nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Zombrex

Blinkus wrote: »

Nonsense, Christianity is not stupid, it has a deep theology to back it up, theology is the systematic and rational study of God after all. Because you don't study Theology it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The more intelligent and educated someone is, the more they excessively rationalize to the point where they deceive themselves. They are like children in a big mansion, they get lost. This is why unbelievers are nearly always educated people, they have plenty of room to toy with words, their meanings and even redefine them. This also explains why the totalitarian dictator elitists ('liberals') are educated and fairly wealthy. If you think enough about something, you can eventually justify anything. The Nazi's did this.

A sociologist carried out a study on Hitler's henchmen, the guys who did his dirty work, and found they were highly educated and intelligent. They did the same thing, justified their crimes through their ability to over rationalize. It shows the most dangerous people can be the intellectuals.

The poor on the other hand, don't have the education and thus playing room you guys have. They are simple minded and thus not easily deceived. It's far easier to fool a philosopher than a farmer. Not only this, but they need God, since they don't have a doctor nearby or a supermarket.

The glorification of rationalization by you lot, overlooks the error that is prone in human thinking. It works against you.

If you're educated and you don't want God to exist, for whatever motives, then go and make that happen, make believe, just like a fairy tale. If you don't want the unborn to be babies, just call them fetus's, since that might temporarily serve to alleviate a guilty conscience for a couple of years.

Seems the bible was right when it say Human wisdom is folly

Obvious troll is obvious

philologos

I answered your question. Pinning the blame on God for what we decide to do as a result of Him giving us free will is daft. Its like saying if I crash my friends car into a ditch that He's responsible for it because He gave me the keys.

Much in the same way as Adam tried to pin the blame on God, you're trying to blame God for giving you free will.

Free will is the reason why we can decide to do evil rather than good. Therefore the responsibility is with us. It's not that complex surely?

To anyone with the slightest sense that's daft.

Accusing me of ignoring your question when I gave you sound reason as to why I think the logic is flawed also seems a bit silly.

The only reason I argue that God is just is because I have good reason to believe so. What the heck did you expect for me to join in calling God an "asshole" with you?

HHobo

Phil,

While I appreciate you taking the time to respond, thanks for that, it is clear that this conversation is futile. You keep telling me what I already know you believe. It seems that you are commited to looking at this entirely from the perspective of God being great. Given that this is the exact thing being debated, it is not a valid presupposition. If God were pure evil, you would never be able to see it, as you treat all of God actions as good by fiat.

You are not really responding to my actual criticisms with arguments; you just keep telling me what you believe.

An example of what I mean:
Right from the get-go you make the claim that you are not ignoring my argument that God was free to create us any which way he wanted. He chose to instil in us the desire to do things that he didn’t want us doing. You then go right ahead an ignore it and go straight back to claiming that we are free to do X or Y. Our freedom of choice was not at issue. The argument was: Why would God create us with a desire to sin. He could have created humans who are perfectly free agents but simply had no desire for the things he considers sinful. He, by his own free choice, created a race of beings who are, by your own arguement, literally incapable of living in accordance with the arbitrary rules he chooses to set. You wish to absolve him of any responsibility for this. I was looking for an actual argument as to how this is not God’s responsibility. You didn’t provide one. You just fiat declared that God is not responsible for our choices and ignored entirely our natures (something we don’t have a choice about) that are the result of God’s choices.
I’m not really looking for a response here, just giving this an example.
This debate would be much like you questioning a Muslim on how they see Allah as just in doing X or Y in the Koran and they keep responding with “Allah IS just”.
I don’t doubt that you are telling me what you believe to be true, its just not what I was asking.

Thanks again though for taking the time to respond to my lenghty questions there, I very much appreciate it.

All the best, Phil.

Tim Robbins

Cossax wrote: »

I think he means the difference between gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists.

Most atheists are agnostic atheists but believers tend to straw man and argue as if we are all gnostic atheists.

philologos

HHobo wrote: »

You are ignoring the fact that God created us in accordance with his own whims. You don't go around murdering children. Presumably you aren't filled with the desire to murder and restrain yourself solely on moral and legal grouds. It is not in your nature to do it. God has created you with the desire to do X and he then impliments a prohibition against X. I would say he has some responsibility.
It would be like you designing a sentient robot and instilling in it a strong desire to light things on fire. You then tell the robot not to do it. Do you think people would accept you saying "..but I told it not to do that" as removing all culpability on your part for designing it that way in the first place?

I'm not ignoring that fact at all. Much in the same way that I'm not ignoring the fact that just because God gave us the decision to do X rather than Y that this doesn't mean that I'm not responsible for my actions. Much in the same way that if a friend gave me the keys to his car and trusted me with it, that doesn't mean that I'm not responsible if I crash it into a ditch. Blaming God for our decisions, and our rebellion against Him doesn't wash, it's a poor justification for sin.

Moreover, it's funny that in the passage of the Fall, Adam does the same thing as you:

Genesis 3:9-13 wrote:

But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”[d] 10 And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

The woman you gave me God caused me to do this. But couldn't Adam have refused to follow Eve? It's interesting.

I think it is fundamentally stubborn to say to God that He's responsible for the sin that we've freely chosen to commit. If we rebel against God's authority He's entirely right to be free to judge.

HHobo wrote: »

Also. If I said to you. "You are free to eat those cakes over there if you like but I'd rather you didn't." ... "Oh and by the way, if you do eat those cakes I'm going to set you on fire".
You would characterise this as freedom to choose?
Imagine a court where a criminal is defending himself against a murder charge and his defence goes like this
"I asked the victim to give me all their money. They chose not to. I only killed them because their choice displeased me. They were free to hand over their wallet. You can't blame me for their choices!"

God has jurisdiction over Creation. He's perfectly entitled to say that some things are not in our benefit.

The analogy that you've given is nothing like what God has declared. God has decreed what is right and what is wrong in His creation. God can punish if one refuses to accept His standard, moreover God has authority over who dwells and who does not in His creation.

It's entirely logical that you can't blame God for the choices of man. God gave people the autonomy to choose X rather than Y, but it is up to the chooser to do what is morally upright and actually follow God.

Satan is the one who continually tells us the old lie. Go on, live a little God doesn't have a clue what He's doing. He's never going to judge you, don't worry. Go on. He wasn't telling you the truth anyway. The Bible's a lie, it's a cobbled together book of fairytales from goatherders. Surprisingly similar to what we see many in the world today saying.

The Bible also gives us the common expression there's nothing new under the sun, and there really isn't. The same lie that caused creation to fall is the same lie that many believe in today when they suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).

HHobo wrote: »

If you wish to claim that God is an exception to this idea and what he says goes because he is God; you are making a might makes right argument. You don't think that God need to have any moral justification for his rules and punishments. We are his toys and he can play with us in whatever fashion he chooses. It is hard to reconsile that with our being free agents.

To what idea? You've not been very clear as to what the "idea" is. Your question is getting into where does good and evil come from. The atheist deals with moral subjectivism, I.E humans get to decide what is good and what is evil. Essentially good and evil are whatever the heck that humans feel like.

Christians believe in a sovereign God who is Lord over all creation, loving, kind, merciful and forgiving, a God who had declared what was best, and a God who actually knew better than we did as to what was truly good as He was the sovereign creator. Yet, we rebelled against Him and decided arrogantly that we knew what was better ourselves. How ridiculous?

It's the old lie again from Genesis 3, that we can know better than God as to what is good and evil.

HHobo wrote: »

In Job's case the sin is nothing more than questioning God's motives. (Can you imagine a more despotic idea than being guilty of a crime for nothing more than question the motivations of the leadership)
This sin is also commited only after God permits the heaping of miseries on him when he quite rightfully thought himself to be innocent of any crime. God is being a complete asshole here. He is insinuating that he has justifications that Job doesn't understand. Job is lead to believe that he must have done something wrong in order for God to be allowing his current misfortunes and that he simply can't comprehend the nature of it. Job is infact entrirely correct that he had done nothing wrong and his treatment was infact unjust. It was God's hubris and apparent failure of omnicience that led to Job's suffering. What Job doesn't know is that God motivations are self-aggrandising and petty. His "sin", in a perverse irony, is not believing that God must have a good reason.

Job's sin was defiantly suggesting that He could possibly know better than God, much as you're doing here. It's fundamental arrogance, much as calling God a "complete asshole" is.

There's nothing "despotic" about the idea of God saying that following Him and seeking right understanding of Him is the right thing to do in Creation.

Noah's sin seems self-explanatory, he got absolutely hammered and was passed out drunk.

HHobo wrote: »

With Abraham, one of the worst things he does is almost stab Issac to death. I don't think God considers this a sin though. Apparently, to God, murdering your child (Abraham's intent) is fine if it is a demonstration of loyalty to him.

I'll link to a number of posts where I've answered this already. I searched my posts for Abraham and Isaac recently, and it returned over 20 results in the last 6 years.

HHobo wrote: »

There are modern moral philosophers who think scapegoating is ok? I really hope that isn't true

There are quite a number of moral philosophers who would regard the self-sacrificial death of Christ on our behalf as a model for how we should seek to serve one another self-sacrificially.

You don't seem to understand what Christianity says about mankinds position. Namely that all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23). We aren't righteous on our own account because every single person has rejected God's standard, and every single person has done what is evil rather than what is good. In and of ourselves there is no reason why God can declare us righteous.

I think most people if they are genuinely honest can see that. Moreover I think it is quite sensible given our fallen state that one could come to the position that we need a Saviour.

HHobo wrote: »

What cost does God pay exactly? Are you claiming it is equal to eternal damnation?
By what right does God forgive our sins against other people? If somone else punches you in the face, can I stroll up an forgive them for it. Surely it you, and only you, that has the power to forgive the offence?
If the claim is that God is personally offended by your actions and it is this offence is forgiving, then he seem to only be interested in punishing sins against himself. Sins against others are not his concern beyond how they make him feel.
Also, it is logically impossible to be fully just and merciful. I have often heard people claim that God is maximally just and maximally merciful. I don't think these are compatible. Justice requires that the evil be punished. Mercy requires that someone be excused their proper punishment.
Finally, is it really mercy, if you inflict the punishment on someone else?

Our sin is towards God. We've rebelled against His standard. Every sin that we've committed in His creation is an affront to God. The Bible doesn't undermine that people have a responsibility towards one another, but primarily sin is an issue between God and man. Sin moreover is what separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2).

By the by, it's a bit daft to ask "what right" does God, the sovereign Lord over all creation have to take the penalty for sin upon Himself.

Is it really mercy to pass God's wrath to someone else? - Yes, we go free. God still shows us the immense cost of sin.

God is just insofar as His wrath for sin was satisfied. God is merciful insofar as we walk free.

HHobo wrote: »

This doesn't make a whole lot sense as we already have people claiming that there was no reason to think that God forgave at all.
The question stands. Also, if you do some harm to me and I wait until after I have punished to the full extent of the law and then forgive you, it is not really forgiveness, or at least a palty effort. Surely to be meaningful, forgiveness must be given

.

They are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, the eyewitness accounts that we have concerning Jesus Christ, the secular history that we have concerning His crucifixion, and the impact that His resurrection had on the disciples. Namely that they were willing to go into the Gentile world and risk their lives for it.

If we had no basis whatsoever for believing that God was abundantly merciful, rather than people ignoring what happened that day in Jerusalem roughly 2,000 years ago then I think that you and other atheists would be complaining that God hadn't provided good reason to believe that our sin was fully satisfied, and fully forgiven. The reality is He has, and there's no excuse.

HHobo wrote: »

Again, justice satisfied and mercy. You see the strangeness also in God essentially being a slave to his own requirement for Justice. He appears to lack the ability to forgo attaining this Justice. As much a slave to his nature are we, perhaps? He'd better hope he wasn't created that way by a more powerful being who is going to punish him for it

It's not strange if there is a good reason for it. Namely to show us the sheer cost of sin, and to show us the sheer extent of His mercy. God shows us His love, and His mercy through Jesus Christ.

HHobo wrote: »

This is an injustice then, something God is apparently not capable of.

Not at all. God's wrath was satisfied in full. God still counted us guilty. The difference is that now that God's wrath has been satisfied, Jesus now stands as our representative. When God sees us, He sees Christ. One who has been fully punished for sin.

If God were fair rather than merciful, and if Jesus hadn't received God's just wrath we'd all be condemned. Because without grace, there is condemnation which comes through the law. I.E - God's standards declare us guilty.

HHobo wrote: »

Only according to God's arbitrary rules.

They are less "arbitrary" than relative morality. If God is Lord over creation, I don't have any place to argue with Him. Irrespective of what I say about Him, or if I blaspheme His name, His standards are what matter, not mine. I'm not Lord, He is. I submit willingly to His will, because I know that I amn't better than the Creator.

HHobo wrote: »

We deserve God's wrath; who decides we are so deserving? God does. Accuser, Judge, Jury and law maker. This has the Euthyphro dilemma written all over it. Essentially, are God's laws based on an intrinsic good (which means God is not the source of goodness), or are God's laws good because God decrees them (This means that if God decrees that murdering people for fun is good then it is good.)

God does. I think the Euthryphro dilemma is surprisingly weak, and if we consider God's omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence the idea is ridiculous. Ultimately God's standards of good and evil are what He has declared as a result of Creation. It is because God knows everything about creation that He can declare how best to live in it. Much as the manufacturer of a car can describe in a manual how best to use it, or how it was intended to function. It is because God knows intrinsically what Creation is meant to be, and it is because God knows everything about it's function and purpose that He can say on the basis of His knowledge of it what is good and what is evil.

HHobo wrote: »

From himself. Quite bizarre.

From the righteous judgement of God, as I've explained it is hardly bizarre at all. It makes perfect sense that God would reveal a physical sign of His mercy towards us, and the full cost of sin.

HHobo wrote: »

Guilty by decree. Sounds rather despotic. Saddam accuses you of being a traitor. The only person who can decide if you are guilty or innocent is Saddam. You are born guilty of sedition. Would you really be grateful for him shooting his own son in your place? Would he strike you as loving and just?

This is ridiculous reasoning. The creation is God's therefore He has the right to legislate. Much as the State has the right to legislate. If I am before a judge for something that was clearly evil, how laughable would the notion be that I would call the judge despotic for rightfully judging?

Moreover, it is hardly ridiculous as an example to think that if I racked up a debt, and someone paid the price of that debt in full in return on my behalf so I might be spared it. I would still be fully a debtor who was not deserving of such kindness, but yet I received it. In the same way, while I was yet a sinner, Christ paid the penalty of sin in full on my behalf so that I can walk free. Entirely undeserving, entirely a free gift, entirely loving and entirely self-sacrificial.

HHobo wrote: »

A willingness to torture you for ever removes any possibility of this being true. It also junks any possibility of God being merciful.

Not at all. God has given you everything you need to be forgiven, yet you refuse to accept it. How exactly is this His fault? It seems like it is pinning the blame on God for your stubbornness. How absurd!

HHobo wrote: »

It wouldn't be saying that at all. If I forgive you for something without first smacking you areound a bit I am seemingly at fault. That is a really perverse view of forgiveness.

Sorry what? The smacking you around part doesn't even come into that logically.

If God is a just God, then His justice must be satisfied. Namely that the punishment that we deserve for our sin must be dealt with. If it is righteous to judge and God acquits without the penalty being satisfied that would make Him fundamentally incompetent.

The point of Christianity is that God was still right to command us to seek after Him, we are guilty but God wants us to come back to Him. Instead of visiting his wrath as He could justifiably, He's given us unmerited favour instead.

HHobo wrote: »

Even if you can transfer the punishment for a sin, you cannot transfer the responsibility. The former is perverse and the latter nonsensical.
Consider a murderer. He is found guilty and sentenced to death. His wife, to profess her love, chooses to take his punishment. She is killed in his stead and his debt is considered paid. The horrifying nature of this scenario aside, is he now not a murderer. Can his wife take on the moral guilt of the crime?

Christians don't believe that the responsibility for sin has been transferred. Christians hold very clearly that they were the ones who sinned. That's why we believe that we cannot be saved of our own merit, but only by the grace of God through Jesus Christ.

The wife can't take on the murderers sin because the wife has also sinned.

HHobo wrote: »

This is a logical contradiction. The law of non-contradiction. Jesus cannot be God and not-God at the same time. He can't be seperate from himself.

That's not what I said. I said that Jesus was separated from God the Father. Isolated from Him for the time that He was on the cross. Much in the same way as sin isolated us, our sin isolated Him.

HHobo wrote: »

You can't compress infinity into any arbitrarily long non-infinite period.
That doesn't make sense.

This only comes into play if we presume that God is bound by time, that's what you seem to be implying here.

HHobo wrote: »

In what sense does Jesus "die". Can God die? (and simultaneously not be dead?)

The Bible teaches that Jesus took on human form when He came to earth. Christians also believe that Jesus was pre-eminent. He existed with God in the beginning prior to His incarnation in human flesh. Jesus insofar as He bore human flesh died.

HHobo wrote: »

What was Paul onabout then? (assuming it was Paul. I can't remember for certain)

Provide me some Scripture and we can talk.

HHobo wrote: »

Do you see nothing wrong with belief being the primary basis for salvation?
Why is belief necessary? Would you agree that belief is not itself a moral matter?

Apologies for the length of the post, there was a lot to unpack in there!

You still don't understand if you're asking me that question.

Belief is the only way possible to bring salvation. If we were judging by works, we've sinned and are guilty and are fully deserving of God's wrath. A just God, without Jesus as our substitute would have to visit the penalty of our sin on us instead.

If we are guilty and if there is no other way that we can be unguilty, then we are condemned. There's no other way around it, other than Jesus. He came to rescue us as a free gift if we acknowledge Him and follow Him as Lord.

It's not really much to ask to be honest. Is it? Or do you expect to receive God's favour while rejecting Him, calling Him and asshole amongst other things? What kind of God would that be? No God at all, no Lord at all, rather all He'd be is our ATM machine of favours.

Cossax

tommy2bad wrote: »

Not answering for phil but trying to keep up.
What? Ah so if atheism isn't believing in a God it's not believing in any god as described by the various religions with the option that they are wrong on the details??
Not sure I understand what you mean!

I think he means the difference between gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists.

tommy2bad

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Philogos said he thought there were intellectual difficulties with atheism in another thread. Could you elaborate?

I am guessing you think atheism means you believe there is no God as opposed to disbelieving in any of the Gods put forward by various religions?

Not answering for phil but trying to keep up.
What? Ah so if atheism isn't believing in a God it's not believing in any god as described by the various religions with the option that they are wrong on the details??

Not sure I understand what you mean!

HHobo

philologos wrote: »

We've sinned before God. We've all done it. That's what I mean. God gave us the freedom to do X rather than Y. Unless you want to blame God for making us autonomous beings I don't see how the objection makes much salt.

If we decide to do X rather than Y it seems silly to claim that it is God's responsibility to ensure that we make the right decisions.

You are ignoring the fact that God created us in accordance with his own whims. You don't go around murdering children. Presumably you aren't filled with the desire to murder and restrain yourself solely on moral and legal grouds. It is not in your nature to do it. God has created you with the desire to do X and he then impliments a prohibition against X. I would say he has some responsibility.
It would be like you designing a sentient robot and instilling in it a strong desire to light things on fire. You then tell the robot not to do it. Do you think people would accept you saying "..but I told it not to do that" as removing all culpability on your part for designing it that way in the first place?

Also. If I said to you. "You are free to eat those cakes over there if you like but I'd rather you didn't." ... "Oh and by the way, if you do eat those cakes I'm going to set you on fire".
You would characterise this as freedom to choose?
Imagine a court where a criminal is defending himself against a murder charge and his defence goes like this
"I asked the victim to give me all their money. They chose not to. I only killed them because their choice displeased me. They were free to hand over their wallet. You can't blame me for their choices!"

If you wish to claim that God is an exception to this idea and what he says goes because he is God; you are making a might makes right argument. You don't think that God need to have any moral justification for his rules and punishments. We are his toys and he can play with us in whatever fashion he chooses. It is hard to reconsile that with our being free agents.

philologos wrote: »

Noah sinned (Genesis 9:18-29) and Job did also (Job 42:1-6), Moses did many times, Abraham did numerous times, David did by committing adultery. The only person I can think of that was entirely perfect in the Bible is Jesus.

In Job's case the sin is nothing more than questioning God's motives. (Can you imagine a more despotic idea than being guilty of a crime for nothing more than question the motivations of the leadership)
This sin is also commited only after God permits the heaping of miseries on him when he quite rightfully thought himself to be innocent of any crime. God is being a complete asshole here. He is insinuating that he has justifications that Job doesn't understand. Job is lead to believe that he must have done something wrong in order for God to be allowing his current misfortunes and that he simply can't comprehend the nature of it. Job is infact entrirely correct that he had done nothing wrong and his treatment was infact unjust. It was God's hubris and apparent failure of omnicience that led to Job's suffering. What Job doesn't know is that God motivations are self-aggrandising and petty. His "sin", in a perverse irony, is not believing that God must have a good reason.

Not sure what Noah's sin is supposed to be. Nakedness?

With Abraham, one of the worst things he does is almost stab Issac to death. I don't think God considers this a sin though. Apparently, to God, murdering your child (Abraham's intent) is fine if it is a demonstration of loyalty to him.

philologos wrote: »

I don't think it's particularly ironic at all. It perhaps seems strange at first, but I think it makes total sense.

I studied moral philosophy at university quite extensively. I think quite a number of moral philosophers throughout the years have been Christians, and would indeed take Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection seriously.

There are modern moral philosophers who think scapegoating is ok? I really hope that isn't true

philologos wrote: »

God being just and merciful took His wrath upon Himself to show us the full cost of sin, and also to show us how much we have been forgiven.

What cost does God pay exactly? Are you claiming it is equal to eternal damnation?
By what right does God forgive our sins against other people? If somone else punches you in the face, can I stroll up an forgive them for it. Surely it you, and only you, that has the power to forgive the offence?
If the claim is that God is personally offended by your actions and it is this offence is forgiving, then he seem to only be interested in punishing sins against himself. Sins against others are not his concern beyond how they make him feel.
Also, it is logically impossible to be fully just and merciful. I have often heard people claim that God is maximally just and maximally merciful. I don't think these are compatible. Justice requires that the evil be punished. Mercy requires that someone be excused their proper punishment.
Finally, is it really mercy, if you inflict the punishment on someone else?

philologos wrote: »

Some people have asked why couldn't God just forgive without sending Jesus into the world. I think if God "just forgave" we would have people claiming that there was no reason to think that God forgave at all.

This doesn't make a whole lot sense as we already have people claiming that there was no reason to think that God forgave at all.
The question stands. Also, if you do some harm to me and I wait until after I have punished to the full extent of the law and then forgive you, it is not really forgiveness, or at least a palty effort. Surely to be meaningful, forgiveness must be given

philologos wrote: »

However, Christians do have reason both to believe that God takes sin very seriously, and that sin is costly, to believe that God's justice has been satisfied, and that God is clearly merciful.

Again, justice satisfied and mercy. You see the strangeness also in God essentially being a slave to his own requirement for Justice. He appears to lack the ability to forgo attaining this Justice. As much a slave to his nature are we, perhaps? He'd better hope he wasn't created that way by a more powerful being who is going to punish him for it

philologos wrote: »

You're right. Jesus dying on the cross is unfair.

This is an injustice then, something God is apparently not capable of.

philologos wrote: »

I deserve condemnation in full.

Only according to God's arbitrary rules.

philologos wrote: »

God showed his love to us that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us (Romans 5:8-9). We deserve God's wrath, but we got his mercy instead.

We deserve God's wrath; who decides we are so deserving? God does. Accuser, Judge, Jury and law maker. This has the Euthyphro dilemma written all over it. Essentially, are God's laws based on an intrinsic good (which means God is not the source of goodness), or are God's laws good because God decrees them (This means that if God decrees that murdering people for fun is good then it is good.)

philologos wrote: »

That's the good news. Jesus died to rescue us.

From himself. Quite bizarre.

philologos wrote: »

There's nothing in our power that we can do to be saved. We're guilty. Therefore there is nothing we can do to be not guilty.

Guilty by decree. Sounds rather despotic. Saddam accuses you of being a traitor. The only person who can decide if you are guilty or innocent is Saddam. You are born guilty of sedition. Would you really be grateful for him shooting his own son in your place? Would he strike you as loving and just?

philologos wrote: »

He loves us.

A willingness to torture you for ever removes any possibility of this being true. It also junks any possibility of God being merciful.

philologos wrote: »

I think if God "just forgave" without doing anything that it would compromise the view that we are guilty at all, and indeed it would be saying that God was at fault rather than us.

It wouldn't be saying that at all. If I forgive you for something without first smacking you areound a bit I am seemingly at fault. That is a really perverse view of forgiveness.

philologos wrote: »

As for it being "scapegoating". Yes, that's precisely what it is. Scapegoating came from the Jewish practice at the Day of Atonement which is described in Leviticus 16. But in short, two goats were offered for sacrifice, one to atone for the sins of the people, and the high priest would put his hands on the other goat to pass all the transgression onto this goat and to let it go into the wilderness. So the second goat in running away shows that the sin of Israel had departed from them.

Even if you can transfer the punishment for a sin, you cannot transfer the responsibility. The former is perverse and the latter nonsensical.
Consider a murderer. He is found guilty and sentenced to death. His wife, to profess her love, chooses to take his punishment. She is killed in his stead and his debt is considered paid. The horrifying nature of this scenario aside, is he now not a murderer. Can his wife take on the moral guilt of the crime?

philologos wrote: »

Jesus was Himself God but was utterly separated from the Father while He was on the cross.

This is a logical contradiction. The law of non-contradiction. Jesus cannot be God and not-God at the same time. He can't be seperate from himself.

philologos wrote: »

It is entirely possible that Jesus bore the full extent of God's wrath in a temporal time period.

You can't compress infinity into any arbitrarily long non-infinite period.
That doesn't make sense.

philologos wrote: »

The death and resurrection of Jesus has deeper significance in the Christian gospel. Namely that as Jesus died we died to sin, and as Jesus rose again we were born again in His name (Romans 6).

In what sense does Jesus "die". Can God die? (and simultaneously not be dead?)

philologos wrote: »

It's not arrogant to say that I am saved when Jesus and the subsequent apostles make it very clear that those who believe and trust in Him have life in His name. The New Testament makes it clear that there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus and those who fully believe and repent in the Gospel are saved in His name.

What was Paul onabout then? (assuming it was Paul. I can't remember for certain)

If I was saying this on my own account without Scriptural authority, I'd agree, I'd be arrogant. Moreover, if I was saying that only I could be saved at all, I'd be arrogant.

philologos wrote: »

What I am saying is this. Jesus came into the world to rescue us from sin. Anyone who believes, I'll say that again, anyone who believes can be saved through Him if they will only repent and believe in Him.

Do you see nothing wrong with belief being the primary basis for salvation?
Why is belief necessary? Would you agree that belief is not itself a moral matter?

Apologies for the length of the post, there was a lot to unpack in there!

Tim Robbins

Lantus wrote: »

A flawed sociologist if he believes that the nazi's were intelligent. He probably meant to say they had above average IQ's. This is not IMHO the same as being intelligent. No rational person would do what they did and then claim to be intelligent.

Best not to mention that era in germany anyway. The german church fully endorsed the regime and even agreed that christianitys teachings were being adminstered correctly by the nazis and in accordance with gods law.

Being intelligent and better educated is a step towards gradually reducing our belief in myth and superstition.

Philogos said he thought there were intellectual difficulties with atheism in another thread. Could you elaborate?

I am guessing you think atheism means you believe there is no God as opposed to disbelieving in any of the Gods put forward by various religions?

philologos

HHobo wrote: »

This is one of the things I find pernicious about Christianity. If it is human nature to be "sinful", and it must be if we can be certain that no human is able in reality to be "righteous", then we are essentially being punished by God for having the nature he himself imbued us with.

We've sinned before God. We've all done it. That's what I mean. God gave us the freedom to do X rather than Y. Unless you want to blame God for making us autonomous beings I don't see how the objection makes much salt.

If we decide to do X rather than Y it seems silly to claim that it is God's responsibility to ensure that we make the right decisions.

HHobo wrote: »

Also, the bible has many apparently righteous people in it. Noah, Job, lot off the top of my head. Consider also how God treated Job. Job was a good and righteous man, so much so that God decided to boast to Satan about it. He even allowed Satan to murder his family so he could prove a point. God himself is guilty here of the worst kind of malice but of course, being God anything he does himself is instantly considered righteous, not because of the vitues of lack thereof of the action itself but solely because he is the one doing it. It is directly a might-makes-right philosophy.

Noah sinned (Genesis 9:18-29) and Job did also (Job 42:1-6), Moses did many times, Abraham did numerous times, David did by committing adultery. The only person I can think of that was entirely perfect in the Bible is Jesus.

HHobo wrote: »

You see the irony in this? Jesus, according to Christian tradition, is God. So God is taking his own wrath? This makes little sense. Even assuming it did, the concept of scapegoating, i.e. the putting of sins onto another, is an ancient idea that no moral philosopher would take seriously today. God is not guilty of the crimes for which he is stepping in to take the wrath. By any measure of Justice, the guilty are getting away with it and the innocent are being punished.

I don't think it's particularly ironic at all. It perhaps seems strange at first, but I think it makes total sense.

I studied moral philosophy at university quite extensively. I think quite a number of moral philosophers throughout the years have been Christians, and would indeed take Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection seriously.

But you're right Christians do believe that Jesus was God. Christians also believe that Jesus was born in human flesh to save us from our sin. God being just and merciful took His wrath upon Himself to show us the full cost of sin, and also to show us how much we have been forgiven.

Some people have asked why couldn't God just forgive without sending Jesus into the world. I think if God "just forgave" we would have people claiming that there was no reason to think that God forgave at all. However, Christians do have reason both to believe that God takes sin very seriously, and that sin is costly, to believe that God's justice has been satisfied, and that God is clearly merciful.

You're right. Jesus dying on the cross is unfair. I deserve condemnation in full. God showed his love to us that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us (Romans 5:8-9). We deserve God's wrath, but we got his mercy instead. That's the good news. Jesus died to rescue us.

There's nothing in our power that we can do to be saved. We're guilty. Therefore there is nothing we can do to be not guilty. However, the judge in bearing the wrath Himself shows that although we are very clearly guilty He is willing to forgive us at cost to Himself because He loves us.

I think if God "just forgave" without doing anything that it would compromise the view that we are guilty at all, and indeed it would be saying that God was at fault rather than us.

As for it being "scapegoating". Yes, that's precisely what it is. Scapegoating came from the Jewish practice at the Day of Atonement which is described in Leviticus 16. But in short, two goats were offered for sacrifice, one to atone for the sins of the people, and the high priest would put his hands on the other goat to pass all the transgression onto this goat and to let it go into the wilderness. So the second goat in running away shows that the sin of Israel had departed from them. Christians believe that this practice points towards the ultimate sacrifice for sin, Jesus. The sin of the world was passed onto Jesus, who was our representative, in the same way that Adam was formerly our representative. The difference being that Jesus brought righteousness and Adam brought condemnation (Romans 5 covers this rather thoroughly).

The same with other scenarios like Exodus 12 which describes the Passover. Much in the same way that the angel of death passed over the houses of the Israelites because they were marked with the blood of the lamb, in the same way God's judgement will pass over us because we've accepted that Jesus stood in our place on the cross.

HHobo wrote: »

Note also that Jesus is not being handed the same level of punishement that humans are. He "died" for three days and then gets to be king of the universe for all time. Not quite the hell we mere mortals are promised. He isn't, by any serious accounting, taking your punishment.

Jesus was blameless prior to taking on God's wrath on our behalf. We are not blameless in any respect. Jesus was Himself God but was utterly separated from the Father while He was on the cross. By the by, I don't think time is a huge factor in this as I don't believe that God is bound by time in the same way we are. It is entirely possible that Jesus bore the full extent of God's wrath in a temporal time period.

The death and resurrection of Jesus has deeper significance in the Christian gospel. Namely that as Jesus died we died to sin, and as Jesus rose again we were born again in His name (Romans 6).

It is because of this that Jesus is our Lord. We've died to the old way of living so that we can submit to Christ.

HHobo wrote: »

I might well be wrong about this but wasn't it Paul who also said that no-one could know ahead of time who was saved and who wasn't. That is a decision that rests solely with God. If this is the case, is it not extremely presumtuous, if not arrogant to use the expression "I was saved...."?

It's not arrogant to say that I am saved when Jesus and the subsequent apostles make it very clear that those who believe and trust in Him have life in His name. The New Testament makes it clear that there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus and those who fully believe and repent in the Gospel are saved in His name.

If I was saying this on my own account without Scriptural authority, I'd agree, I'd be arrogant. Moreover, if I was saying that only I could be saved at all, I'd be arrogant.

What I am saying is this. Jesus came into the world to rescue us from sin. Anyone who believes, I'll say that again, anyone who believes can be saved through Him if they will only repent and believe in Him.

God has assured us that whoever repents, believes and trusts in Jesus Christ will have pass from death to life.

Tim Robbins

philologos wrote: »

I disagree, we should be trying to make sense of what we believe through Scripture.

IS this possible if you:

1. Don't understandand ancient greek
2. Hewbrew
3. And have the original copies of the texts?

philologos

I'll come to this post later when I get home from work. It's a good contribution to the thread so thanks a lot for posting it.

HHobo

Hi Phil,

There are some questions I would also like to ask someone who takes their Christianity seriously. So if you are of a mind to answer...

philologos wrote: »

Not a single person is righteous, no not one. Paul also goes on in the first few chapters (let's say from 1 to 5) about mankinds predicament. Namely, that they have all sinned and turned away from God and rightfully deserve God's wrath, and that there is nothing in our own strength that we can do to justify ourselves.

This is one of the things I find pernicious about Christianity. If it is human nature to be "sinful", and it must be if we can be certain that no human is able in reality to be "righteous", then we are essentially being punished by God for having the nature he himself imbued us with.

Also, the bible has many apparently righteous people in it. Noah, Job, lot off the top of my head. Consider also how God treated Job. Job was a good and righteous man, so much so that God decided to boast to Satan about it. He even allowed Satan to murder his family so he could prove a point. God himself is guilty here of the worst kind of malice but of course, being God anything he does himself is instantly considered righteous, not because of the vitues of lack thereof of the action itself but solely because he is the one doing it. It is directly a might-makes-right philosophy.

philologos wrote: »

Coming to salvation as far as I can tell Scripturally is the point when one realises that there is absolutely nothing in their own power that they can do to be just with a holy and a righteous God, and realise that they need a Saviour to stand in their place and take God's wrath on their behalf, and indeed that person was Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:8-9).

You see the irony in this? Jesus, according to Christian tradition, is God. So God is taking his own wrath? This makes little sense. Even assuming it did, the concept of scapegoating, i.e. the putting of sins onto another, is an ancient idea that no moral philosopher would take seriously today. God is not guilty of the crimes for which he is stepping in to take the wrath. By any measure of Justice, the guilty are getting away with it and the innocent are being punished.

Note also that Jesus is not being handed the same level of punishement that humans are. He "died" for three days and then gets to be king of the universe for all time. Not quite the hell we mere mortals are promised. He isn't, by any serious accounting, taking your punishment.

philologos wrote: »

Essentially it was the moment when I realised that I had sinned before God, and that I needed a Saviour.

I might well be wrong about this but wasn't it Paul who also said that no-one could know ahead of time who was saved and who wasn't. That is a decision that rests solely with God. If this is the case, is it not extremely presumtuous, if not arrogant to use the expression "I was saved...."?

Lantus

Blinkus wrote: »

Nonsense, Christianity is not stupid, it has a deep theology to back it up, theology is the systematic and rational study of God after all. Because you don't study Theology it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The more intelligent and educated someone is, the more they excessively rationalize to the point where they deceive themselves. They are like children in a big mansion, they get lost. This is why unbelievers are nearly always educated people, they have plenty of room to toy with words, their meanings and even redefine them. This also explains why the totalitarian dictator elitists ('liberals') are educated and fairly wealthy. If you think enough about something, you can eventually justify anything. The Nazi's did this.

A sociologist carried out a study on Hitler's henchmen, the guys who did his dirty work, and found they were highly educated and intelligent. They did the same thing, justified their crimes through their ability to over rationalize. It shows the most dangerous people can be the intellectuals.

The poor on the other hand, don't have the education and thus playing room you guys have. They are simple minded and thus not easily deceived. It's far easier to fool a philosopher than a farmer. Not only this, but they need God, since they don't have a doctor nearby or a supermarket.

The glorification of rationalization by you lot, overlooks the error that is prone in human thinking. It works against you.

If you're educated and you don't want God to exist, for whatever motives, then go and make that happen, make believe, just like a fairy tale. If you don't want the unborn to be babies, just call them fetus's, since that might temporarily serve to alleviate a guilty conscience for a couple of years.

Seems the bible was right when it say Human wisdom is folly

A flawed sociologist if he believes that the nazi's were intelligent. He probably meant to say they had above average IQ's. This is not IMHO the same as being intelligent. No rational person would do what they did and then claim to be intelligent.

Best not to mention that era in germany anyway. The german church fully endorsed the regime and even agreed that christianitys teachings were being adminstered correctly by the nazis and in accordance with gods law.

Being intelligent and better educated is a step towards gradually reducing our belief in myth and superstition.

Tim Robbins

Blinkus wrote: »

Nonsense, Christianity is not stupid, it has a deep theology to back it up, theology is the systematic and rational study of God after all. Because you don't study Theology it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The more intelligent and educated someone is, the more they excessively rationalize to the point where they deceive themselves. They are like children in a big mansion, they get lost. This is why unbelievers are nearly always educated people, they have plenty of room to toy with words, their meanings and even redefine them. This also explains why the totalitarian dictator elitists ('liberals') are educated and fairly wealthy. If you think enough about something, you can eventually justify anything. The Nazi's did this.

A sociologist carried out a study on Hitler's henchmen, the guys who did his dirty work, and found they were highly educated and intelligent. They did the same thing, justified their crimes through their ability to over rationalize. It shows the most dangerous people can be the intellectuals.

The poor on the other hand, don't have the education and thus playing room you guys have. They are simple minded and thus not easily deceived. It's far easier to fool a philosopher than a farmer. Not only this, but they need God, since they don't have a doctor nearby or a supermarket.

The glorification of rationalization by you lot, overlooks the error that is prone in human thinking. It works against you.

If you're educated and you don't want God to exist, for whatever motives, then go and make that happen, make believe, just like a fairy tale. If you don't want the unborn to be babies, just call them fetus's, since that might temporarily serve to alleviate a guilty conscience for a couple of years.

Seems the bible was right when it say Human wisdom is folly

Have you just used a big pile of words yourself to say something that can be said very succinctly as 'ignorance is bliss'?

Morbert

Blinkus wrote: »

The more intelligent and educated someone is, the more they excessively rationalize to the point where they deceive themselves. They are like children in a big mansion, they get lost. This is why unbelievers are nearly always educated people, they have plenty of room to toy with words, their meanings and even redefine them. This also explains why the totalitarian dictator elitists ('liberals') are educated and fairly wealthy. If you think enough about something, you can eventually justify anything. The Nazi's did this.

A sociologist carried out a study on Hitler's henchmen, the guys who did his dirty work, and found they were highly educated and intelligent. They did the same thing, justified their crimes through their ability to over rationalize. It shows the most dangerous people can be the intellectuals.

The poor on the other hand, don't have the education and thus playing room you guys have. They are simple minded and thus not easily deceived. It's far easier to fool a philosopher than a farmer. Not only this, but they need God, since they don't have a doctor nearby or a supermarket.

The glorification of rationalization by you lot, overlooks the error that is prone in human thinking. It works against you.

If you're educated and you don't want God to exist, for whatever motives, then go and make that happen, make believe, just like a fairy tale. If you don't want the unborn to be babies, just call them fetus's, since that might temporarily serve to alleviate a guilty conscience for a couple of years.

Seems the bible was right when it say Human wisdom is folly

Surely you must see the irony in this post.

pauldla

tommy2bad wrote: »

Damn those liberal totalitarian dictators, why cant we have illiberal hardline dictators.

What is a liberal totalitarian dictatorship? "By decree of our Glorious Leader, all citizens are free to form their own opinions, following the dictates of their conscience and/or faith. Citizens who fail to do this will be shot!"

tommy2bad

This also explains why the totalitarian dictator elitists ('liberals') are educated and fairly wealthy

Damn those liberal totalitarian dictators, why cant we have illiberal hardline dictators.

pauldla

Blinkus wrote: »

Nonsense, Christianity is not stupid, it has a deep theology to back it up, theology is the systematic and rational study of God after all. Because you don't study Theology it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The more intelligent and educated someone is, the more they excessively rationalize to the point where they deceive themselves. They are like children in a big mansion, they get lost. This is why unbelievers are nearly always educated people, they have plenty of room to toy with words, their meanings and even redefine them. This also explains why the totalitarian dictator elitists ('liberals') are educated and fairly wealthy. If you think enough about something, you can eventually justify anything. The Nazi's did this.

A sociologist carried out a study on Hitler's henchmen, the guys who did his dirty work, and found they were highly educated and intelligent. They did the same thing, justified their crimes through their ability to over rationalize. It shows the most dangerous people can be the intellectuals.

The poor on the other hand, don't have the education and thus playing room you guys have. They are simple minded and thus not easily deceived. It's far easier to fool a philosopher than a farmer. Not only this, but they need God, since they don't have a doctor nearby or a supermarket.

The glorification of rationalization by you lot, overlooks the error that is prone in human thinking. It works against you.

If you're educated and you don't want God to exist, for whatever motives, then go and make that happen, make believe, just like a fairy tale. If you don't want the unborn to be babies, just call them fetus's, since that might temporarily serve to alleviate a guilty conscience for a couple of years.

Seems the bible was right when it say Human wisdom is folly

OK. let me point out where I see some errors.

Theology is not the study of god. Theology is the study of how god or gods are perceived within the context of specific belief systems. It is, if you will, the study of human perceptions of god, and the structures or creed posited on those beliefs. Hence, catholic theology, jewish theology, etc.

The remainder of your post seems completely contradictory to me. You seem to think that theologians can't overrationalise 'to a point where they deceive themselves' (apart from silly, liberal theologians, of course). You then indulge in a bit of up-is-down-ism (blind to the irony of your own over-rationalising), and manage to get a mention of the Nazis in there too (good one! Always a clincher in an online debate).

I could reply that if you want God to exist, for whatever motives, then go and make that happen, make believe, just like a fairy tale. But that would be lazy of me.

Blinkus

pauldla wrote: »

Do you see any contradictions in what you have written..?

If you are talking about Theology, yes some Theologians, liberal ones, are guilty of over rationalizing. Even supporting abortion and women priests for example.

Being highly educated is not a bad thing, but if you have motives to do the wrong thing you can over rationalize to justify them. Theologians at least, most of them are good at heart so they have built a rock solid system of studying God and Religion

It seems there is a contradiction there, but when examined carefully enough, you'll find there isn't.

pauldla

Blinkus wrote: »

Nonsense, Christianity is not stupid, it has a deep theology to back it up, theology is the systematic and rational study of God after all. Because you don't study Theology it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The more intelligent and educated someone is, the more they excessively rationalize to the point where they deceive themselves. They are like children in a big mansion, they get lost. This is why unbelievers are nearly always educated people, they have plenty of room to toy with words, their meanings and even redefine them. This also explains why the totalitarian dictator elitists ('liberals') are educated and fairly wealthy. If you think enough about something, you can eventually justify anything. The Nazi's did this.

A sociologist carried out a study on Hitler's henchmen, the guys who did his dirty work, and found they were highly educated and intelligent. They did the same thing, justified their crimes through their ability to over rationalize. It shows the most dangerous people can be the intellectuals.

The poor on the other hand, don't have the education and thus playing room you guys have. They are simple minded and thus not easily deceived. It's far easier to fool a philosopher than a farmer. Not only this, but they need God, since they don't have a doctor nearby or a supermarket.

The glorification of rationalization by you lot, overlooks the error that is prone in human thinking. It works against you.

If you're educated and you don't want God to exist, for whatever motives, then go and make that happen, make believe, just like a fairy tale. If you don't want the unborn to be babies, just call them fetus's, since that might temporarily serve to alleviate a guilty conscience for a couple of years.

Seems the bible was right when it say Human wisdom is folly

Do you see any contradictions in what you have written..?

Blinkus

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm sure lots of intelligent people (even scientists) believe astrology. It is still a stupid idea, but that appeals to people through a manipulation of particular mental traits of humans, rather than rational determination. Or to put it another way, you have to actively invoke your rational brain to remind yourself how stupid it is. If you don't actively invoke this critical analysis and simply accept what you instincts tell you, it seems to make sense. Or to put it another way, the part of least resistance is to simple accept astrology.

You can call an idea stupid without calling the person who accepts that idea stupid. Christianity is stupid. That doesn't mean everyone who accepts it is stupid. People should remember that. There are very specific reasons why Christianity can appear very appealing to someone and none of these are because the person is of lesser intelligence.

Nonsense, Christianity is not stupid, it has a deep theology to back it up, theology is the systematic and rational study of God after all. Because you don't study Theology it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The more intelligent and educated someone is, the more they excessively rationalize to the point where they deceive themselves. They are like children in a big mansion, they get lost. This is why unbelievers are nearly always educated people, they have plenty of room to toy with words, their meanings and even redefine them. This also explains why the totalitarian dictator elitists ('liberals') are educated and fairly wealthy. If you think enough about something, you can eventually justify anything. The Nazi's did this.

A sociologist carried out a study on Hitler's henchmen, the guys who did his dirty work, and found they were highly educated and intelligent. They did the same thing, justified their crimes through their ability to over rationalize. It shows the most dangerous people can be the intellectuals.

The poor on the other hand, don't have the education and thus playing room you guys have. They are simple minded and thus not easily deceived. It's far easier to fool a philosopher than a farmer. Not only this, but they need God, since they don't have a doctor nearby or a supermarket.

The glorification of rationalization by you lot, overlooks the error that is prone in human thinking. It works against you.

If you're educated and you don't want God to exist, for whatever motives, then go and make that happen, make believe, just like a fairy tale. If you don't want the unborn to be babies, just call them fetus's, since that might temporarily serve to alleviate a guilty conscience for a couple of years.

Seems the bible was right when it say Human wisdom is folly

Fanny Cradock

I'm struggling to see how any of those supposedly analogous generalisation have any bearing on your generalisations about religion at large.

Tim Robbins

G.K. wrote: »

That's a ridiculous generalisation.

Parents (stronger) tell their kids what to believe (weaker)
Roman Empire (Stronger) over all its subjects (Weaker)
Henry the wife beater (Stronger) over all his people (Weaker)
European colonists (Stronger) over North Americans, South Ameriancs and half of Africa (Weaker)
European missionaries (Stronger) tell their impoverished Africans what to believer (weaker)
Preachers / Priests / Bishops(Stronger) tell their parishes / audiences what to believe (weaker)

What's that phrase from the Jesuits? 'Show me the child and I'll show you the man?'

That's how the meme goes around in the majority of cases. You will get exceptions - I think Fanny for example is an exception. Perhaps not.

And before someone goes of on a tangent, when I say weaker - I mean overall weaker.
So an African might be pyschologically stronger than a European missionary but not have the same access to information and knowledge as someone studying maths in Trinity does. So overall they are in a weaker position.

G.K.

That's a ridiculous generalisation.

Tim Robbins

Import letter in Irish Times today. I am not starting a separate thread for this because any I do just end up getting sent here.

Sir, – As a former orphan I welcome the children’s rights referendum. I hope it will prevent in future the abuse that I suffered as a child along with over 30 others in the Westbank Orphanage, Greystones, Wicklow.

Some criticism is emerging to the effect that the provisions might give the State too much power.

All I can say is that the state exercised none over Westbank. As a Protestant Evangelical institution it was left to its own devices without any apparent interference. We had our names changed to that of the owner, the late Adeline Mathers. We suffered physical plus sexual abuse and were used as child labour on farms and in shops in Northern Ireland.

In addition we were paraded as orphan children in front of church-goers in Northern Ireland. We were expected to perform party pieces in the expectation that this would exercise the charitable sentiments of onlookers. It did, but the money raised and new goods and toys donated were not for the benefit of the children.

I use the term “orphanage” advisedly in that it was almost impossible to adopt a child out of the place, unless prospective parents conformed to Miss Mathers’ interpretation of God’s plan for human kind. I know this because my half brother was forcibly extracted (literally) from Westbank by people who became his loving adoptive parents in Northern Ireland. Of course, we only became aware years later that we were half-brothers, as even twins in Westbank were denied knowledge of sibling relationships.

I am for the State exercising power over religious fanatics who think their interpretation of God’s law is superior to all else. The State is required to exercise its powers. In our case it did not, as was also the case with the Bethany Home, Dublin, where I was born in 1966. That has to change.

Currently, the records of Westbank have been removed from PACT, the former Protestant Adoption Society, by the Westbank Trustees in Bray Gospel Hall. They appear to have no training in such matters and are reluctant to give information to former Westbank residents. Perhaps the State could start to show some good intent by taking an interest in that. – Yours, etc,

COLM BEGLEY,

(Formerly “Robin Mathers” of

Westbank Orphanage),

Carrigadrohid,

Co Cork.

Pretty disgraceful. Although it does not surprise me that religion can have these type of consequences - and it is not just the Catholics at it.

Religion works on the basis on pyschological manipulation by someone stronger on someone who is pyschologically weaker. It is complete mind control and it does not surprise the range of very sinister consequences it has.

J C

Closed-minded 'Skeptics' ... eh???!!!
... strange ... but apparently true!!!

Is this a case of some Skeptics becoming a caricature of their own prejudices ... and becoming what they most criticise in others ... closed-minded dogmatism (that what we can physically sense is all there is) !!!:):D!!!

Just got to love you all ... in all your amazing contradictions!!!:D

[Deleted User]

nagirrac wrote: »

If science was limited to the known natural world Einstein and everyone following him in theoretcial physics would have been ignored as they were proposing effects that did not fit with the existing accepted view of what constituted the "natural" world. Einstein himself did not accept the results of EPR and referred to it as "spooky action at a distance".

But then Einstien and all other theoretical physicist attempt to explain the new effects in naturalistic terms, not supernatural or non-physical ones.

At the Einstein's time they couldn't explain the results of the Michaelson Morley experiment with the current level of understanding.
Yet Einstein was able to provide a reductionist, materialistic explanation.
How do you explain this?

nagirrac wrote: »

Paraphyscologists study the natural world i.e. strange effects that are commonly reported in the natural world. The attempts so far to explain these effects are theoretical, but attempts to explain the natural world nonetheless (just like string theory).

But they don't provide a theory. No parapsychologist has ever produced a sane, plausible theory to explain the effect they are studying, let alone support that theory with any sort of reasoning or evidence.

nagirrac wrote: »

There is no doubt from the empirical evidence that psi effects exist, but they are held to a higher standard when it comes to be accepted due to the bias against this area of study in the establishment scientific community (sceptics like Wiseman even accept this).

There is doubt about "psi effects" as they have never been produced in conditions that exclude cheating or other effects.
They are held to a higher standard because 1) such effects have never been show to exist 2) when they are analysed closely they are always found to be due to other, non-supernatural effects.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

String theory is at least able to produce consistent mathematical models that offer solid explanations.
No parapsychologist can do this.

nagirrac

gvn wrote: »

Indeed, both hypotheses are highly theoretical, but they are still attempts at explaining the natural world. Scientists study the natural world because science is the study of the natural world; science is not concerned with that which is not natural or that which is supernatural. I don't see how you can object to this given it's a distinction that's explicit in the definition of science itself.

The definition of science is the pursuit of knowledge. All of science is study of the natural world, science is the pursuit of knowledge regarding the world we live in. Are you saying paraphyscologists are not scientists? If science was limited to the known natural world Einstein and everyone following him in theoretcial physics would have been ignored as they were proposing effects that did not fit with the existing accepted view of what constituted the "natural" world. Einstein himself did not accept the results of EPR and referred to it as "spooky action at a distance".

Paraphyscologists study the natural world i.e. strange effects that are commonly reported in the natural world. The attempts so far to explain these effects are theoretical, but attempts to explain the natural world nonetheless (just like string theory). There is no doubt from the empirical evidence that psi effects exist, but they are held to a higher standard when it comes to be accepted due to the bias against this area of study in the establishment scientific community (sceptics like Wiseman even accept this). With the lack of funding in the paraphyschology area combined with the derision and scorn from the establishment scientific community and sceptical community, it is amazing that anyone pursues research in this field.

There is an excellent article available online which covers this topic very well. It is "Paraphyschology: Science or Pseudoscience" by Marie-Catherine Mousseau which exposes the myth that paraphyschology is pseudoscience and does not follow established scientific method.

[Deleted User]

nagirrac wrote: »

The whole field of string theory and M-theory is studying and proposing universes other than our own physical one that we cannot observe but predict through mathematics.

Indeed, both hypotheses are highly theoretical, but they are still attempts at explaining the natural world. Scientists study the natural world because science is the study of the natural world; science is not concerned with that which is not natural or that which is supernatural. I don't see how you can object to this given it's a distinction that's explicit in the definition of science itself.