The “Atheism = Anarchy” debate, with all it's twists and turns, was enlightening. From what I know of communism (which is different from anarchy, but a form of government discussed here, also) it was not caused by atheism. Instead, for the government to rule supreme, it had to obliterate religion, as religion was a strong motivation for the rebellion of the people.
It’s very true that johnj’s post reflected a traditional Christian viewpoint. I don’t know his identity, but if he is, indeed, John Juedes, I would expect nothing less as he is a Christian clergyman. He is expressing his opinions based upon his belief system, just as his opposition did. Both had very valid points to consider. Being a Christian myself, I can understand the reasoning behind his statement:
The "why" (pleasing and obeying God) is gone, so the "what" (the 10 commandments, living a life of love, etc) gets eroded.
After reading and considering the information given in the links to Atheism, I can also understand and agree with George’s Aars statement (not given in this “debate”, but still relative to it):
does presenting a non-theist view of life automatically mean "wrong"?
Actually, I guess it's possible for a former Christian to be an atheist but still adopt the moral code of conduct taught by their former religion. Formerly, that would have seemed like a contradiction to me. It no longer does.
Johnj noted the fact that children have a tendency towards selfishness. Very true. But, they also desire companionship, approval, and belonging. Attainment of these requires cooperation, consideration, and compassion. Given the proper training in morals and ethics they can flourish, whether it is based in religion or not.
Now that I understand atheism more fully, and see the distinction it draws between God and a code of conduct, I can understand how ignorance (like mine, formerly) on the subject easily lends itself to our society’s bias against atheism, as expressed eloquently, again, by Oakspear:
Among the people that I know and work with, a person can say that they aren't religious and not draw a second glance, but say that you're an atheist, or even a non-Christian and you're a curiosity.
And, to reiterate, I think it is based on “fear of the unknown” code of conduct of atheists, versus the code of conduct which people expect Christians to adhere to (although it is evident many fall far short of it.) And that leads to one of the chief complaints of atheists as expressed by Mister P-Mosh:
you are the one saying that biblical morality is good and that people should follow it. What us non-religious folks think is that it's hypocrisy for them to demand we follow their morals while they don't practice what they preach.
As noted in this thread, people often "lose" or abandon their faith when they become disillusioned by the behavior of those that don't practice what they preach.
I gathered a different “attitude” from reading johnj’s post than some did. I see them as stating his opinion, but nowhere do I note an attitude of “I am right, you are wrong”, but rather “I find Christianity suits my needs and comfort level better than atheism because . . . .” It is possible that those who felt “stung” by his comments were reading into his posts the “usual Christian bias of seeing those who reject God as rejecting morality, also”. Or maybe it’s because I share many of his viewpoints that I did not detect a negative “attitude”.
I found GarthP’s comment almost humorous (in a good way):
If this is an example of Juedes' skill as how much better a researcher he is compared with Wierwille, ..... well, I've seen Wierwille do better. . . . P.S., I noticed that you left out footnotes.
It seems we all agree that John Juedes did an excellent job of researching vpw and twi. It was a research project. He is not posting a research project here, nor excepts from one, that I can see. He is merely stating his opinions. Which is what the majority of the posts here at GSC are, opinions and beliefs. That would explain the lack of footnotes. Seems to me the “attack or superiority attitude” read into his posts, along with the criticism of “non-researched” opinions, were reflected in his post:
Some of the posts above seem to use some very inflammatory terms to describe religious and/or Christian people, which surprised me coming from such reasonable atheist/ agnostics as yourselves.
I could be wrong, just my perceptions.
Religious beliefs, just like political beliefs, tend to be emotional because our conclusions are normally reached after much thought and consideration. We are invested in them. So it’s easy for people to get on the defensive in a thread like this. I speak from personal experience! I try and look at questions as being posed to gather new information for consideration versus goading. That helps me to keep my “emotional” cool a lot of the time.
It hasn't stopped me from becoming a graphologist, level two Reiki practitioner, ordained minister or any other number of things in my own personal quest. I'm enjoying the journey regardless of where it ends up.
I’d love to know more about your ordination as a minister. What faith?
What’s a graphologist?
I’m a believer in the healing powers of Reiki, also. My massage therapist (certified in Rolfing or Structural Integration) is also a certified practitioner of Reiki. It helped tremendously in my healing after shattering my knee cap.
For those of you who want footnotes on the articles Imentioned... here they are. I can't offer a link to them because I still read some magazines the old fashioned way, on paper.
"To Catch a Cheat," Newsweek, 10-15-07, p41. Key sentence: "Who is most likely to cheat? Athelets, kids who aren't religious and kids who don't take AP courses." I mentioned the nonreligious part because it was pertinent to the topic.
""Deaths Hint at Harsh Aid System in Japan," by Norimitsu Onishi, dateline Kitakyushu, Japan, NY Times News Service, Key sentneces: "Japan has traditionally been hard on welfare recipients.... To them, those in need are not citizens. Only those who pay taxes are citizens..... With no religious tradition of charity, Japan has few soup kitchens or other places for the indigent."
To me, the real test of charity is when it is offered to people who "don't deserve" it, not just to those who do.
I never said that atheists do not have morality or moral sustems. I said that nonreligious people commonly take the position that morals are man-made, changable, and personal. This means you can make up your own morals and values, and none can ever be called wrong, because they are "right for you." There are no absolutes. So if a person's personal system of morals allows cruelty, for example, no one can call it wrong.
Having a strict God-imposed moral system means that people can be "over-ruled" by God when their personal moral systems fall below God's. People who have man-made systems of morality can set their benchmarks however low with no one to over rule them.
One historical example: King Herod, king of Israel in the first century abandoned the idea of a absolute system of morals established by the God of Israel. His personal system of morals fit better with the Romans. His moral system allowed him to command approximately 20,000 murders the same week to celebrate his new staium dedication. And all the nonJews agreed that their moral systems not only enjoyed but promoted gladiator fights also. If he had been a devout Jew, he would have allowed God to overrule his personal morality and allowed those men to live.
Much of morality is common sense. But intuition is not always accurate and the details are not always so. Herod certainly had "do not murder" as one of his morals. But to him that moral clause did not apply to the 30,000 murders that week (and many more at other times, including John the Baptizer, a historical event that is recorded by another source in addition to the Bible). This is the problem. We all have moral systems that may be good in many ways. The strength of moral religion is that it helps us to reign in the aspects of our morals that are out of line.
Herod also had no accountability on this set of murders. If he had truely believed in the God of Israel, he would have concluded that even if he was not accountable to anyone on this issue, he would be accountable to God and would have changed his mind as a result. So belief in accountablility to God helps prompt better behavior too.
Earlier, you mentioned supernatural-like experiences and those carrying some weight regarding one's belief in God. I know some people who have had these kinds of experiences while practicing Reiki or some other non-Christian belief and they only serve to strengthen whatever it is that person believed in or was practicing at the time. Likewise, others have searched for logical, scientific explanations for what they experienced and not found one.
I agree completely. That’s what I was trying to express in my first post.
For those who experienced and/or saw what they considered to be “signs, miracles, and wonders” in their lives personally and/or in the lives of others, if they attributed these things to God, they may continue to believe in God.
For those who experienced and/or saw what they considered to be “signs, miracles, and wonders” in their lives personally and/or in the lives of others, if they attributed these things to something other than God, they may have adopted another belief system. It may be another religion or it may be atheism or agnosticism.
You stated it much better than I did. That’s what I love so much about discussing things in threads. I often find that others can put into words and express things clearly that are stirring in my heart and mind when I can’t find the right words to articulate those “stirrings”.
From my early youth, I always longed for an intimate relationship with God and to see His signs, miracles, and wonders in my life. I finally achieved that after taking PFAL. (Thus my opinion that there was much good and truth in PFAL, alongside the error, and why I will always be thankful for having the opportunity to take the class and always have due respect for vpw for presenting it to me.) I’ve experienced God’s touch in small and large ways since that time and continuing to this day. I’ll share two accounts from my life, one pre-twi, the other “in-twi” that stand out boldly in my memory.
One summer session at ECU was particularly greuling academically as I was taking two challenging courses. At the end of one particular week, I was bone tired, but in need of some R&R, so headed downtown to enjoy the nightlife. Before heading home after a few liquid refreshments, I saw one of my best friends who was living and working in a neighboring town about 40 minutes away. She had a key to my apartment and would stay with me when in town to avoid the drive home. I had a double bed, so she had a place to sleep.
I left early as I was so tired. I was reaching the tipsy state, so probably fell asleep before I hit my pillow. I awakened sometime later hearing the door to my apartment open. I was in a deep sleep, and realizing it must be Marian, fell back to sleep, still sleeping on my stomach. I was aware of someone entering my room, disrobing, and crawling in the bed next to me. No problem, it was Marian. Then I was aware of someone was mounting me and penetrating me. Problem! This was not Marian. I opened my eyes to see a large black hand on my pillow. I was panicked, and the words of my dear father came to mind, and I followed his advice. “Girls, you can live through being raped, but you can’t live through being killed. If you ever find yourself in a situation where you are facing rape, and there is not a quick or safe way to escape, my advice is to play possum. Don’t fight, do your best to be calm so your body will be less tense. Let him do his deed, and remain playing possum until he is gone and you are out of danger.” (My dad was an OB/GYN and when he would be called into the ER to treat a rape victim, or pronounce her DOA, he always shared this advice with my two sisters and me after his return home.) I followed his advice. To this day, I have no idea of the identity of my rapist, as I never saw anything but one hand. It was a very traumatic experience, to say the least, and took me quite a while to overcome.
Skip forward a few years. Still in Greenville, but teaching at ECU and living in a Way Home. I shared a room with another girl. There was a large window in the middle of one wall, and my bed was off to one side of it, hers parallel to mine and off to the other side of the window. I had been to the beach for the weekend, returned, washed my hair, finished the next day’s lectures while sitting under the dryer, and went to bed bone tired, falling asleep before my head hit the pillow. I woke up realizing something was underneath the double-sized bedspread on my twin sized bed, and was proceeding from the foot of my bed up towards me. All I could see was a bunch of dark fuzzy stuff, and all I could think was “It must be a grizzly bear. How did a grizzly bear get into my bed?” (I know that’s stupid, but when I am awakened from a deep sleep, I am stupid! Ask poor Sudo!).
It was not a grizzly bear that emerged from underneath my bedspread, but a large, naked man, who was endowed with a very large penis, which was very erect. He held a large, sharp butcher knife (later discovered to have come from our kitchen downstairs) to my throat, and rubbed his penis back and forth underneath my nose, and across my lips. Slowly, back and forth, back and forth.
Just as I was comprehending what was happening, a bright beam of light came in through the window, and rested upon my head. Visible in the beam of light was an arm covered with a long, flowing white sleeve and a hand which reached down rested upon my head, also. Then I heard God speak to me and say “I am with you, my child. Do not fear.” Before fear had a chance to overcome me, I got angry and really ticked off. I started telling that guy he had picked the wrong bed to crawl into. Did he not know I was a child of God and that he had no power over me and he could not hurt me? Threatening me the way he was, he was obviously acting under the influence of the devil, and my personal Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, had died and risen again, winning the victory over all that was evil. I commanded him in the name of Jesus Christ to leave my home immediately. He continued on with his rubbing, and pressing the knife against my neck. I was undaunted. I continued to state and claim the promises of God. I told him my sonship rights, one by one, explaining what they meant, and how they overpowered him. After a few minutes (seemed like an eternity!), he got out of my bed, grabbed his clothes from the floor, and ran out of the house.
He stole a bicycle from the neighbors, probably as we were calling the police. The police apprehended him a few blocks away. My room mate and I both positively identified him, and was taken to jail.
My roommate did not see the light nor the hand, nor hear the voice. But was amazed at how calm I remained and how passionately and confidently I spoke the Word to him. She was amazed she detected no fear in me during the ordeal. I referred to it as "The Miracle on 5th Street" as the Way Home was located on 5th Street.
I learned later that the would-be rapist had been out of jail for a mere week before attacking me. His other victims had not been as fortunate. He had gotten his sexual pleasure from forcing them to perform oral sex. Then he “thanked” them by using a knife to viciously “rape” them vaginally. One had died. One was now sterile. She and another victim had refused to testify to the rapes because of the trauma. He had plea bargained to a lesser offenses, and after serving the minimal time had been released.
During the trial (which included attempted rape among other offenses like breaking and entering), when he was asked by the judge why he had not harmed me, he answered something to the effect. “I can’t explain it. I don’t know why, but I couldn’t touch her.” Before the case went to the jury, a plea bargain was reached. Before dismissing us from the court room, the Judge said “Just as Daniel was saved by the lions in the den, surely God saved you from a vicious attack from this man.” He received a lengthy sentence, and I hope he never made it out of jail alive (not from mischief, but from a natural death) so that no one has to suffer torment at his hands ever again.
What was the difference in the two situations? The same evil was present in my “hood”. God was still the same. What had changed was ME and my relationship with God. In the first instance I had relied on the sage advice of my earthly father, and it served me well - it made the best of a very bad situation. In the second instance, I relied on the sage advice of my Heavenly Father (verbal, written, and what I had been taught about his Word), and was spared of rape and butchering.
As I Christian, it was proof to me of a living and real God. Had it happened to someone of a different faith, it would have been proof of a different deity. To those who believe in no deity, it would have been due to a different reason in accordance with their thinking.
It is for this and other reasons, that God is so REAL to me, and why I cannot fathom myself ever being swayed away from my belief.
I never said that atheists do not have morality or moral sustems.
No, you simply said that their moral code is substandard, transient, meaningless.
I said that nonreligious people commonly take the position that morals are man-made, changable, and personal.
Fine, but saying it doesn't make it so.
This means you can make up your own morals and values, and none can ever be called wrong, because they are "right for you." There are no absolutes. So if a person's personal system of morals allows cruelty, for example, no one can call it wrong.
Please review the responses you've already gotten. You're making baseless assertions.
Having a strict God-imposed moral system means that people can be "over-ruled" by God when their personal moral systems fall below God's.
But it doesn't do much to actually make people act any better, though, now does it?
People who have man-made systems of morality can set their benchmarks however low with no one to over rule them.
B.S., again, please review the responses you've already gotten on this point.
One historical example: King Herod, king of Israel in the first century abandoned the idea of a absolute system of morals established by the God of Israel. His personal system of morals fit better with the Romans. His moral system allowed him to command approximately 20,000 murders the same week to celebrate his new staium dedication. And all the nonJews agreed that their moral systems not only enjoyed but promoted gladiator fights also. If he had been a devout Jew, he would have allowed God to overrule his personal morality and allowed those men to live.
And how do you know that? Are you channeling Herod's spirit, perchance?
The strength of moral religion is that it helps us to reign in the aspects of our morals that are out of line.
Uh, sure. You'll pardon me if I'm not overwhelmed by the demonstrated morals of religious folk in general.("That's not God's fault!", yeah, yeah, sure sure)
Herod also had no accountability on this set of murders. If he had truely believed in the God of Israel, he would have concluded that even if he was not accountable to anyone on this issue, he would be accountable to God and would have changed his mind as a result. So belief in accountablility to God helps prompt better behavior too.
And yet again, how is it that you know what the hell this - likely mostly fictitious character - would or would not do? Kinda remarkable that you have to go back thousands of years to find some sort of example, isn't it? And even at that, it's as unsupported as your other points. I'd reiterate, saying it doesn't make it so.
Playing off of your Herod example of the deaths of 30,000 people, ...
Tell me something JohnJ, when (according to the biblical account) God told Samuel to have King Saul preemptively invade the Amalakites, (supposedly due to an attack by the Amalakites upon the Isrealites at least 300 years previously), kill all the thousands of people that he saw, including all "infants and sucklings" (think My Lai on steroids), ... what strict moral standard was that based on, hmmm?
And please don't tell me that it was because the Amalakites were planning an attack upon Isreal, as there was no notation in the scriptures indicating that; none whatsoever. Also, if you read the account earlier in the Bible, it gives the account of the Amalakites attacking the Isrealites while they were in transit to the Promised Land. What is missing in Samuel's reaccount of it, was that Isreal fought back and whupped the Amalakites big time. Ie., the price has already been paid. Retaliation already inflicted. ... So WTF was Samuel doing having Saul inflicting revenge upon a people who has already paid the price, and that around 300 years previously? It would be like the present day U.S. Army attacking descendants of an eastern seaboard tribes of Indians for a raid they committed back in 1707 upon some colonists.
So how does that biblical account of God initiating said attack upon the Amalakites jibe with your supposed 'strict sense of morals', hmmm? And that is but one of the many examples of this kind.
Like your other points re: atheists, you presume far too much about atheist's general sense of morality, particularly in portraying them as loose and cavaliar. Some atheists do behave that way, many don't. Your Newsweek 'source' are those who don't place too much emphasis upon integrity and accuracy. ... Can you say "Fluff magazines?" Two steps above National Enquirer? And your N.Y. Times source can (and in many cases does) illustrate a viewpoint held by a good number of conservatives, religious conservatives, that is. (Tell us JohnJ, politically and socially, what is your view re: those on public welfare, hmmm? Is it similar to many of your fellow religious conservatives who whine and b*tch about the godless welfare system? ... I smell a contradiction here.)
Sidebar: "To me, the real test of charity is when it is offered to people who "don't deserve" it, not just to those who do." If you're referring to public charity for the poor, it should ONLY be for those who need it, because those who DON'T need it leech off of those who "worked 6 months to get" their earnings. Ie., those who don't need it are in a better position to earn it themselves.
I say to you again, check out those links I (and others here) posted about atheists who give their own account about their views re: atheism and what it is and is not. ... Who knows. Maybe you'll might find something there that will challenge/disrupt your orthodox worldview? ... Or maybe that's what you find so 'immoral' about atheism. <_<
I never said that atheists do not have morality or moral sustems. I said that nonreligious people commonly take the position that morals are man-made, changable, and personal.
George Aar:
No, you simply said that their moral code is substandard, transient, meaningless.
Still failing to see how "man-made, changable, and personal" = "substandard, transient, meaningless"
It would seem you may be reading something between the lines you think he is saying or implying, but that is not there.
Given that a lot of orthodox Christian ministers view atheist morals so poorly, I have no problem believing George's interpretation of "man-made, changable, and personal" = "substandard, transient, meaningless", and JohnJ isn't taking the initiative to show how his thinking is really any different.
It wouldn't let me copy, but one section asks who is most likely to cheat, the answer was "athletes, the non-religious and those who did not take AP courses".
The article also states that 60% of kids cheat on tests
The Herod example can be used to make the other side's point as well. From what I can tell, Herod gave lip service to the OT law, rebuilt the Temple and considered himself to be the King of the Jews. He, as you said, certianly knew about the "do not kill" rule, but chose to ignore it. To use a modern day example, John Gotti, mafia boss, was as religious as they come, but that didn't stop him from ordering plenty of killings.
Asking for answers, and if you get them you wouldn't see them anyway.
The Way had all the answers remember?
Is that what you want or do you really want to know?
No, I don't think so. Just some b.s. you keep for special occasions.
Lessee, our questions are 'substandard and immoral' because we don't know the answers. .... Yah! Right!
And if we get them, we wouldn't see them. .... Ohh Ho-kay. Really nice job of your side clearing up the confusion and discrepancy.
Just because we want proof of this invisible entity you call God, just because we call out the discrepencies that we see in your religious faith, just because we shoot down this obvious lie that atheists just cannot come up with/practice morals as good as you theists say you do, ... somehow we are the ones who don't really want the answers, we're just throwing out some B.S. for special occasions?? ........ Uhmmm, right, ... VeePee! <_<
Well guy, I can't speak for George, but I know the reasons and motivations for why I'm posting the questions/challenges that I do, ..... even if you don't. So go ahead and keep playing the "I can spiritually see where you two are coming from" game (now THERE was a pratice that TWI took part in plenty!), whilst George and I are cast out unto the Darkness of Evil. ((snif))
Wasn't there a number of quotes of vpw stating that he didn't know if there was a God or heaven? (They were usually quoted when I asked how we knew anything to be true etc.) Was he really an atheist then? Maybe a lot of religious leaders are atheists.
Cman, sounds more like grumpiness aimed at Geo than a contribution to this thread.
As far as I can see, several folks on this thread have seen that Person A's proof of truth does not necessarily translate to Person B as proof of the same truth--even though Person A's doctrine says it will, Therefore Person B has to be dishonest or 'off' in some way..will people ever get over the idea that their truth is universal for all humankind?
Not grumpy, just annoyed that the same old questions are directed towards those that believe a certain way are used.
When the one's asking don't know the answers themselves.
Even the answers are different for everyone imo, so I just think it's where a person has progressed to and not what others think that they should know or do. And that's on both 'sides' here, too bad too because there could be some real progress instead of what is happening.
All I can control is my own mind and not another's. Nor will I force or try to convince anyone of what I know, cause what I know changes, so will what everyone knows.
Anybody who thinks whatever of me, does not affect me anyway. Though I, as anyone, would like to well thought of and not thought of as someone I'm not. I have been constantly accused of things that are not true. There is nothing I can do about it but be myself.
Cman, it would help if you would reference the actual questions that bothered you, or speak specifically of the issues that are troubling to you. Since I have not followed what is apparantly a long history of posting between you and the athiests of GSC I have no idea what you are talking about, other than you are not happy with either George or /and others on this thread.
I might add that this thread was started as a dialogue for better understanding, I thought. Since many of the posters on it are new to this thread/doctrinal etc, I for one do not know why you are annoyed and it seemed out of place on a thread that seemed to progress beyond barbs and animosity for many.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
17
16
29
Popular Days
Oct 27
29
Oct 21
28
Oct 26
23
Oct 23
20
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 15 posts
Belle 17 posts
Oakspear 16 posts
Suda 29 posts
Popular Days
Oct 27 2007
29 posts
Oct 21 2007
28 posts
Oct 26 2007
23 posts
Oct 23 2007
20 posts
Popular Posts
George Aar
I came to Wayworld as an agnostic. I had spent some 20 years or so of my youth in either a Lutheran Church or the Methodist Reformed (now ask me if I could tell the difference) and was pretty much tir
Suda
The “Atheism = Anarchy” debate, with all it's twists and turns, was enlightening. From what I know of communism (which is different from anarchy, but a form of government discussed here, also) it was not caused by atheism. Instead, for the government to rule supreme, it had to obliterate religion, as religion was a strong motivation for the rebellion of the people.
It’s very true that johnj’s post reflected a traditional Christian viewpoint. I don’t know his identity, but if he is, indeed, John Juedes, I would expect nothing less as he is a Christian clergyman. He is expressing his opinions based upon his belief system, just as his opposition did. Both had very valid points to consider. Being a Christian myself, I can understand the reasoning behind his statement:
After reading and considering the information given in the links to Atheism, I can also understand and agree with George’s Aars statement (not given in this “debate”, but still relative to it):Actually, I guess it's possible for a former Christian to be an atheist but still adopt the moral code of conduct taught by their former religion. Formerly, that would have seemed like a contradiction to me. It no longer does.
Johnj noted the fact that children have a tendency towards selfishness. Very true. But, they also desire companionship, approval, and belonging. Attainment of these requires cooperation, consideration, and compassion. Given the proper training in morals and ethics they can flourish, whether it is based in religion or not.
Now that I understand atheism more fully, and see the distinction it draws between God and a code of conduct, I can understand how ignorance (like mine, formerly) on the subject easily lends itself to our society’s bias against atheism, as expressed eloquently, again, by Oakspear:
And, to reiterate, I think it is based on “fear of the unknown” code of conduct of atheists, versus the code of conduct which people expect Christians to adhere to (although it is evident many fall far short of it.) And that leads to one of the chief complaints of atheists as expressed by Mister P-Mosh:As noted in this thread, people often "lose" or abandon their faith when they become disillusioned by the behavior of those that don't practice what they preach.
I gathered a different “attitude” from reading johnj’s post than some did. I see them as stating his opinion, but nowhere do I note an attitude of “I am right, you are wrong”, but rather “I find Christianity suits my needs and comfort level better than atheism because . . . .” It is possible that those who felt “stung” by his comments were reading into his posts the “usual Christian bias of seeing those who reject God as rejecting morality, also”. Or maybe it’s because I share many of his viewpoints that I did not detect a negative “attitude”.
I found GarthP’s comment almost humorous (in a good way):
It seems we all agree that John Juedes did an excellent job of researching vpw and twi. It was a research project. He is not posting a research project here, nor excepts from one, that I can see. He is merely stating his opinions. Which is what the majority of the posts here at GSC are, opinions and beliefs. That would explain the lack of footnotes.I could be wrong, just my perceptions.
Religious beliefs, just like political beliefs, tend to be emotional because our conclusions are normally reached after much thought and consideration. We are invested in them. So it’s easy for people to get on the defensive in a thread like this. I speak from personal experience! I try and look at questions as being posed to gather new information for consideration versus goading. That helps me to keep my “emotional” cool a lot of the time.
Suda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
Belle,
Just had to ask you about this interesting quote:
I’d love to know more about your ordination as a minister. What faith?
What’s a graphologist?
I’m a believer in the healing powers of Reiki, also. My massage therapist (certified in Rolfing or Structural Integration) is also a certified practitioner of Reiki. It helped tremendously in my healing after shattering my knee cap.
Suda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
For those of you who want footnotes on the articles Imentioned... here they are. I can't offer a link to them because I still read some magazines the old fashioned way, on paper.
"To Catch a Cheat," Newsweek, 10-15-07, p41. Key sentence: "Who is most likely to cheat? Athelets, kids who aren't religious and kids who don't take AP courses." I mentioned the nonreligious part because it was pertinent to the topic.
""Deaths Hint at Harsh Aid System in Japan," by Norimitsu Onishi, dateline Kitakyushu, Japan, NY Times News Service, Key sentneces: "Japan has traditionally been hard on welfare recipients.... To them, those in need are not citizens. Only those who pay taxes are citizens..... With no religious tradition of charity, Japan has few soup kitchens or other places for the indigent."
To me, the real test of charity is when it is offered to people who "don't deserve" it, not just to those who do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
I never said that atheists do not have morality or moral sustems. I said that nonreligious people commonly take the position that morals are man-made, changable, and personal. This means you can make up your own morals and values, and none can ever be called wrong, because they are "right for you." There are no absolutes. So if a person's personal system of morals allows cruelty, for example, no one can call it wrong.
Having a strict God-imposed moral system means that people can be "over-ruled" by God when their personal moral systems fall below God's. People who have man-made systems of morality can set their benchmarks however low with no one to over rule them.
One historical example: King Herod, king of Israel in the first century abandoned the idea of a absolute system of morals established by the God of Israel. His personal system of morals fit better with the Romans. His moral system allowed him to command approximately 20,000 murders the same week to celebrate his new staium dedication. And all the nonJews agreed that their moral systems not only enjoyed but promoted gladiator fights also. If he had been a devout Jew, he would have allowed God to overrule his personal morality and allowed those men to live.
Much of morality is common sense. But intuition is not always accurate and the details are not always so. Herod certainly had "do not murder" as one of his morals. But to him that moral clause did not apply to the 30,000 murders that week (and many more at other times, including John the Baptizer, a historical event that is recorded by another source in addition to the Bible). This is the problem. We all have moral systems that may be good in many ways. The strength of moral religion is that it helps us to reign in the aspects of our morals that are out of line.
Herod also had no accountability on this set of murders. If he had truely believed in the God of Israel, he would have concluded that even if he was not accountable to anyone on this issue, he would be accountable to God and would have changed his mind as a result. So belief in accountablility to God helps prompt better behavior too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
Belle, in response to:
I agree completely. That’s what I was trying to express in my first post.You stated it much better than I did. That’s what I love so much about discussing things in threads. I often find that others can put into words and express things clearly that are stirring in my heart and mind when I can’t find the right words to articulate those “stirrings”.
From my early youth, I always longed for an intimate relationship with God and to see His signs, miracles, and wonders in my life. I finally achieved that after taking PFAL. (Thus my opinion that there was much good and truth in PFAL, alongside the error, and why I will always be thankful for having the opportunity to take the class and always have due respect for vpw for presenting it to me.) I’ve experienced God’s touch in small and large ways since that time and continuing to this day. I’ll share two accounts from my life, one pre-twi, the other “in-twi” that stand out boldly in my memory.
One summer session at ECU was particularly greuling academically as I was taking two challenging courses. At the end of one particular week, I was bone tired, but in need of some R&R, so headed downtown to enjoy the nightlife. Before heading home after a few liquid refreshments, I saw one of my best friends who was living and working in a neighboring town about 40 minutes away. She had a key to my apartment and would stay with me when in town to avoid the drive home. I had a double bed, so she had a place to sleep.
I left early as I was so tired. I was reaching the tipsy state, so probably fell asleep before I hit my pillow. I awakened sometime later hearing the door to my apartment open. I was in a deep sleep, and realizing it must be Marian, fell back to sleep, still sleeping on my stomach. I was aware of someone entering my room, disrobing, and crawling in the bed next to me. No problem, it was Marian. Then I was aware of someone was mounting me and penetrating me. Problem! This was not Marian. I opened my eyes to see a large black hand on my pillow. I was panicked, and the words of my dear father came to mind, and I followed his advice. “Girls, you can live through being raped, but you can’t live through being killed. If you ever find yourself in a situation where you are facing rape, and there is not a quick or safe way to escape, my advice is to play possum. Don’t fight, do your best to be calm so your body will be less tense. Let him do his deed, and remain playing possum until he is gone and you are out of danger.” (My dad was an OB/GYN and when he would be called into the ER to treat a rape victim, or pronounce her DOA, he always shared this advice with my two sisters and me after his return home.) I followed his advice. To this day, I have no idea of the identity of my rapist, as I never saw anything but one hand. It was a very traumatic experience, to say the least, and took me quite a while to overcome.
Skip forward a few years. Still in Greenville, but teaching at ECU and living in a Way Home. I shared a room with another girl. There was a large window in the middle of one wall, and my bed was off to one side of it, hers parallel to mine and off to the other side of the window. I had been to the beach for the weekend, returned, washed my hair, finished the next day’s lectures while sitting under the dryer, and went to bed bone tired, falling asleep before my head hit the pillow. I woke up realizing something was underneath the double-sized bedspread on my twin sized bed, and was proceeding from the foot of my bed up towards me. All I could see was a bunch of dark fuzzy stuff, and all I could think was “It must be a grizzly bear. How did a grizzly bear get into my bed?” (I know that’s stupid, but when I am awakened from a deep sleep, I am stupid! Ask poor Sudo!).
It was not a grizzly bear that emerged from underneath my bedspread, but a large, naked man, who was endowed with a very large penis, which was very erect. He held a large, sharp butcher knife (later discovered to have come from our kitchen downstairs) to my throat, and rubbed his penis back and forth underneath my nose, and across my lips. Slowly, back and forth, back and forth.
Just as I was comprehending what was happening, a bright beam of light came in through the window, and rested upon my head. Visible in the beam of light was an arm covered with a long, flowing white sleeve and a hand which reached down rested upon my head, also. Then I heard God speak to me and say “I am with you, my child. Do not fear.” Before fear had a chance to overcome me, I got angry and really ticked off. I started telling that guy he had picked the wrong bed to crawl into. Did he not know I was a child of God and that he had no power over me and he could not hurt me? Threatening me the way he was, he was obviously acting under the influence of the devil, and my personal Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, had died and risen again, winning the victory over all that was evil. I commanded him in the name of Jesus Christ to leave my home immediately. He continued on with his rubbing, and pressing the knife against my neck. I was undaunted. I continued to state and claim the promises of God. I told him my sonship rights, one by one, explaining what they meant, and how they overpowered him. After a few minutes (seemed like an eternity!), he got out of my bed, grabbed his clothes from the floor, and ran out of the house.
He stole a bicycle from the neighbors, probably as we were calling the police. The police apprehended him a few blocks away. My room mate and I both positively identified him, and was taken to jail.
My roommate did not see the light nor the hand, nor hear the voice. But was amazed at how calm I remained and how passionately and confidently I spoke the Word to him. She was amazed she detected no fear in me during the ordeal. I referred to it as "The Miracle on 5th Street" as the Way Home was located on 5th Street.
I learned later that the would-be rapist had been out of jail for a mere week before attacking me. His other victims had not been as fortunate. He had gotten his sexual pleasure from forcing them to perform oral sex. Then he “thanked” them by using a knife to viciously “rape” them vaginally. One had died. One was now sterile. She and another victim had refused to testify to the rapes because of the trauma. He had plea bargained to a lesser offenses, and after serving the minimal time had been released.
During the trial (which included attempted rape among other offenses like breaking and entering), when he was asked by the judge why he had not harmed me, he answered something to the effect. “I can’t explain it. I don’t know why, but I couldn’t touch her.” Before the case went to the jury, a plea bargain was reached. Before dismissing us from the court room, the Judge said “Just as Daniel was saved by the lions in the den, surely God saved you from a vicious attack from this man.” He received a lengthy sentence, and I hope he never made it out of jail alive (not from mischief, but from a natural death) so that no one has to suffer torment at his hands ever again.
What was the difference in the two situations? The same evil was present in my “hood”. God was still the same. What had changed was ME and my relationship with God. In the first instance I had relied on the sage advice of my earthly father, and it served me well - it made the best of a very bad situation. In the second instance, I relied on the sage advice of my Heavenly Father (verbal, written, and what I had been taught about his Word), and was spared of rape and butchering.
As I Christian, it was proof to me of a living and real God. Had it happened to someone of a different faith, it would have been proof of a different deity. To those who believe in no deity, it would have been due to a different reason in accordance with their thinking.
It is for this and other reasons, that God is so REAL to me, and why I cannot fathom myself ever being swayed away from my belief.
Suda (deeply grateful to be a child of God)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
And yet again, how is it that you know what the hell this - likely mostly fictitious character - would or would not do? Kinda remarkable that you have to go back thousands of years to find some sort of example, isn't it? And even at that, it's as unsupported as your other points. I'd reiterate, saying it doesn't make it so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
Great posts again, johnj!
Suda (who will stop posting now, as I'm at the end of my current set of notes. But beware! I will return.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Playing off of your Herod example of the deaths of 30,000 people, ...
Tell me something JohnJ, when (according to the biblical account) God told Samuel to have King Saul preemptively invade the Amalakites, (supposedly due to an attack by the Amalakites upon the Isrealites at least 300 years previously), kill all the thousands of people that he saw, including all "infants and sucklings" (think My Lai on steroids), ... what strict moral standard was that based on, hmmm?
And please don't tell me that it was because the Amalakites were planning an attack upon Isreal, as there was no notation in the scriptures indicating that; none whatsoever. Also, if you read the account earlier in the Bible, it gives the account of the Amalakites attacking the Isrealites while they were in transit to the Promised Land. What is missing in Samuel's reaccount of it, was that Isreal fought back and whupped the Amalakites big time. Ie., the price has already been paid. Retaliation already inflicted. ... So WTF was Samuel doing having Saul inflicting revenge upon a people who has already paid the price, and that around 300 years previously? It would be like the present day U.S. Army attacking descendants of an eastern seaboard tribes of Indians for a raid they committed back in 1707 upon some colonists.
So how does that biblical account of God initiating said attack upon the Amalakites jibe with your supposed 'strict sense of morals', hmmm? And that is but one of the many examples of this kind.
Like your other points re: atheists, you presume far too much about atheist's general sense of morality, particularly in portraying them as loose and cavaliar. Some atheists do behave that way, many don't. Your Newsweek 'source' are those who don't place too much emphasis upon integrity and accuracy. ... Can you say "Fluff magazines?" Two steps above National Enquirer? And your N.Y. Times source can (and in many cases does) illustrate a viewpoint held by a good number of conservatives, religious conservatives, that is. (Tell us JohnJ, politically and socially, what is your view re: those on public welfare, hmmm? Is it similar to many of your fellow religious conservatives who whine and b*tch about the godless welfare system? ... I smell a contradiction here.)
Sidebar: "To me, the real test of charity is when it is offered to people who "don't deserve" it, not just to those who do." If you're referring to public charity for the poor, it should ONLY be for those who need it, because those who DON'T need it leech off of those who "worked 6 months to get" their earnings. Ie., those who don't need it are in a better position to earn it themselves.
I say to you again, check out those links I (and others here) posted about atheists who give their own account about their views re: atheism and what it is and is not. ... Who knows. Maybe you'll might find something there that will challenge/disrupt your orthodox worldview? ... Or maybe that's what you find so 'immoral' about atheism. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
Okay, just one more.
George, some how I missed this statement by johnj. Could you point it out to me, please?
Suda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
He says as much in the very next line of his post Suda,
as well as stating that non-theistic morals are lacking in standards and accountability in his previous post.
Edited by George AarLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
And Mr. J. have you got a date for the New York Times article? The normal search engines aren't turning up the article you've noted...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
Okay, one last one . . . hopefully!
johnj:
George Aar:
Still failing to see how "man-made, changable, and personal" = "substandard, transient, meaningless"
It would seem you may be reading something between the lines you think he is saying or implying, but that is not there.
Suda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Suda,
Given that a lot of orthodox Christian ministers view atheist morals so poorly, I have no problem believing George's interpretation of "man-made, changable, and personal" = "substandard, transient, meaningless", and JohnJ isn't taking the initiative to show how his thinking is really any different.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
Garth,
Actually, I think he is trying to show how his statements are not equal to the charges.
If he is a minister, it's not surprising his opinions sounds like other ministers.
Guess I'll just have to agree to disagree with you and George on this one.
Suda (heading off the bed, finally)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Garth and George are so smart.
They ask all the right questions you know!
Read between those lines.
Your questions are substandard and immoral.
Cause you don't know the answers.
Asking for answers, and if you get them you wouldn't see them anyway.
The Way had all the answers remember?
Is that what you want or do you really want to know?
No, I don't think so. Just some b.s. you keep for special occasions.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I checked my stack of Newsweeks, found that I threw out October 15th :o - but I did find the article on the internet
http://www.newsweek.com/id/42454
It wouldn't let me copy, but one section asks who is most likely to cheat, the answer was "athletes, the non-religious and those who did not take AP courses".
The article also states that 60% of kids cheat on tests
*****************************************************
The Herod example can be used to make the other side's point as well. From what I can tell, Herod gave lip service to the OT law, rebuilt the Temple and considered himself to be the King of the Jews. He, as you said, certianly knew about the "do not kill" rule, but chose to ignore it. To use a modern day example, John Gotti, mafia boss, was as religious as they come, but that didn't stop him from ordering plenty of killings.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Quote, johnj: So if a person's personal system of morals allows cruelty, for example, no one can call it wrong.
So if a person's DOCTRINAl system of morals allows cruelty, for example, no one can call it wrong.
Same diff, as far as I can see. Isn't that what much of the posts in About the Way deal with?
In both cases, those outside the system-- society-- can call things wrong. They can even pass laws about activities.
Edited by BrambleLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Lessee, our questions are 'substandard and immoral' because we don't know the answers. .... Yah! Right!
And if we get them, we wouldn't see them. .... Ohh Ho-kay. Really nice job of your side clearing up the confusion and discrepancy.
Just because we want proof of this invisible entity you call God, just because we call out the discrepencies that we see in your religious faith, just because we shoot down this obvious lie that atheists just cannot come up with/practice morals as good as you theists say you do, ... somehow we are the ones who don't really want the answers, we're just throwing out some B.S. for special occasions?? ........ Uhmmm, right, ... VeePee! <_<
Well guy, I can't speak for George, but I know the reasons and motivations for why I'm posting the questions/challenges that I do, ..... even if you don't. So go ahead and keep playing the "I can spiritually see where you two are coming from" game (now THERE was a pratice that TWI took part in plenty!), whilst George and I are cast out unto the Darkness of Evil. ((snif))
Happy Halloween to you to, guy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I don't have a 'side', though you would like that.
Too bad to, cause we could have a war.
It's the questions about the bible and proof that I'm talking about.
Just cause you can't see it, that don't mean it's not there.
It's always been there and always will.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Wasn't there a number of quotes of vpw stating that he didn't know if there was a God or heaven? (They were usually quoted when I asked how we knew anything to be true etc.) Was he really an atheist then? Maybe a lot of religious leaders are atheists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Cman, sounds more like grumpiness aimed at Geo than a contribution to this thread.
As far as I can see, several folks on this thread have seen that Person A's proof of truth does not necessarily translate to Person B as proof of the same truth--even though Person A's doctrine says it will, Therefore Person B has to be dishonest or 'off' in some way..will people ever get over the idea that their truth is universal for all humankind?
Very discouraging in a discussion such as this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I think everyone's proof is different.
Not grumpy, just annoyed that the same old questions are directed towards those that believe a certain way are used.
When the one's asking don't know the answers themselves.
Even the answers are different for everyone imo, so I just think it's where a person has progressed to and not what others think that they should know or do. And that's on both 'sides' here, too bad too because there could be some real progress instead of what is happening.
All I can control is my own mind and not another's. Nor will I force or try to convince anyone of what I know, cause what I know changes, so will what everyone knows.
Anybody who thinks whatever of me, does not affect me anyway. Though I, as anyone, would like to well thought of and not thought of as someone I'm not. I have been constantly accused of things that are not true. There is nothing I can do about it but be myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Cman, it would help if you would reference the actual questions that bothered you, or speak specifically of the issues that are troubling to you. Since I have not followed what is apparantly a long history of posting between you and the athiests of GSC I have no idea what you are talking about, other than you are not happy with either George or /and others on this thread.
I might add that this thread was started as a dialogue for better understanding, I thought. Since many of the posters on it are new to this thread/doctrinal etc, I for one do not know why you are annoyed and it seemed out of place on a thread that seemed to progress beyond barbs and animosity for many.
Edited by BrambleLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I'm not happy with the way people are being presented.
Either the atheists or theists.
I don't believe the people here are extremists either way.
But the conversations progress into wars and things are said that would not normally be said.
I do the same thing, everyone does I believe.
The questions were about proof and God killing people in the Old Testament.
There could be some very different ideas, thoughts and realizations and more about these questions.
But hardly anyone is willing to look.
Fear of the unknown I think, though it could be it's just not heard.
I don't know.
Take almost anything in the bible and turn it upside down and one may be closer to the truth.
Or opposite or at least from another point of view then word for word stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.