Who's more racist... the religious or the non-religious?

[1robin]

revelation is always subjective...empirical evidence isn't.

Biblical revelation is in no way subjective. It is not altered or changed by peoples opinions. It is absolute. Now keep in mind we can read two different things from revelations but only one is true. I understand the point you are making but you are using the wrong terms.

According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version), global Christianity had 33,820 denominations with 3,445,000 congregations/churches composed of 1,888 million affiliated Christians.

Read more: How many different types of Christianity are there
christianity isn't consistent.

Christianity in the biblical sence is consistent. Christians are inconsistent. Once again I agree with your premise but deny your conclusion. There is no reason to expect that fallable humans are going to identically interpret some of the most profound, mysterious, and contentions writings in human history the same way. Regardless, even if no one interprets things correctly there is still an absolute truth. Most of what devides denomoinations are minor secondary details. (with the exception of the protestant/Catholic split). Their split concerns one half of the core beliefs of Christianity. However we both can't be right, so there is still one objective truth no matter which one is wrong.

as you appeal to subjective revelation, circular logic takes one no where...

There are just as many different conclusions drawn from the same empirical evidence, so your point isn't a point. Empirical evidence like revelation is objective truth regardless what anyone thinks.

 

[1robin]

An all powerful being couldn't come up with a better plan than total destruction? I mean there were an infinite number of plans available to him. I think I'm capable of judging those actions as unconscionable. He wasn't your local green grocer you know.

I knew this would wind up here. Sometimes I can predict what the critic is going to say so accurately I wonder if I should just play both roles and debate myself. That being said I do sympathize with your point. I will attempt to give a likely or possible explanation. As I have stated I cannot access everything God did when the decision was made and can only go by revelation. He said in the bible that these people had gone completely evil. I mean Jeffrey Domer or Sadam Hussein evil. If you had seen some of the things I have seen in the military then this doesn't seem all that impossible. He said even their thoughts were evil continuously. He spent approx 100 years trying to get them to repent, they refused and taunted the only righteous family on earth. They in effect called God a liar. God did not have an infinate amount of choices. He is voluntarily restricted to acting consistent with covenents and revelation etc..... It could be that he saw what was going to happen if he didn't get rid of the problem and it was horrible beyond imagination. Keep in mind that God is a judge with the power and right to administer judgement. By his standards they deserved death. So he judged and destroyed them to allow a more righteous group to propegate. That's my take on it. I believe it is consitent with the bible and God's nature. Most people only remeber or talk about God's Teddy Bear loving nature which is true. They don't like to think about his terrible wrath that his rightous nature sometimes demands. Like I said I understand the unsettleing nature of his judgements, but that has no bearing whatsoever of his reality. I will also add that if he never displayed his righteous indignation then why would anyone consider the existence of judgement and Hell a reality. I also think he allows evil to witness to the reality of Satan and the (dark side).

 

[A Troubled Man]

That's it I don't have time to debate with someone who has taken such a pathetic, incoherent, and meritless postion which is not being defended with any detectable integrity.

In other words, your beliefs are being deconstructed point by point and shown to be invalid, in some cases by your own words of contradiction, hence you are responding thus.

 

[waitasec]

Biblical revelation is in no way subjective. It is not altered or changed by peoples opinions. It is absolute. Now keep in mind we can read two different things from revelations but only one is true.

no, there are more just 2 ways of interpreting biblical revelation

I understand the point you are making but you are using the wrong terms.

what is the correct term?

Christianity in the biblical sence is consistent. Christians are inconsistent. Once again I agree with your premise but deny your conclusion. There is no reason to expect that fallable humans are going to identically interpret some of the most profound, mysterious, and contentions writings in human history the same way. Regardless, even if no one interprets things correctly there is still an absolute truth. Most of what devides denomoinations are minor secondary details. (with the exception of the protestant/Catholic split). Their split concerns one half of the core beliefs of Christianity. However we both can't be right, so there is still one objective truth no matter which one is wrong.

what i don't understand is how one can accept the divine authority of the bible but yet overlooks the obvious blunder of interpretation. when a writer writes something for their readers, they make sure there is no room for error in conveying their idea...so why can't the bible be held to that very same standard?

There are just as many different conclusions drawn from the same empirical evidence, so your point isn't a point. Empirical evidence like revelation is objective truth regardless what anyone thinks.

can you give me an example of this? cause when i understand that it's raining so will you.

 

[beerisit]

I knew this would wind up here. Sometimes I can predict what the critic is going to say so accurately I wonder if I should just play both roles and debate myself. That being said I do sympathize with your point. I will attempt to give a likely or possible explanation. As I have stated I cannot access everything God did when the decision was made and can only go by revelation. He said in the bible that these people had gone completely evil. I mean Jeffrey Domer or Sadam Hussein evil. If you had seen some of the things I have seen in the military then this doesn't seem all that impossible. He said even their thoughts were evil continuously. He spent approx 100 years trying to get them to repent, they refused and taunted the only righteous family on earth. They in effect called God a liar. God did not have an infinate amount of choices. He is voluntarily restricted to acting consistent with covenents and revelation etc..... It could be that he saw what was going to happen if he didn't get rid of the problem and it was horrible beyond imagination. Keep in mind that God is a judge with the power and right to administer judgement. By his standards they deserved death. So he judged and destroyed them to allow a more righteous group to propegate. That's my take on it. I believe it is consitent with the bible and God's nature. Most people only remeber or talk about God's Teddy Bear loving nature which is true. They don't like to think about his terrible wrath that his rightous nature sometimes demands. Like I said I understand the unsettleing nature of his judgements, but that has no bearing whatsoever of his reality. I will also add that if he never displayed his righteous indignation then why would anyone consider the existence of judgement and Hell a reality. I also think he allows evil to witness to the reality of Satan and the (dark side).

Let me just deconstruct this for a moment and address a few of the claims you make.

God did not have an infinate amount of choices.

If god is infinite then he very much does have an infinite number of choices, the god you describe would appear to be the best that bronze age man could envision. FAIL

He spent approx 100 years trying to get them to repent

Wow a whole 100 yrs at a time when people lived for 800 or 900 yrs, he really gave it his best shot didn't he? Especially when you consider that he'd already spent 13.5 billion years getting to that point. FAIL

He said in the bible that these people had gone completely evil.

The entire population that he had created including the unborn had become completely evil in a matter of a couple of thousand years after he created them. Now how do you suppose that happened? Mankind isn't capable of such an incredible transformation, on it's own. There must have been a supernatural force at work for such a thing to happen. Maybe it was satan or maybe god did it? Now since they are the only two possibilities then it must have been god since he created satan and gave him dominion over earth and if it wasn't good ole satan then it was god, either way it's his screw up. Fail

Like I said I understand the unsettleing nature of his judgements,

You see I have to disagree here, his judgments aren't unsettling they are just plain stupid, they reflect perfectly the human condition extant 4000yrs ago when your book was written. Your god in no way presents as an omnipotent omniscient infinite creator of all, look:

It could be that he saw what was going to happen

even you claim that he may have seen the future. An infinite entity can't maybe see the future he is the future, he can change any part of that future at a whim or less. To allegedly destroy an entire planet because he wanted a different future is simply so unbelievable as to make him unbelievable.

 

[1robin]

In other words, your beliefs are being deconstructed point by point and shown to be invalid, in some cases by your own words of contradiction, hence you are responding thus.

I wish that were the case. I can't even figure out what your trying to say. I don't mind a clear challenge to my beliefs, that is why I am here. It is impossible to debate the incoherent positions you adopt.

 

[A Troubled Man]

I wish that were the case. I can't even figure out what your trying to say. I don't mind a clear challenge to my beliefs, that is why I am here. It is impossible to debate the incoherent positions you adopt.

They are not incoherent at all, they are points made that show contradiction and flaws in your explanations and reasoning.

 

[1robin]

no, there are more just 2 ways of interpreting biblical revelation

Fine, I was using two as a generic example. More than two has no effect on the fact that only one is true. Actually all could be wrong but God's intended understanding is still absolute.

what is the correct term?

I think you used subjective instead of (effective ambivolence). The meaning of revelation is absolute, however our interpretations can be different. Because an absolute standard exists is no guarranty that everyone will agree what it is. I am not insinuating God's revelations are all that indecipherable but when people are in the equation we will screw up anything no matter how simple.

what i don't understand is how one can accept the divine authority of the bible but yet overlooks the obvious blunder of interpretation. when a writer writes something for their readers, they make sure there is no room for error in conveying their idea...so why can't the bible be held to that very same standard?

There is no book ever written that there will be no competeing points of view about. Some of Shakespears works that still can't even agree on the titles for. Some people don't even believe Shakespear was only one man or existed at all. Same with Homer etc......I am frustrated at times with my inability to satasfactorily understand certain biblical principles but I chalk that up to my human faultiness. I believe while I would like some clearer statements on some topics in the bible that it is completely suffecient for all core requirements. As far as the Gospel message is concerned. Jesus said it was simple enough for a child to understand. Only an adult is sohisticated enough to over complecate the obvious and trivialise the momentous.

can you give me an example of this? cause when i understand that it's raining so will you.

In any number of cases (criminal cases) Jurys have the same evidence and arrive at opposite conclusions. I didn't say all evidence leads to different conclusions, but it is safe to say there are billions of cases where it does.

 

[1robin]

They are not incoherent at all, they are points made that show contradiction and flaws in your explanations and reasoning.

I sincerely tried to figure out what you were saying and couldn't. I even showed a co-worker and he got to laughing so hard I gave up. Fine, if you will start over and clearly make a contention I will address it.

 

[beerisit]

Fine, I was using two as a generic example. More than two has no effect on the fact that only one is true. Actually all could be wrong but God's intended understanding is still absolute.

You do know I hope, that god is a comedian and only a very few ever get the joke?

 

[A Troubled Man]

I sincerely tried to figure out what you were saying and couldn't. I even showed a co-worker and he got to laughing so hard I gave up. Fine, if you will start over and clearly make a contention I will address it.

Wow, so your co-worker also finds it difficult to understand plain English?

 

[1robin]

Let me just deconstruct this for a moment and address a few of the claims you make.

Okey Dokey

If god is infinite then he very much does have an infinite number of choices, the god you describe would appear to be the best that bronze age man could envision. FAIL

Not this Bronze age label given to associate the bible with a primative time to make you feel better about your position again. This stuff is nuts. Being that his description is the same required to qualify as the first cause of the universe and the fact that they are superlative descriptions which eliminate any greater concept of God your attempts have failed. He has voluntarily limited his infinate choices in certain areas. For example: God said he would never again destroy the earth with water. He has limited himself to less than infinate choices voluntarily. Your FAIL status was a FAILURE.

Wow a whole 100 yrs at a time when people lived for 800 or 900 yrs, he really gave it his best shot didn't he? Especially when you consider that he'd already spent 13.5 billion years getting to that point. FAIL

How long is it necessary to contend with men before action becomes justified. 100 years is quite long enough in my opinion. You are assuming 13.5 billion years which you do not know is true, and is completely irrelevant anyway. I have no opinion on the age of the universe so don't bother. He only had to spend a suffecient amount of time that was determined as just by his standards. You have no frame of reference to insist on more time or less time. That reminds me, God also said he would not contend with man forever. So another limit surfaces. What can you appeal to to justify the suffeciency of your standards over God's.

The entire population that he had created including the unborn had become completely evil in a matter of a couple of thousand years after he created them. Now how do you suppose that happened? Mankind isn't capable of such an incredible transformation, on it's own. There must have been a supernatural force at work for such a thing to happen. Maybe it was satan or maybe god did it? Now since they are the only two possibilities then it must have been god since he created satan and gave him dominion over earth and if it wasn't good ole satan then it was god, either way it's his screw up. Fail

Good lord. You have no way whatsoever to decide what man can do in a certain time. I have read of many societies that plunged into rebellion and lawlessness in vastly shorter time frame. Thousands of Germans went from fairly reasonable people, to either directly murdereing millions of Jews or didn't try to stop it in just a few years. There were definately supernatural forces at work. They only provide an incentive or lure, they do not make the decision. In the biblical view people are capable and responsible to make decisions. For the love......even we humans hold people accountable.

You see I have to disagree here, his judgments aren't unsettling they are just plain stupid, they reflect perfectly the human condition extant 4000yrs ago when your book was written. Your god in no way presents as an omnipotent omniscient infinite creator of all, look: even you claim that he may have seen the future. An infinite entity can't maybe see the future he is the future, he can change any part of that future at a whim or less. To allegedly destroy an entire planet because he wanted a different future is simply so unbelievable as to make him unbelievable.

First the book was not written 4000yrs ago. The entire new testament is less than 2000 yrs old. You just don't get it. If he changed certain parts of the future to guarranty results it is a violation of freewill which he gives us. I am not saying he doesn't change the future just not in a way that violates this principle. Your opinion on God's character if he exists would be about the meaningless thing imagineable. Even if another God existed and was 100% evil. The argument that that God doesn't exist because you dissagree with him is futile. Your evil characterisation of God's motives besides being wrong is irrelevant even if it were true. Is a murderer's opinion valid if he considers the judge wrong.

 

[1robin]

Wow, so your co-worker also finds it difficult to understand plain English?

Yeah we all are reasonably educated people who work in a DOD avionics lab but are completely stupid.

 

[1robin]

You do know I hope, that god is a comedian and only a very few ever get the joke?

I can allow for God to have humor. I do not think your comments are consistent with it if he does though.

 

[Revoltingest]

You do know I hope, that god is a comedian and only a very few ever get the joke?

God is a prop comic.
We are the props.
Props never get the joke.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Yeah we all are reasonably educated people who work in a DOD avionics lab but are completely stupid.

It doesn't seem very smart to be using DOD computers while getting paid with tax dollars to write on these forums.

 

[1robin]

It doesn't seem very smart to be using DOD computers while getting paid with tax dollars to write on these forums.

Are you incapable of actually makeing a comment on the issue of this thread. However I gave the wrong impression and I admit it. I work in a lab that investigates testing requirements for the airforce F-15 but is not its self DOD. As I have served the country in the military, was injured, and did some hard duty the government owes me more than I will ever get. Also since your evaluation is irrelevant this is the last of these off topic statements I will address.

 

[Desfox]

I Don't think there is a clear trend throughout history.

The only problem I see is evolution of man means that some people are more evolved then others. One would think this would lead to racism, but at the very least it may lead to some humans being valued less than others.

On the other hand, some religions have taught racism theologically (Mormonism till they changed it as most recent example). Many Jews are subjected to terms such as dogs and brutes, monsters less then man.

As far as I am concerned, it has less to do with beliefs, and more with individual humans desire for power, control, and self-value which cross religious vs. non-religious boundaries.

 

[beerisit]

means that some people are more evolved then others.

Citations please?

 

[Desfox]

Citations please?

Honestly, I don't have direct citations for this, so I'll try to explain. If I can't just ignore my point I suppose.


All living life evolves through the process of survival of the fittest. The fittest with superior genes and who are more likely to survive and compete in their environments are favored over the weak.

Thus, within species will eventually arrive the situation in which one group is characteristically superior to another group.

Out of Africa? New theory throws doubt on assumption all humans evolved from the continent (try looking up this article, I cant post URLs yet)


This article talks of homo-erectus, a species of human that was less evolved that homo sapiens.

Also look at this,

Scientific Racism: The Eugenics of Social Darwinism | Documentary jungle - Watch Free Documentaries Online

These are just examples, they don't necessarily universally apply or apply to most evolutionist now, but they are examples of what I am talking about.