God as the ultimate child abuser

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's not clear that this is the case. Here is one argument.

1. If God exists, then God must be both omnipotent and supremely benevolent.
2. A supremely benevolent being would never allow evil to occur if it could prevent it.
3. An omnipotent being could prevent any evil from happening.
4. But evil does occur in the world.
C: Therefore, if God exists, then God cannot be both omnipotent and supremely benevolent.

Since religion traditionally assumes both omnipotence and benevolence, the existence of evil rules out the existence of such a God by logic.

On the other hand, we have no conclusive proof that fairies do not exist, but it is irrational to believe in fairies.

They key here is that such a god could not exist as defined. This does not preclude the existence of a god without such qualifications.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Agathon


It's not clear that this is the case. Here is one argument.

1. If God exists, then God must be both omnipotent and supremely benevolent.
2. A supremely benevolent being would never allow evil to occur if it could prevent it.
3. An omnipotent being could prevent any evil from happening.
4. But evil does occur in the world.
C: Therefore, if God exists, then God cannot be both omnipotent and supremely benevolent.

Since religion traditionally assumes both omnipotence and benevolence, the existence of evil rules out the existence of such a God by logic.

On the other hand, we have no conclusive proof that fairies do not exist, but it is irrational to believe in fairies.

A s a philosopherI would expect you to be more well read than that.


JM

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Trying to herd animals?

I suppose there's something that you need to know first, but I don't see how you have to really try to herd animals. You mostley sit on a rock all day long I suppose.

A preschool teacher who tried that would soon lose half of his/her students. How do you expect that tactic to work given much larger, stronger, dumber, and more primally motivated animals? And in much, MUCH larger groups? Which have to be regularly moved around as a group to reach new grazing ground, find water, etc. without losing any to predators or getting mixed up with the neighbors' herds?

I understand it helps a great deal if you have dogs, but you have to breed and train the dogs (you need damned smart dogs, too), and the training involved is complex; you have to rattle off commands quickly in response to the shifting movements of the herd, and a command might mean anything from "circle to the right to cut off stragglers" to "compact the group around the middle." In other words, it can be much like playing pinball with a mass of slow but rather randomly-moving balls and a number of free-floating paddles you have to maneuver via codes. I don't suppose we have any livestock farmers on Poly, but if we did I imagine they'd laugh in your face.

Agathon: I don't deny that the Iliad is an important entertaining story, and I admit I don't know much about its status in the ancient world, but I find it hard to believe that it played any role similar to that of the Gospels. It's not a sacred text like the Bhagavad-Gita or Tao Te Ching, it's a partial account of an historical event without overt moral lessons. Legends can be very important, but people are going to treat them differently from religious texts.

While I naturally dislike the comparison to the Mormons et al, the most extreme post-founder change I can think of was in the case of Brigham Young following Joseph Smith--and that was still pretty much just more of the same AFAICT. From 'polygamy is good' to 'polygamy is essential,' big whoop. They were bound to the ideas of the founders in all cases.

Don't forget, Paul was (apparently) a latecomer to an already existing community--or do you have evidence that he was there from the start? He could shape the development, put a different and more philosophical spin on it, but he could not contradict the founder significantly without offending the prior believers.

But I concur with AH (I think it was him who said it), that this argument is getting silly. You don't accept the authority of the texts, and all that's known about them is known from the texts themselves, so you're stuck building from the same foundation you're attempting to undermine. You're spinning hypotheticals and postulates about what you think would have happened based on your understanding of human nature as it applies to an alien culture from 2K years ago. "Paul obviously did X, assuming he existed, which we only know from the text whose validity I'm attacking." Pointless.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's not clear that this is the case. Here is one argument.

1. If God exists, then God must be both omnipotent and supremely benevolent.
2. A supremely benevolent being would never allow evil to occur if it could prevent it.
3. An omnipotent being could prevent any evil from happening.
4. But evil does occur in the world.
C: Therefore, if God exists, then God cannot be both omnipotent and supremely benevolent.

Since religion traditionally assumes both omnipotence and benevolence, the existence of evil rules out the existence of such a God by logic.

On the other hand, we have no conclusive proof that fairies do not exist, but it is irrational to believe in fairies.

That's a very sloppy formula, with the conclusion contradicting the first item that way. Come on now, show some professional pride. Anyway, 2 and 3 are both questionable (for similar reasons). "A good parent would never allow her child to fall while learning to ride a bike." Don't judge in the place of your better-informed superiors, Agathon. And don't assume omnipotence means ABSOLUTE power; our reality must have rules in place to govern it if it is to exist in a meaningful way. Sure, God could break the rules, but if broken regularly enough rules become quite meaningless.

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Agathon


It's not clear that this is the case. Here is one argument.

1. If God exists, then God must be both omnipotent and supremely benevolent.
2. A supremely benevolent being would never allow evil to occur if it could prevent it.
3. An omnipotent being could prevent any evil from happening.
4. But evil does occur in the world.
C: Therefore, if God exists, then God cannot be both omnipotent and supremely benevolent.

Since religion traditionally assumes both omnipotence and benevolence, the existence of evil rules out the existence of such a God by logic.

On the other hand, we have no conclusive proof that fairies do not exist, but it is irrational to believe in fairies.

I remember this from Philosophy 101. There's also a counter arguement to it, but I can't remember back that far. This is a good philisophical argument, but hardly proof of anything. Speaking of logic though, if god is omnipotent, can't he defy logic? Didn't he create the very concept of logic? Also why is it irrational to believe that fairies exist? Why does the concept of faith bother people like you so much? I don't have much faith if any at all when it comes to religion, but I recognize just how much we rely on faith in our everyday lives whether we know it or not. There is not a single individual who does not take something on faith. Faith is very rational, or we'd never get through life.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Agathon


It's not clear that this is the case. Here is one argument.

1. If God exists, then God must be both omnipotent and supremely benevolent.
2. A supremely benevolent being would never allow evil to occur if it could prevent it.
3. An omnipotent being could prevent any evil from happening.
4. But evil does occur in the world.
C: Therefore, if God exists, then God cannot be both omnipotent and supremely benevolent.

Since religion traditionally assumes both omnipotence and benevolence, the existence of evil rules out the existence of such a God by logic.

On the other hand, we have no conclusive proof that fairies do not exist, but it is irrational to believe in fairies.

You are useless and so is your profession.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

A s a philosopherI would expect you to be more well read than that.

JM

I am. But the argument from evil is a good example of an argument against the existence of God that is based upon verifiable evidence (the existence of evil).

The poster in question seemed to assume that it was impossible in principle to prove the non-existence of God. It's not clear that this is true, as the argument from evil is on the face of it, a plausible and valid argument.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Agathon
...the argument from evil is on the face of it, a plausible and valid argument.

Only if God is a very, very simple being.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I was trying to have a serious conversation, and you've wasted my morning.

This is so much better than that, like the "good old days" of OT. Here I was, shunning this thread for three days thinking this was just another stupid anti-religion blatherfest.

Originally posted by Dracon II
The difference between Jesus and Socrates, of course, is that Plato and Xenophon were contemporaries of the latter... and much of their writing (Plato's early dialogues at least, and Xenophon's memorabilia) can quite reasonably be attributed to their personal experience of Socrates. The Gospels were all written after Jesus died by authors who could not have known him (there maybe some overlap between Mark's lifeline and Jesus', but I'm not sure).

You aren't "sure" of it? Here I was, foolishly thinking that you had discovered some heretofore unknown evidence of the authors' politically correct identies. You understand that, however well accepted in ivory towers, textual criticism is just a hypothetical construct for entertaining scholars who have nothing else to contribute to the field. The Gospels could, in fact, have been written by those to whom they are attributed.

Some scholars believe that the Gospels (the synoptic ones at least) drew from the same written source, a list of Jesus' sayings (probably not unlike the Gospel of Thomas). The little scholarship that I have read on the subject has drawn fairly convincing parallels between the dominant themes and events of the Gospels with the particular milieus and concerns of the Gospel authors themselves.

It is good to see that you know this is belief, not "fact" that justifies dismissing contrary beliefs out of hand.

Could there not be an oral source of collected sayings that were carefully memorized? A collection from a number of simple speeches delivered word for word to audiences far and wide, and therefore heard hundreds of times by the disciples who traveled with Jesus? The group of dedicated followers who continued his ministry after his departure, and later wrote the Gospels?

I realize accepting that possibility would be unsophisticated. That's a capital crime in some circles.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Agathon
Much of what is written about Jesus simply attempts to fit him in to long established religious ideas, like a virgin birth and a resurrection.

Sorry, but you can't begin by assuming true what you intend to prove. It could be that the events described precipitated those religious ideas that were "long established" by the time the descriptions were put in written form (whether early or late).

Paul can be understood as equivalent to Plato. Most people who are Christians believe in some version of the Pauline Christ, but it is a huge assumption to believe that Paul accurately reflected the beliefs of a historical Jesus, rather than pursuing his own agenda. Other agendas, such as Gnosticism lost out, and were expunged from the canon. None of this is likely to have had anything to do with the historical Jesus, if he existed.

What we call "Christianity" has almost certainly very little to do with the actions and beliefs of a postulated Jewish carpenter from the first century.

If by putting it in quotes ("Christianity" [sic]) you mean the centuries of superstition and Greco-Roman philosophy that has come to represent the bulk of Christian tradition, yes. If you mean Jesus' teachings, the miracles, the death and resurrection, no. You have absolutely nothing concrete to support that assertion, only your distaste for anything supernatural.

No doubt that Pauline Xnity is very different from the initial Jewish Xnity in a few radical ideas. The point is that those radical ideas spring organically from the Christ preached by the original Apostles, merely carrying the concept beyond the scope of Judaism.

That's true, but the Biblical archaeology movement has a habit of discovering inconvenient truths IIRC. And the provenance of various relics is always amusing. I read somewhere that there are so many teeth claiming to have been those of Jesus that he would have had to have had multiple mouths.

Strawman. "Relics" are frauds committed by the cynical upon the well-meaning, both in ancient times and in modern. They have little connection to real archeology. The frauds and well-meaning dupes spring up on both sides: witness the hype over the ossuary and tombs some skeptics posited as being those of Jesus and his followers.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Agathon
In the case of Jesus and his followers, you likely have a small, obscure sectarian cult which is probably not composed of literate people. Long after the founder is dead (and consider the life expectancy at the time) some people decide to write down a basic account of the founder's life and ideas (which they did not consider separate in quite the way we do).

I'm palpating the corpus to find skeleton or sinew, or if it is composed entirely of straw. Let's throw out the stuffing and see what remains.

What is "small" about 1st cen Xnity? It was widespread among Palestinian towns and Jewish populations in Greek cities. Unlike "sectarian cults" they lived and mingled freely with both Jewish and Greek populace.

Are you saying that Christians were behind the general rate of literacy in Jewish populations? Do you have something to support that? I'm inclined to think that asserting they were "illiterate" is just another way of dismissing things where there is no evidence to the contrary.

At least "long after the founder is dead" is supported in both the traditional attributions for the texts (30+ years for the Gospels) and the critics against them.

I think there's not enough meat in that scarecrow, but with this magic stone we can turn it into soup... as soon as somebody provides the ingredients.

Now everyone knows from observations of modern small religious sects (and some political parties for that matter) that once the founder dies, there is always some sort of power struggle for who will be the next leader or the correct interpreter of the original leader's doctrine.

Now consider the case of Joseph Smith jr. ...

Why is it that there are tens of thousands of Xian sects and denominations and you choose to focus upon one that is perhaps the most divisive and contrarian in modern history? Why don't you consider the case of Luther, or Calvin, or other prominant 16th cen reformers? What about John and Charles Wesley, more nearly contemporaries of Smith?

Oh, because all those thousands of examples don't support your point. If in fact the founders of 1st cen Xnity were not powermongers but scrupulous followers of Jesus you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But do go on, it may be superficially interesting to see where you take this.

Now consider the case of Joseph Smith jr. Smith had the advantage of being an educated and literate individual (and if we are sceptics, an exceptionally creative imagination) who could and did write down his own religious texts and lived in a modern literate culture. Even before Smith died, there were several rival sects based on his ideas. It got somewhat worse after he died. We actually know a lot about Smith independently of specifically religious writings, because he was a somewhat notorious character and often made the papers and attracted the attention of the law. Even with all this documentation, there are still various sects of Mormonism and massive disputes among his followers. The LDS church is dominant, but that is a historical accident, and the claim that they represent Smith's views is obviously partisan to any neutral observer.

If things can be that bad with Joseph Smith, then imagine how much more uncertainty is introduced by having no surviving documents from the leader, and having to rely on second hand reports by virtually anonymous people that are specifically religious works with religious intent – in many cases a series of somewhat wild stories. That is the case with Jesus. We know virtually nothing about him that does not come from a religious source, and we know from our own experience that religious sources are unreliable, particularly given human religious behaviour regarding sect founders.

Except that (as Elok already responded) Xnity was initially spread to the very towns in which Jesus grew up, lived, travelled, and preached. The Gospel only spread because those people believed it in significant numbers.

The critics pointed to the public crucifixion as a deserved shame, and called the empty tomb a hoax, but they never denied the crucifixion, burial, and disappearance of the body.

When original Christian writings did come they were potentially verifiable accounts of a near-contemporary Jesus, or contemporary treatments of doctrinal and disciplinary standards, not retellings of ancient history copied from magical disappearing-reappearing books.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Agathon
But we don't know which was the correct story. This was not a matter for discovery, but a matter for decision. Christianity is based on the decisions of people like Paul, and of the later church fathers as to what was to count. None of these people had the original Jesus around. People will adapt ideas to their own purposes. That is just human nature, and is why religions are very malleable in their early stages, when there is not yet any real orthodoxy (in particular when the founder dies, because what orthodoxy there was, was determined by his will).

Oh, come now. Let's not pretend these things happened in a vacuum. There was no "which" to the "correct story." The story, from day one, was "Jesus rose from the dead." You've also posited Gnosticism as a competitor against Pauline Xnity, the favorite fallback of 19th-20th cen scholars, but that is laughable.

The majority of Xians prior to 70 CE were Jews. Bizarre philosophical babblings were not comparable to midrash, which is what Jesus' teaching was. Anything "Christian" had to be connected to Hebrew scripture and tradition. Gnosticism only became a viable alternate when the Gentile segment of the church outgrew the Jewish core after the fall of Jerusalem. Veneration of saints and angels, for example, clearly descends from Greek mysticism and took root before the end of the 1st cen.

While there are a few elements of Hellenism that seeped into Jewish life along the way the dichotomy between the two was and is profound. Destruction of the Temple couldn't shake the Hebraic core. It took eight more centuries before Jews created their own mystery cult, and it is tiny compared to the Jewish population. They just don't go for that kind of false spirituality.

This process may not meet with your approval, but it is hardly arbitrary or made up out of thin air, as you imply. Remember that we are not just talking about a pleasant story, but a fairly recent event of earth-shattering importance, an event around which a whole community was built

You take a serious look at the origin of whackjob cults like the Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses or the LDS and try to maintain that position. People will make it up as they go along, and will at the same time treat it as being of earth shattering importance. This process is not arbitrary and it isn't made up from nothing, but I never claimed either in the strict sense. It is guided by the emotional needs of the individuals involved and the "natural selection of ideas". But neither of these has anything to do with correspondence to the facts. The Seventh Day Adventists, in particular, built a community based on complete insanity, but it survives nonetheless (and we have much to be grateful for, since they invented the modern use of cereals IIRC).

Hmmm, let's see now: did Smith rise from the dead? Did White, or Russell? Not so earth-shattering. Have you actually read the crap they wrote and prophesied? Doesn't quite compare to the Sermon on the Mount.

Yes, the people they converted were nut cases, or sharks who saw an opportunity for power and money. There were a few of both types among Jesus' disciples, too. One of the sharks sold him out for thirty pieces of silver. But if you want to contend that the sharks took over after Jesus' death and manipulated the record, where's the beef?

Let's look at the process and the emotional needs involved. All the abuses, excesses, and nuttery seen in your three modern examples (won't list them here) are things clearly decried in the Gospels and in Pauline Xnity. A rational examination will lead the student safely away. So both Jesus and Paul were teaching sound, rational stuff, not sensationalism designed to feed the abuses and excesses.

They weren't about ambition and control, they were about raising up independent leaders to spread the good news to every corner of the world. There's exactly one record of money being collected from churches, and that is for famine relief. Paul goes to great lengths pointing out that he wouldn't take their money, he earned his keep as a craftsman.

The whole idea of the Reformation is that we can go back to the Gospels and epistles and weed out all the stuff that people made up as they went along. They still had the tendency to weed out just the worst and quit when they felt comfortable about the rest. Then another generation would come and shake things up a bit. They'd split off a new denomination when leadership entrenched rather than roll with changes.

The whole idea of fundamentalism is that the process stops when you've pared down to the text of scripture. When Spong or somebody (to come around to the OP) says that Paul was a bigot and homosexuality isn't so bad we toss him out on his ear. It's again people making stuff up as they go along, only this time pandering to political correctness. As Solomon said three millennia ago, there is nothing new under the sun.

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Agathon


I am. But the argument from evil is a good example of an argument against the existence of God that is based upon verifiable evidence (the existence of evil).

The poster in question seemed to assume that it was impossible in principle to prove the non-existence of God. It's not clear that this is true, as the argument from evil is on the face of it, a plausible and valid argument.

The existence of evil is hardly verifiable evidence. You have to prove evil exists first. In an atheistic world, there is no such thing, merely a concept from man's point of view to describe things that are bad for him. This point of view varies depending on who you ask.

[Elok]

FFS, let this thread die already!

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Elok
Yeah, keep castrating your church, Anglicans. We'll be more than happy to recruit the ones who get disgusted and leave.

Spong is by no means the average retired Episcopalian bishop. Would it be OK if I pointed to the example of Rasputin as a typical Orthodox monk? You know, if your clergy keep running around indiscriminantly boinking gullible rich girls no one should be surprised if their male relatives don't occassionally slice and dice the clerics and toss them in a canal? We'll be happy to accept your disenchanted members as converts and guarentee the honor of their womenfolk.