Sad Case Responds

[jpholding]

I see where on FTill's Errancy list, "Sad Case" (whom I refer to in http://www.tektonics.org/tillstink.html) has a few words in reply and says he is coming here to talk. Good. Here's the red carpet. Now let's see what he has to say for himself. I've kept it all the same except changing in my pseudonym. (Word of warning, "Sad Case": Notice has been served that such disrespect of me will no longer be tolerated. Here it is "Holding" or "JPH" or some such permutation, or it is nothing at all. I will use Case to refer to you until you sign in with some moniker or other.)

As an aside, will the moderator please advise me if this is a good place for this thread (or for further discussion).

Apparently my postings on here have upset JPH.

Case, you have become a true disciple of Till. Psychologizing already? You KNEW I was upset, did you? :rofl: No. I feel sorry for you. Till posted your "anti-testimony" on this forum as an example of how he thinks people should ideally respond to me. I'm not upset, but I am amused by your attempts to drag help out of the people on Errancy (who have been rather rudely ignoring you for the most part, which I find ironic). Let me drop my first piece of advice: If you want to be a Skeptic, fine. I'd just recommend you get out of Till's orbit and into the orbit of someone who has some sense in his head and doesn't assume to be able to tell Ph. D's their business. Try my Skeptical friend Kyle Gerkin instead. The people on Errancy are mostly bitter souls looking to justify their own hatred and apostasy. Gerkin is a well-adjusted young man with a good head on his shoulders.

In his "What's New" section, he includes a link in which he makes a reference about a deconvert
who Farrell Till had e-mail contact with. Lo and behold, I am "Sad Case" whom JPH speaks. He wants
me to "explain" myself by joining TheologyWeb (I will be more than happy to accomodate him!) But first I
want everyone here to know the "other side" to the story, which apparently JPH doesn't know so instead
he tries to base on deconversion on the past sins of my mother and grandmother.

It's hard not to get that impression when it is poured out to the depth of loathing and hatred that is expressed. Case, we've seen how you've revelled in your "freedom" by using the words hell, b*tch, etc for emphasis. The psychological pattern has been seen time and time again. You're happy to be "free" and want to prove you're free. Thus:

First of all, I do loathe the Church of Christ, but I wasn't really a member of one. My mother grew up in
one and that is where I thought she had learned her behavior from. While I do loathe the CoC, I do LOVE
the Churches where I felt like family at. These include Calvary Community Church and Oasis Christian Church. In fact, sometimes I wish the faith were true. I am going to sorely miss going to these Churches. Are the past sins of my family members relevant to my deconversion. No they are not. I long forgave my mother for her behavior. I think it was in my late teens I confronted my mother about her behavior. I did get over it and forgave her even though she never asked.

You forgave, perhaps, but you obviously did not FORGET. Otherwise that "anti-testimony" would never have left your keyboard and would not be filled with such bile. If not, why did you even bother? Your explanation rings hollow. It's obvious that these events had a deep impact on your life and still do.

Wouldn't Jesus have done this? Did he not pray to "God" asking him to forgive the Jews for they do not
know what they were doing as he bore his cross to Calvary?

Yes. But that is beside the point.

I didn't deconvert because certain CoC members have problems with consistency in their behavior. In fact, for years, I would get disgusted with people who left the faith because of the sins of others. I would wonder to myself "What a foolish person! Have they never read Josh McDowell's book 'Evidence That Demands a Verdict?' (And then later as it was published) Have they never read 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel or my absolute favorite 'Scaling The Secular City' by J.P. Moreland? How can they use that as an excuse when there is so much evidence to the contrary.

No Ben Witherington in that batch, I notice. ;) You're still proving to me that intellect was not the real reason for your deconversion. But keep trying. I'll consider it.

JPH quotes from my post on the when I told Till and others that the "Dear Abithar" helped me to deconvert. The "Dear Abiathar" was the final nail in the coffin. He probably wants to know what the first nail in the coffin was. It was an article in TSR in which the article pointed out that Hebrews 2:18 and 4:15, which struck me as directly contradicting James 1:13. After reading this in an anonymous article in TSR I felt a huge glacier of faith melt in my heart.

How interesting. You didn't explain the issue fully, but if it is the issue I assume it is, that is truly one of the most pedantic claims of contradiction in the lot. Let's hear all about it, if you please.

I decided to take a closer look at the narratives surrounding Iscariot's death, because I suspected that
there might have been a contradiction I was not letting myself see. I looked at it and I noticed that while I saw nothing immediate impossible about Judas hanging himself and the rope breaking, I did see what struck me as a contradiction as to how the "Field of Blood" got its name. I felt more of the glacier melt.

We've noted your attention to my latest material on that one. Why not also explain here what is wrong with it?

I then looked at Till's article "The Resurrection Maze" and studied the relevant narratives along side
Peter Ballard's attempt at answer Dan Barker's "The Easter Challenge".

You of course know of my answer. I don't go the Ballard route of course. You may explain what is wrong with my explanation here if you wish. If your plate is full I understand. Your new Master is already taking a beating elsewhere here on this Forum; perhaps you can help him.

I noticed another contradiction between Matthew 28:5-10, Luke 24:19 and John 20:1-5, 10-16. I carefully
studied Ballard's material and realized that he didn't provide an answer. I felt my faith melt further even
to the point where it seemed as big as an ice cube.

Since I have not seen Ballard's explanation I have no comment beyond the above.

I decided to take a closer look at a debate between Till and JPH. I had printed out the "Land Promise" debate and I spent several nights on the STR website reading the "Dear Abiathar" debate along with "What
Men with David". I saw JPH defeated on the latter and was disgusted with his performance on the Land
Promise issue.

Let's hear two reasons why from each. I'd love to hear how I was "defeated" in arenas where FT got his bones pulled out telling a respected scholar of the social sciences that he was wrong about guilt in ancient times, and in which he didn't even figure right the geographical limits of Josh. 10-11 versus Josh. 13 and has used the excuse that Leviticus is being "figurative" when it tells us God says the land is "mine".

I was disgusted and angry with JPH. Not only did I start to feel betrayed about donating the $100.00 but also I felt even more upset about the fact that I printed out several parts of the Land Promise debate using a library vendor card that charged money for each sheet of paper used.

For the donation: Give me your address and I'll send you your money back, minus postage. I may have to do it in two payments if you don't mind. For the other, your money back, or paper, whichever you prefer. I can refund you the donation if you have not already claimed it on your taxes. If you stick on FT's list the way you have been you may need the money to buy Chap Stick anyway.

Then and there I didn't want anything more to do with JPH. I put his ministry newsletter on "block". I signed a personal manifesto explaining my deconversion. I signed it and marked the date and time. 12/01/02 at 5:14 pm was when I had signed my name to my own manifesto.

Nice. Yet you sent me a letter 12/16/02 as you admit below mentioning none of this. Seems to me, Case, that you heard exactly what you wanted to hear to confirm the decision you already made. Otherwise why did you not write me asking about these things? Did you not want the chance to be "unconvinced"?

Now onto my comments. I recall suggesting that JPH's behavior was childish and unprofessional. He says that I indeed wish it was so. He didn't bother trying to justify his behavior but instead pointed to Till's "unprofessionalism".

I can't justify against what isn't specified.

Till posted personal information about JPH which I am aware of. I would ask Till to explain why he did this; I was looking for this information last night and I couldn't find it. I didn't know that the Secular Web removed it and that makes me curious as to why Till posted it in the first place when it dawned on me that this information had been removed.

I'll let FT answer that if he cares to. I doubt if he will.

I had no idea that Till had phoned JPH's home. I was reading postings from TheologyWeb last night and
read everyone complaining about how rude it was for Till to phone JPH's home and there were compaints
about Till being rude to Mrs. JPH. Until I read this..I had no idea that this even occured! I now ask Till why he felt it was necessary to do this.

Good luck getting an answer. We're still waiting as of this typing.

So..did I "use" JPH and am I a liar or someone with a "loose mind"? Hardly! I don't recall one
instance where I "lied". What did I lie about? I strove to be nothing but honest this whole time!

I did not dig it out, but did you not say that you were living at home under the false pretense of still being a believer?

Continuing---

[jpholding]

Continuing --


What JPH means by a "loose mind" I will probably ask him at TheologyWeb.

You don't have a grip on rational argumentation. It shows badly.

I don't see how corresponding with him and even donating $100.00 to his ministry is "using" him.

The donating wasn't. You used me to keep your preferred faith intact until it became inconvenient. I don't mind, really, but that's just the way it is. It's like the person who cuddles McDowell to keep his faith. There was no real intellectual exchange...just, "whew, I can go along with this!" The Path of Least Resistance.

I do recall once instance where I might have patronized him by wanting to close a discussion about
parallels of the post-resurrection appearances with virgin Mary appearances, by saying "I see your point
about this". Well, if patronizing someone is being dishonest with them, then I humbly apologize for it.

It was a bit dishonest not to tell me of your dissatisfaction at that time. It's also rather telling that you have chapsticked up to the Till gang by using my real name so blatantly. My, this contradicts the tender heart displayed above. Now what is all that about? Trying to prove I be the big badd macho Skeptic, ha ha, I called Holding by his REAL name? This proves, what?

On the other hand, I read frequently about Till complaining about JPH's alleged dishonesty. Perhaps Till would like to describe in detail wether on this forum or in an article of his why he thinks that JPH is dishonest citing detailed example. I would him, Steve Carr, and anyone else to document examples of how JPH is being dishonest.

They will probably point you to the recent article about links. Note that I have replied to this already.

One last note: When I was a Christian I thought of JPH as an apologetic guru. I thought he was better
than Josh McDowell, J.P. Moreland, Norman Geisler, and Gleason Archer.

I would not say that of Archer compared to myself, and Moreland and Geisler are mostly philosophical apologists. We don't ply the same sort of trade. My feelings on McDowell however are well known. ;) It's too bad, isn't it, that you set your own expectations? And now do you blame me for that?

Since I left the faith, I don't think of Farrel Till as a guru of some sort. I consider myself deeply indebted to him, but I don't consider him a guru. I think several of his articles that I have read were top quality articles but not all of them. The articles that I found convincing were "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise", "The Resurrection
Maze", "Scientific Boo-Boos in the Bible", "Bible Biology".

These are among those I consider some of Till's most pedantic works, though admittedly it is hard to make such a choice. If he ever gets his head back out of the sand we will be debating one aspect of that last article, the part on the ostrich, right here on this forum. Be sure and watch.

There were a few where I thought Till made a interesting case but I deemed as inconclusive at best
such as "Sarah's Power To Concieve" and "The Gods of Israel". I even thought of an article where I
concluded that Till made a nice try but didn't really succeed in proving a contradiction exist, and that was
"Did They Tarry In The City?" (Who knows..upon further study I may revise my conclusion on this one)
Well..now everyone has the other side of the story!

I still haven't heard an answer to what puzzles me most. You spoke above of perhaps a dozen Biblical citations that troubled you. Well, beg pardon, but between inerrancy and your professed deism (if it is still that) lie a great spectrum of choices. You could become a liberal Christian who believes in the Resurrection but only thinks the Bible is a moral guide with a mix of good and bad history. You could become a moderate who thinks the Bible just CONTAINS the word of God. As I said, but you ignored: "No sane person could jump from such extremes with such immediacy and have done so by means of rational contemplation." And that is another reason I will not believe your disclaimer above about it not being a matter of vengeful retort to your family's hypocrisy. It doesn't add up. None of the items you mentioned, even if valid, serve to disprove the Resurrection of Christ. An error perceived in James vs Hebrews does not mean the Gospel of Matthew is in error about Jesus and that the essence of the Christian faith is false.

So far I see nothing from you but an exercise in skilled rationalization. In which case you may be better off in Till's stable than under (say) Gerkin's wing. But feel free to try to show all of us here otherwise.

If you answer, I assume this will be taken to a new forum based on the rules in this section. Mods, please advise. Thank you.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey JP... actually, I think this is probably better in Religion 101 as a normal thread. In the Gym, generally there is a specific one or two line challenge and then the debate begins here rather than a continuation of something began elsewhere.

So, let me know what you think. If you would like for me to move these over to Religion 101, I will do that... but if you have a specific one topic, concise, challenge, then we can keep it here. I await your response.

:thumb:

[jpholding]

Dee Dee Warren:
Hey JP... actually, I think this is probably better in Religion 101 as a normal thread. In the Gym, generally there is a specific one or two line challenge and then the debate begins here rather than a continuation of something began elsewhere.

So, let me know what you think. If you would like for me to move these over to Religion 101, I will do that... but if you have a specific one topic, concise, challenge, then we can keep it here. I await your response.

:thumb:

Dee Dee,

OK with me, if we can wait until Case responds. Then I can give an updated URL after that (or if you could arrange a redirect that would be even better).

Going to bed. Thank you!

[Ishmael]

:x

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey JP.. I am moving it and there will be a redirect at the old location. However, though, I do have a request. Can you please extract out a few main issues to deal with first, and then move on to the other ones? If not, it will be impossible to keep the posts within the guidelines of under 12K characters and limited to a few major points. Longer ones or ones with more points makes it difficult in a forum enviroment for people to follow along. So since you have reproduced the piece in full, maybe now you could highlight a few points and let him respond, and then move on?? Thanks!!

[jpholding]

Dee Dee Warren:
Hey JP.. I am moving it and there will be a redirect at the old location. However, though, I do have a request. Can you please extract out a few main issues to deal with first, and then move on to the other ones

Sure. Actually I'll allow Case to pick which of the issues to discuss first if he wants to.

NOW I'm going to bed.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Have a great night!!!

[jimbo]

JPH,

Hooray!! I am really excited to see you insult this new deconvert as much as you possibly can. Go JPH! I want to see how many different ways you can call him an idiot, a liar, fool, moron, sinner, deceiver, and all-around terrible person. I love when you do that! You're my hero!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bill

[jpholding]

jimbo:
JPH,

Hooray!! I am really excited to see you insult this new deconvert as much as you possibly can. Go JPH! I want to see how many different ways you can call him an idiot, a liar, fool, moron, sinner, deceiver, and all-around terrible person. I love when you do that! You're my hero!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bill

Ah.

You're exactly who Sun Tzu predicted would show up. :rofl:

Care to start your own little thread, Bill? Or just bark from the sidelines is your thing?

[jimbo]

JPH,

You make me so proud to be a Christian!!!

Hooray!!!

Mike

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Jim:

If you would like to start a thread or debate on the appropriateness of JP's methods or styles, I encourage you to do so without restraint. However, heckling from the sidelines of a current challenge/debate in progress is not encouraged.

[jimbo]

Dear Dee Dee,

Thank you for the information! Have a nice day!

Todd

[Dee Dee Warren]

You too Todd! I do hope if you are interesed in pursuing that issue, that you will seriously consider starting another thread. That suggestion was not a hollow one.

[Matthew]

Well here I am. This is Matthew, aka "Sad Case" whom Holding spoke about. I have stopped using this name in my references to him and started using his real name. But, because he wishes that I use "James Patrick Holding" in reference to him on here, I will happily comply. I will try to reply as time permits. I am not super-busy, at least until my "open university" course starts in the summer...so I do have some freedom from my days off work that I can use to respond. So I ask for patience.

JP asks that I "explain" myself. I will happily do so. I don't think I have anything to hide and I will gladly answer questions as they are fired to me. I will try to answer them as I can, but I just ask that people try not to "gang up" on me. Now I am not an angry skeptic by the way. I am actually a very joyful person. Being that I said this, I will in my next post attempt to respond to JP's commentary regarding my post to the Errancy list moderated by Farrell Till. If people want to use this forum, that's fine with me. I am a very easy-going person and will easily negotiate on matters like these. If the moderator approves of furthering the discussion on here, I will gladly begin posting my response to to JP's commentary. If not..I will gladly post to whichever room he is set apart for it. In any case, upon the moderator's discretion, I will begin.

Matthew

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Matthew:

You may begin whenever you like. This thread was set up for that purpose. Welcome to TWeb.

[Matthew]

From: Matthew

At this time, I will now respond to what JP Holding has written about me. For those of you not familiar, I joined Farrell Till's "Errancy" list where I posted a response to what Holding wrote about me on his Tekton Apologetics page (www.tektonics.og). I will now reply in full. If he desires to pursue any topics further, I will happily accomodate him. But before that begins, I feel I am in my full right to respond to everything he wrote. I will type what Holding wrote and my responses using ID tags:

HOLDING:


Apparently my postings on here have upset JPH.

Case, you have become a true disciple of Till. Psychologizing already? You KNEW I was upset, did you? No. I feel sorry for you. Till posted your "anti-testimony" on this forum as an example of how he thinks people should ideally respond to me. I'm not upset, but I am amused by your attempts to drag help out of the people on Errancy (who have been rather rudely ignoring you for the most part, which I find ironic).

MATTHEW

Nope. I wasn't psychologizing. It was my IMPRESSION you were upset, hence I used the word "apparently". If you weren't upset..fine. My impression was simply wrong. You feel sorry for me? Well that's nice. I feel the exact same way about you. I am flattered that you find my attempts "amusing". In fact, I find your debates with Till and your exchanges with Brooks Trubee amusing.

JP

Let me drop my first piece of advice: If you want to be a Skeptic, fine. I'd just recommend you get out of Till's orbit and into the orbit of someone who has some sense in his head and doesn't assume to be able to tell Ph. D's their business. Try my Skeptical friend Kyle Gerkin instead. The people on Errancy are mostly bitter souls looking to justify their own hatred and apostasy. Gerkin is a well-adjusted young man with a good head on his shoulders.

MATTHEW

Your first piece of advice? Boy! You sure have a high opinion of yourself, don't you? I don't recall asking for your advice and honestly..I could care less about what you want to offer. I don't exactly hold you in high regard JP. I find it ironic that you would compliment Gerkin, being the fact that when he responded to your critique of the "Case for Faith" he accused you of bigotry in regards to your comments about atheism and Adolf Hitler. But if you made your peace with Gerkin, that's fine with me. I am perfectly willing to make peace with you as well.


JP

In his "What's New" section, he includes a link in which he makes a reference about a deconvert
who Farrell Till had e-mail contact with. Lo and behold, I am "Sad Case" whom JPH speaks. He wants
me to "explain" myself by joining TheologyWeb (I will be more than happy to accomodate him!) But first I
want everyone here to know the "other side" to the story, which apparently JPH doesn't know so instead
he tries to base on deconversion on the past sins of my mother and grandmother.

It's hard not to get that impression when it is poured out to the depth of loathing and hatred that is expressed. Case, we've seen how you've revelled in your "freedom" by using the words hell, b*tch, etc for emphasis. The psychological pattern has been seen time and time again. You're happy to be "free" and want to prove you're free

MATTHEW

JP, you're a fine one to complain about my vulgar. I recall you once using vulgar in an exchange with Brooks Trubee on his website. ( http://members.aol.com/bbu85/hold.htm See 11th response from apologist) And yes, I was upset when I posted that because it brought back some bitter memories. I do harbor some negative feelings toward the Church of Christ as a community. I do love my mother and grandmother though. I am very close to them both and I have forgiven them. You say I express hatred? I have no hatred for anyone, just a rather bitter opinion regarding the Church of Christ. But even those feelings are beginning to evaporate. I don't loathe them so much as I feel sorry for them. You also say that I am happy to be "free" and want to prove I am free. And you accuse me of "psychologizing"? I think I smell some hypocrisy here. How would you know that it's my "freedom" that's making me happy and how do you know what I WANT?

JP

First of all, I do loathe the Church of Christ, but I wasn't really a member of one. My mother grew up in
one and that is where I thought she had learned her behavior from. While I do loathe the CoC, I do LOVE
the Churches where I felt like family at. These include Calvary Community Church and Oasis Christian Church. In fact, sometimes I wish the faith were true. I am going to sorely miss going to these Churches. Are the past sins of my family members relevant to my deconversion. No they are not. I long forgave my mother for her behavior. I think it was in my late teens I confronted my mother about her behavior. I did get over it and forgave her even though she never asked.

You forgave, perhaps, but you obviously did not FORGET. Otherwise that "anti-testimony" would never have left your keyboard and would not be filled with such bile. If not, why did you even bother? Your explanation rings hollow. It's obvious that these events had a deep impact on your life and still do

MATTHEW

Yes..I did forgive. And no..I didn't forget about it. I easily forgive anyone who does me wrong, although, I don't often forget about it. My explanations ring hollow? Well if it doesn't make sense to you..that's fine. I will let you conclude whatever you want about me. You ask me why I even bothered to let it out? Do you think I am accountable to you or something? The next time you and Till go jousting in a debate, I will remind him to knock you off your high horse. You say these events still haunt me. And you accused me of psychologizing?

JP

Wouldn't Jesus have done this? Did he not pray to "God" asking him to forgive the Jews for they do not
know what they were doing as he bore his cross to Calvary?

Yes. But that is beside the point.

MATTHEW

I don't consider that beside the point. I decided to forgive them because I thought that's what Jesus would have me do. I didn't forget though and I didn't recall being commanded as a Christian to forget it.

JP

I didn't deconvert because certain CoC members have problems with consistency in their behavior. In fact, for years, I would get disgusted with people who left the faith because of the sins of others. I would wonder to myself "What a foolish person! Have they never read Josh McDowell's book 'Evidence That Demands a Verdict?' (And then later as it was published) Have they never read 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel or my absolute favorite 'Scaling The Secular City' by J.P. Moreland? How can they use that as an excuse when there is so much evidence to the contrary.

No Ben Witherington in that batch, I notice. You're still proving to me that intellect was not the real reason for your deconversion. But keep trying. I'll consider it.

MATTHEW

So you wanted me to "explain" myself, and I still need to "prove" myself to you. Sounds to me like you do have a high opinion of yourself! As for Ben Witherington: no I didn't include him in my list because I haven't read any of his books. I could've included Craig Blomberg because I have his book, but I choose not to because I was only using examples that I have found at my local Christian bookstore. But if you put that much stock in Witherington, then I will read him.

JP

JPH quotes from my post on the when I told Till and others that the "Dear Abithar" helped me to deconvert. The "Dear Abiathar" was the final nail in the coffin. He probably wants to know what the first nail in the coffin was. It was an article in TSR in which the article pointed out that Hebrews 2:18 and 4:15, which struck me as directly contradicting James 1:13. After reading this in an anonymous article in TSR I felt a huge glacier of faith melt in my heart.

How interesting. You didn't explain the issue fully, but if it is the issue I assume it is, that is truly one of the most pedantic claims of contradiction in the lot. Let's hear all about it, if you please.

MATTHEW

I didn't think I needed to. I am sure the skeptics on the Errancy list knew what I was talking about. You call it a "pedantic" claim do you? You only wish it was pedantic! I used a Strong's online lexicon to look up the actual Greek words. I will explain it fully in another thread on the subject, or I can explain it fully in my next post on this thread if you so desire, pending your response.

JP

I decided to take a closer look at the narratives surrounding Iscariot's death, because I suspected that
there might have been a contradiction I was not letting myself see. I looked at it and I noticed that while I saw nothing immediate impossible about Judas hanging himself and the rope breaking, I did see what struck me as a contradiction as to how the "Field of Blood" got its name. I felt more of the glacier melt.

We've noted your attention to my latest material on that one. Why not also explain here what is wrong with it?

MATTHEW

We? Who else is there besides you? Is Mrs. Holding helping you?
I can point out what I think is wrong with it here or another thread if you like.

JP

We've noted your attention to my latest material on that one. Why not also explain here what is wrong with it?

I then looked at Till's article "The Resurrection Maze" and studied the relevant narratives along side
Peter Ballard's attempt at answer Dan Barker's "The Easter Challenge".

You of course know of my answer. I don't go the Ballard route of course. You may explain what is wrong with my explanation here if you wish. If your plate is full I understand. Your new Master is already taking a beating elsewhere here on this Forum; perhaps you can help him.

MATTHEW

Your "answer"? Well..I don't recall off the top of my head, so I will have to look it up again. And just for the record, Till is NOT my new master. I don't elevate him to "guru" status as I did in your case. If he acted unprofessionally, I will call him on it and rebuke him for it.

JP

I decided to take a closer look at a debate between Till and JPH. I had printed out the "Land Promise" debate and I spent several nights on the STR website reading the "Dear Abiathar" debate along with "What
Men with David". I saw JPH defeated on the latter and was disgusted with his performance on the Land
Promise issue.

Let's hear two reasons why from each. I'd love to hear how I was "defeated" in arenas where FT got his bones pulled out telling a respected scholar of the social sciences that he was wrong about guilt in ancient times, and in which he didn't even figure right the geographical limits of Josh. 10-11 versus Josh. 13 and has used the excuse that Leviticus is being "figurative" when it tells us God says the land is "mine".

MATTHEW

Till got his bones pulled out? By who? You? So you paraphrased two "respected scholar(s)" and Till disagreed with THEM. Big deal! Is the implication here that it's wrong to disagree with respected scholars? Your "scholar" were Malina and Rohrbaugh. Their book: Social Science Commentary On The Synoptic Gospels . Looks like there are two scholars, not just one. Next time you comment can you at least attempt to polish up on your grammar? However, Till didn't merely seem to disagree with them, he provided evidence to the contrary. I can quote exactly what evidence he supplied if you wish.

So since we have to come to your appeal to authorities, does that mean if I quote a "well-respected" scholar or two, then I have pulled your bones out if you disagree with them? I can do this too! Let's see what "well-respected" scholars come up to bat!

To be continued.....

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Matthew and JP:

Matthew, I understand your desire to respond in full as JP's posts were placed in full. However, after this point (i.e. I know you are not done yet with your continuation, which you can post), if we can please keep the discussion to one or two major points at a time so that posts will not need to be split etc, and then once those points are dealt with to move on to the rest. I would sooooo greatly appreciate it.

Thank you to both of you!!

[Matthew]

Dee Dee

Sure thing. I appreciate being allowed to continue on with my post. After this..I will sincerely make an effort to trim down my posts.

Matthew

[Matthew]

Continuing...

MATTHEW

Let me call my first witness to the stand. Let's see. William Lane Craig. Craig has two Ph.Ds, one in theology and one in philosophy. Craig authored a book on the cosmological argument using the Big Bang theory ( I guess this makes him a old-earth progressive creationist). Craig is what you might consider a "highly respected scholar". Even Jeff Lowder thinks of him as a "top-notched scholar". Now, JP, correct me if I am wrong, but you DO put yourself in the young-earth camp, right? Can I ask who are you to disagree with him? Well you have to disagree unless you are willing to accept the Big-Bang cosmology with all those millions and billions of years, which even some of your pals at Answers in Genesis think does considerable damage to the gospel by placing death, pain, and suffering before the fall of Adam and Eve.

Let me see, my next witness is Dr. Gregory Boyd. He graduated from Yale Divinity School and earned a Ph.D at Princeton Theological Seminary. He has published a book called God of the Possible, in which he argues for an Open Theism theory. Quite a bit out of your league JP, huh? Would you DARE to disagree with him as well? I bet you Dr. Boyd is a well-respected scholar too!

I am sure you have links to authorities who have written volumes to rebut both Progressive Creationism and Open Theism. So...why don't you pull a "Gerkin" and hurl a few elephants my way! I am still in the process of reading the Land Promise debate.

JP

I was disgusted and angry with JPH. Not only did I start to feel betrayed about donating the $100.00 but also I felt even more upset about the fact that I printed out several parts of the Land Promise debate using a library vendor card that charged money for each sheet of paper used.

For the donation: Give me your address and I'll send you your money back, minus postage. I may have to do it in two payments if you don't mind. For the other, your money back, or paper, whichever you prefer. I can refund you the donation if you have not already claimed it on your taxes. If you stick on FT's list the way you have been you may need the money to buy Chap Stick anyway.

MATTHEW

I will probably e-mail you my address to send the money back to. As far as the written debates go, you need not even bother to pay me back. Now that I think of it..it was worth printing out because it the entertainment I get from it now. I might need the money to buy more Chap Stick? Nah..just send it to me through the UPS; my birthday is coming up soon.

JP

Then and there I didn't want anything more to do with JPH. I put his ministry newsletter on "block". I signed a personal manifesto explaining my deconversion. I signed it and marked the date and time. 12/01/02 at 5:14 pm was when I had signed my name to my own manifesto.

Nice. Yet you sent me a letter 12/16/02 as you admit below mentioning none of this. Seems to me, Case, that you heard exactly what you wanted to hear to confirm the decision you already made. Otherwise why did you not write me asking about these things? Did you not want the chance to be "unconvinced"?

MATTHEW

I am impressed! You keep track of the dates of letters you are e-mailed. Why would I mention it to you in an e-mail? I was disgusted and angry with you. Actually I didn't read what I was expecting to; I thought your response was kind of dumb. Seems to me, JP, that your ego is showing again. Like I am really accountable to you! As for being un-convinced, why would I write to you? I didn't feel like wasting any further time on someone I regarded as childish, hypocritical, dishonest, and unprofessional. I deleted your post after I patronized you (I apologize again for it) and I put you on "block". Do you understand now?

JP

Now onto my comments. I recall suggesting that JPH's behavior was childish and unprofessional. He says that I indeed wish it was so. He didn't bother trying to justify his behavior but instead pointed to Till's "unprofessionalism".

I can't justify against what isn't specified.

Till posted personal information about JPH which I am aware of. I would ask Till to explain why he did this; I was looking for this information last night and I couldn't find it. I didn't know that the Secular Web removed it and that makes me curious as to why Till posted it in the first place when it dawned on me that this information had been removed.

MATTHEW

Well it's relatively simple.

1.) In the Land Promise debate, you took Till's introductory paragraph and diced it and repeatedly asserted what I have to regard as the most annoying response I have ever read from you:

"It is not necessary to quote this in a reply, and our opponent cannot, and never will be able to, explain why such superflous commentary requires quotation and/or reference from a respondent".

You kept saying this over and over again! How long did you want to nausiate us with this kind of tripe? This is an example of what I found unprofessional and childish.

2.) In an e-mail messge, you told Farrell Till that you wouldn't be providing a link for Brian Holtz rebuttal to your essay on the Trilemna. In fact you called Till "Porkchop" along with many of the other names you have called him in the past! So we can add "Porkchop" to "Weasil", "C. Farris McTill", and "Foo-Foo". Sounds like childish name-calling to me! You further declined to give a link to "Mr. Crybaby H" (More name-calling!). You further told Farrell "He is even sillier than you. And twice as obnoxious and three times as deluded about his own self-importance". Boy! That smell of hypocrisy I alluded to earlier is getting stronger! Till quoted this in the debate which I read and have printed out in my personal library.

3.) You started hacking out a reply to Till without coming to an agreement on the proposals about how the debate was suppose to go! Professional debators don't do this from what I understand. Instead, they will negotiate on the agreements for the debate regardless oh how long it takes. This is what I meant! Okay, now that I started explaining myself, I ask that you justify what I have now specified ?

JP

So..did I "use" JPH and am I a liar or someone with a "loose mind"? Hardly! I don't recall one
instance where I "lied". What did I lie about? I strove to be nothing but honest this whole time!

I did not dig it out, but did you not say that you were living at home under the false pretense of still being a believer?

MATTHEW

I am a "closet freethinker". I simply don't say anything about it. I don't tell people that I am still a Christian. I don't even go to Church anymore! How can silence be dishonesty? Let's not jump to conclusions here. Just because you read this in "deconversion testimonies" from Dan Barker and Farrell Till doesn't mean it applies equally to me. Did you ask them if they regret it? Did you ask them if they are proud of this? Did you ask them if they are sorry that they did this? If they apologized for this behavior publically, would you forgive them? Or would you keep on yelling "Liar!" in their faces? Why don't you e-mail both of them and ask these kinds of questions? If they express regret and apologize publically-then GET OVER IT!

JP

What JPH means by a "loose mind" I will probably ask him at TheologyWeb.

You don't have a grip on rational argumentation. It shows badly.

MATTHEW

:rofl: I beg your pardon? That for me is the height of hypocrisy! I am starting to think you were hit a lot harder by this than you are letting on! I think I have much tighter grip than you can possibly imagine! I have read your debates with Till. I have seen the way you evade and skip over points that Till raises and how you refuse to answer the evidence that refutes your position!

JP

The donating wasn't. You used me to keep your preferred faith intact until it became inconvenient. I don't mind, really, but that's just the way it is. It's like the person who cuddles McDowell to keep his faith. There was no real intellectual exchange...just, "whew, I can go along with this!" The Path of Least Resistance.

MATTHEW

I "used" you to keep my faith intact until it became inconvenient? How did I do this? I do think you mind. I think it really disturbs you.

JP

It was a bit dishonest not to tell me of your dissatisfaction at that time. It's also rather telling that you have chapsticked up to the Till gang by using my real name so blatantly. My, this contradicts the tender heart displayed above. Now what is all that about? Trying to prove I be the big badd macho Skeptic, ha ha, I called Holding by his REAL name? This proves, what?

MATTHEW

Well I apologized for patronizing you like that. But I don't owe you an explanation for why I was dissatisfied with your response! I don't owe anyone an explanation as to why I am dissatisfied with their explanations. I think your ego is showing again. So I called you by your real name on the Errancy forum. Big deal! It wasn't suppose to prove anything! I didn't intend on it to prove anything! It's not like your real name isn't known! Why does citing your real name bother you so much? And this contradicts what tender heart displayed above? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gaunder. I specified what I was talking about..now it's time for you to do the same.

JP

On the other hand, I read frequently about Till complaining about JPH's alleged dishonesty. Perhaps Till would like to describe in detail wether on this forum or in an article of his why he thinks that JPH is dishonest citing detailed example. I would him, Steve Carr, and anyone else to document examples of how JPH is being dishonest.

They will probably point you to the recent article about links. Note that I have replied to this already.

MATTHEW

We'll wait and see.

JP

One last note: When I was a Christian I thought of JPH as an apologetic guru. I thought he was better
than Josh McDowell, J.P. Moreland, Norman Geisler, and Gleason Archer.

I would not say that of Archer compared to myself, and Moreland and Geisler are mostly philosophical apologists. We don't ply the same sort of trade. My feelings on McDowell however are well known. It's too bad, isn't it, that you set your own expectations? And now do you blame me for that?

MATTHEW

Nah, come to think of it, I shouldn't have compared you to Archer. Archer is an expert. I don't think Archer used QuickVerse when he wrote Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties . He wouldn't have shot himself in the foot by aruing that the Greek world for "rise" (which is anistemi) is used twice for emphasis. He wouldn't have made the same mistake about the other word for "rise". But Moreland and Geisler use historical apologetical arguments in their defense of Christianity. Their approach is generally philosophical but that I thought highly of these folks as I did you. So you criticize me for my own expectations? Well..what was I suppose to do? You're the only apologist I know of who addresses the complaints of skeptics and amends your encyclopedia upon being contacted of new problems. Moreland and Geisler can't take back what they put in print. See why I elevated you to a heroic status?

As for McDowell, I was really fond of him in my teen years but now that I have taken a deeper, more critical look at what he has written, well I share your opinion of him.

To Be Concluded..

[Matthew]

Concluding...

JP

Since I left the faith, I don't think of Farrel Till as a guru of some sort. I consider myself deeply indebted to him, but I don't consider him a guru. I think several of his articles that I have read were top quality articles but not all of them. The articles that I found convincing were "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise", "The Resurrection
Maze", "Scientific Boo-Boos in the Bible", "Bible Biology".

These are among those I consider some of Till's most pedantic works, though admittedly it is hard to make such a choice. If he ever gets his head back out of the sand we will be debating one aspect of that last article, the part on the ostrich, right here on this forum. Be sure and watch.

MATTHEW

Pedantic? I think just about anything ANY skeptic says to you is pedantic. I noticed on your website that you have a section devoted to The Skeptical Review . If this sort of stuff is so pedantic, why even respond to it? Why not just spend all your energy on more qualifed skeptics like Robert Price.

The fact that you constantly reply to Till and others suggest to me that you are really threatened by The Skeptical Review . I don't recall Till ever sticking his head in the sand. I thought you were sticking your head in the sand. What did he stick his head in the sand in regards to? Be specific.

JP
There were a few where I thought Till made a interesting case but I deemed as inconclusive at best
such as "Sarah's Power To Concieve" and "The Gods of Israel". I even thought of an article where I
concluded that Till made a nice try but didn't really succeed in proving a contradiction exist, and that was
"Did They Tarry In The City?" (Who knows..upon further study I may revise my conclusion on this one)
Well..now everyone has the other side of the story!

I still haven't heard an answer to what puzzles me most. You spoke above of perhaps a dozen Biblical citations that troubled you. Well, beg pardon, but between inerrancy and your professed deism (if it is still that) lie a great spectrum of choices.

MATTHEW

What??? Are you offering advice to me again? I thought it was very rude offering advice that wasn't sought for the first time. Are you being rude to me again? So you complain about Till being rude when he both posted information about you and phoned your home and being rude to Mrs. Holding? Man, this hypocrisy is about to knock me over! I feel smothered by it already. I think your ego is about to burst at the seams.

JP

You could become a liberal Christian who believes in the Resurrection but only thinks the Bible is a moral guide with a mix of good and bad history. You could become a moderate who thinks the Bible just CONTAINS the word of God.

MATTHEW

I don't want to return the favor by being rude, but you could just as well mind your own business. Where I ultimately land is not your concern. I might have to correct you on something: A liberal Christian does not believe in a physical resurrection that I am aware of. I think liberal Christianity is just a sad attempt to patch up a sinking ship. I probably would be a moderate Christian, since from what I understand moderates disbelieve the inerrancy doctrine. If I am not wrong, they believe that the Bible is an errant, yet, inspired holy book. But what I studied were not just what struck me as flaws in the inerrancy doctrine but also as flaws in the inspiration doctrine. So..where does that leave me?

JP

As I said, but you ignored: "No sane person could jump from such extremes with such immediacy and have done so by means of rational contemplation."

MATTHEW

I ignored your psychologizing. Do you possess some professional degree in psychology that I don't know of? After all..you did suggest that I was either a liar or mentally loose. So, am I to take it that you are now an expert in psychology? You said I jumped from such extremes. Which other extreme was I at? I was leaning towards being a borderline conservative/moderate Christian in December when the ball started rolling. I didn't think that inerrancy was necessary for being a Christian, and I had been a progressive creationist/theistic evolutionist for the past year or so. I accepted the interpretation of Genesis argued for by Alan Hayward and Glenn Morton.

JP

And that is another reason I will not believe your disclaimer above about it not being a matter of vengeful retort to your family's hypocrisy. It doesn't add up.

MATTHEW

Once again..I will let you conclude whatever you want to. I don't care what you think, but I do think these readers in here deserve better than what I think you are going to feed them.

JP

None of the items you mentioned, even if valid, serve to disprove the Resurrection of Christ. An error perceived in James vs Hebrews does not mean the Gospel of Matthew is in error about Jesus and that the essence of the Christian faith is false.

MATTHEW

Well, we'll see about that. An error proven in James vs Hebrews would mean that the Gospel of Matthew is in error if Matthew uses the same Greek word for "temptation". It's called the ripple effect. And yes..it would disprove the resurrection. If a true contradiction exists, it goes beyond merely proving "errancy"; it brings down the entire "inspiration" doctrine. If I can prove that there exists a contradiction in the way the Greek word for "temptation" is used in James and Hebrews, that means that the synoptics are wrong, period. It's that simple.

JP

So far I see nothing from you but an exercise in skilled rationalization. In which case you may be better off in Till's stable than under (say) Gerkin's wing. But feel free to try to show all of us here otherwise.

MATTHEW

What a coincidence! I saw the same thing in your debates with Till! But then again..I will remind you for what I hope is the last time; that I am not accountible to you. If you had kept your comments on your website, just like every other low blow you dish out, I would've kept my comments on Till's Errancy list.

Well JP, it looks like the gloves are off!

Matt

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Matthew:

I am not trying to jump in, and will leave this to you and JP, but something you said struck me...


Well, we'll see about that. An error proven in James vs Hebrews would mean that the Gospel of Matthew is in error if Matthew uses the same Greek word for "temptation". It's called the ripple effect.

I hope you don't really believe that things are as simple as that, do you? It does not simply boil down to whether or not a same word is used, that is actually almost irrelevant... but is the same concept used in the same way in a mutually exclusive manner? And in those verses, absolutely not, and I would have to concur with JP that this particular objection (i.e. alleging contradiction in those verses) is extraordinarily pedantic.

I mean really, if we are simply going to use Strong's to shoehorn context and meanings, I could allege a contradiction in saying that Paul tells me that women have an alternate means of salvation... simply to bear children. I mean the same word is used for "saved" is it not?

I sure hope that was not such a major deal in your experience as you claim for if so, your faith is worth more than a mess of porridge.


<okay now I am butting out>

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Hi Matthew

Although this is primarily JP's thread, I would like to make a few comments, if that's ok.

I shall leave most comments for him to answer, but if you want to demonstrate you thought through your rejection of faith rationally it requires a LOT more than going to a Christian bookstore or looking up lexicons on the Internet. Plus the fact of your crying off giving him your reasons suggests that his 'unprofessionalism' towards Farrell Till (which is satirical, expressive of his methods of argumentation) is the sole reason for coming out against Holding.

I am particularly disappointed of your changing the subject in replying to the Holding/Till debate; I was really looking forward to seeing where Holding failed, (you reject Holding while still reading the debate...?!?) and you brought up two irrelevant witnesses to the subject at hand, which means you can't think through a particular argument properly. I'd like to see anthropologists take Rohrbaugh and Malina apart., which has nothing to do with say, the kalam cosmological argument and whether JP is a Young Earth Creationist or not.

That's what I have to say at the moment, I'm still reading through your responses (I am considering rejecting your non-answer at this point...;) )
-- I'm quite happy to reread the debates and make notes, and post my results on the forum.

What ye say to that, then?

from Guy

[jpholding]

Dee Dee Warren:
You too Todd! I do hope if you are interesed in pursuing that issue, that you will seriously consider starting another thread. That suggestion was not a hollow one.

Yes, jimbo/todd/whoever, let me know if you start a thread on that. I'd be anxious to see your documentation of all of this. I checked my records today and found that I called someone an "idiot" in some way only 3 times in 1000+ articles -- and one of those was in mockery of his own insults (the Roman Piso leader).

These folks doth magnify and then skeedaddle. I drop the topic.

[jpholding]

Because I have only a little time today I will try to narrow this down to bare bones as much as I can. Also, with respect to Dee Dee's request to narrow things.

You say these events still haunt me. And you accused me of psychologizing?

It's not hard. You introduced yourself to your new social "ingroup" with this material, thus showing its significance, and I have personally witnessed this pattern within my own family. Also do not forget that I worked for years in a psychological thinktank. But I'll let that pass for now. My prime pointer to your irrational deconversion was the rapidity and extremity of it -- the personal expression was second. However, given your aggravated level of response, I might have to switch it back to first.

But if you put that much stock in Witherington, then I will read him.

I put stock in many writers. You probably know where to find my Book Reviews.

On James vs. Hebrews:

I didn't think I needed to. I am sure the skeptics on the Errancy list knew what I was talking about. You call it a "pedantic" claim do you? You only wish it was pedantic! I used a Strong's online lexicon to look up the actual Greek words. I will explain it fully in another thread on the subject, or I can explain it fully in my next post on this thread if you so desire, pending your response.

After years of dealing with McKinseys, Roman Pisos, Acharyas, etc. I have learned not to assume anything just from cites. Was the lexicon the extent of your research? Yes, you may start a new thread on this if you wish, though I prefer to start with another topic (see below).

We? Who else is there besides you? Is Mrs. Holding helping you? I can point out what I think is wrong with it here or another thread if you like.

My but we have indeed become pedantic. And you ask me how I feel at liberty to psychologize? Yes, as it happens Mrs. Holding does help me. If/when you are married you may understand. Keep that for a thread after the one above. The rez issue is already being discussed elsewhere.

This one looked most interesting:

Till got his bones pulled out? By who? You? So you paraphrased two "respected scholar(s)" and Till disagreed with THEM. Big deal! Is the implication here that it's wrong to disagree with respected scholars? Your "scholar" were Malina and Rohrbaugh. Their book: Social Science Commentary On The Synoptic Gospels . Looks like there are two scholars, not just one.

There were, writing the book, but Rohrbaugh was the only one involved in correspondence in the later stage I referred to in the debate where Till did, yes, get his bones pulled out. Now look at this. Here you are jumping ahead without knowledge. It's all to easy to see that you are inclined to irrational, rapid-fire judgments. This tells me as well that you did NOT read the debate all the way through, or you would have known that the issue was that Till (through Kesler, actually) exchanged correspondence only with Rohrbaugh, who issued him a severe correction.

"Big deal"? Well, I can see we're going to have a great time...the authority of the leading members of the Context Group demoted to "Big deal"...

However, Till didn't merely seem to disagree with them, he provided evidence to the contrary. I can quote exactly what evidence he supplied if you wish.

The "evidence" Till supplied was making what Rohrbaugh called the "serious mistake" of reading guilt into even MORE Biblical passages. Not countering it with sound anthropological data. Till provided no "evidence" whatsoever of any relevance or value. He did his usual schtick -- reading the text like a newspaper and announcing his own views.

So since we have to come to your appeal to authorities, does that mean if I quote a "well-respected" scholar or two, then I have pulled your bones out if you disagree with them? I can do this too! Let's see what "well-respected" scholars come up to bat!

Only if they specifically answer what was written. I will find it interesting to see if you can find anything rebutting M/R and the work of the Context Group. Until then this appears to be little more than bombast, as shown by your veering off topic. It also shows that you've given yourself over to Till fully to the extent of parroting his arguments uncritically.

Briefly. I don't know enough about evolution/creation to have more than a fideist stance and I readily admit that.

I do happen to disagree with Boyd on open theism but have only argued against his Biblical arguments and not his philosophical ones. For reference

http://www.tektonics.org/opentheism01.html

I have used in reply the findings of other Biblical scholars. Boyd incidentally though a fine scholar in his own right has acknowledged in Cynic Sage or Son of God that philsophy, not exegesis, is his specialty.

I am impressed! You keep track of the dates of letters you are e-mailed. Why would I mention it to you in an e-mail? I was disgusted and angry with you.

Keep track? It wasn't hard. I noted your 12/17 entry to Errancy and that rather helped me remember. One day after. As for being angry and disgusted, that's hardly an excuse, is it? Yes, I understand your impulsive and irrational behavior perfectly. Your had a point of view you wanted to keep and didn't want any chance of being swayed back. You're fighting the same fight now...but I digress.

You kept saying this over and over again! How long did you want to nausiate us with this kind of tripe? This is an example of what I found unprofessional and childish.

It was quite simple, really. Till wanted me to quote everything he said. I thought that demand ridiculous and put that statement after every bit of fluff and unnecessary verbiage to make that point. His webmaster Miles wrote me an email saying I should just quote such verbiage and say nothing, which is also ridiculous. Every other reader I have heard from about this understood perfectly. I also offered a version of the Part 2 section without all of that commentary in order to make the point more clear.

In fact you called Till "Porkchop" along with many of the other names you have called him in the past!

Hmm. Did you know "Porkchop" is a term of friendship among prison inmates?

So we can add "Porkchop" to "Weasil", "C. Farris McTill", and "Foo-Foo". Sounds like childish name-calling to me!

All descriptive terms for his behavior. And not much different from, i.e., editorial cartoonists in the 90s calling George Bush a "wimp" or drawing Clinton naked except for his necktie. Are editorial cartoonists childish?

You further declined to give a link to "Mr. Crybaby H" (More name-calling!). You further told Farrell "He is even sillier than you. And twice as obnoxious and three times as deluded about his own self-importance".

All quite accurate in editorial terms. Even now H. is doing the same thing to another person.

You started hacking out a reply to Till without coming to an agreement on the proposals about how the debate was suppose to go! Professional debators don't do this from what I understand.

Till doesn't sign debate agreements with every Christian that comes on Errancy, so I saw no reason to waste my time with his nitpicking. He couldn't get it clear in his head that hosting a debate on multiple sites did not increase its exposure any more than mere links, so I told him to forget it and started on my own. I don't have time to waste with (yes) pedantry like his.

How can silence be dishonesty?

Living under false pretenses is not dishonesty? Then when Dan Barker and Till were "silent" about their deconversions when preaching, this is not "dishonest"? Shrug. Suit yourself.

I think just about anything ANY skeptic says to you is pedantic. I noticed on your website that you have a section devoted to The Skeptical Review . If this sort of stuff is so pedantic, why even respond to it?

About 95%, yes. As for the why, well, let's see: Some Skeptics say, if I DON'T respond, it's because I can't or I'm chicken. Others say if I DO respond, it is because I am "threatened" by it. I guess I'm shafted either way. But anyway, Till has (so far) stuck his head in the sand on my challenge here on this forum to debate the ostrich part of that Bible Biology article. Considering how anxious he said he was to get me one on one, I find that...unusual.

I don't want to return the favor by being rude, but you could just as well mind your own business. Where I ultimately land is not your concern. I might have to correct you on something: A liberal Christian does not believe in a physical resurrection that I am aware of.

The spectrum of liberalism is quite varied. As for the rest your refusal to answer speaks for itself.

At any rate if we continue here I want to start particularly on where you think I skipped arguments or failed with the Abiathar debate. I re-read the material last night and am ready for an exchange. Keep in mind that places where Till changed the subject (i.e., to things like the occurrence of miracles -- using this hypothetically, not as an actual from the debate) do not count, nor would any places where I agreed with him against another view (though I didn't see one of those there). My response may be slow in return as I will be out of town for a bit and don't know if I can get to a public library during that period or somewhere else I can access this forum.

I never wore gloves to begin with. But it's patently obvious that I represent something you fear and loathe. Not me personally, perhaps, but what I stand for.

Good.

[citizenkyle]

Matthew:

As a fellow skeptic, I would like to offer a quick piece of advice. I realize it is unrequested, so feel free to take it or leave it as you will.

Don't take JP so seriously. His style can be a bit strident at times (it threw me at first too) but if you look closely you will notice his tongue planted firmly in his cheek. If that style bothers you, I would recommend avoiding tektonics.org. If you want to have a productive conversation with JP, you'll need to lighten up a bit. Don't forget to laugh. I promise you JP is not such a bad guy, once you get to know him - although he could've fooled me ;).

More generally, there are good reasons to be a skeptic, but biblical contradictions are not high on the list. And it's definitely not a good point to engage Christians on. At least not if you want to get anywhere. Look at the premises. Biblical inerrancy is at the end of a long road of Christian premises. You need to go back to the beginning of that road. And make sure you know where your own skeptical road starts as well.

Take care!
Kyle J. Gerkin

[Matthew]

To Kyle:

Kyle, I appreciate the offer of advice. And since you offered it politely..I fully heed it. I am trying not to take JP so seriously. I realize that it tickles him to no end trying to get under skeptics' skin, so I am trying to lighten up as I go along. I just got agitated when he came on this discussion and started making swooping pronouncements about my inner motives. I thought he had a lot of nerve doing so. I wouldn't have really gotten all that irritated had he just kept his judgemental comments about me confined to his website.

Kyle, I suspect that his invitation (if indeed it was that) for me to "explain" myself was at best skin-deep. He asked me about some of the examples of inerrancy and non-inspiration that I believe that I have found. I am beginning to suspect that I am being baited into a lion'd den. I think his desire for me to "explain" myself is just bait so he can try to pounce on me and say "Hey look everyone! I made a complete fool of Matthew here! Doesn't he look so stupid? I bet he feels so stupid! Hahahahah!".

Which is sad of course. I plan on waiting until he comes back before I compose any more defenses about my recent departure from the Christian faith. You mentioned that there were other good reasons to be a skeptic, but contradictions isn't high on the list. I'd be interested in hearing them. Since inerracy is at the end of a long road of premises, I'd be interested in knowing a better place to start.

JP is not such a bad guy? Well..I remained to be convinced. I am convinced that he has some bad problems with hypocrisy and dishonesty. But should I prove to be wrong, I will happily retract what I wrote about him. But above all Kyle..I appreciate you writing to me.

Matthew

[Matthew]

At this point..I also have to apologize for any typographical errors on my part. I don't strive to be perfect, only effecient.;) I realized that I made a typographical error, and I do have a habit of compulsively correcting my own grammatical errors, so I have to humbly admit I made a honest mistake above completely intact with a apology.

Matthew

[citizenkyle]

Matthew:
Kyle, I suspect that his invitation (if indeed it was that) for me to &quot;explain&quot; myself was at best skin-deep. He asked me about some of the examples of inerrancy and non-inspiration that I believe that I have found. I am beginning to suspect that I am being baited into a lion'd den. I think his desire for me to &quot;explain&quot; myself is just bait so he can try to pounce on me and say &quot;Hey look everyone! I made a complete fool of Matthew here! Doesn't he look so stupid? I bet he feels so stupid! Hahahahah!&quot;.

I'll let you in on something: Christians have an answer for EVERY contradiction, EVERY failed prophecy, EVERY Biblical difficulty that exists. They aren't necessarily good answers (some are, some are not) but they are answers. And for a Christian, that's often enough. Again, there are many premises which their worldview is built upon that makes Biblical inerrancy reasonable. But we'll get to that in a second. As far JP "trying to make you look stupid" is concerned, I'm not going to guess at his motives. But try to remember that JP deals with skeptics all day long and not all of them are terribly bright. So sometimes he may lose patience and deal with someone in a cursory manner. I must admit I have been guilty of the same thing with the occasional Christian. For a whimsical breakdown of Christian & Skeptic "types" check out:
http://www.tektonics.org/gerkin03.html


Matthew:
You mentioned that there were other good reasons to be a skeptic, but contradictions isn't high on the list. I'd be interested in hearing them. Since inerracy is at the end of a long road of premises, I'd be interested in knowing a better place to start.


As far as Christianity goes, the cornerstone is the resurrection. As long as they believe the rez happened, you'll be hard pressed to convince any Christian their faith isn't genuine. For my take on this, see: http://www.tektonics.org/JR_WS.html

Beyond that, you have to determine the basis of your worldview. Through what lens do you view the universe? I choose the lens of science and naturalism. This is because I believe science and naturalism make the bare minimum of assumptions needed in order to have a useful understanding of the universe. But God is not one of those assumptions. He is not ruled out, but he must be discovered.

By contrast, most Christians' (I can see the chastisement coming now) view of the universe starts with God the Creator. So you can see where a rift between the two positions arises from the very beginning.

Anyway, I would focus on these foundational issues. But, if your interest is in discussing Biblical contradictions then I would recommend the following methodology. As opposed to declaring a contradiction as existing and then being forced into a defense, ask a Christian (or two) why they think it's *not* a contradiction. Like I said, trust me, there is an answer. Once you have the answer, you can try to evaluate it on its merits. Is it internally consistent with other Christian beliefs? If so, you may have to take a step back to those beliefs. Does it appear to be an ad hoc hypothesis or does it follow from the context? Etc, etc. From there you can raise possible criticisms, but you will be in a much better position once you know where the Christian in question is coming from.

Hope that helps!

Take care!
Kyle J. Gerkin

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Kyle:

Your link was bad. I edited it to correct it for you, I hope you do not mind.

[citizenkyle]

Dee Dee:

Absolutely not. Indeed, I thank you.

Take care!
Kyle J. Gerkin

[automatthew]

Kyle said:


But, if your interest is in discussing Biblical contradictions then I would recommend the following methodology. As opposed to declaring a contradiction as existing and then being forced into a defense, ask a Christian (or two) why they think it's *not* a contradiction. Like I said, trust me, there is an answer. Once you have the answer, you can try to evaluate it on its merits. Is it internally consistent with other Christian beliefs? If so, you may have to take a step back to those beliefs. Does it appear to be an ad hoc hypothesis or does it follow from the context?

Wow. That's refreshing, Kyle. Let him who has ears to hear . . .

Automatthew

[GrayPilgrim]

Kyle,

I may disagree with you on your conclusions, but IMHO you seem to be honest and fair in your evaluations, which I highly commend!:cheers: and a few banana guys (there still my favorite) :yipee: :yipee:

[jpholding]

Being at a library in Cocoa Beach tonight, I'll be somewhat limited here in response...



Matthew:

Kyle, I suspect that his invitation (if indeed it was that) for me to &quot;explain&quot; myself was at best skin-deep. He asked me about some of the examples of inerrancy and non-inspiration that I believe that I have found. I am beginning to suspect that I am being baited into a lion'd den. I think his desire for me to &quot;explain&quot; myself is just bait so he can try to pounce on me and say &quot;Hey look everyone! I made a complete fool of Matthew here! Doesn't he look so stupid? I bet he feels so stupid! Hahahahah!&quot;.


Not really. If I go on to probe for inconsistencies and such the purpose is to educate others, not humiliate. Unfortunately in today's society to do so is often taken as humiliation. One cannot call another wrong without being called "judgmental". Which I find absurd.

It certainly did not hold in the first century that way. So call me a throwback. :)

[jpholding]

GrayPilgrim:
Kyle,

I may disagree with you on your conclusions, but IMHO you seem to be honest and fair in your evaluations, which I highly commend!:cheers: and a few banana guys (there still my favorite) :yipee: :yipee:

Hey, I'm glad he'a aboard. I wasn't expecting it. Welcome, my man.

Wow, is that it since I left home? Cool.

Well, see everyone tomorrow if I can get into the library here again...

[Matthew]

This post will be a joint response to Dee Dee and Guy:

First I address Dee Dee:


I hope you don't really believe that things are as simple as that, do you? It does not simply boil down to whether or not a same word is used, that is actually almost irrelevant... but is the same concept used in the same way in a mutually exclusive manner? And in those verses, absolutely not, and I would have to concur with JP that this particular objection (i.e. alleging contradiction in those verses) is extraordinarily pedantic.

No Dee Dee, I don't really believe things are as simple as that. I did mention what struck me as the consequence of proven contradictions in sharp contrast to what may be shown to be only apparent contradictions. I don't merely try to life verses or even words out of context look at a Greek lexicon and declare "Contradiction!".

All words are defined by context; anyone using a lexicon has to be EXTREMELY careful that they understand the context involved. I have tried to do just that. Just to give an example: I noticed that Jesus Christ is on record as saying "He who does not hate his family cannot be my disciple". I realize that "hate" in the context is a Hebrew idiom meaning, love one more than another. What Jesus meant in the context was "he who loves his family more than he loves me cannot be my disciple".

As for the comment that women can be saved by child-brearing. I don't know what this means, so I wouldn't try to shoehorn a contradiction on this one. I have to understand the context.

To Guy:


I shall leave most comments for him to answer, but if you want to demonstrate you thought through your rejection of faith rationally it requires a LOT more than going to a Christian bookstore or looking up lexicons on the Internet. Plus the fact of your crying off giving him your reasons suggests that his 'unprofessionalism' towards Farrell Till (which is satirical, expressive of his methods of argumentation) is the sole reason for coming out against Holding.

Guy, I went to a Christian bookstore looking for apologetical works. My reference to the books that I bought were my response to practical skeptics who would use "hypocrisy" to dismiss the Christian faith. I thought and still think to this day it's a very stupid thing to do. To anyone who uses this argument, I would advise them to grow up if I was asked.


I am particularly disappointed of your changing the subject in replying to the Holding/Till debate; I was really looking forward to seeing where Holding failed, (you reject Holding while still reading the debate...?!?) and you brought up two irrelevant witnesses to the subject at hand, which means you can't think through a particular argument properly. I'd like to see anthropologists take Rohrbaugh and Malina apart., which has nothing to do with say, the kalam cosmological argument and whether JP is a Young Earth Creationist

Guy, I thought he was appealing to authority and he was blasting Till for not accepting what the authority had to say on face value. I saw JP paraphrase the conclusion of this authority in his initial response and then he quoted from the authority. Well..I would be willing to hear Malina and Rohrbaugh out. I would love to hear what evidence they present. I am very open to the possibility that they may be right. Please note that I did say that I didn't agree with Till on every issue.

I would like to see what data Malina and Rohrbaugh cite. I certainly don't think their work as a "big deal". My "big deal" complaint was to what I thought was whining on JP's part. I didn't see JP cite any of the date from their book. I just wish JP would've been more thorough in his rebuttal. To quote a statement or even a conclusion isn't enough. I want to see JP quote actual data. If Till made a mistake, then Till made a mistake. If the verses he cited don't prove guilt existed back then..then I will revise my conclusion accordingly. I am not closed-minded. In fact..I often happily and humbly revise my conclusions in the light of new data. In fact..I have to graciously apologize to JP about something he said.

What was the clincher for me in the Dear Abiathar debate was the essay "What [Holding] Refuses to Answer". It was when Till used lexicon studies regarding epi in the Greek. That is what clinched the matter for me. Now if JP cares to answer this most important critique, then I will revise my conclusion that JP lost the debate.

Matthew

[Matthew]

JP-

So your purpose is to educate eh? So if you prove me wrong on these examples, you wouldn't hang it over me like that? You wouldn't pounce on me and say "Hey look at Matt! I made a fool of him! What a stupid dork he is!". I am always willing to admit that I am wrong. I doubt that I am wrong as far as some of the contradictions go..but I am willing to admit that I am wrong. Would you be willing to admit that you're wrong as well if I can prove it to you?

As far as Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels I am perfectly willing to even read it if I can get my hands on it. Just to let you know..I don't agree will Bill Craig about the Big Bang. Even though I lean towards deistic evolution..I don't believe that the big bang happened and I also happen to disagree with Boyd as well. I think they're sincere but sincerely wrong.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Matthew:



No Dee Dee, I don't really believe things are as simple as that. I did mention what struck me as the consequence of proven contradictions in sharp contrast to what may be shown to be only apparent contradictions. I don't merely try to life verses or even words out of context look at a Greek lexicon and declare "Contradiction!".

All words are defined by context; anyone using a lexicon has to be EXTREMELY careful that they understand the context involved. I have tried to do just that.

And if you did that with the verses you posited and thought, I must respectfully say, a little deeper about them, you would not have the problem with those verses. You see, the implication of what you are saying (if you think of it to its end) is that you must believe that the writer of Hebrews thought that God in His deity could be tempted as a human was tempted, for the writer clearly identifies Jesus with God in Chapter 1. Do you really think the writer of Hebrews was that daft?

And as far as your claim that you did not simply consult a lexicon, I remind you that you are the one who said,


JPH quotes from my post on the when I told Till and others that the "Dear Abithar" helped me to deconvert. The "Dear Abiathar" was the final nail in the coffin. He probably wants to know what the first nail in the coffin was. It was an article in TSR in which the article pointed out that Hebrews 2:18 and 4:15, which struck me as directly contradicting James 1:13. After reading this in an anonymous article in TSR I felt a huge glacier of faith melt in my heart. ......

I didn't think I needed to. I am sure the skeptics on the Errancy list knew what I was talking about. You call it a "pedantic" claim do you? You only wish it was pedantic! I used a Strong's online lexicon to look up the actual Greek words.

You are the one who made a point of how important it was that the lexicon gave you the actual Greek words. You made no mention of context or anything else, and certainly nothing whatsoever beyond a surface level context.

I do not wish to debate "contradictions" with you.. I don't have that much time in a day. But I am concerned about (and please let me brutally honest without unneeded offense) your thinking clarity in this area.

[automatthew]

<< My original post provided links to the articles that JPH supplies just below. My assumption that he was done for the day was wrong wrong wrong. >>

As a side note, few here will think you stupid just because you've been proved wrong. We only start thinking you're stupid if you persist in being wrong when you've already been proved so.

Matthew K.

http://www.tektonics.org/abby.html

[jpholding]

Howdy...library is still open... :D

Guy, I thought he was appealing to authority and he was blasting Till for not accepting what the authority had to say on face value. I saw JP paraphrase the conclusion of this authority in his initial response and then he quoted from the authority.

I'll offer a --well, what would it be, not a concession, but an explanation -- I had by that time written several articles and book reviews on MR and on the work of the Context Group and by that time I pretty much assumed all readers were aware of it. Actually most of them here would have been. I have several books by them and the context group listed in the Arsenal section of the Bookshop. For what it's worth, Matthew, many of the conclusions these guys offer would shock the average pew-sitter. But for me they are door-openers.

What was the clincher for me in the Dear Abiathar debate was the essay &quot;What [Holding] Refuses to Answer&quot;. It was when Till used lexicon studies regarding epi in the Greek. That is what clinched the matter for me. Now if JP cares to answer this most important critique, then I will revise my conclusion that JP lost the debate.

Let me approach this with a question. Are you aware, first of all, that I answered Till in a second article? I ask this because your previous comments suggest you were only aware of:

http://www.tektonics.org/abby.html

but not of

http://www.tektonics.org/abby2.html

But that said -- in sum my reply on epi -- and I think here you might have particular concern for how it was used with, i.e., political leaders -- is that if Casey's response is correct and archierus is NOT an official title, then that use of epi for political leaders is not relevant. It would no longer refer to the duration of Ab's leadership but to him as the "great priest" -- which would extend the epi-timeframe from Mk. 2:26 over the period when he was not only leader, but when his "greatness" was being molded (as at the time of Nob and before) by his contemporaries. This is also what Casey essentially argued.

There's more on epi in there as well but that is one of the main issues I recall being brought up. But if it's the above then we have one of those cases where I did indeed "skip" an argument, but because it was rendered irrelevant by another argument previous to that one. Which I think can be agreed to be fair. If points B-J depend on the validity of point A, and point A is rebutted, there is logically no need to address B-J.

Hmm, well, maybe it's a good time for a walk on the beach soon. May as well enjoy it. As an aside there are condolence signs all over the place around Cape Canaveral/Cocoa area for the Columbia crew....a community in mourning, but still functioning.

[jpholding]

Grrr (heh heh),

So your purpose is to educate eh? So if you prove me wrong on these examples, you wouldn't hang it over me like that?

Not unless you insist on making a jerk out of yourself hanging it over others. :) Really, Matthew, my treatment of Till is based mainly on his own approach -- his insults are not very creative, but his disdain and attitude has hurt many people and I have gotten a few painful letters about him.

Would you be willing to admit that you're wrong as well if I can prove it to you?

Of course. I changed my mind on eschatology which is a big move. Most people have problems letting go of the old Rapture theory, but when I saw the writing on the wall I ditched it like old news. And if you do get hold of MR you'll see a wealth of conclusions which as I say would make the average pew-sitter go green with seasickness. Yet I accepted it readily (only disagree with about 1% of what they offered and NONE of that had to do with their specialty area).

But that said, I might recommend starting instead with Pilch and Malina's Handbook of Biblical Social Values rather than MR. The same stuff overall but written more as a mini-encyclopedia. But much more readable. MR's book is great but hard to "get into" as a reading book.

I got a half hour before the library closes....let's see what I can get done...

[Revolg]

Buy a laptop JPH. :)

[jpholding]

Revolg:
Buy a laptop JPH. :)

Aw heck, Revlog. I can't use the darned things. My hands are as big as plates and I can't use laptop keyboards without getting carpal tunnel syndrome. Blazes man -- you know all those typos I make? Almost all of them are due to Fat Finger Syndrome.

Maybe I could apply for a grant to buy a laptop under ADA. :idea:

[Matthew]

JP..Just a few comments by the way..


It's not hard. You introduced yourself to your new social "ingroup" with this material, thus showing its significance, and I have personally witnessed this pattern within my own family. Also do not forget that I worked for years in a psychological thinktank. But I'll let that pass for now. My prime pointer to your irrational deconversion was the rapidity and extremity of it -- the personal expression was second. However, given your aggravated level of response, I might have to switch it back to first

Okay..so you have gotten quite good at psychologizing. Why complain when you think I am doing it? When you find more time are you going to address my claim about your use of vulgar? I think you have been very eager to paint me off as an angry, irrational person. JP..would you feel better if I committed myself to a mental institution? Would that make your day? ( I was being sarcastic..of course). Did you ignore my comment about my borderline conservativism and leaning towards moderacy? If not then please respond.

At this time you should've gotten an e-mail about my address along with my "real" motive that got me questioning my faith in the first place. I hope you are sensitive enough to understand it. I would like to say that I thought through what liberal and more moderate Christians have to say. I agree with Gerd Ludemann and Bill Craig that if one doesn't affirm a phyiscal resurrection then one doesn't have business calling themselves a Christian.


I put stock in many writers. You probably know where to find my Book Reviews.

I noticed. I was merely willing to do any homework assignments you think I might have missed. However, my reference was to authors I read at a local Christian bookstore. Not a lot of Christian bookstores I know of carry Witherington's work. I got Blomberg's book online from Barnes and Noble. I am still in the process of reading it.


After years of dealing with McKinseys, Roman Pisos, Acharyas, etc. I have learned not to assume anything just from cites. Was the lexicon the extent of your research? Yes, you may start a new thread on this if you wish, though I prefer to start with another topic (see below).

To some extent, yes..but I tried hard to make sure I understood what the context was. If I failed..then I failed and Iwill apologize for it and revise my conclusion.


My but we have indeed become pedantic. And you ask me how I feel at liberty to psychologize? Yes, as it happens Mrs. Holding does help me. If/when you are married you may understand. Keep that for a thread after the one above. The rez issue is already being discussed elsewhere.

This "pedantic" question of mine was a tounge-in-cheek on my part. No I am not married. When you read the e-mail I sent you, you will understand. As far as being married goes, that would've been a big IF when I was a believer. I thought Christian girls would've begged to be tortured and brutually slaughtered then become romantically involved with me.


There were, writing the book, but Rohrbaugh was the only one involved in correspondence in the later stage I referred to in the debate where Till did, yes, get his bones pulled out. Now look at this. Here you are jumping ahead without knowledge. It's all to easy to see that you are inclined to irrational, rapid-fire judgments. This tells me as well that you did NOT read the debate all the way through, or you would have known that the issue was that Till (through Kesler, actually) exchanged correspondence only with Rohrbaugh, who issued him a severe correction.

Well JP..I will tell you what. You know that I don't cling to every last word Till speaks about. This past month..I am learned not to do that to anyone. I am going to study more closely the link that you provided in your rebuttal although I was wondering why you didn't include the data in your rebuttal instead of providing a mere link. I read Rohrbaugh's distinction between guilt and shame and I am beginning to think that Till may have made a big mistake after all. He didn't exactly answer my question in regards to your solution to "Did They Tarry in the City". I have sent a post to Till asking him to respond to him about what you just told me.

JP..that wasn't really the clincher though, what was the clincher, if you recall my errancy post was me saying that Till brought out the Greek lexicon studies regarding epi .


The "evidence" Till supplied was making what Rohrbaugh called the "serious mistake" of reading guilt into even MORE Biblical passages. Not countering it with sound anthropological data. Till provided no "evidence" whatsoever of any relevance or value. He did his usual schtick -- reading the text like a newspaper and announcing his own views.

I see for myself that Till didn't distinguish between "shame" and "guilt". I will ask him to respond to this. If he doesn't..I will conclude that you made your case against him on this one.

Only if they specifically answer what was written. I will find it interesting to see if you can find anything rebutting M/R and the work of the Context Group. Until then this appears to be little more than bombast, as shown by your veering off topic. It also shows that you've given yourself over to Till fully to the extent of parroting his arguments uncritically.

I probably can't find anything. I started to parrot his arguments uncritically, but I realize now that Till made may have serious error. I am willing to concede that Till made a huge mistake on this one, but I am wondering about the lexicon error. You included an update on your link. The lexicon matter is what clinched the issue for me. I will ask Till to respond to this issue. If not then I will demand that he do it.

This is all for now..

[jpholding]

Still got time for more messages, ha ha! This is better than I thought.

When you find more time are you going to address my claim about your use of vulgar?

I was in a rush this morning to get out and didn't have time to check it. I probably could here if this library computer would let me open a second browser window but for some reason they have that option blocked. It would aid me to get a quicker answer if you could cut and paste to here.

Did you ignore my comment about my borderline conservativism and leaning towards moderacy? If not then please respond.

No, had to pass for the same reason as above. Since it looks like this library is amenable to letting me sit here a long time, give it to me again and I'll answer when I drop in tomorrow -- either at lunch if I can or after the conference time is over.

At this time you should've gotten an e-mail about my address

Yes and by now you should have a reply. :) I will have to talk to my treasurer about how to do this. A money order would be my preference.

Not a lot of Christian bookstores I know of carry Witherington's work.

If you have a seminary near you try their student bookstore. I buy all my newer books from the one near here.

To some extent, yes..but I tried hard to make sure I understood what the context was. If I failed..then I failed and Iwill apologize for it and revise my conclusion.

An honorable intention. :)


JP..that wasn't really the clincher though, what was the clincher, if you recall my errancy post was me saying that Till brought out the Greek lexicon studies regarding epi .

I may not have read that one. But I gave my basic answer above. Oh and if you go to abby2 you'll find my usual amount of banter there. :) Maybe I can produce fluff-free versions of such articles. Well, why not? If you don't want to read through it all right now just word search for epi. But I repeated my essential answer above.

clinched the issue for me. I will ask Till to respond to this issue. If not then I will demand that he do it.

I wish you well in this endeavor. Hope it's not a case of :argh:

[charis humin]

My man JP:

And if you do get hold of MR you'll see a wealth of conclusions which as I say would make the average pew-sitter go green with seasickness.

Add to that your not-so-average Seminarian! Reading them rocked my world...I realized for the first time the wide gulf in time, culture, and space between me and the forebearers in faith I had for so long thought I had more in common than "hard-core atheists."

BTW, Matthew, if you really want to see the interesting possibilities of applying social scientific models to the biblical world, get your hands on The Social World of Luke-Acts by Neyrey (ed.).


Matthew:

I thought Christian girls would've begged to be tortured and brutually slaughtered then become romantically involved with me.

he he boy can I relate ;) I've just come to accept that most Christian women I know have some...dare I say...issues. This is not directed toward any women on this board! :)

[jpholding]

I just had time to check that. Is it my use of the word "hell" you are referring to?

[Dee Dee Warren]

he he boy can I relate I've just come to accept that most Christian women I know have some...dare I say...issues. This is not directed toward any women on this board!

Heh!!!! [mumbling to herself]harummph, okay, fine, sure, whatever....... [/mumbling to herself]


LOL!

[Matthew]

Yes that was it!

[Ishmael]

he he boy can I relate ;) I've just come to accept that most Christian women I know have some...dare I say...issues. This is not directed toward any women on this board! :)

My wife is a Christian...

"systems admin" =

Choice #1 A unfit pizza-eating little office rat guy.
Choice #2 A skinny, nerdy pizza-eating office rat guy.

No "issues" there I am sure.

[Matthew]

Hello again..


he he boy can I relate I've just come to accept that most Christian women I know have some...dare I say...issues. This is not directed toward any women on this board!

Well it's nice to know I am not alone. But it caused deep mental anguish for me. I mailed this in a response to JP, but it was the root of clinical depression for me in the past. I grew up taught that God had in mind a mate for each of us. I prayed and hoped that this would actualize in my case in high school but it didn't. I even dressed up like my brohter; I was tired of being Mr. Nerdy-Introvert so I decided to dress up as Mr. Cute-Athlete because I thought girls swooned over him.

When I was in college, I decided to stop dressing like my brother. I decided I was being dishonest with myself. But it was then that I first encountered Christian girls but none took a interest in me :( That's when I took a nose-dive into depression. I have spent the last 5 years in a state of clinical depression. It was my depression over being single which caused me to doubt.
Only this last November did I finally start to come out of it. I thought I honestly did see Bible contradictions, I thought I knew the context and I thought I had verified the meaning of the Greek words with a lexicon.

But it was this and not my family's hypocrisy that led to all of this. It was depression not rage. I found it hard and still find it difficult to reconcile a God of love with being single. Well you folks now know the true story behind it.

[charis humin]

Calvinist:

My wife is a Christian...

Congratulations


"systems admin" =
Choice #1 A unfit pizza-eating little office rat guy.
Choice #2 A skinny, nerdy pizza-eating office rat guy.

No "issues" there I am sure.

That isn't blatant stereotyping at all...but I guess I had something coming he he ;)

[Matthew]

I am curious. Does anyone think I am being honest? JP is probably convinced that I am everything evil under the sun. But I'd like to hear from some of you on here. I have striven to be very honest. So I did think that JP was being childish and unprofessional in his debate. But if JP was really right about the "Dear Abiathar" issue and I concede it..is JP still going to villianize me for eternity? If I was to concede that I was horribly wrong in everything I did..would JP ever forgive me, or does he think I am atrocious human scum and I decide to burn for eternity in hell?

Matthew

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Matthew:

I am a personal friend of JPs, and I can say that I believe that I know his heart. I am not just an Internet friend (though I am a firm believer that close and deep bounds can be made over the Net) but I have met him several times personally. So please let me answer some of your questions to the best of my ability.....


I am curious. Does anyone think I am being honest?

I have just met you.... honesty is a strange thing.. in your last few posts, I have seen things where I do believe that we have seen you honestly open your heart. If I say that I think that you were not honest in some of the earlier things posted, I do not mean to imply deliberate dishonesty but perhaps lack of candor, or not being completely honest with yourself. That is my impression from the tiny bit that I know you, but yes, as this conversation has progressed, I have seen what I believe is very, very honest demonstrations of candor.

And this is an aside Matthew, and I cannot speak to any particular sceptic's intention (and I am certainly not referring to Kyle), and man, I hate to make sweeping generalizations, but don't allow yourself to be used (or perpetrate it yourself) as the Deconvert De Jour. I am getting the sense (and forgive me if I am wrong) that you may have went from one situation where you had some issues to another where you are in some sense being exploited (which you may be encouraging)..... Just me two cents. I could be waaayyy off mark.


JP is probably convinced that I am everything evil under the sun.

I am going to do some armchair psychologizing without a license myself, but you certainly do still have respect for JP for you are very concerned about his opinion for you. And I can tell you that he absolutely does not think that you are everything evil under the sun from what I know about JP, at the risk of speaking for him.


But I'd like to hear from some of you on here. I have striven to be very honest. So I did think that JP was being childish and unprofessional in his debate.

I will leave it to JP to defend himself on his debate. Within the totality of circumstances, I did not find it to be so.


But if JP was really right about the "Dear Abiathar" issue and I concede it..is JP still going to villianize me for eternity?

No absolutely he will not.


If I was to concede that I was horribly wrong in everything I did..would JP ever forgive me, or does he think I am atrocious human scum and I decide to burn for eternity in hell?

If you were never to concede anything I am pretty darned sure he does not have that opinion of you. And the hell issue, sorry, is not relevant as that is not JPs province. Our personal opinions of someone's eteranl destiny does not mean squat. I do believe it is the honest (even if you think misguided) desire to avoid such a result that prompts the outpouring of concern that has been shown here for you. If JP or the rest of us really thought that you were "scum", we would probably not even waste our time. I wouldn't, so my participation here speaks to the fact that this opinion is not held of you at least by me.

[Piebald]

I am a firm believer that close and deep bounds can be made over the Net) but I have met him several times personally.

What's the infamous J.P. Holding like in person? I hear he's 7 feet tall and can call lightning down from heaven! ;)

[Dee Dee Warren]

LOL. Yep. That sounds about right. ;)

[citizenkyle]

Dee Dee Warren:
I hate to make sweeping generalizations, but don't allow yourself to be used (or perpetrate it yourself) as the Deconvert De Jour. I am getting the sense (and forgive me if I am wrong) that you may have went from one situation where you had some issues to another where you are in some sense being exploited (which you may be encouraging)

Generalization or not, unfortunately this does happen sometimes. But, as the loyal opposition :), I feel obligated to point out that Christians sometimes fall prey to this same tendency and are only to eager to put on parade some new convert rescued from the vile clutches of atheism.

Take care!
Kyle J. Gerkin

[Matthew]

Dee Dee


If I say that I think that you were not honest in some of the earlier things posted, I do not mean to imply deliberate dishonesty but perhaps lack of candor, or not being completely honest with yourself. That is my impression from the tiny bit that I know you, but yes, as this conversation has progressed, I have seen what I believe is very, very honest demonstrations of candor.

You are spot on. Lacks of candor are a horrible problem for me many times. I can be very honest with other people but not honest with myself a lot of times. I guess that's why I still struggle with issues, and sometimes for months or even years before I finally began to be consistent with my own sense of candor.

[Matthew]

I am going to do some armchair psychologizing without a license myself, but you certainly do still have respect for JP for you are very concerned about his opinion for you. And I can tell you that he absolutely does not think that you are everything evil under the sun from what I know about JP, at the risk of speaking for him.

Well that's good. I didn't take a good look at his link in response to "Dear Abiathar" and instead came to an erroneous conclusion. This is my fault and I bear full responsibility for a complete lapse of critical thinking on my part. I am apologize especially to JP for this.

Matthew

[jpholding]

Matthew:
Yes that was it!

Aw heck! :bonk:

Two years of age of erased my exact motivations for doing that but I'll just put it down as, "Poorly thought out and stupid way to make Brooks fall off his chair with surprise."

Is there a smiley for repenting on here?

[jpholding]

JP is probably convinced that I am everything evil under the sun.

Nope. I think someone already has that job. :)

JP still going to villianize me for eternity? If I was to concede that I was horribly wrong in everything I did..would JP ever forgive me, or does he think I am atrocious human scum and I decide to burn for eternity in hell?

Ask my former Mormon nemesis Kevin Graham. He and I used to spit venom worse than Till and I at each other. Now we call each other "dewd" and rap about our small dogs and meet for lunch now and then. :) Kevin has come around because he realized that taking me too seriously is the worst mistake an opponent can make. (Listening, FT?)

As an aside I don't buy the Dante view of hell. I go with Glenn Miller's piece on that...

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gutripper.html

Part 2 specifically.

[jpholding]

Dee Dee Warren:
LOL. Yep. That sounds about right. ;)

What? What happened to JPH as a block of ice? Remember Blossom's cameo? ;)

I only spit lightning on Thursday afternoons, thank you. You know how much federal insurance I'd have to take out otherwise?

[johnransom]

citizenkyle:
As opposed to declaring a contradiction as existing and then being forced into a defense, ask a Christian (or two) why they think it's *not* a contradiction. Like I said, trust me, there is an answer. Once you have the answer, you can try to evaluate it on its merits. Is it internally consistent with other Christian beliefs? If so, you may have to take a step back to those beliefs. Does it appear to be an ad hoc hypothesis or does it follow from the [b]context[//b]?

Wow! A skeptic who not only can spell the word "context" but even realizes the significance of its meaning! I guess JP is right - Kyle really is the intelligent skeptic. So, Kyle...how does it feel being the first (last?) of an entirely new species?:)

[citizenkyle]

johnransom:
Wow! A skeptic who not only can spell the word &quot;context&quot; but even realizes the significance of its meaning! I guess JP is right - Kyle really is the intelligent skeptic. So, Kyle...how does it feel being the first (last?) of an entirely new species?:)

:o

A new species! Is that micro or macro evolution? :) On a more serious note, I sincerely hope the sum of your experiences with skeptics hasn't been that bad!

[johnransom]

citizenkyle:
A new species! Is that micro or macro evolution? :) On a more serious note, I sincerely hope the sum of your experiences with skeptics hasn't been that bad!

Indeed! Your very existence shakes my faith!:( As for skeptics being bad on context, it is my experience that Mormons are far worse - they willfully and explicitly reject its validity, to the extent that they will produce reams of individual proof verses for their interpretations of the Bible. Skeptics on the other hand don't exactly ignore context - they just approach the Bible from their own narrow viewpoint, thereby placing it in an entirely inappropriate context and making nonsense of its internal and social contexts.

[citizenkyle]

johnransom:
Indeed! Your very existence shakes my faith!:( As for skeptics being bad on context, it is my experience that Mormons are far worse - they willfully and explicitly reject its validity, to the extent that they will produce reams of individual proof verses for their interpretations of the Bible.

I actually married a Mormon who has since left the church (you can bet I am not the most popular guy with my in-laws!) so I can relate to what you're saying. I am at a loss for arguments when they say things like: "John 10:16 says other sheep shall hear my voice. That obviously demonstrates that Jesus visited the Americas!"


johnransom:
Skeptics on the other hand don't exactly ignore context - they just approach the Bible from their own narrow viewpoint, thereby placing it in an entirely inappropriate context and making nonsense of its internal and social contexts.

Yes, but lots of Christians fall into that trap too. It's easy to forget how different were the circumstances of the past and interpret things through the eyes of modern culture. Especially if one is not well educated on the period in question - which many Skeptics & Christians alike are not. I'll be the first to admit that I have fallen into this trap myself now and again, despite efforts to the contrary.

[Dee Dee Warren]

And Kyle, with your last statement I am in complete agreement. I run into these barrier with my Christian brethren with eschatology all the time.

[johnransom]

citizenkyle:


I actually married a Mormon who has since left the church (you can bet I am not the most popular guy with my in-laws!) so I can relate to what you're saying. I am at a loss for arguments when they say things like: &quot;John 10:16 says other sheep shall hear my voice. That obviously demonstrates that Jesus visited the Americas!&quot;

Whoa! I had no idea I was striking so close to home. I have had a fair amount of interaction with Mormons both in person and over the Internet. I remember one apologist I dealt with who was so fond of proof verses that he produced lists of them pages long, eating up vast amounts of bandwidth. I got him back in a discussion on other gods than Jehovah. I used my Bible software to pull every verse in the OT where the word "gods" was used - a huge number - and stated baldly that in every instance the reference is to false gods (which is actually true). Amazingly, he agreed with me. However, he went on to claim that this did not prove my case.:argh:


citizenkyle: Yes, but lots of Christians fall into that trap too. It's easy to forget how different were the circumstances of the past and interpret things through the eyes of modern culture. Especially if one is not well educated on the period in question - which many Skeptics &amp; Christians alike are not. I'll be the first to admit that I have fallen into this trap myself now and again, despite efforts to the contrary.
Very true, of course. In a world in which we can see planets around other suns, it's staggering how many people can't see beyond the ends of their noses. With the Bible though, this ought to be a difficult trap to fall into - after all, many of the stories in it make very little sense in a modern paradigm.

[citizenkyle]

johnransom:
Very true, of course. In a world in which we can see planets around other suns, it's staggering how many people can't see beyond the ends of their noses. With the Bible though, this ought to be a difficult trap to fall into - after all, many of the stories in it make very little sense in a modern paradigm.

This is true. However, it brings up a point I have been thinking about lately. If so much of the Bible makes little sense in a modern paradigm, why do so many Christians point to it as a guide to how one should live? I'm thinking less about the broad philosophy of Jesus' teachings here and more about the OT. I mean, there are clearly teachings that applied to that social context and do not apply to ours. Is the suggestion that we should hearken back and adopt the social ways of the ancients? This would seem silly as so much of culture is driven by environment and techology which has changed drastically in the past few thousand years.

[jpholding]

citizenkyle:


This is true. However, it brings up a point I have been thinking about lately. If so much of the Bible makes little sense in a modern paradigm, why do so many Christians point to it as a guide to how one should live.

That's why I'm on a mission from God to recontextualize it for people, bud. ;)

Hey, I gave my Sunday School class permission not to read Leviticus.

[automatthew]

Kyle asked: "why do so many Christians point to [Old Testament rules] as a guide to how one should live?"

I think the answer to this has already been hinted at in this thread and in JPH's intro to your discourse on Tekton:

Most Christians have no more hint of a clue than do most skeptics. They all do the same type of operation on the available information: extract what you can that will work within your framework of preconceptions. So a large body of Christians filter out those parts of the OT that clearly do not apply to modern society and take those parts that do at face value. This results in distortion along the transition line, while the extremes remain relatively clear. We moderns do not sacrifice animals, so anything that pertains to these offerings can be safely ignored. On the other side of the spectrum, there are universal precepts to which few secularists would object (Hello, Peter Singer!). Context only becomes important along the grade.

Moral absolutes are the province of those, theists or naturalist, who believe that truth is manifest. If the truth is obvious to all, then those who disagree with you are fools or fiends. There is no room for context when truth is manifest.

Matthew K.

[automatthew]

JP:

I learned from a friend in a "mission church" in Chicago that they are currently reading the entire Bible cover to cover, apparently under the impression that this will deepen their faith. Leviticus in one sitting. Really. Moreover, someone seriously proposed having a prayer after every chapter. My friend was able to persuade them that prayers after every other chapter would suffice.

Matthew K.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sigh. I was just doing my devotionals in Leviticus.

[automatthew]

Dee Dee, I think we can trust you to read Leviticus and get something out of it other than an ego-boost for being so dedicated.

mk

[jpholding]

Dee Dee Warren:
Sigh. I was just doing my devotionals in Leviticus.

You have my permission to turn to Deuteronomy. :D

[Dee Dee Warren]

Thank you. Eeek!! More of the same!! I feel so unclean. :bawl:

[citizenkyle]

jpholding:
Hey, I gave my Sunday School class permission not to read Leviticus.

That's a relief. The last thing we need is to have kids stoning their friends to death for "cursing their mother or father". :o

[johnransom]

Dee Dee Warren:
Sigh. I was just doing my devotionals in Leviticus.
jpholding:


You have my permission to turn to Deuteronomy. :D

Hmm. I just made it into Joshua. Can I teach my Sunday School class to go annihilate the pagans?

[Faramir]

johnransom:


Hmm. I just made it into Joshua. Can I teach my Sunday School class to go annihilate the pagans?

If you do, can I help?

:bonk:

[GrayPilgrim]

oo a good stoning!

[Faramir]

Oh a witch a witch.

(Somehow every thread turns into a Holy Grail thread)

[Sheepdog]

heheheh. how can a sparrow carry a cocnut? ... it's not a matter of size, it is a matter of weight ratio

ah, a classic :rofl:

[Socrates]

Citizenkyle wrote:

"That's a relief. The last thing we need is to have kids stoning their friends to death for "cursing their mother or father"."

For the benefit of others on this site, Kyle's friendly opponent JPH answered this at http://www.tektonics.org/barkquiz.html, #4. I'm sure Kyle would never lower himself to the level of a pillock like Barker.

[citizenkyle]

Socrates:
Citizenkyle wrote:

&quot;That's a relief. The last thing we need is to have kids stoning their friends to death for &quot;cursing their mother or father&quot;.&quot;

For the benefit of others on this site, Kyle's friendly opponent JPH answered this at http://www.tektonics.org/barkquiz.html, #4. I'm sure Kyle would never lower himself to the level of a pillock like Barker.

And for the record, my comment was purely intended as a joke (a bit off-color perhaps, but a joke nonetheless). Judging another culture's morality is something to be done with extreme caution. Of course, there is a bit of irony here in that Christian missionaries have historically often viewed alien cultures as "savage" when they were likely no more "savage" than the ancient Israelites. But this only proves that Christians are just a likely to be ethnocentric as anyone else.

[Socrates]

Kyle:

"And for the record, my comment was purely intended as a joke (a bit off-color perhaps, but a joke nonetheless)."

I know, but I also know that many of your fellow countrymen have fallen for a pathetic victim culture, while Australians tend to be more robust (despite some moves in liberal circles to ape the worst of American political correctness). But I think both you and J.P. Holding should be declared honorary Australians, and I mean this as a warm compliment :)

Kyle:
"Judging another culture's morality is something to be done with extreme caution. Of course, there is a bit of irony here in that Christian missionaries have historically often viewed alien cultures as "savage" when they were likely no more "savage" than the ancient Israelites. But this only proves that Christians are just a likely to be ethnocentric as anyone else."

I think the following comment on JPH's Fundy Atheist page http://www.tektonics.org/fundyath.html is pertinent:

"You may be a fundy atheist if ...
You decry Christian missionaries for denying cultural relativism; denouncing their efforts to reform cannibalism, slavery and fear of animist spirits as judgmental intolerance. But your attacks on the Bible merely comprise anguished cries of "how barbaric" rather than reasoned arguments; and ignore all considerations of ritual cleanness, the evils of the Canaanites and the fact that ancient society was always one step from anarchy."

:cheers:

[jimbo]

>>Judging another culture's morality is something to be done with extreme caution.

I don't have a problem with it. For example, I don't know about you, but I consider the Taliban's treatment of women to have been morally wrong. How about you?




http://www.phillytalkradioonline.com/comment/afghanwomen.html

Fall 1998

The situation is getting so bad that one person in an editorial of the Times compared the treatment of women there to the treatment of Jews in pre-Holocaust Poland. Since the Taliban took power in 1996, women have had to wear burqua and have been beaten and stoned in public for not having the proper attire, even if this means simply not having the mesh covering in front of their eyes. One woman was beaten to death by an angry mob of fundamentalists for accidentally exposing her arm while she was driving. Another was stoned to death for trying to leave the country with a man that was not a relative.


http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=420078

01-28-03 09:51:31 AM SouthernFriedYankee

...I have watched a fundamentalist Islamic crowd stone two women to death. They were covered head to toe in shockingly white linen – the better to see the bloodstains. Taken into a field and buried up to their waists, they looked like odd white sails on a sand horizon, until the stones began to fly, leaving red carnations where they landed. One of the women just crumpled, bent at the waist, and I still pray that this person was knocked unconscious within the first minute or so. The other did not go peacefully into that good night. She died fighting and struggling, enduring the most sickening lurches as the unseen stones fell on her, twisting under that now-scarlet hood, trying to protect her face as best she could, as hundreds of her friends and relatives vented their rage, calling out the name of their god as we would cheer on the Tamba Bay Buccaneers. Allahu Ackbar! Allahu Ackbar! Allahu Ackbar!

>>"You may be a fundy atheist if ...
You decry Christian missionaries for denying cultural relativism; denouncing their efforts to reform cannibalism, slavery and fear of animist spirits as judgmental intolerance. But your attacks on the Bible merely comprise anguished cries of "how barbaric" rather than reasoned arguments; and ignore all considerations of ritual cleanness, the evils of the Canaanites and the fact that ancient society was always one step from anarchy."

That is a lame the-ends-justifies-the-means rationalization. I am sure that the the same sort of rationalization could be made for the Taliban's treatment of women. The Taliban could claim that if they did not stone women to death for exposing their ankles, it would lead to the destruction of their society. The Nazis used the same sorts of rationalizations when they built the concentration camps.

Kyle

[Socrates]

Well well well, so Jimbo = Kyle. I wonder what the Mods think about having two handles :bonk:

>>Judging another culture's morality is something to be done with extreme caution.

K/J:
"I don't have a problem with it. For example, I don't know about you, but I consider the Taliban's treatment of women to have been morally wrong. How about you?"

Yes, but then I have a good reason: both men and women were created in God's image. And I like the suggestion that if Osama Bin Laden were captured, a fitting punishment would be to give him a sex change operation then send him back to live under the Taliban.

But if we're just rearranged pond scum as you believe, then what's the problem? The founders of evolution, including Darwin, were incredibly sexist, and male superiority ideas were a major component in his theories of human origins. For example, Darwin thought that one advantage of marriage was that a woman was an "object to be beloved and played with--better than a dog anyhow" (Autobiography, WW Norton, NY, pp. 232-233, 1958).


>>"You may be a fundy atheist if ...
You decry Christian missionaries for denying cultural relativism; denouncing their efforts to reform cannibalism, slavery and fear of animist spirits as judgmental intolerance. But your attacks on the Bible merely comprise anguished cries of "how barbaric" rather than reasoned arguments; and ignore all considerations of ritual cleanness, the evils of the Canaanites and the fact that ancient society was always one step from anarchy."

Kyle:
"That is a lame the-ends-justifies-the-means rationalization."

I'd call it a reasonable action for the greater good. But again, under your own belief system, there is no real difference between, say, Osama killing 3000 people on 11 September and a frog killing thousands of flies.

Kyle:
"I am sure that the the same sort of rationalization could be made for the Taliban's treatment of women. The Taliban could claim that if they did not stone women to death for exposing their ankles, it would lead to the destruction of their society. The Nazis used the same sorts of rationalizations when they built the concentration camps. "

Come on, let's have specifics please. JPH and Glenn Miller have amply documented their claims about the child sacrifice of the Canaanites, their many chances to repent, and the precariousness of ancient society. But the Holocaust was blatantly evolution-inspired. For example, Sir Arthur Keith, himself a leading evolutionist, wrote in Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947:

"The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Socrates:

I do believe these two are two different Kyles.

[TheFiveSolas]

Dee Dee & Socrates,
Jimbo likes to sign a different name to each post. I haven't yet figured out why. Of course, I've been told that its foolish to try to understand the irrational.

Also, I'll be interested to see how Jimbo answers Socrates' assertion that his system of thought can't account for objective and universally binding morals.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Oh thank you Five Solas.. that is quite odd ain't it though? Hmm. What I found ironic when I really contemplated evolution is the way that we are actually (if evolution is true, which it is not) hindering evoluation by having human compassion.

What I mean is how do evolutionary atheists really justify humanitarian efforts such as assiting the mentally handicapped or even allowing what is perceived as "less fit" members of our society to reproduce. I am not trying to be inflammatory here, so I apologize for any ackward wording, I am being genuine.

I mean if evolution is true, our helping of the weak is logically damaging to our species isn't it? Just a thought. Of course as a Christian and as a human bieng with certain things written on my heart, I KNOW that is wrong, but it is perfectly consistent with Darwinian philosophy.

[citizenkyle]

Dee Dee Warren:
Dear Socrates:

I do believe these two are two different Kyles.

Yes, for the record, I am not Jimbo. Interesting to see Socrates reply to Jimbo's comments with Socrates thinking Jimbo was me though. ;) Socrates: didn't it strike you as odd that I was quoting and replying to myself, not to mention doing an abrupt about face from my earlier position?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Kyle.. people get weird online... I have seen stranger things. LOL>

[Socrates]

Dee Dee Warren correctly noted a major problem with evolution:

"What I found ironic when I really contemplated evolution is the way that we are actually (if evolution is true, which it is not) hindering evoluation by having human compassion.

What I mean is how do evolutionary atheists really justify humanitarian efforts such as assiting the mentally handicapped or even allowing what is perceived as "less fit" members of our society to reproduce. I am not trying to be inflammatory here, so I apologize for any ackward wording, I am being genuine.

I mean if evolution is true, our helping of the weak is logically damaging to our species isn't it? Just a thought. Of course as a Christian and as a human bieng with certain things written on my heart, I KNOW that is wrong, but it is perfectly consistent with Darwinian philosophy."

Darwin himself said as much (The Descent of Man, 2nd Ed., pp. 133–134, 1887):

"With savages, the weak in body and mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands who, from a weak constitution, would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilised society propagate their kind.

No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but, excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered in the manner previously indicated more tender and more widely diffused. Nor can we check our sympathy, even without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature … We must, therefore, bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind."

Despite the distorted picture of that garbage "Inherit the Wind", William Jennings Bryan had some excellent points to make about the dangers of evolution. In his closing address (not presented at the trial), he quoted the above. This gives the lie to the portrayal in that film that he had never read Darwin "... and I never will". Bryan was extremely concerned at the way the ultra-capitalist "robber barons" used "survival of the fittest" to justify their exploitation.

[citizenkyle]

Socrates:
But if we're just rearranged pond scum as you believe, then what's the problem? The founders of evolution, including Darwin, were incredibly sexist, and male superiority ideas were a major component in his theories of human origins. For example, Darwin thought that one advantage of marriage was that a woman was an &quot;object to be beloved and played with--better than a dog anyhow&quot; (Autobiography, WW Norton, NY, pp. 232-233, 1958).

Even though I didn't write the post the prompted this, I do hold evolution to be true, so I will take a moment to respond to this. Especially since it is a slander oft repeated by Christians.

Yes, Darwin was sexist and racist. He was the product of a Victorian society where sexism and racism were the order of the day. A "Christian" society too, by the way. Darwin was not hateful about these things - indeed he was a gentle and detached intellectual who simply took the superiority of Europeans and men for granted as did the vast majority of his peers. I'm not excusing him, I'm just laying out the facts.

As for evolution, Darwin did at times try to fit his preconceived views about sex and race into the evolutionary paradigm. And he was wrong. He was wrong about other details of evolution too. Generations of scientists have improved upon and refined his theory, weeding out his errors as they have gone. This is how science works and is one of its most wonderful aspects. The core of evolution is still recognizable as Darwinnian, but the theory has undergone much change. Evolution does not support a racist or sexist paradigm. That its founder held to these beliefs is of no more relevance than the fact that Martin Luther was a racist.

As for your "better than a dog" quote. That was a remark taken from his personal journal which, in context, is clearly facetious.

[citizenkyle]

Dee Dee Warren:
Oh thank you Five Solas.. that is quite odd ain't it though? Hmm. What I found ironic when I really contemplated evolution is the way that we are actually (if evolution is true, which it is not) hindering evoluation by having human compassion.

What I mean is how do evolutionary atheists really justify humanitarian efforts such as assiting the mentally handicapped or even allowing what is perceived as &quot;less fit&quot; members of our society to reproduce. I am not trying to be inflammatory here, so I apologize for any ackward wording, I am being genuine.

Evolution describes a process which occurs in the natural world. That's it. It says absolutely nothing about how we ought to act. Evolution is a brutal and vicious process which if we, as a species, can avoid it - so much the better. Evolution wipes out the weak because resources are limited. But if we have the resources to support the weak, there is no reason to bow to selection pressure. Rebelling against evolution in this sense is no different than rebelling against a river by building a dam.


Dee Dee Warren:
I mean if evolution is true, our helping of the weak is logically damaging to our species isn't it?

Not really. Our technological progess has so far outstripped biological evolution as to render it irrelevant.

[Socrates]

Kyle (the real one ;)) wrote:

"Even though I didn't write the post the prompted this, I do hold evolution to be true, so I will take a moment to respond to this. Especially since it is a slander oft repeated by Christians."

How can it be a slander, since it's not directed at any person, but against an ideology.

K:
"Yes, Darwin was sexist and racist. He was the product of a Victorian society where sexism and racism were the order of the day. A "Christian" society too, by the way."

More likely, a society heavily influenced by the Endarkenment, and very much into the idea of Progress. That explains why Darwin's theory became so popular while previous evolutionary ideas, including by his own grandfather, stalled.

But actually, he and his followers used evolution to EXTEND these cultural ideas of racism and sexism even further.

K:
"Darwin was not hateful about these things - indeed he was a gentle and detached intellectual who simply took the superiority of Europeans and men for granted as did the vast majority of his peers. I'm not excusing him, I'm just laying out the facts."

I know he was a gentle man, and had the interesting characteristic of being a racist abolitionist!

K:
"As for evolution, Darwin did at times try to fit his preconceived views about sex and race into the evolutionary paradigm. And he was wrong. He was wrong about other details of evolution too. Generations of scientists have improved upon and refined his theory, weeding out his errors as they have gone. This is how science works and is one of its most wonderful aspects."

Yes, that's right, science is wonderful because it is self-correcting. But that entails that it wasn't correct before. This shows up the absurdity of the likes of J.J. Ramsay and the ASA "re-interpret" Scripture to fit into the science of the day. Tomorrow, they'll have to re-interpret their re-interpretations!

K:
"The core of evolution is still recognizable as Darwinnian, but the theory has undergone much change. Evolution does not support a racist or sexist paradigm."

Evolution neither supports nor denies these. But it can give no basis for denying them, while support of them is CONSISTENT with evolution and INCONSISTENT with Christianity.

K:
"That its founder held to these beliefs is of no more relevance than the fact that Martin Luther was a racist."

Once again, his anti-semitism seems to be his table-talk in his embittered old age.

K:
"As for your "better than a dog" quote. That was a remark taken from his personal journal which, in context, is clearly facetious."

Of course, but it was in line with his general sexism.

[citizenkyle]

Socrates:
Bryan was extremely concerned at the way the ultra-capitalist &quot;robber barons&quot; used &quot;survival of the fittest&quot; to justify their exploitation.

And he was perfectly correct to be concerned in this regard. The robber barons were abusively and inappropriately co-opting the ideas of evolution for their own greedy ends. This is no different from the countless 'faith healers" and other charlatan preachers who abusively and inappropriately co-opt Christianity for their own greedy ends.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Kyle:

I did not intend my comments as a slander against you or atheists, but as the logical and consistent applications of a particular philopshy. I will interact futher with your comments when I can clear some time.

[Socrates]

Kyle:

"And he was perfectly correct to be concerned in this regard. The robber barons were abusively and inappropriately co-opting the ideas of evolution for their own greedy ends. This is no different from the countless 'faith healers" and other charlatan preachers who abusively and inappropriately co-opt Christianity for their own greedy ends."

Once again, these robber barons were acting CONSISTENTLY with evolution; the Benny Hinns act INCONSISTENTLY with Scripture.

[Dee Dee Warren]

But with all due respect Kyle, I think the knowledge that God has written in your heart is speaking more in your comments than the philopshy of naturalism... for there is no "ought" in such a view. Ought implies an outside standard. Why should we waste our resources on the weak if we have them when they can be used to make the strong stronger? How is modern technology making up for allowing our species to propogate the less intelligent??

[citizenkyle]

Socrates:
Yes, that's right, science is wonderful because it is self-correcting. But that entails that it wasn't correct before.

It entails that science is wise enough to recognize the possibility of error and be ever vigilant in trying to catch such errors.


Socrates:
Evolution neither supports nor denies these. But it can give no basis for denying them, while support of them is CONSISTENT with evolution and INCONSISTENT with Christianity.

I'm afraid you are mistaken here. Modern evolutionary biology gives no quarter to racism. Whatever remnants may still exist are effectively demolished in Jared Diamond's wonderful treatise "Guns, Germs & Steel". In fact, if any kind of racism can said to be supported by evolution it is the superiority of the "savage" over the "civilized". After all, a dumb American can live a long robust life. A dumb hunter gatherer tribesmen (what few still exist) is likely to be eaten by a predator. :o

As for sexism, I suppose you could support some division of labor paradigm - if we were hunter gatherers. Forunately, technology has leveled the playing field, effectively minimizing whatever general strength advantage men have.

[citizenkyle]

Dee Dee Warren:
Dear Kyle:

I did not intend my comments as a slander against you or atheists, but as the logical and consistent applications of a particular philopshy. I will interact futher with your comments when I can clear some time.

No worries. :) I understood the nature of your comments. They are important questions (often asked) that deserve considered answers. I look forward to discussing these matters with you.

[Socrates]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
Yes, that's right, science is wonderful because it is self-correcting. But that entails that it wasn't correct before.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle:

"It entails that science is wise enough to recognize the possibility of error and be ever vigilant in trying to catch such errors. "

Yes, I know, I'm a scientist after all. I'm just concerned at the compromisers who fail to realize its limitations, and twist God's propositional revelation to fit current scientific fashions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
Evolution neither supports nor denies these. But it can give no basis for denying them, while support of them is CONSISTENT with evolution and INCONSISTENT with Christianity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle:

"I'm afraid you are mistaken here. Modern evolutionary biology gives no quarter to racism. Whatever remnants may still exist are effectively demolished in Jared Diamond's wonderful treatise "Guns, Germs & Steel". In fact, if any kind of racism can said to be supported by evolution it is the superiority of the "savage" over the "civilized". After all, a dumb American can live a long robust life. A dumb hunter gatherer tribesmen (what few still exist) is likely to be eaten by a predator."

No, this still misses the point. Modern biology, which really has nothing to do with evolution, has finally caught up with the Biblical teaching that there is only ONE human race. But evolution can at best point out that the "races" are biologically equal -- it can NEVER say that they OUGHT to be TREATED equally. This is what DDW also pointed out.

Kyle:

"As for sexism, I suppose you could support some division of labor paradigm - if we were hunter gatherers. Forunately, technology has leveled the playing field, effectively minimizing whatever general strength advantage men have."

Once again, evolution might prove that women are the equal of men, but it can never prove that men ought to treat women well, while the Bible does provide a basis.

__________________
"What does God need with a starship?"

--Captain James T. Kirk

Quite!

[Blake Reas]

Kyle,

I have one question about your views on Evolution. You say that we have outstripped evolution that it is in fact slowed do to our technology. That in no way answers the question of WHY? Why should I feel like I need to help the homeless? Why should I not want the handicapped killed? But most of all WHY is it wrong to do all evil things and how do you account for Evil? To say that it just is because of evolution doesn't do it. If Atheism is true I believe that Nietzsche had everything figured out! (These are in no way slandering questions, I am honestly asking them because normally when I ask an Atheist they ridicule me instead of giving an answer. I see that you normally try and answer everything and you seem to be pretty honest!)

I respect you more than any other non-believer, I love you stuff you are doing at Tektonics with JP!!!;)

In Christ,
Blake

[citizenkyle]

Socrates:
No, this still misses the point. Modern biology, which really has nothing to do with evolution, has finally caught up with the Biblical teaching that there is only ONE human race. But evolution can at best point out that the &quot;races&quot; are biologically equal -- it can NEVER say that they OUGHT to be TREATED equally. This is what DDW also pointed out.

Oh, I see what you are saying. You are, of course, correct to note that evolution does not tell us what we "ought" to do. Morality is not the province of science.

[citizenkyle]

Blake Reas:
I have one question about your views on Evolution. You say that we have outstripped evolution that it is in fact slowed do to our technology. That in no way answers the question of WHY? Why should I feel like I need to help the homeless? Why should I not want the handicapped killed? But most of all WHY is it wrong to do all evil things and how do you account for Evil? To say that it just is because of evolution doesn't do it.

No it doesn't. My system of morality is in no way based on evolution. But what the heck is it based on you ask? That is an excellent question that deserves a better response than I can manufacture in the couple of minutes I have right now. I promise I will post an answer tomorrow.


Blake Reas:
(These are in no way slandering questions, I am honestly asking them because normally when I ask an Atheist they ridicule me instead of giving an answer.

That is really too bad. I'm hearing a lot of negative experiences with atheists from Christians and there is no reason it should be that way. Of course, I hear just the reverse from the atheist side. My hope (grandiose as it may be) is that my project with JP can help to bridge this unnecessary rift of incivility.


Blake Reas:
I see that you normally try and answer everything and you seem to be pretty honest!)

Well, at least I "seem" honest. :)


Blake Reas:
I respect you more than any other non-believer, I love you stuff you are doing at Tektonics with JP!!!;)

Thanks. I appreciate hearing that. As I said, I hope this thing with JP can lead the way in terms of a general trend.

[jimbo]

random subjects
Post# 12787

Socrates,

>>Well well well, so Jimbo = Kyle. I wonder what the Mods think about having two handles

Keep wondering my friend--I am not him.

>>Yes, but then I have a good reason: both men and women were created in God's image.

So is God a hermaphrodite?

>>But if we're just rearranged pond scum as you believe, then what's the problem? The founders of evolution, including Darwin, were incredibly sexist, and male superiority ideas were a major component in his theories of human origins. For example, Darwin thought that one advantage of marriage was that a woman was an "object to be beloved and played with--better than a dog anyhow" (Autobiography, WW Norton, NY, pp. 232-233, 1958).

The founders of Christianity were incredibly sexist and male superiority ideas were a major component in Christian theories of human origins. For example:




"Church father Tertullian explained why women deserve their status as despised and inferior human beings:

'And do you nor know that you are an Eve? The Sentence of God on this set-of yours lives in this age, the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert--that is, death--even the Son of God had to die.' "

"Others expressed the view more bluntly. The sixth century Christian philosopher, Boethius, wrote in The Consolation of Philosophy, 'Woman is a temple built upon a sewer.' Bishops at the sixth century Council of Macon voted as to whether women had souls. In the tenth century Odo of Cluny declared, 'To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure...' The thirteenth century St. Thomas Aquinas suggested that God had made a mistake in creating woman: 'nothing [deficient] or defective should have been produced in the first establishment of things; so woman ought not to have been produced then.' And Lutherans at Wittenberg debated whether women were really human beings at all. Orthodox Christians held women responsible for all sin. As the Bible's Apocrypha states, 'Of woman came the beginning of sin/ And thanks to her, we all must die.' "

Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History,1995, Morningstar Books, San Rafael, CA, page115


Regardless of an offhand comment found in Darwin's journal and what this may or may not say about his personal life, the basic theory he developed is still with us after 150 years of testing and research. But that is a different issue...

>>I'd call it a reasonable action for the greater good. But again, under your own belief system, there is no real difference between, say, Osama killing 3000 people on 11 September and a frog killing thousands of flies.

Well, I don't feel that way, but thanks for guessing.

It is interesting that you bring up Osama Bin Laden and his band or merry religious fanatics. Interesting because they consider their killing and massacring as reasonable actions "for the greater good." They regard us in the West as a threat to their religion and to their survival and they use this belief to justify their actions. I think we can all agree that they are sick, brainwashed, evil, deranged and deluded morons, yet they think of themselves as glorious upstanding warriors fighting a holy war for Allah. Perhaps these Muslim religious nuts regard us in the West in the same way that the Israelites regarded the Canaanites and the Amalekites. When religious fundamentalists think that they are acting for their god's benefit, they can justify virtually anything. If the Al Quaida group could detonate a nuke in one our cities, they would do so in the firm belief that it would be for the greater glory of Allah.

>>Kyle: "I am sure that the same sort of rationalization could be made for the Taliban's treatment of women. The Taliban could claim that if they did not stone women to death for exposing their ankles, it would lead to the destruction of their society. The Nazis used the same sorts of rationalizations when they built the concentration camps. "

>>Come on, let's have specifics please.

Christians in Europe and Germany considered the Jews a problem for centuries and continually persecuted and murdered them in pogroms. Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism, continually depicted Jews as evil. Other Christians called them "Christ-killers." The Nazis called their slaughter of the Jews the "Final Solution." The Nazis considered the Jews a threat to their society. None of this is a secret.

Muslim fundamentalists tend to have issues with sex. They tend to be very repressed about sex, much like Christian fundamentalists. The Taliban seemed to think that displays of female flesh would drive men to sin and this uncontrolled sinning would ruin the purity of their theocracy. So the Taliban stoned women to death for showing their ankles.

>>JPH and Glenn Miller have amply documented their claims about the child sacrifice of the Canaanites, their many chances to repent, and the precariousness of ancient society. But the Holocaust was blatantly evolution-inspired. For example, Sir Arthur Keith, himself a leading evolutionist, wrote in Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947:

>>"The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."

"(T)he Holocaust was blatantly evolution inspired"? I could claim, with much greater justification, that the Holocaust was blatantly Christianity-inspired. After all, we have a great deal of documentation showing that for centuries Christians persecuted and murdered Jews in Europe simply because they were not Christians. It seems that the culmination of this was the Holocaust. The Jews were being persecuted and killed by Christians long before Darwin's great great grandpappy was even born.

I know that over the last 150 years people have misused terminology and ideas from evolutionary science to support racist and immoral policies. Of course people misconstrue and misuse science all the time. It is crying shame that this happens.

Reginald

[Socrates]

Socrates,

>>Well well well, so Jimbo = Kyle. I wonder what the Mods think about having two handles

Jimbo:
"Keep wondering my friend--I am not him."

Jimbo:
"Then make up your mind (if you have one) what name to sign yourself as. I regret insulting the real Kyle."

>>Yes, but then I have a good reason: both men and women were created in God's image.

Jimbo:
"So is God a hermaphrodite?"

Oh, puh-lease. Obviously since God is spirit, then the image and likeness of God cannot be anything to do with material aspect of mankind. But J.P. holding can explain his view on what the image of God means, based on his studies of historical context.

>>But if we're just rearranged pond scum as you believe, then what's the problem? The founders of evolution, including Darwin, were incredibly sexist, and male superiority ideas were a major component in his theories of human origins. For example, Darwin thought that one advantage of marriage was that a woman was an "object to be beloved and played with--better than a dog anyhow" (Autobiography, WW Norton, NY, pp. 232-233, 1958).

Jimbo:
"The founders of Christianity were incredibly sexist and male superiority ideas were a major component in Christian theories of human origins. For example: ..."

How boring. Of course, none of this comes from the Bible, which is the real foundation of Christianity, but merely some supposed quotes from Christian writers according to some demented feminist.

The book Christianity on Trial (see review (http://www.tektonics.org/chrtrial.html) is far more reliable, and documents the contributions Christianity has made to women.

The famous anti-slavery writer Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811–1896, author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852)), wrote Woman in Sacred History (1873), and stated in the Introduction (p. 11):



The object of the following pages will be to show, in a series of biographical sketches, a history of WOMANHOOD UNDER DIVINE CULTURE, tending toward the development of that high ideal of woman which we find in modern Christian countries.


I also suggest consulting Glenn Miller's article Women in the Heart of God (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/femalex.html)

Jimbo:
"Regardless of an offhand comment found in Darwin's journal and what this may or may not say about his personal life, the basic theory he developed is still with us after 150 years of testing and research. But that is a different issue..."

Yes, and the theory is with us, and has no more support now than it did in Darwin's day!

Jimbo:
"It is interesting that you bring up Osama Bin Laden and his band or merry religious fanatics. Interesting because they consider their killing and massacring as reasonable actions "for the greater good." They regard us in the West as a threat to their religion and to their survival and they use this belief to justify their actions. I think we can all agree that they are sick, brainwashed, evil, deranged and deluded morons, yet they think of themselves as glorious upstanding warriors fighting a holy war for Allah. Perhaps these Muslim religious nuts regard us in the West in the same way that the Israelites regarded the Canaanites and the Amalekites. When religious fundamentalists think that they are acting for their god's benefit, they can justify virtually anything. If the Al Quaida group could detonate a nuke in one our cities, they would do so in the firm belief that it would be for the greater glory of Allah."

Simple -- they would be wrong, while the Israelites were right. Oh, but of course, according to Jimbo the misotheistic bigot, all religions are equally false (apart from his own atheistic faith :P).

>>Kyle: "I am sure that the same sort of rationalization could be made for the Taliban's treatment of women. The Taliban could claim that if they did not stone women to death for exposing their ankles, it would lead to the destruction of their society. The Nazis used the same sorts of rationalizations when they built the concentration camps. "

>>Come on, let's have specifics please.

Jimbo:
"Christians in Europe and Germany considered the Jews a problem for centuries and continually persecuted and murdered them in pogroms. Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism, continually depicted Jews as evil."

Actually, only after he was a disillusioned old man. He stated off as very pro-semitic. But once more, we have the same issue: the BIBLE does not sanction any of this, therefore these people were acting INCONSISTENTLY with Christianity. But the Nazis were acting CONSISTENTLY with evolution, as evolutionist Arthur Keith admitted.

Jimbo:

"Other Christians called them "Christ-killers."

Crass stupidity, again without basis in Scripture which is all that matters. If anything, it's the Italians who should be called Christ-killers, since Christ was flogged with a Roman flesh-tearing whip, had Roman nails hammered into His hands and feet, and was put on a Roman-built cross, under the orders of the craven Ponch (Pontius Pilatus).

Jimbo:
"The Nazis called their slaughter of the Jews the "Final Solution." The Nazis considered the Jews a threat to their society. None of this is a secret."

Indeed it is not, but it does seem to be a well kept secret how anti-Christian the Nazis were. But this is changing -- see Nazis planned to exterminate Christianity (www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v24n3_nazis.asp)

Jimbo:
"Muslim fundamentalists tend to have issues with sex. They tend to be very repressed about sex, much like Christian fundamentalists. "

Nonsense, at least as far as conservative (biblical) Christianity is concerned. The Bible treats sex as good, but only in the right context of marriage.

[Pate]

citizenkyle:
No it doesn't. My system of morality is in no way based on evolution. But what the heck is it based on you ask? That is an excellent question that deserves a better response than I can manufacture in the couple of minutes I have right now. I promise I will post an answer tomorrow.


This might be a subject that is worth its own thread. So, maybe you should start a new thread either here or in the philosophy-section.

[citizenkyle]

Blake:

I promised you an answer to the question of what I base my moral system on. The following is an excerpt from a paper I wrote on that very issue.

"I would argue that even *with a God*, objective morality is a pipe dream. Let's start there.

Moral questions are, by their very nature, goal oriented. Every statement "Doing x is good." begs the question: "For what end?". What goal does x help one achieve? There are those who claim x is "good in and of itself" or "inherently good". But this is meaningless tautological nonsense equivalent to answering the question "Why is x good?" with the answer "Because it is good." X is only good or bad relative to the goal of the acting moral agent.

We can examine moral choices in terms of their goal orientation. For instance, a person may have the goal of gaining wealth. Thus, in order to gain wealth, stealing is good. But, most likely, that is not our person's lone goal and not all goals carry equal weight. Suppose our person is a Christian who wants to gain wealth. While stealing would be good for the end of gaining wealth, there is a higher order goal (such as obeying the commandment "Thou shalt not steal") which vetoes the garnering of riches. Indeed, there may be a number of goals which would override stealing, such as the goal of avoiding jail. There will inevitably be a hierarchy of goals with some sort of overarching ultimate goal at the top of the heap. For the Christian, the ultimate goal might be something like "loving, serving, and obeying God." Thus, in the grand scheme of things, no matter how much booty was available for the looting, the Christian would have to consider stealing inconsistent with his ultimate goal, and therefore "bad".

This is all pretty straight forward, but let's turn the tables and suppose that our person is a Satan worshipper whose ultimate goal is to "disobey God and gather riches for the Dark Lord". How would one go about arguing with this person that stealing is bad? Clearly, any contention about the will of God would not sway such a person. In fact, it would only act as an impetus to "disobey". The only way to convince the Satanist not to steal would be to couch one's reasoning within the framework of their ultimate goal. For instance, one might argue that the risk of incarceration is too great, and if jail time had to be served then stealing would result in a less cost effective gathering of riches than a more legitimate alternative. But the bottom line is that there are no objective standards that apply to all. "Good" and "bad" must be calibrated according to each individual's goals.

Since people will inevitably have varying goals and goal conflicts, this seems like rather hopeless situation. Given such a situation, one might wonder how I can possibly expect us to avoid moral chaos. If human goals were, in actuality, wildly divergent across the board, there could be no reconciling morality. But there is common ground and many humans share goals. So we must ask: is there one goal all humans share? Yes there is, and that goal is happiness. No human being I am aware of wants to be unhappy. Even masochists derive a kind of pleasure from their pain. I would go so far as to argue that happiness is the driving motivation behind all human action. That is, people always act with the intention of increasing their happiness (or decreasing their unhappiness which amounts to the same thing).

Of course, people are not always adept at judging what will make them happy. Sometimes they make decisions that result in disastrous (if unintended) consequences. And there is also the issue of short term happiness vs. long term happiness. Sometimes people will act to satisfy some short term desire (say "lust for a coworker") at the expense of a long term desire (say "staying married"). Short term desires must be risk managed so as to not thwart long term happiness.

On the surface, this might sound like a call to do whatever one wants and the hell with everyone else. But, if we examine things more closely, we will see that that would be a poor strategy for long term happiness. Suppose one decided to murder, steal, lie, cheat, betray, etc whenever it struck one's fancy. Human nature is to reciprocate and a person who employed such a strategy would soon find their self under constant threat of being murdered, stolen from, lied to, cheated, betrayed, etc. I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of people would like to avoid these fates. Because reciprocity is part and parcel of human nature, there is only one way to insulate oneself from such threats. That is to agree with all the other members of a given society to a list of proscribed actions. This list will inevitably be divided into two parts: 1) Those actions which will be enforced informally by societal peer pressure and social condemnation (say lying) and 2) Those actions which will be formally punished by organized authority (say murder). Tacit agreements of this sort are how moral systems develop out of nothing more than enlightened self-interest.

Which brings up to the $20,000 question. Which actions go on the list? Up until now, everything has applied equally to theists and secularists alike. But here is where theists have it easy. If they believe in a loving, all-wise deity, it stands to reason that His dictates will be in one's own best interest. For secularists, things are a little more complicated. We must utilize vigorous public debate to compile our list. And, we must constantly reexamine the list in light of new information and circumstances, making changes as necessary. This is a truly democratic process. Because every action an individual takes, however minor, helps to mold society for good or ill, the question that is often asked during this process is: "What kind of society do I (and my descendants) want to live in?". But there is a better question: "What kind of society would I (and my descendants) want to live in if our lot in life was cast at random?". This helps to eliminate circumstantial bias and acts as insurance against the fickle winds of fortune. Interestingly, these moral foundations are well captured by a couple of old religious adages - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "There, but for the grace of God, go I". "

[citizenkyle]

Pate:


This might be a subject that is worth its own thread. So, maybe you should start a new thread either here or in the philosophy-section.

Very well. I will start a new thread in Religion 101 titled "Atheist morailty?" where I will reproduce my above post. All future discussions on this topic should be directed there.