practices in society as a whole, such as the moral teachings of Confucius and the Buddha before him. You might want to look into some of the Zen teachings such as tea ceremony and herbal remedies for healing which China perfected when the Jews were practicing infanticide and genocide at the behest of Yahweh (if you take the Bible literally that is).

    The continued murder of Christians is also quite recent, but you'll recall the Christians started the war far before China became an Atheistic nation, if you recall the Boxer Rebellion at all.

    I'm no expert in deontology, but it would seem that China has taken more positive things from its various faith based practices and had a relatively blissful existence before the cancer of Communism crippled her legacy as being the most civilized part of the world.

    Yet if you meant more recently, then China still has less crime than any other country of comparable size, and prostitution is 100% illegal in China, and those who get caught get the death penalty. So as you can imagine there is hardly any prostitution in China, since they are probably more obedient here than the prostitute infested Christian nations I know of. So I don't get that reference. Maybe you were thinking of Thailand?

    Still, all considered, China was far more ethically advanced by thousands of years than Christianity ever was... and that's assuming Christianity NEVER had a blemish on it's holier-than-though track record. And we all know that's a bloody falsehood, so I still am not getting your point.

    By comparison, China seems, from the religious perspective, morally grounded. Once you realize that the traditional "religion" of China has become it's traditional customs, the State regulated Atheism is just a recent side effect of an absolutist past time. However, it seems politics always seek to complicate things. if you throw in politics, but with this realization it only begs the question, how much of civil society is due to their governments and how much is due to religions influence on them, and vice versa?

    So I can't just make the blanket statement that Christian nations are more moral... because I haven't studied the social ramifications of the State laws and the religious laws--and their mutual effect on the nations which adopt them. But that would be an interesting study now that I think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Infanticide was a practice which came with social programs guided by a totalitarian state of a failed Communism. Before the 20th century there was no infanticides like today

    I'm confused. Because you see, Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations back in in 1776 that..

    "Marriage is encouraged in China, not by the profitableness of children, but by the liberty of destroying them. In all great towns several are every night exposed in the street, or drowned like puppies in the water. The performance of this horrid office is even said to be the avowed business by which some people earn their subsistence"

    Was Adam Smith either willfully lying or somehow misinformed concerning the value of human life in China at the time? Notice that he states that this occurs both "every night" and "in all great towns" indicating that the practice was widespread and common. Any sort of moral code at the time seems to be severely lacking.

    Yet if you meant more recently, then China still has less crime than any other country of comparable size, and prostitution is 100% illegal in China, and those who get caught get the death penalty

    What moral code is this based upon? Buddhism? Animist type Folk religion?

    the Jews were practicing infanticide and genocide at the behest of Yahweh (if you take the Bible literally that is)

    For the purpose of comparison, what specifically are you referring to and would you equate what Jews were doing with something like Adam Smith's reference or was it something completely different?

    Also, what were their feelings on forcible rape and how were such offenses treated as a society?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Kennedy-Newcombe go on to give account of two Norwegian women missionaries to China in the late 19th century, Sofie Rueter and Anna Jakobsen who wrote the following...

    "It is an exception that a couple would have more than one or two girls. If there would be more born, they would be disposed of immediately. It was done in different ways. She could simpy be put out as food for wild dogs and wolves. The father would sometimes take her to a "baby tower" where she would soon die of exposure and starvation and be discovered by birds of prey. Others again would bury the little ones under the dirt floor in the room where they were born. If there is a river flowing by, the children would be thrown in."

    Kennedy, D. James and Jerry Newcombe: What if Jesus Had Never Been Born?, pgs 15-16

    ReplyDelete
  26. "whatever it is you all do?"
    '-> I sleep and, maybe, have a cold classic coke while lunch comes.

    Oh yeah, just one thing feeno.
    "if we miss out on the most..."
    You now, while it's true I don't experience anything regarding a creator I think that, in a way, I experience something in you may not.
    What I mean is that, if you have a specific way of thinking, then as a consequence you won't experience things the same way someone with a different point of view does. I hardly think you would few as happy and humble as I while watching the video "Power of Ten", but that's just me.
    If we choose one path, the others become foggy.
    But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't have any opinions. I'm just saying that while I may not live something you do because of it, so might you regarding something I live.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Al

    You have a way about you that is hard to argue with. So young but have a unique philosophy. I'm glad you read my blog. I hope you continue to add input. I laid about 275 square feet of tile on a porch today. It was about 80 degrees. I was working about 2 minutes from my church. About 2:00 I needed a break. So I drove to the church, checked my blog and bought a cold can of Coke out of our Coke machine. It went down well my friend. And it picked me up to get the last 60 or 70 feet laid. But now I'm exhausted, my back and knees are sore. I'm waiting for dinner, then lay down on the couch. Oh, BTW, my little girl got her temporary permit to drive today. I may go out with her after dinner and let her drive for awhile. I mean why not, I could use more stress in my life.

    Later Holmes, feeno

    ReplyDelete
  28. JD--

    I didn't mean to imply that China never had infanticide when I said that there were no infanticides like today.

    What I meant was, because of the advancement of technology ultra sounds have made male gender preference a prevalent problem since so many parents, abiding by the 1 child policy, choose males over females.

    I'm sure Adam Smith did record one of China's early practices of infanticide with the drownings, but I'd have to read his book to see the setting and the area it took place, whether it was state run or a cultural aspect of the ideology.

    What I am saying is, if you want an absolute universal moral law... you'll never find that. Every major culture has practiced infanticide, from the Egyptians, to the Romans, to the Hebrews, to the Jews.

    You're right to say Christians never did, but then this doesn't prove all Christians are bound to any moral code, just look up the horrors of antisemitism and the torture and murder of others. So China has gone through its social and economic growth, and has some dark bits of history, but what are the factors which play into torturing and killing other peoples of other cultures for no other reason than a made up belief?

    I think there is a key difference if thought here. So you're glossing over this to make it seem like the Chinese are all evil... by portraying them in a less than saintly light, and that's fine... they have had their trials and tribulations. But I don't think you can do that and claim Christianity lends to a better moral society... because that's a hypocritical thing to say all considered.

    ReplyDelete
  29. JD-

    A couple other points:

    Infanticide is a social consequence of a political ideology.

    Antisemitism is a cultural consequence of a religious ideology.

    Considering the relative nature of moral codes of conduct, I don’t see how your objectivism as something which is sustainable when you factor in the consequences of anyone residing in antiquity failing to adhere to your modern understanding of morality. Consequentialism makes any absolutist moral concept appear absurd.

    Infanticide in China can be traced to the philosopher Han Fei Tzu, a member of the ruling aristocracy of the 3rd century BCE, who developed a school of law, wrote: "As to children, a father and mother when they produce a boy congratulate one another, but when they produce a girl they put it to death."

    Moreover, because Chinese society in almost every age has constantly had to battle an overpopulation problem of all of its provinces, and a patriarchal structured culture made gender selection a common bias, infanticide was therefore a consequence of a societal dilemma. Thus political expedience by the aristocrats led to social plans such as the devastating practice of infanticide.

    I think Adam Smith’s quote which you used proves this, since his aim was to catalog the economic practices of various cultures at the dawn of the industrial revolution.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Yet the anti-Semitic attitudes of Christianity reaches back to it’s origins in the first century, and is prevalently found in the fourth Gospel, the most anti-Semitic of all the New Testament writings. This Jewish hatred would culminate in the horrible murders and atrocities in the 12th and 13th centuries, and even pave the way to Hitler’s Nazi Germany and the holocaust.

    On April 26, 1933 Hitler declared during a meeting with Roman Catholic Bishop Wilhelm Berning of Osnabrück:

    “I have been attacked because of my handling of the Jewish question. The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc., because it recognized the Jews for what they were. In the epoch of liberalism the danger was no longer recognized. I am moving back toward the time in which a fifteen-hundred-year-long tradition was implemented. I do not set race over religion, but I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the Church, and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.”

    Yet Antisemitism is cultural, mostly because the centuries of its practice by Christians and Christian nations, and the unjust murders of countless Jews, was not due to a social conduct rooted in political ideologies of state practice and regulation, nor did it stem from a preference of “Christian” babies over “Jewish” babies, but rather, Antisemitism's degenerate practice directly stems from Christian faith-based assumptions about the Jews with regards to their demonization in the book of John and the continued dehumanization of their character by the Christian Church for generations.


    So the belief that Christian morality is superior to any other form of morality is another fallacy, and as I stated before, it seems overtly hypocritical to make it when you look at and contrast the moral and immoral practices of religions like Christianity over the course of its existence.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I didn't mean to imply that China never had infanticide when I said that there were no infanticides like today

    Infanticide and abortion are two different words. One implies murder before the child is actually born and the other after. I specifically mentioned "infanticide".

    Every major culture has practiced infanticide, from the Egyptians, to the Romans, to the Hebrews, to the Jews

    Again, I will ask you, "For the purpose of comparison, what specifically are you referring to and would you equate what Jews were doing with something like Adam Smith's reference or was it something completely different?"

    So you're glossing over this to make it seem like the Chinese are all evil... by portraying them in a less than saintly light, and that's fine... they have had their trials and tribulations. But I don't think you can do that and claim Christianity lends to a better moral society... because that's a hypocritical thing to say all considered.

    Why is this a "hypocritical thing to say all things considered"? Plus, I never said that all Chinese are evil.

    On April 26, 1933 Hitler declared during a meeting with Roman Catholic Bishop Wilhelm Berning of Osnabrück:

    “I have been attacked because of my handling of the Jewish question. The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc., because it recognized the Jews for what they were. In the epoch of liberalism the danger was no longer recognized. I am moving back toward the time in which a fifteen-hundred-year-long tradition was implemented. I do not set race over religion, but I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the Church, and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.”


    "When some Protestant bishops visited the Fuhrer to register complaints, Hitler's rage got the better of him. "Christianity will disappear from Germany just has it has done in Russia... The German race has existed without Christianity for thousands of years... and will continue after Christianity has disappeared... We must use the teachings of blood and race." When the bishops objected that they supported Nazism's secular aims, just not it's religious innovations, Hitler exploded: "You are the traitors to the Volk. Enemies of the Vaterland and destroyers of Germany".

    Goldberg, Jonah: Liberal Fascism, pg 365, Doubleday

    ReplyDelete
  32. *sigh*

    Christians have killed babies, too. The Bible even encourages it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Feeno said....."As much as science is teaching us it doesn't show us any purpose to our lives. And maybe that's OK for some people. We eat, drink, party and die. "

    Guess by this type of calculation of yours Feeno,you could maybe try suggesting science hasnt proved what purpose a sheep or a dog or a loin or a fish has in life ..And a cabbage or cali ...well them things must have no purpose either.

    Personally i think its sad you cant see we have a number purposes in life,and if a lion could speak i cant help feeling the lion might feel sad that you as a christian cant see we have any purpose in life without having a god and a salvation etc.

    To me it seems slightly selfish thinking.

    When the lioness breeds and rears her cubs and teaches them how to hunt and how best to try to survive ....and passes on any newly evolved hunting tactics to her yound etc .....Which gives them cubs a better chance at survival

    You`d still be suggesting she has absolutely no purpose in life, right?

    Why?......Id suggest maybe the lioness might feel her purpose is to try to do her best for her young etc,just as her mother also did

    Why do you really need to be thinking maybe life really has to be all about revolving around you! and your! hopes of salvation and eternity etc Feeno??.

    Why is it your thinking is so shallow and self centred,that without some god and some hope of your salvation .

    To you in your mind ....life would lack any purpose?

    Isnt this a kind of a type of selfish thinking,that to you life is totally void of any purpose ....unless some god is there offering you! some hope of salvation in some eternity?.

    Should we expect a lioness to give up on living,simply because there is no promiss of salvation in eternity available on promiss for her?.

    Whats so wrong and purposeless with the lioness paying on to the future of her cubs ,what she herself also enjoyed?

    When i hear you discussing the lack of purpose in life without god and a promiss of salvation etc ......It sound kinda cold and makes me better understand the calous nature of my christian cult family.

    Their faith has taught them to have a very selfish type thinking .....To them only god and hopes of their personal salvation in some eternity matters

    So much so,they dont care who else has to suffer because of these beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Yes, I am with the others. I will have one, maybe two, drinks a month at most. I really do not drink either.

    @ R Sherman- That is all fine and well that you think that people not supporting stem cell research can be founded on something other than biblical opinion, but its not. Enlighten me by providing ONE argument AGAINST stem cell research that is not religious in its tone.

    I never said that anyone should decide who or wait should be allowed. However, if religious people had any type of insight, they would see through the damage that they do and support secularism. After all, they would be completely free to practice privately in their homes and community. In fact, I feel that more people like me would fully support religion if there even appeared to be some type of restraint in the public sphere. There is not. Even though you all say "I keep it to myself", you don't. We are in the 21st century and gay people cannot get married. You elected a president with a C average and a drinking problem to run your country, and you do not support a scientific advancement that could have saved millions of lives cause it contradicts tenets of religion that were created 2000 years ago.

    Who is irrational here?

    ReplyDelete