Subj: hullo
Date: 4/30/2001 9:52:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: nomosian@hotmail.com (Nomos Nomosowicz)
To: Tekministry@aol.com
CC: nomosian@hotmail.comHullo Brooks,
I was given your URL via an internet relay chat program (Undernet) and had the opportunity to skim some of your articles. We found them entertaining and thoroughly misguided, but fun nonetheless. We come across numerous individuals who share your convictions (for one psychological reason or another) and enjoy the opportunity for a little chit chat. Perhaps you'd like to join us if time and interest permit. You can find us on Undernet's IRC channel #apologetics throughout the week.
We archive the occasional discussion as well, you might find them entertaining. haus-von-nomos.com/logs.html
blessings,
Nomos
Subj: Re: hullo
Date: 5/1/2001 1:22:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: nomosian@hotmail.comNomos,
I don't even know you (and) you start in on the underhanded insults. Where is all the love and understanding from someone who claims to speak for Christ? : ) I took a look at your site and found it interesting. The Christians on that MIRC chat seem to dress up a belief in Christianity with a whole bunch of really impressive sounding terminology, but I am not taken in by all that, I know why it is done. If you strip all that convulted verbiage away, what you are left with is a collection of fairly ridiculous stories written by primitive people that people today believe in primarily for cultural reasons.
In any case, I will try and visit that chat room if I get the chance.
Best Wishes,
Brooks
From: "Nomos Nomosowicz"
To: Tekministry@aol.com
CC: nomosian@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: hullo
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:11:43
From: Tekministry@aol.com
To: nomosian@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: hullo
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 04:22:57 EDTBrooks,
I took a look at your site and found it interesting.Well, that's what I was hoping.
The Christians on that MIRC chat seem to dress up a belief in Christianity with a whole bunch of really impressive sounding terminology,I suppose that depends upon what it takes to impress someone. Though it's a bit naive and presumptuous to assume the use of philosophical terminology in the context of a philosophical/theological discussion is used to impress others. In fact, if you were to frequent #skepticism, #atheism, or #philosophy you'd find skeptics using the same vocabulary for it's the lingua franca for those that have pursued an interest in the field. In my experience, lexical criticism is nothing more than a petty fallacy that reflects a degree of desperation.
but I am not taken in by all that,I'm sure you're not 'taken in' by Hume, Kant, Russell or Wittgenstein either since they implement the same vocabulary. Maybe you've heard of them?
I know why it is done.Knowledge isn't possible in an anti-theistic paradigm, though indubitably anti-theists continue to equivocate the term - a discussion which takes place frequently on the channel, you'd likely find it of interest.
If you strip all that convulted verbiage away,Ironic humor? Even if I were to grant 'convulted' as a member of the English lexicon (though most lexiographers do not), the idea of qualifying 'verbiage' with such a term is humorous to say the least. So much for consistency to your own standards (though I never charge anti-theists with consistency!) ;]
what you are left with is a collection of fairly ridiculous stories written by primitive people that people today believe in primarily for cultural reasons.Well here you've touched a number of interesting topics; such as,
[1] A prescriptive standard in which to determine which stories deserve ridicule and which do not.
[2] A metaphysical system that can account for the behavior of people.
[3] A working epistemology in which to determine true stories from stories that are not true.All of these interesting topics are discussed at length in the archives and on the channel.
In any case, I will try and visit that chat room if I get the chance.I hope so, I think you would enjoy yourself. A friend of mine pointed out your site and we've thought of putting together a list of some of your objections to address via some electronic format. I believe if you were to actually read the work of some reputable Christian apologists, you'd find that your writings are indeed misguided. I realize it's uncomfortable to have your views challenged, but if you're up to it, I or others would be more than happy to point out the irrationality of anti-theistic thought. If you feel you can defend your skepticism, all the better, for we've yet to find anyone able to present a cogent argument for an anti-theistic paradigm.
Best Wishes,A figure of speech I'm sure. ;]
Adieu,
Nomos
Subj: Re: hullo
Date: 7/18/2003 10:48:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: nomosian@hotmail.comNomos,
Wow. That is a really old e-mail.
ME: The Christians on that MIRC chat seem to dress up a belief in Christianity with a whole bunch of really impressive sounding terminology,…I think that people often use highly technical language to make what they are proposing sound more impressive and important than it actually is. I think highly technical language is also used in some cases to obscure a subject rather than clarify it.YOU: I suppose that depends upon what it takes to impress someone. Though it's a bit naive and presumptuous to assume the use of philosophical terminology in the context of a philosophical/theological discussion is used to impress others. In fact, if you were to frequent #skepticism, #atheism, or #philosophy you'd find skeptics using the same vocabulary for it's the lingua franca for those that have pursued an interest in the field. In my experience, lexical criticism is nothing more than a petty fallacy that reflects a degree of desperation.
ME: …but I am not taken in by all that,YOU: I'm sure you're not 'taken in' by Hume, Kant, Russell or Wittgenstein either since they implement the same vocabulary. Maybe you've heard of them?
Yes, I have heard of them. However, the point remains that I am not fooled by the use of highly technical language by Christian apologists who don't really understand what they are talking about.
ME: I know why it is done.YOU: Knowledge isn't possible in an anti-theistic paradigm,…
Well, gee, if you say so.
ME: If you strip all that convulted verbiage away,…YOU: Ironic humor? Even if I were to grant 'convulted' as a member of the English lexicon (though most lexiographers do not), the idea of qualifying 'verbiage' with such a term is humorous to say the least.
Obviously the word was "convoluted." What's the problem with using it in front of "verbiage"?
YOU: So much for consistency to your own standards (though I never charge anti-theists with consistency!) ;]Nice all-inclusive insult!
ME: …what you are left with is a collection of fairly ridiculous stories written by primitive people that people today believe in primarily for cultural reasons.YOU: Well here you've touched a number of interesting topics; such as,
[1] A prescriptive standard in which to determine which stories deserve ridicule and which do not.
[2] A metaphysical system that can account for the behavior of people.
[3] A working epistemology in which to determine true stories from stories that are not true.All of these interesting topics are discussed at length in the archives and on the channel.
The bible was written by ancient, primitive people and the book reflects their moral system and their superstitious beliefs. You have mistaken the bible for some sort of revelation from a supernatural being. Frankly, I think your position is absolutely ridiculous.
ME: In any case, I will try and visit that chat room if I get the chance.I think Christian apologists are misguided. Anyway, if you want to put together an essay or a list of objections to what I write on my site, by all means do so. Maybe I would link to it and respond to it.YOU: I hope so, I think you would enjoy yourself. A friend of mine pointed out your site and we've thought of putting together a list of some of your objections to address via some electronic format. I believe if you were to actually read the work of some reputable Christian apologists, you'd find that your writings are indeed misguided.
YOU: I realize it's uncomfortable to have your views challenged, but if you're up to it, I or others would be more than happy to point out the irrationality of anti-theistic thought.You are the one who believes in magical stories and miracle claims found in a primitive book written by superstitious, primitive people. I think that accepting these unsupported stories and absurd claims is irrational.
YOU: If you feel you can defend your skepticism, all the better, for we've yet to find anyone able to present a cogent argument for an anti-theistic paradigm.And you never will because you have been programmed to reject anything that challenges your cult's claims. In any case, I don't have to defend my skepticism about Christianity: It is only reasonable to be skeptical when you are presented with the absurd, contradictory, unsupported claims of Christianity.
Brooks
Subj: re Hullo
Date: 7/19/2003 6:52:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: nomos@apologete.com
To: Tekministry@aol.com
ME: The Christians on that MIRC chat seem to dress up a belief in Christianity with a whole bunch of really impressive sounding terminology,YOU: I suppose that depends upon what it takes to impress someone. Though it's a bit naive and presumptuous to assume the use of philosophical terminology in the context of a philosophical/theological discussion is used to impress others. In fact, if you were to frequent #skepticism, #atheism, or #philosophy you'd find skeptics using the same vocabulary for it's the lingua franca for those that have pursued an interest in the field. In my experience, lexical criticism is nothing more than a petty fallacy that reflects a degree of desperation.
I think that people often use highly technical language to make what they are proposing sound more impressive and important than it actually is. I think highly technical language is also used in some cases to obscure a subject rather than clarify it.
That might be true when that vocabularly is incorporated into an inappropriate context. Using philosophical vocabularly in a philosophical inquiry is hardly inappropriate. You're simply making excuses for your ignorance and lack of experience. Have you read anything above the 'pop' level? I'd be more than happy to suggest some good atheistic works that will help you build your system.
ME: but I am not taken in by all that,Adopting a highly 'technical' language in an appropriate context is a strategy to fool you? That sounds like some radical fundamentalism. Are you suggesting Christians dumb it down for you? The fact that you haven't read some of the key figures in the history of atheism is revealing.YOU: I'm sure you're not 'taken in' by Hume, Kant, Russell or Wittgenstein either since they implement the same vocabulary. Maybe you've heard of them?
Yes, I have heard of them. However, the point remains that I am not fooled by the use of highly technical language by Christian apologists who don't really understand what they are talking about.
ME: I know why it is done.Knowledge assumes some normative measure to evaluate proper cognitive functioning of which atheism provides no non-arbitrary standard. I supose you could simply dismiss this as too complicated. You see, I don't simply reply upon my ability to 'testify' my beliefs to you, I can argue for them too.YOU: Knowledge isn't possible in an anti-theistic paradigm
Well, gee, if you say so.
ME: what you are left with is a collection of fairly ridiculous stories written by primitive people that people today believe in primarily for cultural reasons.Of course you think it's ridiculous. I suppose that's why you didn't bother to address points 1-3. Christianity isn't true because it's ridiculous! Frankly, I think atheism is an act of intellectual suicide in that the system precludes any cognitive normativity where as Christianity provides and accounts for the preconditions to human intellection.YOU: Well here you've touched a number of interesting topics; such as,
[1] A prescriptive standard in which to determine which stories deserve
ridicule and which do not.
[2] A metaphysical system that can account for the behavior of people.
[3] A working epistemology in which to determine true stories from stories that are not true.All of these interesting topics are discussed at length in the archives and on the channel.
The bible was written by ancient, primitive people and the book reflects their moral system and their superstitious beliefs. You have mistaken the bible for some sort of revelation from a supernatural being. Frankly, I think your position is absolutely ridiculous.
ME: In any case, I will try and visit that chat room if I get the chance.Well, that idea about interacting with your page is a bit dated. I wasn't of the impression at the time that you were so anti-intellectual in principle at the time. I'm not sure how interactive, "That's too technical" would be. What Christian apologists have you actually read to conclude that they are misguided? And by what standard are you evaluating them?YOU: I hope so, I think you would enjoy yourself. A friend of mine pointed out your site and we've thought of putting together a list of some of your objections to address via some electronic format. I believe if you were to actually read the work of some reputable Christian apologists, you'd find that your writings are indeed misguided.
I think Christian apologists are misguided. Anyway, if you want to put together an essay or a list of objections to what I write on my site, by all means do so. Maybe I would link to it and respond to it.
YOU: I realize it's uncomfortable to have your views challenged, but if you're up to it, I or others would be more than happy to point out the irrationality of anti-theistic thought.I appreciate your sole appeal to testimony to convey your point. Yes, I am aware of what you think, demonstrating the cogency of that thought entails more than "this is what I think". I'd be happy to debate your thoughts on the subject if you're able to contribute more than your emotions.ME: You are the one who believes in magical stories and miracle claims found in a primitive book written by superstitious, primitive people. I think that accepting these unsupported stories and absurd claims is irrational.
YOU: If you feel you can defend your skepticism, all the better, for we've yet to find anyone able to present a cogent argument for an anti-theistic paradigm.The fallacy of pretended neutrality here reflects your lack of reasoning skills. I can prove to you that if Christianity is not true, then you have no access to any sort of intellection. Email, chat, or even voice if you prefer. I too can throw out bumper sticker slogans if you think that strategy is necessary to rational inquiry. Maybe I have been programmed! Can you argue cogently to demonstrate this?And you never will because you have been programmed to reject anything that challenges your cult's claims. In any case, I don't have to defend my skepticism about Christianity: It is only reasonable to be skeptical when you are presented with the absurd, contradictory, unsupported claims of Christianity.
Ryan
Subj: e-mail from the CBBB web site
Date: 7/19/2003 11:21:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: nomosian@hotmail.comRyan,
ME: I think that people often use highly technical language to make what they are proposing sound more impressive and important than it actually is. I think highly technical language is also used in some cases to obscure a subject rather than clarify it.YOU: That might be true when that vocabularly is incorporated into an inappropriate context. Using philosophical vocabularly in a philosophical inquiry is hardly inappropriate. You're simply making excuses for your ignorance and lack of experience.
"Vocabularly" is not "a member of the English lexicon." See, I can nitpick too. : )
Anyway, I obviously think Christianity is a myth and a falsehood and I think that many apologists, like people in other professions, use highly technical language to give their claims more weight than their claims deserve.
ME: but I am not taken in by all that,I consider the deep philosophizing about Christian claims to be a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. The major claims of Christianity are unsupported, uncorroborated, anonymous, absurd and contrary to our understanding of reality. To me, the vast structure of apologetic rationalizing built up around these claims is a colossal joke because Christian apologists don't really understand what they are talking about at the most fundamental level.YOU: I'm sure you're not 'taken in' by Hume, Kant, Russell or Wittgenstein either since they implement the same vocabulary. Maybe you've heard of them?
ME: Yes, I have heard of them. However, the point remains that I am not fooled by the use of highly technical language by Christian apologists who don't really understand what they are talking about.
YOU: Adopting a highly 'technical' language in an appropriate context is a strategy to fool you? That sounds like some radical fundamentalism. Are you suggesting Christians dumb it down for you? The fact that you haven't read some of the key figures in the history of atheism is revealing.
ME: I know why it is done.If this is the case, then what is the "normative measure to evaluate proper cognitive functioning" that a belief in Christianity provides?YOU: Knowledge isn't possible in an anti-theistic paradigm
ME: Well, gee, if you say so.
YOU: Knowledge assumes some normative measure to evaluate proper cognitive functioning of which atheism provides no non-arbitrary standard.
Frankly, I think that an acceptance of Christianity subverts one's ability to understand reality.
ME: what you are left with is a collection of fairly ridiculous stories written by primitive people that people today believe in primarily for culturalPoints one to three were as follows:YOU: Of course you think it's ridiculous. I suppose that's why you didn't bother to address points 1-3.
YOU: Well here you've touched a number of interesting topics; such as,What was I supposed to address in these statements?[1] A prescriptive standard in which to determine which stories deserve ridicule and which do not.
[2] A metaphysical system that can account for the behavior of people.[3] A working epistemology in which to determine true stories from stories
that are not true. All of these interesting topics are discussed at length in the archives and on the channel.
YOU: Christianity isn't true because it's ridiculous!Did I say Christianity isn't true because it is ridiculous? Yes or no?
YOU: Frankly, I think atheism is an act of intellectual suicide in that the system precludes any cognitive normativity where as Christianity provides and accounts for the preconditions to human intellection.I think you are wrong.Does Islam provide and account "for the precondictions (sic) to human intellection" or just Christianity? Please explain how the belief in an ancient war god "provides and accounts for the preconditions (sic) to human intellection." Thanks.
YOU: Well, that idea about interacting with your page is a bit dated. I wasn't of the impression at the time that you were so anti-intellectual in principle at the time.I am not anti-intellectual. I am against people using intellectual posturing to promote blatant falsehoods.
YOU: I'm not sure how interactive, "That's too technical" would be. What Christian apologists have you actually read to conclude that they are misguided?William Lane Craig. Phil Fernandez. "JP Holding." Among others.
YOU: And by what standard are you evaluating them?I am evaluating them using logic, reason, and facts.
YOU: I realize it's uncomfortable to have your views challenged, but if you're up to it, I or others would be more than happy to point out the irrationality of anti-theistic thought.ME: You are the one who believes in magical stories and miracle claims found in a primitive book written by superstitious, primitive people. I think that accepting these unsupported stories and absurd claims is irrational.
YOU: I appreciate your sole appeal to testimony to convey your point. Yes, I am aware of what you think, demonstrating the cogency of that thought entails more than "this is what I think". I'd be happy to debate your thoughts on the subject if you're able to contribute more than your emotions.
Tell you what, why don't you explain to me what you actually believe about the bible? Do you think all of it is true? Do you think certain portions of it are false? Do you think some of it is exaggeration? Are you a liberal Christian or a fundamentalist? Would you agree that certain portions of the bible should not be read to young children? Do you think that some of the commands purportedly given by God are questionable? Do you think that God inspired men to write the bible or that men wrote it on their own? What do you base your beliefs about the bible on?
YOU: If you feel you can defend your skepticism, all the better, for we've yet to find anyone able to present a cogent argument for an anti-theistic paradigm.ME: And you never will because you have been programmed to reject anything that challenges your cult's claims. In any case, I don't have to defend my skepticism about Christianity: It is only reasonable to be skeptical when you are presented with the absurd, contradictory, unsupported claims of Christianity.
YOU: The fallacy of pretended neutrality here reflects your lack of reasoning skills. I can prove to you that if Christianity is not true, then you have no access to any sort of intellection.
Well, I would be curious to see you explain how a belief in an ancient war god gives one access to "intellection" while a disbelief in this ancient war god prevents one from having access to "intellection." Please feel free to expound on this concept.
YOU: Maybe I have been programmed! Can you argue cogently to demonstrate this?I know I can-but as a Christian you cannot accept that you have been programmed. Anyway, let me ask you a question: What do you think will happen to you if you doubt God's existence?
--From the previous e-mail:--
ME: If you strip all that convulted verbiage away,…Obviously the word was "convoluted." What's the problem with using it in front of "verbiage"?YOU: Ironic humor? Even if I were to grant 'convulted' as a member of the English lexicon (though most lexiographers do not), the idea of qualifying 'verbiage' with such a term is humorous to say the least.
Brooks
Subj: My Belief
Date: 5/15/2003 6:16:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: TTTTTT
To: Tekministry@aol.comTo whom it may concern,
I am a strong Christian. And I am not ashamed of that fact!!! I went to this site because I was doing a science term paper. Which is on cration vs. evolution, and I wanted to get different opinions. You include different verses from the Bible that I was amazed to see. I hadn't read any of them. You could probably say that I am anti-atheist. So I doubted that those verses actually exsisted because of their disturbing content. So I looked them up. Sure enough they did exsit. But you did not give the background,or reason, for what God said. I'm not trying to be rude, and I may only be 14, but I think you should also add more than just the verses that talk about God ordering his followers to kill people. Like the reason He told them to do that. I now God wouldn't just tell His followers to kill people for His personal pleasure. There are reasons for all of them. So why dont you go back and read the whole section that those verses are in?
Another thing... How can you NOT believe in God? I mean, how would we be here if ther wasn't a higher power to CREATE us? Like I said, I am only 14, so I don't know everything, and I know I can't physically see or hear God, but I have faith in Him.
Thank you for your time!!!
Angela
Subj: Re: My Belief
Date: 5/16/2003 11:36:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: TTTTTTAngela,
When I was your age, I was also a Christian. I believed in God, I went to church, I prayed at night before I went to sleep. Over the years, however, the things I was being told in church and Sunday school seemed less and less likely to be true. What I was learning in public school about history, science, human culture and other world religions indicated that Christianity was a myth. I realized that if I had been born in another country, I probably would not be a Christian. I saw that all religions were really based on culture and upbringing rather than facts and evidence. What finally destroyed my faith altogether was my reading of the Bible. I had some free time so I started to plow through it. I actually became a bit angry as I was reading it because it was even worse that I had imagined-it was filled with such terrible cruelty and such horrible atrocities that I was almost physically revolted by it. Yet Christians had always referred to it in such referent tones and with such adulation. They apparently had never read it. That said, I do understand that the Bible is valuable for what it tells us about the ancient culture that produced it.
>>I now God wouldn't just tell His followers to kill people for His personal pleasure.From my point of view, the biblical god is a war god of the ancient Israelites. It is a fictional being. Therefore the motivations of this god do not really enter in my evaluation of the atrocities in the Bible. I judge them simply as crimes against the people who were the victims.
>>There are reasons for all of them. So why dont you go back and read the whole section that those verses are in?I have. I still don't agree with the reasons for all the torture and murder condoned, commanded and committed by the biblical god.
>> Another thing... How can you NOT believe in God? I mean, how would we be here if ther wasn't a higher power to CREATE us?There is no evidence that some "higher power" created us. If you think that humans needed to be created by a "higher power," then where do you think that God came from? Do you think some "higher power" created him?
>>I am only 14, so I don't know everything, and I know I can't physically see or hear God, but I have faith in Him.I understand. I used to feel the same way. God seemed very real to me at one point. I am sure that you are surrounded by adults that believe very strongly in God and this helps to make the idea of God seem more credible. What I would urge you to do is to read the Bible for yourself if you get the time. I think you would benefit greatly from doing that. In any case, you should definitely find out as much as you can about both sides of the issue. The Internet makes this easy to do, of course.
Thank you for the e-mail and please let me know if you have more questions. By the way, I explain some of the other reasons why I don't believe in Christianity on my FAQ page.
All the best,
Brooks
Subj: Malachi 2:3
Date: 7/28/2003 9:51:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: BBu84"Behold, I will corrupt your seed and spread dung upon your faces..." Christian god-Malachi 2:3
Hello... how are you? I hope things are going well for you and your family.
I've noticed the above Malachi verse on the bottom of your posts and was curious why you use it. I can hazard a guess, but I don't want to put words in your mouth or to assume too much. Do you perhaps feel there is some kind of logical contradiction going on? Or maybe you feel it is inconsistent that a Christian God would say such a thing? If you wouldn't mind being specific, that would help me to understand why you use that verse at the end of your posts.
Take Care
Craneshot3
Subj: Re: Malachi 2:3
Date: 7/29/2003 2:51:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXXCraneshot,
In a message dated 7/28/2003 9:51:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Craneshot3 writes:
I've noticed the above Malachi verse on the bottom of your posts and was curious why you use it. I can hazard a guess, but I don't want to put words in your mouth or to assume too much. Do you perhaps feel there is some kind of logical contradiction going on? Or maybe you feel it is inconsistent that a Christian God would say such a thing? If you wouldn't mind being specific, that would help me to understand why you use that verse at the end of your posts.Well, it struck me as quite absurd that the God of all there is would say something so crude as this. I thought it would be good for Christians to see this quote from God whenever they read my posts.
Cheers,
Brooks
Subj: Re: Malachi 2:3
Date: 7/29/2003 10:13:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: BBu84
Well, it struck me as quite absurd that the God of all there is would say something so crude as this. I thought it would be good for Christians to see this quote from God whenever they read my posts.Hi Brooks... Thanks for your reply. I appreciate that you are probably very busy and so I want to thank you for taking time to give me an answer.
Though much appreciated, your answer only serves to raise other obvious questions.
And those are... *Why" does it strike you "quite absurd that the God of all there is would say something so crude as this"?
Is there something that you know about "the God of all there is" which would lead you to logically think that He wouldn't say something "crude" like this?
Is there something logically inconsistent with a "God of all there is" in saying something "crude"?
Is there is NO logical context or logically valid reason for "the God of all there is" to make the statement He made in Malachi 2:3?
The dictionary defines "absurd" as: ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous. Maybe you can explain (logically) why it would be ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous for a "God of all there is" to make the statement He made in Malachi 3:2?
Do you know *why* He said what He said... or do you not even care enough to even try and find out for the sake of honest research?
Did "the God of all there is" make this statement arbitrarily... without any good reason... and without any concern about the "back story" or "back history" before He made this statement?
Do you suppose that thru the simple act of maybe reading the verses before and after Malachi 3:2, it might have helped you to put things in context and understand why the statement was made?
I was just curious... because for you to continue refering to Malachi 2:3 at the bottom of your posts may not achieve the desired results you are looking for... if in fact it turns out that the verse is perfectly logical and understandable and even reasonable once the "back story" is understood... and/or once the context is understood... and/or once the nature of "the God of all there is" is understood.
I sincerely await any reply you may wish to direct my way. Take care and may blessings shower you and your loved ones in all things.
Craneshot3
Subj: Re: Malachi 2:3
Date: 7/29/2003 12:12:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXXCraneshot,
Well, I am perfectly happy to have you explain to me why the god of the universe would threaten to smear excrement on people's faces.
Cheers,
Brooks
Subj: Re: Malachi 2:3
Date: 7/29/2003 2:59:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: BBu84
Well, I am perfectly happy to have you explain to me why the god of the universe would threaten to smear excrement on people's faces.Hello Brooks... how are you?Yes, i could very easily explain Malachi 2:3. That would not be difficult to do because it's been done many times before (as you would have found out if you took the time to do any research). But because you have not answered my previous questions, i'm now very curious as to why you haven't.
Remember... it was YOU who made the assertion that it was "absurd" that the God of the universe would make the statement He did in Malachi. Surely you must have had a logical reason for saying such a thing. Am i correct? Or am I now to assume you just make assertions with no good reason?
If there was no logical basis for God making that statement... if Malachi 2:3 was somehow logically inconsistent with the nature of God... i have no doubt you would have told me already. But seeing you have not even attempted to defend yourself, I think it would be very reasonable for me to deduce and assume that you either cannot think of or articulate why it is LOGICALLY absurd that the God of the universe would make such a statement as recorded in Malachi 2:3.
Therefore, until that time when you admit your assertion was baseless... or until you can answer my previous questions... i think it would be premature to give you an answer because it was YOU who in the first place made the assertion (and is the reason for this email).. .and it was YOU who have so far not attempted to answer my very reasonable questions to you to explain your REASONING.
But of course you don't have to wait on me to answer your question... a little intellectually honest research on your part would uncover the answer very quickly.
I truly look forward to your response. After all, who knows.. maybe i can learn something. I'm always ready to learn truth.
May a shower of blessings come upon you and your loved ones.
Craneshot3
Subj: Re: Malachi 2:3
Date: 8/1/2003 3:08:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXXCraneshot3,
How are you? I hope you are well and are enjoying life to the fullest.
Remember... it was YOU who made the assertion that it was "absurd" that the God of the universe would make the statement He did in Malachi. Surely you must have had a logical reason for saying such a thing. Am i correct? Or am I now to assume you just make assertions with no good reason?Yes, I think it is absurd for the most powerful being in the universe to threaten to smear excrement on people's faces because it is a childish threat, something you would expect to hear in the sandbox of an elementary school. Even if God's threat is is "metaphorical," I still think it is crude and immature. Obviously you see things differently.
Do you know *why* He said what He said... or do you not even care enough to even try and find out for the sake of honest research?Apparently God was angry with some people and so he threatened to smear excrement on their faces, literally or figuratively.
Did "the God of all there is" make this statement arbitrarily... without any good reason... and without any concern about the "back story" or "back history" before He made this statement?According to the Bible, God was angry, so he made this threat.
Do you suppose that thru the simple act of maybe reading the verses before and after Malachi 3:2, it might have helped you to put things in context and understand why the statement was made?God was angry at some people, so he threatened to smear excrement on their faces. People certainly make threats like this, but I had thought that God would be above this kind of pettiness. Apparently I was wrong.
I was just curious... because for you to continue refering to Malachi 2:3 at the bottom of your posts may not achieve the desired results you are looking for... if in fact it turns out that the verse is perfectly logical and understandable and even reasonable once the "back story" is understood... and/or once the context is understood... and/or once the nature of "the God of all there is" is understood.Feel free to enlighten me with your supposedly superior understanding of God's threat to slather poo poo on people's eyes, noses and mouths.
All the best,
Brooks
Subj: Thank You.
Date: 3/1/2004 10:48:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: BBu84I am 18 years old and I guess I stumbled onto your website about 2 years ago. I was a Christian then but having my doubts. I had already decided to shun the close-mindedness my Baptist church was teaching me. But I still couldn't help but buy into all the doctrinal "truths" that I had been taught my entire life. The world I lived in was a world where Yahweh and Jesus existed. No one questioned that. If they did, they would go to hell. So I didn't. I just made excuses for them. I attributed the evil verses in the Bible to misinterpretation. There had to be a reason. I knew a loving god could not be such a terrible person. But the two testaments were combined for some reason, and this all-knowing and all-powerful god somehow let it happened.
I learned a lot from your site. About the brainwashing techniques that had actually been used on me. About ancient religions identical to Christianity only predating it by several years. And it all started to crack. I began to see the truth. For the first time, I saw the world the way it really is, and I owe a lot of it to the education I received on your site.
Now I too wish to spread the word in every way I know how. I want to help people the same as you do. I want them to realize that they are wasting their time with this religious bs. I want them to realize that these lives are the only ones they're going to have so they had better cherish it! And it's hard, man, it's really hard. And it's sick and it is twisted that Christianity has such a lock on these people. That it causes rational thought to be completely irrational. I get scared when I think of the path I could have traveled had I not been "enlightened." And I'm afraid still that those on that path are corrupting too many every day for people like you and me to even make a difference.
But your site is working. I am proof of that. I try everyday and I know I will feel much relieved if I can just get one person to give these things a second thought. If I can just plant the seeds of doubt... let them know that they should at least question things. That they owe it to themselves to make damned sure something is true or not! Especially something they intend to live their lives by.
So I want to thank you. For caring enough about those silly Christians to make a website to help them change for the better. You've helped me. My life has never been as meaningful as it is since I have started living it for myself!
Subj: re: Thank You
Date: 3/3/2004 7:48:03 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXXBrady,
It is very gratifying to know that my web site has helped you to deconvert from Christianity. I want to comment more on what you wrote in your e-mail, but I will have to get back to you in the next couple of days when I have more time.
Later,
Brooks
Subj: re: Thank You.
Date: 3/6/2004 9:03:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXXBrady,
Thank you very much for your nice e-mail. It makes me very glad that my site played a role in helping you see through the Christian delusion.
>>I am 18 years old and I guess I stumbled onto your website about 2 years ago. I was a Christian then but having my doubts. I had already decided to shun the close-mindedness my Baptist church was teaching me. But I still couldn't help but buy into all the doctrinal "truths" that I had been taught my entire life. The world I lived in was a world where Yahweh and Jesus existed. No one questioned that. If they did, they would go to hell. So I didn't.Another thing that I think comes into play besides fear is guilt. Christians are constantly told how horribly Jesus suffered for them. I think this makes them feel guilty about questioning their faith-I mean they must ask themselves how they can reject Jesus after he suffered so horribly for them.
>>I just made excuses for them. I attributed the evil verses in the Bible to misinterpretation. There had to be a reason. I knew a loving god could not be such a terrible person.I am constantly amazed by the mental gymnastics and word wrangling that Christians engage in to try and justify the slavery, torture and massacres in the Bible. It is just so pointless and ridiculous. The obvious-or what should be obvious-explanation of why the biblical god seems cruel and unjust is that he IS cruel and unjust. He is a war god invented by primitive people. It amazes me that Christians just can't see this.
>>But the two testaments were combined for some reason, and this all-knowing and all-powerful god somehow let it happened.>>I learned a lot from your site. About the brainwashing techniques that had actually been used on me. About ancient religions identical to Christianity only predating it by several years. And it all started to crack. I began to see the truth. For the first time, I saw the world the way it really is, and I owe a lot of it to the education I received on your site.
I am really happy that I have helped you. That is the main reason I put up my site--to help others. I felt people should know that Christianity is nonsense. Another reason I put up the site was because I was frustrated by my inability to clearly explain my skepticism/atheism to Christian friends and acquaintances.
>>Now I too wish to spread the word in every way I know how. I want to help people the same as you do. I want them to realize that they are wasting their time with this religious bs. I want them to realize that these lives are the only ones they're going to have so they had better cherish it! And it's hard, man, it's really hard. And it's sick and it is twisted that Christianity has such a lock on these people. That it causes rational thought to be completely irrational. I get scared when I think of the path I could have traveled had I not been "enlightened." And I'm afraid still that those on that path are corrupting too many every day for people like you and me to even make a difference.Of course most people don't like being told that they are wrong, and obviously Christians don't like being told that they are NOT going to heaven. Be prepared to be insulted, denigrated and vilified by the people you are trying to help, who will regard you as an agent of Satan. : )
>>But your site is working. I am proof of that. I try everyday and I know I will feel much relieved if I can just get one person to give these things a second thought. If I can just plant the seeds of doubt... let them know that they should at least question things. That they owe it to themselves to make damned sure something is true or not! Especially something they intend to live their lives by.You should put up a web site and maybe see if there are any humanist/atheist groups in your area that you can join.
>>So I want to thank you. For caring enough about those silly Christians to make a website to help them change for the better. You've helped me. My life has never been as meaningful as it is since I have started living it for myself!Christians say that life without God is meaningless. But I have always thought that spending your entire life worshipping a nonexistent god was meaningless. The "meaning of life" is clearly something we all have to determine individually.
Have a good one.
Cheers,
Brooks
Subj: Christianity and Hell
Date: 4/17/2004 12:46:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.comDear Brooks XXXXXX,
I visited your website and find it impressive to say the least. But, I happened to visit the page you have on JP Holding (or Rober Turkel) where you asked him about the Jews in the Holocaust: "does your god or does your god not torture all the Jews who suffered and died in the Holocaust?" The answer to that question is yes he does "torture all the Jews (in hell) who suffered and died in the Holocaust"... well, all the Jews who weren't Christian. I don't mean to sound rhetorical but what is the point of asking such an obvious question?
Corey W.
PS As a matter of disclosure, I am a Christian.
Subj: Re: Christianity and Hell
Date: 4/17/2004 2:57:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXXCorey,
Thank you for your interest in my web site-Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief.
I asked that question to Turkel because I wanted him to admit that he believes that his god tortures all the Jews who died in the Holocaust. I wanted him to admit that he worships a god that is worse than Hitler. You see Hitler was only able to inflict suffering on people for a relatively short period of time, but the biblical god tortures people for eternity.
This subject actually came up in a different venue. I was at a live debate between Christian apologist Phil Fernandez and Bible skeptic Dan Barker a few years back and Mr. Fernandez made the claim that Christianity gives people the moral structure to see that the Holocaust was morally wrong. At the end of the debate I got to the question microphone and asked him what he, as a Christian, thought the eternal fate of the Jews was. Unfortunately I had not gotten in the question line soon enough and I was one of the last few people who were only able to ask a question without receiving an answer. Of course the point of my question was to show that Mr. Fernandez's claim about the Holocaust was hypocritical.
Hope this helps.
Brooks
Subj: Re: Christianity and Hell
Date: 4/17/2004 11:13:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.comBrooks,
Thanks for answering my question. But, I think it's something of a trap to have Holding admit to what you already know is true of Christianity and then say, "Ah-ha! See, God is worse than Hitler! Since you believe and admit that God tortures Jews in hell forever whereas we have Hitler torturing Jews for a relatively short time!" So, I can't blame Holding's wariness.
But, let's see if I can play the same game. Do you expect God to actually NOT send people to hell for those who didn't believe in Him when He said that He would? And, upon what moral standard do you judge God's immoral nature?
Yours,
Corey W.
PS I would be careful with the presumption that God "tortures ALL the Jews who died in the Holocaust" because there were Christian-Jews in the Holocaust who were persecuted. But, for the non-Christian Jew, yes, obviously they are in hell.
Subj: Re: Christianity and Hell
Date: 4/18/2004 12:00:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXXCorey,
>>Thanks for answering my question. But, I think it's something of a trap to have Holding admit to what you already know is true of Christianity and then say, "Ah-ha! See, God is worse than Hitler!If Turkel is proud of believing that his god tortures all the Jews who died in the Holocaust, then he should get up on a podium and happily and confidently proclaim this to the world! You seem to be implying that I was trying to embarrass him. But why? Do you think that there is something wrong with your god torturing all the Jews who died in the Holocaust? Do you have a problem with that?
Do YOU think that your god is a more prolific torturer than Hitler and in this way is worse than Hitler?
>>But, let's see if I can play the same game. Do you expect God to actually NOT send people to hell for those who didn't believe in Him when He said that He would?I don't believe your god is real. I don't believe that hell is real. Therefore I don't think that your god sends anyone to hell. However, if a mass torturer promises to torture people for their thoughts and carries through on his promise, I don't applaud him for being honest.
>>And, upon what moral standard do you judge God's immoral nature?I judge the morality of your god using my own morality. Could you tell me what "standard" you use to judge the biblical god's morality?
>>I would be careful with the presumption that God "tortures ALL the Jews who died in the Holocaust" because there were Christian-Jews in the Holocaust who were persecuted. But, for the non-Christian Jew, yes, obviously they are in hell.What is a Christian Jew? Is that like a Hindu Muslim?
Anyway, does the notion of Jewish Holocaust victims suffering in hell make you happy? After all, it is what your god wants, right?*
Thanks.
Brooks
*Disclaimer: As I noted before, I don't believe in your god or in the Christian hell.
Subj: Re: Christianity and Hell
Date: 4/18/2004 12:16:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.comBrooks,
JP Holding conceded that God does condemn people to hell (including non-Christian Jews)... didn't he? You said so on your website. Besides, you WERE trying to embarass him! Who are you kidding? Look at your links for crying out loud! I'll let them speak for themselves: "'James Patrick Holding', the Want-to-Be Apologist", "Hilarious Turkel Quote", "Demented Turkel Quote", "Turkel's blatant misrepresentations, childish insults and absurd rationalizations", etc.
No, I don't think there is a problem with God torturing non-Christian Jews (remember not all Jews in the Holocaust were non-Christians - I define a Christian-Jew as an individual who is racially Jew, but religiously Christian) in hell. However I would have a problem with a God who says "I'll torture you in hell if you don't believe in Me" then doesn't live up to His own word by not putting them in hell. If God were to exist, shouldn't you have a problem if He wouldn't follow through with His own promises?
God may be a more "prolific torturer" than Hitler, but I think it's because God has the moral justification and credibility for doing so... and in that sense He is a more moral, and an upright person than Hitler ever can be.... and for that matter ANYBODY can be. God doesn't condemn people to hell arbitrarily. He made it clear that if you don't believe in Him you will go to hell. I know you don't applaud Him for his honesty and promise but that's because you're presuming He's a mass murderer. However, I don't think He is. Anyway, thanks for uh...kind of... answering my question. Let's go to the next one shall we:
"And, upon what moral standard do you judge God's immoral nature?"
Your reply: "I judge the morality of your god using my own morality."
Then would God be God if He were to submit to YOUR own standard of morality? Deal with this as a hypothetical - I know you don't believe in God or in an actual hell, but humor me. Since you are judging God on your own moral standard, would God be God if He were to bow down to your authority and say, "Hey, Brooks, you're right! I have no moral right to torture the Jews in the Holocaust to eternal damnation! What was I thinking? You da man!" As you can tell from my reply I don't put God on a pedestal I, a created being, would not judge the Creator or His morality on "my own standard".
As for your question: "Anyway, does the notion of Jewish Holocaust victims suffering in hell make you happy? After all, it is what your god wants, right?" It doesn't *necessarily follow that a Christian should be happy with God if He wants something to happen... namely people in hell. Furthermore, if I'm unhappy with what God wants to do that doesn't necessarily mean that God has done something wrong. Nor does it necessarily reflect badly on me for being unhappy with God! Look at Job, he wasn't happy with what God put him through, but that didn't necessarily reflectly badly on Job. Look at the Apostle Paul, he made arduous trips as a missionary and God put him through many unhappy situations (imprisonment, shipwrecked, bitten by a snake, etc.). Look at Abraham where God told him to sacrifice his own son! So, whether happy or sad, the fact still remains that people fry in hell.
Yours,
Corey W.
*please note the word "necessarily".
Subj: Re: Christianity and Hell
Date: 5/2/2004 7:05:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXXCorey,
COREY: Thanks for answering my question. But, I think it's something of a trap to have Holding admit to what you already know is true of Christianity and then say, "Ah-ha! See, God is worse than Hitler!BROOKS: If Turkel is proud of believing that his god tortures all the Jews who died in the Holocaust, then he should get up on a podium and happily and confidently proclaim this to the world! You seem to be implying that I was trying to embarrass him. But why? Do you think that there is something wrong with your god torturing all the Jews who died in the Holocaust? Do you have a problem with that?<
COREY: JP Holding conceded that God does condemn people to hell (including non-Christian Jews)... didn't he? You said so on your website.
Well, that is the funny thing, Corey. Turkel tried to distance God from responsibility for hell by writing, "Christian theology actually avers that Hell is esentially a person's own choice (so that God's role in 'sending' someone there is more passive rather than active)." Turkel also seemed to compare Holocaust victims to mass murderers. He wrote: "The modern notion that some previous experience ought to mitigate a penalty for a crime ("Your honor, although my client did murder 32 people, he deserves to get out of the death penalty because his father kicked him as a child.") is an irrational play on the emotions. Were the Jews who suffered and died in the Holocaust not sinners?" Turkel was playing the apologetic game of rationalizing hell by vilifying and blaming the victims. This rationalizing was just as ridiculous as his rationalizing of countless other biblical cruelties and atrocities.
By the way, here is my question and Turkel's response:
BROOKS: According to Christian theology, anyone and everyone who is not a Christian deserves to be and will be tortured for eternity. This includes all the Jews who suffered and died during the Holocaust. My question is this: does your god or does your god not torture all the Jews who suffered and died in the Holocaust?TURKEL: Well, let's see. My guess is I'm supposed to do one of two things here: 1) Fudge and fumble and compromise by saying "no", because I'm supposed to be ashamed of a God who condemns to hell anyone who went through something so awful on earth; 2) Say "yes" and thereby justify your view of the Biblical God as a cruel and vicious beast who unfairly sends to Hell anyone who went through something so awful on earth. I'll answer closer to #2, although"torture" implies a sense of direct activity where Christian theology actually avers that Hell is esentially a person's own choice (so that God's role in "sending" someone there is more passive rather than active). It also seems to assume a Dante-esque vision of eternal torment; I doubt if things in Hell are that variable and creative.
The "question" you put forth rates well as a psychological manipulation, but I don't fall for that kind of thing. The modern notion that some previous experience ought to mitigate a penalty for a crime ("Your honor, although my client did murder 32 people, he deserves to get out of the death penalty because his father kicked him as a child.") is an irrational play on the emotions . Were the Jews who suffered and died in the Holocaust not sinners? Did they have a perfect life before and during the Holocaust? No more so than anyone else, unless you have a list of them you can show me who didn't sin. The question is really no different if you substitute "Jews/Holocaust" for "peasants/invasion of the Visigoths", "unwilling Aztec sacrificial victims/Aztec sacrifices", or "Kosovars/Serbian invasion".
COREY: Besides, you WERE trying to embarass him!I asked that question to Turkel because I wanted him to admit that he believes that his god tortures all the Jews who died in the Holocaust. I wanted him to admit that he worships a god that is worse than Hitler. I wanted to try and make him think about how absurd his beliefs were. I now know that he is too far gone to be helped. When I first contacted him, I don't think my intention was to put his response up on my site.
COREY: Who are you kidding?Am I trying to kid anyone?
COREY: Look at your links for crying out loud! I'll let them speak for themselves: "'James Patrick Holding', the Want-to-Be Apologist",..That is the name of an article written by Farrell Till which I think is appropriate.
COREY: "Hilarious Turkel Quote",…I think that is a hilarious quote.
COREY: "Demented Turkel Quote",…I think that quote is demented.
COREY: "Turkel's blatant misrepresentations, childish insults and absurd rationalizations", etc.I think that Turkel misrepresents, makes absurd rationalizations and throws around a lot of childish insults-and I link to examples of all of this.
So?
COREY: No, I don't think there is a problem with God torturing non-Christian Jews...That is because you have been brainwashed into believing that the biblical god is real and is morally perfect. Therefore you will view any moral atrocity that this god is said to commit as morally good. Let me ask you: Is there ANYTHING at all that (your) god could do that you would find morally objectionable?
COREY: …(remember not all Jews in the Holocaust were non-Christians - I define a Christian-Jew as an individual who is racially Jew, but religiously Christian) in hell.Could you explain in more detail what it means to "racially" be a Jew? Thank you.
COREY: However I would have a problem with a God who says "I'll torture you in hell if you don't believe in Me" then doesn't live up to His own word by not putting them in hell.Would you similarly have a "problem" with a serial killer who promised to kill chortling, happy little infants and then failed to carry through on his threat? Yes or no? Would you applaud the serial killer for keeping his promise?
COREY: If God were to exist, shouldn't you have a problem if He wouldn't follow through with His own promises?Not if he promises to do evil. I don't applaud a mass torturer for keeping his promise to torture people forever. Sorry.
COREY: God may be a more "prolific torturer" than Hitler, but I think it's because God has the moral justification and credibility for doing so...And you believe this why?
COREY:..and in that sense He is a more moral, and an upright person than Hitler ever can be...Why do you believe this?
COREY: ...and for that matter ANYBODY can be.And why do you believe this?
COREY: God doesn't condemn people to hell arbitrarily. He made it clear that if you don't believe in Him you will go to hell.And if a serial killer promised not to stab you to death if you worshipped him, would you think he was a swell guy?
COREY: I know you don't applaud Him for his honesty and promise but that's because you're presuming He's a mass murderer.The biblical god IS a mass murderer as well as a mass torturer.
COREY: However, I don't think He is.Ever read the Old Testament? Yes or no?
COREY: Anyway, thanks for uh...kind of... answering my question. Let's go to the next one shall we:"And, upon what moral standard do you judge God's immoral nature?"
Your reply: "I judge the morality of your god using my own morality."
Then would God be God if He were to submit to YOUR own standard of morality? Deal with this as a hypothetical - I know you don't believe in God or in an actual hell, but humor me. Since you are judging God on your own moral standard, would God be God if He were to bow down to your authority and say, "Hey, Brooks, you're right! I have no moral right to torture the Jews in the Holocaust to eternal damnation! What was I thinking? You da man!"
In answer to your question: If your god existed and tortured people forever for their opinions, then I would regard him as an immoral monster who was worse than any mass-murdering dictator who ever lived.
COREY: As you can tell from my reply I don't put God on a pedestal I, a created being, would not judge the Creator or His morality on "my own standard".Then upon what "standard" DO you judge the Christian god?
COREY: As for your question: "Anyway, does the notion of Jewish Holocaust victims suffering in hell make you happy? After all, it is what your god wants, right?" It doesn't *necessarily follow that a Christian should be happy with God if He wants something to happen... namely people in hell.Answer the question: Does the idea of Jewish Holocaust victims roasting in hell make you happy or not?
COREY: Furthermore, if I'm unhappy with what God wants to do that doesn't necessarily mean that God has done something wrong.Does the idea of Jewish Holocaust victims roasting in hell make you happy or not?
COREY: Nor does it necessarily reflect badly on me for being unhappy with God!Does the idea of Jewish Holocaust victims roasting in hell make you happy or not?
COREY: Look at Job, he wasn't happy with what God put him through, but that didn't necessarily reflectly badly on Job. Look at the Apostle Paul, he made arduous trips as a missionary and God put him through many unhappy situations (imprisonment, shipwrecked, bitten by a snake, etc.). Look at Abraham where God told him to sacrifice his own son! So, whether happy or sad, the fact still remains that people fry in hell.Does the idea of Jewish Holocaust victims frying in hell make you happy or not?
Thank you in advance for your answers.
Brooks
Subj: Re: Christianity and Hell
Date: 5/3/2004 1:24:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.comGood to hear from you, Brooks,
Sorry, I’m still not convinced that you think that you aren’t actually trying to NOT embarrass JP. Those links of “demented,” “hilarious,” Holding quotes (and then some) were used nothing more to convey that Holding is a man to think of as rather… well, demented and hilarious. After all, you wrote: “I will leave it for others to decide whether this (eternal torture of everyone who does not happen to share Holding’s religious beliefs) qualifies as a form of insanity.” I mean, how is that suppose to make him feel? Also, you have pictures of laughing faces on certain things Holding believes. For instance, you have a laughing face (among others) after you set a link about how Holding thinks the book of Genesis is literally, historically, and accurately true. So, you are kidding someone… At least, I think you’re kidding me. It may not have been your initial intention to have a website put up on Holding, but you ended up doing it anyway. In fact, you set up a whole website at tektonics, dot, com!
Anyway, can we give the JP Holding fiasco a rest? I think we’re at the point where we just have to agree to disagree. You think you’re not trying to embarrass him, whereas I do. So, that’s that. Let’s go on…
Let me get this straight, you think I’m “brainwashed into believing that the biblical god is real and is morally perfect” because I don’t think there is a problem with God torturing non-Christian Jews when He made it perfectly clear that He will if you don’t believe in Him. Therefore, I will view any “moral atrocity” that my God “is said to commit as morally good”. Let me tell you something, Brooks, you’d have to be brainwashed NOT to believe in God when He makes it clear you’ll roast in hell, if you don’t believe in Him. You see where I’m going with this? Just as much as you think God commits moral atrocities so I don’t think He does commit them. Just as much as you think He commits evil, I don’t think He commits evil. Furthermore, I know you equate the Christian conception of God as a “serial killer” but I don’t (as I already said). But, we already knew this, didn’t we? So, let’s go on… But, for the record, no, I wouldn’t have a problem with a serial killer who “failed to carry through on his threat.” As God is my witness, I hope he always fails!
I know there’s a lot of controversy even defining what ones “race” is, but let me give it a shot: Race is a group of people within a biological species. I guess, you can say I’m Irish, but I’m also a Christian. See? Like a Jewish-Christian. Do you think it’s not possible for a Jew to be a Christian?
Why do I think that God is an upright person who has a moral right and justification (let alone, a more moral right than Hitler or anybody else) to send and torture people to hell? Do you really have to ask me that question, Brooks? I resent the “brainwash” and “atrocity” part but you “answered” it when you said, “because you have been brainwashed into believing that the biblical god is real and is morally perfect. Therefore you will view any moral atrocity that this god is said to commit as morally good.”
Yes, I’ve read the Old Testament. I am a Christian after all. Let me guess, you’re going to prove that the Old Testament shows that God is a “mass serial torturer” and “murderer worse than Hitler” because of particular passages right? I think we’ve been through this: you know what I’ll say, I’ll know what you’ll say, I’ll prove your interpretation is wrong, you’ll try to prove your interpretation is right, yadda, yadda, yadda, etc.
I hope you don’t think that I’m scared or was trying to avoid in answering your question “Does the idea of Jewish Holocaust victims roasting in hell make you happy or not?” I just wanted to put things in perspective. Granting my perspective (my perspective being “It doesn't *necessarily follow that a Christian should be happy with God if He wants something to happen... namely people in hell. Furthermore, if I'm unhappy with what God wants to do that doesn't necessarily mean that God has done something wrong. Nor does it necessarily reflect badly on me for being unhappy with God!”), of course, it makes me unhappy of the idea of Jewish Holocaust victims roasting in hell. Christians have always (well, at least Christians I know of) hoped people will not go to hell. So, yes, I am unhappy that God sends people to hell. I say that four times, since you asked me four times. But, I know that He has to send people to hell because people deserve it, unless they are justified by the blood of Christ of course.
Whew! Now that we got all that out of the way, let’s get to the nitty-gritty…
I don’t judge the Christian God, Brooks, nor do I put Him on a standard. How can a perfect God be put on a standard but His own? Personally, I think a perfect God would cease to be perfect if I judge Him. Which brings me to the initial question which you missed completely. After you admitted that you judged God on your own moral standard, I wrote:
”Then would God be God if He were to submit to YOUR own standard of morality? Deal with this as a hypothetical - I know you don't believe in God or in an actual hell, but humor me. Since you are judging God on your own moral standard, would God be God if He were to bow down to your authority and say, "Hey, Brooks, you're right! I have no moral right to torture the Jews in the Holocaust to eternal damnation! What was I thinking? You da man!"Your wrote in “response”:
”In answer to your question: If your god existed and tortured people forever for their opinions…”No, no, that wasn’t the question. The question was if God DIDN’T torture people forever for their opinions because He granted YOUR opinion over HIS (meaning He submitted and bowed down to your authority – or, “opinion”, now that you mention it), would God still be God?
Hoping to hear from you,
Corey W.
PS I've noted your corrections in your other e-mail. Thanks.
Editor's note: I lost the two original e-mails that follow and so I had to copy them from the Atheism Sucks! site. For some reason some of the text from the Atheism Sucks! page shows up as gibberish in my browser and in the source code so I pretty much just left it the way that it was.
Date: June 17, 2004
Corey,
Sorry it has taken so long for me to get back to you.
COREY: Sorry, I'm still not convinced that you think that you aren't actually trying to NOT embarrass JP.
Well, you originally asked me this question:
COREY: But, I think it's something of a trap to have Holding admit to what you already know is true of Christianity and then say, "Ah-ha! See, God is worse than Hitler!
When I originally contacted XXX, I don't think it was my intention to put our e-mails up on my site. I asked him that Holocaust question to try and make him think about how absurd his beliefs were. Maybe I was trying to embarrass him into thinking more deeply about his wacky beliefs but I wasn't trying to embarrass him in front of anyone else. Anyway, he was the one who asked me to put our conversation up on my site. I think he wanted me to do this so that he could expose the identity of someone who I had e-mailed and who I cited in a response to him. This person had wanted to remain anonymous. As our conversation progressed, and as XXX insulted me and dodged questions and made up absurd rationalizations and used my site to expose the identity of this other person, I realized what a complete jackass he was. I lost interest in trying to reason with someone who was so dishonest and so obnoxious and so obviously brainwashed. Eventually I put links on the discussion page to information about "Holding" because I thought people should know more about his theology, debate tactics and dishonesty. I wanted to expose him as the jackass that he is.
COREY: Those links of "demented," "hilarious," Holding quotes (and then some) were used nothing more to convey that Holding is a man to think of as rather… well, demented and hilarious.
I think that his quotes are demented and hilarious and I think that XXX is a deluded religious fanatic. Of couse, because you are one of his religious cohorts, you feel the need to defend him.
COREY: After all, you wrote: "I will leave it for others to decide whether this (eternal torture of everyone who does not happen to share Holding's religious beliefs) qualifies as a form of insanity." I mean, how is that suppose to make him feel?
Like a deluded religious fanatic, hopefully.
COREY: Also, you have pictures of laughing faces on certain things Holding believes. For instance, you have a laughing face (among others) after you set a link about how Holding thinks the book of Genesis is literally, historically, and accurately true.Yes, that is a ridiculous, laughable belief.
COREY: So, you are kidding someone… At least, I think you're kidding me.How?
COREY: It may not have been your initial intention to have a website put up on Holding, but you ended up doing it anyway. In fact, you set up a whole website at tektonics, dot, com!
That is correct. So what is your point?
COREY: Anyway, can we give the JP Holding fiasco a rest? I think we're at the point where we just have to agree to disagree. You think you're not trying to embarrass him, whereas I do. So, that's that. Let's go on.
Your initial query was about the Holocaust question, which I asked XXX early in our discussion. I noted in an earlier e-mail to you that it seemed that YOU were trying to imply that I asked this question to "embarrass" XXX. I explained to you that AT THAT TIME, our discussion was not posted publicly and, as far as I recall, it was not my intention to post the discussion publicly. It was XXX who asked me to post the discussion publicly, So, I was not trying to embarrass XXX in front of anyone else at that time, and your implication that I was-if that was indeed what you were trying to imply-was false. You then wrote that, no, I was trying to embarrass XXX, and you cited several links and quotes that were added to the XXX discussion page long after XXX and I stopped exchanging e-mails. This was a different assertion than what you seemed to be implying at first. By the end of the XXX discussion, after I saw what kind of person XXX was, I felt that he needed to be exposed as the lying, obnoxious jackass that he was. I thought he should be made to feel embarrassed and ashamed of his behavior and for his ridiculous beliefs, if that was possible. It was all done, of course, to make him a better person. : )
COREY: Let me get this straight, you think I'm "brainwashed into believing that the biblical god is real and is morally perfect" because I don't think there is a problem with God torturing non-Christian Jews when He made it perfectly clear that He will if you don't believe in Him. Therefore, I will view any "moral atrocity" that my God "is said to commit as morally good". Let me tell you something, Brooks, you'd have to be brainwashed NOT to believe in God when He makes it clear you'll roast in hell, if you don't believe in Him.
I don't believe that your god is real. Therefore I don't believe that this god ever said anything to anyone. Do you understand this point or not? I think you are brainwashed for thinking that this god exists and that he tortures people forever for their thoughts.
COREY: You see where I'm going with this? Just as much as you think God commits moral atrocities so I don't think He does commit them.
Sure, because you have been brainwashed to think that a ridiculous, burnt-sacrifice demanding, infant slaughtering, slavery supporting, eternally torturing war god invented a tribe of superstitious, relatively ignorant primitive people, is the personification of moral perfection.
COREY: Just as much as you think He commits evil, I don't think He commits evil. Furthermore, I know you equate the Christian conception of God as a "serial killer" but I don't (as I already said). But, we already knew this, didn't we? So, let's go on… But, for the record, no, I wouldn't have a problem with a serial killer who "failed to carry through on his threat." As God is my witness, I hope he always fails!
But you have no problem with your god carrying through on his promise to torture people for eternity. What is the difference?
BROOKS: Could you explain in more detail what it means to "racially" be a Jew? Thank you.
COREY: I know there's a lot of controversy even defining what ones "race" is, but let me give it a shot: Race is a group of people within a biological species. I guess, you can say I'm Irish, but I'm also a Christian. See?
No, I don't. Are you "racially" a Christian?
COREY: Like a Jewish-Christian. Do you think it's not possible for a Jew to be a Christian?
No. Either you are a Jew or you are a Christian. Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of God. Christians do.
Do you see the problem?
COREY: Why do I think that God is an upright person who has a moral right and justification (let alone, a more moral right than Hitler or anybody else) to send and torture people to hell? Do you really have to ask me that question, Brooks? I resent the "brainwash" and "atrocity" part but you "answered" it when you said, "because you have been brainwashed into believing that the biblical god is real and is morally perfect. Therefore you will view any moral atrocity that this god is said to commit as morally good."
I don't know what you are trying to say. Is there anything at all that your god could do which you would regard as immoral and wrong?
COREY: I know you don't applaud Him for his honesty and promise but that's because you're presuming He's a mass murderer.
BROOKS: The biblical god IS a mass murderer as well as a mass torturer.
COREY: However, I don't think He is.
BROOKS: Ever read the Old Testament? Yes or no?
COREY: Yes, I've read the Old Testament. I am a Christian after all.
I would say that most Christians never actually read the Bible all the way through. In any case, in the Bible the Christian god is shown to be a mass-murderer and a mass-torturer.
COREY: Let me guess, you're going to prove that the Old Testament shows that God is a "mass serial torturer" and "murderer worse than Hitler" because of particular passages right? I think we've been through this: you know what I'll say, I'll know what you'll say, I'll prove your interpretation is wrong, you'll try to prove your interpretation is right, yadda, yadda, yadda, etc.
So is it your claim that your god is NOT a mass murderer and mass-torturer?
COREY: Furthermore, if I'm unhappy with what God wants to do that doesn't necessarily mean that God has done something wrong. Nor does it necessarily reflect badly on me for being unhappy with God!"), of course, it makes me unhappy of the idea of Jewish Holocaust victims roasting in hell. Christians have always (well, at least Christians I know of) hoped people will not go to hell. So, yes, I am unhappy that God sends people to hell. I say that four times, since you asked me four times.. But, I know that He has to send people to hell because people deserve it, unless they are justified by the blood of Christ of course.
So the Holocaust victims who are roasting in hell right now deserve it, correct? Could you tell me why they "deserve" eternal torture at the hands of the god that you worship?
COREY: I don't judge the Christian God, Brooks, nor do I put Him on a standard.
You judged the Christian god to be morally good, correct? Yes or no?
COREY: How can a perfect God be put on a standard but His own? Personally, I think a perfect God would cease to be perfect if I judge Him.
How did you judge the biblical god to be "perfect"? How did you determine that the biblical god is "perfect" in the first place?
COREY: Which brings me to the initial question which you missed completely. After you admitted that you judged God on your own moral standard, I wrote:
"Then would God be God if He were to submit to YOUR own standard of morality? Deal with this as a hypothetical - I know you don't believe in God or in an actual hell, but humor me. Since you are judging God on your own moral standard, would God be God if He were to bow down to your authority and say, "Hey, Brooks, you're right! I have no moral right to torture the Jews in the Holocaust to eternal damnation! What was I thinking? You da man!"
Your wrote in "response":
"In answer to your question: If your god existed and tortured people forever for their opinions…" (…then I would regard him as an immoral monster who was worse than any mass-murdering dictator who ever lived..)
No, no, that wasn't the question. The question was if God DIDN'T torture people forever for their opinions because He granted YOUR opinion over HIS (meaning He submitted and bowed down to your authority - or, "opinion", now that you mention it), would God still be God?
I did not dodge your question the first time around. It did not really make sense to me yet I answered it as best that I could. But let's try it again. You are asking me if the biblical god would still be the biblical god if it didn't torture people for eternity for their thoughts, right? No, the biblical god would not be the biblical god if it did not torture people for eternity for their thoughts because, of course, that is what the biblical god is specifically said to do in the Bible. If the biblical god did not torture people for eternity for their thoughts, it would not be the biblical god anymore, but some other, different god that did not torture people for eternity for their thoughts.
So what is your point? Feel free to clarify your question if you still think I do not understand what you are asking me.
Here is my question: How did you judge the biblical god to be morally good?
Later,
Brooks
June 26, 2004Good to hear from you, Brooks.
In your response to JP Holding, you did exactly as I said: “You think you’re not trying to embarrass him, whereas I do.” So, I’m not so sure why you felt the time to deal with the “JP Holding” fiasco in so much detail. But, I think now you’re admitting something that’s even worse than denying that you’re trying to embarrass him initially. Now, you’re telling me you wanted to show how much of a “jackass” he is and that he’s a “deluded religious fanatic”. I mean, forget the embarrassing part, you really hate the guy! And, I think you have a vendetta against JP, which you aren’t the least hiding. But, then again, who cares if you were not trying “to embarrass XXX in front of anyone else at that time” or not, either way you said: “I thought he should be made to feel embarrassed and ashamed of his behavior and for his ridiculous beliefs, if that was possible. It was all done, of course, to make him a better person. :)”
Anyway, not to be cheeky, but the statement...
COREY: But, I think it's something of a trap to have Holding admit to what you already know is true of Christianity and then say, "Ah-ha! See, God is worse than Hitler!
... is not a "question", but a statement.
Thanks for letting me know that it was JP’s idea to post the discussion you guys had. And, yes, I know you told me it wasn’t your original intention to embarrass him although I totally dispute that – as my STATEMENT above shows. Trying to embarrass him "in front of anyone" or not is irrelevant really as I stated above. JP telling you to post the discussion clears things up, but did he expect you to build tectonics, dot, com? And, did he expect all the name-callings? And all the condescending smiley-faces? Probably not. With all due respect, the least you can do is keep it clean.
As for the brainwashing dictum, again, you did exactly as I said: "Just as much as you think He (God) commits evil, I don't think He commits evil. Furthermore, I know you equate the Christian conception of God as a "serial killer" but I don't (as I already said). But, we already knew this, didn't we? So, let's go on..." And that’s all that’s really happening in your detailed response.
I understand your point that you don’t believe in the God that I believe in exists. That’s why I was talking hypothetically. But, the statement "I think you are brainwashed for thinking that this god exists and that he tortures people forever for their thoughts" is question-begging! Do you understand this point or not? Thus, I said, "You see where I'm going with this? Just as much as you think God commits moral atrocities so I don't think He does commit them."
"Sure, because you have been brainwashed to think that a ridiculous, burnt-sacrifice demanding, infant slaughtering, slavery supporting, eternally torturing war god invented a tribe of superstitious, relatively ignorant primitive people, is the personification of moral perfection"? Well, I guess you’re not getting where I’m going with this. You see, telling me I’m brainwashed is no more question-begging than saying you’re brain-washed too. It goes like this: You really think God did something wrong because of reason X. I really believe that He didn’t do anything wrong because of reason Y. You don’t believe reason Y, therefore, you think I’m brainwashed. Now, let’s flip the script: You really think God did something wrong because of reason X. I really believe that He didn’t do anything wrong because of reason Y. You don’t believe reason Y, therefore, you’re brainwashed.
You asked me: "But you have no problem with your god carrying through on his promise to torture people for eternity. What is the difference?"
Well, as I said, I don’t presume that God is a mass serial killer. A mass serial killer is a person who kills people unjustifiably. On the other hand, I believe that God has the justifiable reason for killing people, let alone sending people for hell eternally. You see no justification for all the killing God commanded and did? Well, of course, you don’t. But, like I said, we already knew this.
Am I a racial Christian? Well I defined race as "a group of people within a biological species." Can you please tell me how that entails one to believe in a racial Christian.
Oh, I certainly see the problem. The premise "Either you are a Jew or you are a Christian" is what you call an either/or fallacy. The problem is one can racially be a Jew and also religiously be a Jew. For instance, CS Lewis’ wife was racially a Jew but religiously a Christian. There’s an organization that call themselves "Jews for Jesus" by the way. You guessed it, they’re racially Jews but they are religiously Christians. You can checkout their website here: www.jewsforjesus.com. Furthermore, one can be of any race and be religiously Jew. For instance, there were plenty of racial Polish people who were religiously Jews who were persecuted in the Holocaust. Furthermore, there were plenty of racial Italians yet religiously Jew people too. See?
Is there anything at all that my God could do which you would regard as immoral and wrong? I said it before and I’ll say it again: Do you really have to ask me that question, Brooks? I resent the "brainwash" and "atrocity" part but you "answered" it when you said, "because you have been brainwashed into believing that the biblical god is real and is morally perfect. Therefore you will view any moral atrocity that this god is said to commit as morally good." Are you sure you don’t understand what I’m saying? Because you answered it for me right here. And again, you’re just as "brainwashed" as I am, which only amounts to begging the question.
So is it my claim that my God is NOT a mass murderer and mass-torturer? *SIGH* Read the previous paragraph. But, I’ll answer your question. YES! IT IS MY CLAIM THAT MY GOD IS NOT A MASS MURDERER AND MASS-TORTURER. I’m a Christian, Brooks. Not to condescend you, but you ought to know some of the stuff I believe (although we have radically different interpretations), after all you claimed you use to be a Christian.
You asked me: "So the Holocaust victims who are roasting in hell right now deserve it, correct? Could you tell me why they "deserve" eternal torture at the hands of the god that you worship?"
Brooks, maybe, it’s because it’s been a long time, but I answered these questions already. Anyway, I’ll answer them again. To the first question: You bet! To the second: They deserve it because they didn’t believe in the Christian God. Thrice, I’ll say it: Do you really have to ask me these questions, Brooks?
Do I judge God to be morally good and perfect? No way! Like, I said, I don’t put Him on a standard. I don’t *judge* him to be moral. I *know* that He is moral (there is a difference between judging something and knowing something). We were made in His image, thus *intuitively* giving humans the capacity of knowing that certain objective moral values exist – like, knowing God is good. For example, we know that kindness is a virtue and not a vice, that torturing babies is immoral, that child abuse is wrong. We know these things virtually without reflection, without thinking them through. While *reason confirms* the basic rightness of these intuitions, we don't seem to know this by *means of* reason. And we regularly rely on these intuitions to make practical, everyday moral decisions. On the other hand, I would argue that atheism can’t account for intuition :) If you think they can, please tell me how.
Thanks for clarifying your answer. It’s WAY different and better than the first one you gave me: "In answer to your question: If your god existed and tortured people forever for their opinions, then I would regard him as an immoral monster who was worse than any mass-murdering dictator who ever lived."
But, I don’t think you’re really getting the gist of my original question: "You are asking me if the biblical god would still be the biblical god if it didn't torture people for eternity for their thoughts, right?"
Sort of, but, not really... and it depends what their thoughts are. Anyway, this is the original question: "if God DIDN’T torture people forever for their opinions because He granted *YOUR* opinion over *HIS* (meaning He submitted and bowed down to your authority – or, "opinion", now that you mention it), would God still be God" was the original question. You seem to take yourself out of the equation. Anyway, you kind of answered it, thanks.
My point is quite simple Brooks: you, a created being, think - or have been "brainwashed" no less... yeah, I know that begs the question - you have more authority over God, your Creator, for God to be Himself, thus making Him not-God. Obviously, this line of thinking makes no sense whatsoever. And you would agree that God wouldn’t be God: "No, the biblical god would not be the biblical god if it did not torture people for eternity for their thoughts because, of course, that is what the biblical god is specifically said to do in the Bible." Like I said, it depends what their thoughts are. Furthermore, since you say "that is what the biblical god is specifically said to do in the Bible" can you please quote me where it says, "God tortures people for eternity for their thoughts" or something close to that nature.
Anyway, it still stands, you prefer God to not be God, or worse, you think you know how a God should behave. Albeit you don’t think He or hell exists.
Just wondering, Brooks. How do you know what’s morally right or wrong? And how can you account for morality?
Yours,
Corey
Subject: For "Corey"
Date: 12/24/2005 3:37:22 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: atheismsucks@yahoo.comTo Whom It May Concern,
This e-mail is an overdue response to the "Brooks is going to Hell" e-mail discussion on your site. I am unable to find the e-mail address I had for "Corey."
Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corey,
Hello. I hope you are doing well. I am sorry I have taken so long to respond to your last e-mail. Something that I just noticed is that I have not included the last two e-mails from our e-mail discussion on the Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief website-so I plan to add them.
COREY: Good to hear from you, Brooks.Because, Corey, you initially implied that I WAS trying to embarrass Turkel by asking him if he thought that the Holocaust victims were roasting in hell-BUT, as I explained, I asked him this question in a private e-mail and I don't believe that it was my intention to put our discussion on the Internet. You then implied that I was being less than honest, that I was trying to embarrass him and to support this idea you cited comments I made only after Turkel had asked me to make our e-mails public. That is why I am explaining this to you again and again.COREY: In your response to JP Holding, you did exactly as I said: “You think you’re not trying to embarrass him, whereas I do.” So, I’m not so sure why you felt the time to deal with the “JP Holding” fiasco in so much detail. But, I think now you’re admitting something that’s even worse than denying that you’re trying to embarrass him initially. Now, you’re telling me you wanted to show how much of a “jackass” he is and that he’s a “deluded religious fanatic”. I mean, forget the embarrassing part, you really hate the guy! And, I think you have a vendetta against JP, which you aren’t the least hiding. But, then again, who cares if you were not trying “to embarrass XXX in front of anyone else at that time” or not,
COREY: either way you said: “I thought he should be made to feel embarrassed and ashamed of his behavior and for his ridiculous beliefs, if that was possible. It was all done, of course, to make him a better person. :)”Yes, after I made our e-mails public-at Turkel’s request-I realized that he was obnoxious, conniving, deceptive and dishonest. So I commented on his behavior to help others understand this and also, perhaps, to convince Turkel to stop acting like a grossly immature child.
COREY: Thanks for letting me know that it was JP’s idea to post the discussion you guys had. And, yes, I know you told me it wasn’t your original intention to embarrass him although I totally dispute that – as my STATEMENT above shows. Trying to embarrass him "in front of anyone" or not is irrelevant really as I stated above. JP telling you to post the discussion clears things up, but did he expect you to build tectonics, dot, com? And, did he expect all the name-callings? And all the condescending smiley-faces? Probably not. With all due respect, the least you can do is keep it clean.Like the Atheism Sucks website? : ) The fact is that Turkel is a close-minded fundamentalist who uses deception and dishonesty in debates and discussions. I think that people should be made aware of his unethical behavior and his closed-loop thinking before they waste countless hours trying to reason with him. By the way, here is the new address for the Tektonics site: http://the-anointed-one.com/
COREY: You asked me: "But you have no problem with your god carrying through on his promise to torture people for eternity. What is the difference?"Just to make this question more clear I am pasting in the original exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COREY: But, for the record, no, I wouldn't have a problem with a serial killer who "failed to carry through on his threat." As God is my witness, I hope he always fails!---------------------------------------------------------------------------------BROOKS: But you have no problem with your god carrying through on his promise to torture people for eternity. What is the difference?
COREY: Well, as I said, I don’t presume that God is a mass serial killer. A mass serial killer is a person who kills people unjustifiably. On the other hand, I believe that God has the justifiable reason for killing people, let alone sending people for hell eternally. You see no justification for all the killing God commanded and did? Well, of course, you don’t. But, like I said, we already knew this.Okay. So why do you believe that the mass killings of men, women, children and infants that your god commands and commits are justified? Why do you believe that this god’s eternal torture of men, women and children for their opinions is justified?
COREY: Am I a racial Christian? Well I defined race as "a group of people within a biological species." Can you please tell me how that entails one to believe in a racial Christian.COREY: Oh, I certainly see the problem. The premise "Either you are a Jew or you are a Christian" is what you call an either/or fallacy. The problem is one can racially be a Jew and also religiously be a Jew. For instance, CS Lewis’ wife was racially a Jew but religiously a Christian. There’s an organization that call themselves "Jews for Jesus" by the way. You guessed it, they’re racially Jews but they are religiously Christians.
So is Judaism is a race? I am guessing that most Jews would find this idea offensive. See this page here:
http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm
COREY: You can checkout their website here: www.jewsforjesus.com. Furthermore, one can be of any race and be religiously Jew. For instance, there were plenty of racial Polish people who were religiously Jews who were persecuted in the Holocaust.So is Polish a race? Is Christianity a race? Just as “Asian” and “Caucasian” are considered races?
COREY: Furthermore, there were plenty of racial Italians yet religiously Jew people too. See?No, I don't. I am talking about belief systems and Judaism is not a race. Someone who is religiously a Jew does not accept that Jesus is the “Son of God.” Ergo, such a person cannot be called a Christian.
Whatever...
COREY: Is there anything at all that my God could do which you would regard as immoral and wrong? I said it before and I’ll say it again: Do you really have to ask me that question, Brooks?Yes, I do.
COREY: I resent the "brainwash" and "atrocity" part but you "answered" it when you said, "because you have been brainwashed into believing that the biblical god is real and is morally perfect. Therefore you will view any moral atrocity that this god is said to commit as morally good." Are you sure you don’t understand what I’m saying? Because you answered it for me right here. And again, you’re just as "brainwashed" as I am, which only amounts to begging the question.The reason that I say that you have been brainwashed into accepting Christianity is because it is obvious to me. Below is a link to a series of articles and essays that explains how Christians are brainwashed. Check it out:
http://the-anointed-one.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/links.htm#re
Anyway-just to confirm-is it your position that there is nothing even hypothetically that your God could do that you could call morally wrong? Yes or no?
COREY: So is it my claim that my God is NOT a mass murderer and mass-torturer? *SIGH* Read the previous paragraph. But, I’ll answer your question. YES! IT IS MY CLAIM THAT MY GOD IS NOT A MASS MURDERER AND MASS-TORTURER. I’m a Christian, Brooks. Not to condescend you, but you ought to know some of the stuff I believe (although we have radically different interpretations), after all you claimed you use to be a Christian.Okay, so you believe that your god’s mass killings of men, women and children are justified for some reason. Would you care to explain why they are justified? Secondly, you believe that your god created hell and that he sends billions of people to be tortured for eternity in hell. Correct? If so, do you then agree that your god is a mass torturer? Yes or no?
COREY: You asked me: "So the Holocaust victims who are roasting in hell right now deserve it, correct? Could you tell me why they "deserve" eternal torture at the hands of the god that you worship?"COREY: Brooks, maybe, it’s because it’s been a long time, but I answered these questions already. Anyway, I’ll answer them again. To the first question: You bet! To the second: They deserve it because they didn’t believe in the Christian God.
I just want to make sure that I understand you. You believe that anyone who happens to hold the opinion that the Christian god does not exist deserves eternal torture for holding that opinion? You actually believe that people deserve eternal torture for their thoughts? Correct?
COREY: Thrice, I’ll say it: Do you really have to ask me these questions, Brooks?Yes, I do. Do you find these questions upsetting? If you do, it might be because at some level you recognize that the idea of torturing people forever for their opinions is absolutely and completely sick and demented.
COREY: Do I judge God to be morally good and perfect? No way! Like, I said, I don’t put Him on a standard. I don’t *judge* him to be moral. I *know* that He is moral (there is a difference between judging something and knowing something).How do you “know” this, Corey?
COREY: We were made in His image,Why should anyone believe this assertion, Corey?
COREY: thus *intuitively* giving humans the capacity of knowing that certain objective moral values exist – like, knowing God is good.Or perhaps God is evil and he duped Christians like yourself into thinking that he is good. Or, hey, maybe God does not exist and Christians such as yourself simply make up "explanations" about God and morality that have absolutely no basis in facts or logic.
Think about it.
Why should anyone accept that your God “explanation” of morality is true? What, if anything, is your claim based on?
COREY: For example, we know that kindness is a virtue and not a vice, that torturing babies is immoral, that child abuse is wrong. We know these things virtually without reflection, without thinking them through. While *reason confirms* the basic rightness of these intuitions, we don't seem to know this by *means of* reason. And we regularly rely on these intuitions to make practical, everyday moral decisions. On the other hand, I would argue that atheism can’t account for intuition :) If you think they can, please tell me how.This is kind of vague. What you call "intuition" might be another name for common sense, instinct, empathy, cultural conditioning or a combination of all these things.
COREY: Thanks for clarifying your answer. It’s WAY different and better than the first one you gave me: "In answer to your question: If your god existed and tortured people forever for their opinions, then I would regard him as an immoral monster who was worse than any mass-murdering dictator who ever lived."COREY: But, I don’t think you’re really getting the gist of my original question: "You are asking me if the biblical god would still be the biblical god if it didn't torture people for eternity for their thoughts, right?"
COREY: Sort of, but, not really... and it depends what their thoughts are. Anyway, this is the original question: "if God DIDN’T torture people forever for their opinions because He granted *YOUR* opinion over *HIS* (meaning He submitted and bowed down to your authority – or, "opinion", now that you mention it), would God still be God" was the original question. You seem to take yourself out of the equation. Anyway, you kind of answered it, thanks.
COREY: My point is quite simple Brooks: you, a created being, think - or have been "brainwashed" no less... yeah, I know that begs the question - you have more authority over God, your Creator, for God to be Himself, thus making Him not-God. Obviously, this line of thinking makes no sense whatsoever.
Let me make things as clear to you as I know how: I think that the deity that your devote your life to worshipping is simply a make-believe ancient war god whose barbaric behavior reflects the culture that produced it. I hope that this is clear.
COREY: And you would agree that God wouldn’t be God: "No, the biblical god would not be the biblical god if it did not torture people for eternity for their thoughts because, of course, that is what the biblical god is specifically said to do in the Bible." Like I said, it depends what their thoughts are. Furthermore, since you say "that is what the biblical god is specifically said to do in the Bible" can you please quote me where it says, "God tortures people for eternity for their thoughts" or something close to that nature.According to Christian theology, anyone who does not believe in the Christian god-in other words, anyone who does have the opinion that the Christian god exists-will be sent to hell by God. (Editor's note: Of course I meant "does not have the opinion") Here are some pertinent quotes:
"...he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."
Jesus-John 3:18
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the son shall not see life, but the wrath of god rests upon him."
Jesus-John 3:36
"If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned."
Jesus-speaking in a parable-John 15:6
"...but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the age to come."
Jesus-Matthew 12:32
"He who believes and who is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."
Jesus-Mark 16:16
"The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth."
Jesus-Matthew 13:49
According to the Bible, all the terrible, horrible, really, really bad unbelievers such as myself will suffer torture in hell forever. Consider, if you will, the following passages:
Matthew 25:46: " And these shall go away into everlasting punishment."
Mark 9:43-48: "...it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched"
Revelation 14:11: " And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night..."
There is some more information about hell here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hel_bibl.htm
COREY: Anyway, it still stands, you prefer God to not be God, or worse, you think you know how a God should behave.I think that a being that is said to be the epitome of moral goodness and who is also said to torture people unceasingly for eternity based on their opinions represents an impossible contradiction. It fascinates me and, I must admit, it horrifies me that people like yourself can worship such a being and claim without a hint of irony that this being is the personification of moral perfection.
COREY: Albeit you don’t think He or hell exists.COREY: Just wondering, Brooks. How do you know what’s morally right or wrong? And how can you account for morality?
I make moral judgments based on the harm or the benefits that I predict actions will have. I use reason, logic, learning, knowledge, experience, empathy, compassion and my sense of justice and fairness to determine whether an action is good or bad or right or wrong.
As far as accounting for morality-human morality has developed or evolved along with the human race. Human morality exists simply because humans are social animals and must live together in some degree of harmony to thrive as a species.
For your benefit, here is some more information about morality:
http://the-anointed-one.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/ethics.htm#Chr
Here is how YOU explained human morality:
COREY: “We were made in His (God’s) image, thus *intuitively* giving humans the capacity of knowing that certain objective moral values exist – like, knowing God is good.”My question, again, is this: Why should anyone believe this claim?
I am curious about something else. If you discovered that your god did not exist, would your behavior change towards other people and, if so, how would it change?
Thank you for your time.
Brooks
Subject: For "Brooks"
Date: 12/24/2005 6:33:27 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com
Hiyah Brooks,
Great to hear from you after such a long time (over 545 days)! What I'm most thankful for in your response was the self-induced embarassment you put yourself in. For instance, your lack of reading comprehension attests to your constant repetitive questions. Let's take for instance the issue of God sending people to hell. Thus far you have been replying in this nature:
Brooks: You really think it's okay for God to send people to hell for their opinions?
Corey: Well, God is not sending them just for their opinions. He's sending them to hell because they don't believe in Him?
Brooks: But you think it's fair?
Corey: Yes.
Brooks: Honestly, you think it's fair?
Corey: Yes.
Brooks: Seriously, now, you really think it's fair?
Corey: *Sigh* Yes!
Brooks: I'm not joking, you really think that's fair?
Corey: Yyyyyeeesssss!
Brooks: ...okaaay, nooow I get it. But seriously, why would God send people to hell?
Corey: Do you really need me to answer this question again?
Brooks: Yes. Is it fair for God to send people to hell? Yes or no?
Corey: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Get it, now?
Brooks: But why would God send people to hell?
As for the "Jews as race or religion" you are feigning your incomprehension over this issue even after you APOLOGIZED to me (unfortunately, that post no longer exists) about your misunderstanding of how I used Jew in terms of religion and race: meaning, YOU'RE LYING AND BEING DISHONST WITH YOUR RESPONSE. You knew I was right yet you couldn't bear it so you continue to ignore the facts.
Yet even after I showed how your responses were rifed with ignorance, repetitive questions, feign confusion, and self-defeating premises you continue? Okay, let's get the ball rolling!
Brooks: Because, Corey, you initially implied that I WAS trying to embarrass Turkel by asking him if he thought that the Holocaust victims were roasting in hell-BUT, as I explained, I asked him this question in a private e-mail and I don't believe that it was my intention to put our discussion on the Internet. You then implied that I was being less than honest, that I was trying to embarrass him and to support this idea you cited comments I made only after Turkel had asked me to make our e-mails public. That is why I am explaining this to you again and again.This has already been dealt with in detail in my last email to you: June 26, 2004 - under "Thanks for letting me know that it was JP’s idea to post the discussion you guys had...." So, your bringing it up again either shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.
I actually reprimanded you for not keeping your website on JP Holding "clean." However, you thought my website was not clean with the aftermentioned, "Like the Atheism Sucks website? : ) " Well... yes. I kept my debate with you clean, Brooks. I warned and told you of my website on you while waiting and waiting and wating for a response. You had the audacity of NOT keeping my discussion with you clean after NOT including the quote-endquotes (in my April 18th response) around "prolific torturer" remember? You made it look as if though I was claiming it's a good thing that God is worse than Hitler. Unfortunately, nobody can see it now that the board is deleted. But you are everything (and then some) that you accused JP Holding of being "obnoxious, conniving, deceptive and dishonest." Even after you said you meticulously copied me word-for-word you deliberately took out the quote-endquotes.
Either way, it still stand as I predicted you wanted to embarass JP Holding. In fact, you conceded to that point but feel the need to keep arguing about it. *SHRUGS* Oh, well.
BROOKS ASKS YET AGAIN: Okay. So why do you believe that the mass killings of men, women, children and infants that your god commands and commits are justified? Why do you believe that this god's eternal torture of men, women and children for their opinions is justified?I've answered these quesions way back in my April 18th response (3rd paragraph) and May 23, 2004 under "Why do I think that God is an upright person..." So your bringing it up again either shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.
By now you probably think that my accusing you of having a lack of reading comprehension is ad hominem. It isn't, Brooks. This part would have to be proof of it:
I said: Am I a racial Christian? Well I defined race as "a group of people within a biological species." Can you please tell me how that entails one to believe in a racial Christian. Oh, I certainly see the problem. The premise "Either you are a Jew or you are a Christian" is what you call an either/or fallacy. The problem is one can racially be a Jew and also religiously be a Jew. For instance, CS Lewis’ wife was racially a Jew but religiously a Christian. There’s an organization that call themselves "Jews for Jesus" by the way. You guessed it, they’re racially Jews but they are religiously Christians.
First off, remember, as I mentioned above you actually apologized to me for your misunderstanding the difference between a race and a religion in context of Jews. I accepted your apology by the way but I'm afraid I may have to take it back because you still haven't learned: even with the obvious fact that one can be a religious Jew while being of a difference race (black, Chinese, Italian, Polish, etc.) and with the self-apparent fact that you quoted me too (which is to say you actually read it but I doubt it) you feign confusion about my premise and asked me, "So is Judaism is a race? So is Polish a race? Is Christianity a race? Just as “Asian” and “Caucasian” are considered races?" Brooks, buddy, please get some help. I'll pray for you.
COREY: Is there anything at all that my God could do which you would regard as immoral and wrong? I said it before and I'll say it again: Do you really have to ask me that question, Brooks?BROOKS, predictably: Yes, I do.
LOL, Yeah, I can see why :o) Please read May 3rd response. Your bringing it up again either shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.
BROOKS: The reason that I say that you have been brainwashed into accepting Christianity is because it is obvious to me.I've dealt with the type of argument before in my responses to you: you're begging the question (June 26th). But let me add as an evolutionist, you have NO CHOICE but to believe what you believe. Thus, you can never know whether you are right or wrong.
http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2005/11/problem-of-materialism-part-3.html
BROOKS ASKS YET AGAIN: Anyway-just to confirm-is it your position that there is nothing even hypothetically that your God could do that you could call morally wrong? Yes or no?You know, Brooks, there is such a thing as a question-dodger but you have me convined that there is such a thing as an answer-dodger. I already dealt with this here: May 3rd under "Let me get this straight..." Your bringing this up again either shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.
BROOKS ASKS YET AGAIN: Okay, so you believe that your god’s mass killings of men, women and children are justified for some reason. Would you care to explain why they are justified?Look up April 18th response. You're bringing this up again shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.
BROOKS ASYS YET AGAIN: Secondly, you believe that your god created hell and that he sends billions of people to be tortured for eternity in hell. Correct? If so, do you then agree that your god is a mass torturer? Yes or no?Look up April 18th reply, exchange "murderer" for "torturer". Your bringing this up again either shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.
BROOKS ASKS YET AGAIN: I just want to make sure that I understand you. You believe that anyone who happens to hold the opinion that the Christian god does not exist deserves eternal torture for holding that opinion? You actually believe that people deserve eternal torture for their thoughts? Correct?Look up June 26th response (you know the part where you quoted me). Your bringing this up again either shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.
BROOKS ASKS (BUT MAY ASK AGAIN): Do you find these (repetitive) questions upsetting? (paranethesis mine)I don't find these questions upsetting but repetitive and tiresome. I was hoping to engage in a smart and intelligent discourse but I don't see that happening with you, Brooks. I'm reminded of what Lief Moi said of you, "I finally realized that Brook’s was not interested in hearing the truth but just wanted to cause trouble so I discontinued letting him call in." You know, Brooks, I tried to think the best of you that you're not trying to cause trouble here but I'm afraid I can't anymore because of the self-explanatory evidence here. Lief was right.
BROOKS ASKS WITHOUT FIRST READING AHEAD: How do you “know” this (that God is good), Corey? Why should anyone believe this assertion (that man was made in God's image), Corey?Answered in June 26th response (you know the part where you quoted me).
BROOKS: Or perhaps God is evil and he duped Christians like yourself into thinking that he is good. Or, hey, maybe God does not exist and Christians such as yourself simply make up "explanations" about God and morality that have absolutely no basis in facts or logic. Think about it.This is a possibility. But with the knowledge we have of God through scripture I have no reason to think otherwise. Your question presumes radical skepticism where one can make wild claims like man may be nothing more than his brain in a vat wielded with electric impulses by a doctor. That's certainly possible but I hold to what's called the credulity principle where there's no reason to reject what seems so obvious to us in favor of less obvious alternatives. This maybe circular reasoning but when one argues in defence of an ultimate epistemic authority, such as an ultimate standard of truth, then some element of circularity will be unavoidable.
BROOKS: Why should anyone accept that your God “explanation” of morality is true? What, if anything, is your claim based on?The Bible.
Please quote me where I compare intuition to vague notions as "common sense, instinct, empathey, cultural conditioning".
BROOKS: Let me make things as clear to you as I know how: I think that the deity that your devote your life to worshipping is simply a make-believe ancient war god whose barbaric behavior reflects the culture that produced it. I hope that this is clear.You just begged the question. But sure, it's clear I knew this from the beginning but why are you bringing it up when I already knew you had this view of God? It's kind of like how you asked JP Holding, "Does your god or does your god not torture all the Jews who suffered and died in the Holocaust?"
I said: "...can you please quote me where it says, "God tortures people for eternity for their thoughts" or something close to that nature."
BROOKS ANSWERED: According to Christian theology, anyone who does not believe in the Christian god-in other words, anyone who does have the opinion that the Christian god exists-will be sent to hell by God. (Editor's note: Of course I meant "does not have the opinion")First off, it's interesting that you DO know why God sends people to hell yet you keep asking me it over and over and over. Also, what's interesting, Brooks, is that you acknowledged that you first believed that God sends people to hell because of their "thoughts" then you said it was because of their "opinions" NOW you refute both of these claims to mean something else. Thank you for bringing up the Bible by the way. You're right God sends people to hell because they don't believe in Him.
Your link is irrelevant to the topic as far as why God sends people to hell as opposed to WHERE hell is.
BROOKS: I think that a being that is said to be the epitome of moral goodness and who is also said to torture people unceasingly for eternity based on their opinions represents an impossible contradiction.As we've seen you couldn't even make the case that it's a contradiction because you're making question-begging arguments.
BROOKS: It fascinates me and, I must admit, it horrifies me that people like yourself can worship such a being and claim without a hint of irony that this being is the personification of moral perfection.Well, that's just an appeal to your own emotions, Brooks. You're going to have to make a case for morality to make any sense of what horrifies you.
BROOKS: I make moral judgments based on the harm or the benefits that I predict actions will have.So, do murderers, rapists, psychopaths, and sociopaths. Hitler killed off Jews because they were hindering the Aryan race. So, what he did benefited the Aryan race according to your use of morality.
BROOKS: I use reason, logic, learning, knowledge, experience, empathy, compassion and my sense of justice and fairness to determine whether an action is good or bad or right or wrong.So do Nazis.
BROOKS: As far as accounting for morality-human morality has developed or evolved along with the human race.LOL, so since morality evolves what could be good now can be evil later.
BROOKS: Human morality exists simply because humans are social animals and must live together in some degree of harmony to thrive as a species.Other species killed off other species so their own species can live. If we can compare that to humans then Hitler did was right, correct? By answering "no" to this you are defeating your own premise. By answering "yes" you're a sicko. Either way your moral system is bankrupt of reasoning and rationality.
BROOKS ASKS AGAIN: My question, again, is this: Why should anyone believe this claim?Already dealt with. Your bringing this up again shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.
BROOKS: I am curious about something else. If you discovered that your god did not exist, would your behavior change towards other people and, if so, how would it change?If I discovered that God did not exist? There has to be epistempic reasons as far as how I came to that discovery. However, if God didn't exist I suppose I'd follow your own sense of morality where I may end up treating people like how Adolf treated the Jews and if that wasn't the case it wouldn't matter anyway because whatever evil is may end up being good because morality evolves and so you can't say for sure what I do is right or wrong or good or evil.
Welp, that seems to be it Brooks. We have seen how you mistreated JP Holding, how you made zero-case as far as why (or for what good or fair reason) God sends people to hell, how you suffer from insecurity or lack of reading comprehension because you repeat the same questions over and over again, how your accounting for morality is incomprehensible, and how your emails reek of ignorance, lies, half-truths, feigning of confusion, and desperation. I love it!
Have a merry CHRISTmas, Brooks.
Corey Washington
Subject: answer your own question
Date: 12/24/2005 7:14:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
Reply To:
To: XXXXXXCorey,
I will likely respond to the rest of your latest e-mail later, but for now I just want you to answer your own question. So...
How do you, Corey, know what’s morally right or wrong?
Thanks.
Brooks
Subject: questioned already answered
Date: 12/24/2005 9:30:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com
Brooks,*SIGH* Your repetitive question has already been dealt with on the June 26, 2004 post. Your bringing it up again either shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.
Corey
Subject: random comments
Date: 12/25/2005 10:16:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: XXXXXXCorey,
COREY: YOU'RE LYING AND BEING DISHONST WITH YOUR RESPONSE.False.
COREY: You had the audacity of NOT keeping my discussion with you clean after NOT including the quote-endquotes (in my April 18th response) around "prolific torturer" remember? You made it look as if though I was claiming it's a good thing that God is worse than Hitler. Unfortunately, nobody can see it now that the board is deleted. But you are everything (and then some) that you accused JP Holding of being "obnoxious, conniving, deceptive and dishonest." Even after you said you meticulously copied me word-for-word you deliberately took out the quote-endquotes.I did not intentionally leave the quote marks out.
BROOKS: Or perhaps God is evil and he duped Christians like yourself into thinking that he is good. Or, hey, maybe God does not exist and Christians such as yourself simply make up "explanations" about God and morality that have absolutely no basis in facts or logic. Think about it.COREY: This is a possibility. But with the knowledge we have of God through scripture I have no reason to think otherwise.
Okay, stop right there: Why, in the first place, do you believe that the Bible is accurate and true when it refers to a god?
COREY: Your question presumes radical skepticism where one can make wild claims like man may be nothing more than his brain in a vat wielded with electric impulses by a doctor. That's certainly possible but I hold to what's called the credulity principle where there's no reason to reject what seems so obvious to us in favor of less obvious alternatives. This maybe circular reasoning but when one argues in defence of an ultimate epistemic authority, such as an ultimate standard of truth, then some element of circularity will be unavoidable.Corey, the Bible is internally contradictory, it is contradicted by the facts of reality, many of its major claims are just blatantly ridiculous on their face, and the book is filled with absolutely revolting God-ordained cruelties and atrocities. All of these things suggest to perfectly reasonable people that the Bible is not the work of a good and loving supernatural being but that it is a book that was simply slapped together by imperfect, superstitious, and often quite stupid people. The question is why anyone should think of the Bible as the "ultimate standard of truth" in the first place. It appears to me that many Christians start out with this presupposition and that all of their arguments flow from there.
By the way, here is a listing of a few biblical contradictions, cruelties, atrocities and absurdities:
http://the-anointed-one.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/responses2c.htm#Since
Let me ask you something in order to understand you position better: Do you believe that Genesis is historically factual and truthful?
COREY: “We were made in His (God’s) image, thus *intuitively* giving humans the capacity of knowing that certain objective moral values exist – like, knowing God is good.”BROOKS: My question, again, is this: Why should anyone believe this claim?
COREY: Already dealt with. Your bringing this up again shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.
Your not terribly helpful "answer" was "The Bible." The question is why anyone should accept the supernatural claims in the Bible, such as the claim that we were made in this god's image. If your "answer" to this question is that the Bible is the "ultimate standard of truth," I would ask you to demonstrate this rather than simply assert it.
Can you understand why I might see your "answers" as being very vague, deflective, circular and unsatisfying?
BROOKS: How do you, Corey, know what’s morally right or wrong?COREY: *SIGH* Your repetitive question has already been dealt with on the June 26, 2004 post. Your bringing it up again either shows your insecurity (because you have no logical response) or your lack of reading comprehension.
This is from your June 26, 2004 e-mail:
“We were made in His (God’s) image, thus *intuitively* giving humans the capacity of knowing that certain objective moral values exist – like, knowing God is good. For example, we know that kindness is a virtue and not a vice, that torturing babies is immoral, that child abuse is wrong. We know these things virtually without reflection, without thinking them through. While *reason confirms* the basic rightness of these intuitions, we don't seem to know this by *means of* reason. And we regularly rely on these intuitions to make practical, everyday moral decisions.”This was your basic explanation of morality. I guess I was looking for an elementary description of the process that you go through to make moral decisions or a listing of the tools that you use. But you say that you believe that your morality is based on God-given "intuitions." I have already asked you provide a good explanation of why you believe this-something other than "The Bible." So I will wait for that answer.
Thanks for your time.
Brooks
home | history | FAQ | biblical stupidity | bible | some reasons | christian arguments
moral argument | faith | tough questions | more questions | W.L. Craig | J. McDowell
radio call-in #1 | radio call-in #2 | apologist e-mail | real ethics | impossible god (link)
bible problems | quotes | killbilly | responses | frames | links | updates | discussion board
top of page | sign guestbook | view guestbook | old guestbook | search site
Send e-mail to Tekministry@aol.com
Most recent update: 1/8/06
