Today we're talking mental illness and we'll start off with perhaps the most amusing Charlie Sheen quote of the day:
"I am on a drug. It's called Charlie Sheen. It's not available, because if you try it once, you will die and your children will weep over your exploded body. Too much?"
That was fun but all kidding aside, 26.2 percent (That's more than 1-in-4 in case you're a bit slow) of all Americans suffer from a diagnosable mental illness each year.
Mental illnesses are rarely understood by the public at large and one of the biggest hurdles (Ahem, see Charlie Sheen) in getting a victim of mental illness help is their acknowledgment of the issue. When a person thinks they are sane, but they are not, they're more likely to believe the whole world has gone nuts then get the help they need.
Here are a few signs of mental illness in adults and to keep things fun, we'll relate each one to Charlie Sheen and determine whether or not he meets the criteria.
-Withdrawal from social activities
Not met: Sheen's got his show effectively canceled but the hooker parties are still on.
-Confused thinking and negative reasoning
Not met: Sheen can properly explain to his sons not to run into thing. “They run around and they’re as fun as you can imagine. They say ‘Dada’ and run into walls. And Dada is cool, but when they run into walls I say, ‘Don’t do that, that’s retarded.’”
-Continuous irritability and long-lasting sadness
Undecided: Sheen is clearly irritated, but hardly sad. It's hard to be sad with millions of dollars and at least two hot girls on your arm. We'll check back when the money runs out.
-Excessive mood fluctuations (high and low)
Met: In one breath he whimsically calls himself a warlock, in another, he threatens untold violence.
-A significant change in eating manner and sleeping habits
Met: When Charlie Sheen recently evolved into a demigod, he lost the need for sleep or food. He now is fueled only by cocaine, attention and sex.
-Hallucinations or delusions
Met: "I'm tired of pretending like I'm not special. I'm tired of pretending like I'm not a total bitchin' rock star from Mars."
-Lousiness and failures to face daily responsibilities and challenges
Met: He was asked by CBS president to chill out...then went on radio and bashed the network.
-Continuous thoughts of suicide and death
Irrelevant: Charlie Sheen is either an immortal or slated for death by spring.
-Continuous drug abuse and alcohol usage
MET: MET MET MET MET MET MET Hell he IS a drug.
-Fear and anxiety
Not Met: Fearless
Also Sheen claims Mel Gibson called him to offer support.....that's just..I mean... c'mon!
I stole this off a website:
Confronted with footage of an appearance by the two (father Martin and brother Emillio) on Sky News in the U.K., during which they expressed their concern, Sheen said: "They tried. But I said, you know, I'm not ready, I'm not interested in your rhetoric right now. I appreciate your love, your compassion, if that's what you wanna call it. But I'm 45 years old, and I'm not interested in people treating me like a 12-year-old."
If Sheen is really ok and has just decided to be a character, that's one thing. But I doubt it hopefully he steps up, realized the world hasn't changed but that he has and gets help.
For multi-millionaires though you're not crazy, you're eccentric. For most people though, getting help is a better option than granting interviews.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
Buy the ticket, take the ride
On this the final day of February I feel the need to remember a man the world lost just more than six years ago.
On Feb. 20, 2005 the rock star writer that redefined journalism and creative non-fiction was getting old and stiff. With some of his family visiting and his wife on the phone, he loaded a gun, and that was that.
Before I go on let it be said that there is nothing noble about suicide objectively, but Hunter S. Thompson was never objective and if one could ask him about it now he'd never apologize or explain. That was him.
The Kentucky native partied, studied and severed his country. His writing training consisted of practical experience gleaned from sports writing gigs and creative writing classes. He traveled, he wrote and he drank rum.
Hunter S. Thompson is most famous for his gonzo-tinged novel "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" and after that for his gonzo journalistic entry "Hells Angels, a strange and terrible saga," but I submit that his best work is the pure novel "The Rum Diary."
He ran for sheriff with the same zeal he covered horse racing and he grappled with presidents as if it were no more difficult than covering the Super Bowl. Two movies about his works have been made, another is in production.
His funeral was attended by U.S. Senator John Kerry and former U.S. Senator George McGovern; 60 Minutes correspondents Ed Bradley and Charlie Rose; actors Jack Nicholson, Bill Murray, Johnny Depp, Benicio del Toro, Sean Penn, and Josh Hartnett; singers Lyle Lovett, John Oates and others.
If anyone ever lived their own life, refused to play by the rules of the rat race and still won, it was HST.
I'll end this tribute with a couple quotes. Many people asked why HST would off himself and for the answer we turn to close friend Ralph Steadman.
"...He told me 25 years ago that he would feel real trapped if he didn't know that he could commit suicide at any moment." To Thompson, life in the fast lane could only mean certain death, and the only acceptable way to die, in his mind, was by killing himself. In many ways, Thompson wanted to emulate his literary hero, Ernest Hemingway, in both profession and death. Hemingway, the inventor of macho literature, ended his life when he could no longer write well enough to satisfy his standards."
And from the man himself...
"The Edge…There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. The others – the living – are those who pushed their control as far as they felt they could handle it, and then pulled back, or slowed down, or did whatever they had to when it came time to choose between Now and Later. But the edge is still Out there."
Hunter found the edge six years and eight days ago. He's been over that from which there is no coming back.
American Universities had better start including him in the canon of American Literary Giants, like Ernest Hemmingway and Mark Twain. At the very least, I bet he could out-drink either one.
On Feb. 20, 2005 the rock star writer that redefined journalism and creative non-fiction was getting old and stiff. With some of his family visiting and his wife on the phone, he loaded a gun, and that was that.
Before I go on let it be said that there is nothing noble about suicide objectively, but Hunter S. Thompson was never objective and if one could ask him about it now he'd never apologize or explain. That was him.
The Kentucky native partied, studied and severed his country. His writing training consisted of practical experience gleaned from sports writing gigs and creative writing classes. He traveled, he wrote and he drank rum.
Hunter S. Thompson is most famous for his gonzo-tinged novel "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" and after that for his gonzo journalistic entry "Hells Angels, a strange and terrible saga," but I submit that his best work is the pure novel "The Rum Diary."
He ran for sheriff with the same zeal he covered horse racing and he grappled with presidents as if it were no more difficult than covering the Super Bowl. Two movies about his works have been made, another is in production.
His funeral was attended by U.S. Senator John Kerry and former U.S. Senator George McGovern; 60 Minutes correspondents Ed Bradley and Charlie Rose; actors Jack Nicholson, Bill Murray, Johnny Depp, Benicio del Toro, Sean Penn, and Josh Hartnett; singers Lyle Lovett, John Oates and others.
If anyone ever lived their own life, refused to play by the rules of the rat race and still won, it was HST.
I'll end this tribute with a couple quotes. Many people asked why HST would off himself and for the answer we turn to close friend Ralph Steadman.
"...He told me 25 years ago that he would feel real trapped if he didn't know that he could commit suicide at any moment." To Thompson, life in the fast lane could only mean certain death, and the only acceptable way to die, in his mind, was by killing himself. In many ways, Thompson wanted to emulate his literary hero, Ernest Hemingway, in both profession and death. Hemingway, the inventor of macho literature, ended his life when he could no longer write well enough to satisfy his standards."
And from the man himself...
"The Edge…There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. The others – the living – are those who pushed their control as far as they felt they could handle it, and then pulled back, or slowed down, or did whatever they had to when it came time to choose between Now and Later. But the edge is still Out there."
Hunter found the edge six years and eight days ago. He's been over that from which there is no coming back.
American Universities had better start including him in the canon of American Literary Giants, like Ernest Hemmingway and Mark Twain. At the very least, I bet he could out-drink either one.
Friday, February 25, 2011
A little from column a...
Little randomness on this blog today, sorry but no good topic came to mind.
It would be like the odd couple, but with way more drugs. It would star Moammar Gadhafi and Charlie Sheen.
Why it would work: Neither one are likely to be in their current jobs by the time the next TV season. Also, both love attention and wouldn't be very happy out of the limelight for too long.
Why it won't work: I don't know if Moammar Gadhafi speaks english or not but more importantly, both of these guys could well be dead within the week.
If the internet can be trusted, then a long standing thought I have had is wrong.
See I have been for some time under the impression that I am getting dumber so some time ago I set out to find out if that was true.
At some point in college I had an IQ of 119, a year ago I online tested myself and scored a 117 and today I did it again and scored a 117 again.
Firmly above average, clearly not spectacular.
"NEW YORK (Reuters) – Whether is it texting during dinner, talking on a cellphone in a public restroom or using a laptop while driving, most people think mobile etiquette is getting worse, not better."
I love headlines like this. Was there someone old lady sitting in a room out there somewhere thinking it would get better? It will only get worse.
We text during work, meals, church, weddings, funerals, baptisms, while we crap etc.
What's the last cell phone taboo? During sex? Job interviews?
As long as no one cares I don't see this cell phone etiquette being an issue but if you tried it during those last two ideas I'm just guessing it would end poorly.
If my sister Mary is reading this, she's probably sent 30 text already. The next generation will text even more.
New idea for a show
It would be like the odd couple, but with way more drugs. It would star Moammar Gadhafi and Charlie Sheen.
Why it would work: Neither one are likely to be in their current jobs by the time the next TV season. Also, both love attention and wouldn't be very happy out of the limelight for too long.
Why it won't work: I don't know if Moammar Gadhafi speaks english or not but more importantly, both of these guys could well be dead within the week.
Flowers for Algernon?
If the internet can be trusted, then a long standing thought I have had is wrong.
See I have been for some time under the impression that I am getting dumber so some time ago I set out to find out if that was true.
At some point in college I had an IQ of 119, a year ago I online tested myself and scored a 117 and today I did it again and scored a 117 again.
Firmly above average, clearly not spectacular.
Mind your manners
"NEW YORK (Reuters) – Whether is it texting during dinner, talking on a cellphone in a public restroom or using a laptop while driving, most people think mobile etiquette is getting worse, not better."
I love headlines like this. Was there someone old lady sitting in a room out there somewhere thinking it would get better? It will only get worse.
We text during work, meals, church, weddings, funerals, baptisms, while we crap etc.
What's the last cell phone taboo? During sex? Job interviews?
As long as no one cares I don't see this cell phone etiquette being an issue but if you tried it during those last two ideas I'm just guessing it would end poorly.
If my sister Mary is reading this, she's probably sent 30 text already. The next generation will text even more.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Stuck in the Middleton with you
So today's topic is the Royal Wedding of Prince William of Wales to Miss Kate Middleton.
I don't really like our nation's fascination with this, but I understand it to a degree. I was also annoyed with the American obsession with Princess Diana's death as I didn't see what it mattered. Now I think I see it a little more clearly.
We don't have a king, queen or real royalty — and part of us wishes we did.
We chose to replace our fascination with the nobles with Kim Kardashians and Paris Hiltons and other such folk of anything but noble birth. The celebrity culture filled our gossipy void for a very long long time.
But I think America's collective conscience regrets that deeply. Sure it was fun at first. We made celebrities out of self made millionaires, talented actors and athletes and people of some merit. None of that famous just for being high born crap going on over here in the Colonies....
But here we are and after a couple centuries the pendulum has swung far the other way. We've made celebrities out of people who have sex in front of a stationary night vision camera or guys who put women through a million hoops to end their bachelorhood.
Yeah Albert Pujols is famous, so is Tom Hanks, but neither have the name recognition of Snookie....an unattractive, drunken whore from MTV's Jersey Shore who's claim to fame is getting punched in the face in a bar.
So I guess when one stops to think about it, wouldn't it be nice to go back to reading about whether or not Morning Coats will be allowed as appropriate dress for the wedding, thinking about how cool it would be to have the respect that comes with being called a king, or for girls dreaming that one day they'll find out they're really a princess.
Hell Kate herself is the daughter of a couple of airport employees. To a british girls growing up, that could be her one day. American girls have Miley Cyrus.
I don't much like monarchy as a government but the existence of a noble class that at least tries to live up to a higher standard in the public eye seems pretty nice. The royals, though just as human as you or I, remind England of a more civilized time and at least try to be some kind of role models.
I can tell you this, I won't watch the royal wedding and unless something dramatic happens I'll probably skip most of the news coverage. But while I'm thrilled and happy to live in a democracy, I am a little jealous.
But hey we're not completely devoid of royalty, there is Lord Dunglemagne and Emperor Sullobog, may they live forever.
Sincerely,
His non-royal projectmanagerness,
John I
I don't really like our nation's fascination with this, but I understand it to a degree. I was also annoyed with the American obsession with Princess Diana's death as I didn't see what it mattered. Now I think I see it a little more clearly.
We don't have a king, queen or real royalty — and part of us wishes we did.
We chose to replace our fascination with the nobles with Kim Kardashians and Paris Hiltons and other such folk of anything but noble birth. The celebrity culture filled our gossipy void for a very long long time.
But I think America's collective conscience regrets that deeply. Sure it was fun at first. We made celebrities out of self made millionaires, talented actors and athletes and people of some merit. None of that famous just for being high born crap going on over here in the Colonies....
But here we are and after a couple centuries the pendulum has swung far the other way. We've made celebrities out of people who have sex in front of a stationary night vision camera or guys who put women through a million hoops to end their bachelorhood.
Yeah Albert Pujols is famous, so is Tom Hanks, but neither have the name recognition of Snookie....an unattractive, drunken whore from MTV's Jersey Shore who's claim to fame is getting punched in the face in a bar.
So I guess when one stops to think about it, wouldn't it be nice to go back to reading about whether or not Morning Coats will be allowed as appropriate dress for the wedding, thinking about how cool it would be to have the respect that comes with being called a king, or for girls dreaming that one day they'll find out they're really a princess.
Hell Kate herself is the daughter of a couple of airport employees. To a british girls growing up, that could be her one day. American girls have Miley Cyrus.
I don't much like monarchy as a government but the existence of a noble class that at least tries to live up to a higher standard in the public eye seems pretty nice. The royals, though just as human as you or I, remind England of a more civilized time and at least try to be some kind of role models.
I can tell you this, I won't watch the royal wedding and unless something dramatic happens I'll probably skip most of the news coverage. But while I'm thrilled and happy to live in a democracy, I am a little jealous.
But hey we're not completely devoid of royalty, there is Lord Dunglemagne and Emperor Sullobog, may they live forever.
Sincerely,
His non-royal projectmanagerness,
John I
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
How not to stop an uprising
Pick up some popcorn and take off your turban, the fun is just getting started in the middle east.
Muammar Gaddafi has this dictator thing down pat.
I mean rather than sit back and hope the protesters go home (in the vein of Mubarak from Egypt) or make concessions (like in Algeria), he has decided to go full blown war criminal.
We've watched now as Egypt behaved rather admirably (I initially doubted them) in overthrowing a dictator. We've seen other nations make limited concessions to delay what is beginning to seem inevitable.
But now for the first time in this party we're seeing the guy who's had so much to drink, that he's willing to spike his friends morning coffee just to get them to rejoin the party.
A mostly peaceful revolution was growing, and Gaddafi turned it into a civil war.
And why not? Where is the fun in ruling over a country if you can't fire on your own people and hire African mercenaries to come in and do your fighting for you because your own men are defecting.
Anywho I'm far from an expert on all this so let's have some fun with it anyway.
Here are the top 10 ways it doesn't matter what a dictator does during a revolution.
10. Shoot at them
This only makes them angry.
9. Stop shooting at them
This only makes them more angry.
8. Turn off the internet
Now they can't vent on twitter or their blogs, hard to turn back from this point as they are very angry.
7. Turn back on the internet
Annnnnnd anybody on the fence now just saw the youtube video of your troops shooting innocent people while you sip tea. Even angrier.
6. Go on television
This is only a good idea if you are announcing and then committing your suicide. Otherwise it just makes them angry.
5. Pay off the media
Positive editorials have never slowed an angry mob.
4. Beat up the media
The press is like a universal frat. Beat up one, and everyone turns on you which of course, make the people angry.
3. Flee the country
You won't be coming back alive.
2. Stay in the country
You won't be getting out alive.
And the number one way it doesn't matter what you do during a revolution is.......
1. Blame the protesters themselves by calling them foreign agents etc. Because nothing soothes the heart of a savage beast/rioter/protester than being told by the focus of his hate that he's responsible the problems. This just makes them.....you guessed it...angry.
If you're a dictator, you won't like them when they're angry.
Muammar Gaddafi has this dictator thing down pat.
I mean rather than sit back and hope the protesters go home (in the vein of Mubarak from Egypt) or make concessions (like in Algeria), he has decided to go full blown war criminal.
We've watched now as Egypt behaved rather admirably (I initially doubted them) in overthrowing a dictator. We've seen other nations make limited concessions to delay what is beginning to seem inevitable.
But now for the first time in this party we're seeing the guy who's had so much to drink, that he's willing to spike his friends morning coffee just to get them to rejoin the party.
A mostly peaceful revolution was growing, and Gaddafi turned it into a civil war.
And why not? Where is the fun in ruling over a country if you can't fire on your own people and hire African mercenaries to come in and do your fighting for you because your own men are defecting.
Anywho I'm far from an expert on all this so let's have some fun with it anyway.
Here are the top 10 ways it doesn't matter what a dictator does during a revolution.
10. Shoot at them
This only makes them angry.
9. Stop shooting at them
This only makes them more angry.
8. Turn off the internet
Now they can't vent on twitter or their blogs, hard to turn back from this point as they are very angry.
7. Turn back on the internet
Annnnnnd anybody on the fence now just saw the youtube video of your troops shooting innocent people while you sip tea. Even angrier.
6. Go on television
This is only a good idea if you are announcing and then committing your suicide. Otherwise it just makes them angry.
5. Pay off the media
Positive editorials have never slowed an angry mob.
4. Beat up the media
The press is like a universal frat. Beat up one, and everyone turns on you which of course, make the people angry.
3. Flee the country
You won't be coming back alive.
2. Stay in the country
You won't be getting out alive.
And the number one way it doesn't matter what you do during a revolution is.......
1. Blame the protesters themselves by calling them foreign agents etc. Because nothing soothes the heart of a savage beast/rioter/protester than being told by the focus of his hate that he's responsible the problems. This just makes them.....you guessed it...angry.
If you're a dictator, you won't like them when they're angry.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
and I would write 10,000 words
The following is the vast majority of a discussion between myself and my friend Matt Kilmer discussing all kinds of things about God.
It is 10,185 words or something like that. If you just want out of context highlights, see my last blog.
A note about this one. I changed some of my views over the course of this discussion and so I may not be consistent all the way through. At first I was attempting to justify things that no longer need justification and now I get that.
Nevertheless here is an interesting debate.....
Matt Kilmer January 14 at 5:26am Report
I have a few questions about your favorite little booky-wooky (The Bible) that have been weighing on my mind lately. I just wanted to see what kind of answers you would give.
You defend some of YHWH's sillier Old Testament laws by saying they serve some sort of protective purpose. For example, the reason YHWH restricts pork is due to the health issues an ill-prepared pig could cause. Ok, I can accept this explanation. Heck, with my limited understanding of how to properly prepare a pig, I could even buy into it. So, why does YHWH offer guidelines on how to handle slaves, which, on YHWH's terms, would be the same as He approving of the act of slavery? If YHWH is omniscient, then it certainly stand to reason that he would not have to spend a couple thousand years trying to figure out if slavery is wrong or not. Furthermore, YHWH was the direct source of Israeli law. It's not like He's some faceless bureaucrat lucky enough to be able to enforce a couple guidelines because he can't flat out ban the practice. YHWH could have prohibited slavery amongst the Chosen People from the very start.
One moronic explanation I've heard for YHWH's tolerance of slavery is that...well...that was just the way things were done back in those days. YHWH didn't want to interfere in what they were use to, so he just decided to make up some guidelines instead of outright banning the practice. This explanation seems quite silly to me, as YHWH has shown on several occasions that he is not afraid to cause significant paradigm shifts within the culture of the Chosen People. Think about the paradigm shifts that would be cause by the Covenant or the introduction of Mosaic Law? The displacement of polytheism for the much more foreign concept of monotheism. The outright BANNING of idolatry - a common practice in pagan cultures (why ban idolatry but not slavery?). Tell me, John! Why does YHWH approve of slavery?
Question #2: I recall you making the argument that the Bible, being YHWH's book, should logically receive special attention from YHWH in order to make sure it is compiled in an accurate manner. So why did YHWH allow for apocryphal texts to sometimes slip into His book? If the information in the Bible provides the key to salvation, why would YHWH allow for his ordained editors to screw up once in awhile? Furthermore, why did YHWH wait so long to have humans construct an accurate New Testament? Why was YHWH off picking his nose while early Christian converts were left to sift through a sea of apocryphal accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus? Also, shouldn't YHWH be discouraging translations of the Bible, as important information could be easily lost due to language incompatibility? Wouldn't an approach similar to the Koran make more sense in this regard?
--------
John M. Stegeman January 14 at 8:27am
This is going to be complicated but I'll give it a go.
1. For whatever reasons God saw fit, there has been a process of revelation after our expulsion from Eden. In Eden God spoke directly with all (both) existing humans. After that, there is a process.
I don't know why God didn't send Jesus to die for our sins five days after the original sin. Instead it was quite a long time.
God didn't tell Adam about pigs when he went out from the Garden, that came later. He didn't tell Mary, hey look you boy's gonna get nailed to a tree in a bad way and he didn't tell the apostles that Rome was a good choice for and HQ.
God wants us to love him and believe in him but he wants us to come to that on our own. Otherwise he would appear in the sky and say hey you humans, I'm God. Worship me.
I know this isn't a very strong answer but in the same way, with free will, he's shown that he wants us to make our own way to a degree not just as individuals but as a society.
Also, most OT laws that I know of are very anti slavery.
You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him. (NASB) Deut. 23:15-16
That's just one example. There are some laws about how one can sell themself but even that seems more like a form of welfare for the poor than anything. Hebrew slaves were supposed to be freed after seven years etc.
It shall not seem hard to you when you set him free, for he has given you six years with double the service of a hired man; so the LORD your God will bless you in whatever you do. (NASB) Deut. 15:18
I will get to part two of your question after work.
--------
Matt Kilmer January 15 at 4:16am Report
I would love to see these anti-slavery laws, as virtually every passage in the Old Testament regarding slavery only seems to regulate the practice.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm
Indeed, the passage you quoted, Deut. 23: 15-16, is the only passage coming close to being anti-slavery, but it still fails to outright condemn the institution. As for the passages that allot for Hebrew slaves to be released on their seventh year, we must not forget the keyword here is HEBREW. Slaves from foreign nationalities became inheritable property.
Furthermore, I am troubled by your statement of selling oneself into slavery as being a form of ancient social welfare. For even if it did alleviate the monetary problems of the impoverished Hebrews, if slavery were immoral, then the act of selling oneself into slavery would only help propagate an evil institution. Think about it like this: From a Christian perspective, would the act of a poor woman selling sex for money not be considered a sin due to the desperate state of the woman? Of course it is still a sin. Promiscuity is condemned no matter what the excuse for doing so might be. Therefore, it becomes quite clear that the institution of slavery is A-OK in the eyes of God. Of course, one is not mandated by divine law to own slaves, but as long as one treats one's slaves within a very limited ethical manner, there are no obvious signs that one of the worse violations of human rights, the right to his freedom, is morally wrong.
What the Bible says about slavery
www.religioustolerance.org
Background material on slavery in the Bible
Share
------
Matt Kilmer January 27 at 1:35am Report
Sidestepping the typical argument of omniscience equaling predestination, let's examine how the Judaic-Christian God allows for our free will to be denied to us. Since we've determined that God is not anti-slavery, and since hereditary slavery is ok in his book, it should logically follow that God has no qualms with people being born denied of the freedom to choose their own path. Naturally, the Judaic-Christian God could have easily prevented his followers from being allowed to violate the freedom of a blatantly innocent person, but chose to leave such condemnation out of his book. Tell me, if the freedom to choose is so important to God (keep in mind that God's love of free will is the argument used by theists as to why he allows pain and suffering in the world), why wouldn't he condemn slavery?
--------
John M. Stegeman January 27 at 7:47am
First, God's omnipotence allows him to have prevented anything bad from ever happening. He could have created a humanity that wouldn't fall from grace but in his wisdom he created us instead. I cannot answer why.
I do believe that slavery is generally bad. The child of a person who sold themselves into slavery did not choose to be a slave but then until modern times the idea of choosing what we want to do with our lives didn't exist. People always did what their father did. Carpenters became carpenters, slaves became slaves etc. The Bible was of course secondarily written for all time but each author, though inspired, was still writing for their own time.
A slave still has a choice, just a more difficult one, whether or not to be a slave and here's the point.
God allows some people to be born into wealth, some into abject poverty. Some are born into loving homes and some into abusive homes. No matter where we are born we are stuck to a degree with our circumstances.
A child of loving parents can, by choices in life, become a bad person. A child in an abusive situation can rise above.
Just so, a child born to slavery can run away. Obviously this is risky business, but the choice exists. It's not much different to me being born into slavery than being born in a Detroit slum. Either way you won't have the same opportunities as others to live your life, but you do have a choice.
Ending that point and beginning another, the end good for Christians in this life is salvation. In that respect, slave or free makes no difference.
Put those together and remember as we discussed the Bible instructing proper treatment of slaves and I think there was no need for it to be condemned outright.
--------
Matt Kilmer January 28 at 3:01am Report
Being born a slave is a far more egregious offense than being born in the slums of Detroit. Imagine being raised in an environment where everyday events are meant to remind you that your will is subjugated by the will of another. Sure, this is essentially what happens in a work environment. I am subjugated to the will of my employer, but I I put up with it by my own volition. I was not captured during war and forced to labor for SRS, nor was a born under their servitude. I sought out this job and chose to be employed under their terms.
Not only is the slave disadvantaged by being raised within a culture of slavery (which should, hypothetically, encourage the slave to be obedient, thus decreasing the likelihood of resistant behavior), but the slave only really has two significant choices he or she could make in his or her situation. However, both of these choices have negative aspects.
The first choice is to remain being a slave, which really isn't as much a choice as just the acceptance to remain under the status quo. I trust I shouldn't have to go into detail as to why opting to remain a slave is bad.
The second choice is to resist, which includes the option of running away. Of course, this isn't the same as me deciding to quit my job. There exist harsh consequences for a disobedient slave.
First of all, a disobedient slave risks being beaten (more on how the Bible sanctions this action to come). Secondly, a runaway slave is forced to become a social pariah. Otherwise, the runaway risks being captured, returned to his or her master, and, of course, beaten.
But wait, what about that Old Testament commandment stating that runaway slaves should not be returned to their masters? Surely a fugitive slave shouldn't have anything to fear in a truly Christian society, right? Well, too bad the aforementioned Old Testament commandment is essentially countered by Paul's decision to have a runaway slave return to his master in the Epistle to Philemon - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philemon_1
Furthermore, Paul instructs slaves to be obedient to their masters, much in the same way that they are to be obedient to Jesus:
"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him." Ephesians 6:5-9
Of course, there is the second part of the Bible quote to take into consideration. Masters should abstain from threatening their slaves. However, I am to assume this means only when the slave is acting in a servile manner. Let's look to see what happens to a disobedient slave.
In the Parable of the Faithful Servant, Jesus depicts a disobedient slave being beaten:
"The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:45-48
Of course, Jesus never mentions that such treatment is unethical.
In Exodus 21:20-21 a slave owner is allowed to beat a slave to what appears to be within an inch of his life. Interestingly, the slave owner is to be punished if the slave dies (the punishment is not specified), but the passage also takes the time to reiterate that the slave is a form of property to the master. The slave is further degraded by being compared to a material possession. It is barely afforded the acknowledgment of being human.
"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
I just want to share this one for funsies. Genesis 17:13 not only sounds like forced conversion, but the slave is also required to undergo a horrific medical procedure.
"He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."
In the philosophy of free will, a person is not truly exercising his or her right to choose if said person is being coerced into choosing one side over the other. Naturally, this is why a person forced to commit a crime under gunpoint is not considered guilty. I think it's clear God is trying to coerce the slave into accepting his or her state of servitude. He does not condemn violence against slaves attempting to exercise their free will. Furthermore, he...inspires...Paul to instruct the slave to remain faithful to his master.
Salvation. That reminds me of another interesting observation courtesy of Christopher Hitchens. This life is like a test, correct? It is a test to see who is worthy of salvation and who gets stuck with a one way ticket to Satanville.
Funny thing about tests, though, is that a good one measures each test taker on an equal level. However, life on this earth fails to offer this to us. Some people only have a short time to finish the test. They might have seven, ten, twenty-five years allotted for them to sift through the available information and cast their lot. Others have seventy, eighty, ninety-seven and a half years to try to figure out the meaning of life.
.....is this fair?
.....is Justice at work here?
I bet I can guess your answer....
Epistle to Philemon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
The Epistle of Paul to Philemon, usually referred to simply as Philemon, is a prison letter to Philemon from Paul of Tarsus. Philemon was a leader in the Colossian church. This letter, which is one of the books of the New Testament, deals with forgiveness.
----------
John M. Stegeman January 28 at 7:59am
First to start with the end of your post. I didn't say it was a test, you did. I said the goal is salvation. I believe that those that die before the age of reason and are baptized go to heaven. As for the unbaptized I trust in hope of God's mercy that they do as well but I don't know.
God didn't create a fair world, he created this one. Unless the three O God doesn't exist, then we must assume this is the best of all possible worlds.
I believe this is so because when capable of terrible evil, good that occurs shines much brighter.
I really think you've singled out slavery when you could make the same arguments for many points. Why does God allow evil or war etc. I know it's not an intellectually satisfying answer but he just does.
Jesus proceeds to bust some social conventions and with God's power of course he could have busted them all. He could have used miracles more than he did, convinced everyone of the truth and ended slavery while he was at it. But I believe that there is a merit in our not being given all the evidence and still choosing to believe.
Had the prophets and Jesus overturned every social convention, I don't believe that many would have come around with God interfering in free will.
Also the oft cited passage you mention with Paul where he returns a slave is a little ambiguous. He says the slave returns "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother."
I don't deny that being a slave can be worse than living in Detroit but that's a question of measurement. There were no doubt slaves that had it better in many ways than a "free" slum child. Yes a slave has less choices but he can still choose.
I think it comes down to this. Slavery isn't a good thing, but it isn't a forbidden thing. The owning of slaves could lead to a lot of sin on the part of the owner and he is at risk for that. If treated properly and as a "beloved brother," it's really not all that different from having a job.
A slave under duress on the other hand who is mistreated I believe has moral ground to not be obedient and he should try and escape.
----
Matt Kilmer January 28 at 2:11pm Report
I did not mean to imply that you said this life was a test. Nevertheless, is it an unfair comparison? Is this life not a test to see who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell? If you agree, and I don't think there is any reason you shouldn't, then let's examine our own little not-so-improbable case study.
Timmy was a fifteen-year-old boy who started to question the existence of God. He was raised in a Christian home and was baptized as a baby, but recently declared himself an atheist-leaning agnostic. Unfortunately, Timmy suffered a car accident and died.
All the signs should point to Timmy going to Hell, right? He has reached the age of reason, he has been baptized, and he is aware of Jesus' message. Nevertheless, he had doubt in his heart and mind, and one must commit oneself to Jesus by the best of his or her ability to even hope for salvation.
Obviously other people go through periods of doubt, but may eventually return to the church has a devout believer. You went through something like this, correct? However, you've been granted more time in trying to figure out the meaning of life than poor Timmy.
This test seems poorly designed. Why do some people only get to live into their teen years (a point in which a significant portion of people start to question their beliefs), while Joe Blow, who....HELL...may never have question the divinity of Jesus once in his life, gets to live to be eighty? Why do some people get more time to take the test?
This being the best possible world is a statement of faith. God did not guarantee us the best of all possible worlds, and logic certainly seems to dictate that this is not the best possible world. Does the Bible guarantee you the best possible world? I don't think so, as I'm pretty sure this notion stems from Leibniz's writings on the philosophy of religion.
I'm afraid I don't have time to respond to the rest of your response. I shall do so when I can.
------
John M. Stegeman January 28 at 2:48pm
I think the 3 O God concepts guarantees us the best of all possible worlds. If that is wrong, and I don't believe completely that Christianity hinges on it being correct, then maybe this isn't the best world.
I think one thing you're discounting is the ability of an omnipotent being to perceive what is best, better than we can.
Maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, we need to suffer in life for the sake of suffering. Maybe it is actually good that we have setbacks or that bad things happen to good people. Maybe this is all reverse justification, but maybe an omnipotent being has a better notion of what constitutes the best world.
As for Timmy, there is a good chance Timmy is in hell. He had a chance. Some are fortunate to get a million chances and some only get one. Think of the parable of the prodigal son.
He screwed up everything, but got another chance. Some people don't get that, some do.
"For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night."
We don't know how long we have. Salvation isn't a guarantee of any kind.
We don't deserve it, it is an act of God's mercy and he asks comparatively little from us in return.
------
Matt Kilmer January 30 at 3:00am Report
I don't know how to respond to your comment, but it isn't because I have run out of points to make and should concede. For you see, I don't really have a way of winning this debate. Well, I don't have a way of making you concede, anyway.
It seems that when theists are really pressured into defending their beliefs they eventually hit a point where they have to stop making arguments and start making excuses on behalf of God.
It kind of sounds like this:
"Oh, well, we don't really know why God did it this way, but since He is omniscient He must know best. We're just going to have to say that for whatever reason God decided it would be for the best to do it this way."
This excuse (worded multiple different ways, of course) has cropped up at least a couple of times during our debate, and has been used several other times when we have discussed the nature of God. So tell me, how is a critic supposed to win a debate with a theist when he can always run back to his comforting "security blanket?"
Let's forgo Timmy and the slaves for awhile, because I think this is a very important, unaddressed issue.
So tell me, do you find it intellectually satisfying when you reach the point where you have to make excuses for God? When you were reconsidering your faith didn't these gaps in explanations bother you in the slightest? Do you suppose the Christian God really thought that his flock of sheep would be able to convert the critical minded with unconvincing excuses?
--------
John M. Stegeman January 30 at 3:15am
I don't need to make excuses for an omnipotent being. It's not even a question of whether it is satisfying to me. No intellectual argument can truly convert a person. You can get them some of the way that way but eventually it is a question of faith. Also, right now I am hammered drunk on rum.
----------
Matt Kilmer January 30 at 2:11pm Report
All theists reach the point where they have to rely on excuses to fill in the gaps. "I don't know why God decided to do X the cruel/illogical way, but I have faith He knows what He's doing." This is not an argument for why X is X. This is a statement meant to supplement a lack of knowledge. You don't know why God did something the cruel/illogical way, but as long as you can fill that gap with, "He has the best intentions and must know what He's doing," than no amount of argumentation or logic will be able to break through.
God can be as hateful and mean as He wants. He can be an inconsistent moral authority, ordering for the act of genocide and yet saying that murder is wrong. He can allow for children and women to be enslaved and possibly raped and for it to be sanctioned in His book. Still, it's ok because God just fucking knows best. We don't need real explanations for why God decided to do X. All we need is faith.
The whole situation kind of reminds me of a battered wife who has to make up excuses for why she stays with her abusive husband. "Oh, you don't know him like I do. He's really quite sweet and kind."
-------
John M. Stegeman January 30 at 3:30pm
Think about it for a moment. If there is an omnipotent God, then the theist making these statements makes sense.
The Bible isn't God man. It's the starting point. It's scripture. But God gave us more than the Bible. He gave us the Church, which helps guide the development of the faith, interprets things the right way etc. The Church's authority to a Catholic is on par with the Bible. So you points are harder for a sola scriptura person to handle, but to me, its less so.
The Bible to me is part history, part teaching. I don't believe in it being 100 percent literal, but I don't believe any of it is untrue.
Heading out to eat. Will add more later.
------
Matt Kilmer January 31 at 4:56am Report
The problem here is that the gaps in knowledge allow for the presence of negative implications. The use of these excuses allow for you to suspend the need to have to think critically about your beliefs. As long as the theist can rely on his "security blanket," his end-all-be-all response to probing skeptics, than the God of the scripture essentially has free reign to get away with whatever he wants.
God is depicted sanctioning and performing horrific acts that most modern people, both theists and secularists, would agree are, at best, morally ambiguous, and, at worst, morally evil. Furthermore, God allows for egregiously inaccurate scientific (Geocentrism? Flat earth? Why? What vast, eternal plan could be ruined by revealing the truth about the universe to God's earthy scribes?) and historical (more on that later) information. Of course, the conclusion from all this certainly can't be, "Well, it seems reasonable to say the Bible isn't the word of God after all," so it must be, "Well, even though God failed to provide answers for why He did things so strangely, I'm just going to take comfort in the belief that I'm not suppose to know and just rely on faith."
The second problem is that these excuses fail to convince skeptics. Yes, I know you said there isn't an intellectual argument capable of conversion, but this seems a little unfair. There exist critics who would genuinely like to come to understand the nature of God, but are unable to make the faith-based leap to theism due to their inquisitive nature. Why would God forsake these people by not providing a means in which they could come to terms with the divinity of Jesus...or come to terms with several of the other questionable aspects of the Bible? God gave humanity superior reasoning skills, but apparently He only values people who fail to use them. Haha. Ok, I'll be slightly nicer and say that he only values people who fail to employ their reasoning skills to their greatest capacity.
God gave you the Church, huh? Wonderful! So why can't you answer my questions any better than a reasonably intelligent protestant could? This shows that either you didn't bother looking up the Church's no doubt enlightening answers, or the Church is just as clueless as you are.
The idea that the Bible is not meant to be taken completely literal is really quite irksome. Imagine if God were to say, "Hey, here's my book. It describes how you should live your life, but I decided it would be fun to leave a lot of what's written down up for interpretation." This idea really takes the cake for me. There is no reason why an omniscient and omnipotent being should have to rely on cryptically worded passages to get His point across.
I suspect there are two underlying reasons as to why moderate Christians do not like to take the whole Bible literally. One, it becomes quite clear how dated the Bible is when one reads every word literally. Two, the moderate Christian doesn't want to by lumped in with fundamentalists.
The Bible makes for a poor history book. Let's take the well-known exodus story as an example. There is no archeological evidence of this event ever happening and ancient Egypt is completely silent on the matter. Granted, ancient Egypt had a reputation for trying to cover up embarrassing events, but the reason we know this is, of course, because they failed to dispose of all the information.
So think about this for a second. The Egyptians took extra special care to eliminate all accounts of the exodus story from their perspective, but apparently failed to be so diligent with the cover up of the reign of Akhenaten. This pharaoh is infamous for trying to flip the Egyptian cosmology upside down by establishing an official monotheistic religion. This act displaced and angered the influential Egyptian clergy, who took a strong interest in reversing Akhenaten's religious legislation soon after his death. Surely this cover up would be just as, if not more important, than the cover up of the exodus.
---------
John M. Stegeman January 31 at 8:31am
Try playing devil's advocate with yourself for a moment and suppose that the God we've been talking about exists. Wouldn't that God have free reign?
Next I don't think the Bible is a flat earth book. Yes it uses imagery (corners of the earth etc) but it does not say at any point I am aware of, "Also my children, know the Earth is flat."
The Bible was written for all time but it was written in it's time. Makes sense they use that imagery even with God's inspiration.
You seem to want God to have written the Bible himself as a technical manual that requires no more understanding than a book of instructions for putting a lamp together.
God is not likely evil and yes I answer the thing you mention by saying he is God, and as he explains in Job ""Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand."
It's not intellectually satisfying to not know everything. But that's the key of faith. If you "know" beyond doubt of something, that isn't faith.
Next,
God does want the skeptics too but by your logic he should just show up in the sky and say "Hi everyone, I'm God."
For his reasons he doesn't. The key element is that we come to him without that. Blessed are those who do not see and still believe.
The Bible and the faith require open minds, open heart, the willingness to believe etc. The Bible says we must be like a child at times in belief.
Reason is key and with it one can come to a better understanding of faith and the universe God made. But Reason cannot be your God. We cannot subject the immensity of God completely to our own ways and thoughts no matter how much we want too because it makes more sense that way.
So is there a reason for cryptic passages? I say yes. I say the reason is that faith is a good in itself. That God finds faith key. The message, the truth, all that is in there. But he doesn't hand it to us like that. He wants us to believe.
I didn't go into detail about the Church but it did condemn slavery (Albeit it was like 1840ish). The Church has guided the beliefs of billions by dedicating itself completely to the messages in the Bible and to God. 2000 straight years of study and understanding of the Bible including the oldest surviving copies of scripture.
I said the Bible is part history. It is not a complete and accurate history book. The Bible is true, but some things that may be presented as fact may be parables, I don't know for sure.
Maybe exodus is a parable, maybe the records were lost (less likely I know). Does it matter?
I believe that the first man and woman committed the original sin and that the relevant parts of that story are true. Was there a talking snake and was God controlling things like we do when playing the Sims? I don't think so. I believe in evolution. God created all things in due time and in Genesis this is explained, though not to the like of skeptics I suppose.
For you or any other skeptic, at some point you have to let down the guard in your mind that says if I don't understand it, it A: Cannot be true or B: Can be explained in a way I can understand eventually.
I just don't think God works that way.
----------
Matt Kilmer February 3 at 2:35am Report
Now don't think I've given up just because I haven't left a response in awhile. I have either been too busy or too tired to give a detailed response. Don't worry, our game of infinite regress shall continue shortly.
---------
John M. Stegeman February 3 at 8:00am
lol ok
-----
Matt Kilmer February 4 at 4:27am Report
Any god who fails to follow his own commandment has free reign to do as he pleases. God tells his people not to murder and yet personally undertakes the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, killing untold thousands. God also kills innocent children. I'm sure I needn't remind you of the tenth plague of Egypt?
God is suppose to be an unshakable, objective source of morality. Theists arguing against secularists are keen on bringing this up. Still, how can the theist say that God provides objective morality when He is allowed to break the rules? The Biblical God becomes an unreliable source of morality when it becomes clear that he can alter the rules as He sees fit to do so.
Why didn't you say the Bible isn't a geocentric book? You were quick to attack the flat earth proposal, but why so silent on the other? Anyway, this is why it would have been an infinitely smarter idea for God's book to have been a technical manual. I could quote scripture that seems to clearly suggest a flat earth and a geocentric universe, but all you'd have to say is, "nope, I disagree. The Bible's just not suppose to be taken literally here."
"The Bible was written for all time but it was written in it's time. Makes sense they use that imagery even with God's inspiration."
Let me respond to this. If God wanted His book to be timeless, then he should have incorporated timeless properties. I ask you again. Is it at all conceivable that some vast, eternal plan could have been ruined if God had informed his scribes about heliocentrism, or the true shape of the earth? It would have increased the credibility of the Bible while robbing little from the faith needed to believe some of its more wilder claims. All this really shows is that God is not particularly concerned with making sure factual information finds its way into the Bible. Which, of course, only increases skepticism.
Let me ask you another question. Some people claim that God and Jesus have talked to them, or have even appeared in front of them. Do you believe these people? You like to drone on about how important faith is, but direct revelation would rob these people of their need for faith, right? However, this would be the best way to convince skeptics. God doesn't need to appear in the sky for all to behold, but he could visit the people who wish to know him. If Jesus were to appear to me and say, "Hey, it's all true," and if I could determine that I was of sound mind when this event happened, then I would become a Christian in a heartbeat.
Here is what I believe, John. God is suppose to be the ultimate mind in the universe. Therefore, God should be a being of pure, unadulterated logic. The Bible fails on multiple occasions to show signs of being orchestrated by such a being. This is by virtue of the fact that myself and other skeptics can find issues with the Bible that truly seem to be counter-intuitive to simple logic. And if we can spot it, than the ultimate mind can do so too.
---------
John M. Stegeman February 4 at 8:04am
It seems your argument is this: God didn't give us all knowledge at once in the Bible, therefore the Bible is flawed as a means of understanding God's will.
Before I attempt to proceed, let me know if I'm right.
----------
Matt Kilmer February 5 at 1:37am Report
Well, I am a bit confused by how you've worded your statement. Do you mean because God didn't give every human personal knowledge of the validity of the Bible, or because God fails to reveal all necessary information at once...and also fails to show concern for factual information?
There is no more reason to believe in the Bible than to believe in the Koran. The Bible is a book of legends, folklore, myths...and sometimes poetry...meant to provide orientation for primitive societies. It is one of our first attempts at cosmogony, cosmology, codifying morality, and literature. The Bible is important in this regard. The books of the Old and New Testament are historically significant in that they show us how far we've come in our understanding of the universe and ourselves. However, there is no more sense in believing that Jesus brought people back from the dead than there is to believe Dionysus retrieved his dead human mother from the depths of Hades.
I am open to the idea of a God. I believe the cosmological and teleological arguments are rational reasons for positing the existence of an intelligent designer (the ontological argument is interesting but unconvincing, and can result in logical issues if taken too far). However, while I support deism, theism is nothing more than a jump in the dark. Yes, it is sensible to assume that an intelligent designer would create us with a purpose in mind, but this does not guarantee that we have been made aware of said purpose - if there actually was meant to be one in the first place. You know, the Bible doesn't really explain the meaning of our existence either (Why are we here? To serve God. Why do we here to serve God? So we can go to Heaven. But what was the point in doing all this, anyway? I don't know. Maybe we'll find out after we're dead).
Now, let's attempt to examine the nature of God, shall we? A 3-O God is perfect in all ways it logically can be. That means it should remain one-hundred percent consistent, as there is no reason why a being with perfect knowledge should have to deviate from the correct path. Naturally, this means God should be a moral absolutist.
So, if the Biblical God is the real God, then when He says murder is wrong, He is making a statement that is wrong zero percent of the time. Nevertheless, the Biblical God is seen going against His own morally absolute commandment when he personally kills people.
When humans commit murder they have one of two options. They can either come up with excuses for why the murder was justifiable (attempting to dehumanize the victim has been a popular one throughout history), or they can accept that they committed a heinous act.
When God commits murder He is performing an act that is contradictory to his perfect knowledge. He fails to remain consistent and starts acting like a human being.
It's issues like this, along with a plethora of others, that make me question the validity of the Bible.
-----------
John M. Stegeman February 7 at 1:00pm
I mean that you seem to have wanted God to hand us everything we need to know, remove the need for discernment at all and write the bible as a technical manual.
There is no truly reasonable reason to believe the bible over the koran, that is partly true. But we can read it, think about it and if we have faith, we can affirm at least to ourselves that it is True even if not all of it's events are historically accurate.
As for theism and specifically religion, I got nothing. You're right in a sense that it is a shot in the dark. But once one believes in God, we then have our minds and the belief in a higher power. From there, we can consider things from a different approach that I think eventually leads to theism.
No the bible doesn't tell us why we're here except to say that our being here is good. I wish I knew my purpose and the point of all things, but maybe not all knowledge is for us to know.
This next bit is where you go wrong....sort of.
"Now, let's attempt to examine the nature of God, shall we? A 3-O God is perfect in all ways it logically can be. That means it should remain one-hundred percent consistent, as there is no reason why a being with perfect knowledge should have to deviate from the correct path. Naturally, this means God should be a moral absolutist. "
We cannot conceive of God's power if he is truly omnipotent. The very ideas of right and wrong and morality are as he deems them.
I know this argument isn't intellectually satisfying, but by virtue of God's doing something, it is just.
A 3-O God is perfect in all ways it logically can be. Yes. That means however that his creation is subject to his perfection, not the other way around.
God made the rules for us, who is to say those rules should apply to him?
God- "Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself?"
much later
"“I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted. You (God) asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’ Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know." - Job
I think the Bible explains this one in this book. We cannot hold God to what we can completely conceive, we are too far below him.
--------------
Matt Kilmer February 10 at 2:38am Report
"There is no truly reasonable reason to believe the bible over the koran, that is partly true. But we can read it, think about it and if we have faith, we can affirm at least to ourselves that it is True even if not all of it's events are historically accurate."
So, am I to assume that you've thoroughly examined every other religion, but the only one that makes you feel all warm and cuddly (or whatever faiths feels like) is Christianity? I take it that you've experimented with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, Zoroastrianism, Manicheanism, Mormonism, Scientology (the perfect example that a religion can be founded on pure fiction, and people will still believe in it), and a slew of other religious faiths?
Wait, what? You haven't tried this? Well then, why are you so quick to place your faith in Christianity? What if you were to read the Koran, think about it, and end up realizing that it gives you an even stronger warm and cuddly feeling than the Bible? Or even worse, what if reading the Koran gave you the EXACT SAME feeling as the Bible?
Another thought: What does it say about faith when a person converts to a different sect or religion? Doesn't this further demonstrate the flimsy nature of faith?
I knew you would counter my omniscience claim with the, "God's actions are Just through the virtue of the fact that He performed them," argument (I knew you would do this because I am omniscient. For example, I know you are reading these words on a computer screen...RIGHT NOW. Scary isn't it?). Since I knew how you would respond it should be obvious that I hold some weight to my claim being valid. So, let's go over it again.
Yes, there are a lot of aspects about God's omniscience I would not be able to understand. Nevertheless, the claim I am making is far from egregious.
A) Omniscience means all-knowing.
B) God is omniscient.
Therefore,
C) God knows the correct moral path to live.
Therefore,
D) If YHWH is the real God, than when He sends a commandment saying, "Thou shall not commit murder," this is a moral absolute. Otherwise, there would need to be stipulations in this commandment - "Thou shall not commit murder unless X, Y, or Z happens."
"God made the rules for us, who is to say those rules should apply to him?"
I'm afraid the rules must apply to God in this case or else it would demonstrate that God's knowledge is imperfect. Let's examine my claim further.
Even if we forgo the fact that YHWH commits murder, we cannot ignore that YHWH tells the Hebrews to kill people. Now, I want you to really give this point some thought. YHWH wrote on a tablet one very simple moral absolute. It cannot be wrong, otherwise, YHWH's knowledge of morality is imperfect. Nevertheless, YHWH is depicted contradicting his own commandment on multiple occasions. So we start off with, "It is never alright to murder," and end up with, "It is alright to murder sometimes." God CANNOT order both. It means that his knowledge of morality is flawed.
---------
John M. Stegeman February 10 at 7:53am
No. You are wrong. God is not unknowing. We cannot decide who lives and who dies and so we are not to murder. God, who knows these things, can choose to use those he chooses as an instrument for his will. In that case, it's OK.
God is so far above all this discussion it's almost moot. If he commands someone to behead me tomorrow because I know of him and still often sin, that would be a just action because he said so.
Did I consider all the world religions? Of course not. When you're looking for your keys and you find them you don't keep looking.
An imperfect analogy I know. I gave the issue some thought and once I believed myself that God existed by the tenants of the Christian/Catholic faith, I believed that to be the faith of Him.
I did however look hard into other forms of Christianity before staying Catholic.
-------------
Matt Kilmer February 11 at 2:55am Report
This is not a moot point. This is actually a very important point. Are you familiar with the Euthyphro Dilemma? It is a very old (and still ongoing) debate about the nature of the relationship between morality and God. The Euthyphro Dilemma asks: Is something good because God commands it, or is goodness commanded by God because it is morally good?
I see the two of us as taking opposing sides to this question. You the former and I the latter. I used to assume the former would necessarily be true for a 3-O deity, but I have since become more critical of this stance.
The Divine Command Theory (this is what the former stance is usually called) has its own set of problems. First of all, I hope you realize that morality fails to be objective when it is dependent upon the arbitrary whims of God.
What is morality? Under the Divine Command Theory it becomes "might is right." It can be moral to not murder anyone one minute and suddenly moral to slaughter Canaanites the next.
Understand that I certainly am not the originator of this idea. Some of the greatest philosophic minds throughout history have given a significant amount of credence to this problem.
Speaking of things that are arbitrary, your belief in Christianity is unfounded. The only reason I see for you to choose Christianity is because you were raised in an environment surrounded by the doctrine. If you were born and raised in Baghdad, and applied the exact same scrutiny you used to affirm your belief in Christianity, than I'd imagine that as an Iraqi you would be a Muslim.
There exist a plethora of different belief systems throughout the world. Why were you so quick to place your chips on Christianity? Why did you just decide to stick with the religion you were most familiar with? Sure, maybe Christianity gives you some sort of warm and fuzzy feeling, but how can you be sure that no other religion wouldn't be able to accomplish the same thing (or instill yet an even greater warm and fuzzy feeling within your bosom)?
-----------
John M. Stegeman February 11 at 8:03am
I don't think it's a might makes right situation. I think it's God's omnibenevolence that makes right. God's goodness defines goodness.
My belief in Christianity is not unfounded, it is unexplainable to others. I believe from personal experience. I have felt God's presence in the mass and in the Eucharist. I trust my senses on this but obviously do not require anyone to believe me.
------------
Matt Kilmer February 12 at 2:16am Report
How can we know that God is good if there is no objective morality to judge him by?
Doesn't it bother you to have no idea as to what other religions could offer you?
Imagine this scenario: You have never tried pie before. You have a whole table covered with different kinds of pies from all over the world. You eat the pie closest to where you're sitting and say, "Wow, this pie tastes really good! I'm not going to bother trying any of the other pies as I'm sure there is no way they could taste nearly as good as this one."
Maybe you'd also feel God's presence while singing a Hanukkah prayer or beheading a cartoonist for drawing a picture of Muhammad? You never gave any other religion an unbiased chance, so how can you be so sure that this feeling you have for Christianity is mutually exclusive?
---------------
John M. Stegeman February 14 at 6:53am
Before faith, I am not sure there is a reasonable way to know God is good.
Moreover, it is not for us to judge God. God is not subject to our ways, we are his subjects.
It doesn't bother me about other religions. I believe a personal relationship and "feeling" of God is possible in any religion that is close to the truth. I believe Christianity, specifically the Church, is the true faith of God because I believe it and salvation occurs in procedure through the Church from God. With trust in God's mercy however, I don't believe this means everyone else goes to hell.
I think we've reached the point where all I can say is it is a leap of faith.
Also, I do like pie. Sweet yummy pie.
------------
John M. Stegeman February 14 at 6:56am
Also I just finished the Chronicles of Narnia and came across an interesting quote.
A bunch of dwarves get mad about religion and kings etc and decide to only look out for other dwarves. They end up in a stable that to everyone else is a beautiful land inside, but they can't see it.
One of the kids asks Aslan to help the dwarves see. He gives them a couple miracles even but they are unable to see even those.
“You see,” said Aslan. “They will not let us help them. They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their own minds yet they are in that prison; and so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out.”
I do not think you are afraid of anything here, but I'm just using CS Lewis to reinforce my point that belief eventually becomes just belief.
Maybe one day a perfectly ordered mind will be able to draw a line from nothing, to theism, to catholicism, but at this time I don't know if it can be done.
The Last Battle Quotes
www.quotesquotations.com
by Clive Staples Lewis (1956) You will go to your death, then, said Jewel. Do you think I care if Aslan doomes me to death? said the King. That would
---------------
Matt Kilmer February 17 at 2:07am Report
"Moreover, it is not for us to judge God. God is not subject to our ways, we are his subjects."
Of course we can judge God. You judge God. You have taken the meager evidence presented before you and judged in favor of the Judaic-Christian God's existence and benevolence.
"It doesn't bother me about other religions. I believe a personal relationship and "feeling" of God is possible in any religion that is close to the truth. I believe Christianity, specifically the Church, is the true faith of God because I believe it and salvation occurs in procedure through the Church from God. With trust in God's mercy however, I don't believe this means everyone else goes to hell."
I love your little fail-safe there. Of course you don't need to bother practicing other religions! They must all have a little bit of truth to them. Well, at least the more popular ones, right? Luckily, you, your parents, your grandparents, your great-grandparents, ad infinitum, just so happened to choose THE most true religion. Therefore, it should be comparatively a lot easier for someone believing in Christ to achieve salvation, correct? Nevermind that you are no more justified in believing this than a Muslim is in believing his religion is THE most true.
You are right, it is a leap of faith. A very blind leap of faith that's determined more by our environment than by any semblance of reason.
"Maybe one day a perfectly ordered mind will be able to draw a line from nothing, to theism, to catholicism, but at this time I don't know if it can be done."
What if a perfectly ordered mind were to draw a line from nothing, to theism, to Islam? Or what if a perfectly ordered mind were to draw a line from nothing to a whole universe, which some physicists seem to be eerily close to achieving?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009
www.youtube.com
Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe, how it will end, and how it could have come from nothing. Krauss is the author of many bestselling books on Physics and Cosmology, including "The Physics of Star Trek." Books by Lawrence Krauss: http://www.amazon.com/Lawrence-
----------------
John M. Stegeman February 17 at 7:52am
We do make a judgement of our own understanding that leads us to God, if you want to call that judging God, ok.
I believe that all religions that were founded out of a genuine desire to understand the world have a grain of truth and I believe this is because we are somewhat wired to be able to recognize God's existence. This exempts Scientology but not say ancient druidism.
That said, yes I'm very happy for the convenience of having been born into a family that chose the right one. It is convenient, and that's a good thing if you ask me.
Last I don't believe that a perfectly ordered mind would end up with islam. THat's just on faith that I believe that. It would end up at the truth, which I believe is the catholic church.
---------------
Matt Kilmer February 18 at 3:07am Report
I am truly frightened. I am both disturbed and frightened.
John, you are one of the smartest persons I know on a personal level. Nonetheless, your nearly unshakable devotion to your blind faith is unsettling. If this is what can happen to an intelligent person, than it only makes faith placed in the hands of a stupid person seem all the more terrifying.
Look, honestly, faith doesn't bother me too much. Yes, it does bug me that the faithful willfully suspend reason to hold on to their beliefs, but all humans must rely on faith to some degree. For example, I have faith my brain and mind are inside my head as opposed to being in a vat located at a scientist's lab. I have faith everyone I interact with are real people with thoughts and emotions not unlike my own. Some philosophical dilemmas have to be ignored in order to function properly in society. So, and though it may be a far more significant stretch of faith, if you want to believe God decided to incarnate himself as a human and go on a suicide mission just to say, "I forgive you," - sure, why not?
The problem I have is when theists try to force their beliefs onto other people. Now, I am truly lucky to live in a country like the United States. I don't have to worry about being publicly stoned to death for not proclaiming my devotion to whatever God happens to be the God of popular opinion at the time. Nevertheless, a person's religious faith has no place in public policy.
Remember, the theist is making a big claim when he says he knows how other people should live their lives. Such an extraordinary claim deserves extraordinary evidence....but there isn't any.
-------------
John M. Stegeman February 18 at 7:49am
I really don't disagree with any of that. It is scary. Spooky even. It's tough to believe in the things I do with the knowledge that I can't prove it.
I wish I could.
And I don't like theists trying to force their beliefs either. I believe that any true conversion can only come from the inside of a person and not external forces so making laws to legislate morality don't, in the metaphysical sense, do anyone any good.
Hence the only moral issue I advocate for on legislative grounds is abortion which I think is not only murder but a social problem.
I don't support gay marraige but I don't think it harms society per se. Hell I don't support divorce or adultery but both of those are legal too and in a secular society they should be.
Those theists like myself that want to convert others need to do it by leading Christian lives, making others see that "hey those folks are ok, maybe there's something to all that God talk." We use charity outreach and try to create a welcoming atmosphere in parishes and we need to be knowledgeable and available to answer questions so people can make the decision on their own. That's how you make a conversion "count."
It is a HUGE claim for me to say I know the truth. Sure is. I can make it even scarier by saying I don't understand it all and I still believe it.
I don't know what the answer is for how to balance faith and existence in the secular world. But I think that's another reason I like Christianity, it makes more sense. We don't stone, we love. If you love your neighbor as we're supposed to, it's a bit tougher to go the forced conversion route.
--------
Matt Kilmer February 18 at 12:12pm Report
Well, I think this is the point of the debate where we take questions from the audience?
It is 10,185 words or something like that. If you just want out of context highlights, see my last blog.
A note about this one. I changed some of my views over the course of this discussion and so I may not be consistent all the way through. At first I was attempting to justify things that no longer need justification and now I get that.
Nevertheless here is an interesting debate.....
Mere mortals discuss God
Matt Kilmer January 14 at 5:26am Report
I have a few questions about your favorite little booky-wooky (The Bible) that have been weighing on my mind lately. I just wanted to see what kind of answers you would give.
You defend some of YHWH's sillier Old Testament laws by saying they serve some sort of protective purpose. For example, the reason YHWH restricts pork is due to the health issues an ill-prepared pig could cause. Ok, I can accept this explanation. Heck, with my limited understanding of how to properly prepare a pig, I could even buy into it. So, why does YHWH offer guidelines on how to handle slaves, which, on YHWH's terms, would be the same as He approving of the act of slavery? If YHWH is omniscient, then it certainly stand to reason that he would not have to spend a couple thousand years trying to figure out if slavery is wrong or not. Furthermore, YHWH was the direct source of Israeli law. It's not like He's some faceless bureaucrat lucky enough to be able to enforce a couple guidelines because he can't flat out ban the practice. YHWH could have prohibited slavery amongst the Chosen People from the very start.
One moronic explanation I've heard for YHWH's tolerance of slavery is that...well...that was just the way things were done back in those days. YHWH didn't want to interfere in what they were use to, so he just decided to make up some guidelines instead of outright banning the practice. This explanation seems quite silly to me, as YHWH has shown on several occasions that he is not afraid to cause significant paradigm shifts within the culture of the Chosen People. Think about the paradigm shifts that would be cause by the Covenant or the introduction of Mosaic Law? The displacement of polytheism for the much more foreign concept of monotheism. The outright BANNING of idolatry - a common practice in pagan cultures (why ban idolatry but not slavery?). Tell me, John! Why does YHWH approve of slavery?
Question #2: I recall you making the argument that the Bible, being YHWH's book, should logically receive special attention from YHWH in order to make sure it is compiled in an accurate manner. So why did YHWH allow for apocryphal texts to sometimes slip into His book? If the information in the Bible provides the key to salvation, why would YHWH allow for his ordained editors to screw up once in awhile? Furthermore, why did YHWH wait so long to have humans construct an accurate New Testament? Why was YHWH off picking his nose while early Christian converts were left to sift through a sea of apocryphal accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus? Also, shouldn't YHWH be discouraging translations of the Bible, as important information could be easily lost due to language incompatibility? Wouldn't an approach similar to the Koran make more sense in this regard?
--------
John M. Stegeman January 14 at 8:27am
This is going to be complicated but I'll give it a go.
1. For whatever reasons God saw fit, there has been a process of revelation after our expulsion from Eden. In Eden God spoke directly with all (both) existing humans. After that, there is a process.
I don't know why God didn't send Jesus to die for our sins five days after the original sin. Instead it was quite a long time.
God didn't tell Adam about pigs when he went out from the Garden, that came later. He didn't tell Mary, hey look you boy's gonna get nailed to a tree in a bad way and he didn't tell the apostles that Rome was a good choice for and HQ.
God wants us to love him and believe in him but he wants us to come to that on our own. Otherwise he would appear in the sky and say hey you humans, I'm God. Worship me.
I know this isn't a very strong answer but in the same way, with free will, he's shown that he wants us to make our own way to a degree not just as individuals but as a society.
Also, most OT laws that I know of are very anti slavery.
You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him. (NASB) Deut. 23:15-16
That's just one example. There are some laws about how one can sell themself but even that seems more like a form of welfare for the poor than anything. Hebrew slaves were supposed to be freed after seven years etc.
It shall not seem hard to you when you set him free, for he has given you six years with double the service of a hired man; so the LORD your God will bless you in whatever you do. (NASB) Deut. 15:18
I will get to part two of your question after work.
--------
Matt Kilmer January 15 at 4:16am Report
I would love to see these anti-slavery laws, as virtually every passage in the Old Testament regarding slavery only seems to regulate the practice.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm
Indeed, the passage you quoted, Deut. 23: 15-16, is the only passage coming close to being anti-slavery, but it still fails to outright condemn the institution. As for the passages that allot for Hebrew slaves to be released on their seventh year, we must not forget the keyword here is HEBREW. Slaves from foreign nationalities became inheritable property.
Furthermore, I am troubled by your statement of selling oneself into slavery as being a form of ancient social welfare. For even if it did alleviate the monetary problems of the impoverished Hebrews, if slavery were immoral, then the act of selling oneself into slavery would only help propagate an evil institution. Think about it like this: From a Christian perspective, would the act of a poor woman selling sex for money not be considered a sin due to the desperate state of the woman? Of course it is still a sin. Promiscuity is condemned no matter what the excuse for doing so might be. Therefore, it becomes quite clear that the institution of slavery is A-OK in the eyes of God. Of course, one is not mandated by divine law to own slaves, but as long as one treats one's slaves within a very limited ethical manner, there are no obvious signs that one of the worse violations of human rights, the right to his freedom, is morally wrong.
What the Bible says about slavery
www.religioustolerance.org
Background material on slavery in the Bible
Share
------
Matt Kilmer January 27 at 1:35am Report
Sidestepping the typical argument of omniscience equaling predestination, let's examine how the Judaic-Christian God allows for our free will to be denied to us. Since we've determined that God is not anti-slavery, and since hereditary slavery is ok in his book, it should logically follow that God has no qualms with people being born denied of the freedom to choose their own path. Naturally, the Judaic-Christian God could have easily prevented his followers from being allowed to violate the freedom of a blatantly innocent person, but chose to leave such condemnation out of his book. Tell me, if the freedom to choose is so important to God (keep in mind that God's love of free will is the argument used by theists as to why he allows pain and suffering in the world), why wouldn't he condemn slavery?
--------
John M. Stegeman January 27 at 7:47am
First, God's omnipotence allows him to have prevented anything bad from ever happening. He could have created a humanity that wouldn't fall from grace but in his wisdom he created us instead. I cannot answer why.
I do believe that slavery is generally bad. The child of a person who sold themselves into slavery did not choose to be a slave but then until modern times the idea of choosing what we want to do with our lives didn't exist. People always did what their father did. Carpenters became carpenters, slaves became slaves etc. The Bible was of course secondarily written for all time but each author, though inspired, was still writing for their own time.
A slave still has a choice, just a more difficult one, whether or not to be a slave and here's the point.
God allows some people to be born into wealth, some into abject poverty. Some are born into loving homes and some into abusive homes. No matter where we are born we are stuck to a degree with our circumstances.
A child of loving parents can, by choices in life, become a bad person. A child in an abusive situation can rise above.
Just so, a child born to slavery can run away. Obviously this is risky business, but the choice exists. It's not much different to me being born into slavery than being born in a Detroit slum. Either way you won't have the same opportunities as others to live your life, but you do have a choice.
Ending that point and beginning another, the end good for Christians in this life is salvation. In that respect, slave or free makes no difference.
Put those together and remember as we discussed the Bible instructing proper treatment of slaves and I think there was no need for it to be condemned outright.
--------
Matt Kilmer January 28 at 3:01am Report
Being born a slave is a far more egregious offense than being born in the slums of Detroit. Imagine being raised in an environment where everyday events are meant to remind you that your will is subjugated by the will of another. Sure, this is essentially what happens in a work environment. I am subjugated to the will of my employer, but I I put up with it by my own volition. I was not captured during war and forced to labor for SRS, nor was a born under their servitude. I sought out this job and chose to be employed under their terms.
Not only is the slave disadvantaged by being raised within a culture of slavery (which should, hypothetically, encourage the slave to be obedient, thus decreasing the likelihood of resistant behavior), but the slave only really has two significant choices he or she could make in his or her situation. However, both of these choices have negative aspects.
The first choice is to remain being a slave, which really isn't as much a choice as just the acceptance to remain under the status quo. I trust I shouldn't have to go into detail as to why opting to remain a slave is bad.
The second choice is to resist, which includes the option of running away. Of course, this isn't the same as me deciding to quit my job. There exist harsh consequences for a disobedient slave.
First of all, a disobedient slave risks being beaten (more on how the Bible sanctions this action to come). Secondly, a runaway slave is forced to become a social pariah. Otherwise, the runaway risks being captured, returned to his or her master, and, of course, beaten.
But wait, what about that Old Testament commandment stating that runaway slaves should not be returned to their masters? Surely a fugitive slave shouldn't have anything to fear in a truly Christian society, right? Well, too bad the aforementioned Old Testament commandment is essentially countered by Paul's decision to have a runaway slave return to his master in the Epistle to Philemon - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philemon_1
Furthermore, Paul instructs slaves to be obedient to their masters, much in the same way that they are to be obedient to Jesus:
"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him." Ephesians 6:5-9
Of course, there is the second part of the Bible quote to take into consideration. Masters should abstain from threatening their slaves. However, I am to assume this means only when the slave is acting in a servile manner. Let's look to see what happens to a disobedient slave.
In the Parable of the Faithful Servant, Jesus depicts a disobedient slave being beaten:
"The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:45-48
Of course, Jesus never mentions that such treatment is unethical.
In Exodus 21:20-21 a slave owner is allowed to beat a slave to what appears to be within an inch of his life. Interestingly, the slave owner is to be punished if the slave dies (the punishment is not specified), but the passage also takes the time to reiterate that the slave is a form of property to the master. The slave is further degraded by being compared to a material possession. It is barely afforded the acknowledgment of being human.
"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
I just want to share this one for funsies. Genesis 17:13 not only sounds like forced conversion, but the slave is also required to undergo a horrific medical procedure.
"He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."
In the philosophy of free will, a person is not truly exercising his or her right to choose if said person is being coerced into choosing one side over the other. Naturally, this is why a person forced to commit a crime under gunpoint is not considered guilty. I think it's clear God is trying to coerce the slave into accepting his or her state of servitude. He does not condemn violence against slaves attempting to exercise their free will. Furthermore, he...inspires...Paul to instruct the slave to remain faithful to his master.
Salvation. That reminds me of another interesting observation courtesy of Christopher Hitchens. This life is like a test, correct? It is a test to see who is worthy of salvation and who gets stuck with a one way ticket to Satanville.
Funny thing about tests, though, is that a good one measures each test taker on an equal level. However, life on this earth fails to offer this to us. Some people only have a short time to finish the test. They might have seven, ten, twenty-five years allotted for them to sift through the available information and cast their lot. Others have seventy, eighty, ninety-seven and a half years to try to figure out the meaning of life.
.....is this fair?
.....is Justice at work here?
I bet I can guess your answer....
Epistle to Philemon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
The Epistle of Paul to Philemon, usually referred to simply as Philemon, is a prison letter to Philemon from Paul of Tarsus. Philemon was a leader in the Colossian church. This letter, which is one of the books of the New Testament, deals with forgiveness.
----------
John M. Stegeman January 28 at 7:59am
First to start with the end of your post. I didn't say it was a test, you did. I said the goal is salvation. I believe that those that die before the age of reason and are baptized go to heaven. As for the unbaptized I trust in hope of God's mercy that they do as well but I don't know.
God didn't create a fair world, he created this one. Unless the three O God doesn't exist, then we must assume this is the best of all possible worlds.
I believe this is so because when capable of terrible evil, good that occurs shines much brighter.
I really think you've singled out slavery when you could make the same arguments for many points. Why does God allow evil or war etc. I know it's not an intellectually satisfying answer but he just does.
Jesus proceeds to bust some social conventions and with God's power of course he could have busted them all. He could have used miracles more than he did, convinced everyone of the truth and ended slavery while he was at it. But I believe that there is a merit in our not being given all the evidence and still choosing to believe.
Had the prophets and Jesus overturned every social convention, I don't believe that many would have come around with God interfering in free will.
Also the oft cited passage you mention with Paul where he returns a slave is a little ambiguous. He says the slave returns "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother."
I don't deny that being a slave can be worse than living in Detroit but that's a question of measurement. There were no doubt slaves that had it better in many ways than a "free" slum child. Yes a slave has less choices but he can still choose.
I think it comes down to this. Slavery isn't a good thing, but it isn't a forbidden thing. The owning of slaves could lead to a lot of sin on the part of the owner and he is at risk for that. If treated properly and as a "beloved brother," it's really not all that different from having a job.
A slave under duress on the other hand who is mistreated I believe has moral ground to not be obedient and he should try and escape.
----
Matt Kilmer January 28 at 2:11pm Report
I did not mean to imply that you said this life was a test. Nevertheless, is it an unfair comparison? Is this life not a test to see who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell? If you agree, and I don't think there is any reason you shouldn't, then let's examine our own little not-so-improbable case study.
Timmy was a fifteen-year-old boy who started to question the existence of God. He was raised in a Christian home and was baptized as a baby, but recently declared himself an atheist-leaning agnostic. Unfortunately, Timmy suffered a car accident and died.
All the signs should point to Timmy going to Hell, right? He has reached the age of reason, he has been baptized, and he is aware of Jesus' message. Nevertheless, he had doubt in his heart and mind, and one must commit oneself to Jesus by the best of his or her ability to even hope for salvation.
Obviously other people go through periods of doubt, but may eventually return to the church has a devout believer. You went through something like this, correct? However, you've been granted more time in trying to figure out the meaning of life than poor Timmy.
This test seems poorly designed. Why do some people only get to live into their teen years (a point in which a significant portion of people start to question their beliefs), while Joe Blow, who....HELL...may never have question the divinity of Jesus once in his life, gets to live to be eighty? Why do some people get more time to take the test?
This being the best possible world is a statement of faith. God did not guarantee us the best of all possible worlds, and logic certainly seems to dictate that this is not the best possible world. Does the Bible guarantee you the best possible world? I don't think so, as I'm pretty sure this notion stems from Leibniz's writings on the philosophy of religion.
I'm afraid I don't have time to respond to the rest of your response. I shall do so when I can.
------
John M. Stegeman January 28 at 2:48pm
I think the 3 O God concepts guarantees us the best of all possible worlds. If that is wrong, and I don't believe completely that Christianity hinges on it being correct, then maybe this isn't the best world.
I think one thing you're discounting is the ability of an omnipotent being to perceive what is best, better than we can.
Maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, we need to suffer in life for the sake of suffering. Maybe it is actually good that we have setbacks or that bad things happen to good people. Maybe this is all reverse justification, but maybe an omnipotent being has a better notion of what constitutes the best world.
As for Timmy, there is a good chance Timmy is in hell. He had a chance. Some are fortunate to get a million chances and some only get one. Think of the parable of the prodigal son.
He screwed up everything, but got another chance. Some people don't get that, some do.
"For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night."
We don't know how long we have. Salvation isn't a guarantee of any kind.
We don't deserve it, it is an act of God's mercy and he asks comparatively little from us in return.
------
Matt Kilmer January 30 at 3:00am Report
I don't know how to respond to your comment, but it isn't because I have run out of points to make and should concede. For you see, I don't really have a way of winning this debate. Well, I don't have a way of making you concede, anyway.
It seems that when theists are really pressured into defending their beliefs they eventually hit a point where they have to stop making arguments and start making excuses on behalf of God.
It kind of sounds like this:
"Oh, well, we don't really know why God did it this way, but since He is omniscient He must know best. We're just going to have to say that for whatever reason God decided it would be for the best to do it this way."
This excuse (worded multiple different ways, of course) has cropped up at least a couple of times during our debate, and has been used several other times when we have discussed the nature of God. So tell me, how is a critic supposed to win a debate with a theist when he can always run back to his comforting "security blanket?"
Let's forgo Timmy and the slaves for awhile, because I think this is a very important, unaddressed issue.
So tell me, do you find it intellectually satisfying when you reach the point where you have to make excuses for God? When you were reconsidering your faith didn't these gaps in explanations bother you in the slightest? Do you suppose the Christian God really thought that his flock of sheep would be able to convert the critical minded with unconvincing excuses?
--------
John M. Stegeman January 30 at 3:15am
I don't need to make excuses for an omnipotent being. It's not even a question of whether it is satisfying to me. No intellectual argument can truly convert a person. You can get them some of the way that way but eventually it is a question of faith. Also, right now I am hammered drunk on rum.
----------
Matt Kilmer January 30 at 2:11pm Report
All theists reach the point where they have to rely on excuses to fill in the gaps. "I don't know why God decided to do X the cruel/illogical way, but I have faith He knows what He's doing." This is not an argument for why X is X. This is a statement meant to supplement a lack of knowledge. You don't know why God did something the cruel/illogical way, but as long as you can fill that gap with, "He has the best intentions and must know what He's doing," than no amount of argumentation or logic will be able to break through.
God can be as hateful and mean as He wants. He can be an inconsistent moral authority, ordering for the act of genocide and yet saying that murder is wrong. He can allow for children and women to be enslaved and possibly raped and for it to be sanctioned in His book. Still, it's ok because God just fucking knows best. We don't need real explanations for why God decided to do X. All we need is faith.
The whole situation kind of reminds me of a battered wife who has to make up excuses for why she stays with her abusive husband. "Oh, you don't know him like I do. He's really quite sweet and kind."
-------
John M. Stegeman January 30 at 3:30pm
Think about it for a moment. If there is an omnipotent God, then the theist making these statements makes sense.
The Bible isn't God man. It's the starting point. It's scripture. But God gave us more than the Bible. He gave us the Church, which helps guide the development of the faith, interprets things the right way etc. The Church's authority to a Catholic is on par with the Bible. So you points are harder for a sola scriptura person to handle, but to me, its less so.
The Bible to me is part history, part teaching. I don't believe in it being 100 percent literal, but I don't believe any of it is untrue.
Heading out to eat. Will add more later.
------
Matt Kilmer January 31 at 4:56am Report
The problem here is that the gaps in knowledge allow for the presence of negative implications. The use of these excuses allow for you to suspend the need to have to think critically about your beliefs. As long as the theist can rely on his "security blanket," his end-all-be-all response to probing skeptics, than the God of the scripture essentially has free reign to get away with whatever he wants.
God is depicted sanctioning and performing horrific acts that most modern people, both theists and secularists, would agree are, at best, morally ambiguous, and, at worst, morally evil. Furthermore, God allows for egregiously inaccurate scientific (Geocentrism? Flat earth? Why? What vast, eternal plan could be ruined by revealing the truth about the universe to God's earthy scribes?) and historical (more on that later) information. Of course, the conclusion from all this certainly can't be, "Well, it seems reasonable to say the Bible isn't the word of God after all," so it must be, "Well, even though God failed to provide answers for why He did things so strangely, I'm just going to take comfort in the belief that I'm not suppose to know and just rely on faith."
The second problem is that these excuses fail to convince skeptics. Yes, I know you said there isn't an intellectual argument capable of conversion, but this seems a little unfair. There exist critics who would genuinely like to come to understand the nature of God, but are unable to make the faith-based leap to theism due to their inquisitive nature. Why would God forsake these people by not providing a means in which they could come to terms with the divinity of Jesus...or come to terms with several of the other questionable aspects of the Bible? God gave humanity superior reasoning skills, but apparently He only values people who fail to use them. Haha. Ok, I'll be slightly nicer and say that he only values people who fail to employ their reasoning skills to their greatest capacity.
God gave you the Church, huh? Wonderful! So why can't you answer my questions any better than a reasonably intelligent protestant could? This shows that either you didn't bother looking up the Church's no doubt enlightening answers, or the Church is just as clueless as you are.
The idea that the Bible is not meant to be taken completely literal is really quite irksome. Imagine if God were to say, "Hey, here's my book. It describes how you should live your life, but I decided it would be fun to leave a lot of what's written down up for interpretation." This idea really takes the cake for me. There is no reason why an omniscient and omnipotent being should have to rely on cryptically worded passages to get His point across.
I suspect there are two underlying reasons as to why moderate Christians do not like to take the whole Bible literally. One, it becomes quite clear how dated the Bible is when one reads every word literally. Two, the moderate Christian doesn't want to by lumped in with fundamentalists.
The Bible makes for a poor history book. Let's take the well-known exodus story as an example. There is no archeological evidence of this event ever happening and ancient Egypt is completely silent on the matter. Granted, ancient Egypt had a reputation for trying to cover up embarrassing events, but the reason we know this is, of course, because they failed to dispose of all the information.
So think about this for a second. The Egyptians took extra special care to eliminate all accounts of the exodus story from their perspective, but apparently failed to be so diligent with the cover up of the reign of Akhenaten. This pharaoh is infamous for trying to flip the Egyptian cosmology upside down by establishing an official monotheistic religion. This act displaced and angered the influential Egyptian clergy, who took a strong interest in reversing Akhenaten's religious legislation soon after his death. Surely this cover up would be just as, if not more important, than the cover up of the exodus.
---------
John M. Stegeman January 31 at 8:31am
Try playing devil's advocate with yourself for a moment and suppose that the God we've been talking about exists. Wouldn't that God have free reign?
Next I don't think the Bible is a flat earth book. Yes it uses imagery (corners of the earth etc) but it does not say at any point I am aware of, "Also my children, know the Earth is flat."
The Bible was written for all time but it was written in it's time. Makes sense they use that imagery even with God's inspiration.
You seem to want God to have written the Bible himself as a technical manual that requires no more understanding than a book of instructions for putting a lamp together.
God is not likely evil and yes I answer the thing you mention by saying he is God, and as he explains in Job ""Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand."
It's not intellectually satisfying to not know everything. But that's the key of faith. If you "know" beyond doubt of something, that isn't faith.
Next,
God does want the skeptics too but by your logic he should just show up in the sky and say "Hi everyone, I'm God."
For his reasons he doesn't. The key element is that we come to him without that. Blessed are those who do not see and still believe.
The Bible and the faith require open minds, open heart, the willingness to believe etc. The Bible says we must be like a child at times in belief.
Reason is key and with it one can come to a better understanding of faith and the universe God made. But Reason cannot be your God. We cannot subject the immensity of God completely to our own ways and thoughts no matter how much we want too because it makes more sense that way.
So is there a reason for cryptic passages? I say yes. I say the reason is that faith is a good in itself. That God finds faith key. The message, the truth, all that is in there. But he doesn't hand it to us like that. He wants us to believe.
I didn't go into detail about the Church but it did condemn slavery (Albeit it was like 1840ish). The Church has guided the beliefs of billions by dedicating itself completely to the messages in the Bible and to God. 2000 straight years of study and understanding of the Bible including the oldest surviving copies of scripture.
I said the Bible is part history. It is not a complete and accurate history book. The Bible is true, but some things that may be presented as fact may be parables, I don't know for sure.
Maybe exodus is a parable, maybe the records were lost (less likely I know). Does it matter?
I believe that the first man and woman committed the original sin and that the relevant parts of that story are true. Was there a talking snake and was God controlling things like we do when playing the Sims? I don't think so. I believe in evolution. God created all things in due time and in Genesis this is explained, though not to the like of skeptics I suppose.
For you or any other skeptic, at some point you have to let down the guard in your mind that says if I don't understand it, it A: Cannot be true or B: Can be explained in a way I can understand eventually.
I just don't think God works that way.
----------
Matt Kilmer February 3 at 2:35am Report
Now don't think I've given up just because I haven't left a response in awhile. I have either been too busy or too tired to give a detailed response. Don't worry, our game of infinite regress shall continue shortly.
---------
John M. Stegeman February 3 at 8:00am
lol ok
-----
Matt Kilmer February 4 at 4:27am Report
Any god who fails to follow his own commandment has free reign to do as he pleases. God tells his people not to murder and yet personally undertakes the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, killing untold thousands. God also kills innocent children. I'm sure I needn't remind you of the tenth plague of Egypt?
God is suppose to be an unshakable, objective source of morality. Theists arguing against secularists are keen on bringing this up. Still, how can the theist say that God provides objective morality when He is allowed to break the rules? The Biblical God becomes an unreliable source of morality when it becomes clear that he can alter the rules as He sees fit to do so.
Why didn't you say the Bible isn't a geocentric book? You were quick to attack the flat earth proposal, but why so silent on the other? Anyway, this is why it would have been an infinitely smarter idea for God's book to have been a technical manual. I could quote scripture that seems to clearly suggest a flat earth and a geocentric universe, but all you'd have to say is, "nope, I disagree. The Bible's just not suppose to be taken literally here."
"The Bible was written for all time but it was written in it's time. Makes sense they use that imagery even with God's inspiration."
Let me respond to this. If God wanted His book to be timeless, then he should have incorporated timeless properties. I ask you again. Is it at all conceivable that some vast, eternal plan could have been ruined if God had informed his scribes about heliocentrism, or the true shape of the earth? It would have increased the credibility of the Bible while robbing little from the faith needed to believe some of its more wilder claims. All this really shows is that God is not particularly concerned with making sure factual information finds its way into the Bible. Which, of course, only increases skepticism.
Let me ask you another question. Some people claim that God and Jesus have talked to them, or have even appeared in front of them. Do you believe these people? You like to drone on about how important faith is, but direct revelation would rob these people of their need for faith, right? However, this would be the best way to convince skeptics. God doesn't need to appear in the sky for all to behold, but he could visit the people who wish to know him. If Jesus were to appear to me and say, "Hey, it's all true," and if I could determine that I was of sound mind when this event happened, then I would become a Christian in a heartbeat.
Here is what I believe, John. God is suppose to be the ultimate mind in the universe. Therefore, God should be a being of pure, unadulterated logic. The Bible fails on multiple occasions to show signs of being orchestrated by such a being. This is by virtue of the fact that myself and other skeptics can find issues with the Bible that truly seem to be counter-intuitive to simple logic. And if we can spot it, than the ultimate mind can do so too.
---------
John M. Stegeman February 4 at 8:04am
It seems your argument is this: God didn't give us all knowledge at once in the Bible, therefore the Bible is flawed as a means of understanding God's will.
Before I attempt to proceed, let me know if I'm right.
----------
Matt Kilmer February 5 at 1:37am Report
Well, I am a bit confused by how you've worded your statement. Do you mean because God didn't give every human personal knowledge of the validity of the Bible, or because God fails to reveal all necessary information at once...and also fails to show concern for factual information?
There is no more reason to believe in the Bible than to believe in the Koran. The Bible is a book of legends, folklore, myths...and sometimes poetry...meant to provide orientation for primitive societies. It is one of our first attempts at cosmogony, cosmology, codifying morality, and literature. The Bible is important in this regard. The books of the Old and New Testament are historically significant in that they show us how far we've come in our understanding of the universe and ourselves. However, there is no more sense in believing that Jesus brought people back from the dead than there is to believe Dionysus retrieved his dead human mother from the depths of Hades.
I am open to the idea of a God. I believe the cosmological and teleological arguments are rational reasons for positing the existence of an intelligent designer (the ontological argument is interesting but unconvincing, and can result in logical issues if taken too far). However, while I support deism, theism is nothing more than a jump in the dark. Yes, it is sensible to assume that an intelligent designer would create us with a purpose in mind, but this does not guarantee that we have been made aware of said purpose - if there actually was meant to be one in the first place. You know, the Bible doesn't really explain the meaning of our existence either (Why are we here? To serve God. Why do we here to serve God? So we can go to Heaven. But what was the point in doing all this, anyway? I don't know. Maybe we'll find out after we're dead).
Now, let's attempt to examine the nature of God, shall we? A 3-O God is perfect in all ways it logically can be. That means it should remain one-hundred percent consistent, as there is no reason why a being with perfect knowledge should have to deviate from the correct path. Naturally, this means God should be a moral absolutist.
So, if the Biblical God is the real God, then when He says murder is wrong, He is making a statement that is wrong zero percent of the time. Nevertheless, the Biblical God is seen going against His own morally absolute commandment when he personally kills people.
When humans commit murder they have one of two options. They can either come up with excuses for why the murder was justifiable (attempting to dehumanize the victim has been a popular one throughout history), or they can accept that they committed a heinous act.
When God commits murder He is performing an act that is contradictory to his perfect knowledge. He fails to remain consistent and starts acting like a human being.
It's issues like this, along with a plethora of others, that make me question the validity of the Bible.
-----------
John M. Stegeman February 7 at 1:00pm
I mean that you seem to have wanted God to hand us everything we need to know, remove the need for discernment at all and write the bible as a technical manual.
There is no truly reasonable reason to believe the bible over the koran, that is partly true. But we can read it, think about it and if we have faith, we can affirm at least to ourselves that it is True even if not all of it's events are historically accurate.
As for theism and specifically religion, I got nothing. You're right in a sense that it is a shot in the dark. But once one believes in God, we then have our minds and the belief in a higher power. From there, we can consider things from a different approach that I think eventually leads to theism.
No the bible doesn't tell us why we're here except to say that our being here is good. I wish I knew my purpose and the point of all things, but maybe not all knowledge is for us to know.
This next bit is where you go wrong....sort of.
"Now, let's attempt to examine the nature of God, shall we? A 3-O God is perfect in all ways it logically can be. That means it should remain one-hundred percent consistent, as there is no reason why a being with perfect knowledge should have to deviate from the correct path. Naturally, this means God should be a moral absolutist. "
We cannot conceive of God's power if he is truly omnipotent. The very ideas of right and wrong and morality are as he deems them.
I know this argument isn't intellectually satisfying, but by virtue of God's doing something, it is just.
A 3-O God is perfect in all ways it logically can be. Yes. That means however that his creation is subject to his perfection, not the other way around.
God made the rules for us, who is to say those rules should apply to him?
God- "Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself?"
much later
"“I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted. You (God) asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’ Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know." - Job
I think the Bible explains this one in this book. We cannot hold God to what we can completely conceive, we are too far below him.
--------------
Matt Kilmer February 10 at 2:38am Report
"There is no truly reasonable reason to believe the bible over the koran, that is partly true. But we can read it, think about it and if we have faith, we can affirm at least to ourselves that it is True even if not all of it's events are historically accurate."
So, am I to assume that you've thoroughly examined every other religion, but the only one that makes you feel all warm and cuddly (or whatever faiths feels like) is Christianity? I take it that you've experimented with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, Zoroastrianism, Manicheanism, Mormonism, Scientology (the perfect example that a religion can be founded on pure fiction, and people will still believe in it), and a slew of other religious faiths?
Wait, what? You haven't tried this? Well then, why are you so quick to place your faith in Christianity? What if you were to read the Koran, think about it, and end up realizing that it gives you an even stronger warm and cuddly feeling than the Bible? Or even worse, what if reading the Koran gave you the EXACT SAME feeling as the Bible?
Another thought: What does it say about faith when a person converts to a different sect or religion? Doesn't this further demonstrate the flimsy nature of faith?
I knew you would counter my omniscience claim with the, "God's actions are Just through the virtue of the fact that He performed them," argument (I knew you would do this because I am omniscient. For example, I know you are reading these words on a computer screen...RIGHT NOW. Scary isn't it?). Since I knew how you would respond it should be obvious that I hold some weight to my claim being valid. So, let's go over it again.
Yes, there are a lot of aspects about God's omniscience I would not be able to understand. Nevertheless, the claim I am making is far from egregious.
A) Omniscience means all-knowing.
B) God is omniscient.
Therefore,
C) God knows the correct moral path to live.
Therefore,
D) If YHWH is the real God, than when He sends a commandment saying, "Thou shall not commit murder," this is a moral absolute. Otherwise, there would need to be stipulations in this commandment - "Thou shall not commit murder unless X, Y, or Z happens."
"God made the rules for us, who is to say those rules should apply to him?"
I'm afraid the rules must apply to God in this case or else it would demonstrate that God's knowledge is imperfect. Let's examine my claim further.
Even if we forgo the fact that YHWH commits murder, we cannot ignore that YHWH tells the Hebrews to kill people. Now, I want you to really give this point some thought. YHWH wrote on a tablet one very simple moral absolute. It cannot be wrong, otherwise, YHWH's knowledge of morality is imperfect. Nevertheless, YHWH is depicted contradicting his own commandment on multiple occasions. So we start off with, "It is never alright to murder," and end up with, "It is alright to murder sometimes." God CANNOT order both. It means that his knowledge of morality is flawed.
---------
John M. Stegeman February 10 at 7:53am
No. You are wrong. God is not unknowing. We cannot decide who lives and who dies and so we are not to murder. God, who knows these things, can choose to use those he chooses as an instrument for his will. In that case, it's OK.
God is so far above all this discussion it's almost moot. If he commands someone to behead me tomorrow because I know of him and still often sin, that would be a just action because he said so.
Did I consider all the world religions? Of course not. When you're looking for your keys and you find them you don't keep looking.
An imperfect analogy I know. I gave the issue some thought and once I believed myself that God existed by the tenants of the Christian/Catholic faith, I believed that to be the faith of Him.
I did however look hard into other forms of Christianity before staying Catholic.
-------------
Matt Kilmer February 11 at 2:55am Report
This is not a moot point. This is actually a very important point. Are you familiar with the Euthyphro Dilemma? It is a very old (and still ongoing) debate about the nature of the relationship between morality and God. The Euthyphro Dilemma asks: Is something good because God commands it, or is goodness commanded by God because it is morally good?
I see the two of us as taking opposing sides to this question. You the former and I the latter. I used to assume the former would necessarily be true for a 3-O deity, but I have since become more critical of this stance.
The Divine Command Theory (this is what the former stance is usually called) has its own set of problems. First of all, I hope you realize that morality fails to be objective when it is dependent upon the arbitrary whims of God.
What is morality? Under the Divine Command Theory it becomes "might is right." It can be moral to not murder anyone one minute and suddenly moral to slaughter Canaanites the next.
Understand that I certainly am not the originator of this idea. Some of the greatest philosophic minds throughout history have given a significant amount of credence to this problem.
Speaking of things that are arbitrary, your belief in Christianity is unfounded. The only reason I see for you to choose Christianity is because you were raised in an environment surrounded by the doctrine. If you were born and raised in Baghdad, and applied the exact same scrutiny you used to affirm your belief in Christianity, than I'd imagine that as an Iraqi you would be a Muslim.
There exist a plethora of different belief systems throughout the world. Why were you so quick to place your chips on Christianity? Why did you just decide to stick with the religion you were most familiar with? Sure, maybe Christianity gives you some sort of warm and fuzzy feeling, but how can you be sure that no other religion wouldn't be able to accomplish the same thing (or instill yet an even greater warm and fuzzy feeling within your bosom)?
-----------
John M. Stegeman February 11 at 8:03am
I don't think it's a might makes right situation. I think it's God's omnibenevolence that makes right. God's goodness defines goodness.
My belief in Christianity is not unfounded, it is unexplainable to others. I believe from personal experience. I have felt God's presence in the mass and in the Eucharist. I trust my senses on this but obviously do not require anyone to believe me.
------------
Matt Kilmer February 12 at 2:16am Report
How can we know that God is good if there is no objective morality to judge him by?
Doesn't it bother you to have no idea as to what other religions could offer you?
Imagine this scenario: You have never tried pie before. You have a whole table covered with different kinds of pies from all over the world. You eat the pie closest to where you're sitting and say, "Wow, this pie tastes really good! I'm not going to bother trying any of the other pies as I'm sure there is no way they could taste nearly as good as this one."
Maybe you'd also feel God's presence while singing a Hanukkah prayer or beheading a cartoonist for drawing a picture of Muhammad? You never gave any other religion an unbiased chance, so how can you be so sure that this feeling you have for Christianity is mutually exclusive?
---------------
John M. Stegeman February 14 at 6:53am
Before faith, I am not sure there is a reasonable way to know God is good.
Moreover, it is not for us to judge God. God is not subject to our ways, we are his subjects.
It doesn't bother me about other religions. I believe a personal relationship and "feeling" of God is possible in any religion that is close to the truth. I believe Christianity, specifically the Church, is the true faith of God because I believe it and salvation occurs in procedure through the Church from God. With trust in God's mercy however, I don't believe this means everyone else goes to hell.
I think we've reached the point where all I can say is it is a leap of faith.
Also, I do like pie. Sweet yummy pie.
------------
John M. Stegeman February 14 at 6:56am
Also I just finished the Chronicles of Narnia and came across an interesting quote.
A bunch of dwarves get mad about religion and kings etc and decide to only look out for other dwarves. They end up in a stable that to everyone else is a beautiful land inside, but they can't see it.
One of the kids asks Aslan to help the dwarves see. He gives them a couple miracles even but they are unable to see even those.
“You see,” said Aslan. “They will not let us help them. They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their own minds yet they are in that prison; and so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out.”
I do not think you are afraid of anything here, but I'm just using CS Lewis to reinforce my point that belief eventually becomes just belief.
Maybe one day a perfectly ordered mind will be able to draw a line from nothing, to theism, to catholicism, but at this time I don't know if it can be done.
The Last Battle Quotes
www.quotesquotations.com
by Clive Staples Lewis (1956) You will go to your death, then, said Jewel. Do you think I care if Aslan doomes me to death? said the King. That would
---------------
Matt Kilmer February 17 at 2:07am Report
"Moreover, it is not for us to judge God. God is not subject to our ways, we are his subjects."
Of course we can judge God. You judge God. You have taken the meager evidence presented before you and judged in favor of the Judaic-Christian God's existence and benevolence.
"It doesn't bother me about other religions. I believe a personal relationship and "feeling" of God is possible in any religion that is close to the truth. I believe Christianity, specifically the Church, is the true faith of God because I believe it and salvation occurs in procedure through the Church from God. With trust in God's mercy however, I don't believe this means everyone else goes to hell."
I love your little fail-safe there. Of course you don't need to bother practicing other religions! They must all have a little bit of truth to them. Well, at least the more popular ones, right? Luckily, you, your parents, your grandparents, your great-grandparents, ad infinitum, just so happened to choose THE most true religion. Therefore, it should be comparatively a lot easier for someone believing in Christ to achieve salvation, correct? Nevermind that you are no more justified in believing this than a Muslim is in believing his religion is THE most true.
You are right, it is a leap of faith. A very blind leap of faith that's determined more by our environment than by any semblance of reason.
"Maybe one day a perfectly ordered mind will be able to draw a line from nothing, to theism, to catholicism, but at this time I don't know if it can be done."
What if a perfectly ordered mind were to draw a line from nothing, to theism, to Islam? Or what if a perfectly ordered mind were to draw a line from nothing to a whole universe, which some physicists seem to be eerily close to achieving?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009
www.youtube.com
Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe, how it will end, and how it could have come from nothing. Krauss is the author of many bestselling books on Physics and Cosmology, including "The Physics of Star Trek." Books by Lawrence Krauss: http://www.amazon.com/Lawrence-
----------------
John M. Stegeman February 17 at 7:52am
We do make a judgement of our own understanding that leads us to God, if you want to call that judging God, ok.
I believe that all religions that were founded out of a genuine desire to understand the world have a grain of truth and I believe this is because we are somewhat wired to be able to recognize God's existence. This exempts Scientology but not say ancient druidism.
That said, yes I'm very happy for the convenience of having been born into a family that chose the right one. It is convenient, and that's a good thing if you ask me.
Last I don't believe that a perfectly ordered mind would end up with islam. THat's just on faith that I believe that. It would end up at the truth, which I believe is the catholic church.
---------------
Matt Kilmer February 18 at 3:07am Report
I am truly frightened. I am both disturbed and frightened.
John, you are one of the smartest persons I know on a personal level. Nonetheless, your nearly unshakable devotion to your blind faith is unsettling. If this is what can happen to an intelligent person, than it only makes faith placed in the hands of a stupid person seem all the more terrifying.
Look, honestly, faith doesn't bother me too much. Yes, it does bug me that the faithful willfully suspend reason to hold on to their beliefs, but all humans must rely on faith to some degree. For example, I have faith my brain and mind are inside my head as opposed to being in a vat located at a scientist's lab. I have faith everyone I interact with are real people with thoughts and emotions not unlike my own. Some philosophical dilemmas have to be ignored in order to function properly in society. So, and though it may be a far more significant stretch of faith, if you want to believe God decided to incarnate himself as a human and go on a suicide mission just to say, "I forgive you," - sure, why not?
The problem I have is when theists try to force their beliefs onto other people. Now, I am truly lucky to live in a country like the United States. I don't have to worry about being publicly stoned to death for not proclaiming my devotion to whatever God happens to be the God of popular opinion at the time. Nevertheless, a person's religious faith has no place in public policy.
Remember, the theist is making a big claim when he says he knows how other people should live their lives. Such an extraordinary claim deserves extraordinary evidence....but there isn't any.
-------------
John M. Stegeman February 18 at 7:49am
I really don't disagree with any of that. It is scary. Spooky even. It's tough to believe in the things I do with the knowledge that I can't prove it.
I wish I could.
And I don't like theists trying to force their beliefs either. I believe that any true conversion can only come from the inside of a person and not external forces so making laws to legislate morality don't, in the metaphysical sense, do anyone any good.
Hence the only moral issue I advocate for on legislative grounds is abortion which I think is not only murder but a social problem.
I don't support gay marraige but I don't think it harms society per se. Hell I don't support divorce or adultery but both of those are legal too and in a secular society they should be.
Those theists like myself that want to convert others need to do it by leading Christian lives, making others see that "hey those folks are ok, maybe there's something to all that God talk." We use charity outreach and try to create a welcoming atmosphere in parishes and we need to be knowledgeable and available to answer questions so people can make the decision on their own. That's how you make a conversion "count."
It is a HUGE claim for me to say I know the truth. Sure is. I can make it even scarier by saying I don't understand it all and I still believe it.
I don't know what the answer is for how to balance faith and existence in the secular world. But I think that's another reason I like Christianity, it makes more sense. We don't stone, we love. If you love your neighbor as we're supposed to, it's a bit tougher to go the forced conversion route.
--------
Matt Kilmer February 18 at 12:12pm Report
Well, I think this is the point of the debate where we take questions from the audience?
Friday, February 18, 2011
A coming attraction
My friend Matt Kilmer and I have been having a discussion on facebook for the last month and a half or so about God and since we've reached a natural stopping point, we're planning on releasing the text for public consumption.
With plans to release it in full soon either via email to those interested or by posting it on here, here are some highlights.
First message from Matt
"I have a few questions about your favorite little booky-wooky (The Bible) that have been weighing on my mind lately. I just wanted to see what kind of answers you would give."
Matt
"Tell me, John! Why does YHWH approve of slavery?"
Matt Kilmer January 19 at 12:27am Report
Balls nasty. You just want me to call in the hopes that I'll ask you out on a date.
John M. Stegeman January 19 at 7:47am
So what if I do? You're a beautiful man with curly locks.
Matt Kilmer January 27 at 1:35am Report
Sidestepping the typical argument of omniscience equaling predestination, let's examine how the Judaic-Christian God allows for our free will to be denied to us. Since we've determined that God is not anti-slavery, and since hereditary slavery is ok in his book, it should logically follow that God has no qualms with people being born denied of the freedom to choose their own path.
John M. Stegeman January 27 at 7:47am
First, God's omnipotence allows him to have prevented anything bad from ever happening. He could have created a humanity that wouldn't fall from grace but in his wisdom he created us instead. I cannot answer why.
Matt Kilmer January 28 at 3:01am Report
Being born a slave is a far more egregious offense than being born in the slums of Detroit.
John M. Stegeman January 28 at 7:59am
First to start with the end of your post. I didn't say it was a test, you did. I said the goal is salvation. I believe that those that die before the age of reason and are baptized go to heaven. As for the unbaptized I trust in hope of God's mercy that they do as well but I don't know.
God didn't create a fair world, he created this one. Unless the three O God doesn't exist, then we must assume this is the best of all possible worlds.
Matt Kilmer February 4 at 4:27am Report
Any god who fails to follow his own commandment has free reign to do as he pleases. God tells his people not to murder and yet personally undertakes the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, killing untold thousands. God also kills innocent children. I'm sure I needn't remind you of the tenth plague of Egypt?
John M. Stegeman February 7 at 1:00pm
I mean that you seem to have wanted God to hand us everything we need to know, remove the need for discernment at all and write the bible as a technical manual.
John M. Stegeman February 11 at 8:03am
I don't think it's a might makes right situation. I think it's God's omnibenevolence that makes right. God's goodness defines goodness.
Matt Kilmer February 18 at 3:07am Report
I am truly frightened. I am both disturbed and frightened.
This is just a tiny tiny glimpse of the ultra large 5,000+ word conversation that is to come.
Get ready for some in depth stuff.
With plans to release it in full soon either via email to those interested or by posting it on here, here are some highlights.
First message from Matt
"I have a few questions about your favorite little booky-wooky (The Bible) that have been weighing on my mind lately. I just wanted to see what kind of answers you would give."
Matt
"Tell me, John! Why does YHWH approve of slavery?"
Matt Kilmer January 19 at 12:27am Report
Balls nasty. You just want me to call in the hopes that I'll ask you out on a date.
John M. Stegeman January 19 at 7:47am
So what if I do? You're a beautiful man with curly locks.
Matt Kilmer January 27 at 1:35am Report
Sidestepping the typical argument of omniscience equaling predestination, let's examine how the Judaic-Christian God allows for our free will to be denied to us. Since we've determined that God is not anti-slavery, and since hereditary slavery is ok in his book, it should logically follow that God has no qualms with people being born denied of the freedom to choose their own path.
John M. Stegeman January 27 at 7:47am
First, God's omnipotence allows him to have prevented anything bad from ever happening. He could have created a humanity that wouldn't fall from grace but in his wisdom he created us instead. I cannot answer why.
Matt Kilmer January 28 at 3:01am Report
Being born a slave is a far more egregious offense than being born in the slums of Detroit.
John M. Stegeman January 28 at 7:59am
First to start with the end of your post. I didn't say it was a test, you did. I said the goal is salvation. I believe that those that die before the age of reason and are baptized go to heaven. As for the unbaptized I trust in hope of God's mercy that they do as well but I don't know.
God didn't create a fair world, he created this one. Unless the three O God doesn't exist, then we must assume this is the best of all possible worlds.
Matt Kilmer February 4 at 4:27am Report
Any god who fails to follow his own commandment has free reign to do as he pleases. God tells his people not to murder and yet personally undertakes the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, killing untold thousands. God also kills innocent children. I'm sure I needn't remind you of the tenth plague of Egypt?
John M. Stegeman February 7 at 1:00pm
I mean that you seem to have wanted God to hand us everything we need to know, remove the need for discernment at all and write the bible as a technical manual.
John M. Stegeman February 11 at 8:03am
I don't think it's a might makes right situation. I think it's God's omnibenevolence that makes right. God's goodness defines goodness.
Matt Kilmer February 18 at 3:07am Report
I am truly frightened. I am both disturbed and frightened.
This is just a tiny tiny glimpse of the ultra large 5,000+ word conversation that is to come.
Get ready for some in depth stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)