what would you do to GOD?

[Pumpmaster]

I agree....if you believe in God what harm is it? You love one another and treat each other as you'd like to be treated. You believe that there is something better after we die...so what! Now let me ask this......if you don't believe in God and live your life as this is all there is and then you die and then find out that you were wrong...what do you do then? Some people believe...some don't...it all comes down to faith and ALL of us will one day know for sure.

 

Now let me ask this: what if you spend 8 years of your life actually believing that an invisible man in the sky told you "liberate" people? And that "liberate"

means attacking, invading, and occupying 2 countries---at a cost of over a million lives so far?

 

Or, believing that an invisible man in the sky will give you 72 virgins if you fly an airplane into a building?

 

So, you don't think believing is harmful?

[Pumpmaster]

It is interesting that when people seek historic and scientific proof of Jesus, they immediately discount the Bible as a reliable source.

 

If we look at the Bible simply as a historic document, it should be among the most reliable on record compared with others.

 

Historians routinely cite Herodotus as a key source of information. He wrote from 488 B.C. to 428 B.C. and the earliest copy of his work comes from 900 A.D. (1,300 years later). There are only eight known copies of his work.

 

By contrast, the New Testament of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was written between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D. The earliest known copy is from 130 A.D. and there are 5,000 known copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages.

 

Still, to put to rest the notion that there is no historic and scientific proof of Jesus outside the Bible, we may look to Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and to Roman historian Carius Cornelius Tacitus - both well known and accepted.

 

Josephus, in the book Jewish Antiquities" wrote:

 

"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. . . .And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).

 

Tacitus, in writing about accusations that Nero burned the city of Rome and blamed it on Christians, said the following:

 

". . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . ." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

 

I CAN COPY AND PASTE TOO!

 

There's no such thing as "the" bible. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of versions. They all disagree, and they all have errors and contradictions.

 

Which version is right? How do you know?

 

Is the book of Mormon right? How do you know?

[fantasyfrank]

I agree....if you believe in God what harm is it? You love one another and treat each other as you'd like to be treated. You believe that there is something better after we die...so what! Now let me ask this......if you don't believe in God and live your life as this is all there is and then you die and then find out that you were wrong...what do you do then? Some people believe...some don't...it all comes down to faith and ALL of us will one day know for sure.

Good post, and thank the Lord it wasn't 5 pages long either! LOL. If you believe in God or not, (for the record I do) the same question has had to come to everybody's mind at least one time if not several times in their lives. How did we get here? Who made the earth, stars, planets, sun, moon? Somebody, something, something far greater then man has had to make up the earth, the universe, stars, the animals, the fishes, and us...Man. I don't laugh at people who don't believe, I hope people don't laugh at me because I do believe. Everybody has a choice, and one thing is for sure...some people will be right and some people will be wrong. If the people who believe in God are right, I feel sorry for the people who didn't believe. Have a nice day...no matter what side you are on! :shades:

[Trimdingman]

Good post, and thank the Lord it wasn't 5 pages long either! LOL. If you believe in God or not, (for the record I do) the same question has had to come to everybody's mind at least one time if not several times in their lives. How did we get here? Who made the earth, stars, planets, sun, moon? Somebody, something, something far greater then man has had to make up the earth, the universe, stars, the animals, the fishes, and us...Man. I don't laugh at people who don't believe, I hope people don't laugh at me because I do believe. Everybody has a choice, and one thing is for sure...some people will be right and some people will be wrong. If the people who believe in God are right, I feel sorry for the people who didn't believe. Have a nice day...no matter what side you are on! :shades:

 

 

There is nothing wrong in someone believing in a god. There is something wrong when a religion gets hold of you and uses that belief for their own ends. They define what their version of God is, and use threats of harsh punishment if you do not go along with their version. In the past, Christianity has managed to find its way into government and people have been imprisoned and executed for their beliefs. It is happening to-day in the Muslim world. Christian churches to-day preach that people who do not believe are evil. If they ever formed a political party and got elected, they would be pressing for laws to punish people who did not believe. There is a big difference between belief in God and belief in a religion. There are political religions based on things other than gods. These are also dangerous. You have a set of laws and a constitution which you have to live by. You do not need to have another set of rules dictated by a church superimposed over that. How much control do you want over your life? The Catholic Church is the remnants of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire was government. Galileo Galilei was imprisoned for life because he disagreed with the Catholic Church. Women were murdered in Massachussetts because Protestant religious fanatics believed them to be witches. Maybe god is good, but religion is evil, whether it be spiritual or political.

[OACville]

I dont have a problem with people beleiving in a God.

I have a problem when people believing in one particuler God think their God is better then another God.

I have a problem when ones God is forced upon people

I have a problem when God influences government

I have a problem when people are slaughtered becuase of a God

I have a problem when people recruit for one God.

 

As for the long posts.. There is nothing to fear from information

[Pumpmaster]

I dont have a problem with people beleiving in a God.

I have a problem when people believing in one particuler God think their God is better then another God.

I have a problem when ones God is forced upon people

I have a problem when God influences government

I have a problem when people are slaughtered becuase of a God

I have a problem when people recruit for one God.

 

As for the long posts.. There is nothing to fear from information

 

Yep!

 

As George Carlin accurately said, "more people have been killed in the name of 'god' than for any other reason."

[OACville]

Good post, and thank the Lord it wasn't 5 pages long either! LOL. If you believe in God or not, (for the record I do) the same question has had to come to everybody's mind at least one time if not several times in their lives. How did we get here? Who made the earth, stars, planets, sun, moon? Somebody, something, something far greater then man has had to make up the earth, the universe, stars, the animals, the fishes, and us...Man. I don't laugh at people who don't believe, I hope people don't laugh at me because I do believe. Everybody has a choice, and one thing is for sure...some people will be right and some people will be wrong. If the people who believe in God are right, I feel sorry for the people who didn't believe. Have a nice day...no matter what side you are on! :shades:

 

If you get a chance and arnt afraid. Go to the library and get the book The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins or perhaps The Selfish Gean. The books do not talk about religion but do talk about animals, fishes and us and are a fun read. If nothing else you will learn a great deal of why certain animals behave the way they do, such as bats and electric eels. You will also learn how the human eye works as well as other animals eyes and why some are the same and some different. It a very educational read. The Selfish Gean talks more about how Geans work and stor and pass information. Both are easy and entertaining reads.

[OACville]

God or Blind Nature..

 

There is a debate by philosopher with good information for both sides..

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/deb...eat-debate.html

[OACville]

It is interesting that when people seek historic and scientific proof of Jesus, they immediately discount the Bible as a reliable source.

 

If we look at the Bible simply as a historic document, it should be among the most reliable on record compared with others.

 

Historians routinely cite Herodotus as a key source of information. He wrote from 488 B.C. to 428 B.C. and the earliest copy of his work comes from 900 A.D. (1,300 years later). There are only eight known copies of his work.

 

By contrast, the New Testament of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was written between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D. The earliest known copy is from 130 A.D. and there are 5,000 known copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages.

 

Still, to put to rest the notion that there is no historic and scientific proof of Jesus outside the Bible, we may look to Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and to Roman historian Carius Cornelius Tacitus - both well known and accepted.

 

Josephus, in the book Jewish Antiquities" wrote:

 

"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. . . .And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).

 

Tacitus, in writing about accusations that Nero burned the city of Rome and blamed it on Christians, said the following:

 

". . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . ." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

 

I CAN COPY AND PASTE TOO!

 

I do not argue the fact that Jesus once walked this earth. I for one believe he did.

Do I think he was a great philosopher of the time.. YES

Do I think he was born from a virgin. NO

Do I think he was once a carpenter. YES

Do I think talking about Philosophy is easier then doing carpentry. YES

Do I think he is the son of GOD. NO. He is not the son of God any more then me or you are.

 

Much has been made of Jesus to profit other peoples best interests. Jesus after all is the biggest business in the world today. Thats what I have a problem with.

[OACville]

For all you believers here is a page for arguments in your favor.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/arguments.html

 

The site Infidels.org is a great site and has no fear of presenting both sides of the argument becuase when you speak the truth it can stand on its own legs without props.

[OACville]

I agree....if you believe in God what harm is it? You love one another and treat each other as you'd like to be treated. You believe that there is something better after we die...so what! Now let me ask this......if you don't believe in God and live your life as this is all there is and then you die and then find out that you were wrong...what do you do then? Some people believe...some don't...it all comes down to faith and ALL of us will one day know for sure.

 

Have you heard of Pascals Law.

Here is Pascals wager.

 

Pascal's Wager

In the seventeenth century the mathematician Blaise Pascal formulated his infamous pragmatic argument for belief in God in Pensées. The argument runs as follows:

 

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

 

How should you bet? Regardless of any evidence for or against the existence of God, Pascal argued that failure to accept God's existence risks losing everything with no payoff on any count. The best bet, then, is to accept the existence of God. There have been several objections to the wager: that a person cannot simply will himself to believe something that is evidently false to him; that the wager would apply as much to belief in the wrong God as it would to disbelief in all gods, leaving the the believer in any particular god in the same situation as the atheist or agnostic; that God would not reward belief in him based solely on hedging one's bets; and so on.

 

 

and the rebutal

 

The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven

 

The following argument could be taken as tongue-in-cheek, if it didn't seem so evidently true. At any rate, to escape the logic of it requires theists to commit to abandoning several of their cherished assumptions about God or Heaven. And no matter what, it presents a successful rebuttal to any form of Pascal's Wager, by demonstrating that unbelief might still be the safest bet after all (since we do not know whose assumptions are correct, and we therefore cannot exclude the assumptions on which this argument is based).

 

Argument 1: Who Goes to Heaven?

 

It is a common belief that only the morally good should populate heaven, and this is a reasonable belief, widely defended by theists of many varieties. Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven--unless god wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy.

 

But only two groups fit this description: intellectually committed but critical theists, and intellectually committed but critical nontheists (which means both atheists and agnostics, though more specifically secular humanists, in the most basic sense). Both groups have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about god (for example) are probably correct, so that their beliefs about right and wrong will probably be correct. No other groups can claim this. If anyone is sincerely interested in doing right and wrong, they must be sincerely interested in whether certain claims are true, including "God exists," and must treat this matter with as much responsibility and concern as any other moral question. And the only two kinds of people who do this are those theists and nontheists who devote their lives to examining the facts and determining whether they are right.

 

Argument 2: Why This World?

 

It is a common belief that certain mysteries, like unexplained evils in the world and god's silence, are to be explained as a test, and this is a reasonable belief, widely defended by theists of many varieties. After all, if no test were needed, then God could and would, out of his compassion and perfect efficiency, simply select candidates at birth and dispense with any actual life in this world, since God would immediately know their merits.

 

Free will cannot negate this conclusion, since if God cannot know us because we might freely reverse ourselves, then God cannot fill heaven with trustworthy people: for anyone in heaven may through an unexpected act of free will become or do evil. And given an eternity, it is probable that most of the population of heaven will do something evil. After all, if free will prevents him, then God cannot predict who will or won't do evil and thus he can never select those who will be forever good from those who will not, except by some inductive test.

 

Since those who will be forever good must naturally be rare in comparison to the set of all those people appearing to be good up to their deaths, it follows that, lacking a reliable inductive test, most of the population of heaven will not be genuinely good. It follows that a god who wanted better results would probably distinguish the genuinely good, and thus deserving, from the untrustworthy and undeserving, by subjecting all candidates to a reliable test, and it would be reasonable to conclude that this world only exists for such a purpose.

 

Argument 3: No God or Evil God

 

If presented with strong evidence that a god must either be evil or not exist, a genuinely good person will not believe in such a god, or if believing, will not give assent to such a god (as by worship or other assertions of approval, since the good do not approve of evil). Most theists do not deny this, but instead deny that the evidence is strong. But it seems irrefutable that there is strong evidence that a god must either be evil or not exist.

 

For example, in the bible Abraham discards humanity and morality upon God's command to kill his son Isaac, and God rewards him for placing loyalty above morality. That is probably evil--a good god would expect Abraham to forego fear and loyalty and place compassion first and refuse to commit an evil act, and would reward him for that, not for compliance. Likewise, God deliberately inflicts unconscionable wrongs upon Job and his family merely to win a debate with Satan. That is probably evil--no good god would do such harm for so petty a reason, much less prefer human suffering to the cajoling of a mere angel. And then God justifies these wrongs to Job by claiming to be able to do whatever he wants, in effect saying that he is beyond morality. That is probably evil--a good god would never claim to be beyond good and evil. And so it goes for all the genocidal slaughter and barbaric laws commanded by God in the bible. Then there are all the natural evils in the world (like diseases and earthquakes) and all the unchecked human evils (i.e. god makes no attempt to catch criminals or stop heinous crimes, etc.). Only an evil god would probably allow such things.

 

Argument 4: The Test

 

Of the two groups comprising the only viable candidates for heaven, only nontheists recognize or admit that this evidence strongly implies that God must be evil or not exist. Therefore, only nontheists answer the test as predicted for morally good persons. That is, a morally good person will be intellectually and critically responsible about having true beliefs, and will place this commitment to moral good above all other concerns, especially those that can corrupt or compromise moral goodness, like faith or loyalty. So those who are genuinely worthy of heaven will very probably become nontheists, since their inquiry will be responsible and therefore complete, and will place moral concerns above all others. They will then encounter the undeniable facts of all these unexplained evils (in the bible and in the world) and conclude that God must probably be evil or nonexistent.

 

In other words, to accept such evils without being given a justification (as is entailed by god's silence) indicates an insufficient concern for having true beliefs. But to have the courage to maintain unbelief in the face of threats of hell or destruction, as well as numerous forms of social pressure and other hostile factors, is exactly the behavior a god would expect from the genuinely good, rather than capitulation to the will of an evil being, or naive and unjustified trust that an apparently evil being is really good--those are not behaviors of the genuinely good.

 

Therefore only intellectually committed but critical nontheists are genuinely good and will go to heaven. Therefore, if a god exists, his silence and allowance of evil (in the world and the bible) are explained and justified by his plan to discover the only sorts of people who deserve to populate heaven: sincere nontheists. And this makes perfect sense of many mysteries, thus explaining what theists struggle to explain themselves.

 

God's hiddenness is necessary on this account, since his presence would inspire people to behave as if good out of fear or selfish interests, not out of courage or compassion or a sense of personal integrity.

 

 

A false, evil image of God in the bible is necessary in order to test whether the reader will place morality or faith first, so this tests moral courage in the face of assertions, threats and promises of reward. It also tests cognitive trustworthiness, since it is wrong to trust what someone merely wrote, over scientifically established truths and the direct evidence of reason and the senses.

 

 

Natural evils and unchecked human evils are also necessary on this account, since only in such a way can a god "demonstrate" that no moral power is behind the universe, that there is no custodian, and by that means lead a rational, compassionate observer to conclude there is no god. If the universe were well-ordered, with inherent moral enforcement and the containment or restriction of evils, observers would conclude there is a god and thus, again, might act as if good out of fear or hope of reward.

The only way to truly test human beings is to see if we will become nontheists after serious and sincere inquiry into these matters: to see if we have the courage and fortitude to choose morality over faith or loyalty, and be good without fear or hope of divine reward. No other test will ensure a result of the genuinely good being self-selected into a predictable belief-state that can be observed in secret by god.

 

Conclusion

 

Since this easily and comprehensively explains all the unexplainable problems of god (like divine hiddenness and apparent evil), while other theologies do not (or at least nowhere so well), it follows that this analysis is probably a better explanation of all the available evidence than any contrary theology. Since this conclusion contradicts the conclusion of every form of Pascal's Wager, it follows that Pascal's Wager cannot assure anyone of God's existence or that belief in God will be the best bet.

[Dale143]

Have you heard of Pascals Law.

Here is Pascals wager.

 

Pascal's Wager

In the seventeenth century the mathematician Blaise Pascal formulated his infamous pragmatic argument for belief in God in Pensées. The argument runs as follows:

 

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

 

How should you bet? Regardless of any evidence for or against the existence of God, Pascal argued that failure to accept God's existence risks losing everything with no payoff on any count. The best bet, then, is to accept the existence of God. There have been several objections to the wager: that a person cannot simply will himself to believe something that is evidently false to him; that the wager would apply as much to belief in the wrong God as it would to disbelief in all gods, leaving the the believer in any particular god in the same situation as the atheist or agnostic; that God would not reward belief in him based solely on hedging one's bets; and so on.

and the rebutal

 

The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven

 

The following argument could be taken as tongue-in-cheek, if it didn't seem so evidently true. At any rate, to escape the logic of it requires theists to commit to abandoning several of their cherished assumptions about God or Heaven. And no matter what, it presents a successful rebuttal to any form of Pascal's Wager, by demonstrating that unbelief might still be the safest bet after all (since we do not know whose assumptions are correct, and we therefore cannot exclude the assumptions on which this argument is based).

 

Argument 1: Who Goes to Heaven?

 

It is a common belief that only the morally good should populate heaven, and this is a reasonable belief, widely defended by theists of many varieties. Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven--unless god wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy.

 

But only two groups fit this description: intellectually committed but critical theists, and intellectually committed but critical nontheists (which means both atheists and agnostics, though more specifically secular humanists, in the most basic sense). Both groups have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about god (for example) are probably correct, so that their beliefs about right and wrong will probably be correct. No other groups can claim this. If anyone is sincerely interested in doing right and wrong, they must be sincerely interested in whether certain claims are true, including "God exists," and must treat this matter with as much responsibility and concern as any other moral question. And the only two kinds of people who do this are those theists and nontheists who devote their lives to examining the facts and determining whether they are right.

 

Argument 2: Why This World?

 

It is a common belief that certain mysteries, like unexplained evils in the world and god's silence, are to be explained as a test, and this is a reasonable belief, widely defended by theists of many varieties. After all, if no test were needed, then God could and would, out of his compassion and perfect efficiency, simply select candidates at birth and dispense with any actual life in this world, since God would immediately know their merits.

 

Free will cannot negate this conclusion, since if God cannot know us because we might freely reverse ourselves, then God cannot fill heaven with trustworthy people: for anyone in heaven may through an unexpected act of free will become or do evil. And given an eternity, it is probable that most of the population of heaven will do something evil. After all, if free will prevents him, then God cannot predict who will or won't do evil and thus he can never select those who will be forever good from those who will not, except by some inductive test.

 

Since those who will be forever good must naturally be rare in comparison to the set of all those people appearing to be good up to their deaths, it follows that, lacking a reliable inductive test, most of the population of heaven will not be genuinely good. It follows that a god who wanted better results would probably distinguish the genuinely good, and thus deserving, from the untrustworthy and undeserving, by subjecting all candidates to a reliable test, and it would be reasonable to conclude that this world only exists for such a purpose.

 

Argument 3: No God or Evil God

 

If presented with strong evidence that a god must either be evil or not exist, a genuinely good person will not believe in such a god, or if believing, will not give assent to such a god (as by worship or other assertions of approval, since the good do not approve of evil). Most theists do not deny this, but instead deny that the evidence is strong. But it seems irrefutable that there is strong evidence that a god must either be evil or not exist.

 

For example, in the bible Abraham discards humanity and morality upon God's command to kill his son Isaac, and God rewards him for placing loyalty above morality. That is probably evil--a good god would expect Abraham to forego fear and loyalty and place compassion first and refuse to commit an evil act, and would reward him for that, not for compliance. Likewise, God deliberately inflicts unconscionable wrongs upon Job and his family merely to win a debate with Satan. That is probably evil--no good god would do such harm for so petty a reason, much less prefer human suffering to the cajoling of a mere angel. And then God justifies these wrongs to Job by claiming to be able to do whatever he wants, in effect saying that he is beyond morality. That is probably evil--a good god would never claim to be beyond good and evil. And so it goes for all the genocidal slaughter and barbaric laws commanded by God in the bible. Then there are all the natural evils in the world (like diseases and earthquakes) and all the unchecked human evils (i.e. god makes no attempt to catch criminals or stop heinous crimes, etc.). Only an evil god would probably allow such things.

 

Argument 4: The Test

 

Of the two groups comprising the only viable candidates for heaven, only nontheists recognize or admit that this evidence strongly implies that God must be evil or not exist. Therefore, only nontheists answer the test as predicted for morally good persons. That is, a morally good person will be intellectually and critically responsible about having true beliefs, and will place this commitment to moral good above all other concerns, especially those that can corrupt or compromise moral goodness, like faith or loyalty. So those who are genuinely worthy of heaven will very probably become nontheists, since their inquiry will be responsible and therefore complete, and will place moral concerns above all others. They will then encounter the undeniable facts of all these unexplained evils (in the bible and in the world) and conclude that God must probably be evil or nonexistent.

 

In other words, to accept such evils without being given a justification (as is entailed by god's silence) indicates an insufficient concern for having true beliefs. But to have the courage to maintain unbelief in the face of threats of hell or destruction, as well as numerous forms of social pressure and other hostile factors, is exactly the behavior a god would expect from the genuinely good, rather than capitulation to the will of an evil being, or naive and unjustified trust that an apparently evil being is really good--those are not behaviors of the genuinely good.

 

Therefore only intellectually committed but critical nontheists are genuinely good and will go to heaven. Therefore, if a god exists, his silence and allowance of evil (in the world and the bible) are explained and justified by his plan to discover the only sorts of people who deserve to populate heaven: sincere nontheists. And this makes perfect sense of many mysteries, thus explaining what theists struggle to explain themselves.

 

God's hiddenness is necessary on this account, since his presence would inspire people to behave as if good out of fear or selfish interests, not out of courage or compassion or a sense of personal integrity.

A false, evil image of God in the bible is necessary in order to test whether the reader will place morality or faith first, so this tests moral courage in the face of assertions, threats and promises of reward. It also tests cognitive trustworthiness, since it is wrong to trust what someone merely wrote, over scientifically established truths and the direct evidence of reason and the senses.

Natural evils and unchecked human evils are also necessary on this account, since only in such a way can a god "demonstrate" that no moral power is behind the universe, that there is no custodian, and by that means lead a rational, compassionate observer to conclude there is no god. If the universe were well-ordered, with inherent moral enforcement and the containment or restriction of evils, observers would conclude there is a god and thus, again, might act as if good out of fear or hope of reward.

The only way to truly test human beings is to see if we will become nontheists after serious and sincere inquiry into these matters: to see if we have the courage and fortitude to choose morality over faith or loyalty, and be good without fear or hope of divine reward. No other test will ensure a result of the genuinely good being self-selected into a predictable belief-state that can be observed in secret by god.

 

Conclusion

 

Since this easily and comprehensively explains all the unexplainable problems of god (like divine hiddenness and apparent evil), while other theologies do not (or at least nowhere so well), it follows that this analysis is probably a better explanation of all the available evidence than any contrary theology. Since this conclusion contradicts the conclusion of every form of Pascal's Wager, it follows that Pascal's Wager cannot assure anyone of God's existence or that belief in God will be the best bet.

 

6 And He said to me,"It is done!

I am the Alpha and the Omega,the

Beginning and the End.I will give of

the fountain of the water of life freely

to him who thirst.

7 "He who overcomes shall inherit

all things,And I will be his God and

he shall be My son.

8 "But the cowardly,UNBELIEVING,

abominable,murderers,sexually im-

moral,sorcerers,idolaters,and all liars

shall have their part in the lake which

burns with fire and brimstone,which

is the second death."

REVELATION 21:6-8

[Pumpmaster]

6 And He said to me,"It is done!

I am the Alpha and the Omega,the

Beginning and the End.I will give of

the fountain of the water of life freely

to him who thirst.

7 "He who overcomes shall inherit

all things,And I will be his God and

he shall be My son.

8 "But the cowardly,UNBELIEVING,

abominable,murderers,sexually im-

moral,sorcerers,idolaters,and all liars

shall have their part in the lake which

burns with fire and brimstone,which

is the second death."

REVELATION 21:6-8

 

 

Leviticus 20:13. Do you practice what that verse commands?

[Dale143]

Leviticus 20:13. Do you practice what that verse commands?

 

Exodus 20:1-17

 

1 And God spake all these words, saying,

 

2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

 

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

 

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

 

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

 

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

 

7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

 

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

 

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

 

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

 

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

 

13 Thou shalt not kill.

 

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

 

15 Thou shalt not steal.

 

16 THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOUR.

 

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

[ktpworker69]

Well, it is time to vent again………………… this goes out to the Salaried personnel, not all of them. But I am sure you know who you are. How do you look yourself in the mirror at night and in the morning? Just say God got a job as a Tech, driver, inspector, floor something or another in the plant. Would you try to lie to him as you do us? Would you try to bully him as you try to do us? Would you try to invoke tension in his work day as you try to do to us? In these uncertain times instead of coming together as a unit, you have chosen to divide. So I guess we know whose future you have in mind. By the way in case you didn’t know, we are all God’s children, and what you do to us you have also done unto him. None of us on the floor are saints and we don’t pretend to be. We have a percentage that just plain do want to work, and that is a fact. But as far as enacting your childish games against all of us on the floor must come to and end. I do really hope and pray that you can open your eyes and minds, to see that you are dealing with ADULTS!

Not children. http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/style...efault/blah.gif

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/style...efault/blah.gif

well, without going into the religious aspect of it all(thats another topic in itself) i would be willing to bet that they wouldnt treat us like the dogs that they do. ive seen several superintendents outside of the plant and as far away as 500 miles from home, and they were the nicest people in the world. but, inside that plant its like dr jekyll and mr hyde. i have a good feeling that they are 'made' to treat people the way they do in fear of thier own jobs. if you know about henry ford, that will help explain it just a little bit

[ktpworker69]

So true! Look at all the fools who believed the BushCo. about Iraq. Those folks drank gallons of Kool-Ade, didn't they? Wow.

 

apparently, you drank enough kool-aid for the whole military. if you are so uninformed as to think that we shouldnt be at war in iraq, and that there "is no terror threat" you should wake up out of your little democrapic nutshell, and look at the big picture

[DMCtitanTN]

There is no god. Thus, it could not get a job with Ford.

 

Thank you very much Satan.

[Pumpmaster]

Exodus 20:1-17

 

1 And God spake all these words, saying,

 

2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

 

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

 

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

 

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

 

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

 

7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

 

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

 

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

 

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

 

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

 

13 Thou shalt not kill.

 

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

 

15 Thou shalt not steal.

 

16 THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOUR.

 

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

 

You didn't answer the question, sidestepper.

[DMCtitanTN]

Exodus 20:1-17

 

1 And God spake all these words, saying,

 

2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

 

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

 

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

 

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

 

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

 

7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

 

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

 

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

 

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

 

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

 

13 Thou shalt not kill.

 

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

 

15 Thou shalt not steal.

 

16 THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOUR.

 

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

 

I'm glad to see somebody else that believes in something right.

[OACville]

Exodus 20:1-17

 

1 And God spake all these words, saying,

 

2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

 

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

 

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

 

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

 

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

 

7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

 

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

 

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

 

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

 

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

 

13 Thou shalt not kill.

 

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

 

15 Thou shalt not steal.

 

16 THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOUR.

 

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

 

 

THE various deific titles applied to Jesus Christ in the New Testament are regarded by some Christian writers as presumptive evidence of his divinity. But the argument proves too much for the case; as we find the proof in history that many other beings, whom Christians regard as men, were honored and addressed by the same titles, such as God, Lord, Savior, Redeemer, Mediator, Messiah, etc.

 

The Hindoo Chrishna, more than two thousand years ago, was prayerfully worshiped as "God the Most High." His disciple Amarca once addressed him thus: "Thou art the Lord of all things, the God of the universe, the emblem of mercy, the bestower of salvation. Be propitious O most High God," etc. Here he is addressed both as Lord and God. He is also styled "God of Gods."

 

Adonis of Greece was addressed as "God Supreme," and Osiris of Egypt as "the Lord of Life." In Phrygia, it was "Lord Atys," as Christians say, "Lord Jesus Christ." Narayan of Bermuda was styled the " Holy Living God."

 

The title "Son of God" was so common in nearly all religious countries as to excite but little awe or attention.

 

St. Basil says, "Every uncommonly good man was called ,the Son of God.'" The "Asiatic Research" says, "The Tamulese adored a divine Son of God," and Thor of the Scandinavians was denominated "the first-born Son of God;" and so was Chrishna of India, and other demigods.

 

It requires, therefore, a wide stretch of faith to believe that Jesus Christ was in any peculiar sense "the Son of God," because so denominated, or "the only begotten Son of God," when so many others are reported in history bearing that title.

 

The title Savior is found in the legends of every religions country. So also God, Redeemer, and Mediator. "When a Mogul or Thibetan is asked who is Chrishna," says the Christian missionary Huc, "the reply is, instantly, 'the Savior of men.'" Buddha was known as "the Savior, Creator and Wisdom of God," and Mithra as both Mediator and Savior, also as "the Redeemer," and Chrishna as "the Divine Redeemer," also "the Redeemer of the World." The terms Mediator and Intercessor were also frequently applied to him by his disciples. And both he and Quexalcote were hailed as "the Messiah." In short, most ancient religious nations were honored with or expected a Messiah.

 

Was Jesus Christ the "Lamb of God?" (John i. 9.) So was Chrishna styled "the Holy Lamb." The Mexicans, preferring a full- grown sheep, had their "Ram of God." The Celts had their "Heifer of God," and the Egyptians their Bull of God." All these terms are ludicrous emblems of Deity, representing him as a quadruped, as the title "Lamb of God" does Jesus Christ, a term no less ludicrous than the titles of the pagan Gods as cited above.

 

And was Christ "the True Light?" (John i. 9.) So was Chrishna likewise called "the True Light," also "the Giver of Light," "the Inward Light," etc. Osiris was "the Redeemer of Light," and Pythagoras was both "Light and Truth." Apollonius was styled the "True Light of the World;" while Simon Magus was called "the Light of all Men."

 

Several nations had also their Christs, though in many cases the word is differently spelled. Chrest, the Greek mode of spelling Christ, may be found on several of the ancient tombstones of that country. The Christian writer Elsley, in his "Annotations of the Gospels" (vol. i.p. 25), spells the word Christ in this manner, Chrest. The people of Loretto had a black Savior, called Chrest, or Christ. Lucian, in his "Philopatris," admits the ancient Gentiles had the name of Christ, which shows it was a heathen title. The Chaldeans had their Chris, the Hindoos their Chrishna, the Greeks their Chrest, and the Christians their Christ, all, doubtless, derived from the same original root.

 

As for Jesus, it was a common name among the Jews long before the advent of Christ. Josephus refers to seven or eight persons by that name, as "Jesus, brother of Onias," "Jesus, son of Phabet," etc. Joshua in the Greek form, Jesus, was in still more common use.

 

Again, was Jesus Christ "the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End?" so, likewise, Chrishna proclaimed, "I am the Beginning, the Middle, and the End." Osiris and Chrishna were both proclaimed "Judge of the Dead," as Jesus was "Judge of quick and dead." Isaiah represents the Father as proclaiming, "I am Jehovah; besides me there is no Savior." (Isa. xliii. 11.) With what consistency, then, can Christ be called "the Savior," if there is but one Sazior, and that is the Father?

 

And other divine titles besides those above named -- in fact, all those applied to Christ -- are found used also in reference to the older pagan gods, and hence prove nothing.

 

ORIGIN OF THE TERMS MEDIATOR, INTERCESSOR, ETC

Several causes contributed to originate a belief in the offices imaginarily assigned to divine God-descended Mediators, Redeemers, and Intercessors.

 

1. In the first place, the Great Supreme God was believed to be too far off and too aristocratic to be on familiar terms with his subjects, or at all times accessible to their prayers. Hence, was gotten up a "Mediator," or middle God, to stand midway between the Great Supreme and the people, and transmit messages one from the other, and thus serve as agent for both parties. Confirmatory of this statement is the declaration of Mamoides, in his "Guide to the Erring," that "the ancient Sabeans conceived the principal God, on account of his great distance, to be inaccessible; and hence, in imitation of the people in their conduct toward their king, who had to address him through a person appointed for the purpose, they imaginarily employed a middle divinity, who was called a Mediator, to present their claims to the Supreme God." Here the whole secret is out, the whole thing is explained, and we now understand why Christ is called a Mediator, Intercessor, "Advocate with the Father," etc.

 

2. Again, the Supreme God was supposed to be frequently angry with the people, and threatening to punish if not to destroy them. "I will punish the multitude." (Jer xlvi. 25.) "I will destroy the people." (Ex. xxiii. 27). Hence, this middle divinity, this second person of the trinity, stepped in to plead and intercede on their behalf, being, as we must presume, a better-natured and more merciful being than the Father. And thus interceding, he received the titles of Intercessor and "Advocate with the Father." (i John, ii. i.)

 

3. The principal circumstance, however, which led to the conception of a divine Savior was the desire to find some way to continue in sin and wrong-doing and escape its natural and legitimate consequences; in other words, to evade the penalty. Hence, it came to be believed that people might run riot in sin, and plunge into the indulgence of their passions and their lusts, till the hour of death approached, when they would have nothing to do but to ask forgiveness, and cast the burden of their sins and sufferings on the merits of "a crucified Savior and Redeemer," who "suffered once for all, that we might escape," and thus dodge the penalty for sin. It was, as Mr. Fleurbach expresses it, "A realized wish to be free from the laws of morality, and escape the natural consequences of wrong doing."

[Pumpmaster]

apparently, you drank enough kool-aid for the whole military. if you are so uninformed as to think that we shouldnt be at war in iraq, and that there "is no terror threat" you should wake up out of your little democrapic nutshell, and look at the big picture

 

What's a democrapic? How many U.S. citizen/soldiers have been killed, maimed, and PTSD'd from Iraq so far (of course, chickenhawks like you are safe)?

 

Are you from Harlan County?

 

I wish there was a 'god' to punish evildoers like you, BushCo. and bin Laden.

[Pumpmaster]

Thank you very much Satan.

[/quote/]

 

Pioneer is Satan? Cool; I'll have to get his autograph!!

[OACville]

QUOTE(Dale143 @ Jan 21 2008, 06:59 PM) *

Exodus 20:1-17

 

1 And God spake all these words, saying,

 

2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

 

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

 

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

 

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

 

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

 

7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

 

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

 

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

 

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

 

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

 

13 Thou shalt not kill.

 

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

 

15 Thou shalt not steal.

 

16 THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOUR.

 

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

 

 

I'm glad to see somebody else that believes in something right.

 

What Would You Substitute for the Bible as a Moral Guide?

by Robert G. Ingersoll

 

**** ****

 

YOU ask me what I would "substitute for the Bible as a moral guide."

 

I know that many people regard the Bible as the only moral guide and believe that in that book only can be found the true and perfect standard of morality.

 

There are many good precepts, many wise sayings and many good regulations and laws in the Bible, and these are mingled with bad precepts, with foolish sayings, with absurd rules and cruel laws.

 

But we must remember that the Bible is a collection of many books written centuries apart, and that it in part represents the growth and tells in part the history of a people. We must also remember. that the writers treat of many subjects. Many of these writers have nothing to say about right or wrong, about vice or virtue.

 

The book of Genesis has nothing about morality. There is not a line in it calculated to shed light on the path of conduct. No one can call that book a moral guide. It is made up of myth and miracle, of tradition and legend.

 

In Exodus we have an account of the manner in which Jehovah delivered the Jews from Egyptian bondage.

 

We now know that the Jews were never enslaved by the Egyptians; that the entire story is a fiction. We know this, because there is not found in Hebrew a word of Egyptian origin, and there is not found in the language of the Egyptians a word of Hebrew origin. This being so, we know that the Hebrews and Egyptians could not have lived together for hundreds of years.

 

Certainly Exodus was not written to teach morality. In that book you cannot find one word against human slavery. As a matter of fact, Jehovah was a believer in that institution.

 

The killing of cattle with disease and hail, the murder of the first-born, so that in every house was death, because the king refused to let the Hebrews go, certainly was not moral; it was fiendish. The writer of that book regarded all the people of Egypt, their children, their flocks and herds, as the property of Pharaoh, and these people and these cattle were killed, not because they had done anything wrong, but simply for the purpose of punishing the king. Is it possible to get any morality out of this history?

 

All the laws found in Exodus, including the Ten Commandments, so far as they are really good and sensible, were at that time in force among all the peoples of the world.

 

Murder is, and always was, a crime, and always will be, as long as a majority of people object to being murdered.

 

Industry always has been and always will be the enemy of larceny.

 

The nature of man is such that he admires the teller of truth and despises the liar. Among all tribes, among all people, truth- telling has been considered a virtue and false swearing or false speaking a vice.

 

The love of parents for children is natural, and this love is found among all the animals that live. So the love of children for parents is natural, and was not and cannot be created by law. Love does not spring from a sense of duty, nor does it bow in obedience to commands.

 

So men and women are not virtuous because of anything in books or creeds.

 

All the Ten Commandments that are good were old, were the result of experience. The commandments that were original with Jehovah were foolish.

 

The worship of "any other God" could not have been worse than the worship of Jehovah, and nothing could have been more absurd than the sacredness of the Sabbath.

 

If commandments had been given against slavery and polygamy, against wars of invasion and extermination, against religious persecution in all its forms, so that the world could be free, so that the brain might be developed and the heart civilized, then we might, with propriety, call such commandments a moral guide.

 

Before we can truthfully say that the Ten Commandments constitute a moral guide, we must add and subtract. We must throw away some, and write others in their places.

 

The commandments that have a known application here, in this world, and treat of human obligations are good, the others have no basis in fact, or experience.

 

Many of the regulations found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, are good. Many are absurd and cruel.

 

The entire ceremonial of worship is insane.

 

Most of the punishment for violations of laws are unphilosophic and brutal. . . . The fact is that the Pentateuch upholds nearly all crimes, and to call it a moral guide is as absurd as to say that it is merciful or true.

 

Nothing of a moral nature can be found in Joshua or Judges. These books are filled with crimes, with massacres and murders. They are about the same as the real history of the Apache Indians.

 

The story of Ruth is not particularly moral.

 

In first and second Samuel there is not one word calculated to develop the brain or conscience.

 

Jehovah murdered seventy thousand Jews because David took a census of the people. David, according to the account, was the guilty one, but only the innocent were killed.

 

In first and second Kings can be found nothing of ethical value. All the kings who refused to obey the priests were denounced, and all the crowned wretches who assisted the priests, were declared to be the favorites of Jehovah. In these books there cannot be found one word in favor of liberty.

 

There are some good Psalms, and there are some that are infamous. Most of these Psalms are selfish. Many of them are passionate appeals for revenge.

 

The story of Job shocks the heart of every good man. In this book there is some poetry, some pathos, and some philosophy, but the story of this drama called Job, is heart-less to the last degree. The children of Job are murdered to settle a little wager between God and the Devil. Afterward, Job having remained firm, other children are given in the place of the murdered ones. Nothing, however, is done for the children who were murdered.

 

The book of Esther is utterly absurd, and the only redeeming feature in the book is that the name of Jehovah is not mentioned.

 

I like the Song of Solomon because it tells of human love, and that is something I can understand. That book in my judgment is worth all the ones that go before it, and is a far better moral guide.

 

There are some wise and merciful Proverbs. Some are selfish and some are flat and commonplace.

 

I like the book of Ecclesiastes because there you find some sense, some poetry, and some philosophy. Take away the interpolations and it is a good book.

 

Of course there is nothing in Nehemiah or Ezra to make men better, nothing in Jeremiah or Lamentations calculated to lessen vice, and only a few passages in Isaiah that can be used in a good cause.

 

In Ezekiel and Daniel we find only ravings of the insane.

 

In some of the minor prophets there is now and then a good verse, now and then an elevated thought.

 

You can, by selecting passages from different books, make a very good creed, and by selecting passages from different books, you can make a very bad creed.

 

The trouble is that the spirit of the Old Testament, its disposition, its temperament, is bad, selfish and cruel. The most fiendish things are commanded, commended and applauded.

 

The stories that are told of Joseph, of Elisha, of Daniel and Gideon, and of many others, are hideous; hellish.

 

On the whole, the Old Testament cannot be considered a moral guide.

 

Jehovah was not a moral God. He had all the vices, and he lacked all the virtues. He generally carried out his threats, but he never faithfully kept a promise.

 

At the same time, we must remember that the Old Testament is a natural production, that it was written by savages who were slowly crawling toward the light. We must give them credit for the noble things they said, and we must be charitable enough to excuse their faults and even their crimes.

 

I know that many Christians regard the Old Testament as the foundation and the New as the superstructure, and while many admit that there are faults and mistakes in the Old Testament, they insist that the New is the flower and perfect fruit.

 

I admit that there are many good things in the New Testament, and if we take from that book the dogmas, of eternal pain, of infinite revenge, of the atonement, of human sacrifice, of the necessity of shedding blood; if we throw away the doctrine of non-resistance, of loving enemies, the idea that prosperity is the result of wickedness, that Poverty is a preparation for Paradise, if we throw all these away and take the good, sensible passages, applicable to conduct, then we can make a fairly good moral guide, -- narrow, but moral.

 

Of course, many important things would be left out. You would have nothing about human rights, nothing in favor of the family, nothing for education, nothing for investigation, for thought and reason, but still you would have a fairly good moral guide.

 

On the other hand, if you would take the foolish passages, the extreme ones, you could make a creed that would satisfy an insane asylum.

 

If you take the cruel passages, the verses that inculcate eternal hatred, verses that writhe and hiss like serpents, you can make a creed that would shock the heart of a hyena.

 

It may be that no book contains better passages than the New Testament, but certainly no book contains worse.

 

Below the blossom of love you find the thorn of hatred; on the lips that kiss, you find the poison of the cobra.

 

The Bible is not a moral guide.

 

Any man who follows faithfully all its teachings is an enemy of society and will probably end his days in a prison or an asylum.

 

What is morality?

 

In this world we need certain things. We have many wants. We are exposed to many dangers. We need food, fuel, raiment and shelter, and besides these wants, there is, what may be called, the hunger of the mind.

 

We are conditioned beings, and our happiness depends upon conditions. There are certain things that diminish, certain things that increase, well-being. There are certain things that destroy and there are others that preserve.

 

Happiness, including its highest forms, is after all the only good, and everything, the result of which is to produce or secure happiness, is good, that is to say, moral. Everything that destroys or diminishes well-being is bad, that is to say, immoral. In other words, all that is good is moral, and all that is bad is immoral.

 

What then is, or can be called, a moral guide? The shortest possible answer is one word: Intelligence.

 

We want the experience of mankind, the true history of the race. We want the history of intellectual development, of the growth of the ethical, of the idea of justice, of conscience, of charity, of self-denial. We want to know the paths and roads that have been traveled by the human mind.

 

These facts in general, these histories in outline, the results reached, the conclusions formed, the principles evolved, taken together, would form the best conceivable moral guide.

 

We cannot depend on what are called "inspired books," or the religions of the world. These religions are based on the supernatural, and according to them we are under obligation to worship and obey some supernatural being, or beings. All these religions are inconsistent with intellectual liberty. They are the enemies of thought, of investigation, of mental honesty. They destroy the manliness of man. They promise eternal rewards for belief, for credulity, for what they call faith.

 

These religions teach the slave virtues. They make inanimate things holy, and falsehoods sacred. They create artificial crimes. To eat meat on Friday, to enjoy yourself on Sunday, to eat on fast-days, to be happy in Lent, to dispute a priest, to ask for evidence, to deny a creed, to express your sincere thought, all these acts are sins, crimes against some god, To give your honest opinion about Jehovah, Mohammed or Christ, is far worse than to maliciously slander your neighbor. To question or doubt miracles. is far worse than to deny known facts. Only the obedient, the credulous, the cringers, the kneelers, the meek, the unquestioning, the true believers, are regarded as moral, as virtuous. It is not enough to be honest, generous and useful; not enough to be governed by evidence, by facts. In addition to this, you must believe. These things are the foes of morality. They subvert all natural conceptions of virtue.

 

All "inspired books," teaching that what the supernatural commands is right, and right because commanded, and that what the supernatural prohibits is wrong, and wrong because prohibited, are absurdly unphilosophic.

 

And all "inspired books," teaching that only those who obey the commands of the supernatural are, or can be, truly virtuous, and that unquestioning faith will be rewarded with eternal joy, are grossly immoral.

 

Again I say: Intelligence is the only moral guide.

Edited January 22, 2008 by OACville

[Ford pilot]

I do not argue the fact that Jesus once walked this earth. I for one believe he did.

Do I think he was a great philosopher of the time.. YES

Do I think he was born from a virgin. NO

Do I think he was once a carpenter. YES

Do I think talking about Philosophy is easier then doing carpentry. YES

Do I think he is the son of GOD. NO. He is not the son of God any more then me or you are.

 

Much has been made of Jesus to profit other peoples best interests. Jesus after all is the biggest business in the world today. Thats what I have a problem with.

 

How can you call Jesus and great philosopher or prohpet and then say He is not God?

 

He is either God or a liar or a lunatic.

 

Remember, most people talk their way out of trouble, not into trouble like Jesus did. How many people do you know who would would forgive prostitutes and lame people and the lowest of the low knowing it will get him killed? Then, allow himself to be tortured and nailed to a cross? Just so he could leave some kind of legacy? Jesus had many opportunities to get out of trouble and avoid his torture and death.

 

He chose this route.

 

Hundreds of people witnessed his presence after his death. What benefit was it for them to claim they saw Jesus after his death? Most weren't his followers. There was no benefit for most those people to claim thier sightings. Many of them were put to death for claiming such a thing. They saw what they saw.

 

Christianity is made into a business by some, yes. Doesn't mean they represent the type of people the Bible directs us to be.

 

It is easy to stereotype any group of people. Pick out some negative characteristic and apply to all. That way, we can justify elevating ourselves. This is done to religions, ethnic groups, skin color. Do your own research. Look at both sides.

[ktpworker69]

What's a democrapic? How many U.S. citizen/soldiers have been killed, maimed, and PTSD'd from Iraq so far (of course, chickenhawks like you are safe)?

 

Are you from Harlan County?

 

I wish there was a 'god' to punish evildoers like you, BushCo. and bin Laden.

 

how many americans died innocently on the morning of sept. 11, 2001? too fucking many. how many people in the military have cycled through iraq in the past 6 years? well over 1 million i can assure you.

 

yes the number of soldiers that have died there is unacceptable, but for the number thats gone to and from iraq in 6 years, it is miniscule.

 

yes, i feel safe, i felt safe before 9/11 as well but do you think for a second that had we not gone after these heartless cowards that they would of been happy with one attack?? i think not.

 

do you want to walk around your town seeing military tanks and gun carrying soldiers to prevent attacks in our country? id rather fight them on thier ground, dont that make sense?

 

oh yeah, were ford employees, we are not used to seeing anything that makes sense.

 

 

wake up and smell the coffee stupid