Why do Christians worship a God who is less moral than they are?

[Bloodblister Bob]

Ask most any Christian if they'd prevent a child from being murdered if they had the power to do so. Naturally, all of them say they would prevent it.

The obvious question then is: So why God doesn't prevent it? It happens every single day. Either God chooses not to prevent it, or he's powerless to do so.

Why worship a god who isn't even as loving and caring as the average human?

Asking this question of Christians has gotten me "rebuked" many times.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[opiate69]

19. Why is it an "asshole question"?

Simply because you don't like the most likely answer?

[Az]

20. The trouble you are going to get comes from the phrasing

The essential question you have has merrit. But parsing the question as you have you create an implied answer. Do not be suprised when people react to it.

[beam me up scottie]

21. Calling someone a troll

is against the rules.

Or it was last time I checked.

[Az]

25. Agreed

Not claiming the response was good. Just that the question as parsed is going to draw fire.

[beam me up scottie]

28. Oh, good, you see it too.

I thought maybe it was only obvious on my monitor.

[opiate69]

23. Check the author, Az...t'weren't me.

I was just curious to hear his/her rationale.

[Az]

24. Doh, my bad

Thats what I get for trying to post and watching dark comedies from Denmark at the same time.... :D

[opiate69]

26. lol.. it's all good..

Skol!

[Fovea]

2. Let me ask a related question

What makes it valid to judge a putative supreme being with human morals and aesthetics?

[Az]

15. Consider this

Some hope to spend eternity in the presense of an entity who's morallity they do not feel worthy of judging. That is the entity may reserve for itself behaviour that to another is immoral or malicious. Yet they look forward to be in the presense of this entity.

We have our own sense of right and wrong. You could be told that something is right or wrong but your own internal sense of the matter may not agree. A god who's morallity cannot be guessed or forced to conform to our sense of morallity will seem a capricious being. Who's whim may mean instant damnation for those who do not believe they deserve it.

Sounds problematic to me.

[Bloodblister Bob]

34. Why shouldn't we judge God by the rules he makes?

Christians claim that we get our laws of morality from God, yet I've had many Christians tell me that God is above all these laws and can't be bothered to follow them. That's why they're not concerned by God allowing children to be murdered, etc.

Their God is an outlaw God, and they seem to dig that. It's repugnant to me, but I'm just a heathen, so what do I know?

[Fovea]

38. Maybe I look at this differently

because I am Pagan.

I don't look to the divine as much for social control as inspiration and comfort.

My view of God/dess is not based on global divinity and all powerful creator, but as a more localized idea that *here* and *now* both contain some of the numinous in them.

[Mnemosyne]

3. Hmm, need popcorn for this.

:popcorn:

[madeline_con]

4. scoot over...

:popcorn:

[Mnemosyne]

18. You have the middle seat,

you get to hold the bowl!!

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:vssLu9j-El8J:

[RC]

7. Make some room for some Capitalist greed...

[Mnemosyne]

17. They do have nice carts, don't they?! lol n/t

[acmavm]

5. Because God expects us to prove our worth by doing things like

saving children. And supposedly old folk, and the sick and the defenseless.

[BootinUp]

6. How would you like your rebuking tonight? lol.

So you want him to end all suffering at the hand of man, which basically means taking away man's free will, which is a pretty close definition of the end of the world.

[jilln]

11. But it's OK for one human to take away another's free will?

I mean if someone murders someone else and God does not intervene, he has allowed one to exercise his free will and the other to be killed, so the dead guy is paying the price. How is that fair? How is that respecting the free will of the dead guy?

[BootinUp]

13. I think that is a pretty weak attempt to disprove the existence

of God. Why must we play these games?

[jilln]

14. I'm not trying to disprove anything.

Just asking for an explanation. Surely Christians have thought of this and have an answer.

[BootinUp]

30. The short answer

No, its not ok.

[jilln]

40. Well thanks, but that's not really much of an explanation.

[Bloodblister Bob]

35. Your example illustrates God's warped notion of righteousness...

God allows one guy to be murdered, then burns the murderer alive forever in hell. Instead of God preventing the murder to begin with, meaning that nobody would suffer, God thinks it's somehow better that TWO people suffer!

Is that warped, or is it just me?

[Dorian Gray]

41. But, I wouldn't want to live in a world

where we didn't get to make our own decisions. Perhaps, to your thinking, it's cruel.

Look at it this way. In order to protect us from ever hurting others or being hurt, our parents could smother us in our infancy. We would neither feel pain nor cause pain to others. But, our life would be forfeit. Perhaps they were able to lobotomize all of us at birth so that we were all peaceful and free from causing harm. Would that be acceptable or loving? Even if it prevented evils down the road?

Well, as a Christian, I believe that I was created with free will. Everything I do is in response to this world. There is evil in the world, of course. God COULD eradicate that evil, but that would be analgous to lobotomizing us all. We wouldn't be intelligent beings, doing good or ill in this world. We would be robotic automatons. Why would a loving God create a being without Free Will.

I also don't believe that murdering another human is the same thing as "taking their free will" from them.

I'm just responding to the posts in my own humble opinion. I am not trying to convince anyone else, and these thoughts are so deeply ingrained into my thought process that I can't imagine any other way.


Just an aside:

I don't know if anybody watched the television show Angel. But, there was an interesting arc on Season 4 where they had to combat Jasmine, one of "the powers that be." She provided a very peaceful earth for all her followers. They were all brainwashed into loving one another, but she took their will from them. (And she ate them, which was also problematic.) It was an interesting study in that those would prefer the pain and torture of the earth as is to the peace and harmony of following a goddess who did not allow people their own will.

[beyurslf]

8. How about this: why would god create a perfectly and wholly evil being

knowing that said being would lead to the downfall and damnation of those he created in his own image? And why would god purposely tempt those he created knowing they would fail the temptation and be sentenced to death?

[beam me up scottie]

9. That sounds familiar.

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."

Gene Roddenberry

[roguevalley]

10. You assume that God meddles in the lives of his creations. God has

given us tools and opportunity. We make our own shit. God has nothing to do with our everyday lives. We do. The idea otherwise is one of the biggest fallacies going. God isn't our nanny.

[jilln]

12. Then why pray?

Not trying to be rude, it's a serious question. If God isn't gonna help, why do people pray for good health, for people to come home from war safe, etc.?

[nemo137]

32. many of us don't. Many of us pray only for the most basic thanksgiving,

not out of any desire to influence God.

[salvorhardin]

31. I never get tired of posting this...

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
— Epicurus (341-270 BC)

[Bloodblister Bob]

36. Epicurus is The Man! n/t

[Shell Beau]

63. You know as a Christian, I think there are some things

that are beyond my human capability of understanding. Having said that, you are certainly free to feel that way. I will not try to disprove your feelings or beliefs. Why must you feel the need to do so with those who believe differently? Or may I be more specific, Christians?

[beam me up scottie]

69. I don't think Epicurus can hear you.

But you never know.

[Shell Beau]

72. Uh, okay.

[salvorhardin]

74. I admit to being a little confused

First of all, I would never try to disprove your feelings. I couldn't even if I wanted to. They're your feelings and feelings are experiences -- electrochemical actions and neuronal connections within your brain. You either have them or you don't. There's nothing to prove or disprove, unless you're lying about your feelings but I've never believed you were.

Secondly, as far as trying to disprove your beliefs I don't think I can do that either. Your beliefs are just like your feelings. They exist inside and as part of you, specifically your brain. Again, unless you're lying, there's nothing to prove or disprove.

However, unlike your feelings, I can argue that your beliefs are founded on inaccurate precepts or flawed reasoning. If you believe that when you woke up yesterday George Clooney was standing above your bed but slipped through the cracks in the floorboards before you could say anything I would argue that your belief is incorrect and that in reality you were experiencing a hypnopompic hallucination.

But, when it comes to your religious beliefs, I would never try to argue you out of them. They're too deeply seated. They've become too much a part of you and probably would withstand even limited brain damage (except perhaps to a very specific part of your right frontal lobe, but then you'd probably also lose your ability to concentrate and do other complex mental tasks too).

What I will do though is continue to present my disbelief. Epicurus' famous quote just happens to perfectly state why I disbelieve in a god -- any god. I'm an equal opportunity disbeliever and you won't catch me disbelieving in any one god any more than another so don't try to play the persecuted Christian card with me. And if my disbelief, or more specifically, my vocal disbelief offends you then... tough! Disbelievers have had to put up with you believers proclaiming your belief everywhere and anywhere you go for hundreds of centuries with no end in site. It's the believers (as a group -- not your personally) who chose to burn disbelievers at the stake or other heinous things and not the other way around.

So, if my quoting of a dead guy wearing funny robes is so offensive, then prepare to be offended for quite a while because despite a heart condition I don't plan on going anywhere anytime soon.

On edit: Here's a quote from another dead guy, this time sans funny robes though he was known to wear some pretty mod sports jackets in his time.
To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. -- Isaac Asimov

[Shell Beau]

93. Well, my point is, just like

non-believers (or whatever you like to be called) don't want me breathing my beliefs down their throats, I don't want you breathing your non-beliefs down mine. Why isn't that fair? Christians get criticized for trying to "convert" people, but is that not what you are basically doing? You are trying to get me to see it your way even if you know it's not going to happen. You are free to feel the way you do. But if you feel the need to put your quotes you find peace or comfort in, then why complain if Christians do it (not necessarily you, but I've seen it a lot from others). If I started a thread about how great God is and why can't others see it, then I'd be flamed away. It is kind of hypocritical IMO!


A few quotes I take comfort in:

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
Hebrews 11:1

"All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen" Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservation." anonymous

"Faith is the daring of the soul to go farther than it can see"
William Newton Clarke

[CarbonDate]

128. self delete

n/t

[shrike]

94. No offense, but shouldn't it be "gods"?

Epicurus was Greek, no? The Greeks were polytheists, not monotheists, at this point in their history. Unless I've got the time periods all wrong.

[NAO]

48. The Bible says God meddles, to the point of ordering children killed

Here is but a small sample of scriptures that prove that according to the Bible,

1. God is involved in the lives of his creations, and

2. He orders people to kill children.

Further, the Bible says God "meddled" to the point of killing every living thing on the planet in the "great flood".

OK, here are a few Bible verses for your perusal:


"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill
every woman that hath known men by lying with them. But all the
women children, that hath not known a man by lying with them,
keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:17-18

"And the Lord our God delivered him before us, and we smote him,
and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at
that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the
little ones of every city, we left none to remain." Deuteronomy
2:33-34

"And we utterly destroyed them, as we did into Sihon king of
Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children of every
city." Deuteronomy 3:6

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man
and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the
edge of the sword." Joshua 5:21

"For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out
the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of
Ai." Joshua 8:26

"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of all the
south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings:
he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed,
as the LORD God of Israel commanded." Joshua 10:40

"And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of
the sword, utterly destroying them, there were not any left to
breathe, and he burnt Hazor with fire." Joshua 11:10

"Then it shall be that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my
house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of
Ammon, shall surely be the LORD'S and I will offer it up for a
burnt offering ... And Jepthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and
behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with
dances, and she was his only child, beside her he had neither son
nor daughter...And it came to pass at the end of two months, that
she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his
vow which he had vowed, and she knew no man..." Judges 11:31,34,39

"And he went up from thence unto Bethel, and as he was going up
by the way, there came up little children out of the city, and
said unto him Go up thou bald head; go up thou bald head. And he
turned back, and looked on him, and cursed them in the name of
the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and
tore forty and two children of them." II Kings 2:23-24

[Az]

16. There is a old challenge

Find a single page in the bible where there is nothing morally or ethically objectionable to you.

It's harder than you think.

[FM Arouet666]

22. God works in mysterious ways.

We have neither the intellect nor the authority in this, God's green earth, to judge his actions. Humans, merely mortals, a brief time on this earth wallowing in sin, cannot judge the wisdom of the creator. God is not bound by the narrow interpretation of human morality.

God has the power to save the little child, he cares, but he is really busy. He is smiting the muslims with Bush's war, smiting the muslims with earthquakes and tsunamis. Casting evil doers into hurricanes. Stopping abortion, gay marriage, and evolution. That is a lot of damn work, how can you expect a busy guy like god to deal with some little murdered child. I bet she was a democrat anyway. So lay off the lord, or I will have him smite you right now where you are typing this salacious filth.

Oh, and god bless you.......

[beam me up scottie]

27. Are you being sarcastic?

:P

[TheWraith]

29. Presuming that you believe in God, and that you believe in free will...

Then you have to choose. You either have an omnipotent nanny who can prevent any harm from coming to anyone, or you have the free will of human beings to choose their own fates.

Or from another direction, if you believe in God, then you also have to believe that there's more to existence than mortal life, and that death isn't the terrible thing that it would be to someone who does not believe in God.

[shrike]

95. Nice point

You put it nicely for me.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bloodblister Bob]

37. God uses a different "morality" than the one he advocates for us?

Talk about "moral relativism". Hah.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bloodblister Bob]

45. Not angry, not attacking...

Just trying to make some points about the convoluted non-reasoning of the Christian faith.

Non-reasoning is a dangerous thing, wouldn't you say?

[Az]

46. But from their point of view that is attacking

And your saying so does not mean they will see any inherent unreasonable aspects of their own beliefs. They most likely have considered and dealt with the issues you come across in their own reasoned methods.

The thing about making other people see reason is you really can't make them see your reason. You can place ideas before them and hope they reach them. But only by appealing to their particular sense of reason can progress be made. It has to be their sense of reason that connects the dots.

[Bloodblister Bob]

47. But faith is the opposite of reason. n/t

[Shell Beau]

64. Says you!

That is not always so.

[The Magistrate]

66. By Definition, Ma'am

Faith is the act of holding to be true things that no evidence demonstrates to be true: if a thing can be proved true, faith is hardly required, since the thing can be classed as a demonstrated fact.

[Shell Beau]

68. Please quit calling me ma'am. It almost sounds

condescending. There is no proof that a lot of things are true. Yet that doesn't make them unreasonable. Evolution for example is a mere theory since it lacks some critical links. Yet that doesn't make it unreasonable. Maybe a bad example, but it makes my point.

[Festivito]

71. Faith and reason are not opposites.

Faith is a type of reasoning.

For example: One might maintain faith in science even though science occasionally makes a wrong choice which it later corrects. Just because one knows that science may occasionally be wrong for a time, does not mean anyone needs to lose faith in scientific precepts. Especially since science itself, does have self-correcting capabilities.

[Bloodblister Bob]

80. You are confusing Faith with Trust...

Trust is based on reasoning, on a verifiable record of past performance. In short, it is earned.

Faith is a kind of wishful thinking, based on nothing but the desire that something should be a certain way.

[Festivito]

83. How about that faith can at times be unreasonable.

Or, do you need to have faith as ALWAYS unreasonable?

Example: Scientifically accepted fact develops anomalies. Yet, some turn a blind eye to those anomalies. That is faith: blind acceptance. As the anomalies persist, the faithful are seen as unreasonable. To further complicate this matter, the anomalies are explained as the fault of testers and the original fact remains even more accepted.

Faith may be unreasonable at times, but, never should one think that the faithful have a monopoly on unreasonability.

[Shell Beau]

56. I as a Christian do see reason, contrary to what you may believe.

Just like I can't make you change your mind about your beliefs either, no matter how unreasonable they may sound to me.

[Festivito]

51. Do you hold ALL Christians as non-reasoning?

I'd find that unreasonable, and I'd find that a dangerous thing.

[Bloodblister Bob]

54. It is unreasonable to believe that the Jesus story is literally true. n/t

[Shell Beau]

57. That is your opinion! And it is only an opinion.

And I appreciate you calling me unreasonable. Coming from someone who lables a whole bunch of people as unreasonable, I take that as a compliment.


Oh, and BTW, it's nice to know you have your profile disabled.
:think:

[Bloodblister Bob]

78. In my opinion, believing that Jesus rose from the dead is unreasonable.

If a Christian truly believes that Jesus rose from the dead, was born to a virgin, conceived by Jehova, etc., then I would say they are not being reasonable.

[Shell Beau]

100. Well, maybe I would say that someone who can't

fathom something happening just because it is beyond human comprehension is unreasonable. Human's aren't even capable of using their whole brains. Imagine what would be if we could. Ever heard of miracles?

I personally have had experiences in my life which proves my faith for me. Call me unreasonable or whatever you wish. Whatever makes you feel better.

[opiate69]

127. "Human's aren't even capable of using their whole brains. "

another ridiculous myth...

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm



thanks for playing.. please come again

[Shell Beau]

129. I never said we only use 10% of our brain. We don't, however,

use all of it. The capacity for our brains to learn is infinite.

Thank YOU for playing!

[Festivito]

59. Do you hold ALL Christians believe the story of Jesus literally, only?

Literalism is a sub-sect of Christianity, not its entirety.

[Bloodblister Bob]

77. Don't all Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead? n/t

[Festivito]

82. Actually, no.

The notable larger ones do. However, there were and remain large denominations that don't. I'm not a scholar. Can't recall which ones.

I don't recall if Jefferson's Bible dropped the story, altogether.

[salvorhardin]

39. So...

Your god is a heartless, cruel uncaring god with no concern for humanity? Interesting.

[Festivito]

43. According to you, but not me or Him. nt.

[Az]

44. The question stands

How would you feel if God did something that affected you and you felt that it was unjustified and immoral? Or do you believe that you are perfectly in synch with what God considers moral and just?

[Festivito]

52. I answered it: "NO." But, I'll answer it differently.

First, how am I to determine that it was indeed God who so affected me. Fine if a given. But, we have no example.

Second, what could be an example, analogy, or even a generalization of such an occurance. Discussing the absolute of all as a hypothetical would be understandably onerous and frought with possible misunderstandings, or worse, endless meanderings.

Third, why is it that God's omnipotence requires that he take the power to revoke his own power to keep his promise of free will. Thus on one hand he can save the little girl. On the other does he allow the free will that brought the little girl to harm.

Fourth, what is the morality in allowing one a short life, and another a life that in old age does not allow an end. Is one more or less moral than the other, or just?

Fifth, can I say that a short life is less meaningful than a long one? If not less meaninful, thus, if God does shorten a life, is there possibly a higher bigger-picture reason for that untimely end? I'd suggest, yes, there could be.

My reaction, might, be to attempt to understand the morality of such an occurance. Yet, I might not be in perfect synch with God, ever. Just closer.

[The Magistrate]

50. But Why Should 'His' Statements Be Taken At Face Value, Sir?

It is quite common for deeds to be described by their author in very different terms than any witnesses to them might employ. Indeed, love is a word frequently employed in that matter, with acts claimed to be expressions of love that others might more readily view as expressions of jealousy, possessiveness, or unexamined sadism.

"If your mother says she loves you --- check it out."

[Festivito]

53. Can't determine what you mean.

Are you trying to get me to explain literalism? My whole point has been to say that not all Christians can be painted with a broad brush. Literalism is one of those brushes not wide enough, but used in rhetoric as such.. incorrectly used as such, and to the detriment of our need to be rid of RW CONs.

Unfortunately some of the earlier posts in this branch are now gone, especially the first one, so I don't know if you might be referring to something eminating earlier.

[The Magistrate]

61. It Was Not My Intention To Be Obscure, Sir

You had made a statement to the effect that a diety you credit had stated it was loving and concerned in relation to humans, and so it should be viewed as loving and concerned towards humans, since it had said so. My point is that statements of that nature can hardly be taken at face value, but can only be viewed as true if observed actions of the speaker actually reflect them. In this instance, an excellent case could be made that the actions contradict the words.

"I will not hold good and just conduct in a diety I would not own good and just conduct in a man."

[Festivito]

70. Perhaps a moderator deleted it, and as moderator you'd have access.

I don't have that access.

I did not make the statement as embedded in your sentence. I could say something similar, but it would not read the same. Recreated sentences have their own nature, as would the nature, of the nature of a recreated sentence, which then on the face of its re-created value could be viewed as true if the author were clear, here the re-creator, creator, or, The Creator.

So, I disagree. Hardly an excellent case for contradictions.

As to your parting affirmism. One must have a high opinion of one's self to judge God based on their own judgment over that of a god. That can be a good thing. But, for some, they have no superior. None.

At least, that's what they think, Sir.

[The Magistrate]

73. An Interesting Effort On Several Levels, Sir

The one worth engaging is the question of whether or not there exists an awareness of how many presumptions have to be shared on both sides of the exchange for it to convey any genuine point. A person who does not share the presumption that there is anything beyond human thoughts indicated by the word "god" would have little reason to be shy of placing their own view over that attributed to such a creation of another human mind.

The point yopu do not engage also is of some interest. A person claimed above that the diety is uncaring and cruel, and you denied that. Yet there is abundant reason to describe the diety in question, based on proclaimed actions of that diety as described by believers on it, to describe it as a cruel and unfeeling entity. Statements to the contrary attributed to it in contradiction of this do not seem a sufficienmt counterweight....

[Festivito]

75. And again.

P1. How overbearing of them.
P2. Described deity or not..

The person above questioned, (obtusely if we were able to see the object post) that my God is "a heartless, cruel uncaring god with no concern for humanity." To which I responded: "According to you, but not me or Him." Later, to another poster I responded that my answer had been: "NO." Then, I added a more elaborate answer.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x31681#31837

Now, you indicate that it is a point I "do not engage."

Well, I did. Three times. Here goes another.

The point is still, God's acts might look bad to us humans who do not accept God. That does not mean those acts seem bad to God, or to those who believe in Him.

[salvorhardin]

76. Right. Got you.

God's still a bastard, he/she/it just doesn't realize it. Thanks for the clarification.

[Bloodblister Bob]

81. So if I believed in God...

I'd understand how His letting children be raped and murdered is actually a GOOD thing?

I didn't need another reason to remain a non-believer, but you certainly gave me one!

[Festivito]

84. No. But, you might hear what is being said.

In your egregious example, it would be hard to see. A child raped, tortured, killed. What could be good. I agree. What?

But, I also question, damn near everything, including the immorality of this example. That is, could there be a morality to it? Could there be?

Perhaps, questioning everything is too ultra-liberal, or so far afield to be beyond liberal into madness. Dismiss me if you will, as you will, if you will. This is akin to my realm for god, an absolute.

In math, like dividing by zero. As the denominator lessens approaching zero the result approaches infinity, but never reaches it. Dividing by zero become indescribable, infinite, absolute. The kind of descriptors we give to God.

Is God less moral than us? I ask, can we reach .. zero? I say, no.

Hate me as you might. I stand by my first, now deleted, post.

[opiate69]

85. actually,

dividing any number by zero always results in zero. (perhaps you meant dividing by 2?)

[Festivito]

86. Poppies helped people inquire at times in a vain symbiosis.

My gonkulator keeps missing your zero, and says divide overflow. Divide overflow.. hardly underwhelming, hardly nothing at all. Out of nothing at all. God is love. Making love out of nothing at all.

[opiate69]

87. Huh??

[Festivito]

88. Exactly what I just said: "Huh?"

Dividing by zero does not yield zero. Try any calculator. It's an error. What could you possibly been trying with that post?

So, I wrote back: "Huh?"

Your name is opiate, as from poppies.
69 is vain symbiosis.
Do you have a button?
Start/Programs/Accessories/Calculator
Try dividing by zero.

If I've had to explain this much, the rest is over your head.

[opiate69]

89. hmm..perhaps I was thinking of multiplication..

or it has simply been too long since I sat in a math class. (although, in my defense, I never achieved less than a 99 in any math class... )

[Festivito]

90. Yup. Good luck. /nt

[salvorhardin]

91. Which is why division by zero is undefined

The statement doesn't make sense in our system of math (and I'd argue you'd be hard pressed to describe a system in which it does make sense). The grandparent post is correct in that as the demoninator approaches zero the result approaches infinity but division by zero is neither infinity or zero. It is simply undefined.

[Bloodblister Bob]

92. Why do you think I "hate" you? I don't.

Beyond all the God-yammering we're doing here, we're still just people, and very much alike.

But the fact is that certain Christians have proclaimed a jihad upon all infidels, and nobody who truly cares about people can abide that.

[Festivito]

96. I hope you understood something beyond a sentence you mistook.

The sentence included "might." (not worth going on)

I'm glad you say you don't hate me. And, I imagine you are another searching and helping soul (make that person) in this world. You mean well, I mean well, in that we are alike.

But, and I mean a BIG BUT, these posts have been rude. Self-superior, gotchas, Limbaugh-like kind of rude. From the very first post with its assumptive attack, to the ignoring of meaning and focusing on some trivial final comment, and even that being inaccurately redisplayed. You should be "rebuked."

It's not MOST Christians on some jihad. It's too many, a few, very few with loud speakers, radio, TV and positions of power, influencing MANY WHO MEAN WELL. Mean well, like us. Who'd like to be with us, but won't be enticed with gotcha attacks on "most" Christians with booby-trapped questions.

We need more voters. We don't need a bunch of religion-haters, and I mean religion HATERS, dancing with glee over mistakes of others while trampling on our would-be voters destroying our chances at good government and perpetuating the likes of Bush.

[beam me up scottie]

97. "religion HATERS" ?

Is that the same thing as "Science worshipers" or is this new?

[Festivito]

98. Usually persons burned by one organized religion or another.

Many people of religion also worship science.

Many people had childhood trouble with some religion they were forced to attend. Some rotten adults usually played a role.

Many of my Catholic friends jokingly describe themselves as "recovering Catholics." The joke is a little poignantly truthful.

Abusing a good thing is something we humans do. Paper is used to cheat people. Doesn't mean we should hate all paper. Same for religion.

[Az]

99. Gonna have to clarify that worship word it looks like

Scientists do not stand around holding hands and chanting "I will have faith in gravity".

[Festivito]

101. But, they do have faith in gravity, even after visiting Mystery Hill.

(Aside: Az might know of this Michigan Irish Hills tourist trap.)

Perhaps churches should pick up that old holding hands and chanting again?

Scientists have been known to offer thanks to Science, and elevate its historical figures. Not that this would constitute the sum total comprehensive view of what is worship. ;-p

[Bloodblister Bob]

102. With all due respect, Christians wrote the book...

...on self-superior rudeness. Christians continually chide us that their belief system is the only one actually endorsed by God Almighty, that their way is the only way to know God or have salvation. They even believe they have a mandate from God to make these claims.

You will likely say that "Most Christians" don't believe that way. If that is so, then why are they Christians? If they really don't believe that Christianity is the superior belief system, then why are they not Buddhists or Muslims?

[Az]

103. The chip on the shoulder thing

It's losing its pizzaz.

You can get away with saying that some Christians are self-superior. I will even back you up on that. It's true there are Christians that believe it is their mission to spread the good news as far and wide as possible. But those are not the end all and be all of Christianity.

There are nice Christians. They claim to be Christians because they find warm compassionate ideas within the teachings of Jesus. They do not expect everyone else to agree with them. They do not try to force their belief on everyone else. They believe because the positive ideas behind his story resonate with them. Because they find his life to be compelling.

There are kind and wonderful Christians in the world. They can like you for who you are. They will continue to like you even if they find out you don't believe the same things as they do. And its not a case of love the sinner hate the sin. They do not get so rapped up in zealotry that they forget to be human. Its not a contest to them.

Is there a Christian problem? YES! Is it a problem with all Christians? NO! Learn to tell the difference.

[Bloodblister Bob]

110. What are the good Christians doing about the "Christian Problem"?

Does it seem to you, as it does to me, that it's always the secular media which take the lead in exposing the fraud, hatred and bigotry of the "problem Christians" you mention?

When was the last time any major Christian organization stood up and denounced the lying, manipulating, hatemongering zealots in their fold? It's possible that they do so, and I just keep missing it, but what I hear from Christian quarters when these matters arise is an uncomfortable silence.

Where are the "good Christians" publicly denouncing these people? If they're out there, they don't ever seem to make the cut on the national news.

[beam me up scottie]

104. I'm with Az on this.

But I'm not nice like he is.

I get furious when believers try to pigeon hole me and redefine my atheism and it's no less disrespectful when an atheist does it to them.

Actually, it's worse, IMO.

We do not need another disruptor in this forum, it's tense enough as it is.

[Festivito]

109. What book is that? :-o\

Oh, a metaphorical expression. Never mind.

Alright, Christians do say, chide if you must, that their God is the only one, that their belief system is endorsed by God the only One, they have a mandate ... yadda yadda yadda.

So what?

If agnostic, it's just opinionated blather. If a Theist or Atheist it's just someone else's opinion about their God. If ones own religion, it's just repetitious.

I'd like to suggest that the whole problem here is that some people, who have hijacked some elements of Christianity, who are to a degree, Christians in name only, are doing evil things inside some areas of Christendom, and that this is hurting our nation.

Let us fight those persons.
Let us label those persons as distinct from the rest.
Let us do this together.
Let us win our country back.

[Bloodblister Bob]

112. I agree. Well said. n/t

[The Magistrate]

105. In Reply To Your No. 75 Above, Mr. Festivo

Your first point seems to me a poorly chosen ground. People who value their own views over those of other people are hardly overbearing; they are doing what humans do as a general practice. They may be wise or foolish to do so, depending the circumstances and their own aptitudes, but any attempt to castigate them for it smacks of proclaiming in outraged tones that someone has two eyes and a nose, and ought to be ashamed to show themselves in public as such a spectacle.

Your point that an act may seem bad to a human who does not accept a particular diety, but not to believers in that diety, or the hypothesized diety itself, conveys no useful meaning to me. Most criminal behavior is carried out by persons who see nothing whatever wrong with what they are doing: they feel it necessary, justified, even a positive good in many instances. Those self-perceptions make not a whit of difference to the judgement of the mass of their fellows, expressed by the agencies of police and courts and prisons. The mere claim that actions attributed to a proclaimed diety, that would meet any normally employed standard of cruelty, cannot be so described because part of the definition of the diety as proclaimed is that it acts only to do good, really cannot be expected to carry much weight outside the circle of believers.

It is worth noting that not all conceptions of diety could be caught in this embarrasment. Nobody ever said the old pagan dieties were either all good or all powerful, and if Zeus or Odin did something ghastly in its cruelty, well, everyone knew already the gods were "mad, bad, and dangerous to know." In earlier portions of the Old Testament, it is pretty clear that the diety of the Hebrews made no pretension to being all good, but rather that good and evil alike came out of the mouth of the Lord. The fact is that over time, humans seem to have come to the view that their dieties must be held to a higher standard than that. This drive has come into unfortunate collission with simultaneous claims of omnipotence for the principal dieties in some cultures, and the undeniable cruelty and chaos of the world as humans experience it.

[Festivito]

107. ..and thus the chaos continues.

P1. Your first paragraph refers to my first point, which is probably referring to #73's P1(for Paragraph 1), not my now deleted post. (I guess the admins cannot restore it.) Here you say that "people who value their own views over.." others are hardly overbearing. Which is fine. However, in 73P1 you refer to people "placing their own view over that attributed.." to others, which I do find overbearing. This kind of slip shows my point that humans make mistakes.

So, when deciding whether to believe that a god is correct versus a human, the god, being deemed perfect, ought to win. Understandably pissing off a lot of humans.

P2. It is not just the criminal who make mistakes of profound impact. A whole mass of people can make a mistake, e.g. RepubliCONs.

P3. God/gods are mad, bad, and dangerous to know is a human view of gods, and an understandably pissed off view. The collision you describe is not necessarily because God is perfect, but rather it could be because people, certain people, use the idea that God is perfect.

[The Magistrate]

121. Chaos It Is, Mr. Fesrtivo

The nub of your position here seems to be your view that the diety exists and is perfect, and that people who do not agree those propositions are true are wrong for expressing a view that does not jibe with them. This is tantamount to simply demanding assent to your views before they can be discussed, and that is carrying the idea of mutual respect in discourse a little far, it seems to me. A great many people do not assent to either of those propositions, and have a perfect liberty to express their views. To one who is convinced dieties of all sorts are mere reflections in a human mind, the claim that in a conflict between human perception of what a diety is said to have done, and what is proclamed of the diety, the diety must be favored, is a sublime comedic exercise.

It is not a "mistake" that people who behave in criminal manners generally present their actions to themselves as good: it is part of the process of doing evil. People who commit themselves whole-heartedly and openly to doing evil are rare birds indeed, the processes of socialization in a culture being awfully pervasive and efficient in their operation. It remains the case, it seems to me, that a similar process applies in the attribution of events to the agency of some diety, and further, that these claims the thing is "really" good should be given no more weight than the claim of, say, a man who out of jealousy plagues his wife over her contacts with neighbors that he is acting out of love for her in doing so.

Some clarification of your last comment would be appreciated. You yourself have made the claim that a diety is perfect, and rested a good deal of your commentary here on that proposition. The Classical view of the Olympians is at least a coherent one: the gods are simply humans writ large, and no more or less is to be expected of them is expewcted of another human in their personal behaviors. The result is, at least, consonant with the observed world of human events and the workings of nature. What requires a good deal of mental exercise is the later idea that all is arranged by a diety both all powerful and all good.

[Festivito]

126. Chaos eminates.

P1. Did not come close to saying, demanding, nor carrying writ as relayed by you. Express away, even in total denial and ignorance of prior writ. Inability to see another's point due to ones own intransigent validities impedes mutual understanding, but does not preclude understanding. However, if one is unable to expand beyond their own mere view and are thus unable to understand another person's view, their argument is not to be received well.

Prior argument included a god deemed perfect, so it does not work for you. Do you know of a Christian sect that deems God imperfect? I don't.

But, if your are unable to understand, or grasp inasmuch you are unable to accept god as other than a mere reflection, that someone else does see God in this perfect manner, why would you be concerned about a question that involves understanding why those who can see God as perfect might believe in a god in a certain way. It seems so.. hard.

P2. It's a parallel. If you don't want to give it weight, don't. It's your parallel.

P3. Your question is way off topic, but, so what. You pointed to a progression of deities culminating in a collision that induces chaos and cruelty. I think the chaos and cruelty could emanate from the abuse of the concept of god, not necessarily from the concept of god itself.

[DerekG]

49. Bloodblister: Why limit your question to Christians?

With few exceptions, the adherents of all three Western faiths recognize and worship the deity of Abrahamic tradition. By that logic, you should be asking Jews and Muslims the same question, no?

[Bloodblister Bob]

55. I don't care what crazy shit people believe...

...as long as they don't try to make me believe it. That's why I have I problem with Christians in general, and certain sects within the United States in particular. They believe they have a "Great Commission" to convert the world to Christianity, and they currently wield considerable political power. In my opinion, they present a grave and immediate threat to our Constitution and our liberty.

As far as I know, Jews aren't trying to convert the world to Judaism, and the "Islamo-fascists", as Bush calls them, simply aren't a problem in the U. S.

That's why I'm concerned, and why I try to point out the dangerous irrationality of certain Christian beliefs, especially the notion that their God gives them license to ride roughshod over everyone else -- Jews and Muslims included.

[Shell Beau]

58. Riiiiight

:eyes:

[The Magistrate]

60. And Yet, Ma'am

There are elements of Christianity that do meet that description. It is a fact that there is a movement known as Dominionism within the CHristian right that aims at making its conception of Biblical law the law of the land in this country. Nor is this a powerless fringe, on the level of, say, LaRouche: well known figures such as Dobson and Robertson, with many followers, adhere to this goal.

[Shell Beau]

62. There is extremism in everything. But I don't hold

all repubs, democrats, Christians, Muslims, etc. to what the extremists on their sides of those beliefs believe. I know there are extremist Christians. I am not one of them, nor do I like being labeled as one. Even if I wasn't called that directly, by grouping together people for a belief and calling it crazy shit, or calling them stupid for believing it tends to turn me off. I expect people to be as accepting of what I believe as they want me to be for what they believe. I don't ask people to feel the same as I or believe the same as I, but I certainly do not put them down for not.

[The Magistrate]

65. Here Is The Problem, Ma'am

We would seem to be in agreement both that these extreme elements exist, and that they must be opposed. Yet effective opposition to them can be hampered by persons who feel criticized along with the extremists when the latter are blasted, though they are not such extremists themselves. It is certainly true that some attacks originating in opposition to these extreme elements are poorly drawn and over-broad, so that the fault in the matter is not all on one side, but heated opposition tands to produce heated statements, and it is clear these extreme elements need to be heatedly and repeatedly attacked: they are wholly inimicable to everything dear to leftists and progressives, and constitute an important element in reactionary voting strength in our political life.

It would seem to me that the best course in such a situationm would be for persons who do not themselves adhere to these extreme views to take such occassions as opportunity to emphasize the difference between their views and those of the extremists, rather than to proclaim, in effect, "When you attack the etremists, you are attacking me, too." In most cases, that is not really true, and in all cases, it is unhelpful to the project of breaking the credibility and political power of the extremist on the Christian Right. Indeed, there are any number of sound arguments against the Christian Right to be mounted from grounds of liberal theologies and progressive morality. The words of the Christ, as quoted in the Gospels, contain a tremendous quatity of ammunition for such an endeavor.

[Shell Beau]

67. I wouldn't respond if I felt only extremists were being

attacked. I feel that a certain poster was attacking ALL Christians. Trying to explain why I believe what I believe to someone who is obviously opposed to Christianity and finds it stupid is like talking to a brick wall. Broad brush statements are what get me. And I am not talking about you. But I will defend my beliefs which aren't extreme. And extreme to this certain poster is not necessarily extreme to me (seeing as how I believe they feel Christianity is extreme).

[Bloodblister Bob]

79. Most eloquent. n/t

[kwassa]

106. This tiresome concept goes around and around and around and around

and as flawed as the first time it was suggested.

the Magistrate:
"It would seem to me that the best course in such a situation would be for persons who do not themselves adhere to these extreme views to take such occasions as opportunity to emphasize the difference between their views and those of the extremists, rather than to proclaim, in effect, "When you attack the extremists, you are attacking me, too."

Sorry. If you are on the attack, it is your responsibility to know what your target is. The real problem with the anti-Christians is that they don't know enough about Christianity to even know what they are attacking!

It is not the liberal Christians' responsibility to attack the extreme fundamentalist Christians. It is the responsibility of ANYONE who attacks the fundamentalists to EDUCATE THEMSELVES about the vast differences in the world of Christianity. By not doing so they are simply indulging in prejudice and bigotry.

Be responsible for yourself!

[Shell Beau]

108. Yep!!

:thumbsup:

[Bloodblister Bob]

111. If liberal Christians really love Jesus...

...why shouldn't they kill the wolves who are devouring His sheep?

What do you hope to gain by abdicating your responsibility to keep your own house clean, and leaving it to the "anti-Christians"?

[kwassa]

113. Why don't you go out and kill them your own damn self?

I have no responsibility to keep THEIR house clean.

I live in a different house. That is what you don't seem to understand.

[Bloodblister Bob]

114. I thought you lived in the Lord's house...

..which the zealots and con-men are defiling.

That's okay. We "anti-Christians" will do your dirty work for you.

[kwassa]

115. It's not my work, it is everyone's work.

and for you to do it, you might consider learning something about the subject before you do.

[Bloodblister Bob]

116. I know that bad people have hijacked your faith...

... and that I seem to care more about it than you do.

[Shell Beau]

117. Bad people have not hijacked my faith b/c it is MY faith.

Their faith is theirs. That is obviously something you won't or can't understand.

[kwassa]

119. It hasn't been hijacked

you are simply under the very false impression that some noisy people on the far right represent Christianity. This is only because you don't know the Christian communties in this country

Here is one site where you might find out more:

http://www.ncccusa.org/

quote:
Since its founding in 1950, the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA has been the leading force for ecumenical cooperation among Christians in the United States. The NCC's member faith groups — representing a wide spectrum of Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox, historic African American and Living Peace churches — include 45 million persons in more than 100,000 local congregations in communities across the nation.

end of quote

Now, you go through this website and tell me how much you politically disagree with.

I'll await your answer.

[Shell Beau]

120. It doesn't matter what you come up with, this poster

will find something to argue with you or any other Christian about. I mean look at the title of the thread. Now he's changing from that to people hijacking Christianity. It is becoming useless, this thread. I could see one of us posting a thread about how Atheism is ridiculous and crazy shit. Please.

[Shell Beau]

118. B/c I am responsible for MY actions. I can't control

what others do. I can be a good person and live my life the way I feel I am supposed to.

[The Magistrate]

122. Not Really, Mr. Kwassa

It is very much the responsibility of liberal Christians to press the fight against the Christian right. Otherwise, these latter are able to arrogate to themselves the privilege of being the "Christian" and "religious" view of things, and that is a valuable high ground in political conflict in our society. Explicit criticism of these people, from an explicitly religious point of view, and by people of undeniable devotion, is invaluable in the conflict before us.

It is true that some discussion and comment in this forum goes beyond opposition to the Christian right, and that the fundamental precepts of particular religions are sometimes engaged. That is only to be expected in a forum dedicated to discussion fo religion and theology, and not confined to the political ramifications of the thing. It would be unwise for believers engaged in such discussions to fall into the trap of imagining that disagreement with their view is based on ignorance: some of it may be, but much of it is not. Indeed, it sometimes seems to those engaged in serious critique of religious precepts that it is the believers who are lamantably ignorant of the traditions they subscribe to, and of the full implications of the precepts they adhere to.

[kwassa]

123. I disagree

The Christian liberals are as disorganized and un-unified as the Democratic party is. It also goes against the grain of liberals to interfere in other people's religious beliefs, particularly on an institutional level. In the mainstream churches, there is often a range of liberal to conservative views, although on that institutional level the leading voices and management are liberal, they are generally sensitive to the conservatives within their churches.

They also get little media attention because they are uncontroversial. Many groups from Christian churches, though, get out and protest the war in Iraq, for instance. They speak out all the time against the Bush administration. They just don't command the media attention the more outrageous characters on the far right get.


here is a pretty good description of the Christian left:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_left#Christian_Left_in_the_United_States

Christian Left in the United States
In the United States, members of the Christian Left come from a spectrum of denominations: peace churches, elements of the Protestant Mainstream, and Roman Catholicism.

The Christian Left has sometimes been viewed as a counterpart to the Christian Right, but in fact it is very different. While the Christian Right is almost uniquely American, the Christian Left is more global and diverse.

However, the Christian Left does not seem to be as well-organized or publicized as its right-wing counterpart. Opponents state that this is because it is less numerous; supporters contend that it is actually more numerous but composed predominantly of persons less willing to voice political views in as boisterous a manner as the Christian Right. Further, supporters contend that the Christian Left has had relatively little success securing widespread corporate, political, and major media patronage compared to the Right.

[The Magistrate]

124. The Fact Remains, Sir

Such ministers and congregations are going to have to learn to organize and grab attention. The situation demands it.

[kwassa]

125. What's stopping you?