Comments on Ambassador Watch: Purple Endures (and a Xmas Message)

Skeptic, physicist Dr. Victor Stenger quite powerf...

2009-12-17T07:11:19.954+13:00

Skeptic, physicist Dr. Victor Stenger quite powerfully addresses in some detail the very things you mentioned above in his outstanding book "Has Science Found God?"

(And by the way, Victor Stenger is the brother of William Stenger, who was a member of the WCG and who served as the Director of Admissions for AC Pasadena for a number of years - and whom I know for a fact was an ardent Three Stooges fan!)

Not to beat up on Bert, but one part cited by Leon...

2009-12-17T05:02:43.652+13:00

Not to beat up on Bert, but one part cited by Leonardo struck me square:

Bert wrote:
"...I came to the realization that there was no way I can produce answers to those questions that would be understood by those who have a negative perception of ...

This is the exact claim of supporters of paranormal phenomena! It can only be proven to those with a positive view! Negative perception ruins it!

For example, the claim of "dowsing"(finding water by walking around with a forked stick) has been tested many times. Each time a proper test was set up, it was found that "dowsing finds water no more often than random chance. Do the dowsers admit it doesn't work? Of course not. They claim the negative thoughts of those conducting the tests have skewed the results.

The same has been true for claims of psychics, telepathy, ESP, you name it. The positive results they claim to get in private tests are not repeatable in double-blind tests by independent testers. Do they admit their mistake? Of course not. They claim the negative thoughts of those conducting the tests have skewed the results.

So, the point comes through crystal clear. Believers in religion are not unlike believers in psychics, UFOs, homeopathy, dowsing or any other irrational claim. They have no proof so they assert the usual laws of evidence and proof do not apply to them.

The Skeptic

I was just re-reading through Bert's comments ...

2009-12-16T22:09:19.001+13:00

I was just re-reading through Bert's comments above for the purpose of clarifying some things in my own mind, and in my view this particular one says it all with respect to the ultimate basis of Christian belief.

Bert wrote:
"...I came to the realization that there was no way I can produce answers to those questions that would be understood by those who have a negative perception of the theology of the bible and the god it presents as being the creator."

In this one sentence Bert handily sums up centuries of Christian apologetics, and it’s view toward unbelievers quite accurately.

It also highlights and underscores what I've said for years now: that unless you just unquestioningly ASSUME via blind faith the literal existence of the God of the Bible, and that the Bible itself is the "word" of that particular deity (fideism, in theological-speak), and use these presumptions as your starting point, then Christianity is left without any legitimate kind of proof or evidence to substantiate or support it whatsoever.

And again, I give credit to Bert for not harboring any illusions that it does. Its support is based purely upon personal, subjective and imaginary grounds.

Bert’s last comment here doesn’t surprise me at al...

2009-12-16T04:20:37.304+13:00

Bert’s last comment here doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s very typical of True Believers.

He simply is unable to provide any empirical proof or rational logic whatsoever for his supernatural beliefs, cannot clearly articulate or argue for them in any intelligible way in a public forum, and thus is forced to retreat to the standard defense of "My religion is a private matter that can only be understood by fellow believers."

This is a complete retreat into subjectivism and an evasion of the Christian’s responsibility as clearly expressed in I Peter 3:15 which commands believers to “…always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you…”

Note that this scripture says “everyone” - not just fellow believers. The New Living Translation (NLT) renders this verse as: “And if you are asked about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it.”

At least Bert has the personal integrity to be completely up front and honest about this, and I respect him for that, if not his philosophical views.

To The Apostate Paul I want to thank you for the t...

2009-12-15T15:18:23.645+13:00

To The Apostate Paul
I want to thank you for the two questions (How? and What answers?) regarding my previous comments.
I have reviewed the material presents by different contributors in this thread and went through the thread of comments on the article posted about Paul Kieffer (who I know personally).
In reviewing and comparing my biblical perceptions with the influence they’ve had on what I consider a productive and positive life I came to the realization that there was no way I can produce answers to those questions that would be understood by those who have a negative perception of the theology of the bible and the god it presents as being the creator.
No one can relate to answered prayers or a spiritual guidance experienced in all areas of life unless they have shared the same type of experiences. Even true life experiences cannot be attributed to a spiritual involvement without biblical support.
There is nothing “spooky” about my relationship with God and my prayers are simple understandable conversations that follow examples in the scriptures, but they are directed to a God that I believe exists.
I express my gratitude for all of the comments made on these issues, because it reveals that my personal perception of a relationship with God and His word is quite different from others who were a part of WCG.
This being the case I will make this my last comment in this thread.
Bert

In response to Bert, the Apostate Paul wrote: &quo...

2009-12-14T21:26:21.093+13:00

In response to Bert, the Apostate Paul wrote:
"Science doesn't require faith. In fact, faith is in opposition to science. You don't have to "believe" in gravity or the atomic mass of chloride. It simply is."

I'm afraid this is a crucially important distinction that shallow-thinking supernaturalists just cannot (or will not) comprehend and absorb into their mindset.

Just last week I purchased a fascinating DVD called “The God Delusion Debate” between Richard Dawkins and scientist/theologian John Lennox. It was billed as “Darwin’s Rottweiler is about to get a run for his money!” by the BBC.

During the course of this insightful debate Lennox kept accusing Dawkins of “having faith” in science just as he (Lennox) had faith in a supernatural Deity, and Dawkins explained, in vain it seemed, to try to get Lennox to understand that science does not require faith as religiously understood, and that science is based on empirically discoverable facts, evidence and logic, as has absolutely nothing to do with blind faith. It exasperated Dawkins that Lennox just could not understand nor concede this point.

While Lennox probably was able to give Dawkins more of a "run for his money" than past debate opponents Dawkins has tangled with, still, on the whole, I think Dawkins once again presented the weightier, more fact-based and thus more convincing arguments. But Lennox did make some excellent points that I’ll have to seriously reflect upon.

I also bought another DVD, which was a one-on-one follow-up discussion between Dawkins and Lennox called “Has Science Buried God?” - more of a relaxed conversational format than a structured debate. And although I haven’t seen it yet in full, I couldn’t resist watching brief sections of it, and it appears that both Dawkins and Lennox came together this second time with considerably more intellectual respect for one another than they did during their first formal public debate.

Both Dawkins and Lennox are civilized and extremely articulate intellectual heavyweights, and it’s instructive to watch them exchange perspectives with each other in a setting of mutual respect.

Anyway, Bert seems to be a very sincere and well-meaning gentleman who, as is typical, just is unfamiliar with many of the fact-less assumptions one must buy into in order to subscribe to the Christian faith. He makes sweeping statements that he seems to not have considered the implications of very deeply. But this is pretty standard of Christian believers. I know it was of me when I was a True Believer. I simply had no idea of the many powerful counter-arguments out there that refuted the Christian supernatural belief system. We were never taught them at AC, and I can see why, because they are so devastating to the unthinking, unquestioning faith required in order to take supernatural religious claims seriously.

"I will continue to believe the bible in impo...

2009-12-14T18:47:22.362+13:00

"I will continue to believe the bible in important to understanding life.."

How?

"... and has answer for those times when life the storms are raging and a glimpse of an intelligent being referred to a god when hard facts are unavailable."

What answers?

The Apostate Paul

"But I personally find it difficult to put my...

2009-12-14T18:46:00.545+13:00

"But I personally find it difficult to put my faith in science..."

Science doesn't require faith. In fact, faith is in opposition to science. You don't have to "believe" in gravity or the atomic mass of chloride. It simply is.

"...and I find it more difficult to put my faith in human beings to create a harmonious unity throughout the whole world..."

As opposed to a supernatural entity for whom you have absolutely no proof, who only promises "unity" after allowing humanity to butcher itself for millenium, then enforces "unity" through wholsale butchery. Yeah, that's totally believable.

"... “unless” there is some miraculous internal transformation that begins in the mind causing every human being to think beyond their own little world."

That's not the way your psychopathic, genocidal god is going to bring about "peace." He's going to kill everyone who disagrees with him. Internal transformation is an insubstantial notion that gives you some sense of empowerment. Makes you feel like you are with the plan.

The Apostate Paul

I want to thank those who posted a response to my ...

2009-12-14T16:05:28.805+13:00

I want to thank those who posted a response to my questions. I hope I can present a few things without creating conflict.
My original decision to make my first comment was due things Dennis presented. He mentioned wondering if he “probably would have been doomed as a Presbyterian Pastor” which he almost became; then he went on to imply that his state of affairs was better today. My personal opinion was that he would have been a good Presbyterian Pastor and would probably have presented the Christian religion in a better light than people see it today.
My back ground includes a sect of the Brethren which apart of the Anabaptist and I have wonder what life would be like if I not connected with the Radio Church of God. The Brethren are simple people with simple trust in God. No paid ministry, no involvement in the worlds governments and are pacifists. No hierarchy that is better than the common people, no tithes, and everyone shares in helping those who need help. Most were farmers when I was child back in the 1930’s. The early years in WCG were somewhat like that in local communities that were not really connected with HQ. We were unaware of the problems that existed and tithing was not a real problem because we did not have much to tithe on and were fairly self-sufficient.
As years went by things changed, but there was always people to help and we enjoyed meaningful fellowship. The people problems that existed were no different than those experienced in the rest of the world. There were things that should have been different, but it would not be helpful to discuss them.
My experience with religion as a whole has been positive and I still profits from the disciple experience in WCG. I realize many here had different experiences, but that only illustrates different people have different experiences.
One thing we can agree on is that the world’s social structures have room for improvement and human relationships are not close to being defined as perfect. It should be obvious that we are nowhere near eliminating death and even the extended the life span science has achieved often lacks quality.
Science and technology have created a phenomenal number of “things” that influence social changes and can be used for good or evil. The control those with evil motives is an unresolved question. I have nothing against science, but do not see it as having all the solution for solving all the problems affecting human life. The real problems deal with relationships (human and otherwise) and death. I believe those problems have been the heart and core of what is defined as religion.
Now before everyone gets all bent out of shape let me say that everything presented certainly is valid and should be considered in the formation of our belief systems. But I personally find it difficult to put my faith in science and I find it more difficult to put my faith in human beings to create a harmonious unity throughout the whole world “unless” there is some miraculous internal transformation that begins in the mind causing every human being to think beyond their own little world.
I will not argue over the validity of the bible as being factual history or literary fiction, but I believe it addresses those subjects in a manner that gives security and comfort to many people when they face the inevitable time when death is a reality. Unless you can offer something better I suggest you be honest and mean it when you say “I don’t know”. Hypocrisy is a poor comfort to anyone.
I will continue to believe the bible in important to understanding life and has answer for those times when life the storms are raging and a glimpse of an intelligent being referred to a god when hard facts are unavailable. I hope this will not create more questions and thanks again to those who responded.
Bert

Bert, some other thoughts regarding your earlier i...

2009-12-14T01:25:47.647+13:00

Bert, some other thoughts regarding your earlier inquiries into my (our) beliefs.

Astronomer Alex Filippenko once wrote: “An open mind, willing to consider things from a different perspective, is definitely an asset. Some ideas initially seem implausible, but upon further exploration yield significant new insights, and occasionally even revolutions.”

He is talking about the virtue of being open-minded as opposed to the vice of being empty-minded.

But a quandary exists: on the one hand, the human mind has historically proven to be capable of astounding observations and innovative insights when given the freedom and mental tools to do so, yet on the other, it’s just so easy for them to stall, sputter and strain away like an old motor on the accumulated sludge of obsolete, worn out ideas that, while they may have served a useful purpose in the past, are quickly becoming out-paced and irrelevant in the present.

We live in a new world which demands a new and improved worldview to match it.

We human beings can ask “Who, or what, is the source of the cosmos?” or “Is there ultimate purpose in the universe – and does it include us as individuals?”

These are among the greatest of questions the human mind can generate – and of all the creatures that walk, fly, swim or slither on planet Earth, we, as far as we know, are the only ones who have the conceptual ability to make such inquiries about ourselves and the universe that surrounds us.

Is the universe a dark, hostile, nihilistic place of death, destruction and ultimate meaninglessness – or is our cosmos open to discovery, a sunlit universe of radiant purpose and meaning, demonstrated by the fact that it has given rise to creatures that are capable of even asking such questions?

Now in my mid-fifties, after an interesting journey of three decades through COG fundamentalist religion, after some extremely productive post-COG years, and, above all, after much deep reflection on what it may all mean, I must say that I tend to fall within the latter category. The cosmos seems to be abundantly filled with surprises - us just being here as living, sentient creatures among the greatest of these surprises. And I cannot help but thinking that there are more and greater surprises to come, such that we right now cannot conceive given our current level of knowledge. But - as has been proven by all past history – I do think it will be science, reason and a humble, teachable child-like openness to reality that gets us there, rather than blind and irrational faith in the imaginary world of supernatural religion, as temporarily comforting as it may be to some folks.

Traditionally, it’s been religion that has attempted to cheaply, easily and sometimes glibly answer “The Great Questions” by means of resort to a presumed supernatural realm of invisible and often-clashing gods, angels, demons, etc. But in my view, while it may have served a useful purpose in times of past ignorance, such as it once did for most of us who blog here, on the whole it has failed terribly, having produced on the balance far more misery than good for mankind. And yet folks insist on being locked into it, and can’t seem to let go of such obsolete methods of understanding themselves and the world around them. Trying to persuade them to move on is like trying to grab the security blanket away from an insecure little toddler – the result is always a lot of whining, crying and temper tantrums.

So it seems we still have a long way to go.

Hopefully this clarifies a bit more for you some of my present views and perspectives.

And just one more thing, Bert - you wrote in a pre...

2009-12-14T01:16:20.729+13:00

And just one more thing, Bert - you wrote in a previous comment:
"...who knows what will happen if the majority in this country decide to destroy the right to live by personal beliefs."

History is full of this, but do consider that it has most often been supernatural RELIGIOUS ideology that promotes such censorship.

Personally, I don’t mind people living by personal beliefs in their private lives, but it’s part and parcel of supernatural religion to try to impose those beliefs on others by force - either legislative or physical. This is clearly demonstrable in the historical record.

The religious right in America clearly is an example of the former in modern times – and some openly proclaim their desire for the latter by desiring to turn the United States into a theocracy.

Islam is another example of this truism in action. Christianity used to be, historically-speaking.

Consider the fact that once many faith-based religions attain to political, legal and physical (military) power one of the first things they do is impose their belief system either by force of law or physical force (threats of torture or death). There are many examples from history that could be cited to demonstrate this.

Irrational secular ideologies like Communism or Nazism do the same thing. Freedom of thought goes out the window the moment these movements take over. Why? Because they are not fact-based systems, but feeling-based ones.

In all practicality, Nazism was a subjective faith-based religion (though not a supernatural one as traditionally understood).

For example, Hermann Goering, the head of the German air force (the Luftwaffe), once said that “If the Fuhrer wishes it then two times two is five.”

In fact, Goering wrote a book in 1934 called “Germany Reborn” – and in it he clearly spelled out the Nazi position unashamedly:

“Just as the Roman Catholic considers the Pope infallible in all matters concerning religion and morals, so do we National Socialists believe with the same inner conviction that for us the Fuhrer is in all political and other matters concerning the national and social interests of the people simply infallible. Wherein lies the secret of this enormous influence which he [Hitler] has on his followers? ... It is something mystical, inexpressible, almost incomprehensible which this unique man possesses, and he who cannot feel it instinctively will not be able to grasp it at all.”

So according to Goering, one of the highest ranking Nazis in Hitler's regime, to subjectively FEEL Hitler’s magical authority was to KNOW it. Or, stated in another way more typically found in religious contexts: “To those who feel it, no explanation is necessary; to those who don’t, no explanation is possible.”

This is the exact identical epistemology of supernatural religious belief – blind mystical faith and subjective feeling not based upon rational facts, evidence, reason and logic.

As for me, give me hard objective FACTS anytime over comforting yet imaginary FALSEHOODS.

Bert, Most of what Leonardo said reflects my pers...

2009-12-13T17:42:56.430+13:00

Bert,

Most of what Leonardo said reflects my perspective as well. But I would like to add a point or two.

First, let me apologize if my prior posts seemed like condemnation. I feel strongly about the issue. Having been duped once, and having learned better, I tend react strongly to religious assertions I know to be false.

You state correctly, "what the people who preserved the bible believed about god." Each of us should draw our own conclusion as to the extent to which these preserved writings accurately reflect god.

"What do you believe is the purpose of life (if you believe there is a purpose)". Why must there be a "purpose"? Perhaps life just is.

"and what do you have to offer when the reality sets in that your remaining years are fewer in number. Tell what I can tell this person who is racked in pain and counting the days asking me if I think they will see their mother, who die years ago." This is a logical fallacy. Yes, it may be comforting to claim death isn't really death, but that does not make the claim true or false.

"Tell if you believe this life is all there is". Yes, I do.

"and after you have enjoyed the experience long enough you are ready to die." I have lived over half of my life but I would not say I'm ready to die. Nevertheless, I'm not sure I'd really want to live forever either.

"In other words what do you have to offer that makes the trials and troubles of this life worth going through." I have nothing to offer. Is false hope better than nothing?

Bert, the questions you raise are questions from the heart and might well have been the motivation behind mankind's religions concocted this idea of "life after death". And they're probably why so many people willfully belive it. People want to, or need to, believe death is not the end. However, wanting to or needing to believe something does not make it true. I prefer reality, the real truth, however uncomfortable, over wishful thinking.

"Tell me what you use as a guide to measure the quality of life you experience. Just what kind of god do you believe in if you have such a belief?" I believe there may or may not be a god. However, it is clear to me that any god who may exist is taking zero active involvement in the events taking place on planet earth. It is also clear to me that all of the "gods" behind all of this world's religions were created by men. If there is a creator god, or any other kind of god, we don't know a thing about him.

This may not seem like a happy belief system to you, but I can assure you that people like me can and do live happy, fulfilled, moral lives. We don't need some god dishing out judgment, rewards and punishment to live good lives. And we don't need to live forever for our lives to be worthwhile. In fact, we tend to cherish each moment, and make the most of the time we have.

The Skeptic

"I am simply stating my perception of life an...

2009-12-13T17:30:08.241+13:00

"I am simply stating my perception of life and it is not my intention to defend anything other than my right to personal beliefs about religious matters."

Then you must know that in a country where you are free to voice your personal beliefs you are not exempt from public ridicule. It's not your belief in imaginary beings that I am ridiculing, but that you actively defend genocide as a reasonable character trait of your deity.

"What others believe has no affect on my personal life as yet, but who knows what will happen if the majority in this country decide to destroy the right to live by personal beliefs."

While I wouldn't mind seeing religion banned, I would never advocate it in this country (in others it needs to be banned) because as an American I value individual liberty. If you want to believe in, and worship, a genocidal imaginary being, then by all means go ahead. But please do us all a favor and leave the persecution complex at the door. You have total freedom to indulge in your fruitcake beliefs.

The Apostate Paul

What supernatural religious beliefs do I currently...

2009-12-13T16:55:53.438+13:00

What supernatural religious beliefs do I currently have?

Well, having once had ardent faith in the COG line of beliefs for over 30 years, I currently have none.

Why? Because I lived my former religious beliefs with great zeal, passion and in complete wholeheartedness for three decades, and found them to be greatly wanting on the practical level. Their actual value is far overestimated, like paying millions of dollars for handfuls of dirt and gravel.

I now know that supernatural religious belief is steeped in misrepresentation and, for the most part, grounded in wishful thinking and a desire to evade reality.

Yes, of course, I presently have perceptions of reality and fact-based beliefs founded upon the best knowledge of which I am currently capable, but I don’t artificially compartmentalize them into “religious” or “secular” or whatever other way folks divide their mental life up. Just like I don’t separate the “natural” from the “spiritual” – ALL realities are REALITY. Period.

And I don’t pretend or fake to have knowledge I don’t actually possess – unlike what I did when I was a True Believer.

I could go on, but I’m afraid the non-readers among us would post yet more complaints against me!!

Bert, I appreciate your views and what you have to say. You’ve obviously lived a long life and experienced much – this comes through in your writing, even though I may not agree with everything you have to say.

But that’s fine.

The main thing is that we can “agree to disagree” respectfully and civilly. And by doing so, hopefully we can all profit from the exchange.

Bert, I don’t condemn you at all. You’ve asked so...

2009-12-13T16:48:55.666+13:00

Bert, I don’t condemn you at all.

You’ve asked some good questions, which are deserving of some straight answers.

You wrote:
“What I have yet to see is what people believe about human life and what they expect when they die.”

I think that’s because you’re fairly new here. Actually this topic has been discussed much in past blogs – ad infinitum, actually.

I could write at great length about what I believe about human life. So what? And based upon anonymous complaints about how long-winded my comments tend to be, I think my written views would draw more condemnation than you think your comments do!

But who cares what I or anyone else thinks? What matters most is what is OBJECTIVELY TRUE – not what is comforting, or somehow gets folks through life, or whatever. These are important, but they are secondary issues, not primaries. I’m interested in discovering factual TRUTHS and objective REALITIES – not subjective dogmas based upon faith in the writings of ancient folks with Stone-age worldviews, much of which modern science has proven wrong over and over again.

You further asked:
“What do you believe is the purpose of life (if you believe there is a purpose) and what do you have to offer when the reality sets in that your remaining years are fewer in number.

I honestly don’t know with absolute certainty. But neither do you, nor does anybody else. At least I can admit this. Like Huxley once said, “I can honestly and openly admit I don’t know something, whereas men considerably more ignorant than I claim certainty.”

But if there is an ultimate purpose to human existence, then I cannot conceive of it being fulfilled without the admirable character traits of intellectual honesty, willingness to face facts (whether we want to believe them or not), rationality, a general kindness and spirit of affectionate good will toward our fellow travelers, etc. And obviously, many more could be named.

You wrote:
“Tell what I can tell this person who is racked in pain and counting the days asking me if I think they will see their mother, who die years ago. Tell if you believe this life is all there is and after you have enjoyed the experience long enough you are ready to die.”

I’d tell them what I have told them, in a way that is appropriately sensative to the particular situation and the specific person: that I honestly don’t know.

You may find this cruel, but I think it’s considerably crueler to pretend to a knowledge you don’t actually possess, and an outright evil to give people false hopes and expectations.

And I can tell you from my own experience that not all folks who “die in the faith” as believing Christians pass away in a state of psychological peace and ease. My observation is that many of them, as they near their end, realize that they have wasted their lives believing a bunch of bunk and outright falsehoods, and realize that it is now too late to do anything about it.

If there is one thing I seem to be skilled at is d...

2009-12-13T12:31:54.776+13:00

If there is one thing I seem to be skilled at is drawing out people’s critical condemnation; of course that wasn’t my intention.
So far I have learned that this site is dominated by people who do not believe in the god of the bible or perhaps I should say what the people who preserved the bible believed about god.
What I have yet to see is what people believe about human life and what they expect when they die. I have indicated that my beliefs on these issues have been gleaned from the bible. Since I am probably a lot closer to experiencing that event than most, if not all of those posting here I have no apprehensions regarding the subject.
What do you believe is the purpose of life (if you believe there is a purpose) and what do you have to offer when the reality sets in that your remaining years are fewer in number. Tell what I can tell this person who is racked in pain and counting the days asking me if I think they will see their mother, who die years ago. Tell if you believe this life is all there is and after you have enjoyed the experience long enough you are ready to die.
In other words what do you have to offer that makes the trials and troubles of this life worth going through. Tell me what you use as a guide to measure the quality of life you experience. Just what kind of god do you believe in if you have such a belief?
I would enjoy hearing honest answered on these issues. In other what is your religious belief.
Bert

Bert wrote: "I have studied the verses allud...

2009-12-13T05:23:25.715+13:00

Bert wrote:

"I have studied the verses alluded to and other verses people use to deny or discredit the god of the bible and I can show plausible explanations for verses of this type..."

Bert, I am not interested in "plausible" explanations, i.e., "maybe it really means this or that". That's just christians twisting the verses to try to make them mean something they don't say. I'm just interested in what the verse plainly says. Don't you think that is a more honest approach?

Bert also says "it appears many here have distorted view of the god revealed in the bible or lack an understanding in biblical theology. Since the comments made are an affront to the creator and sustainer of life..."

Wow, that statement is LOADED with assumptions. It assumes the bible reveals a god. I disagree. It seems clear to me the bible is a collection of writings by men attempting to claim the backing of a god. It also assumes the god described in the bible is the creator and sustainer of life. There is absolutely no evidence this is true. Certainly the imperfect book called "the bible" is not convincing evidence in the eyes of an impartial viewer.

"is simply a record of human engineering to blame god..." Not at all Bert. I'm not blaming god. I'm claiming the bible has no connection to god.

"If there is a god who is the creator of life and the things that support it" - there might be.

"who and this god is revealed as being actively involve at different points in history" - there is no evidence of this whatsoever.

"there is a person is questioning the morality and authority of this god" - I question only the morality and the authority written by ancient men in the bible.

"If we believe that good human beings are capable of overcoming bad human beings (which is unlikely). I disagree with you. While it is a slow, two-steps-forward-one-step-back process, I believe there has been progress toward good and away from evil over the course of history. Look, we don't have human sacrifices any more. Not even animal sacrifices. Also slavery, once widespread, is now very limited, and the use of torture is much less than, say, 1000 years ago.

Bert, you're locked into a narrow mindset. I don't blame you for that. But please, question your premises. You assume too much.

The Skeptic

"Drowning infants is perfect love? Slaughteri...

2009-12-13T04:53:34.749+13:00

"Drowning infants is perfect love? Slaughtering infants is perfect love?"

Don't forget Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

The Apostate Paul said: “Here's a tip: If you ...

2009-12-13T02:28:29.531+13:00

The Apostate Paul said: “Here's a tip: If you don't want to look like a retard, then don't try to defend the indefensible.”
When I read some of the comments here regarding the mental attitudes and emotional experiences they have or are going through and compare them to the life I experience I do not mind appearing retarded.
I am simply stating my perception of life and it is not my intention to defend anything other than my right to personal beliefs about religious matters. What others believe has no affect on my personal life as yet, but who knows what will happen if the majority in this country decide to destroy the right to live by personal beliefs.
Bert

The Apostate Paul wrote: "Here's a tip: I...

2009-12-13T01:52:54.783+13:00

The Apostate Paul wrote:
"Here's a tip: If you don't want to look like a retard, then don't try to defend the indefensible."

I'd have to agree with you here, Paul.

But then if religious folks took this advice seriously, that would pretty much put an end to the field of Christian apologetics.

Here's a little insight worth pondering - philosopher Daniel Dennett wrote it in his 2006 book "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon"...

“The belief that belief in God [the deity of the Bible] is so important that it must not be subjected to the risks of disconfirmation or serious criticism has lead the devout to ‘save’ their beliefs by making them incomprehensible even to themselves.”

I think this goes a long way toward explaining why the religious, especially the more fundamentalist of believers, often find themselves making the nuttiest and most irrational of comments, frequently painting themselves into inescapable corners attempting to defend the most illogical and indefensible of concepts: their unreflective belief system requires it!

Recall the lengthy creation/evolution blog here on AW (about a month or so ago) where the True Believers made absolute fools of themselves trying to argue against scientifically verifiable discoveries which they perceived as threatening to their holy doctrines. Certain of them have still never returned to AW as serious bloggers since, they took such an intellectual trouncing. (I still sometimes wonder if Questeruk ever did manage to finish reading "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" by Donald Prothero as he promised he would?!)

It's like the late 2nd century Christian apologist Tertullian once declared: "It is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd...the fact is certain, because it is impossible."

But then again, the vast majority of religion's most ardent believers have never claimed their cherished supernatural view of reality and "the mysterious ways of God" are in any way comprehensible to reason.

In essence this explains quite cogently why most supernatural religionists are so anti-science and anti-reason in their thinking, perhaps not overtly, but the tacit implications are definitely hovering just below the surface: because deep down they are terrified that the tools of science and rationality will one day completely disprove their cherished ideologies as received from religious tradition, and then what will they be left with?

This again is yet another good reason why we need to be careful not to place all our bets on one ideology alone, especially one as naturally fractured, contradictory and irrational as supernatural religion.

"I believe the character of the God in the bi...

2009-12-12T19:14:51.115+13:00

"I believe the character of the God in the bible is revealed as perfect love. Sometimes the most merciful expression of love includes death, which at some point in time comes on us all."

Drowning infants is perfect love? Slaughtering infants is perfect love?

Here's a tip: If you don't want to look like a retard, then don't try to defend the indefensible.

The Apostate Paul

Skeptic said ‘Bert, you refer to "the morals ...

2009-12-12T18:54:12.211+13:00

Skeptic said
‘Bert, you refer to "the morals and principles promoted in the bible and those attributed to Jesus Christ" as if they're good. Do you mean morals and principals like "you must slay all the men and children, but you may keep the women for yourselves" (Old Testament), or "I come not to bring peace, but a sword", "let the dead bury their dead", or "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple" (Jesus). I came up with these off the top of my head. It's not hard. There are hundreds more quotes that exhibit reprehensible morals and ethics, both from the Old and New Testaments. Think about it.”
I have studied the verses alluded to and other verses people use to deny or discredit the god of the bible and I can show plausible explanations for verses of this type or at lease show how they connect to a bigger picture of creation and life, but this is not the forum for addressing these issue.
I intended to cease commenting here, but it appears many here have distorted view of the god revealed in the bible or lack an understanding in biblical theology. Since the comments made are an affront to the creator and sustainer of life I will contribute some things I believe should be considered.
If there is no god or no intelligent being involved in life and the universe that sustains it, the things presented to demean or discredit this nonexistent god are simply a record of human engineering to blame god for what people have or have not done. If there is a god who is the creator of life and the things that support it who and this god is revealed as being actively involve at different points in history a person is questioning the morality and authority of this god. If we believe that good human beings are capable of overcoming bad human beings (which is unlikely) the best we are looking at is and ongoing struggle to have a little better life before we die.
I personally have ceased making an attempt to question anyone’s faith even if I may not share this faith, because a faith in something that has hope is better than an unbelief that leaves us in a hopeless situation. The pity of it all is that once that faith has been destroyed it will take a miracle to restore it.
I believe the character of the God in the bible is revealed as perfect love. Sometimes the most merciful expression of love includes death, which at some point in time comes on us all. I am not god (and never will be) so I cannot judge god for what is allowed or determined, but the bible offers the hope of life after death so I will continue to put my trust in the God I believe is revealed in the Bible and live every day giving thanks to Him for the opportunity to enjoy a life with hope.
When I referred to book of Ecclesiastes was m point out that the author had come to recognize that the best life things that can be experienced in this human life in temporal and meaningless unless it is a part of a bigger picture. I do not ask anyone to believe what I believe, but I will point out that the bible has wisdom and intelligence when properly understood. Churches are made up of people and people interpret it in many different ways. What is important is how it is applied. If it is used to deny, desist, or destroy it is applied in the wrong manner. If it is used to encourage, edify, and enhance a person’s earthly journey faith, hope, and charity will eventually follow. At least this is my experience.
It is not my intention to convert those who may have different beliefs and I am not trying to add clutter to this site. It is difficult to see people make comments that reveal an understanding that missed a point I intended in what I contributed.
Bert

Hank's Henchman said: "...John: "If ...

2009-12-12T05:50:18.538+13:00

Hank's Henchman said: "...John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, he'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, he'll kick the shit out of you.""

Too funny! Next time, before I agree to kiss Hank's ass, I am asking for half of the money first!

Bert advises "try to look at the bible from p...

2009-12-11T09:34:58.538+13:00

Bert advises "try to look at the bible from positive perspective”.

Bert, that's what all Christians do: they emphasize the positive, minimize the negative and interpret all scripture in a light most positive to their god. I find this approach a bit dishonest. Since leaving WCG, I try to be neither positive nor negative, but I take what the bible says at "face value", for better or for worse.

Bert, you refer to "the morals and principles promoted in the bible and those attributed to Jesus Christ" as if they're good. Do you mean morals and principals like "you must slay all the men and children, but you may keep the women for yourselves" (Old Testament), or "I come not to bring peace, but a sword", "let the dead bury their dead", or "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple" (Jesus). I came up with these off the top of my head. It's not hard. There are hundreds more quotes that exhibit reprehensible morals and ethics, both from the Old and New Testaments. Think about it.

The Skeptic

Anonymous 10:43 wrote: "That was rather conde...

2009-12-11T05:56:07.513+13:00

Anonymous 10:43 wrote:
"That was rather condescending of you, wasn't it Leonardo?"

My intent is not to be condescending, Anon, only to make the point that I've observed a direct correlation between verbal inarticulateness and excessive TV watching.

And this is not just my private opinion.

So many detailed studies have been done to date on this connection that now researchers, armed ONLY with the number of hours of TV a person watches in the course of a week, can very closely predict many other things about that person’s life, and especially with virtual pinpoint accuracy their income (the more TV folks watch, the lower their yearly income tends to be), the correlation between lack of mental activity and TV watching is that proven, strong and demonstrable.

Anonymous also said:
“I likely read more than you do.”

Oh really?

Just to keep a little prod on myself, as HWA always used to encourage us students to do, I pay myself a dollar an hour for each hour I spend in reading. Doesn’t sound like much, but it adds up over the course of a year, and I use the money the following year to fund further book buying, so it’s a win-win deal as far as I’m concerned, self-perpetuating a useful and mind-expanding habit. I read in 20-minute segments under a blue light so as to reduce eyestrain, setting a timer that chimes so I know when to take a break.

Also, in order to synthesize information into potentially new and useful insights I typically am reading 15-20 books simultaneously. I have the heart to read considerably more than I actually do, but in the interests of balance and other life responsibilities, I do what I feel I can without excess. (In addition I am listening to 3-5 separate CD audio courses while I commute back and forth to work, so as to make the best use of such “dead time.”)

Thus I keep accurate track of the time I spend in reading. Last year (2008) I spent a total 953 hours in this pursuit.

Now what was your time spent in reading again – or will you just be content to stick with an extremely ambiguous verbal boast on your part?