Chri$tianity: Bogus Beyond Belief
e-mails from a fundie
taken from CBBB forum located here:
http://pub7.ezboard.com/fcbbbfrm10.showMessage?topicID=2.topic
What is this forum for?
To
Everyone,
A few months ago a person with the nickname Jamits posted on these boards,
asking a question about a minister named Steve Farish, who I quoted on my
quotes page. I replied to this person by e-mail. Very quickly Jamits started
talking about morality and claimed that atheists don't and can't have any, and
he then claimed that all atheists are no better than Hitler and the Khmer
Rouge, blah blah blah. I tried asking Jamits why he worshipped a slavery
supporting, women and children murdering, eternally torturing war god of
ancient barbarians, but Jamits didn't provide any good answers.
Today (5/8/01) Jamits posted a large message in the guestbook. Apparently he
would like to get his message across. I want to accommodate him. I am setting
up his very own forum here in the discussion area so that he can make his
points.
I will make him aware of this forum and hopefully he will have the courage to
come here and post more of his foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric.
Brooks
Edited by: Mrkrinkles at: 5/8/01 1:38:03 am
Author Comment
jamits
Unregistered User
(3/4/01 4:20:41 am)
Reply Why Steve Farish?
You have rather typical quote from a not-so-well-known pastor named Stephen Farish.
Why? And where did you get it from? In other words, how did you hear about it?
jamits@XXXXXX
------------------------------------------------------------
Mrkrinkles
ezOP
(3/5/01 10:53:47 am)
Reply Re: Why Steve Farish?
Jamits,
I forgot how I found the quote, but I fell in love with it the first time I saw
it. I used it on my quotes page because it displayed a sentiment for women that
is very archaic yet which I see expressed by many fundamentalists.
Brooks
-----------------------------------------------------------
After these posts on ezboard, the conversation went to e-mail.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: Why Steve Farish?
Date: 3/5/2001 5:07:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: jamits@XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com
Brooks,
The reason I ask is because I know Steve Farish and since he's not exactly a
celebrity, I wondered how you came across that quote.
By "archaic", I assume you mean to denigrate it. Isn't that the
attitude C. S. Lewis described as "chronological snobbery":
everything that is modern is necessarily better than anything that is ealier
simply because it is new. It's a sentiment rooted in a irrational faith in the
"enlightenment."
What's wrong with the sentiment in that quote? Do you realize that under modern
ideology (with its promotion of divorce, etc.) female poverty has risen?
By the way, it is nearly laughable (for a display of ignorance) to claim that
Christians opposed inoculations and that the Church is somehow responsible for
slavery. Puritan minister Cotton Mather was one of the first experimenters with
inoculations and he did so against the protests of the medical doctors. Nobel
laureate Robert W. Fogel and a self-confessed secular person, has documented
that THE reason slavery fell was precisely because of Christians --
particularly "fundamentalists." But don't let the facts disturb your
unquestioned faith in anti-Christianity.
Sincerely,
John
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Bogus Beyond Belief
Date: 3/5/2001 9:16:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: jamits@XXXXXX
John,
####The reason I ask is because I know Steve Farish and since he's not exactly
a celebrity, I wondered how you came across that quote.####
I was either web surfing and just discovered it or I saw a reference to it on
another site as an example of men putting women in their place.
#### By "archaic", I assume you mean to denigrate it. Isn't that the
attitude C. S. Lewis described as "chronological snobbery": everything
that is modern is necessarily better than anything that is ealier simply
because it is new. It's a sentiment rooted in a irrational faith in the
"enlightenment.####
What is your problem with the Enlightenment? Do you prefer the Dark Ages?
####What's wrong with the sentiment in that quote? Do you realize that under
modern ideology (with its promotion of divorce, etc.) female poverty has
risen?####
I personally think it is a silly "sentiment," but hey, if women want
to be treated as if they cannot think and can't make decisions, that is up to
them. I just don't like it when men use religion to try and justify treating
women this way.
####By the way, it is nearly laughable (for a display of ignorance) to claim
that Christians opposed inoculations and that the Church is somehow responsible
for slavery. Puritan minister Cotton Mather was one of the first experimenters
with inoculations and he did so against the protests of the medical doctors.
Nobel laureate Robert W. Fogel and a self-confessed secular person, has
documented that THE reason slavery fell was precisely because of Christians --
particularly "fundamentalists." But don't let the facts disturb your
unquestioned faith in anti-Christianity.####
Here is the specific quote where I described inoculations:
"Certain churches fought against disease inoculation for children,
claiming that disease was a righteous judgement from God. "
Where is the problem? Certain churches did fight against disease inoculation
for children. I never meant to imply that every church and every denomination
fought against it. In general, though, Christianity has been very anti-science
and anti-medicine over the last 1700 years. The Catholic Church forbade
autopsies because-I think-it believed that the body needed to be left uncorrupted
for the afterlife. Needless to say, this severely diminished the growh of
medicine. People with mental illnesses were tortured because it was thought
they were possessed. Anesthesia for child birth was outlawed because ot the
curse on Eve. Kind of silly, don't you think?
As far as slavery is concerned, the Catholic Church kept its own slaves and
specifically authorized the taking of slaves in war-if the POWs were heathens.
The slave ships were even given Christian names, like Jesus and Santa Maria.
The Bible was used to justify slavery for centuries by Christian leaders. Yes,
certain churches led the charge against slavery (beginnning with the Quakers),
but there was no hue and cry against it for 1700 centuries. You know where the
southern Baptists came from, right? They split off from the Baptists because
they supported slavery. Today the Southern Baptists are the ones who are
promoting this idea that women should be ruled over by men.
So I have faith in "Anti'Christianity"? That's a good one.
Cheers,
Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Your faith is Bogus Beyond Belief
Date: 3/6/2001 2:26:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: jamits@XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com
Hi. I'm still curious as to how you would come across a Steve Farish quote.
He's not exactly a well-known figure like Jerry Falwell.
Only ideologues on propaganda crusades use the term "dark ages." You
didn't really answer the question. You just went on the offensive. So, once
again, how do you know that modern ideas are intrinsicly better than older
ones?
If your ideology is so superior why has it resulted in the holocaust, the
gulags, a world-wide communist movement (thankfully now dead), and (in the US)
high family break-down, high female poverty, high crime, etc.?
Name one church that fought against innoculations. As I told you, one of the
leaders of early experiments in immuniology was the Puritan minister Cotton
Mather. He was supported by most other Puritan ministers in New England and
opposed by most medical doctors at the time.
You: "In general, though, Christianity has been very anti-science and
anti-medicine over the last 1700 years."
That's just nonsense and no person with any real historical knowledge would
write it. Read Thomas Merton on how the Protestant ethic was a major factor in
inspiring early science. Isaac Newton was a very devout Christian. Seven of the
ten founders of the "Royal Academy" which gave us much early science,
were Puritans. Your statement is just propaganda without any real basis in
objective history.
Once again, your statements on slavery are just nonsense. Slavery existed for
millenia before Christianity came along. And it was Christians, not secularists
like yourself who just take the status quo as the basis of morality, who ended
it. Read Nobel laureate Robert W. Fogel's _Without Consent or Contract_ (1989).
Fogel is a secular Jew and so had no particular motivation to credit
evangelical Christianity with ending slavery, but that was his conclusion based
on the facts of history. And he won a Nobel Prize for his work.
Yes, you have a faith in anti-Christianity which has not been examined by the
facts of history or philosophy.
John
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: slight grammar, paragraph corrections
Date: 3/6/2001 1:45:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: jamits@XXXXXX
John,
#### Hi. I'm still curious as to how you would come across a Steve Farish
quote. He's not exactly a well-known figure like Jerry Falwell.####
You might want to re-read my last e-mail. Here is what I wrote:
>I was either web surfing and just discovered it or I saw a reference to it
on another site as an example of men putting women in their place.
I found the quote a while back and forget the exact way in which I found it.
#### Only ideologues on propaganda crusades use the term "dark ages."
You didn't really answer the question. You just went on the offensive. So, once
again, how do you know that modern ideas are intrinsicly better than older
ones? ####
Did I ever write that ALL modern ideas are "intrinsicly" better than
all older ones? No, I did not. So I don't understand where you got this
question from. But, as I am sure you will agree, we can easily find newer ideas
that are better than older ideas. For example, at one time people believed that
the earth was flat We know better today. At one time bleeding people to treat
their disease or illness was considered helpful. Today we know better. There is
quite a large list of older ideas that we have rejected because they were
wrong. In any case, we were specifically discussing the historical and biblical
notion of treating women as people who can not and should not make decisions. I
think this is a silly idea. I think treating women with more respect is a
better idea. Apparenly you think otherwise.
#### If your ideology is so superior why has it resulted in the holocaust, the
gulags, a world-wide communist movement (thankfully now dead), and (in the US)
high family break-down, high female poverty, high crime, etc.? ####
I was not aware that I had an "ideology" that was responsible for the
Holocaust and the gulags and communism, crime, etc. What is this
"ideology" you speak of?
#### Name one church that fought against innoculations. As I told you, one of
the leaders of early experiments in immuniology was the Puritan minister Cotton
Mather. He was supported by most other Puritan ministers in New England and
opposed by most medical doctors at the time.####
As I stated before, I did not say all churches forbade inoculations, only that
some did. You seem to be implying that I am making an absolute claim. I know
that Cotton Mather and the Puritans promoted inoculations, but that does not
change the fact that *some* churches fought against it for purely theological
reasons:
"Early in the last century Boyer presented inoculation as a preventive of
smallpox in France, and thoughtful physicians in England, inspired by Lady
Montagu and Maitland, followed his example. Ultra-conservatives in medicine
took fright at once on both sides of the Channel, and theology was soon finding
profound reasons against the new practice. The French theologians of the
Sorbonne solemnly condemned it; the English theologians were most loudly
represented by the Rev. Edward Massey, who in 1772 preached and published a
sermon entitled _The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation_. In this he
declared that Job's distemper was probably confluent smallpox; that he had been
inoculated doubtless by the devil; that diseases are sent by Providence for the
punishment of sin; and that the proposed attempt to prevent them is "a
diabolical operation."
(snip)
"But in 1885 a record was made by their theology. In that year the
smallpox broke out with great virulence in Montreal. The Protestant population
escaped almost entirely by vaccination; but multitudes of their Catholic
fellow-citizens, under some vague survival of the old orthodox ideas, refused
vaccination; and suffered fearfully. When at last the plague became so serious
that travel and trade fell off greatly and quarantine began to be established
in neighbouring cities, an effort was made to enforce compulsory vaccination.
The result was, that large numbers of the Catholic working population resisted
and even threatened bloodshed. The clergy at first tolerated and even
encouraged this conduct: the Abbe Filiatrault, priest of St. James's Church,
declared in a sermon that, "if we are afflicted with smallpox, it is
because we had a carnival last winter, feasting the flesh, which has offended
the Lord; it is to punish our pride that God has sent us smallpox." The
clerical press went further: the _Etendard_ exhorted the faithful to take up
arms rather than submit to vaccination, and at least one of the secular papers
was forced to pander to the same sentiment. The Board of Health struggled
against this superstition, and addressed a circular to the Catholic clergy,
imploring them to recommend vaccination; but, though two or three complied with
this request, the great majority were either silent or openly hostile. The
Oblate Fathers, whose church was situated in the very heart of the infected
district, continued to denounce vaccination; the faithful were exhorted to rely
on devotional exercises of various sorts; under the sanction of the hierarchy a
great procession was ordered with a solemn appeal to the Virgin, and the use of
the rosary was carefully specified."
www.infidels.org/library/...ter13.html
### You: "In general, though, Christianity has been very anti-science and
anti-medicine over the last 1700 years."####
#### That's just nonsense and no person with any real historical knowledge
would write it. Read Thomas Merton on how the Protestant ethic was a major
factor in inspiring early science. Isaac Newton was a very devout Christian.
Seven of the ten founders of the "Royal Academy" which gave us much
early science, were Puritans. Your statement is just propaganda without any
real basis in objective history.####
Did the Catholic Church forbid autopsies? Yes or no?
Did the Catholic Church threaten Galileo with torture for telling the world
that the earth revolved around the sun? Yes or no?
Did the Catholic Church fight against mathematicians, saying they were in
league with the devil? Yes or no?
Did the Catholic Church torture mentally ill people to exorcise their supposed
demons? Yes or no?
Did the Catholic Church forbid lightening rods? Yes or no?
Did the Catholic Church forbid anesthesia for child birth? Yes or no?
Did Christians fight against geological findings and biological discoveries
because they conflicted with Scripture? Yes or no?
I could go on, but I hope you are getting the picture. Christians have fought
against various sciences when these sciences conflicted with theological
doctrines. I am not saying that every Christian throughout history has been
anti-science, or that no Christian has ever furthered science, only that there
has been a general, overall conflict between science and religion throughout
the last several centuries. And that conflict continues today with creationism.
Creationists today fight against biology, geology and astronomy. There are also
very extreme sects of Christians that refuse medical treatment for their children,
and this behavior echoes that of those Christians who fought against disease
innoculation two centuries ago.
#### Once again, your statements on slavery are just nonsense. Slavery existed
for millenia before Christianity came along.####
I never said that slavery did not exist before Christianity.
#### And it was Christians, not secularists like yourself who just take the
status quo as the basis of morality, who ended it. Read Nobel laureate Robert
W. Fogel's _Without Consent or Contract_ (1989). Fogel is a secular Jew and so
had no particular motivation to credit evangelical Christianity with ending
slavery, but that was his conclusion based on the facts of history. And he won
a Nobel Prize for his work. ####
But why did it take 18 centuries for Christians to discover that slavery was
immoral?
Let's examine some facts. To begin with, the Bible supports slavery:
Exod 21:20-21 (NIV)
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as
a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave
gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."
Deut 15:17
"Then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it through his ear unto the door,
and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maid-servant thou shalt
do likewise."
Lev 25:45, 46
"...of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them
shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your
land, and they shall be your possession...they shall be your bondmen
forever."
Ex 21:7
"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out
as the menservants do."
Titus 2:9-10 (RSV)
"Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in
every respect."
Jesus uses slavery in his parables and never, not once, speaks out against it:
"Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he
comes...." Jesus-Luke 12:37
"No servant can serve two masters..." Jesus-Luke 16:13
"A servant is not greater than his master." Jesus-John 15:20
God put people into slavery:
Joel 3:8
"I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of
Judah and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off; for the
Lord hath spoken it."
Go here to see more on the biblical support of slavery:
www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm
Christian leaders historically have supported slavery. Here is just one
example:
"Confederate leaders during the Civil War were quite correct when they
contended the Bible supported slavery. '...Let the gentleman go to Revelation
to learn the decree of God--let him go to the Bible,.... I said that slavery
was sanctioned in the Bible, authorized, regulated, and recognized from Genesis
to Revelation.... Slavery existed then in the earliest ages, and among the
chosen people of God; and in Revelation we are told that it shall exist till
the end of time shall come. You find it in the Old and New Testament--in the prophecies,
psalms, and the epistles of Paul; you find it recognized, sanctioned everywhere
(Jefferson Davis by Rowland, Vol. I, p. 316-17).' The well-known reverend
Alexander Campbell contended: 'there is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting
slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral.' "
the-anointed-one.com/ckbloomfld/index.html
As I stated before, the Catholic Church kept slaves and it said heathens could
be taken as slaves in war raids.
"It is interesting to study the development of theology in a question such
as slavery. In the feudal society of the middle ages slavery was an accepted
fact. Even bishops and superiors of monasteries possessed thousands of male and
female slaves employed in skilled work or in cultivating the land. In some
countries the Church was the richest landowner with the greatest number of
slaves. With the colonisation of the New World, the slave trade was extended to
the newly-conquered lands. In his bull of 1454, Romanus Pontifex, Pope Nicholas
V gave his blessing to the practice of enslaving conquered peoples. Slavery
existed in the Papal States until the end of the 18th century and in some
ecclesiastical institutions still existed as late as 1864."
"Slavery was a phenomenon of its own time and should be understood in its
social context. But it is instructive to read how the theology of the time
justified the practice with arguments taken from Scripture and Tradition. The
wish to be free was interpreted as a lack of humility, as unwillingness to
accept the way God had created the world. Slaves were told not to worry about
their human freedom, as they should be concerned more about their spiritual
life. 'We measure all human things, not with the yardstick of the body, but
with that of the spirit.' It was pointed out that Jesus accepted slavery as he
refers to slaves in his parables (eg Lk 12, 42 ff; 17, 7 ff), and that Paul
instructed slaves to 'submit voluntarily to their masters in a spirit of humble
obedience' (1 Tim 6, 1; Eph 6, 6-7; etc)."
"Even great theologians like Thomas Aquinas, Albert the Great and Duns
Scotus, defended slavery on theological grounds. In the seventeenth century
some moralists went as far as teaching that the right of slave-ownership was a
part of Catholic doctrine:"
'It is certainly a matter of faith (de fide) that this sort of slavery in which
a man serves his master as his slave, is altogether lawful. This is proved from
Holy Scripture, Lev 25, 39-55; 1 Pet 2, 18; 1 Cor 7, 20-24; Col 3, 11.22; 1 Tim
6, 1-10... It is also proved from reason for it is not unreasonable that just
as things which are captured in a just war pass into the power and ownership of
the victors, so persons captured in war pass into the ownership of the
captors... All theologians are unanimous on this '21
"A courageous theologian such as the Dominican missionary Bartholomew de
las Casas who opposed the trend of thought of his days - 'No one may be
deprived of his liberty nor may any person be enslaved'22 - was ridiculed and
silenced. It was only when abolitionists had won their hardest battles for a
truly egalitarian society that theology, too, came to its senses and
re-examined the implications of 'the breaking down of all walls' accomplished
by Christ.23 Full ecclesiastical recognition of this came only through the
Second Vatican Council, which vindicated the basic equality of all human
persons and called on all 'to spare no effort to banish every vestige of social
and political slavery and to safeguard basic human rights under every political
system' (Church in the Modern World, 29).24 Our breasts may swell at hearing
this noble clarion call. It is a good thing to have it in our documents, yet I
feel it is hardly a great achievement in our own day and age. Shouldn't we
rather, as a Church, be proud of those rare thinkers and pastors who decried
slavery on theological grounds when the common opinion and ecclesiastical
thought still supported slavery? Is our best theology the one that runs after
the facts and condones existing situations or the one which dares to confront
established opinion with the objective demands of the Gospel?"
www.iol.ie/~duacon/wompr1.htm#slave
As I hope I have made clear, there was a Christian support of slavery for
centuries, and this support was based on the Bible. There was no serious
Christian opposition to slavery for 1800 years.
"During the late 17th century and early 18th century, slavery became a
growing concern among the Quakers. In protest against slavery, they relocated
from their settlements in the southern U.S. states into Indiana and Ohio."
"Meanwhile, the vast majority of Christian denominations (those which were
not Anabaptist) were not troubled by slavery; they continued to view and teach
it as a spiritually and morally acceptable institution fully supported by the
Bible."
www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm
So, in conclusion, I do agree with you that Christians fought against slavery
two centuries ago. I have never said otherwise. The question is this: Why did
it take so long? And why did other Christians continue to support it?
Please keep in mind that non-Christians also fought against slavery
two-centuries ago.
#### Yes, you have a faith in anti-Christianity which has not been examined by
the facts of history or philosophy.####
Again, I find your use of the phrase "faith in anti-Christianity"
humorous. Why don't we just use normal English? I do not think Christianity is
true. I think it is silly and ridiculous. I base this on a logic and the facts
of history and reality. Let's take a case in point. The Bible claims the whole
world was flooded 4000 thousand years ago and Noah stuffed all the animals into
a 450 foot wooden boat. Logic and history tell me that this is not true. Do
you, as a fundamentalist, care to defend this story as the truth?
Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------
ubj: Re: slight grammar, paragraph corrections
Date: 3/7/2001 12:43:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: jamits@XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com
Hi,
Well, you've spent some time looking for evidence to the conclusions you came
to before you started looking.
I noted what you wrote about Rev. Farish. I don't think you found him on the
web because that's how I found your quote from him and there wasn't much else
(besides his church's web page.)
The bottom line is that Christianity, particularly Protestantism, is to be
largely credited with discovery and experimenting with innoculations, many
other scientific discoveries and perhaps even modern science in general. I
noted in my research on innoculations that the opposers (mis-) used scripture
to buttress their arguments against them. The Puritan ministers though were
generally in favor. It was part of the culture of that time to try to find
scripture to support one's beliefs just as you distort history to support your
preconcieved biases.
I don't know so much about the Catholic Church. I do know that the Catholic
Church had their own astronomers and their own support for science (even if
they sometimes let their theology over-ride empiricism.) That is not the way
people behave who are adamantly anti-science.
You have read into the principles on men and women. Submission does NOT
necessarily mean not making decisions. Responsible Christians do not believe or
teach that. Besides, if you are going to make a pragmatic (rather than
ideological) case against gender role differentation, you'll need to prove
empirically that women's lives have improved (relative to their times) because
of feminism. With increased levels of female poverty and crimes against women,
you'll find that is a very difficult thing to do.
Once again, read Fogel on slavery. Slavery existed for millenia before
Christianity and it was Christianity that ended it when economic development
allowed societies to reach a level where they could exist without it. That's
the bottom line. Secularists like you have done nothing humanitarian of the
sort. Secularists like you have been, instead, behind the holocaust and the
gulags. You continunally want to take the worst for Christianity and make it
the rule (while ignoring its contributions) while you completely ignore the
evil your ideology has wrought whenever it has been consistently applied.
Yes, you are definitely an ideologue (apparently of a very fundamentalist-like
temper). You have the same anti-religious and anti-Christian ethic that
motivated all the genocidal movements of the 20th century. It is amazing to me
that you want to sweep all of Christianity away with a broad brush, consider it
all guilty of the mistakes of a few, ignore its contributions, and then
completely exonerate yourself from the crimes against humanity committed by
people just like you over the last two hundred years (every since modern
secularism started to get pre-eminence over Western culture.) That is the
mind-set of someone who's never even bothered to question his own faith (i.e.
presuppositions) even while he attacks those of others.
Besides, having rejected an transcendent source of authority, you have no right
to lecture others on morality or to make moral judgements. To call others
guilty of something, you have to have a standard beyond them. If there is no
God, then there is no transcendent authority and all your moral judgements
amount to nothing more than you disliking people based on your particularly
preferences. In other words, who are you to say that the Christian ethic is
oppressive or wrong? You have to have a transcendent standard beyond
Christianity by which to judge it. But if you don't believe in God, then you
have no transcendent authority and you are doing nothing more than saying it's
wrong because you say it is. You'll excuse me if I just don't submit to your
edicts!
Sincerely,
John
~another one~
Subj: Try defending your ideology instead of attacking!
Date: 3/7/2001 12:43:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: jamits@XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com
Hi.
You are obviously uncomfortable trying to defend what it is you believe in. Why
is that? Why do you so prefer attacking other belief systems rather than making
a reasonable case for your own.
As for the flood story, even many Biblical inerrantists (e.g. Francis
Schaeffer) argue that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are "history
but not chronology". In other words, that there are gaps in the
geneaologies allowing for a much longer time. In addition, many cultures have
flood stories.
But the bottom line is that you have a faith. Apparently you don't want to name
what it is you believe in. You want me to concede that your faith is
"logic"; you want me to naively give you the position of being
objective. Reading your web-page it is obvious that you are anything but
objective and that your understanding of history is severely limited. You most
definitely have a strong commitment to an ideology. It's that ideology which
you use to judge and condemn other people's faiths. Why don't you try becoming
away of your own ideology and trying to defend it rather than always attacking
others'? Or maybe you realize deep down that your ideology is so weak you can't
possible maintain a sufficient defense of it? So you only want to play offense,
not defense.
John
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: what is my ideology?
Date: 3/7/2001 11:40:00 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: jamits@XXXXXX
John,
####Well, you've spent some time looking for evidence to the conclusions you
came to before you started looking.####
Believe whatever you want to believe, John. All I can do is tell you that I
have known about the Christian Church's support of slavery for some time now.
If you want to pretend that you know when I acquired this knowledge, you are
free to. It just seems kind of silly.
#### I noted what you wrote about Rev. Farish. I don't think you found him on
the web because that's how I found your quote from him and there wasn't much
else (besides his church's web page.)####
Well, if I didn't find that quote on the Internet, then how in the world do you
think I found it? Are you actually implying that I am lying to you for some
reason??
#### You have read into the principles on men and women. Submission does NOT
necessarily mean not making decisions. Responsible Christians do not believe or
teach that. Besides, if you are going to make a pragmatic (rather than
ideological) case against gender role differentation, you'll need to prove
empirically that women's lives have improved (relative to their times) because
of feminism. With increased levels of female poverty and crimes against women,
you'll find that is a very difficult thing to do.####
Mr. Farish was arguing that men should rule over their wives, and that men
should make the decisions of the household. I would be very interested in
seeing where you get the information that women today are poorer than in the
past and that there is an increase of crime against women. I was not aware of
this-could you provide your source of information for this claim?
#### Once again, read Fogel on slavery. Slavery existed for millenia before
Christianity and it was Christianity that ended it when economic development
allowed societies to reach a level where they could exist without it. That's
the bottom line. Secularists like you have done nothing humanitarian of the
sort. Secularists like you have been, instead, behind the holocaust and the
gulags. You continunally want to take the worst for Christianity and make it
the rule (while ignoring its contributions) while you completely ignore the
evil your ideology has wrought whenever it has been consistently applied.####
As I stated in my last e-mail, I have never said that slavery did not exist
prior to Christianity. The question I have for you is this: Why did it take 18
centuries for Christians to figure out that slavery was immoral? The
"economic development" rationalization for slavery is not an excuse,
by the way. Do you think that the 18 centuries of Christian support for slavery
had anything to do with the fact that the Bible supports slavery?
As far as the charge that ~secularists like me~ never have done anything
humanitarian and are responsible for the Holocaust and gulags, why do you say
this? Do you actually have any support for this absolute statement? I would be
very interested in seeing what you base it on. I mean, for one thing, you don't
even know me. For another thing, atheists are no less humanitarian than anyone
else. You assertion just looks like rabid fundamentalist atheist bashing.
#### Yes, you are definitely an ideologue (apparently of a very
fundamentalist-like temper). You have the same anti-religious and
anti-Christian ethic that motivated all the genocidal movements of the 20th
century. It is amazing to me that you want to sweep all of Christianity away
with a broad brush, consider it all guilty of the mistakes of a few, ignore its
contributions, and then completely exonerate yourself from the crimes against
humanity committed by people just like you over the last two hundred years
(every since modern secularism started to get pre-eminence over Western
culture.) That is the mind-set of someone who's never even bothered to question
his own faith (i.e. presuppositions) even while he attacks those of others.####
So now you are claiming that the mass murderers of the 20th century were
motivated in their murderous rampages by an "anti-religious and
anti-Christian ethic"? I would be curious to know why you believe this. I
would also be curious to know why you think I am just like a mass murderer. Do
you have support for this statement, or do you just enjoy attacking and
smearing people who do not to accept your religious beliefs?
#### Besides, having rejected an transcendent source of authority, you have no
right to lecture others on morality or to make moral judgements. To call others
guilty of something, you have to have a standard beyond them. If there is no
God, then there is no transcendent authority and all your moral judgements
amount to nothing more than you disliking people based on your particularly
preferences. In other words, who are you to say that the Christian ethic is
oppressive or wrong? You have to have a transcendent standard beyond
Christianity by which to judge it. But if you don't believe in God, then you
have no transcendent authority and you are doing nothing more than saying it's
wrong because you say it is. You'll excuse me if I just don't submit to your
edicts!###
I have been over this ground with other visitors to my web site. In fact, I
would urge you to read the e-mail discussion I had with a Christian apologist
on the subject. We also discuss slavery, by the way.
As I have stated previously, the biblical god supports slavery. This god also
murders children, it orders massacres of women and children, and it promises to
torture people for eternity for their opinions. Does it make sense to claim
that this character is a reliable source or "standard" of morality?
It doesn't make sense to me, but maybe I am not as smart as you are. Can you
explain how such a violent and viciously cruel deity can act as some kind of
moral authority?
### You are obviously uncomfortable trying to defend what it is you believe in.
Why is that? Why do you so prefer attacking other belief systems rather than
making a reasonable case for your own.####
I have answered questions you have posed to me, and have supplied you with
supporting information. I have defended my claims. Now that I ask questions of
you, you get upset and resume attacking me.
#### As for the flood story, even many Biblical inerrantists (e.g. Francis
Schaeffer) argue that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are "history
but not chronology". In other words, that there are gaps in the
geneaologies allowing for a much longer time. In addition, many cultures have flood
stories.####
According to the genealogy in Kings 1, the biblical flood occurred around 2285
BC. There is no evidence for such an event occurring around 2285 BC.
#### But the bottom line is that you have a faith. Apparently you don't want to
name what it is you believe in.####
I am an atheist, so I do not believe in a god or gods. I believe we are all
flesh and blood human beings whose entire lives fit into the space between our
births and deaths. I believe all religions are human creations, not just
Christianity. I explain why I believe these things on my web site. I have
described what I believe in so where is the problem?
#### You want me to concede that your faith is "logic"; you want me
to naively give you the position of being objective.####
If you think I am not being logical where I claim to be using logic, it would
be very helpful for you to tell me where, exactly, I am guilty of this.
####Reading your web-page it is obvious that you are anything but objective and
that your understanding of history is severely limited. You most definitely
have a strong commitment to an ideology. It's that ideology which you use to
judge and condemn other people's faiths. Why don't you try becoming away of
your own ideology and trying to defend it rather than always attacking others'?
Or maybe you realize deep down that your ideology is so weak you can't possible
maintain a sufficient defense of it? So you only want to play offense, not
defense.####
You keep referring to my "ideology." I was not aware that I had one.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell me what my ideology is so that I know
what it is that I can't defend.
Cheers,
Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Why won't you defend your ideology?
Date: 3/7/2001 2:50:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: jamits@XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com
Dear Brooks,
Once again you go on the attack but are not capable of putting up any kind of
defense of your ideology. Are you really so unaware of yourself that you don't
know what you believe? If that's the case, you ought to refrain from attacking
others who at least have that degree of self-awareness.
You wrote: "Why did it take 18 centuries for Christians to figure out that
slavery was immoral?"
I have a question for you: Prove to me, with reasons not just assertions, that
slavery is immoral. Make a case for the evil of slavery based on something
other than "sez me". In other words, if I was in favor of slavery
(which I am NOT) and could prove that it was economically efficient (which it
was), how would you rationally explain to me that slavery is wrong?
The fact is that atheist in just one century have been responsible for far, far
more innocent bloodshed than all of Christendom in over a millenia. And it was
the Christian ethic, not an atheistic of "enlightenment" one, that
freed the slaves.
Anyway, I'll be waiting for your REASON why slavery was immoral! (But I won't
be holding my breath!)
John
~another one~
Subj: Re: what is my ideology?
Date: 3/7/2001 3:06:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: jamits@edsamail.com.sg (John & Mary Carpenter)
To: Tekministry@aol.com
Hi again,
Upon rereading your note, I noticed this:
>>>"So now you are claiming that the mass murderers of the 20th
century were motivated in their murderous rampages by an "anti-religious
and anti-Christian ethic"? I would be curious to know why you believe
this. I would also be curious to know why you think I am just like a mass
murderer. Do you have support for this statement, or do you just enjoy So now you
are claiming that the mass murderers of the 20th century were motivated in
their murderous rampages by an "anti-religious and anti-Christian
ethic"? I would be curious to know why you believe this. I would also be
curious to know why you think I am just like a mass murderer. Do you have
support for this statement, or do you just enjoy attacking and smearing people
who do not to accept your religious beliefs?>>>>
Hello! Did you ever hear of the 20th century? Do you not know that the Marxists
had ideas about religion almost exactly the same as yours? Do you not know that
the Nazis were also atheist, only of a Neitzchean rather than Marxist variety?
The Nazis most certainly held to an "anti-Christian ethic" just as
you do. So, you hold to a similar ideology to those who committed mass murders.
In fact, your ideology seems to consistently lead to the wholesale murder of
inconvenient people.
And then the last sentence is a joke, right? I mean, you go to the time,
trouble, and expense of setting up a web-site to bash a religion that you don't
agree with, full of half-truths and lies, and then you have the gall to accuse
others of enjoying "attacking and smearing people who do not to accept
your religious beliefs". That's all your web-site is about is attacking
and smearing people who do not hold to YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. You just assume
that your beliefs are the standard of truth, not subject to question, and so
you think you have the right to attack and smear other people while you are
above questioning.
I'll even extend the previous question: Give me a REASON (not just a "sez
me") that the holocaust was immoral. (Since it was perpetrated by people
with an ideology similar to yours, I'd be interested to know if you can
reasonably disavow the trajectory of your own logic.) Demonstrate why genocide
is wrong. (Or even establish that there is a right or wrong.)
By the way, your attacks on the Bible only show that you've reached your
conclusion first, before looking for "facts." Your "logic"
is circular. You believe that some things in the Bible are immoral (without
first establishing that they are) and then conclude, voila!, that the Bible
condones immoral activities. You need first to show that the things you object
to are "immoral" based on a criteria higher than your humble opinion.
So far, you've just attacked and smeared those with a different religion than
yourself.
John
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: what is my ideology?
Date: 3/7/2001 3:49:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: jamits@XXXXXX
John,
####Once again you go on the attack but are not capable of putting up any kind
of defense of your ideology.####
Yet again, I ask you: WHAT IS MY IDEOLOGY? Until you define what this is, I
can't possible know what I am supposed to be defending.
#### Do you not know that the Marxists had ideas about religion almost exactly
the same as yours?####
They described religion as the opiate of the people. I agree with that, but
that is probably the only thing that I think they were right about.
Consider this: You do not believe in leprachauns, correct? Neither did Mao or
Stalin. So, using your argument, I could claim that your "ideology"
is exactly like that of the Mao and Stalin, and that you are no better than a
mass murderer. Kind of silly, don't you think? It seems to me that you are so
desperate to attack me for thinking that you religions is false that you have
to lump me in with mass murderers.
####Do you not know that the Nazis were also atheist, only of a Neitzchean
rather than Marxist variety?####
Christians make this claim quite a bit. Do you have any support for it?
What is slavery immoral? Slavery is immoral because it hurts innocent people.
(Same is true for the Holocaust) Now, do you have an answer for my question as
to why Christians took 18 centuries to discover this? Do you think it might
have something to with the Bible's support of slavery?
As far as bashing religion is concerned, let me ask you something. If you
discovered that Christianity was false, would you make any effort whatsoever to
tell anyone else what you had discovered, or would you keep this discovery to
yourself?
I am still interested in having you answer the question of where you got the
information that women are poorer today and that crimes against women are at
higher levels than in the past. Could you cite the studies that were done that
allow you to make this claim and what possible correlation the statistics have
to religion?
Are we able to agree that the biblical flood as described in the Bible could
not have and did not happen?
Thanks for your help with these queries.
Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: spelling corrected
Date: 3/8/2001 12:12:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: jamits@XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com
Dear Sir,
It's your job to know your own ideology. You have a very strong commitment to
it and yet you don't even know what it is!
You said: "Slavery is immoral because it hurts innocent people."
Sez who? Who says that hurting people is bad? You've just assumed that, you
haven't proven it. First you need to establish that hurting innocent people is
a bad thing. Really prove it, don't just assert it.
But, if you had read Fogel, you'd know, that at least as far as American
slavery is concerned, slavery arguably gave the slaves a better standard of
living than they would have had otherwise. Most African slaves were prisoners
of African wars who normally would have been killed. Instead, the African
conquerers decided to make money off of them instead. So many of the slaves
would have been dead if not for slavery. (And this is true for slavery over
most of history.) Then in America (at least the US), slaves had a longer
life-span than average white city-dwellers. They also ate more calories and
worked fewer hours than free white farmers. So you haven't even proven that
slavery hurts people. You haven't proven they were "innocent." And,
once again, you've established no moral basis why hurting people (innocent or
not) is bad.
Francis Fukuyama, in _The Great Disruption_ (2000), discusses how the plight of
many women has worsened due to the "sexual revolution" (i.e.
feminism). He's a well-known, secular social scientist.
Your ideology (which you claim not to know!) absurdly states that
"religion is the opiate of the masses." What utter nonsense. No
person with an inkling of an objective historical education would repeat such
tripe. If Marx had bothered to read 17th century English history he might have
learned better.
Anyway, your ideology rejects absolutes by rejecting God. With no absolutes,
you have no basis for saying that anything is right or wrong, moral or immoral.
Therefore, when you say that Christianity is "bogus beyond belief",
you are merely saying that you don't like it and that your preferences are all
that matter. (Since you have no basis on which to say that anything is true,
you can't objectively say anything, including Christianity or the tooth fairy,
is false.) When you say that something is "immoral", you are likewise
just asserting your personal whims. Some of your whims maybe right (such as a
condemnation of slavery) but they are only right because you were raised in a
society largely shaped by Christianity and its ethic. When people like you get
into power, you invariably kill anyone who gets in your way because you have no
moral scruples to prevent you from doing so.
You want to lump all of Christianity together and make broad generalizations of
over a thousand years, and yet with only about 200 years of secular cultural
hegemony, you want us to ignore the consistently bloody record of your perverse
ideology. You smear other people's faith with your lies and half-truths and
then you want to spout about being a defender of truth and logic?
John
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: morality corrected
Date: 3/10/2001 6:38:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: jamits@XXXXXX
John,
####It's your job to know your own ideology. You have a very strong commitment
to it and yet you don't even know what it is!####
Well, I am not a Nazi. I am not a Marxist. Nor am I a Stalinist. So what is my
"ideology"? You don't know, do you? As I have said, I am an atheist,
and this means that I am without a belief in a god or gods. That is it. I don't
believe in any supernatural claims because I don't see them supported.
Politically, I am not a liberal or a conservative, but I am a little of both. I
quite honestly do not know what in the world you are talking about when you
refer to my "ideology." And you don't either. You are just spouting
rhetoric.
####I mean, you go to the time, trouble, and expense of setting up a web-site
to bash a religion that you don't agree with, full of half-truths and lies, and
then you have the gall to accuse others of enjoying "attacking and
smearing people who do not to accept your religious beliefs".####
If there is something specific which you think is a lie or a half truth, then
point it out to me. Nothing I have said on my site about slavery or inoculation
is false as far as I know. I do attack Christian beliefs, but I try to avoid
attacking Christians personally and individually. Obviously it is hard to do
one and not the other.
####With increased levels of female poverty and crimes against women, you'll
find that is a very difficult thing to do.####
Thank you for providing the name of the book which you base this claim on. I
wonder if you have the book available and can provide the specific quotation or
study which demonstrates that both female poverty and crimes against women are
at increased levels today and that there is a correlation between these higher
levels and secularism. I am not saying straight out that your claim is not
true, but I find your claim very hard to accept. It seems to me that, for one
thing, women's earnings are at a much higher percentage of men's earnings than
they were ten, twenty and thirty years ago, and that violence against women is
down. I can hunt down some stats if you like.
####Sez who? Who says that hurting people is bad? You've just assumed that, you
haven't proven it. First you need to establish that hurting innocent people is
a bad thing. Really prove it, don't just assert it.####
This may be hard for you to accept, but hurting innocent people is bad for the
people being hurt, and it is bad for society as a whole. If you can't figure
this one out, I cannot help you. This is kind of like Bill Clinton asking
people to define what the meaning of "is" is. Good and bad morality
are broadly defined by what benefits or what hurts innocent people, so you are
questioning the definition of morality. I can't really break it down any
further than that. It is like asking why two plus two equal four.
####...as far as American slavery is concerned, slavery arguably gave the
slaves a better standard of living than they would have had otherwise. Most
African slaves were prisoners of African wars who normally would have been
killed. Instead, the African conquerers decided to make money off of them
instead. So many of the slaves would have been dead if not for slavery.####
And they probably would have preferred being dead.
This sort of argumentation could be used to justify any action. For example, I
could say that hitting people in the head with a whiffle ball bat is less
injurious than hitting them in the head with a real baseball bat, so that going
around hitting people in the head with a whiffle ball bat is really morally
righteous. It is a ridiculous argument.
As I stated before, the Christian Bible supports slavery, Jesus uses slavery in
his parables and never speaks out against it, various NT writers exhorted
slaves to honor their Christians masters, the Catholic Church kept slaves and
authorized the taking of heathen slaves in war, and it took 18 centuries for
Christians to speak out against slavery. You still have not offered an
explanation as to why it took so long for Christians to criticize the
institution of slavery.
####Anyway, your ideology rejects absolutes by rejecting God. With no
absolutes, you have no basis for saying that anything is right or wrong, moral
or immoral.####
As I said before, morality is broadly, overall, based on what helps or what
hurts people, and in this context we can make some sense of what constitutes a
morally good or morally bad action. I am not entirely clear on what moral
absolutes are. Could you define what moral absolutes are and provide one or two
moral absolutes that are found in the Bible?
Also, these moral absolutes come from the Christian god, right? They represent
the Christian god's moral standard, correct? I am curious: How did YOU judge
that the Christian god's morality was a "standard" in the first
place? In other words, what standard did YOU use to judge that the Christian
god is morally good? As I have said previously, the Christian god murders children,
it supports slavery, it orders the massacre of women and children, and it
promises to torture people for eternity because oe their beliefs. It's funny,
but it seems to me that this god is not a particularly good
"standard" on which to base our morality.
####Therefore, when you say that Christianity is "bogus beyond
belief", you are merely saying that you don't like it and that your
preferences are all that matter.####
Actually, Christianity makes many claims which do not jibe with the facts of
reality. For example, earlier I asked you to demonstrate that the biblical
flood, which was supposed to have occurred around 2285 BC, actually happened.
So far, you have been unable to support this very major historical claim of
Christianity. So it is not simply a matter of Christianity no conforming to my
preferences, but that Christianity does not conform to the facts of reality.
####Some of your whims maybe right (such as a condemnation of slavery) but they
are only right because you were raised in a society largely shaped by
Christianity and its ethic.####
You say that a condemnation of slavery "maybe right," but how could
that be? The Bible supports slavery.
There are plenty of societies around the world that have not been
"shaped" by Christianity and do just fine. Japan, for example, has
one of the lowest, if not the lowest crime rates of any industrialized nation.
####When people like you get into power, you invariably kill anyone who gets in
your way because you have no moral scruples to prevent you from doing so.####
####....you want us to ignore the consistently bloody record of your perverse
ideology.####
I know it must make you feel really good to accuse me of having the
"ideology" of a mass murderer, but you have not demonstrated that I
have either the ideology or the moral scruples of a mass murderer. However, I
would urge you to keep trying to liken me to a mass murderer, as your efforts
are quite entertaining.
Cheers,
Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: "Know thyself"
Date: 3/11/2001 12:05:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: jamits@XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com
Brooks,
If you are an "atheist" then you have faith in the proposition that
there is no God. Since you cannot possibly prove that proposition, it is a
"faith", a religious ideology, just as much as any other ideology. It
is no less a faith than any other; in fact, it is more so. People who claim to
have no ideology are simply stating that they have such a strong belief in
their ideology that they cannot conceive that they might be wrong, that there
are other legitimate ways of looking at the universe. That's why people like
you (Hitler, Stalin, etc.) are dangerous: you are so convinced you are right
you would be willing to do anything to impose your ideology on others. You are
so convinced, you are not even aware of the faith-based nature of your
ideology.
As for *proving* that hurting people is wrong, you need to go back and learn
what "proving" means. You just pounded your fist on the table and
insisted that your morals are universal and that anyone who differs from you is
wrong.
I wrote: Sez who? Who says that hurting people is bad? You've just assumed
that, you haven't proven it. First you need to establish that hurting innocent
people is a bad thing. Really prove it, don't just assert it.
You responded: "This may be hard for you to accept, but hurting innocent
people is bad for the people being hurt, and it is bad for society as a
whole."
That's not PROOF; that's just you insisting you are right. In order to prove
it, you have to appeal to some source of authority higher than your opinion
(which is not as universally authoritative as you seem to think.)
Then you just went back on the attack. But you don't seem to understand that
until you've established some moral authority beyond your whims, you do not
have the right to judge the morality of anyone or anything. You speak as if you
were God, judging and condemning everything that you don't like. This may be
hard for you to accept, but you are not God. You're not even particularly well
informed.
Sincerely,
John
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: "Know thyself"
Date: 3/11/2001 2:49:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84">mailto:BBu84">BBu84
To: jamits@XXXXXX
John,
You have asked me to explain what morality is based on and I told to you that
it is based, in a broad sense, on what helps or what hurts people. For example,
poison tends to hurt people, so feeding poison to people is considered morally
wrong. Food, on the other hand, tends to promote health, so feeding hungry
people is considered morally right. Cooperation, respect, and fairness tend to
promote the health and well-being of people and societies so these are
considered morally good.
What is it that you want me to "prove" about these things? What is it
that you don't understand? Morality is based on what harms or helps human
beings, and by extension, societies.
I am trying to answer your questions, would you now be kind enough to answer my
questions? You seem to be avoiding them. Let's review some of the topics still
in dispute, shall we?
You have not supported the biblical flood story in any serious way. Are you
conceding that this is a false story? Remember that you charged that my web
site is based only on my whims and opinion, and yet on my site I demonstrate,
using science and history, that the biblical flood could not have and did not
happen.
Apart from a general reference to a book, you have not provided support for
your claim that crimes against women and the rates of poverty among women is
higher than it has been in the past, or that these increases, if they exist,
are based on secularism. I get the feeling that this is a false claim. Can you
provide the specific quote or the statistics that show this claim to be true?
You have not answered my question as to why it took Christians 18 centuries to
discover that slavery was morally wrong.
You have not explained why the Bible supports slavery.
You have not explained what you think my "ideology" is, despite
repeated requests for clarification. Once again I need to inform you that
atheism is not an ideology or a religion-it is the ABSENCE of a belief in a god
or gods." A" means "without," atheism means "without"
theism. Claiming that this is a faith is false. It is, in fact, the exact
opposite of the truth. Since you do not appear to understand the English
language, I will explain why it is wrong, using you as an example: You do not
believe in unicorns, leprachauns, UFOs, Allah, The Invisible Pink Unicorn,
Santa Claus, Mithra, Osirus, the Tooth Fairy, Mormonism, Shiva, etc. But your
ABSENCE of belief in these things is not a faith. It is the ABSENCE of faith.
Get it? I will be happy to repeat this to you as many times as necessary for
you to understand it.
You have not explained what moral absolutes are, or provided biblical examples
of moral absolutes.
You have not explained how YOU determined that the Christian god is morally
good, or given a clear description of how one can derive a moral code from
Christianity. As I have stated before, the biblical god murders children, it
supports slavery, it orders the massacres or women and children, and it
promises to torture people for eternity for their opinions. How can you say
that this god functions as some sort of moral standard? WHAT do you base this
assertion on? Just your own whims?
If nothing else, please attempt to answer the last two questions. If you really
possess a vastly superior moral system than one based on life in a mutually
cooperative human society, I would imagine that you would be very eager to
share it with me.
Thanks.
Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Proof!
Date: 3/11/2001 6:48:09 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: jamits@XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com
Dear Brent,
That's still not proof. Just because YOU say that morality is based on what
helps or hurts people, doesn't make it so. You seem to have a hard time
understanding that things aren't true just because you say them. And, no, just
saying them repeatedly doesn't make them true either. And, no, just saying them
repeatedly and then attacking what other people believe still doesn't make them
true. So, that's two strikes. One more miss and you're out! Prove -- on the
basis of something other than just because you say so -- that there is
something wrong with slavery or even the holocaust.
So far, you've done nothing but say that things are right or wrong just on your
definition. Believe it or not, that's not sufficient.
John
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: correction
Date: 3/11/2001 11:18:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: jamits@XXXXXX
Jimbo,
Morality is based on what helps or hurts human beings. Slavery is harmful to
humans beings, therefore it is considered morally wrong. The same is true of
the Holocaust.
Christianity supports slavery, and Christianity says that all the Jews deserve
to be and will be tortured for eternity. So, if you somehow base you morality
on Christianity, then you have no basis for saying that either of these things
are morally wrong.
I am still waiting for you to answer my questions. What are you so afraid of?
Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: Re: Proof!
Date: 3/12/2001 12:13:27 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: jamits@XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com
Dear Brooks,
Strike Three!
You simply asserted (once again!) "Morality is based on what helps or
hurts human beings." Believe it or not, just because you say something
doesn't make it so. So I conclude, that you don't have ANY basis for the things
that you say, that you just condemn opinions different from yours because you
feel like it, that your "morality is based on what feels good to
you." It's nice that (for now) your morality is supposedly humanitarian.
But since you have no foundation for that morality, there is no reason for me
to believe that you won't change it in an instant to suit your needs. In fact,
there's no reason for me to believe that you are really telling the truth. For
all I know, your "morality" could revolve around what makes you feel
good and since it makes you feel good to sound like a humanitarian, that's what
you say -- even though it's a lie. Of course, you wouldn't consider it a lie
because from your perspective whatever makes you feel good is true.
This is why people with your ideology always end up slaughtering people when
they get into power. Because you have no basis for truth or right and wrong
higher than your whims, you don't believe in any authority above you that is
capable of restraining your hatred of those who are inconvenient to you.
Once again, you've shown you haven't read up on slavery, especially not Fogel.
But fundamentalist ideologues like you never let truth get in their way. But
for your information, it was Christians who ended slavery. People like you
(atheists and those who believe there is no truth beyond their opinion) were
the ones behind the holocaust and the gulags.
Because you've not established no authority by which to morally judge anything,
you cannot logically question anyone else's faith. You are not even in a place
to judge Satanists or those who sacrifice children to pagan gods. Someone has
to have a source of authority higher than themselves to do that. Everything you
say is just your self-serving opinion. And since you obviously do not even know
history, there's no reason to take your opinion seriously.
Sincerely,
John
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: Proof!
Date: 3/12/2001 2:03:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84">mailto:BBu84">BBu84
To: jamits@XXXXXX
John,
####Because you've not established no authority by which to morally judge
anything, you cannot logically question anyone else's faith.####
Pot calling kettle, come in kettle....
Everything your are saying is completely hypocritical.
Let's review, shall we? You worship a god that murders children, you worship a
god that supports slavery, you worship a god that orders its chosen people to
massacre men, women and children, and you worship a god which promises to
torture people for eternity for their beliefs. I am not the one who has
problems with morality-you are. What is wrong with you? I mean really, what is
wrong with you? This murderous, sadistic god you grovel before is the product
of ignorant, superstitious people who lived centuries ago in primitive and
barbaric times. Unfortunately, sadly, you are unable to comprehend this.
Instead you pretend that this war god is real and provides some sort of
"moral standard." However, you are unwilling to explain how you
decided that this god provides a moral "standard." What did you base
your decision on? What guide did you go by? Did you just use your own opinion
to decide? Gee, what kind of moral "authority" is that? That is about
as arbitrary a morality as one is likely to find. Furthermore, you are
unwilling to even describe what this moral "standard" is. You talk
about moral absolutes, yet you are unwilling to define what they are or provide
examples of moral absolutes from the Bible. The reason you are silent on these
topics is because you really don't know what you are talking about.
I have conversed with numerous Christians about this subject and this is always
where they run away, when they are asked to actually explain where they think
they get their morality from. This is just more of the same and it is not
surprising based on your behavior throughout our exchanges. You have
steadfastly refused to answer my questions regarding slavery and Christianity
(e.g. the 18 centuries of Christian support for slavery), the idea of moral
absolutes, the notion of the biblical god as a moral "standard," or
even your claim about women, crime and poverty. You cannot explain your
morality because, beneath all the angry, bombastic rhetoric, you don''t have
the slightest clue as to what you are talking about. Feel free to prove me
wrong though.
One other question for you, not that I have any hope left that you will
actually try to reciprocate in this conversation-but In case you do, the question
is this: If you discovered tomorrow that the biblical god did not exist, would
your behavior towards and treatment of other people change in any way, shape,
or form? And if so, why?
Thanks.
Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Proof!
Date: 3/12/2001 7:38:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: jamits@XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com
Dear Pontif!
You still are suffering under the delusion that you have a right to make moral
judgements. Guess what? I gave you three tries to establish a moral basis of
authority. The only thing you could do was repeat yoursel and launch into your
hate-filled, ignorant attacks. I'm quite clear about what I believe is the
ultimate moral authority. But you are the one who thinks he has the right to judge
other people's faith. The irony is, you can't even come up with a foundation
for doing so that is deeper than your whims. Until you do, everything you say
is just blowing smoke.
Bye,
John
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: corrected
Date: 3/12/2001 11:24:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84">mailto:BBu84">BBu84
To: jamits@XXXXXX
Rupert,
#### I'm quite clear about what I believe is the ultimate moral authority ####
Simply because you "believe" something to be a moral
"authority"-this does not make it a moral "authority." Get
it? You are a complete hypocrite. If someone believes Allah is a moral
"authority," how would the two of you decide who was right? Would you
just claim that your opinion was better?
Let's take a closer look at this though. What you "believe" to be a
moral "authority" is a bloodthirsty, murderous, slavery supporting
war god that was invented by ancient pinheads. What a wonderful moral
"authority." Your claims about having some sort of superior morality
over and above that of others is absolutely, completely and totally asinine.
####The irony is, you can't even come up with a foundation for doing so that is
deeper than your whims.####
Like I said, morality is based on what helps or hurts humans. It is not based
on my "whims." What do you feel the need to make stuff up?
Care to answer any of my questions?
Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Your mindless repititions
Date: 3/12/2001 4:33:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: jamits@XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com
Dear Self-Appointed Deity,
At least a Muslim is submitting to an authority outside himself. You have yet
to establish any moral authority. Until you do so, you have no right to
criticize anyone. You keep saying "morality is based on what helps or
hurts humans" but you have no right to say that. It's not true just
because you say it is. Because you've yet to establish any moral authority,
when you attack other people's beliefs you are merely expressing your own
hatred of whatever you don't like. All your rants are self-serving because you
have no basis to say them except your whims. And just denying that obvious fact
is not proof.
Please stop your mindless repititions. You obviously are ignorant of history
and moral philosophy. Apparently hate and self-righteousness is the only thing
that motivates you.
jc
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: boring
Date: 3/19/2001 3:33:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: mailto: jamits@XXXXXX
John,
####You don't seem to get the point that until you establish some kind of moral
authority higher than your opinion, you have no right to judge or criticize
anyone -- not Muslims, Nazis, Communists, Jews, etc.####
As I explained to you, numerous times, morality is based on what helps or hurts
humans. Most semi-intelligent people can figure out what actions help or hurt
human beings and so basic morality is just common sense. For example, we don’t
need to locate a “moral authority” in order to determine whether we should help
an accident victim or feed a crying baby.
(If you claim that it is just my opinion that morality is based on what harms
of benefits humans, then please provide YOUR alternative explanation for
morality. So far you have not done this. Hmmm, I wonder why?)
Let's be clear about something: You are simply using the phrase “moral
authority” as a rhetorical device. You want to use it to disallow criticism of
your god by saying that one must somehow, in some way, become a “moral
authority” or establish “moral authority” before one can call biblical slavery,
the OT massacres of women and children and the eternal torture of un-believers
as morally wrong. It's ridiculous. In case this is not clear, I'll demonstrate
just how silly your position is. Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that
I agreed with you that one had to “establish moral authority” before one was
able to make any moral pronouncements or make any moral decisions. Just how
does one establish “moral authority”? Judging by what you have written so far,
one establishes “moral authority” simply by appealing to some source outside of
him or herself. Based on this, Muslims have "moral authority" because
they appeal to a primitive deity invented by ancient pinheads. Voodoo
practioners, by the same token, have "moral authority" because they
accept the teachings of supernatural forces outside of themselves. UFO cult
members have “moral authority” because they base their morality on that of
space aliens-something presumably beyond their own minds. I could, in much the
same way, acquire “moral authority” by appealing to Bozo the Clown as a moral
source outside of myself. In fact, using your definition, everyone can acquire
“moral authority” by basing their moral pronouncements and decisions on someone
or something outside of themselves, and society could be awash in millions of
“moral authorities” with wildly conflicting notions of what constituted good
morality.
The fact is that morality is most definitely NOT based simply on appeals to
what are, ostensibly, outside opinions. It IS fundamentally based on what helps
or hurts people, a standard which is observable, which is universal, something
which most everyone can understand.
Except maybe you.
####That's why a Muslim is a more credible person than you are. You are simply
asserting your will onto others.####
No, I am just stating obvious truths. Slavery, massacring women and children
and eternally torturing people are all morally wrong since morality, you will
remember, is based on what helps or harms people. If you want to argue that
these things are not harmful and hurtful to people, you are free to, but I
think that would be kind of stupid. If you want to argue that this is not the
basis of morality, then by all means do so. Give it your best shot.
####But at least a Muslims submits to something outside of himself. I happen to
believe that what he is submitting to is ultimately wrong but at least he's not
just imposing his personal opinion on others like you are.####
But you are imposing your opinion on the Muslim by saying that he is ultimately
wrong. Therefore you are a hypocrite. And I am not simply "imposing"
my personal opinion when I discuss morality, I am appealing to the real basis
of morality: human lives and human well-being.
####That's why you secularists are always oppressive. Ultimately everything
comes down to the imposing of your will on others.####
What the hell are you talking about? Do you have any clue?
####Since you continue to assert your ignorance about Christianity and slavery
and about secularism and women in the face of real evidence, you are truly a
dangerously dogmatic ideologue.####
What “real evidence”? You have not supported your statements about slavery or
the claimed statistics about women. As I said before, the Bible supports
slavery, and the Christian Church supported slavery and did not speak out
against it for 18 centuries. I am not aware of ANY evidence that crimes against
women are higher than they have been in the past, or that the levels of female
poverty are higher than they have been in the past. Every indication I have is
that these statistics are actually lower than they have been in the past.
Perhaps you are the “dangerously dogmatic ideologue”-using falsehoods and preposterous
claims and allegations in a desperate attempt to somehow support your very
questionable belief system.
####You appear to know absolutely nothing, you have no philosophical basis to
say anything, but you flail about with vicious hatred trying to destroy what
you do not understand.####
I dislike vicious falsehoods, like Christianity, that masquerade as the truth.
I think I do understand Christianity-much better than you do. And I would like
to help people like you see the error of your ways.
####Until you find a legitimate moral authority, you have nothing to say.####
And you ultimately want to claim that the only “legitimate moral authority” is
the Christian god, right? Of course. But you have never explained why you view
the Christian god as a "moral authority." You don't say what
standards you used to judge the Christian god. Is it just your opinion that the
Christian god is some sort of "moral authority"? If so, then you are
simply being a hypocrite.
As far as this discussion (if it can be called that) is concerned, you are not
really contributing anything. You make assertions, yet do not support them. You
invent words and phrases, like “moral absolutes” yet you don’t define them. You
hurl absurd allegations-for example, that I am no better than a mass murderer
or I that I impose my will on others-yet you do not explain the allegations. I
post repeated questions to you asking for more information, yet you pointedly
ignore them all. On top of all this, you make charges that appear completely hypocritical.
Unless you reciprocate with some new information, some clarification of your
claims, or make some kind of attempt to answer my questions, I consider this
conversation over.
Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Just assertions
Date: 3/19/2001 4:39:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: jamits@XXXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com
Dear Self-Appointed Deity,
You still don't get the point that you do not have the right to arbitrarily
establish what is the standard for right and wrong.
You: "As I explained to you, numerous times, morality is based on what
helps or hurts humans."
Sez who? You never "explained" that, you've just asserted it over and
over again as if you simply stating it makes it true.
Exactly how many times do you have to be asked for an explanation of a
transcendent moral authority before you realize that you just asserting your
will does not suffice?
You: "basic morality is just common sense."
Albert Einstein: "Common sense the the collection of prejudices we gather
by age 18."
What you mean is that "basic morality" is the what seems like common
sense TO YOU. You think the entire universe revolves around your whims. Anyone
who asserts that anything, especially "morality", is based on
"common sense", has no philosophical understanding of this issue.
But your complete lack of a transcendent moral authority and of even a basic
philosophical understanding of ethics doesn't deter you from spewing your
self-serving hate toward what is different than you. That's why people with
your ideology are always very dangerous. Your whole ethic is based on an
imposition of your arbitrary will onto others.
Please, unless you suddenly develop even a fundamental understanding of this
topic, why don't you leave me alone. Your silly attempts at philosophy are
incredibly shallow, self-serving, and repititive.
John
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: you have
your own forum on my discussion boards
Date: 5/7/2001 11:53:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: jamits@XXXXXX
John,
This is Brooks from the Christianity Bogus Beyond Belief web site. I noticed
your recent post in my guestbook. You seem eager to share your ideas so I am
giving you your very own forum on my discussion board. I urge your to post more
of your ideas there.
Cheers,
Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: you have your own forum on my discussion boards
Date: 5/7/2001 6:53:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: jamits@XXXXXX
John,
I will post your e-mail in the forum-without the e-mail address. Your e-mail
pretty much sums up your position.
Take care.
Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: (no subject)
Date: 5/9/2001 10:21:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: jamits@XXXXXX
John,
I now have our entire March e-mail conversation posted on your forum.
Just think-now you can direct the people on that discussion board you cut and
pasted from to our entire conversation so they can get a full apprectiation of
the discussion-both sides of the issue, rather than just your e-mails.
Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: (no subject)
Date: 5/10/2001 4:01:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: jamits@XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com
Dear Brooks,
Ok. Thanks. Good for you. I'm not sure why you would want to put your side up,
though. I don't recall you saying anything except lapsing into historically
absurd attacks on Christianity without ever establishing any moral authority to
make any value judgements whatsoever. But I guess those who share your fundamentalist
attachment to your ideology will be happy to see their dogma mindlessly
repeated. Diff'rent strokes. . . .
John
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: (no subject)
Date: 5/10/2001 10:31:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: jamits@XXXXXX
John,
I will say it again, since you are still not getting it: You are ascribing
"moral authority" to a murderous, sadistic mythological war god of
ancient pinheads. Your whole position is a joke.
Figure it out.
Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: Re: (no subject)
Date: 5/10/2001 4:51:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: jamits@edsamail.com.sg (John & Mary Carpenter)
To: Tekministry@aol.com
I will say it again, because you're still not getting it:
Until you establish a moral authority beyond your self-serving bigotry, you
have no basis on which to criticize anyone, not even Nazis or Tim McVeighs.
That you make a sport out of condemning the moral system that ended slavery,
taught the virtues of kindness and the presuppositions that made modern science
possible, shows how twisted your ideology is. That you continue to be unable to
see that your assertions aren't sufficient, demonstrates how egotistical and
limited in intelligence you individually are.
Why don't you try learning something before condemning? But I guess that takes
all the fun out of your atheistic fundamentalism!
jc
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: Re: (no subject)
Date: 5/10/2001 6:52:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: jamits@XXXXXX
John,
You mistakenly believe a mythological war god of ancient pinheads is a moral
authority.
You need help.
Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: Re: Re: (no subject)
Date: 5/11/2001 3:23:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: jamits@XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com
Brooks,
You mistakenly think you are a moral authority.
As for "ancient pinheads": why did they write some of the greatest
literature in the history of the world? Many scholars (including poets and
"The Columbia History of the World") consider the book of Job to be
the greatest work of literature ever written.
Now, why would someone with apparently no historical education (as your comments
on slavey demonstrate) call people who write some of the greatest literature
"pinheads"?
Answer: becuase he's a fundamentalist bigot. That his fundamentalism is of an
atheistic variety (and thus dependent on his own whims instead of some
tradition) only means he's both mindless and egotistical.
You still don't understand the basic concept that to make moral judgements, you
need a moral authority. So everytime you make a moral judgement you are just
asserting your ill-informed bigotry.
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: (no subject)
Date: 5/11/2001 11:54:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: jamits@XXXXXX
John,
In a message dated 5/11/2001 3:23:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jamits@XXXXXX
writes:
>>You mistakenly think you are a moral authority.
You mistakenly call a mythological war god of ancient pinheads a moral
authority.
Wake up.
Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: Re: (no subject)
Date: 5/11/2001 6:26:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: jamits@XXXXXX
To: Tekministry@aol.com
Self-Appointed Moral Authority,
Why don't you "wake up"? Exactly how many times do you have to be
challenged to present a moral authority by which you make your self-serving,
bigotted, ignorant condemnations?
You are simply asserting your will. The fact that you think your will is a
valid moral authority makes you a very dangerous person. That's why people like
you, when they get into power, end up setting up death camps. You think the entire
moral universe revolves around your whims. The danger of your twisted ideology
is clearly demonstrated in that you chose to attack the moral authority that
ended slavery, taught the world the virtue of benevolence, and made modern
science possible. That you are unaware of those facts and yet persist in making
your absurd claims shows that you aren't particularly bright.
You are totally incapable of presenting a moral authority to judge anything and
yet instead of trying to develop one you always go on the attack. You can't
defend your own utterly stupid ideology so you try to distract from your
laughably vulnerable ideology by attacking others.
jc
------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: Re: (no subject)
Date: 5/11/2001 6:53:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: jamits@XXXXXX
John,
Your "moral authority" is (a) mythological war god of ancient
barbarians. Therefore you have no basis for saying anything about morality,
since you obviously have no moral judgment.
Why don't you come into your forum and share your wisdom? You can say anything
you like and do everything you can to further your claims.
Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
So the was the extent of our e-mail conversation. In addition Jamits posted
this to my guestbook on May 8th:
####Lacking the inheritance of Christianity, atheism is unable to prevent even
the worse atrocities because it can provide no reason to oppose them. In the
following, I reproduce my correspondence with an anti-Christian atheist who
claims to be morally superior to Christians but who is unable to provide a
reason to criticize the holocaust other than his assertions. But he’s never able
to provide me a reason why I should accept his assertions. That’s why atheism
is a dangerous thing.####
####The atheists name is Brooks and is contactable at Tekministry@aol.com####
Quite a joke, eh?
Brooks
Edited by: Mrkrinkles at: 5/13/01 10:50:36 pm