Atheist son prays for his mother to win the lottery, she does.

[Jehosaphaty]

Yes, well, there are still quite a few of the classical philosophers I'm still catching up on...

Aren't we all! It's a life-long process, no? The youtube audio (only part one here) is pretty grainy, and you don't get to see Dennett's rather large beard and imposing girth, but it's at least something:

The debate breaks down toward the end when Dennett resorts to mocking Plantinga rather than offering serious critique, but the whole affair is instructional nonetheless.

...However, if they're going to be used as apologetics for Christianity (or the Abrahamic faiths in general), then they must make allowances for what is known about those faiths and about the natural world.

I couldn't agree more my friend, and I think that recent theistic scholarship is finally (about 30 years late) attempting to reconcile those two spheres of inquiry/knowledge...as opposed to the classic response of turning a blind eye to complex scientific realities.

[Chukie sue]

Sorry, I was actually gone all day yesterday. Just got home an hour ago.

Well, don't take this the wrong way, but it seems to me to be less a clearing up of misconceptions, and more mental gymnastics based on suppositions about information not provided or described to make the passage seem justified. The only reasonable misconception I see is in describing the potential range of age of the children which, really, is moot.

Nah, I like it when (especially in contexts like this) people are frank. I must say that I haven't looked at the original text yet, so I don't know if the KJV "go on up" is accurate. For all we know he was walking up a path, anyway. It's up to the reader to decide (provided go on up is in the original text) whether the conclusion I presented is the most likely one.

The passage doesn't really need justifying in my opinion. Considering how the Bible is the doctrine Christians trust is the word of God, and within said doctrine verses such as Psalm 19: 7-9 exist, justifying for me isn't really necessary. This judgement was justified by God's reasoning: Man has a fallen nature, all those who mocked sinned, sin is worthy of death, He gave some of them death. I noticed this yesterday: Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. There were more than forty two. As to whether this is significant isn't really relevant to me, so I have no desire to ponder it.

In contemporary society, yeah, I can see that. But we're talking about a culture over two millenia removed from television and Xbox360 and chocolate milk. Communal bonds were much stronger in those days, and strangers (especially those preforming miracles) often gathered large groups of onlookers - including children. You can still see this behavior today in many poorer nations where aid workers draw large crowds of children to gawk at their strange features, clothes, and "miraculous" technology/medicine.

Perhaps. I don't know the size the size of the town where this event is said to have occurred, but that knowledge may help me draw a more accurate conclusion.

I don't think this is the case. While it's true that respect for one's elders was far more severely enforced than it is in today's world, I don't think the case for them wanting him dead can be made. To start with, nearly every translation I've seen indicates that Elisha was "going up to Bethel". Whether this means he was literally traveling uphill (not familiar with the geography of the region) or just a figure of speech (like "going up" to the store for pack of smokes) still has the same contextual meaning. Some (like the NIV) even translate the passage as "Get out of here" or "Go Away"... which supports the view that they wanted him out of town, and not dead. Even assuming they were making a reference to Elijah, there's also the equally valid supposition that they were simply snarkily mocking him who had taken up the role of Elijah, much in same manner we all made of Harold Camping's May Armageddon - because we saw it as BS and were calling his bluff.

I agree. It was a large stretch when I proposed that idea. Seems to me that if they were implying they wanted him to leave this world, that it could be merely equated with just wishing him gone. Something like "get out of town" but with relation to a past event. Hell, if not for the baldy-baldy-bit, wishing Elisha to Heaven seems like quite the considerate thing to do.

And sending two bears to attack his mockers was the best a loving and omnipotent god can come up with to protect his prophet? Why not just surround him with a force field, or teleport him away, or play the brown noise so they all shit their pants? Even if it was for his protection, I question the morality of the act. I mean, fuck dude, if he was dead set on using bears... why not just make them talk like he did that donkey and make the kids sit down and give them a three hours lecture them on bullying and sensitivity.

Well, we both know the answer to that. But I think you're assuming that (in at least this case) the God described in the Bible always operates according to His loving/merciful natures before that of a righteous judge (with the supposition this was justified that I mentioned above, of course). Did you know there are more references to God's wrath in the Bible than that of His love? Obviously mainstream Christianity doesn't really advertise this much - some even feel this nature is something we should apologize for. All this to say, having mercy in this case didn't appear to be at the top of His agenda.

Anyway, I've also heard some propose that since Lepers had to shave their heads, the baldy-baldy may have been implying that he was a leper. I don't even know if leper was a derogatory term during that time period, so this "defense" wasn't really worth mentioning. So, yeah, in case that interests you.

[Sinue_v2]

The youtube audio (only part one here) is pretty grainy, and you don't get to see Dennett's rather large beard and imposing girth, but it's at least something. The debate breaks down toward the end when Dennett resorts to mocking Plantinga rather than offering serious critique, but the whole affair is instructional nonetheless.

Yeah, this is the video I ran across last night, and I was hoping there was a version which had better audio quality. I wasn't successful at finding a transcript, and reviews of the debate seemed to be inconsistent on who "won". Oh well; thanks for the link anyhow. I'll give it a listen later tonight. Alternatively, I may just see if I can get ahold of a copy of Science and Religion: Are they compatible?, which is co-authored by Plantinga and Dennett. It seems to start off with a transcript of their debate, followed up by a series of back and forth discussions which further expand upon their arguments.

I must say that I haven't looked at the original text yet, so I don't know if the KJV "go on up" is accurate. For all we know he was walking up a path, anyway. It's up to the reader to decide (provided go on up is in the original text) whether the conclusion I presented is the most likely one.

Well, this struck me a bit the other night as well. At first I mistook the children as being of Jericho, because they came out of the gate and Elisha had to turn around to "curse" them. This seems to imply that he was traveling away from the town, and not towards the town of Beth-El. Since he is described as heading to Mt. Carmel, perhaps he was just passing by the town and "going on up" to the mountain.

At any rate though, I don't think it's of vital importance to the core of the argument.

The passage doesn't really need justifying in my opinion. Considering how the Bible is the doctrine Christians trust is the word of God, and within said doctrine verses such as Psalm 19: 7-9 exist, justifying for me isn't really necessary.

So, "God said it, I believe it, That settles it?"

This judgement was justified by God's reasoning: Man has a fallen nature, all those who mocked sinned, sin is worthy of death, He gave some of them death.

Well, that opens up the discussion of what is sin, whether or not sin is actually an infraction worthy of such a penalty, and why couldn't an omnipotent god find a better way to deal with sin. At the very least I think it demonstrates my earlier point that there is only truly one commandment - obedience, and thus the bible stands on very shaky grounds when used to understand and follow a code of morality.

Perhaps. I don't know the size the size of the town where this event is said to have occurred, but that knowledge may help me draw a more accurate conclusion.

I couldn't say for sure, but off-hand I would assume it was a fairly decently sized settlement and probably had a sizable religious importance since it's mentioned several times in the bible and it's name literally means "House of God". This is probably more a reference to El Elyon(God most High) of the Canaanite pantheon, but would also later accommodate Yahweh when Abraham promoted him as chief among the gods.

Did you know there are more references to God's wrath in the Bible than that of His love? Obviously mainstream Christianity doesn't really advertise this much - some even feel this nature is something we should apologize for. All this to say, having mercy in this case didn't appear to be at the top of His agenda.

Indeed, I've heard that the easiest way to make a Christian into an Atheist is a careful reading of the Old Testament... because (sugar coating and cherry picking aside) there is quite a striking contrast between the God of Love and the God of Justice. If you've ever heard of Bishop John Shelby Spong, he makes the case for reformation of Christianity partially on the grounds of this schism between OT & NT. He takes a much more metaphorical view of the bible, and as such, views Christianity as a potent source of good in society... but also of great social ill. Promoting the Old Testament god of Justice will only increasingly drive those familiar with the NT God of Love away from the church, while leaving the remaining congregations increasingly marginalized, archaic, and potentially dangerous to themselves and society. So there's an incentive to continue an unsustainable status-quo which will rot the faith from the inside and eventually prove fatal to it.



I don't know if you'll find much common ground with him, but I think he presents a view of Christianity that's very agreeable.

Anyway, I've also heard some propose that since Lepers had to shave their heads, the baldy-baldy may have been implying that he was a leper. I don't even know if leper was a derogatory term during that time period, so this "defense" wasn't really worth mentioning. So, yeah, in case that interests you.

Well, the text never mentions him as such, and the implication by the actions of others he interacts with don't indicate this to be the case. I don't see any reason why there is to suppose that it is, except for a reluctance to promote God and his prophets as being that petty and vain. So they in invent a content which lessens the disagreeable implications and makes it more palatable.

With any luck, they'll be lolworthy (which is what I'm hoping for). Maybe a theist and atheist will get in an argument, one will say something false, and I'll get to interject about a subject I'm knowledgeable on. Who knows.

So was it good for you?

[Chukie sue]

So, "God said it, I believe it, That settles it?"

Divine Command Ethics is so simple it feels like a cop-out . Anyway, kind of. God's commands are an expression of His nature, which is good. In other words, "whatever a good God commands is good." Ronald Nash actually addresses the Euthyphro dilemma is a similar manner in the book I recommended.

I guess my thinking is something like this: God is by definition omnipotent and omniscient. Not unnecessarily benevolent, or omnibenevolent. Anyway, questioning what an omnipotent/omniscient God says is true is obviously absurd. You would have to assume He was trying to purposefully trying to deceive, but if that was the case, He would have succeeded! Unless, for some strange reason, He only wanted to deceive a small minority of people who call themselves Christians. Often times I find myself debating people whose thoughts of God are far too human.

Well, that opens up the discussion of what is sin, whether or not sin is actually an infraction worthy of such a penalty, and why couldn't an omnipotent god find a better way to deal with sin. At the very least I think it demonstrates my earlier point that there is only truly one commandment - obedience, and thus the bible stands on very shaky grounds when used to understand and follow a code of morality.

Yeah. I've heard people say "when people sin, it's against an infinite God, thus it deserves an infinite penalty." But they never demonstrate how it's against God, or give reasoning as to why sinning against an infinite God deserves an infinite punishment... All that in regards to Hell, of course. As for the wrath of the bears, I don't really have the time to discuss.

I couldn't say for sure, but off-hand I would assume it was a fairly decently sized settlement and probably had a sizable religious importance since it's mentioned several times in the bible and it's name literally means "House of God". This is probably more a reference to El Elyon(God most High) of the Canaanite pantheon, but would also later accommodate Yahweh when Abraham promoted him as chief among the gods.

'Learn something everyday, thanks.

Indeed, I've heard that the easiest way to make a Christian into an Atheist is a careful reading of the Old Testament... because (sugar coating and cherry picking aside) there is quite a striking contrast between the God of Love and the God of Justice. If you've ever heard of Bishop John Shelby Spong, he makes the case for reformation of Christianity partially on the grounds of this schism between OT & NT. He takes a much more metaphorical view of the bible, and as such, views Christianity as a potent source of good in society... but also of great social ill. Promoting the Old Testament god of Justice will only increasingly drive those familiar with the NT God of Love away from the church, while leaving the remaining congregations increasingly marginalized, archaic, and potentially dangerous to themselves and society. So there's an incentive to continue an unsustainable status-quo which will rot the faith from the inside and eventually prove fatal to it.

Yeah. To be honest, I think if Christian leaders would focus on the OT more, it wouldn't be such a stark, alarming "problem" that many Christians assert it is. I'll get to the... 90 minute video when I can

So was it good for you?

Yes, because you're not a complete dick like most people On the bright side, one year on religion forums and I have the patience of a Saint

[Sinue_v2]

I know the topic is kind of winding down, so forgive me for this wall of text. A storm knocked out the internet here before I could hit submit, so I had extra time to kill.

God's commands are an expression of His nature, which is good. In other words, "whatever a good God commands is good."

As a tautology, I think that's true enough. But if God's commands are an expression of his nature, then that begs the question... can God control his nature? If he can, then his moral edicts are still subjective to whatever he wants to change his nature to. If he cannot control his nature, then there is an objective source beyond God which defines and controls God. But beyond that, where I get hung up is... "How do we know that any certain text is actually the word of God"? I think there's a great potential for abuse wherein those who think they know the mind of God, projecting their own prejudices onto god, are given license to promote social ills in the name of that God.

I think it's a bit telling that scriptural interpretation in the major denominations often tends towards capitulating to the moralities, and addressing the concerns, of the society it's being read in. Scripture really isn't "the word of god", but rather a collection of philosophies, stories, and social/behavioral edicts from various men who were searching for god, or were inspired by god. Gospels similarly are not historic texts, but rather a collection of culturally tailored stories, parables, and discussions meant to spread the "Good News". Religion has a societal function, and those religions which are most successful are the ones which are malleable and adaptable enough to serve that function as societies change. If that is true, then it is not the word of an God being given to society, but the pressures of society speaking under the pseudonym of God.

As for divine revelation, I think Thomas Paine put it best when he said: "It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it."

Lastly, on this point, I want to stress just how fragile language is. We've already touched upon this with references to various translations and interpretations causing even the same passage to mean two totally different propositions to two different readers. Languages flows; it changes and takes on new meaning through the ages. It evolves, not too unlike the way life evolves, and there's no guarantee that a word or phrase in one culture at a certain time will even have a proper analog when translating into other languages. Even worse, it's subject to a myriad of different cognitive biases, false associations, and other mental illusions.

IF there is a god, and if that god wanted to communicate with us without making himself obvious and omnipresent, and if the fate of our eternal souls depended upon hearing that message... then why would a God rely on such a poor medium as human language to carry that message? I don't see anything especially divine or beyond the comprehension or wisdom of human authors within the Bible. Indeed, (forgive me for saying this, but) the God portrayed by the Bible seems to be a small anthropocentric and tribal totem by which to explain to an ancient people why the world is the way it is. It is not the God of Quantum Mechanics, nor of Evolution, of an expanding universe (perhaps multiverse), or of the immutable laws of Physics or Chemistry... and yet, by necessity as a creator god, he must be. Yet where is that same awe and wonder so often accredited to divinity which we see in the natural world within the pages of scripture?

I think that, in this context, it can be argued that (at least in literal interpretations) the Bible is actually a form of idolatry which promotes the works of men as if it were the words of God.

Anyway, questioning what an omnipotent/omniscient God says is true is obviously absurd. You would have to assume He was trying to purposefully trying to deceive, but if that was the case, He would have succeeded!

Indeed, if we were to place Yahweh back into his earliest pantheons, how could anyone say for sure whether or not his Holy Book was true? What if his true nature were that of a trickster god, like Loki or Coyote? It's said in Numbers (23:19) that God does not lie... and yet, there are instances like Abraham and Issac where (even if for the sake of a test), there was a necessity of deception.

Unless, for some strange reason, He only wanted to deceive a small minority of people who call themselves Christians.

I wouldn't call believers in Christianity a small minority. In fact, I think Christianity is the largest religious denomination in the world, with it's only real competition being from Hinduism/Buddhism. You can take that lead even further to an overwhelming majority by adding in Judaism and Islam, which both worship the same God that Christians do, as well as having many of the same scriptures in their holy books.

Often times I find myself debating people whose thoughts of God are far too human.

I think this also is an illusion of the mind... that we tend to project our humanity upon our concepts of God because it makes that God far easier to relate to and interact with. My own concept of God just wouldn't work for most people, because it's far too abstract and void of definition. It would be silly to ask such a being for strength during a family crisis, or wisdom in the face of an uncertain future.

The way people use the God of the Bible for this utility, especially via Jesus, is part of what made the Abrahamic faiths so successful... and I think that's where much of the resistance towards calls for a more metaphorical (and mythological) interpretation vs. traditional literal interpretations come from.

Yeah. I've heard people say "when people sin, it's against an infinite God, thus it deserves an infinite penalty."

This might be way off base, but wouldn't making sin "infinite" negate any means of salvation? Unless, that salvation was also infinite... in which case, mercy and justice negate each other... thus abolishing sin as a concept altogether? I take it that little pearl came from a "Saved by Grace, not by Works" interpretation.

(I've always seen "Salvation through works" to be a more favorable interpretation simply for it's utility. While it can do a great deal of harm by those who think they are doing good, it also at least more strongly promotes beneficial social behavior in it's adherents.... such as charity. Saved by Grace seems to be an interpretation more compatible with "Fuck you; I got mine" worldviews.)

Yeah. To be honest, I think if Christian leaders would focus on the OT more, it wouldn't be such a stark, alarming "problem" that many Christians assert it is.

Well, we can only speculate on the effects of a more OT faithful reading. I would still suggest that it would be to the detriment of the Church in this time because it can no longer dominate the moral marketplace. I think that is going to be the prime cause of tension, and those who are shocked will take refuge with other religions (which they now have easy access to) and secular/humanist philosophies (which govern the societies they're wanting to embetter).

Yes, because you're not a complete dick like most people

Hmm, I'll have to step up my game then. Maybe buy a few Dawkins books?
But this is also a two way discussion, and if I haven't been a complete dick, it's only because you and the other posters here have helped set the tone.

On the bright side, one year on religion forums and I have the patience of a Saint

One year on the Conspiracy Theory forums seems to have had the opposite effect on me. Heh

[Chukie sue]

Just got back to my home... Mommy's birthday - will read and probably reply tomorrow @_@

[Chukie sue]

I'm still gonna comment and stuff later. My brother's grad party is in a few days so we're all preping, and I've been gone 5/7 days this week.

[playstar78]

man, i wish i´d win the lottery one day. i´d have a huge party, buy myself a porsche 911, go shopping for some bling at chrono24 and fly away to the bahamas. i´m an atheist, so i better start praying =)