8 of 26
8
Should theistic fact claims be subjected to the same standards of scrutiny as other fact claims?
Posted: 30 August 2013 10:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 106 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  814
Joined  2012-04-25
LilySmith - 29 August 2013 05:03 PM
CuthbertJ - 29 August 2013 02:34 PM

You skirted my question.  How do YOU know what God chooses to think or chooses to promise at the time of you being on the bridge? Are you saying God is constrained to do exactly as prescribed in an old human written book (even if it was inspired by Him)?  How about answer my question? How do you know God Himself isn’t waiting to see how you answer it?

Yes, I’m saying God will not contradict the promises he’s made in the Bible, which was written through the inspiration of His Spirit. This question has been answered by the example of Jesus:

“Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. ‘If you are the Son of God,’ he said, ‘throw yourself down. For it is written: “He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.”’  Jesus answered him, ‘It is also written: “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.”

Your question of whether I should jump off a bridge to prove God will save me has been answered—Do not put the Lord your God to the test.  Christians don’t test God, we have faith.

First, I want to say again that I do appreciate (as I’m sure others here do too) your jumping into the lions den so to speak smile  Compared to most Christians I’ve met, you’re very thoughtful and knowledgeable about your religion. That said…

It sounds again like you skirted my question. You said God will not contradict his promises. How do you know that? Are you claiming to know the current mind or thinking of God? Perhaps for some reason beyond anything us mortals can ever comprehend, he does in fact choose to contradict an earlier promise. Perhaps having given us free will, he’s now seeing the consequences, and chooses to Yes, in fact desire us to test him, as sort of a proof to him that you believe in him.  So, answer my question.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2013 10:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 107 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
LilySmith - 30 August 2013 09:19 AM

Most witch burnings took place in areas where the church was weak and were often a case of local secular law when predominately women complained about other women. “Most of the accusations originated in “conflicts [that] normally opposed one woman to another, with men liable to become involved only at a later stage as ancillaries to the original dispute.” Briggs adds that “most informal accusations were made by women against other women, ... [and only] leaked slowly across to the men who controlled the political structures of local society.” The church isn’t completely innocent, but it isn’t a Christian teaching.

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Exodus 22:18.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2013 11:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 108 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
GdB - 30 August 2013 01:24 AM
LilySmith - 29 August 2013 10:05 AM

The very word atheist defines you based on your relation to a theist.

Exactly. So the ‘atheist belief’ is different for every religious culture. It is defined by what it is not. And that is the reason that it is not a belief in itself, but a non-belief. The atheist must not prove anything, it is the theist that makes a positive statement about the existence of something, so the burden of proof is on his side.

LilySmith - 29 August 2013 10:05 AM

If it’s truly a non-belief, why call yourself an atheist at all; why define yourself based on your rejection of God?

I don’t call myself an atheist. I am only arguing against your position that atheism would be a belief.

Of course I have a lot of beliefs: I believe that the earth is round and revolves around the sun (this is definitely a true belief, because it is justified by many observations and experiments), I believe in evolution (many, many empirical(!) proofs for it), I believe Jesus was a historical person who predicted the apocalypse in his own lifetime (many hints in this direction, but it is not secured very well, therefore it is a disputed point), I believe that the universe has started to expand from a very concentrated hot phase to where we are now, and I believe that it is possible to experience that I am not a separate entity from my body and that such a view makes life more realistic, easier and more worthwile, and that meditation is a way to this experience (I might be wrong!).

So what should I call myself? Humanist, secularist, maybe a little Buddhist? But if I discuss with somebody who believes something else then I am supposed to be an ‘a-what-he-thinks-ist’? Am I an a-racist, an a-conservativist, an a-communist?

Am I an a-parapsychologist, an a-iriscopist, an a-homeopathist? Must I bring proofs of these, or can I just wait and see till the proof of their beliefs is given? Why should I define myself as an a-theist?


You wrote: Of course I have a lot of beliefs: I believe that the earth is round and revolves around the sun (this is definitely a true belief, because it is justified by many observations and experiments), I believe in evolution (many, many empirical(!) proofs for it)

Lois: If there are empirical proofs for anything, no belief is necessary.  Without them, it’s a destructive fantasy to accept them as true.

 

You wrote: So what should I call myself? Humanist, secularist, maybe a little Buddhist? But if I discuss with somebody who believes something else then I am supposed to be an ‘a-what-he-thinks-ist’? Am I an a-racist, an a-conservativist, an a-communist?

Lois: You should call yourself uninformed and confused.  That would cover it nicely.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2013 11:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 109 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
PLaClair - 30 August 2013 09:36 AM
LilySmith - 30 August 2013 08:42 AM

I see it as a position that has been thought about and a determination made to reject the theist position and believe there is no God or gods. 

Ah, the old shell game. Leave it to Smith to shift from negative to positive atheism in mid-sentence, and then of course deny that there’s a difference. “Wa-wa-wa-wa-wa! I can’t hear you!”

LilySmith - 30 August 2013 08:42 AM

Some languages have contrasting words for, say, clean and dirty.  But some languages use clean and unclean.  There is no language, however, that uses dirty and undirty.  I don’t know all languages, so I don’t know if there is a word somewhere to describe someone who is without God in a way that doesn’t reference God.  If you aren’t a conservative, you may be a liberal.  If you aren’t a communist, you may be a capitalist.  If you’re not a racist you can be described as impartial.  But I can find a good word for someone who doesn’t believe in God other than a-theist.

Atheism stands alone. See http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/whats-so-special-about-christianity/ .

“Agnostic” and “secularist” denote people who do not believe in a god. There are probably other terms too.

I wonder we what should call people who don’t believe in Zeus or Thor or any of the Greek, Egyptian or Roman gods?

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2013 11:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 110 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
Lois - 30 August 2013 11:07 AM

Lois: If there are empirical proofs for anything, no belief is necessary.  Without them, it’s a destructive fantasy to accept them as true.

You wrote: So what should I call myself? Humanist, secularist, maybe a little Buddhist? But if I discuss with somebody who believes something else then I am supposed to be an ‘a-what-he-thinks-ist’? Am I an a-racist, an a-conservativist, an a-communist?

Lois: You should call yourself uninformed and confused.  That would cover it nicely.

Lois, you’re being ridiculous, insisting that the word “belief” necessarily implies a lack of sufficient evidence, when the number one definition of the term includes no such condition.

Do the writings of virtually every leading secularist from Russell to Harris carry no weight with you?

What will it take for you to recognize that you’re reacting emotionally, probably for the reasons identified by GdB in post # 64?

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2013 11:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 111 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3253
Joined  2011-08-15

LilySmith - 30 August 2013 09:19 AM
Most witch burnings took place in areas where the church was weak and were often a case of local secular law when predominately women complained about other women. “Most of the accusations originated in “conflicts [that] normally opposed one woman to another, with men liable to become involved only at a later stage as ancillaries to the original dispute.” Briggs adds that “most informal accusations were made by women against other women, ... [and only] leaked slowly across to the men who controlled the political structures of local society.” The church isn’t completely innocent, but it isn’t a Christian teaching.

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Exodus 22:18.

What a hoot! Tell that to the 19 “bible believing” xtians and five others who died in prison during the Salem witch trials in 1692. Fired up by Calvinist preachers like Cotton Mather who preached that demons were real, the pious citizens of Salem accused their neighbors of witchcraft and hanged or pressed them to death. Who cares if a couple of drugged up girls set it off, without the religious catalyst it wouldn’t have happened. And this is only one of several examples of demonic possession. Even animals were hanged for being possessed.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2013 12:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 112 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

Check out K. David Goss, The Salem Witch Trials: A Reference Guide. See http://books.google.com/books?id=cwg178oYyU4C&pg=PA2&dq=salem+witch+trials+christianity&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TesgUsuiJam9sQTZtICYCQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=salem witch trials christianity&f=false .

One of many problems with LilySmith’s comments is that even when she seems knowledgeable, we can’t rely on a single word she writes.

And of course, she’s never going to address question in the topic title.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2013 12:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 113 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  296
Joined  2013-07-25
CuthbertJ - 30 August 2013 10:18 AM

Compared to most Christians I’ve met, you’re very thoughtful and knowledgeable about your religion. That said…

It sounds again like you skirted my question. You said God will not contradict his promises. How do you know that? Are you claiming to know the current mind or thinking of God? Perhaps for some reason beyond anything us mortals can ever comprehend, he does in fact choose to contradict an earlier promise. Perhaps having given us free will, he’s now seeing the consequences, and chooses to Yes, in fact desire us to test him, as sort of a proof to him that you believe in him.  So, answer my question.

First, thanks for the compliment.

As a Christian, I believe the message of Christ is a revelation from God of his thoughts and his actions. I believe Christ, as the Word of God, spoke for God and revealed God’s innermost thoughts.  Logos, in the Greek, in my understanding is—the innermost thought expressed outwardly.  Jesus is the innermost thought of God expressed to mankind in word and deed.  The Bible is the written word of God.  That revelation tells us that God does not change—“God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?”

You asked: “How do YOU know what God chooses to think or chooses to promise at the time of you being on the bridge?”

I know because I’ve studied the revelation and know what God expects of me.  He doesn’t want me to jump off a bridge and kill myself.  He doesn’t want me to jump off a bridge to test him.  If my time on earth is complete, he will take my life.  To kill myself is to usurp God’s authority over my life on earth.  I won’t do that.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2013 12:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 114 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  296
Joined  2013-07-25
PLaClair - 30 August 2013 10:26 AM
LilySmith - 30 August 2013 09:19 AM

Most witch burnings took place in areas where the church was weak and were often a case of local secular law when predominately women complained about other women. “Most of the accusations originated in “conflicts [that] normally opposed one woman to another, with men liable to become involved only at a later stage as ancillaries to the original dispute.” Briggs adds that “most informal accusations were made by women against other women, ... [and only] leaked slowly across to the men who controlled the political structures of local society.” The church isn’t completely innocent, but it isn’t a Christian teaching.

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Exodus 22:18.

Once again you’re quoting from the Law of Moses.  Put it in context.  The Hebrew people were entering the land God gave them.  They were a Theocracy and your quote was a part of their civil law.  It is the law that governed that nation of people in that specific land.  The purpose of the Law of Moses was to maintain the purity of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as a Godly people, because through this lineage God had promised to save all mankind.  For that purpose all idolatry, the worship of false gods including witchcraft, was forbidden by law and those who broke the law faced the consequences.  Also understand that every transgression of the law could be forgiven by bringing the appropriate sacrifice to the Temple for the forgiveness of sin.  “Say to the Israelites: ‘When anyone sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands— ”  At that point an entire list of appropriate sacrifices are listed which atone for all sin.  Leviticus 4

For Christians, this pictures the coming Christ who died once and for all time for the sins of mankind.  “Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.”  This describes the law of Moses.  “But when this priest (Christ) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God…”  Hebrews 10

Christians don’t live under the Law of Moses.  They live under the fulfillment of that Law, the covenant in Christ.  In Christianity, the witch can be forgiven through faith in Christ just like the thief, the murderer, the sexually immoral, the idolator—all sin is forgiven in Christ.  And a Christian who has had his sin forgiven, cannot then turn around and condemn another sinner or we face this problem, “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.”  Romans 2:1

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2013 12:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 115 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  296
Joined  2013-07-25
Thevillageatheist - 30 August 2013 11:47 AM

What a hoot! Tell that to the 19 “bible believing” xtians and five others who died in prison during the Salem witch trials in 1692. Fired up by Calvinist preachers like Cotton Mather who preached that demons were real, the pious citizens of Salem accused their neighbors of witchcraft and hanged or pressed them to death. Who cares if a couple of drugged up girls set it off, without the religious catalyst it wouldn’t have happened. And this is only one of several examples of demonic possession. Even animals were hanged for being possessed.


Cap’t Jack

It is a hoot that someone would take an incident where less than twenty people became victims of mass hysteria and use that to condemn all of Christianity.  If that’s the kind of scientific proof you base your beliefs on, I’m not impressed.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2013 01:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 116 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6159
Joined  2009-02-26
LilySmith - 30 August 2013 09:19 AM
Write4U - 29 August 2013 06:37 PM

Don’t play the victim here. Christian history is filled with atrocities committed against atheists or any non-Christian for that matter, like the Crusades, burning at the stake, putting to the test (plain old torture favored by the Inquisition), or being declared Persona non Grata and shunned by the community.
And I speak from personal experience.  My family and I WERE victims of religious persecution by “good” Christians, not only verbally but physically.

The Crusades were a response by Western Europe to push back against Islamic expansion into Europe.  Nations have a right to defend themselves.

Yes we defended our borders by INVADING the countries those people came from. Shades of our invasion of Iraq, where all those terrorists came from.
Definition of Crusade.
3.religious war: in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries, a military expedition by European Christians to retake areas in the Holy Land captured by Muslim forces. The Holy Land is in Europe?

Most witch burnings took place in areas where the church was weak and were often a case of local secular law when predominately women complained about other women. “Most of the accusations originated in “conflicts [that] normally opposed one woman to another, with men liable to become involved only at a later stage as ancillaries to the original dispute.” Briggs adds that “most informal accusations were made by women against other women, ... [and only] leaked slowly across to the men who controlled the political structures of local society.” The church isn’t completely innocent, but it isn’t a Christian teaching.  It is an interesting study of human nature, http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html

Oh you do have a way of justifying the reign of terror by the church. You have just twisted history by blaming secular people for prosecuting heretics.
Somehow the term “Dark Ages”  comes to mind.

The Inquisitions were the Catholic Church routing out heretics and only had authority over Christians.  They would not have had authority over atheists.  In Spain, the Inquisition was run by the Monarchy—a secular authority.

Really? Atheists were not considered heretics? Ask Hypatia. The church prohibited anyone from challenging the official church positions, ask Galileo,

While at Pisa, Galileo was exposed to the Aristotelian view of the world, then the leading scientific authority and the only one sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church.

To be fair

In the 20th century, several popes acknowledged the great work of Galileo, and in 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret about how the Galileo affair was handled. Galileo’s contribution to our understanding of the universe was significant not only in his discoveries, but in the methods he developed and the use of mathematics to prove them. He played a major role in the scientific revolution and, deservedly so, earned the moniker “The Father of Modern Science.”

http://www.biography.com/people/galileo-9305220

You may want to reinform yourself of the purpose of the Inquisition.

The 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: ... quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur. Translation from the Latin: “... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit.”[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

Reformation
During the Protestant Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries, Protestants wrote of the Middle Ages as a period of Catholic corruption

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

What I’m talking about is this modern day behavior against Christians at a High School Journalism Convention to high school age young people.  Totally uncalled for. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alXxsKLVofM

I don’t have to answer to you or provide any kind of proof for my beliefs in order to live according to my faith.  If you think I do, you need to reeducate yourself on freedom of religion in this country.

Have at it, but don’t tell me I am responsible for what happened in some public HS. Why was the subject of Religion introduced into a public school in the first place? 

Interestingly, after all your complaints about harassment of Christians, how about this little tidbit.

Arizona Republicans Propose Bill That Would Not Allow Atheists To Graduate High School
January 25, 2013 By Hemant Mehta 1659 Comments
A group of Arizona politicians — all Republicans, of course — have proposed a law (House Bill 2467) requiring public high school students to recite the following oath in order to graduate:
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose or evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; so help me God.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/01/25/arizona-republicans-propose-bill-that-would-not-allow-atheists-to-graduate-high-school/

As I said before, I speak from experience. Now let me explain where and how this religious persecution of me occurred.  Would you believe HS?  We lived in a small town in Holland, with 90% Catholics, 9% Protestants and 2 atheist families.
After learning that all matter is composed of atoms, I excitedly came to school and shared this important information with the class. I was severely scolded by my teacher for proposing such blasphemy and after school a gang of plder kids beat “the hell out of me”.

How about freedom FROM religion in public (state) schools? Perhaps you need to reeducate yourself with the “Establishment Clause”.
Have you ever had an atheist knock at your door and asked you if you have been saved?

[ Edited: 30 August 2013 01:43 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2013 01:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 117 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6159
Joined  2009-02-26
LilySmith - 30 August 2013 12:44 PM
Thevillageatheist - 30 August 2013 11:47 AM

What a hoot! Tell that to the 19 “bible believing” xtians and five others who died in prison during the Salem witch trials in 1692. Fired up by Calvinist preachers like Cotton Mather who preached that demons were real, the pious citizens of Salem accused their neighbors of witchcraft and hanged or pressed them to death. Who cares if a couple of drugged up girls set it off, without the religious catalyst it wouldn’t have happened. And this is only one of several examples of demonic possession. Even animals were hanged for being possessed.


Cap’t Jack

It is a hoot that someone would take an incident where less than twenty people became victims of mass hysteria and use that to condemn all of Christianity.  If that’s the kind of scientific proof you base your beliefs on, I’m not impressed.

Yet you complain about an incident at a HS as proof of atheist persecution of Christians.  I’m not impressed.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2013 02:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 118 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
Write4U - 30 August 2013 01:55 PM
LilySmith - 30 August 2013 12:44 PM
Thevillageatheist - 30 August 2013 11:47 AM

What a hoot! Tell that to the 19 “bible believing” xtians and five others who died in prison during the Salem witch trials in 1692. Fired up by Calvinist preachers like Cotton Mather who preached that demons were real, the pious citizens of Salem accused their neighbors of witchcraft and hanged or pressed them to death. Who cares if a couple of drugged up girls set it off, without the religious catalyst it wouldn’t have happened. And this is only one of several examples of demonic possession. Even animals were hanged for being possessed.

Cap’t Jack

It is a hoot that someone would take an incident where less than twenty people became victims of mass hysteria and use that to condemn all of Christianity.  If that’s the kind of scientific proof you base your beliefs on, I’m not impressed.

Yet you complain about an incident at a HS as proof of atheist persecution of Christians.  I’m not impressed.

And as usual, Smith’s comments completely miss the point. The Salem atrocities were carried out on apparent biblical authority, which if you read the Bible appears to be exactly what God commanded. At the very least, reasonable people could read it that way.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2013 02:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 119 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
LilySmith - 30 August 2013 12:32 PM

Once again you’re quoting from the Law of Moses.  Put it in context.  The Hebrew people were entering the land God gave them.  They were a Theocracy and your quote was a part of their civil law.  It is the law that governed that nation of people in that specific land.  The purpose of the Law of Moses was to maintain the purity of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as a Godly people, because through this lineage God had promised to save all mankind.  For that purpose all idolatry, the worship of false gods including witchcraft, was forbidden by law and those who broke the law faced the consequences.  Also understand that every transgression of the law could be forgiven by bringing the appropriate sacrifice to the Temple for the forgiveness of sin.  “Say to the Israelites: ‘When anyone sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands— ”  At that point an entire list of appropriate sacrifices are listed which atone for all sin.  Leviticus 4

For Christians, this pictures the coming Christ who died once and for all time for the sins of mankind.  “Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.”  This describes the law of Moses.  “But when this priest (Christ) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God…”  Hebrews 10

Christians don’t live under the Law of Moses.  They live under the fulfillment of that Law, the covenant in Christ.  In Christianity, the witch can be forgiven through faith in Christ just like the thief, the murderer, the sexually immoral, the idolator—all sin is forgiven in Christ.  And a Christian who has had his sin forgiven, cannot then turn around and condemn another sinner or we face this problem, “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.”  Romans 2:1

Obviously you will never give a direct and honest answer to the seminal question of this topic. So let’s play this silly game for a while, and imagine there is a supreme being, holder of infinite knowledge and wisdom, who once (but no longer) commanded a certain people (but not others) to kill witches. I have some questions.

1.  What is a witch?
2.  Do witches still exist today? If not, when did they cease to exist, and how do you know?
3.  How were the people who were subject to the commandment in Exodus 22:18 supposed to identify witches?
4.  How certain was God that they wouldn’t misidentify someone?
5.  Why doesn’t the Bible specifically identify the characteristics of a witch before commanding his “chosen people” to kill every last one of them?
6.  How can a universal God have a chosen people in the first place?
7.  Why didn’t God do the dirty work himself?
8.  If “Christians don’t live under the Law of Moses,” then why do they follow the Ten Commandments?
9.  How pure did Abraham’s descendants have to be for the purity of the “Godly people” to be maintained?
10.  Did God succeed in maintaining this purity? How do you know?
11.  Which of the commandments in Exodus were abrogated?
12.  When were they abrogated?
13.  How were they abrogated?
14.  How can a biblical command be abrogated, i.e., what has to happen to be abrogated?
15.  Why didn’t the Puritans in Salem know that Exodus 22:18 had been abrogated?
16.  Why doesn’t the Bible specifically list the commandments abrogated by the “covenant in Christ”?
17.  How are people supposed to know which commandments have been abrogated?
18.  On what authority can you say which commandments have been abrogated?
19.  Why would God give his holy commandments to only one people?
20.  Why aren’t all of God’s laws universal?
21.  If a theocracy was a good idea then, why shouldn’t we have a theocracy today?
22.  Why doesn’t God just send down a new set of commandments, since the old ones seem to have resulted in such confusion?
23.  How did that purity-as-a-Godly-people thing work out?

You claim to know a lot of answers about these things, so you put it in context. This don’t make no sense to me. And no, it’s not because my heart is hard. My heart is warm and loving. It’s because it don’t make no sense.

You’re never going to make a lick of sense about this unless and until you admit to yourself that you might be wrong.

[ Edited: 30 August 2013 02:31 PM by PLaClair ]
 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2013 02:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 120 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6159
Joined  2009-02-26

LilySmith,
For Christians, this pictures the coming Christ who died once and for all time for the sins of mankind.  “Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.”  This describes the law of Moses.  “But when this priest (Christ) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God…”  Hebrews 10

Please, “Christ died once and for all time for the sins of mankind”, but he will resurrected and is coming back?  The logic of that statement escapes me.

If priests cannot take away your sins by the faithful execution of their daily duties, why do we have confession and absolution?  Seems that the sinner has only one option and that is to commit suicide (offered for all time), but is suicide not a sin itself?  Did Jesus know that he would be sacrificed to absolve all people from their sins? Why then did Jesus ask “father, why hast thou forsaken me?” Apparently Jesus thought that God (his father) would save him at the last moment. Surprise, surprise, God did not even tell his “only begotten son” that he would be sacrificed for mankind. He just kinda left him hanging there (so to speak).

“For God so loved man he gave his only begotten son” (to be killed)???  Please explain that logical abomination to me.

[ Edited: 30 August 2013 03:11 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
8 of 26
8