Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Creator evil by default?

RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 6:02:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
From time to time I see references to Yahweh being evil, being guilty of infanticide, genocide, etc. These claims of course are based on what they read from the Old Testament. These claims may come from a theist, deist, or atheist. But as far as the existence of a creator/intelligent designer of the universe, even a strong atheist will usually only refer to the possibility of an intelligent designer as being unlikely, meaning not entirely impossible.

From the standpoint of a (non-Christian) theist, deist, or atheist, wouldn't an intelligent designer have to be evil? Death, including unnatural caused still exists whether the intelligent designer is personally involved with human affairs or not.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 8:29:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/14/2015 6:02:06 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time I see references to Yahweh being evil, being guilty of infanticide, genocide, etc. These claims of course are based on what they read from the Old Testament. These claims may come from a theist, deist, or atheist. But as far as the existence of a creator/intelligent designer of the universe, even a strong atheist will usually only refer to the possibility of an intelligent designer as being unlikely, meaning not entirely impossible.

From the standpoint of a (non-Christian) theist, deist, or atheist, wouldn't an intelligent designer have to be evil? Death, including unnatural caused still exists whether the intelligent designer is personally involved with human affairs or not.

Perhaps, in order to understand whether or not an intelligent designer is evil, we must first understand it's intent, why were we created? To what purpose?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 9:20:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/14/2015 6:02:06 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time I see references to Yahweh being evil, being guilty of infanticide, genocide, etc. These claims of course are based on what they read from the Old Testament. These claims may come from a theist, deist, or atheist. But as far as the existence of a creator/intelligent designer of the universe, even a strong atheist will usually only refer to the possibility of an intelligent designer as being unlikely, meaning not entirely impossible.

What is evil? But before we even go there ... How could evil be if it wasn't existing in a reality like ours? Can evil be this way if immortal? Don't we create evil?

I read an article about a neurosurgeon that compared his families brains to a sociopaths bc his family had a history of violence. He found out his own brain was exactly the same. Yet, he was good. A family man and doing well in society. Yet, he admitted. If he didn't grow up in a loving family, or just the way he did ... things could have been more violent.

I personally don't have a self destruct button, but i use to be suicidal. Yet, my family is equal to love. All i could think about is my loved ones crying if i ever did anything stupid. This was in my teens, so i was impulsive, but my families love saved me.

So, what is evil? If i grew up any different ... "darker," i wouldn't be here. If the doctor i mentioned above didn't have anything ... he thinks he would have killed. This is an accurate analysis in my opinion. So, who is creating evil? Could it be use? I had another situation were i got beat up by bouncers for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. This event gave me fear later. What if this would have happened to a sociopaths type of mind? I was thinking myself if i ever saw them in a ally i would beat the crap out of them ... what do you think someone with less control would have done for being humiliated? In my opinion, we are pushing people to break. So who is the evil one? Who's fault is it? The person for having a flawed mind, or the people that think their minds are right? Yes, i do know there are some that are just wackos...but in a perfect world ... wouldn't they be easier to spot? Yet, we are not a perfect world. We get enjoyment for putting people down ... making fun of others misery. So again, who's fault is it? How is evil created? What is evil? I imagine to a "god" evil wouldn't even exist. It would just be apart of it. Since it exists, in our reality ... we are responsible. We are responsible to grow. Bc as it stands ... we are primitive.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 11:42:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/14/2015 6:02:06 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From the standpoint of a (non-Christian) theist, deist, or atheist, wouldn't an intelligent designer have to be evil? Death, including unnatural caused still exists whether the intelligent designer is personally involved with human affairs or not.

Roderick, there's a gap most frequently leaped by theists from creation to moral authority, and hence the imperative of worship. I think that leap may be hidden under your reasoning here.

An intelligent creator of the universe is not necessarily responsible for anything that occurs following creation. It may have no interest in the universe created -- or the universe may not even be created intentionally, but as some by-product of some other process. So creation -- intelligent or not -- implies no relationship, interest or even awareness between creator and any part of the object created.

Demonstrably, we live in an amoral universe. By that I mean, the force of gravity does not distinguish between falling apples and plummeting babies; the biosphere is as happy to produce the bacterium for diptheria as acidophilus; and your likelihood of infection depends on where you live, who your parents were, what you eat and what else you've exposed to, but not how you treat your fellow man.

So the universe is incontrovertibly amoral, and likely of limited duration as a habitat, but were it created, that says nothing about the morality of its creator. You need awareness of, understanding of and interest in a subject to have any moral relationship with it at all. And those are all additional assumptions beyond that of mere creation.

I hope that may help.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 11:42:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/14/2015 8:29:30 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/14/2015 6:02:06 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time I see references to Yahweh being evil, being guilty of infanticide, genocide, etc. These claims of course are based on what they read from the Old Testament. These claims may come from a theist, deist, or atheist. But as far as the existence of a creator/intelligent designer of the universe, even a strong atheist will usually only refer to the possibility of an intelligent designer as being unlikely, meaning not entirely impossible.

From the standpoint of a (non-Christian) theist, deist, or atheist, wouldn't an intelligent designer have to be evil? Death, including unnatural caused still exists whether the intelligent designer is personally involved with human affairs or not.

Perhaps, in order to understand whether or not an intelligent designer is evil, we must first understand it's intent, why were we created? To what purpose?
Judging from what we know so far, we have death. Although it's accepted as something natural, is it necessary? Could it have been avoided? If it couldn't be avoided, should the creator have avoided a creation where physical and emotional pain is a by-product?

Of course myself being a Christian, I believe there is a purpose for death, and Yahweh is in fact.....good.

We do seem to be in somewhat of an agreement that intent plays a role in whether or not an intelligent designer is good or evil. From what I gather from your posts, you believe that the Creator represented in the Bible (or particularly the O.T.) is evil. Of course it's not clear that since you believe Yahweh is fictitious, your idea of Yahweh being evil is based on how you interpret scripture in a fictional context, or on broader terms....whether Yahweh exists or not.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 11:47:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/14/2015 9:20:25 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 6/14/2015 6:02:06 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time I see references to Yahweh being evil, being guilty of infanticide, genocide, etc. These claims of course are based on what they read from the Old Testament. These claims may come from a theist, deist, or atheist. But as far as the existence of a creator/intelligent designer of the universe, even a strong atheist will usually only refer to the possibility of an intelligent designer as being unlikely, meaning not entirely impossible.

What is evil? But before we even go there ... How could evil be if it wasn't existing in a reality like ours? Can evil be this way if immortal? Don't we create evil?

I read an article about a neurosurgeon that compared his families brains to a sociopaths bc his family had a history of violence. He found out his own brain was exactly the same. Yet, he was good. A family man and doing well in society. Yet, he admitted. If he didn't grow up in a loving family, or just the way he did ... things could have been more violent.

I personally don't have a self destruct button, but i use to be suicidal. Yet, my family is equal to love. All i could think about is my loved ones crying if i ever did anything stupid. This was in my teens, so i was impulsive, but my families love saved me.

So, what is evil? If i grew up any different ... "darker," i wouldn't be here. If the doctor i mentioned above didn't have anything ... he thinks he would have killed. This is an accurate analysis in my opinion. So, who is creating evil? Could it be use? I had another situation were i got beat up by bouncers for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. This event gave me fear later. What if this would have happened to a sociopaths type of mind? I was thinking myself if i ever saw them in a ally i would beat the crap out of them ... what do you think someone with less control would have done for being humiliated? In my opinion, we are pushing people to break. So who is the evil one? Who's fault is it? The person for having a flawed mind, or the people that think their minds are right? Yes, i do know there are some that are just wackos...but in a perfect world ... wouldn't they be easier to spot? Yet, we are not a perfect world. We get enjoyment for putting people down ... making fun of others misery. So again, who's fault is it? How is evil created? What is evil? I imagine to a "god" evil wouldn't even exist. It would just be apart of it. Since it exists, in our reality ... we are responsible. We are responsible to grow. Bc as it stands ... we are primitive.
Those are some interesting things to contemplate.

The purpose of the thread however is not so much geared at addressing the question of what is evil? The primary focus is aimed at those who address Yahweh as being evil based on scripture. Although, if you're making the point that we couldn't judge Yahweh as being evil (or if you do consider Yahweh evil), I'd be interested in reading such a point.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 12:02:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/14/2015 11:42:48 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/14/2015 6:02:06 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From the standpoint of a (non-Christian) theist, deist, or atheist, wouldn't an intelligent designer have to be evil? Death, including unnatural caused still exists whether the intelligent designer is personally involved with human affairs or not.

Roderick, there's a gap most frequently leaped by theists from creation to moral authority, and hence the imperative of worship. I think that leap may be hidden under your reasoning here.

An intelligent creator of the universe is not necessarily responsible for anything that occurs following creation. It may have no interest in the universe created -- or the universe may not even be created intentionally, but as some by-product of some other process. So creation -- intelligent or not -- implies no relationship, interest or even awareness between creator and any part of the object created.

Demonstrably, we live in an amoral universe. By that I mean, the force of gravity does not distinguish between falling apples and plummeting babies; the biosphere is as happy to produce the bacterium for diptheria as acidophilus; and your likelihood of infection depends on where you live, who your parents were, what you eat and what else you've exposed to, but not how you treat your fellow man.

So the universe is incontrovertibly amoral, and likely of limited duration as a habitat, but were it created, that says nothing about the morality of its creator. You need awareness of, understanding of and interest in a subject to have any moral relationship with it at all. And those are all additional assumptions beyond that of mere creation.

I hope that may help.
It certainly helps me understand a bit more of your personal view.

Your description of an amoral creator fits the description of the (human) father that was never there. The man who impregnated a number of women, and took no responsibility, leaving the women to parent the child on their own. Could you consider such a man amoral?

The only opt out of a creator being evil by default (under the Yahweh is evil terms) might be your suggestion of not knowing, not being aware of this particular universe's existence. But would that really be an excuse? There are men who are not aware of the existence of their children (impregnating a prostitute for instance), but I don't think their lack of knowledge of how many children they have is any excuse. The creator, who would probably be far more intelligent than the indiscriminate sexually active man, would more likely be aware that they may create by-products that would suffer due to whatever process they engaged in. And it would be pretty unlikely that they wouldn't be aware of it anyway.

I do see these type of answers quite a bit. This science-fictionalization of a computer like amoral creator. The idea of an amoral intelligent designer, uninterested in it's creation. Why should the intelligent designer get a free-pass when you probably wouldn't give it to an irresponsible father?
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 12:24:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Spode..

You asked..

"Although, if you're making the point that we couldn't judge Yahweh as being evil (or if you do consider Yahweh evil), I'd be interested in reading such a point."

I am one of those persons who have continually derided and ridiculed Yahweh--on these threads--for being one of the most loathsome characters in all of literature.

But I am sorry..maybe it is me..I always have a difficult time in comprehending your posts. For example, I read the above question three times and I cannot understand what you are asking? LOL.

And your OP was equally convoluted. No offense..is English your first language? I am just curious.

I am guessing your question is: IF there is a creator god--would it not stand to reason that he is of an Evil nature--like Satan--rather than of an allegedly loving one, such as the fundies claim? (despite the doings of the murderous Yahweh.)

thanks.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 12:42:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 12:24:00 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Spode..

You asked..

"Although, if you're making the point that we couldn't judge Yahweh as being evil (or if you do consider Yahweh evil), I'd be interested in reading such a point."

I am one of those persons who have continually derided and ridiculed Yahweh--on these threads--for being one of the most loathsome characters in all of literature.

But I am sorry..maybe it is me..I always have a difficult time in comprehending your posts. For example, I read the above question three times and I cannot understand what you are asking? LOL.

And your OP was equally convoluted. No offense..is English your first language? I am just curious.

I am guessing your question is: IF there is a creator god--would it not stand to reason that he is of an Evil nature--like Satan--rather than of an allegedly loving one, such as the fundies claim? (despite the doings of the murderous Yahweh.)

thanks.

The question is, if you think Yahweh is evil, guilty of justifying slavery, genocide, infanticide, etc. wouldn't any creator (like the impersonal deistic creator) be evil, or even just as evil?

From what I've gathered from your posts, you believe in some form of a creator. It's not really clear to me in what form since you also claim to be an atheist. Whatever form your idea of a creator is, we still see death, including murder, genocide, natural disasters (that an all powerful being could probably prevent), etc. Your idea of a creator, whatever it is, would still be evil even if this creator-concept you hold may be indifferent as opposed to being directly involved in human affairs like Yahweh. Does that clear things up, or make things more confusing?

And yes, English is my first (and only) language.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 2:50:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 12:02:40 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/14/2015 11:42:48 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Roderick, there's a gap most frequently leaped by theists from creation to moral authority, and hence the imperative of worship. I think that leap may be hidden under your reasoning here.
Your description of an amoral creator fits the description of the (human) father that was never there.

I think casting creation in terms of paternity at all is a cultural bias, Roderick. The kind of fatherhood you're thinking of is that of a chimpanzee: a sexually aggressive, physically dominant male that forbids imitation, awes females and the young, and to which they submit and defer. Such a male if present, is either protective and a provider -- hence benign; or predatory and a threat -- hence malevolent. Thus, if you use chimpanzee parenting as a model for understanding creation, a creator is either good or evil; it cannot be anything else.

But that's not the only kind of parenthood even among primates (consider bonobos for example, where no ape knows its father, but all apes know their kin); it's far from the only kind of parenthood in nature; and there's no reason to suppose that parenthood is the right relationship in the first place -- or that there's any relationship at all. Really, all this argument highlights is the millennia-old, complex and sometimes ugly relationship between Abrahamic monotheism and paternalist fetishism.

I do see these type of answers quite a bit. This science-fictionalization of a computer like amoral creator. The idea of an amoral intelligent designer, uninterested in it's creation. Why should the intelligent designer get a free-pass when you probably wouldn't give it to an irresponsible father?

For myself, I think it unlikely that the universe were created intentionally and intelligently. So to be honest I don't think about creators and paternity when I think about the universe. I don't need to conflate human reproduction and parenting with the universe's existence any more than identifying ostrich reproduction and parenting with the moon's existence. But I can observe that however it arose, the universe itself is amoral. That means if we want to produce a workable morality, it has to come from compassion and observation; it has to work with our basic species functions; it must be pragmatic and effective; and it had better run across cultures and traditions.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 4:42:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/14/2015 6:02:06 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time I see references to Yahweh being evil, being guilty of infanticide, genocide, etc. These claims of course are based on what they read from the Old Testament. These claims may come from a theist, deist, or atheist. But as far as the existence of a creator/intelligent designer of the universe, even a strong atheist will usually only refer to the possibility of an intelligent designer as being unlikely, meaning not entirely impossible.

Look at my sig. The universe cannot have a creator.

From the standpoint of a (non-Christian) theist, deist, or atheist, wouldn't an intelligent designer have to be evil? Death, including unnatural caused still exists whether the intelligent designer is personally involved with human affairs or not.

Moral nihilist, so...
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 6:35:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Those are some interesting things to contemplate.

The purpose of the thread however is not so much geared at addressing the question of what is evil? The primary focus is aimed at those who address Yahweh as being evil based on scripture. Although, if you're making the point that we couldn't judge Yahweh as being evil (or if you do consider Yahweh evil), I'd be interested in reading such a point.

Thank you for the kind words. I don't read scripture, but i've been told that i am correct/incorrect (depending on the person) in my views. So, all i can tell you is what i believe to be true and let you decide.

I look at immortality as a source. This source is an unbound/intelligent/creative/self-aware being. My observations are humans, but aren't we wonders? Isn't our imaginations a power? We are all powerful.

So where did it start? I have two different theories ... one is multiple gods and one is a starting point, from one god (source). If this source became to be, i imagine it evolved to what it is. So, let's say the first source was Yahweh. When it first was, it created worlds eventually to travel (or whatever an immortal does). Then, lets say Yahweh created its first angel. How many wonderful things would it have learned from being social? The extra emotions to purely entertainment. So, i think we have evolved (spiritually) to this point. Yet, i think Yahweh is misunderstood. This single source would never want to be one again, it would never want to go back to being a single source. Even if we all became one with it, then what? Yahweh would be trapped in immortality all alone ... this is freighting at this point. Who would want to live immortality all alone, even if it was all.

So, we have a single source creating everything. But, what is being a mortal? Is this a blessing? Have we really considered the implications of being forever? I won't get too into it now, but i think that death is a creation by a source to be able to escape immortality. So, what does this have to do with the first source, Yahweh. Well, i think this person is true. I think this source has created itself ... and many of you are apart of it. The people that are taken by Yahweh's world are apart of this source. You know the rules set by Yahweh to get to this world. So, is Yahweh evil? To its observers it is not. How can it be? The ones that subscribe to its world are doing so bc they believe that this is a paradise they want ... to subscribe to the idea, they are doing so with love. Yet, look around you. Not everyone believes in this world. So, is Yahweh evil?

To me, as a more moderate source, i do not think Yahweh is evil. I subscribe to some of the rules and the idea of its paradise. Yet, i would only want it as a ...hmm, vacation. I am the type of source that would be willing to live in a world described by Yahweh: All good, no bad emotions, bliss, love, etc... Why not? It sounds beautiful. Yet, i am also the type of source that would be willing to live in a world that has "evil." Let's say i was in a spiritual state and had the option to choose a type of world to enter. Let's say out of the options there is a world like Lord of the Rings. I would willing choose to go into this world, even though i know that evil is also in it. Does that make me evil? Would a different source that allows evil look at Yahweh as evil? I don't think it would...they would just be different. Maybe disagreements and Yahweh may never want to live in a world that he thinks is "evil," but it is just a disagreement ... Yet, parts of Yahweh live in this world now. So, maybe in the bigger picture ... Yahweh has learned how to slightly accept what we call "evil." Would acceptance of evil make Yahweh evil? In my opinion, no. Yahweh is the source that brings forth the idea of love ... so, in its entirety it is good. Maybe we should wake up and see the wisdom of Yahweh, and find the reason why Yahweh accepted. Like i said before, what is evil? I think Yahweh understands this; thus, Yahweh and its sources are living with us now.

When it comes to me, and i am sure others ... we are different than your Yahweh ... But, do you really think immortals would have quarrels? Do you really think Yahweh cares if i am different? Would it matter to this source if another source wanted a heaven like Valhalla? Or would you not think that it accepts differences? Furthermore, learned from differences... I think many paradises exist. It is all up to the observer.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2015 6:58:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 12:42:26 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:24:00 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Spode..

You asked..

"Although, if you're making the point that we couldn't judge Yahweh as being evil (or if you do consider Yahweh evil), I'd be interested in reading such a point."

I am one of those persons who have continually derided and ridiculed Yahweh--on these threads--for being one of the most loathsome characters in all of literature.

But I am sorry..maybe it is me..I always have a difficult time in comprehending your posts. For example, I read the above question three times and I cannot understand what you are asking? LOL.

And your OP was equally convoluted. No offense..is English your first language? I am just curious.

I am guessing your question is: IF there is a creator god--would it not stand to reason that he is of an Evil nature--like Satan--rather than of an allegedly loving one, such as the fundies claim? (despite the doings of the murderous Yahweh.)

thanks.

The question is, if you think Yahweh is evil, guilty of justifying slavery, genocide, infanticide, etc. wouldn't any creator (like the impersonal deistic creator) be evil, or even just as evil?

From what I've gathered from your posts, you believe in some form of a creator. It's not really clear to me in what form since you also claim to be an atheist. Whatever form your idea of a creator is, we still see death, including murder, genocide, natural disasters (that an all powerful being could probably prevent), etc. Your idea of a creator, whatever it is, would still be evil even if this creator-concept you hold may be indifferent as opposed to being directly involved in human affairs like Yahweh. Does that clear things up, or make things more confusing?

And yes, English is my first (and only) language.

Thank you.

My personal take in the whole god thing is that I really doubt there is one. And if there is--I would give this maybe a 10% chance--it is a Deist god. Not even a god, per se, but an impersonal and non-caring but rather a Prime Mover. An Overarching Creative Force of the Universe--an Omniscient Intelligence that set the ball rolling and perhaps even helped Evolution along, but does not intervene into personal affairs.

Noting like a Theist God, however. Yahweh is a fictional tyrant, I believe. So is Allah. These guys are why I call myself an Atheist. "Not-theist." But maybe Deist.

I would put the chances at yahweh or allah--as depicted in their respective blood-soaked and absurd holy books--of being real at about one in one-thousand. That looks like this: 0.001% chance or reality.

My Deist force--I won't use the term "god" is, thus, NOT Evil. Nor is it "good." It is above manmade morality. Or man made superstiti.....um...I mean religion. LOL.

thanks.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 11:01:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 2:50:33 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:02:40 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/14/2015 11:42:48 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Roderick, there's a gap most frequently leaped by theists from creation to moral authority, and hence the imperative of worship. I think that leap may be hidden under your reasoning here.
Your description of an amoral creator fits the description of the (human) father that was never there.

I think casting creation in terms of paternity at all is a cultural bias, Roderick. The kind of fatherhood you're thinking of is that of a chimpanzee: a sexually aggressive, physically dominant male that forbids imitation, awes females and the young, and to which they submit and defer. Such a male if present, is either protective and a provider -- hence benign; or predatory and a threat -- hence malevolent. Thus, if you use chimpanzee parenting as a model for understanding creation, a creator is either good or evil; it cannot be anything else.

The kind of father I'm thinking of is not that of a chimpanzee. If you think they are, then you would have no grounds to make any judgment against someone who abandons their children (maybe you don't?).

But that's not the only kind of parenthood even among primates (consider bonobos for example, where no ape knows its father, but all apes know their kin); it's far from the only kind of parenthood in nature; and there's no reason to suppose that parenthood is the right relationship in the first place -- or that there's any relationship at all. Really, all this argument highlights is the millennia-old, complex and sometimes ugly relationship between Abrahamic monotheism and paternalist fetishism.

It doesn't matter. The bonobo children are nurtured, taken care of. It doesn't mean the bonobo children don't have a biological father, just that the means of the children's nurturing is provided by, as you put it, kin.

You're getting far too thrown off by my relating God to paternity. The biological paternal father, like the bonobo kin, is the means of provision and nurturing designed by the Creator. Obviously the Creator is not our biological father.

I know what you're saying. Yes, the animal kingdom's parental relationships differ, so we can't judge their parenting (or absence of parenting) habits in the same way we do with humans. We can't judge their moral judgments the way we do with humans. If a Great White Shark kills a human, we're not going to evaluate their mental condition to judge whether or not it should be executed, or taken to a mental institution.

And I don't recall if you're even one of those who make judgements concerning the morality of Yahweh. I only recollect your stance that you don't believe He exists. If you're making a case that Yahweh, based on scripture is evil, then we would have something to work with.

I do see these type of answers quite a bit. This science-fictionalization of a computer like amoral creator. The idea of an amoral intelligent designer, uninterested in it's creation. Why should the intelligent designer get a free-pass when you probably wouldn't give it to an irresponsible father?

For myself, I think it unlikely that the universe were created intentionally and intelligently. So to be honest I don't think about creators and paternity when I think about the universe. I don't need to conflate human reproduction and parenting with the universe's existence any more than identifying ostrich reproduction and parenting with the moon's existence. But I can observe that however it arose, the universe itself is amoral. That means if we want to produce a workable morality, it has to come from compassion and observation; it has to work with our basic species functions; it must be pragmatic and effective; and it had better run across cultures and traditions.
Believe me, I understand that you don't believe in the existence of an intelligent designer. I understand that the "nature" aspect of the universe is amoral. I understand that if a boulder is rolling down a mountain, and you're in it's way, it's not going to care whether you move out of the way or not.

However, for you, RuvDraba, you would have to think about it in order to give the question justice. You would have to think about the possibility of the existence of an intelligent designer no matter what minute percentage you place on it.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 11:13:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 6:35:32 PM, Outplayz wrote:
Those are some interesting things to contemplate.

The purpose of the thread however is not so much geared at addressing the question of what is evil? The primary focus is aimed at those who address Yahweh as being evil based on scripture. Although, if you're making the point that we couldn't judge Yahweh as being evil (or if you do consider Yahweh evil), I'd be interested in reading such a point.

Thank you for the kind words. I don't read scripture, but i've been told that i am correct/incorrect (depending on the person) in my views. So, all i can tell you is what i believe to be true and let you decide.

I look at immortality as a source. This source is an unbound/intelligent/creative/self-aware being. My observations are humans, but aren't we wonders? Isn't our imaginations a power? We are all powerful.

So where did it start? I have two different theories ... one is multiple gods and one is a starting point, from one god (source). If this source became to be, i imagine it evolved to what it is. So, let's say the first source was Yahweh. When it first was, it created worlds eventually to travel (or whatever an immortal does). Then, lets say Yahweh created its first angel. How many wonderful things would it have learned from being social? The extra emotions to purely entertainment. So, i think we have evolved (spiritually) to this point. Yet, i think Yahweh is misunderstood. This single source would never want to be one again, it would never want to go back to being a single source. Even if we all became one with it, then what? Yahweh would be trapped in immortality all alone ... this is freighting at this point. Who would want to live immortality all alone, even if it was all.

So, we have a single source creating everything. But, what is being a mortal? Is this a blessing? Have we really considered the implications of being forever? I won't get too into it now, but i think that death is a creation by a source to be able to escape immortality. So, what does this have to do with the first source, Yahweh. Well, i think this person is true. I think this source has created itself ... and many of you are apart of it. The people that are taken by Yahweh's world are apart of this source. You know the rules set by Yahweh to get to this world. So, is Yahweh evil? To its observers it is not. How can it be? The ones that subscribe to its world are doing so bc they believe that this is a paradise they want ... to subscribe to the idea, they are doing so with love. Yet, look around you. Not everyone believes in this world. So, is Yahweh evil?

To me, as a more moderate source, i do not think Yahweh is evil. I subscribe to some of the rules and the idea of its paradise. Yet, i would only want it as a ...hmm, vacation. I am the type of source that would be willing to live in a world described by Yahweh: All good, no bad emotions, bliss, love, etc... Why not? It sounds beautiful. Yet, i am also the type of source that would be willing to live in a world that has "evil." Let's say i was in a spiritual state and had the option to choose a type of world to enter. Let's say out of the options there is a world like Lord of the Rings. I would willing choose to go into this world, even though i know that evil is also in it. Does that make me evil? Would a different source that allows evil look at Yahweh as evil? I don't think it would...they would just be different. Maybe disagreements and Yahweh may never want to live in a world that he thinks is "evil," but it is just a disagreement ... Yet, parts of Yahweh live in this world now. So, maybe in the bigger picture ... Yahweh has learned how to slightly accept what we call "evil." Would acceptance of evil make Yahweh evil? In my opinion, no. Yahweh is the source that brings forth the idea of love ... so, in its entirety it is good. Maybe we should wake up and see the wisdom of Yahweh, and find the reason why Yahweh accepted. Like i said before, what is evil? I think Yahweh understands this; thus, Yahweh and its sources are living with us now.

When it comes to me, and i am sure others ... we are different than your Yahweh ... But, do you really think immortals would have quarrels? Do you really think Yahweh cares if i am different? Would it matter to this source if another source wanted a heaven like Valhalla? Or would you not think that it accepts differences? Furthermore, learned from differences... I think many paradises exist. It is all up to the observer.
Thanks for another interesting post. As far as your question about Valhalla, I understand the gist of what you're saying, but because I don't know much about Valhalla, I can't really comment.

One of the key factors concerning Heaven in the Bible, whether it's called Heaven, Paradise, Shambala, or Valhalla, is that it's presented giving heavy emphasis on abiding with God....for eternity. And if that is not an appealing concept, it would probably come across as boring. And that's why I think there are many references to Heaven being boring, a place where one sits on a cloud and plays a harp, or is standing for eternity on a choir podium. There's just not a lot of detail, particularly to fascinate the human senses. That's why I think some other religions that make promises of multiple wives (which means multiple sexual activity), and actually becoming God is so appealing. I don't know how Valhalla is described that might either compel, or repel a potential believer in Norse religion.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 11:20:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/15/2015 6:58:18 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:42:26 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:24:00 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Spode..

You asked..

"Although, if you're making the point that we couldn't judge Yahweh as being evil (or if you do consider Yahweh evil), I'd be interested in reading such a point."

I am one of those persons who have continually derided and ridiculed Yahweh--on these threads--for being one of the most loathsome characters in all of literature.

But I am sorry..maybe it is me..I always have a difficult time in comprehending your posts. For example, I read the above question three times and I cannot understand what you are asking? LOL.

And your OP was equally convoluted. No offense..is English your first language? I am just curious.

I am guessing your question is: IF there is a creator god--would it not stand to reason that he is of an Evil nature--like Satan--rather than of an allegedly loving one, such as the fundies claim? (despite the doings of the murderous Yahweh.)

thanks.

The question is, if you think Yahweh is evil, guilty of justifying slavery, genocide, infanticide, etc. wouldn't any creator (like the impersonal deistic creator) be evil, or even just as evil?

From what I've gathered from your posts, you believe in some form of a creator. It's not really clear to me in what form since you also claim to be an atheist. Whatever form your idea of a creator is, we still see death, including murder, genocide, natural disasters (that an all powerful being could probably prevent), etc. Your idea of a creator, whatever it is, would still be evil even if this creator-concept you hold may be indifferent as opposed to being directly involved in human affairs like Yahweh. Does that clear things up, or make things more confusing?

And yes, English is my first (and only) language.


Thank you.

My personal take in the whole god thing is that I really doubt there is one. And if there is--I would give this maybe a 10% chance--it is a Deist god. Not even a god, per se, but an impersonal and non-caring but rather a Prime Mover. An Overarching Creative Force of the Universe--an Omniscient Intelligence that set the ball rolling and perhaps even helped Evolution along, but does not intervene into personal affairs.

Noting like a Theist God, however. Yahweh is a fictional tyrant, I believe. So is Allah. These guys are why I call myself an Atheist. "Not-theist." But maybe Deist.

I would put the chances at yahweh or allah--as depicted in their respective blood-soaked and absurd holy books--of being real at about one in one-thousand. That looks like this: 0.001% chance or reality.

My Deist force--I won't use the term "god" is, thus, NOT Evil. Nor is it "good." It is above manmade morality. Or man made superstiti.....um...I mean religion. LOL.

thanks.
Why should your deist force be above man made morality? Where was your deist force during the holocaust? Where was your deist force when humans (including women and children) were thrust out to sea by various tsunamis?

Does being indifferent make your intelligent force (it would have to be intelligent) free from being charged as immoral? Hitler seemed pretty indifferent. Mass murderers often seem indifferent (emotionless, void of morality).
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 11:39:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/14/2015 6:02:06 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time I see references to Yahweh being evil, being guilty of infanticide, genocide, etc. These claims of course are based on what they read from the Old Testament. These claims may come from a theist, deist, or atheist. But as far as the existence of a creator/intelligent designer of the universe, even a strong atheist will usually only refer to the possibility of an intelligent designer as being unlikely, meaning not entirely impossible.

From the standpoint of a (non-Christian) theist, deist, or atheist, wouldn't an intelligent designer have to be evil? Death, including unnatural caused still exists whether the intelligent designer is personally involved with human affairs or not.

It seems logical to me that a creator would have both good and bad aspects. Kind of like us.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 12:37:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 11:20:23 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/15/2015 6:58:18 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:42:26 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:24:00 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Spode..

You asked..

"Although, if you're making the point that we couldn't judge Yahweh as being evil (or if you do consider Yahweh evil), I'd be interested in reading such a point."

I am one of those persons who have continually derided and ridiculed Yahweh--on these threads--for being one of the most loathsome characters in all of literature.

But I am sorry..maybe it is me..I always have a difficult time in comprehending your posts. For example, I read the above question three times and I cannot understand what you are asking? LOL.

And your OP was equally convoluted. No offense..is English your first language? I am just curious.

I am guessing your question is: IF there is a creator god--would it not stand to reason that he is of an Evil nature--like Satan--rather than of an allegedly loving one, such as the fundies claim? (despite the doings of the murderous Yahweh.)

thanks.

The question is, if you think Yahweh is evil, guilty of justifying slavery, genocide, infanticide, etc. wouldn't any creator (like the impersonal deistic creator) be evil, or even just as evil?

From what I've gathered from your posts, you believe in some form of a creator. It's not really clear to me in what form since you also claim to be an atheist. Whatever form your idea of a creator is, we still see death, including murder, genocide, natural disasters (that an all powerful being could probably prevent), etc. Your idea of a creator, whatever it is, would still be evil even if this creator-concept you hold may be indifferent as opposed to being directly involved in human affairs like Yahweh. Does that clear things up, or make things more confusing?

And yes, English is my first (and only) language.


Thank you.

My personal take in the whole god thing is that I really doubt there is one. And if there is--I would give this maybe a 10% chance--it is a Deist god. Not even a god, per se, but an impersonal and non-caring but rather a Prime Mover. An Overarching Creative Force of the Universe--an Omniscient Intelligence that set the ball rolling and perhaps even helped Evolution along, but does not intervene into personal affairs.

Noting like a Theist God, however. Yahweh is a fictional tyrant, I believe. So is Allah. These guys are why I call myself an Atheist. "Not-theist." But maybe Deist.

I would put the chances at yahweh or allah--as depicted in their respective blood-soaked and absurd holy books--of being real at about one in one-thousand. That looks like this: 0.001% chance or reality.

My Deist force--I won't use the term "god" is, thus, NOT Evil. Nor is it "good." It is above manmade morality. Or man made superstiti.....um...I mean religion. LOL.

thanks.
Why should your deist force be above man made morality? Where was your deist force during the holocaust? Where was your deist force when humans (including women and children) were thrust out to sea by various tsunamis?

Does being indifferent make your intelligent force (it would have to be intelligent) free from being charged as immoral? Hitler seemed pretty indifferent. Mass murderers often seem indifferent (emotionless, void of morality).

I mean no offense here, I promise.

But I have to ask: I earlier asked you if English was you second language, as I continually have difficulty deciphering your posts.

And now I see it appears you did not listen or understand I thing I said in my previous post. So I have to humbly ask: do you have some sort of cognitive disability? I mean, really. I am curious. It is OK. Let me know. Perhaps a TBI in the past?

OK...so why did you ask me where my Deist Force was during the Holocaust when I clearly explained it was non-personal? Non-caring?And DID NOT intervene in human affairs?

It is above morality because there is NO SUCH THING as an absolute morality. It is man made. It could be different on another planet with another intelligent civilization. Who is to say?

Also be advised **sigh** as I said before....my Deist Force is a huge "maybe" in my book. So I am not here to defend in from the worn-slick and mundane atheist parroting of "why evil?"

Thanks.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 1:47:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 12:37:43 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/16/2015 11:20:23 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/15/2015 6:58:18 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:42:26 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:24:00 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Spode..

You asked..

"Although, if you're making the point that we couldn't judge Yahweh as being evil (or if you do consider Yahweh evil), I'd be interested in reading such a point."

I am one of those persons who have continually derided and ridiculed Yahweh--on these threads--for being one of the most loathsome characters in all of literature.

But I am sorry..maybe it is me..I always have a difficult time in comprehending your posts. For example, I read the above question three times and I cannot understand what you are asking? LOL.

And your OP was equally convoluted. No offense..is English your first language? I am just curious.

I am guessing your question is: IF there is a creator god--would it not stand to reason that he is of an Evil nature--like Satan--rather than of an allegedly loving one, such as the fundies claim? (despite the doings of the murderous Yahweh.)

thanks.

The question is, if you think Yahweh is evil, guilty of justifying slavery, genocide, infanticide, etc. wouldn't any creator (like the impersonal deistic creator) be evil, or even just as evil?

From what I've gathered from your posts, you believe in some form of a creator. It's not really clear to me in what form since you also claim to be an atheist. Whatever form your idea of a creator is, we still see death, including murder, genocide, natural disasters (that an all powerful being could probably prevent), etc. Your idea of a creator, whatever it is, would still be evil even if this creator-concept you hold may be indifferent as opposed to being directly involved in human affairs like Yahweh. Does that clear things up, or make things more confusing?

And yes, English is my first (and only) language.


Thank you.

My personal take in the whole god thing is that I really doubt there is one. And if there is--I would give this maybe a 10% chance--it is a Deist god. Not even a god, per se, but an impersonal and non-caring but rather a Prime Mover. An Overarching Creative Force of the Universe--an Omniscient Intelligence that set the ball rolling and perhaps even helped Evolution along, but does not intervene into personal affairs.

Noting like a Theist God, however. Yahweh is a fictional tyrant, I believe. So is Allah. These guys are why I call myself an Atheist. "Not-theist." But maybe Deist.

I would put the chances at yahweh or allah--as depicted in their respective blood-soaked and absurd holy books--of being real at about one in one-thousand. That looks like this: 0.001% chance or reality.

My Deist force--I won't use the term "god" is, thus, NOT Evil. Nor is it "good." It is above manmade morality. Or man made superstiti.....um...I mean religion. LOL.

thanks.
Why should your deist force be above man made morality? Where was your deist force during the holocaust? Where was your deist force when humans (including women and children) were thrust out to sea by various tsunamis?

Does being indifferent make your intelligent force (it would have to be intelligent) free from being charged as immoral? Hitler seemed pretty indifferent. Mass murderers often seem indifferent (emotionless, void of morality).

I mean no offense here, I promise.

But I have to ask: I earlier asked you if English was you second language, as I continually have difficulty deciphering your posts.

A Freudian slip?
And now I see it appears you did not listen or understand I thing I said in my previous post. So I have to humbly ask: do you have some sort of cognitive disability? I mean, really. I am curious. It is OK. Let me know. Perhaps a TBI in the past?


OK...so why did you ask me where my Deist Force was during the Holocaust when I clearly explained it was non-personal? Non-caring?And DID NOT intervene in human affairs?

It is above morality because there is NO SUCH THING as an absolute morality. It is man made. It could be different on another planet with another intelligent civilization. Who is to say?

Also be advised **sigh** as I said before....my Deist Force is a huge "maybe" in my book. So I am not here to defend in from the worn-slick and mundane atheist parroting of "why evil?"

Thanks.
Your welcome.

Yes, you did ask me if English was me second language. And you also said maybe it is me. I would say that it's about 90% you, as I think from what I've seen, about 90% of your posts are about you. Trying to portray an intellectual, PR for The Church Of Satan, keyboard comic image. And at this point you may as well place "The CoS is grossly misunderstood", "They don't really believe in Satan", "Their 9 Satanic Sins is better than the 10 Commandments", "I dated a Satanist", "She was hot (no pun intended)" in your signature. That would save you some trouble as you've tried to pimp this theme 3 or 4 times...at least!

The 10%, for you, myself, others, I would just attribute to misunderstandings that are inevitable on the internet. If I thought everyone who misunderstood what I said, or posted something I didn't understand (when I'm interested I simply....ask them what they mean) had some sort of cognitive disability, I would think this of a good number of people. But...I think that would be rather arrogant. Far better to understand that people have other things on their mind other than my posts, and may read me wrong, or may not always use correct terminology.

None of this is meant to be of any offense of course.

Now back to the topic.

Yes, I did ask you where was your deistic force when the holocaust occurred. Yes, I know you stated that it was impersonal. The point of the question of the holocaust, and tsunamis are simply meant to further my point regarding the evil nature of an impersonal creator.

Yes, you've just stated that there is no such thing as morality. But if that's the case, why would you claim that Yahweh is immoral? You are claiming that, right (clenching teeth in preparation for another cognitive disability comment)?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 2:42:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 11:01:49 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/15/2015 2:50:33 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:02:40 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/14/2015 11:42:48 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Roderick, there's a gap most frequently leaped by theists from creation to moral authority, and hence the imperative of worship. I think that leap may be hidden under your reasoning here.
Your description of an amoral creator fits the description of the (human) father that was never there.
I think casting creation in terms of paternity at all is a cultural bias, Roderick. The kind of fatherhood you're thinking of is that of a chimpanzee: a sexually aggressive, physically dominant male that forbids imitation, awes females and the young, and to which they submit and defer.
The kind of father I'm thinking of is not that of a chimpanzee.
I think it is, Roderick; it may just be hard to admit.

Anthropologically, human child-raising has a lot of diversity. It varies from culture to culture, and there's no one standard way to do it. But the kind of parenting represented in the Bible -- in the Old Testament patriarchs like Abraham, Noah and Moses, and symbolically in the New Testament too -- is chimpanzee-parenting. It's done just one way, and is pretty much identical to the way chimpanzees do it.

Not to pick on Christianity in particular, since the Bible contains books of more than one faith, but the Old Testament fetishises chimpanzee alpha-masculinity -- a raging, dictatorial brutality representing at once both protective strength and paternalistic compulsion. Chimpanzees are omnivores, but their main use for meat is to trade it for social favours. Even in a range where there's abundant fruit, an alpha male and its supporters will go off and kill a monkey; they'll share its meat with one another, and then trade it to selected females for sex. That's pretty much Biblical morality all over, and it's carried through to the sacrifice in the New Testament. Or as Nietzsche put it:

A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross -- how ghoulishly all this touches us, as if from the tomb of a primeval past!

Blood-cultism, paternalistic fetishism, torture... Cannibalism, unconsentual sex and patriarchal rage. Chimpanzee parenting.

But are chimpanzees moral or immoral, Roderick?

It's complicated. Even in the wild, a well-fed chimp is known to be capable of compassion and altruism. On the other hand, they're also cannibals, rapists and murderers who'll commit genocide for territory.

I suppose that baby chimps can love such murderously paternalistic fathers. In a maddeningly hostile, indifferent world, perhaps having such a brutal dictator on their side makes them feel safe. And when an alpha male chimp murders a baby in casual rage, perhaps the surviving baby chimps feel it was deserved, because Daddy's so wise and powerful, how could it be otherwise? On the other hand, such parenting dictates the kind of individual the baby chimp will grow up to become -- and really, we already know we can do better.

You're getting far too thrown off by my relating God to paternity.
Christians have done that themselves, Roderick. From ancient Israelite to modern Christian, people of Abrahamic faith have insisted that their god is masculine and dominant -- an alpha male primate, with man made in his image. But if Yhwh is a primate, his compassion -- the stuff represented Biblically -- clearly doesn't compare to the best humanity has subsequently produced.

And Christians know this too, because they seldom parent like Yhwh was supposed to have done. God has never parented better than chimps do -- with murderous rages, infant sacrifices and the occasional bouts of grooming -- but Christian parents can do better, and thankfully, do. :)

I don't recall if you're even one of those who make judgements concerning the morality of Yahweh. I only recollect your stance that you don't believe He exists. If you're making a case that Yahweh, based on scripture is evil, then we would have something to work with.

It's complicated, because the God Christians worship today isn't the God worshiped in mediaeval times. Mediaeval God was very much the Chimpfather. He roved the Earth like his own range -- his angels had clouds scud across the sky, dispensed plague and healing in response to human transgressions and atonement.

That's mediaeval God.

But in a post-enlightenment, democratic world, most Christians don't believe in that God any more.

From about the 18th century onward, Christian God has become a sort of supervisory celestial mechanic: setting the universe in motion like a roulette-wheel, watching it like a croupier, but intervening not at all until all the stakes have been laid and the ball has stopped bouncing. Christians are no longer in a personal relationship with their god, because their new God -- the God reshaped by physics, astronomy and medicine -- is poker-faced and silent, exercising zero executive power. So the modern Christian is in a relationship with collective Christian conscience instead, hoping it contains the voice of God but never sure. And in my view, modern Christians turn to theology like a casual Vegas gambler turning to a house How to Bet pamphlet, unsure how it all works, but hoping that if they bet where the pamphlet told them, there'll be no regrets in the morning.

I personally find that you can't have a sensible conversation with most Christians about this, because Christians themselves are now living in two different mythological worlds -- neither of them the world I live in. So if an atheist critiques how poor a moral example is Chimpfather Yhwh, Christians will point to Croupier-Yhwh instead. But talk about how pointless is the moral guidance of Yhwh-the-croupier, and Christians will bust out the Old Testament and talk about the Chimpfather again.

There's no sense to be had from that, and no point trying to unpick cherished inconsistencies in another person's mind. But I can see what's going on, and can only feel compassion for Christians trying to reinterpret Bronze Age mythology from a place and time that has superseded and debunked Bronze Age thought.

I understand that you don't believe in the existence of an intelligent designer.
But even if I did, I'd feel no compulsion to think about design in chimpfather or croupier terms, Roderick. Both ideas seem bizarre to me, and morally unnecessary.

However, for you, RuvDraba, you would have to think about it in order to give the question justice. You would have to think about the possibility of the existence of an intelligent designer no matter what minute percentage you place on it.
It's true that I don't think about that much, because I feel there's no wisdom to be had from it... But I do think about my fellow man an awful lot. With respect to this conversation, I'm very concerned for Christians -- especially at just how helpless they are; and how strained, hollow and intellectually bankrupt has a once-great faith become. It's not mine to say what the answer should be, but the answer cannot be Christianity as it's presently upheld.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2015 6:41:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Roderick.....

Yeah..you're right, amigo. I came across as a tad harsh when I asked you about a cognitive problem. I apologize, as I have read more of your posts and it is obvious you are a bright guy and a pretty good writer. Sometimes. And you are correct in that the ability for effective and lucid communication is always a little curtailed on a mere written forum such as DDO.

So..no hard feelings? Sweet.

Hmm..you pose a good Q when you asked me why I always rant on about the evil ways of Yahweh when I personally feel there are no absolute morals.

I guess I tend to rail against the goodness of Yahweh when I am confronted with fundamentalist christians who worship him and talk about the bible being the model for morality and decency. And I find it ironic and absurd that these guys tell agnostics and atheists like myself that we are going to burn unless we follow his word. The word of a character who I have always found loathsome.

I do believe that we humans should try and be moralistic. It is the glue that holds together a good and civilized society. We Need it. in order to live happy and productive lives.

But that is sociologically speaking. When we begin waxing philosophical, I believe that there really are no "absolutes" in morality. All we know is what we have been taught. Here. On a tiny speck of rock in a ho-mum solar system on the backwater of one out of hundreds of billions of Galaxies.

I am of the belief that the Universe is teeming with Intelligent life. OF all kinds. All these various civilizations with their own moral codes and laws and philosophies as to what constitutes a moral life. Therefore, who are we to say?

Some of our societal mores here on the Third Rock may be oultanddish and evil to another ET civilization. They might for example think that spanking your kid is a crime punishable by death/ Or that killing animals for meat--or worse, for sport--is a grievous and evil act.

Whereas. maybe rape is OK to them. A guy can see a hot woman walking down their street and take her, Right there, because that is what the women are for. Sex toys.
Or maybe in some society in, say the Andromeda Galaxy murder in cold blood is acceptable if the killer can prove in court that he had a good reason.

Maybe children are raised not by one family but get passed around to several--of differing socio-eco conditons, so as to further their education and exposure to different conditions?

Maybe female babies are forced from birth to become servants. Or sex slaves?

Or conversely..they are the High Priestesses that control everything. Females are revered above all and men are enslaved as worker bees. LOL

Why would any of those things I just named be wrong? Or right? Who says?

This is my point.

Back to Satan and yawheh. There are civilizations out there who, if they were familiarized with the dogmas of both of them, would say that they think Satan was the more desirable and fair God for them to worship.

The CoS idolizes individuality. Randian Objectivism. Love, sure, to those who deserve it. They worship nobody---indeed that is one of their Nine Satanic Sins.
To them Satan is a sort of mascot who embodies their exhortation to question authority and bow to nobody and enjoy this life to the fullest--as long as you hurt nobody--because it its the only one we can truly count on. They are hedonists. Epicureans.

It just wears me slick when the fundies wave their blood-soaked book in our faces and claim it the bastion of morality and goodness, when many many parts of it are in fact the exact opposite.

Thank you.

Drew.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 1:03:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 2:42:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/16/2015 11:01:49 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/15/2015 2:50:33 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/15/2015 12:02:40 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/14/2015 11:42:48 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Roderick, there's a gap most frequently leaped by theists from creation to moral authority, and hence the imperative of worship. I think that leap may be hidden under your reasoning here.
Your description of an amoral creator fits the description of the (human) father that was never there.
I think casting creation in terms of paternity at all is a cultural bias, Roderick. The kind of fatherhood you're thinking of is that of a chimpanzee: a sexually aggressive, physically dominant male that forbids imitation, awes females and the young, and to which they submit and defer.
The kind of father I'm thinking of is not that of a chimpanzee.
I think it is, Roderick; it may just be hard to admit.

Anthropologically, human child-raising has a lot of diversity. It varies from culture to culture, and there's no one standard way to do it. But the kind of parenting represented in the Bible -- in the Old Testament patriarchs like Abraham, Noah and Moses, and symbolically in the New Testament too -- is chimpanzee-parenting. It's done just one way, and is pretty much identical to the way chimpanzees do it.

I think you can find similarities between human traditions, practices, individuals and the animal kingdom in many ways. Many of the marriages that took place in the Bible, even among noted men of faith were not model marriages. The Bible doesn't claim them to be model marriages. So the comparison your talking may not be inaccurate. But that's primarily because, again, it's not difficult to compare any human traditions with that of the animal kingdom. Jesus even used analogies comparing humans with members of the animal kingdom (sheep, goats, serpents, dogs, bull, etc.). And as you can see, some of them aren't very flattering.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 1:35:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 2:42:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

I've edited things down a bit.

You're getting far too thrown off by my relating God to paternity.
Christians have done that themselves, Roderick. From ancient Israelite to modern Christian, people of Abrahamic faith have insisted that their god is masculine and dominant -- an alpha male primate, with man made in his image. But if Yhwh is a primate, his compassion -- the stuff represented Biblically -- clearly doesn't compare to the best humanity has subsequently produced.

And Christians know this too, because they seldom parent like Yhwh was supposed to have done. God has never parented better than chimps do -- with murderous rages, infant sacrifices and the occasional bouts of grooming -- but Christian parents can do better, and thankfully, do. :)

I don't recall if you're even one of those who make judgements concerning the morality of Yahweh. I only recollect your stance that you don't believe He exists. If you're making a case that Yahweh, based on scripture is evil, then we would have something to work with.

It's complicated, because the God Christians worship today isn't the God worshiped in mediaeval times. Mediaeval God was very much the Chimpfather. He roved the Earth like his own range -- his angels had clouds scud across the sky, dispensed plague and healing in response to human transgressions and atonement.

That's mediaeval God.

But in a post-enlightenment, democratic world, most Christians don't believe in that God any more.

From about the 18th century onward, Christian God has become a sort of supervisory celestial mechanic: setting the universe in motion like a roulette-wheel, watching it like a croupier, but intervening not at all until all the stakes have been laid and the ball has stopped bouncing. Christians are no longer in a personal relationship with their god, because their new God -- the God reshaped by physics, astronomy and medicine -- is poker-faced and silent, exercising zero executive power. So the modern Christian is in a relationship with collective Christian conscience instead, hoping it contains the voice of God but never sure. And in my view, modern Christians turn to theology like a casual Vegas gambler turning to a house How to Bet pamphlet, unsure how it all works, but hoping that if they bet where the pamphlet told them, there'll be no regrets in the morning.

Using the medieval God may not be the best example for any type of comparison. What is historically evident in medieval history is a dichotomy between the nationalistic theocratic view of God, and the persecuted believers. It wasn't really a whole lot different than communistic religious persecution in that the Bible was actually outlawed reading/ownership for the common man. A good pop-visual art glimpse of this dichotomy can be seen in the movie "The Mission", where the religious system that presents God as White Supremacist is at odds with a missionary in South America who presents God as all-loving, all-inclusive, etc.
I personally find that you can't have a sensible conversation with most Christians about this, because Christians themselves are now living in two different mythological worlds -- neither of them the world I live in. So if an atheist critiques how poor a moral example is Chimpfather Yhwh, Christians will point to Croupier-Yhwh instead. But talk about how pointless is the moral guidance of Yhwh-the-croupier, and Christians will bust out the Old Testament and talk about the Chimpfather again.

There's no sense to be had from that, and no point trying to unpick cherished inconsistencies in another person's mind. But I can see what's going on, and can only feel compassion for Christians trying to reinterpret Bronze Age mythology from a place and time that has superseded and debunked Bronze Age thought.

I understand that you don't believe in the existence of an intelligent designer.
But even if I did, I'd feel no compulsion to think about design in chimpfather or croupier terms, Roderick. Both ideas seem bizarre to me, and morally unnecessary.

However, for you, RuvDraba, you would have to think about it in order to give the question justice. You would have to think about the possibility of the existence of an intelligent designer no matter what minute percentage you place on it.
It's true that I don't think about that much, because I feel there's no wisdom to be had from it... But I do think about my fellow man an awful lot. With respect to this conversation, I'm very concerned for Christians -- especially at just how helpless they are; and how strained, hollow and intellectually bankrupt has a once-great faith become. It's not mine to say what the answer should be, but the answer cannot be Christianity as it's presently upheld.
There are many types, sizes, levels of intelligence, personalities within Christianity. There are many different types of conversion experiences. Sometimes, seemingly more intellectual where the individual draws a conclusion that Christ exists as God, and sometimes extremely dramatic where there really didn't seem to be any choice...and of course everything else in between. The common profession is that whatever brought the conversion about (excluding Christians who grew into the faith as children and can't recall any specific conversion experience), the presence of God is very real. There's a very real daily-walk experience with this deity called Christ. I don't think that everyone who claims to have it actually have it, but that's another story. But what is also significant is that a conversion experience can also present itself (in the context of truth) as something drastically different or opposite to what that person thought before. Peter Hitchens (Christopher Hitchens' brother) would be a good example.

You're a person of much thought, using logic and reasoning, etc. At the risk of sounding like I'm setting you up, what do you think the logical thing for a person who experiences, say, the more dramatic conversion (not that it really needs to be dramatic in context) do?

Lets just use the Apostle Paul, and if that doesn't work, I'll try a more contemporary example. Saul is riding his mule down the road, suddenly blinded, held captive by a being that tells him exactly what he must do to get his sight back, and what he must do afterwards. And of course, following those instructions, gets his sight back. What would be the logical thing for Paul to believe and do after said experience?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 1:57:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/16/2015 6:41:13 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Roderick.....

Yeah..you're right, amigo. I came across as a tad harsh when I asked you about a cognitive problem. I apologize, as I have read more of your posts and it is obvious you are a bright guy and a pretty good writer. Sometimes. And you are correct in that the ability for effective and lucid communication is always a little curtailed on a mere written forum such as DDO.

So..no hard feelings? Sweet.

Hmm..you pose a good Q when you asked me why I always rant on about the evil ways of Yahweh when I personally feel there are no absolute morals.

I guess I tend to rail against the goodness of Yahweh when I am confronted with fundamentalist christians who worship him and talk about the bible being the model for morality and decency. And I find it ironic and absurd that these guys tell agnostics and atheists like myself that we are going to burn unless we follow his word. The word of a character who I have always found loathsome.

I do believe that we humans should try and be moralistic. It is the glue that holds together a good and civilized society. We Need it. in order to live happy and productive lives.

But that is sociologically speaking. When we begin waxing philosophical, I believe that there really are no "absolutes" in morality. All we know is what we have been taught. Here. On a tiny speck of rock in a ho-mum solar system on the backwater of one out of hundreds of billions of Galaxies.

I am of the belief that the Universe is teeming with Intelligent life. OF all kinds. All these various civilizations with their own moral codes and laws and philosophies as to what constitutes a moral life. Therefore, who are we to say?

Some of our societal mores here on the Third Rock may be oultanddish and evil to another ET civilization. They might for example think that spanking your kid is a crime punishable by death/ Or that killing animals for meat--or worse, for sport--is a grievous and evil act.

Whereas. maybe rape is OK to them. A guy can see a hot woman walking down their street and take her, Right there, because that is what the women are for. Sex toys.
Or maybe in some society in, say the Andromeda Galaxy murder in cold blood is acceptable if the killer can prove in court that he had a good reason.

Maybe children are raised not by one family but get passed around to several--of differing socio-eco conditons, so as to further their education and exposure to different conditions?

Maybe female babies are forced from birth to become servants. Or sex slaves?

Or conversely..they are the High Priestesses that control everything. Females are revered above all and men are enslaved as worker bees. LOL

Why would any of those things I just named be wrong? Or right? Who says?

This is my point.

Back to Satan and yawheh. There are civilizations out there who, if they were familiarized with the dogmas of both of them, would say that they think Satan was the more desirable and fair God for them to worship.

The CoS idolizes individuality. Randian Objectivism. Love, sure, to those who deserve it. They worship nobody---indeed that is one of their Nine Satanic Sins.
To them Satan is a sort of mascot who embodies their exhortation to question authority and bow to nobody and enjoy this life to the fullest--as long as you hurt nobody--because it its the only one we can truly count on. They are hedonists. Epicureans.

It just wears me slick when the fundies wave their blood-soaked book in our faces and claim it the bastion of morality and goodness, when many many parts of it are in fact the exact opposite.

Thank you.

Drew.
No hard feelings. As far as the whole cognitive problem, Satanic church PR man comment, etc.....amigos chide each other from time to time.

The interesting thing about your comment concerning fundies....is that it doesn't necessarily stop at conversion to Christianity. In other words, converting to Christianity doesn't necessarily equal a natural fondness for everything within the Christian world (public, or more personal, private). I once visited a church that I couldn't get out of quick enough. There are certain, maybe regional expressions and/or attitudes that are a turn-off to myself. But my attitude actually existed before conversion, and any problem I might have within a church environment (personality conflicts, etc.) existed before conversion, like in school where personalities are thrust together within a facility as is the case in a church.

If I was allowed a public critique on the Body of Christ (particularly the American church), I would submit that there's a lack of tact in expressing the Gospel message. I think there's assumptions made that because Christ used rather harsh terminology at times, that harsh terminology is appropriate at all times, where at times it isn't.

But as I mentioned in my prior thread to Ruv, there are all types of Christians. And we can even say all types of fundies. A fundy (of course meaning fundamentalist as you know) is simply someone who believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, but often stated in a more political context. And as you stated in another thread, that includes Alice Cooper. People sometimes complain about Christians knocking on their door, but imagine Alice Cooper doing door-to-door evangelism. It most likely ain't gonna happen.

Anyways, thanks for the friendly post...cheers!
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 2:07:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 1:57:31 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/16/2015 6:41:13 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Roderick.....

Yeah..you're right, amigo. I came across as a tad harsh when I asked you about a cognitive problem. I apologize, as I have read more of your posts and it is obvious you are a bright guy and a pretty good writer. Sometimes. And you are correct in that the ability for effective and lucid communication is always a little curtailed on a mere written forum such as DDO.

So..no hard feelings? Sweet.

Hmm..you pose a good Q when you asked me why I always rant on about the evil ways of Yahweh when I personally feel there are no absolute morals.

I guess I tend to rail against the goodness of Yahweh when I am confronted with fundamentalist christians who worship him and talk about the bible being the model for morality and decency. And I find it ironic and absurd that these guys tell agnostics and atheists like myself that we are going to burn unless we follow his word. The word of a character who I have always found loathsome.

I do believe that we humans should try and be moralistic. It is the glue that holds together a good and civilized society. We Need it. in order to live happy and productive lives.

But that is sociologically speaking. When we begin waxing philosophical, I believe that there really are no "absolutes" in morality. All we know is what we have been taught. Here. On a tiny speck of rock in a ho-mum solar system on the backwater of one out of hundreds of billions of Galaxies.

I am of the belief that the Universe is teeming with Intelligent life. OF all kinds. All these various civilizations with their own moral codes and laws and philosophies as to what constitutes a moral life. Therefore, who are we to say?

Some of our societal mores here on the Third Rock may be oultanddish and evil to another ET civilization. They might for example think that spanking your kid is a crime punishable by death/ Or that killing animals for meat--or worse, for sport--is a grievous and evil act.

Whereas. maybe rape is OK to them. A guy can see a hot woman walking down their street and take her, Right there, because that is what the women are for. Sex toys.
Or maybe in some society in, say the Andromeda Galaxy murder in cold blood is acceptable if the killer can prove in court that he had a good reason.

Maybe children are raised not by one family but get passed around to several--of differing socio-eco conditons, so as to further their education and exposure to different conditions?

Maybe female babies are forced from birth to become servants. Or sex slaves?

Or conversely..they are the High Priestesses that control everything. Females are revered above all and men are enslaved as worker bees. LOL

Why would any of those things I just named be wrong? Or right? Who says?

This is my point.

Back to Satan and yawheh. There are civilizations out there who, if they were familiarized with the dogmas of both of them, would say that they think Satan was the more desirable and fair God for them to worship.

The CoS idolizes individuality. Randian Objectivism. Love, sure, to those who deserve it. They worship nobody---indeed that is one of their Nine Satanic Sins.
To them Satan is a sort of mascot who embodies their exhortation to question authority and bow to nobody and enjoy this life to the fullest--as long as you hurt nobody--because it its the only one we can truly count on. They are hedonists. Epicureans.

It just wears me slick when the fundies wave their blood-soaked book in our faces and claim it the bastion of morality and goodness, when many many parts of it are in fact the exact opposite.

Thank you.

Drew.
No hard feelings. As far as the whole cognitive problem, Satanic church PR man comment, etc.....amigos chide each other from time to time.

The interesting thing about your comment concerning fundies....is that it doesn't necessarily stop at conversion to Christianity. In other words, converting to Christianity doesn't necessarily equal a natural fondness for everything within the Christian world (public, or more personal, private). I once visited a church that I couldn't get out of quick enough. There are certain, maybe regional expressions and/or attitudes that are a turn-off to myself. But my attitude actually existed before conversion, and any problem I might have within a church environment (personality conflicts, etc.) existed before conversion, like in school where personalities are thrust together within a facility as is the case in a church.

If I was allowed a public critique on the Body of Christ (particularly the American church), I would submit that there's a lack of tact in expressing the Gospel message. I think there's assumptions made that because Christ used rather harsh terminology at times, that harsh terminology is appropriate at all times, where at times it isn't.

But as I mentioned in my prior thread to Ruv, there are all types of Christians. And we can even say all types of fundies. A fundy (of course meaning fundamentalist as you know) is simply someone who believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, but often stated in a more political context. And as you stated in another thread, that includes Alice Cooper. People sometimes complain about Christians knocking on their door, but imagine Alice Cooper doing door-to-door evangelism. It most likely ain't gonna happen.

Anyways, thanks for the friendly post...cheers!

Cheers.

I know what you mean about some churches giving you the willies.

I recently has an experience I want toget your take on.

AT the constant urging of a female friend and co/worker....an LVN here at the VA, I went with her to her church service last month.

She is a Charismatic. Oh yeah..those tongue-speaking snake handlers. LOL. But no snakes at the service, thank god, I hate 'em." But they DId speak in tongues...well, some of them did.

I hate to admit it but it was fascinating. There was not doubt in my mind these people we not faking it. Well, they may not have been truly possesed by the holy spirit, but I am convinced they thought there were.

I sensed some sort of presence there. It pretty much weirded me out, so I was glad when it was over. I may or may not ever return there with her. They wanted me to sit-on on drums (I am a proffessional drummer) with their church band since their regular guy is going away for a couple months. But I doubt I will accept.

So, yeah...what is your take on that whole Pentecostal/Charismatic movement? Do you think these guys tap into the Spirit? Or is it a sort of "mob psychology" deal?

Thanks!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 3:37:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 1:35:49 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
what do you think the logical thing for a person who experiences, say, the more dramatic conversion (not that it really needs to be dramatic in context) do?

Roderick, human minds can be very fragile. Although I think a religious view of the world is deluded, I also consider it harmless, and even mildly benign for some kinds of people as long as they don't imagine it grants them any special authority or power (about which we've spoken at length in another thread, so I won't belabour it.) I consider my responsibility to respect and cherish people of religious faith to be no less than my responsibility to respect and cherish all humans of good will.

But an adult mind that puts a religious structure in place plank by plank for (say) confidence and self-esteem, or comfort from anxiety, or to better identify with and participate in a group they especially like is making reflective, considered adult-level decisions, and I think such people will continue to make them afterward.

By contrast, a mind that suffers a sudden, overwhelming catharsis resulting in religious conviction is a regressed mind in crisis and trauma, unable to fully care for itself or others. I think that's a mind that needs caring for in a similar way to PTSD. It's not a mind that needs religious proselytisation when it's confused, vulnerable and in need of support -- and it would be unethical to do that, or to allow it. It needs to rebuild its own framework in its own time, using the most accurate, reliable information available; it needs the chance to be wrong until it can find its own balance, and not to have to hold adult responsibilities and stresses.

So: short answer -- what such a mind should do is seek qualified psychiatric help. Not because it's suffering religiosity but because it has collapsed as a mind -- an option that Saul of Tarsus couldn't pursue, but which fortunately, we can today.

And if you feel that such trauma itself may be evidence of divine intervention, Roderick, I invite you to watch this episode by stage illusionist and hypnotist Derren Brown -- an atheist who can induce Pauline-style religious conversions in some other atheists almost effortlessly.

I realise we're a bit off-topic so I've kept it short. I hope that may help.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 1:12:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 2:07:02 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:


I know what you mean about some churches giving you the willies.

I recently has an experience I want toget your take on.

AT the constant urging of a female friend and co/worker....an LVN here at the VA, I went with her to her church service last month.

She is a Charismatic. Oh yeah..those tongue-speaking snake handlers. LOL. But no snakes at the service, thank god, I hate 'em." But they DId speak in tongues...well, some of them did.

I hate to admit it but it was fascinating. There was not doubt in my mind these people we not faking it. Well, they may not have been truly possesed by the holy spirit, but I am convinced they thought there were.

I sensed some sort of presence there. It pretty much weirded me out, so I was glad when it was over. I may or may not ever return there with her. They wanted me to sit-on on drums (I am a proffessional drummer) with their church band since their regular guy is going away for a couple months. But I doubt I will accept.

So, yeah...what is your take on that whole Pentecostal/Charismatic movement? Do you think these guys tap into the Spirit? Or is it a sort of "mob psychology" deal?

Thanks!
That's a very good question. I'll try and answer as honestly as possible, stressing that whatever negative aspect I pose is strictly my opinion.

I went to a fairly well-known (within Pentecostal circles) Pentecostal/Charismatic church for a number of years. I now attend a much smaller one. The first time I went, I thought it was very strange and unorthodox. But to directly answer your question, I think it's both. There's some tapping into the Spirit, and there's some "mob psychology". I think there were people in that church that had genuine experiences, like the pastor, and some who got caught up in theatrics.

The church I was referring to earlier that I couldn't get out of quick enough was actually a Pentecostal Holiness Church. It was a lot different than anything I've attended. That's the denomination where women don't wear make-up, so it was visually bizarre to me as well as what was being said on the pulpit. I had a particular problem with the guest speaker. The only reason I went was because I was invited (as similar to your experience).

Basically, all denominations have a unique history, and I think most started out due to a leading of God, having specific gifts meant to benefit the entire Body of Christ (corporate body of believers worldwide). Unfortunately, in many cases these Christians isolated themselves, separating themselves from other believers forming corporate-like denominations, rejecting the gifts other believers have been given. And thinking that they were the only one's gifted.

I think that has happened in the Pentecostal movement. They've been rejected by Baptists and other mainstream denominations, and vice versa. I've had some fairly dramatic experiences as a Christian, but not so much what typically Pentecostals maintain they experience. Some genuine experiences I believe Pentecostals have experienced might be speaking in the tongue of another language that they don't know, and someone else who does know the language interpreting it. Or, someone being laid out (slain in the spirit). I think a lot of this happened during a particular revival in the early 20th century called the Azusa Street Revival.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

And still happens sometimes today, but maybe not nearly as much as some think, or are lead to think (falling for showmanship). I think right now there is a lot of copying, mechanics, show, etc. Yes, I would say there's a certain amount of manipulation. For instance, some evangelists who put their hands on someone's forehead, and they immediately fall. I think most of the time the person is just allowing themselves to fall (knowing someone is behind them) because everyone else is falling. The few that actually get slain in the spirit are probably those more like me. Those who like to keep their composure, keep cool, avoid looking foolish. I think most of the time when people speak in tongues, they are just making a particular random flow of noises. I've done that as well.

We also know that there are pentecostal con-artists. There's even a well-known former evangelical preacher named Marjoe Gortner. I worked with his nephew once. He actually started out as a child preacher, and eventually exposed his ministry revealing how he conned folks out of money. He did the phoney speaking in tongues and everything.

So basically, I think there's a manufactured element in the Pentecostal churches, that may exist along side some of the genuine (which might be the minority). There's a tendency to want to try and copy something genuine, and I think we see a lot of that not just in the Pentecostal church, but in evangelical churches in general. An example of this might be the use of the term "revival". Come to the "Friday Night Revival Meeting".....

Revivals are a very real part of history. They are not manufactured. Revivals are not scheduled for Friday nights in a tent meeting or church gathering. They often seem to start out by one or a few people in a lot of heartfelt prayer.

Now of course snake handlers are a whole other issue. That's way out there. But...that's what makes it to TV documentaries. Snake handlers and folks like the Westboro Baptist Church (who are not affiliated with the Baptist denomination) will grab the attention.

I was trying to consolidated multiple ideas into one post, so it might be a bit scattered, but hopefully understandable.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 1:21:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:12:45 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/17/2015 2:07:02 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:


I know what you mean about some churches giving you the willies.

I recently has an experience I want toget your take on.

AT the constant urging of a female friend and co/worker....an LVN here at the VA, I went with her to her church service last month.

She is a Charismatic. Oh yeah..those tongue-speaking snake handlers. LOL. But no snakes at the service, thank god, I hate 'em." But they DId speak in tongues...well, some of them did.

I hate to admit it but it was fascinating. There was not doubt in my mind these people we not faking it. Well, they may not have been truly possesed by the holy spirit, but I am convinced they thought there were.

I sensed some sort of presence there. It pretty much weirded me out, so I was glad when it was over. I may or may not ever return there with her. They wanted me to sit-on on drums (I am a proffessional drummer) with their church band since their regular guy is going away for a couple months. But I doubt I will accept.

So, yeah...what is your take on that whole Pentecostal/Charismatic movement? Do you think these guys tap into the Spirit? Or is it a sort of "mob psychology" deal?

Thanks!
That's a very good question. I'll try and answer as honestly as possible, stressing that whatever negative aspect I pose is strictly my opinion.

I went to a fairly well-known (within Pentecostal circles) Pentecostal/Charismatic church for a number of years. I now attend a much smaller one. The first time I went, I thought it was very strange and unorthodox. But to directly answer your question, I think it's both. There's some tapping into the Spirit, and there's some "mob psychology". I think there were people in that church that had genuine experiences, like the pastor, and some who got caught up in theatrics.

The church I was referring to earlier that I couldn't get out of quick enough was actually a Pentecostal Holiness Church. It was a lot different than anything I've attended. That's the denomination where women don't wear make-up, so it was visually bizarre to me as well as what was being said on the pulpit. I had a particular problem with the guest speaker. The only reason I went was because I was invited (as similar to your experience).

Basically, all denominations have a unique history, and I think most started out due to a leading of God, having specific gifts meant to benefit the entire Body of Christ (corporate body of believers worldwide). Unfortunately, in many cases these Christians isolated themselves, separating themselves from other believers forming corporate-like denominations, rejecting the gifts other believers have been given. And thinking that they were the only one's gifted.

I think that has happened in the Pentecostal movement. They've been rejected by Baptists and other mainstream denominations, and vice versa. I've had some fairly dramatic experiences as a Christian, but not so much what typically Pentecostals maintain they experience. Some genuine experiences I believe Pentecostals have experienced might be speaking in the tongue of another language that they don't know, and someone else who does know the language interpreting it. Or, someone being laid out (slain in the spirit). I think a lot of this happened during a particular revival in the early 20th century called the Azusa Street Revival.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

And still happens sometimes today, but maybe not nearly as much as some think, or are lead to think (falling for showmanship). I think right now there is a lot of copying, mechanics, show, etc. Yes, I would say there's a certain amount of manipulation. For instance, some evangelists who put their hands on someone's forehead, and they immediately fall. I think most of the time the person is just allowing themselves to fall (knowing someone is behind them) because everyone else is falling. The few that actually get slain in the spirit are probably those more like me. Those who like to keep their composure, keep cool, avoid looking foolish. I think most of the time when people speak in tongues, they are just making a particular random flow of noises. I've done that as well.

We also know that there are pentecostal con-artists. There's even a well-known former evangelical preacher named Marjoe Gortner. I worked with his nephew once. He actually started out as a child preacher, and eventually exposed his ministry revealing how he conned folks out of money. He did the phoney speaking in tongues and everything.

So basically, I think there's a manufactured element in the Pentecostal churches, that may exist along side some of the genuine (which might be the minority). There's a tendency to want to try and copy something genuine, and I think we see a lot of that not just in the Pentecostal church, but in evangelical churches in general. An example of this might be the use of the term "revival". Come to the "Friday Night Revival Meeting".....

Revivals are a very real part of history. They are not manufactured. Revivals are not scheduled for Friday nights in a tent meeting or church gathering. They often seem to start out by one or a few people in a lot of heartfelt prayer.

Now of course snake handlers are a whole other issue. That's way out there. But...that's what makes it to TV documentaries. Snake handlers and folks like the Westboro Baptist Church (who are not affiliated with the Baptist denomination) will grab the attention.

I was trying to consolidated multiple ideas into one post, so it might be a bit scattered, but hopefully understandable.

Outstanding post, Roddy. I agree with all of it.

That is, if I got it. I think you basically said that, although some Pentecostals do undergo sincere religious experiences, that the overall credibility and veracity of them, and indeed of the entire church, is denigrated by the fact that for every two folks who are genuine in their "epiphanies" or whatever, there are twenty who are just play-acting. Or, caught up in herd psychology?

This is the same dynamic that I think is at work in the psychic and paranormal world. Sure, I thinks some people are gifted with the gift of clairvoyance or pre-cognition. Just as we have talented artists and musicians. BUT: there are so many frauds that the entire genre is unfairly lambasted.

Was that close to what you think?

Lastly;;you mentioned the charismatics speaking in a language they did not previously know. Have there ever really been documented accounts of this? I though I recalled reading that when linguists went to their revivals they claimed the language was merely gibberish?

Because, man--if these guys were really speaking in, say, Aramaic, or even Hebrew, that would go a LONG way in my book for authenticity of their experiences!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 1:27:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/14/2015 6:02:06 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time I see references to Yahweh being evil, being guilty of infanticide, genocide, etc. These claims of course are based on what they read from the Old Testament. These claims may come from a theist, deist, or atheist. But as far as the existence of a creator/intelligent designer of the universe, even a strong atheist will usually only refer to the possibility of an intelligent designer as being unlikely, meaning not entirely impossible.

From the standpoint of a (non-Christian) theist, deist, or atheist, wouldn't an intelligent designer have to be evil? Death, including unnatural caused still exists whether the intelligent designer is personally involved with human affairs or not.

Why does allowing death make anyone evil?

This is an argument from the immature inconsistent illogic of fools.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 11:11:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:27:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/14/2015 6:02:06 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
From time to time I see references to Yahweh being evil, being guilty of infanticide, genocide, etc. These claims of course are based on what they read from the Old Testament. These claims may come from a theist, deist, or atheist. But as far as the existence of a creator/intelligent designer of the universe, even a strong atheist will usually only refer to the possibility of an intelligent designer as being unlikely, meaning not entirely impossible.

From the standpoint of a (non-Christian) theist, deist, or atheist, wouldn't an intelligent designer have to be evil? Death, including unnatural caused still exists whether the intelligent designer is personally involved with human affairs or not.

Why does allowing death make anyone evil?

This is an argument from the immature inconsistent illogic of fools.

The subject of death is one usually consistent from a biological position, the "argument from the immature inconsistent illogic of fools" is the one in which death is a curse from God.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth