Christian "belief" is sometimes due to the Stockholm Syndrome

[Twilight]

Anyone can say "your argument is illogical", but that of itself is not a "logical argument". :-)

[teresaq]

i have to admit, it makes for a most frustrating attempt at any kind of discussion--

[cardw]

CoAspen,

It's not about the going gets tough. I have offered an alternative to death by fire for a person to move past selfishness. I have a number of ideas on how to solve the problem of selfishness, but they are ideas. I don't have an absolute sure answer. My point is that fact doesn't make genocide right either.

I have been asking from the beginning for Mark to present a rational basis to call genocide an act of love. That was his claim.

What is mind boggling to me is that I actually am having to ask what is loving about genocide. I really am having a hard time taking this seriously. It is so absurd that it is a little scary to realize that there are people who aren't able to see what is wrong with genocide.

[cardw]

I have asked you to present a rational basis for god ordering genocide which included the murder of innocent children and in some cases the raping of the virgins taken as booty.

What is rational about asking the Israelites to participate in this violence since we know the harmful effects on people who partake in violence?

If the god of the Bible was as wise as you seem to think he is, I find it very unlikely that this wise god would order people to participate in violence on this scale. It would be counter to the reforming process needed to make people loving and kind. In actuality it would have the opposite effect.

[cardw]

Your arguments may be illogical. What I was referring to was your questions. They rely on logical fallacies. That is why it makes no sense to answer them.

[cardw]

You haven't established why god has to destroy the wicked.

I referred to this problem when I asked you how to tell the difference between evil, mental disease, ignorance, and immaturity. Because all of these can produce harmful things which are often identified as evil.

[cardw]

CoAspen,

Sorry about that, I did miss that. I guess I need to follow my own advice and read more carefully. LOL

[Twilight]

You have called "the destruction of the wicked" "genocide" Cardw.

As you have made that claim, I have answered in that language.

You are currently arguing the emotional content of the word genocide, without actually dealing with the principle that the wicked will need to be destroyed, which is the biblical argument.

Which as an ex-adventist you will of course understand and know and do not need me to explain the logic of that argument to you.

Maybe you think that selfishness can be cured without Gods help, maybe that is why you cannot understand why God has to destroy the wicked in the Christian Teachings?

Maybe you do not fully understand the destructive nature of sinful selfishness?

But how are you going to get rid of "selfishness"?

You have criticised the God of the Bible and His methods, so what would you do?

[cardw]

You defined genocide as the destruction by race or belief. I have been talking about the god of the Bible's actions in the OT. You need to address that first.

The destruction of the wicked is genocide by your reference as well because it's based on belief. Those that believe are not destroyed. Those that don't are.

And emotional content is one of the main reasons why things are wrong. They create mental suffering. Having the saved watch the wicked being burned to death seems pretty emotional to me. I'm not sure what message god is trying to give the saved with that. I'm also not sure what function punishment would serve at that time since the saved are already convinced. Does god need to frighten them more or do the saved need to see people suffer so they can be satisfied? Yeah, they finally are getting what they deserve!!! Yeah god!! It seems like the saved would have to have an acute lack of empathy to endure the site of that suffering.

Selfishness is simply immaturity. It is often solved by life experience. It is only the fearful who seem to get stuck. Typically, in the absence of mental disease or addiction people shift their actions when they are in loving community. I see that over and over again. It's not my idea, but it is what I see work. Killing people for gathering sticks doesn't exactly fit into that model. What kind of method is that?

Scare people into obeying? Fear only moves people into more self centeredness. What is so wonderful about killing the wicked?

If a doctor lost most of his patients I don't think that would be a very good doctor. It seems that god loses the majority of his created beings. What kind of god is that? Not a very good one.

This stuff is so simplistic it's obvious it's made up by primitive man. And yet you buy into this iron age "solution" to suffering. It's basically kill all the bad people. Not a very elegant solution. It's a pretty childish solution.

[Tom Wetmore]

And all that seems especially troubling to me that we will have to witness not just the truly evil unredeemable and unrepentant bad guys, but also an untold number of our friends and family that miss the boat. And then being sentenced to an eternal immortality of perfect memory to always remember that and living an eternity without them seem somewhat short of heavenly.

We need to have a better explanation of how this will all end up. But that has to start with letting go of so many deeply rooted and cherished preconceived ideas. Human nature demonstrates that letting go of a bad idea is usually much more difficult than adopting a new idea. But adopting a new idea is nearly impossible if the old bad idea is even slightly in conflict with the new idea, or even perceived to be. We have a Mexican standoff in our head that cannot resolve itself.

This discussion bears amply witness to that...

[Twilight]

Again Cardw, your argumnet centers on "God is bad" for destroying the wicked.

Whilst not explaining how He could do it any other way?

How would you deal with a world that had gone totally selfish despite everything you did to prevent it?

Bearing in mind, those onlooking and their need to understand what is going on?

It is easy to criticise, but you should only criticise when you have a better way to deal with a problem, surely?

[Twilight]

But the bible does state that this will be dealt with.

Every tear will be stopped.

There will be a judgement where the books will be opened.

Those in heaven will see that the books have been judged correctly.

God has promised us peace on this issue.

[cardw]

No, I have been saying that genocide is bad and a knee jerk kill everyone tribal iron age man idea. You're the one that happens to think that's a good idea. I don't believe there is such a god so there is no god to be bad. If anyone is bad it would be you.

I don't accept your premise that simply because it's in the Bible we have to make it true. That is why I prefer to rely on reason. I know you think that the Bible reflects god's reasoning, but you have yet to demonstrate why it's reasonable. I think history tells us what happens when people who think the Bible is smarter than evidence are in charge. A lot of people die.

I HAVE given you my solution a couple of times. Loving community that includes everyone is the solution that I have observed works. We live in the most peaceful time in earths history. Your chances of experiencing violence are the lowest of all time on earth. We are more informed so it seems like there is more violence, but under the spread of freedom it appears that people behave better in terms of violence. It appears that ignorance and totalitarianism creates more violence.

Killing everyone who doesn't agree is totalitarianism.

[Twilight]

What makes you think that when God destroys everyone it will be a knee jerk reaction?

Now how does this loving community you espouse work, when someone in that community refuses to be loving?

What does the loving community do with the rapist, or the murderer?

[cardw]

OK, so god judges everyone. Fine.

But what is the purpose of holding a barbecue so all the saved can watch their former loved ones roast and writhe in pain? Some for days, according to Ellen White.

Do we or god need the satisfaction that now, finally, they get to their just rewards. That seems like revenge to me. It would hardly qualify as justice even in our human sensibility.

That seems contradictory to the idea of forgiveness. If you going to kill someone at least don't choose one of the most painful and torturous methods you can think of.

If this is your idea of justice, then that explains why when religious people get in charge the violence goes up.

[Twilight]

I notice you didn't answer my question Cardw.

What would this "loving society" do with a murderer or rapist?

----------------

As to each suffering the consequence of their sins, do you believe that people should not have to suffer the consequence when they rape someone for instance?

Because consequence is always there and has to be met by the selfish person.

Gods destruction of the wicked is always a consequence that the sinner brings on themselves.

[cardw]

Ok, you need to ante up here. You complain that I'm just being critical of god. (As if that is a legitimate argument.) And yet you simply are being critical of my position without presenting any defense of genocide as a solution.

Does that seem reasonable or fair to you?

When someone refuses to be loving at least we should ask why.

This is the issue of my question to you. How do we tell if this behavior is based on ignorance, immaturity, mental disease, or evil?(if there is such a thing as evil)

We have methods to determine if something is immaturity or ignorance and some mental disorders. We have no method for determining evil that I know of. And we have ways to deal with the others.

If someone is a rapist or murderer we have to set obvious boundaries, but there are reasons for these behaviors. Many times these people are isolated and never learn how to empathize because they never get feedback that a community would give them. From a Christian perspective even Jesus referred to himself as being the person visited in prison.

That is the brilliance of the Jesus philosophy. It recognizes the effects of isolation and offers hope for change in community.

This is another surprise to me. I actually have to teach Christians about the power of community.

It appears to me that the only solution you're are offering is the knee jerk reaction of kill everyone who doesn't line up. There is no willingness to even look at why someone would act in harmful ways.

[cardw]

When someone rapes another person there are a number of reasons for that. It hardly ever has to do with sexuality. It has to do with feeling powerless.

When we study how this happens it usually has to do with isolation for some reason. The primary factors are shame and fear. These are often present because a person is ignorant of how to engage with society because they themselves experienced rape and violence or they have some type of disability that prevents them from understanding how to engage with others and nobody ever mentored them. Some world views isolate people.

To love skillfully requires an understanding of people. You have to ask why people are motivated to do these things and not simply write it off as evil.

If you don't believe in the power of love what business to do you have claiming to believe in Jesus?

[Twilight]

So if "love" is just the answer and all evil can be avoided by there being "love" in place, why did they crucify Christ?

Because He was the most loving person ever to have walked the earth.

Didn't stop them nailing Him to the cross.

So with that in mind, what are you offering in the way of "love" that is superior to what Jesus offered?

What is so special about your approach that will prevent failure?

[cardw]

You have basically argued yourself out of believing in Jesus.

If Jesus couldn't do it and he was god, then obviously god failed with Jesus.

I also fail to see how simply admitting that Jesus is my savior solves the problem either. There is little difference between the behavior of Christians and non Christians. In fact there are far fewer atheists in prison than Christians. And this is in numbers and percentage.

What solutions does the Christian church have to offer other than god is going to kill everyone sometime in the future?

I have confidence in the human race because the facts tell us that violence is getting less. We do eventually learn from our mistakes. If we don't then the direct consequences of our actions do teach us. That is the gift of suffering.

There is no magic bullet because these are complex problems. I see no other course than to become informed and to continue trying to solve the problems. It seems pretty childish to believe that if we sit back and wait, some god is going to kill all the bad people.

What we have learned is that when we try to kill all the bad people we become the bad people.

[Twilight]

I have pointed out that Love cannot reconcile Evil to itself when Evil says no to Him.

Therefore Love has to destroy Evil at some point, to stop Evil destroying.

So now the question for you is:

How are you going to use Love to reconcile Evil and Free Will, when God Himself cannot do it?

What is it that you have to propose that is going to get around this problem of Love, Evil and Free Will?

And this is my whole point, the argument you have presented does not deal with this.

All it does is criticise God for His handling without showing a better solution.

And make the claim that "man" can do better.

In fact you have argued that violence is decreasing, what do you base that argument on?

Where is this "utopia" that you need for your argument to even work.

But I notice at this point, you have still not solved the problem of Love, Evil and Free Will.

Until one has an answer for that, surely, one cannot criticise another solution, unless you have a better one?

[cardw]

With your "logic" that I can't be critical of another solution until I have one that works, means that god can't be critical of me. You have admitted that god's solutions so far have failed. So the Bible has no right to be critical of anyone.

Where is your solution? All you have presented is kill all the bad people. We know that doesn't work because even well intentioned groups of people who began to carry out that policy created totalitarian societies.

What you are relying on is some future "solution" that this all knowing god of yours plans to carry out. You have no evidence and even less logic because you base your arguments on fallacies. If this all knowing god knew that Jesus would fail, why not present the solution that works right away? Have you ever thought that it's because this god does not exist?

You haven't even made a good case that evil actually exists. I think we can look at cause and effect relationships to explain human behavior. Even if we have free will one has to have motivation. I think we can state that any being that works against it's own interest is mentally ill. The whole point of what you call evil behavior is beings acting in ways that eventually destroy themselves and others. I call that insanity. If one is insane they don't have free will.

You have no answers at all. That's why you can't find a rational explanation for genocide. The acts of god in the OT are a closer fit to a being that is insane because they have no rational basis. There is no rational basis for stoning a man for gathering sticks on the Sabbath.

[cardw]

I want to answer this false accusation you have made of me referring to "utopia."

This is simply another example of your misrepresentation of what I post. Either you have problems with comprehension or you are willfully doing this simply to be "right."

The only "utopia" that has been referenced is heaven, which is basically a Disney like materialism for all eternity filled with mansions of gold, like gold has any value except what we give it.

Here is a video on research done on the extent of violence on the earth throughout history.

Steve Pinker on the history of violence

Following is a video on the problem of holding up "utopia" as an ideal.

The Empathic Civilization

[Twilight]

I disagree with your argument.

I find the conflict between good, evil and freewill and Gods solution very logical.

For you to change my mind, you would have to show me why it is illogical, rather than just keep claiming that.

It is only illogical, if you can show an logical alternative.

At this point you have not shown that.

You state that I have not made a good cause that evil exists, just switch on your tv.

Watch the news.

See those rapes and murders.

That is the evil.

It exists.

Unless your argumnet is that rape and murder is not evil.

But I notice you still haven't presented a viable alternative to Gods solution. :-)

Where is the alternative Rich?

If you want me to see that you have a point, you must supply an alternative solution.

Because so far, all that has been presented is a criticism of God, without any constructive advice on how God should proceed from here, what should God do Rich?

[fccool]

I would not attribute the development of Christianity to the likes of stockholm syndrome.

If you are indeed correct, and God of the Bible does not exist... then I see the only reason for spreading Christianity being political in nature. I could give you a couple scenarios.

1) If you are indeed correct in your assumptions, then Christian roots would have to originate from the days of Babylon and Egypt. Religious control of the population is nothing new. The priests make up gods, and then use their knowledge of the natural phenomena as opportunity to give life to these Gods. The priests then rule the Babylon and Egypt... and the Pharaohs are just schoolboys under their control, as they were.

Generally, historically, the real power was in the religious circles... where the hermetic knowledge of science and "mysteries" was passed down through the centuries.

So, if Egypt wanted to protect themselves from future invasion and competition for the land... they would have to create a buffer nation of warriors that would serve as a buffer and potential expansion.

Let's say they manufactured a legend of Abraham, and had one of their priests called Moses take the entire nation of Israel to the desert, and walked from the point to point for 40 years, while knowing the places of stashed away manna and water. By the year 40, he would have a trained army of newly created generation that does not know anything but the story given to them. They would have a programmed view of the world, and they would have their own history and legends that they would be willing to die for.

This newly created and highly trained army would then be unlisted on the promise land with very violent commands (leave no survivors, or take slaves and servants). Then, Egyptian priests would dictate their will by proxy of prophets and perpetuate the legend.

Then there's a strange record of "don't exploit your own people by usury, by you can do that to foreigners... people will not rule over you, but you will rule over many people". That would be very simple roots of political control embedded by means of religion... as it was done in antiquity.