PDA

View Full Version : Joshua's Long Day



antichrist
19-12-2008, 05:49 PM
Coz God helped the Israelites is that fair? Doesn't He believe in a fair fight? why did he have it in for the Cannanites? Does not he believe in multiculturalism? Isn't it a war crime and genocide to wipe out civilians and the whole population? We want some answers mate?

Capablanca-Fan
19-12-2008, 05:56 PM
Coz God helped the Israelites is that fair? Doesn't He believe in a fair fight?
He created both sides so has the right to get involve as He sees fit.


why did he have it in for the Cannanites? Does not he believe in multiculturalism?
Sure, but not multimoralism that includes gross sexual immorality and child sacrifice.


Isn't it a war crime and genocide to wipe out civilians and the whole population?
God created them, so has the right to destroy them. He gave them centuries of warning. See also How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites? (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html)

Desmond
19-12-2008, 08:30 PM
God created them, so has the right to destroy them.Do you hold this view of anyone who creates something, or just God?

Rincewind
19-12-2008, 08:55 PM
Do you hold this view of anyone who creates something, or just God?

My mum threatens me with this right occasionally. It is usually worded "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out of it as well!"

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2008, 02:29 AM
Do you hold this view of anyone who creates something, or just God?
If it's an inanimate object that's created, for sure. If you are talking about parents and children, then God is the creator of the children too.

Space_Dude
20-12-2008, 12:48 PM
My mum threatens me with this right occasionally. It is usually worded "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out of it as well!"
Ummm... You still live with your mother??

Rincewind
20-12-2008, 08:07 PM
Ummm... You still live with your mother??

Not for the last 20 years but I still talk to her occasionally.

antichrist
26-12-2008, 02:49 PM
When considering that God arranged the killing of his own son on the Cross (for doing nothing wrong by the way as far as wwe know) then why could not he also help the Israelites commit genocide - he should be up for familcide - whatever it is called, conspiracy to murder at least

antichrist
28-05-2010, 05:48 PM
If it's an inanimate object that's created, for sure. If you are talking about parents and children, then God is the creator of the children too.

Jono, then your God is really a dictatorial god?

Capablanca-Fan
29-05-2010, 06:15 AM
See also Joshua’s long day (http://creation.com/joshuas-long-day).

antichrist
29-05-2010, 03:50 PM
See also Joshua’s long day (http://creation.com/joshuas-long-day).

Why didn't you just answer yes - that God is a dictatorial genocidal God - didn't you want to admit it?
From your blurb, first time I have read one:
There is not one logical, scientific reason to claim that, given a God powerful enough to create a universe in six days, Joshua’s long day ‘could not have happened’. Those who balk at this account are almost invariably those who have already rejected 6-day creation through compromise with evolution ‘s fictitious long ages, and have thus rejected the authority of the Bible.

AC
My JW mates don't reject the Bible and God's creation but don't believe in the Earth standing still, why? Because they are keen surfers and reakoned that they would be waves out at Ulurhu(?) if the Earth did stop.

Capablanca-Fan
29-05-2010, 03:53 PM
My JW mates don't reject the Bible and God's creation but don't believe in the Earth standing still, why? Because they are keen surfers and reakoned that they would be waves out at Ulurhu(?) if the Earth did stop.
Who cares what JWs think? Obviously God could slow down the lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere at the same rate.

antichrist
29-05-2010, 03:59 PM
Who cares what JWs think? Obviously God could slow down the lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere at the same rate.


Strangely the JWs think exactly the same about what believers say on this Board. And I would gamble that you could not ever convince a JW of otherwise. They also reakon that some professor of theology or someone reported that their version of the Bible is the most accurate.

Isn't God into simplicity or efficiency? Instead working out maths, physics, hydrolics etc of slowing earth down why didn't He just command the enemies of Hebrews to stop breathing? Why didnt just euthanise all of the Hebrews' enemies instead of having them massacred and making war criminals and genocidists of the Hebrews? Didn't he care about the reputation of the Hebrews - just as he does not seem to do now about some of their possible descendants?

I am not trolling or cross threading by this point - because I have always claimed that there has been a connection between what may have happened 3000 years ago and the justification for what is happening now.

Capablanca-Fan
31-05-2010, 07:29 AM
Strangely the JWs think exactly the same about what believers say on this Board.
Unlike us, they are wrong.


And I would gamble that you could not ever convince a JW of otherwise. They also reakon that some professor of theology or someone reported that their version of the Bible is the most accurate.
They are demonstrably wrong in many areas, especially in the area discussed in Is Jesus of Nazereth, the Messiah, the Son of God, also God the Son? (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=9348)


Isn't God into simplicity or efficiency?
If God can create the universe, the miracle of Joshua's long day is not the slightest problem.


Instead working out maths, physics, hydrolics etc of slowing earth down why didn't He just command the enemies of Hebrews to stop breathing?
Joshua prayed for the sun to be slowed down. God likely did so by slowing down the rotation of the Earth, including the hydrosphere and atmosphere. This is why the moon's relative motion slowed as well, as reported.

Also, as explained in the article, the Amorites worshipped the sun and the moon. This miracle was a lesson that their false gods were helpless against the true God of Israel.

Rincewind
31-05-2010, 08:56 AM
Joshua prayed for the sun to be slowed down. God likely did so by slowing down the rotation of the Earth, including the hydrosphere and atmosphere. This is why the moon's relative motion slowed as well, as reported.

Couldn't God have not done anything and just implanted the false memories in Joshua and the other "witnesses"? That would certainly seem to be the easier way out. Stuffing around with gravity must open a can of worms in terms of knock-on effects on the orbits of other planets.

Capablanca-Fan
31-05-2010, 09:39 AM
Couldn't God have not done anything and just implanted the false memories in Joshua and the other "witnesses"? That would certainly seem to be the easier way out.
But then you'd whinge about deception, with some justification. But I care not about hypothetical alternatives, but what He actually chose to do.


Stuffing around with gravity must open a can of worms in terms of knock-on effects on the orbits of other planets.
Who said anything about gravity?

Rincewind
31-05-2010, 10:35 AM
But then you'd whinge about deception, with some justification. But I care not about hypothetical alternatives, but what He actually chose to do.

You posited a "likely" theory. He could have simply chosen the false memory route as well.


Who said anything about gravity?

Well it depends on how good a job God wants to do. He might just slow the rotation on axis which would cause small but relatively minor changes to the expected gravitational potential (because the Earth is not perfectly homogeneous). However observers might have noticed that the movement of the planets against the background of stars was not effected (did these enemies of God also worship the planets?).

So if god also retard the orbit of the earth around the sun so that the movement of the planets against the background of stars was altered it would in turn have bigger issues gravitationally.

Another knock on effect of the slow down theory is it would have affected the precession of the earth's axis of rotation. Do you have some evidence of a blip in precession in the time frame of the supposed event?

I mean of course God could cover his tracks but then why not just go for implanting false memories?

Igor_Goldenberg
31-05-2010, 10:39 AM
Another hypothesise I read about few years ago:
Possible cosmic event leading to one of the planet emitting very strong light, enough for people at the time to decide that the sun didn't go.
The long day is mentioned in different folklore, not just the Bible.

Capablanca-Fan
31-05-2010, 12:16 PM
You posited a "likely" theory. He could have simply chosen the false memory route as well.
Not the God of the Bible who doesn't lie.


Well it depends on how good a job God wants to do. He might just slow the rotation on axis which would cause small but relatively minor changes to the expected gravitational potential (because the Earth is not perfectly homogeneous).
Detectable to people 3500 years ago?


However observers might have noticed that the movement of the planets against the background of stars was not effected (did these enemies of God also worship the planets?).
Probably not visible while the sun was out.


Another knock on effect of the slow down theory is it would have affected the precession of the earth's axis of rotation. Do you have some evidence of a blip in precession in the time frame of the supposed event?
How would it be possible to detect such a missing day in history without other reference points.

However, as IG points out, other cultures have memories of such an event. For example, there is a Greek myth of Apollo’s son, Phaethon, who disrupted the sun’s course for a day. Furthermore, if the earth's rotation had slowed as Joshua 10 implies, then cultures on the opposite side of the world should have legends of a long night. In fact, the New Zealand Maori people have a myth about how their hero Maui slowed the sun before it rose, while the Mexican Annals of Cuauhtitlan (the history of the empire of Culhuacan and Mexico) records a night that continued for an extended time.

Kevin Bonham
31-05-2010, 06:15 PM
Not the God of the Bible who doesn't lie.

Except to Abraham.

antichrist
31-05-2010, 06:18 PM
Except to Abraham.

Just between ourselves what did God say to Abraham?

Rincewind
31-05-2010, 07:01 PM
Just between ourselves what did God say to Abraham?

He tricked him into sacrificing his son to prove his devotion and then at the last minute said "ONLY KIDDING!" :)

Desmond
31-05-2010, 07:47 PM
He tricked him into sacrificing his son to prove his devotion and then at the last minute said "ONLY KIDDING!" :)
So God is a practical joker; I guess that would explain the platypus.

Rincewind
31-05-2010, 07:52 PM
So God is a practical joker; I guess that would explain the platypus.

To be fair I think it was April first, so if Abraham got taken in, then he only had himself to blame.

Of course perhaps the whole thing was one big implanted false memory. We'll never know.

Capablanca-Fan
01-06-2010, 01:09 PM
Except to Abraham.
Rubbish.

antichrist
01-06-2010, 01:09 PM
He tricked him into sacrificing his son to prove his devotion and then at the last minute said "ONLY KIDDING!" :)

We need Garratt"s bulldust filter here, God would have already known what Abraham's response would be so why give poor Abbie such hysteronics(?) - he may have got an ulcer out of it?

Then imagine if Abe thought it was the devil telling him not to and proceeded to lop his son's head off - one can never be certain about these things.

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2010, 01:30 PM
Rubbish.

Well, rubbish in the sense of God being a fiction character, sure, but apart from that I think there's quite a strong prima facie case that God was at least deceptive and less than fully honest. God caused Abraham to believe it was God's intention that Abraham kill his son, as evidenced by Abraham attempting to do so, but such was not God's intention at all.

The whole story seems utterly screwy anyway. The interfering angel says "Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." But God, being all-knowing, would have known whether Abraham feared God or not anyway so why the test of faith? So this is probably a second lie.

Curious to see what (if anything) you have on this as there wasn't much by way of resistance when I raised it on DGE in Dec 2005 before your time as an active poster here (post numbers around the 1270s.)

Capablanca-Fan
01-06-2010, 02:48 PM
... I think there's quite a strong prima facie case that God was at least deceptive and less than fully honest. God caused Abraham to believe it was God's intention that Abraham kill his son, as evidenced by Abraham attempting to do so, but such was not God's intention at all.
God gave a command and intended Abraham to try to obey it, then rescinded it. That is not lying.

Also, since God had promised to build a nation through Isaac, this means that Abraham had a faith that God would resurrect Isaac if he had gone through with the sacrifice.


The whole story seems utterly screwy anyway. The interfering angel says "Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." But God, being all-knowing, would have known whether Abraham feared God or not anyway so why the test of faith?
The Hebrew yada ("know") has implications of knowledge based on experience or observation, which was not possible before Abraham showed his willingness to obey God in everything.


So this is probably a second lie.
Nyet, Abraham's faith could not be proclaimed for the benefit of posterity until it had been exercised in an observable way, given that we lack God's omniscience.

antichrist
01-06-2010, 02:57 PM
In the past 20 years we have heard of many parents killing their children because of commanded to by God - what did we gain for the benefit prosperity out of those similar killings?

And yet you religious mob are against abortions - yet you would slice children up already born???? While abortions are only dilluting something about the size of a pinhead in some cases (if the morning after pill)

TheJoker
01-06-2010, 03:09 PM
Jono, I am interested to know whether you would pass the same test of faith.

Hypothetically, if God spoke to you and asked you to sacrifice your family woudl you do it?

Secondly, in the modern day do you think it justified to kill somebody if the killer believes God is commanding them to do so? If not why not?

antichrist
01-06-2010, 03:12 PM
Jono, I am interested to know whether you would pass the same test of faith.

Hypothetically, if God spoke to you and asked you to sacrifice your family woudl you do it?

Secondly, in the modern day do you think it justified to kill somebody if the killer believes God is commanding them to do so? If not why not?

Joker, is it true that Gloria Jeans is setting up a blood and bones dept?

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2010, 06:07 PM
God gave a command and intended Abraham to try to obey it, then rescinded it. That is not lying.

No, of course not, just a non-core promise. :lol: As the story goes, God intended Abraham to attempt to obey the command, but God did not intend Abraham to actually kill Isaac. But God did not let Abraham know that God would intervene and save Isaac from being sacrificed, so so far as Abraham was concerned it was God's intention that Isaac be killed, or at least a fairly probable outcome. Yet this was not actually God's intention, and therefore God misled Abraham.


Also, since God had promised to build a nation through Isaac, this means that Abraham had a faith that God would resurrect Isaac if he had gone through with the sacrifice.

And that again shows that God caused Abraham to believe that God wanted Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (resurrected afterwards or not), when this was not in fact God's intention. Without some degree of deception by God there would not have been a real test, since telling Abraham the honest truth ("I want you to nearly sacrifice your son but not quite, I'll step in and save him at the last moment and you can butcher some animal instead") would not have tested Abraham's faith to anything like the same degree.

There is also the question: if God would have resurrected Isaac anyway, why not just let Abraham kill him? Much neater than wasting a ram.


The Hebrew yada ("know") has implications of knowledge based on experience or observation, which was not possible before Abraham showed his willingness to obey God in everything.

Well this is very interesting for a few reasons.

Firstly if "knowing" has to be based on experience or observation and the observation has to be based on action rather than, for instance, the God-fearing (or not) state of Abraham's brain cells, then this "all-knowing" God is actually quite limited in what it can determine, and hardly omnipotent or omniscient as conventionally understood as a result.

Secondly one of my reasons for treating the statement "God exists" as incapable of being meaningfully true is that our own concepts of existence are tied in with concepts of knowledge that come with similar implications to those you ascribe (and I do not doubt you on that!) to yada. Supposed experiential or observational data demonstrating God's existence don't get off the ground because identical data could be provided by a different entity, or the data could be evidence that the experiencing subject is mentally ill and experiencing delusions. Your own belief system, rather than deriving God's existence through a clearly stated chain of experience and observation, postulates it and many other statements as an axiom. It seems a tacit confession that God cannot be "known", only assumed.


Nyet, Abraham's faith could not be proclaimed for the benefit of posterity until it had been exercised in an observable way, given that we lack God's omniscience.

But it is the angel (on behalf of God) who says "Now I know that you fear God", so what human posterity makes of the episode is irrelevant. Had the angel said "Now all who hear of this peculiar episode of near-homocidal religious madness can see that your fear of God is so clear that it will someday be immortalised in a rather good Bob Dylan song" it would have been quite different.

antichrist
01-06-2010, 08:32 PM
And as the Devil was a fallen angel, it may have been the Devil telling uncle Abe not to kill Issac?

How so called intelligent people can be discussing these silly stories about 3 thousand years later I can't comprehend.

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2010, 02:36 AM
No, of course not, just a non-core promise. :lol: As the story goes, God intended Abraham to attempt to obey the command, but God did not intend Abraham to actually kill Isaac. But God did not let Abraham know that God would intervene and save Isaac from being sacrificed, so so far as Abraham was concerned it was God's intention that Isaac be killed, or at least a fairly probable outcome. Yet this was not actually God's intention, and therefore God misled Abraham.
Not at all: God gave a command, and for a good reason. This example would not have worked if God had told Abraham in advance what His intentions were.


And that again shows that God caused Abraham to believe that God wanted Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (resurrected afterwards or not), when this was not in fact God's intention. Without some degree of deception by God there would not have been a real test, since telling Abraham the honest truth ("I want you to nearly sacrifice your son but not quite, I'll step in and save him at the last moment and you can butcher some animal instead") would not have tested Abraham's faith to anything like the same degree.
Exactly. But this is hardly "deception".


There is also the question: if God would have resurrected Isaac anyway, why not just let Abraham kill him? Much neater than wasting a ram.
This was also a type of the Substitutionary Atonement.


Firstly if "knowing" has to be based on experience or observation and the observation has to be based on action rather than,
"Knowing" as we define the term doesn't have to be; yada tends to be.


for instance, the God-fearing (or not) state of Abraham's brain cells, then this "all-knowing" God is actually quite limited in what it can determine, and hardly omnipotent or omniscient as conventionally understood as a result.
The Bible teaches elsewhere that God is omnipotent and omniscient as normally defined. Also, theologians coined these terms about God as negatives, to show that God was not limited by anything outside Himself.


Secondly one of my reasons for treating the statement "God exists" as incapable of being meaningfully true is that our own concepts of existence are tied in with concepts of knowledge that come with similar implications to those you ascribe (and I do not doubt you on that!) to yada. Supposed experiential or observational data demonstrating God's existence don't get off the ground because identical data could be provided by a different entity, or the data could be evidence that the experiencing subject is mentally ill and experiencing delusions. Your own belief system, rather than deriving God's existence through a clearly stated chain of experience and observation, postulates it and many other statements as an axiom. It seems a tacit confession that God cannot be "known", only assumed.
Actually, I postulate the propositions of Scripture as an axiom; God's existence is a theorem that follows from those. I don't based God's existence on some personal experience.


But it is the angel (on behalf of God) who says "Now I know that you fear God", so what human posterity makes of the episode is irrelevant.
The Bible was written to instruct humans, so it is very relevant. Abraham was a major exemplar in the rest of Scripture, which as I said was the basis for my axiomatic system.


Had the angel said "Now all who hear of this peculiar episode of near-homocidal religious madness
God is the creator of life, so has the right to take it, or delegate others to take it (e.g. soldiers in a just war, civil magistrates in the case of a capital crime).

TheJoker
02-06-2010, 10:24 AM
Jono, I am interested to know whether you would pass the same test of faith.

Hypothetically, if God spoke to you and asked you to sacrifice your family woudl you do it?

Secondly, in the modern day do you think it justified to kill somebody if the killer believes God is commanding them to do so? If not why not?


Hey Jono, not sure if you missed my previous post, I'll quote it here because I am still curious about these questions.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-06-2010, 12:09 PM
A little observation from the side:

Jono, being a Christian, doesn't show much interest in other religions.
Fair enough.

Atheists on this board show a very deep interest in Christianity.
A strange obsession.

Carry on, guys.

Rincewind
02-06-2010, 12:19 PM
Atheists on this board show a very deep interest in Christianity.
A strange obsession.

Your obsession for trying to find perversion in something which is perfectly expected is more disturbing.

In case you didn't notice Christianity is the orthodoxy and so it is not unexpected that people raised in such a culture would be most familiar with the Christian faith.

If are confused by anything else please ask someone before making further attempts at amateurish psychological "observations". Just to save yourself from further personal embarrassment.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-06-2010, 12:31 PM
Your obsession for trying to find perversion in something which is perfectly expected is more disturbing.

In case you didn't notice Christianity is the orthodoxy and so it is not unexpected that people raised in such a culture would be most familiar with the Christian faith.

If are confused by anything else please ask someone before making further attempts at amateurish psychological "observations". Just to save yourself from further personal embarrassment.
Not being a Christian, but living in a predominately Christian society, I have a little knowledge, but not much more.
You obviously demonstrated a vast knowledge achievable only by extensive study that requires a lot of motivation. Well done:clap: :clap: :clap:

TheJoker
02-06-2010, 12:37 PM
A little observation from the side:

Jono, being a Christian, doesn't show much interest in other religions.
Fair enough..

I thought you considered marxism, communism, capitalism, evolutionism, "global warmism" etc etc as religions, Jono has showed a lot of interest in those "religions".

Or have you since droppped that absurd definition of religion?:owned:


Atheists on this board show a very deep interest in Christianity.
A strange obsession..

One theory could be that the atheists on this board are more inclined to try to understand various alternate view points whereas Christian's are not.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-06-2010, 12:44 PM
I thought you considered marxism, communism, capitalism, evolutionism, "global warmism" etc etc as religions, Jono has showed a lot of interest in those "religions".

Or have you since droppped that absurd definition of religion?:owned:


Do you only accept beliefs that you don't share to be classified as religion?:owned:

TheJoker
02-06-2010, 12:48 PM
Do you only accept beliefs that you don't share to be classified as religion?:owned:

No:owned:

Igor_Goldenberg
02-06-2010, 12:50 PM
No:owned:
Would be so kind to let us know which religious beliefs you share?

TheJoker
02-06-2010, 01:05 PM
Would be so kind to let us know which religious beliefs you share?

That believing in Christianity has the potential to transform someone into a better moral person.

Kevin Bonham
02-06-2010, 03:41 PM
Atheists on this board show a very deep interest in Christianity.
A strange obsession.

Well, we live in a society in which Christianity is the prevailing religion (at least nominally) and in which arguments supposedly based on it are still frequently employed to justify the imposition of morality by the state and the supposed right to teach pseudoscience in schools. So not so strange at all to be primarily focussed on that religion. Also Christian posters here spend far more time commenting adversely about atheism than they do slagging off Buddhism, for instance, and I bet that's not only because there are more atheist arguments here to get stuck into. There is a consensus between religions and spiritualities generally that no matter what their differences, the ultimate common adversary is the hardcore scientific sceptic who doesn't agree with any of them.


Not at all: God gave a command, and for a good reason. This example would not have worked if God had told Abraham in advance what His intentions were.

Exactly. But this is hardly "deception".

Of course it is. God knowingly caused Abraham to believe God's intentions were or at least could be X when God's intentions were actually Y, which did not include X. What could be a more clearcut case of deliberate deception than that?


This was also a type of the Substitutionary Atonement.

A curious concept. I can see the educative value of encouraging people to sacrifice animals rather than each other, but it seems somewhat different to Jesus offering himself as a sacrifice.


Actually, I postulate the propositions of Scripture as an axiom; God's existence is a theorem that follows from those.

Are you saying God's existence is not itself a proposition of scripture?


The Bible was written to instruct humans, so it is very relevant.

Instructional value is not relevant to the question of whether the angel's statement "Now I know that you fear God" is true. If God already knows Abraham fears God (through omniscience) then there is no significance in God also experiencing/observing it in terms of God's understanding of Abraham. Maybe there is significance in terms of Abraham's understanding of God's understanding of Abraham, but only if Abraham isn't all that bright. If the point is to instruct humans, "Now all who hear of this will know that you fear God" would seem more to the point.

Rincewind
02-06-2010, 05:05 PM
That believing in Christianity has the potential to transform someone into a better moral person.

I think there is anecdotal evidence both way. But as far as the truth of your statement goes, I have no problem with it but I think you could replace Christianity with Satanism without affecting the truth value.

TheJoker
02-06-2010, 05:14 PM
I think there is anecdotal evidence both way. But as far as the truth of your statement goes, I have no problem with it but I think you could replace Christianity with Satanism without affecting the truth value.

Don't really know about that one never had any experience with Satanism myself.

Form my own personal experience (as limited as that is) I have tended to find that religion has a positive effect on peoples social behaviour. Of course there are always exceptions to that.

Rincewind
02-06-2010, 05:14 PM
You obviously demonstrated a vast knowledge achievable only by extensive study that requires a lot of motivation. Well done:clap: :clap: :clap:

Thanks for the kudos but my parents deserve it more than me, as they provided most of the instruction and just about all of the motivation.

Although you seem positively allergic to research I actually check facts before forming opinions so I have done more objective research on a whole swag of religions in my adult life.

Rincewind
02-06-2010, 05:20 PM
Don't really know about that one never had any experience with Satanism myself.

Form my own personal experience (as limited as that is) I have tended to find that religion has a positive effect on peoples social behaviour. Of course there are always exceptions to that.

Nor do I personally but I have been accused to being to Christian-centric so I thought I should branch out. :)

My point was your statement was simply...


That believing in Christianity has the potential to transform someone into a better moral person.

Which is a pretty weak statement. If a person was completely morally abhorrent before something just a little bit better would be a positive transformation.

In your follow up you seem to believe that Christians are in generally of greater moral virtue than non-Christians. That would need some serious justification for me to accept it as true as in my experience they seem to be about average. No better or no worse on average than any other religion or those professing to have no religion.

antichrist
02-06-2010, 06:17 PM
That believing in Christianity has the potential to transform someone into a better moral person.

Christianity via the Catholic priesthood can put one along the road to frastrated sexual desires and urges and grabbing them illictly and illegally wherever possible. Even children in their control.

TheJoker
02-06-2010, 09:49 PM
In your follow up you seem to believe that Christians are in generally of greater moral virtue than non-Christians. That would need some serious justification for me to accept it as true as in my experience they seem to be about average. No better or no worse on average than any other religion or those professing to have no religion.

Not at all I think this without religion often find other systems of belief that improves their social behaviour. Religion is one way, its often any easy way since you only need to follow a set of ethics rather than develop your own

TheJoker
02-06-2010, 09:53 PM
Christianity via the Catholic priesthood can put one along the road to frastrated sexual desires and urges and grabbing them illictly and illegally wherever possible. Even children in their control.

Not sure whether its the occupation that causes the sexual tendencies, or that the occupation is a good cover for someone who already has those tendencies.

Rincewind
02-06-2010, 10:07 PM
Not sure whether its the occupation that causes the sexual tendencies, or that the occupation is a good cover for someone who already has those tendencies.

I think it is probably a little from column A and a little from column B.

Kevin Bonham
02-06-2010, 10:42 PM
Don't really know about that one never had any experience with Satanism myself.

An interesting aspect of Satanism is that the major stream of Laveyan Satanism, which is basically an atheistic/agnostic religion, is in part derived from the views of Ayn Rand, who is also a key influence on the kind of capitalist economic position favoured by Jono and Igor Goldenberg.

But I think LaVey was more into the self-reliance/anti-altruist side of Rand's thought than the economics. A slight departure for instance is that Laveyan Satanism strongly supports the taxing of Christian churches. :lol:

antichrist
03-06-2010, 05:08 PM
I half missed the doco on SBS last night called some thing lilke Mountain View church - where the pastor would put the children's hands on stove hotplates - what a hero he was, plus sexually abusing them.

And the parents gave him all their money and worked for $1 per hour - what sorry gullible fools religions make people

Kevin Bonham
04-06-2010, 12:07 AM
And the parents gave him all their money and worked for $1 per hour - what sorry gullible fools religions make people

I think it's more likely that cults attract the gullible than create them.

antichrist
04-06-2010, 02:56 PM
I think it's more likely that cults attract the gullible than create them.

You are correct there. What amused me slightly about the program how the youngsters (now awaken) exclaimed exactly what the freethought movement says: children should be taught how to think not to what to think.

Could you imagine how parents could tolerate their children's hands being pressed onto stove hotplates. Remember that question would you put your head in the fire if someone asked you to - well apparently there are some people who would - well almost.

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2010, 12:42 PM
Not sure whether its the occupation that causes the sexual tendencies, or that the occupation is a good cover for someone who already has those tendencies.
More the latter. Those with such tendencies are going to be attracted to occupations where they have access to the subjects of their gross proclivities. That is why government schools have an even worse problem with sexual abuse of kids.

Rincewind
05-06-2010, 01:09 PM
That is why government schools have an even worse problem with sexual abuse of kids.

By what measure? Number of reported incidents per capita or are the practice of wilfully covering up incident, moving perpetrators around from parish to parish?

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2010, 01:18 PM
By what measure? Number of reported incidents per capita or are the practice of wilfully covering up incident, moving perpetrators around from parish to parish?
Forgotten Study: Abuse in School 100 Times Worse than by Priests (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10040101.html)

Rincewind
05-06-2010, 02:52 PM
Forgotten Study: Abuse in School 100 Times Worse than by Priests (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10040101.html)

Hey look it a bunch of fundamental Christian "pro-lifers" pretending to objectively report the news. :lol:

Desmond
05-06-2010, 03:34 PM
Forgotten Study: Abuse in School 100 Times Worse than by Priests (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10040101.html)
The "study (http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf)" referred to is actually a report which is a synthesis of literature on educators' misconduct. How that put the report's author in a position to comment on the relative occurences between educators and religious figures is anyone's guess.

antichrist
05-06-2010, 03:59 PM
More the latter. Those with such tendencies are going to be attracted to occupations where they have access to the subjects of their gross proclivities. That is why government schools have an even worse problem with sexual abuse of kids.

Come off it Jono, priests are a peculiar species because they are not supposed to get relief elsewhere -that makes them very vulnerable to abusing trust they may have. Whereas "normal" people can go to Kennys Bath House - and would be able to afford it as well.

antichrist
05-06-2010, 04:02 PM
Hey look it a bunch of fundamental Christian "pro-lifers" pretending to objectively report the news. :lol:

What amazes me about pro-lifers, Bible and Torah literalists, is that won't do this or that because prohibited. But coz nuke weapons weren't around the apostles time (if they existed) then they are not mentioned in the Bible & Torah so it is quite okay for Christian America and Israel to bomb and threaten other people at will.

That is what you can do when you have a basis for your morality - as we atheists are constantly reminded.

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2010, 12:37 AM
Hey look it a bunch of fundamental Christian "pro-lifers" pretending to objectively report the news. :lol:
What, a bunch of fundamental atheopathic pro-deathers would be the epitome of objectivity?

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2010, 12:43 AM
Come off it Jono, priests are a peculiar species because they are not supposed to get relief elsewhere -that makes them very vulnerable to abusing trust they may have.
Yet the rate of abuse is extremely low, percentage-wise. Kids are in more danger at the government schools than in church.

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2010, 01:00 AM
The "study (http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf)" referred to is actually a report which is a synthesis of literature on educators' misconduct. How that put the report's author in a position to comment on the relative occurences between educators and religious figures is anyone's guess.
A good possibility is comparing the known rates of abuse in schools from that synthesis with the known rates in the Church.

Desmond
06-06-2010, 06:42 AM
A good possibility is comparing the known rates of abuse in schools from that synthesis with the known rates in the Church.
But this is a large part of the problem; the church hushes it up. The "known rate" is likely to be lower than actual rate.

Desmond
06-06-2010, 07:53 AM
Also you might want to sit down for this one. Your article from the pro-lifers uses the report in a misleading way. Surprising, iknowright? The 9.6% of students they refer to as being targets of sexual misconduct actually includes both non-physical and physical misconduct. The artical then goes on to talk about sexual and physical abuse. But hang on, it's not the same thing.

Rincewind
06-06-2010, 10:55 AM
What, a bunch of fundamental atheopathic pro-deathers would be the epitome of objectivity?

Which study by pro-deathers are you referring to? Or are you just being reactionary and not thinking (again)?

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2010, 11:17 AM
But this is a large part of the problem; the church hushes it up. The "known rate" is likely to be lower than actual rate.
Yet this is a problem with abuse in schools:

Teacher sex cases in U. S. public schools unreported, unpunished (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/290312):


An estimated 4 to 5 million U.S. public school students may be at risk or become victims of sexual assault by school employees and teachers. Even so, media outlets and public officials remain tight-lipped, cover-up allegations, and fight disclosure.

Since 2007, over 2,000 separate sexual abuse cases have been filed against U. S. public school employees. This takes into account the relatively small number of cases dismissed outright, dismissed under plea agreement or changed to other charges upon conviction, but does not include the many others that get swept under the rug, covered-up, or never reported at all, according to records kept by the website BadBadTeacher.com. ...

antichrist
06-06-2010, 01:13 PM
Yet the rate of abuse is extremely low, percentage-wise. Kids are in more danger at the government schools than in church.

We are not talking about in church where adults are - we are talking private situations involving priests and children. I can remember on incident while the priest was doing his shocking dirty work he covered up a statue of the BVM so that she could not seem him buggarising - how perverted. You can be assured that he would not do it with a church full of brainwashed groupies watching - they might actually wake up.

Desmond
06-06-2010, 09:24 PM
Yet this is a problem with abuse in schools:

Teacher sex cases in U. S. public schools unreported, unpunished (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/290312):


An estimated 4 to 5 million U.S. public school students may be at risk or become victims of sexual assault by school employees and teachers. Even so, media outlets and public officials remain tight-lipped, cover-up allegations, and fight disclosure.

Since 2007, over 2,000 separate sexual abuse cases have been filed against U. S. public school employees. This takes into account the relatively small number of cases dismissed outright, dismissed under plea agreement or changed to other charges upon conviction, but does not include the many others that get swept under the rug, covered-up, or never reported at all, according to records kept by the website BadBadTeacher.com. ...
The 4-5m figure is bogus and links back to the same report as above. It refers to that 9.6% again and also the report's author (not the author of the study itself) just took the finding of that study, which was on students from years 8-11, and multiplied it out across all school years. This is just totally sloppy.

Rincewind
06-06-2010, 09:29 PM
The 4-5m figure is bogus and links back to the same report as above. It refers to that 9.6% again and also the report's author (not the author of the study itself) just took the finding of that study, which was on students from years 8-11, and multiplied it out across all school years. This is just totally sloppy.

And as you pointed out earlier that figure is for misconduct, not necessarily abuse.

Desmond
07-06-2010, 08:04 AM
And as you pointed out earlier that figure is for misconduct, not necessarily abuse.
Yes exactly. There are 14 criteria the students were asked to determine if anything fitting it had happened to them. I think if we were generous with the definition we could say that half of those criteria might be considered abuse, maybe less. Also some of them could not conceivably apply to younger students for example "Spread sexual rumors about you."

I haven't had a chance to look at badbadteacher.com (the site appears to be down) but frankly I have my doubts about its objectivity.

Rincewind
07-06-2010, 10:11 AM
Yes exactly. There are 14 criteria the students were asked to determine if anything fitting it had happened to them. I think if we were generous with the definition we could say that half of those criteria might be considered abuse, maybe less. Also some of them could not conceivably apply to younger students for example "Spread sexual rumors about you."

I haven't had a chance to look at badbadteacher.com (the site appears to be down) but frankly I have my doubts about its objectivity.

So to do an apples to apples comparison what we would need to do is a survey of church going minors to report sexual misconduct, not just by ministers per se but anyone involved in the church enterprise from youth leaders, choirmasters, ushers, etc. Sexual misconduct does include be accusing them of a particular sexual orientation or making judgemental comments about their sexual preference. Not that that is likely to happen in a Christian church, they're so accepting about such matters. :lol:

Desmond
07-06-2010, 03:56 PM
So to do an apples to apples comparison what we would need to do is a survey of church going minors to report sexual misconduct, not just by ministers per se but anyone involved in the church enterprise from youth leaders, choirmasters, ushers, etc. Sexual misconduct does include be accusing them of a particular sexual orientation or making judgemental comments about their sexual preference. Not that that is likely to happen in a Christian church, they're so accepting about such matters. :lol:
The other thing that occurs to me is that many teachers are actually also members of the clergy. Christian Brothers, sisters etc. So a religious institution could well be getting a black mark aginst it either way.

Rincewind
07-06-2010, 04:37 PM
The other thing that occurs to me is that many teachers are actually also members of the clergy. Christian Brothers, sisters etc. So a religious institution could well be getting a black mark aginst it either way.

Not sure of the case in the US where most of the studies are from but to my knowledge of catholic education in my area, they are just about all lay teachers in the classrooms.

antichrist
07-06-2010, 04:44 PM
I recently found out who Joshua was. It was he who asked God to hold the sun still till the massacre (genocide) of Caananites was complete. And here are everybody 3000 years later naming their children after him. How ridiculous!

I wonder if one day Hitler will be a top name given to children?(the above story re Joshua is only hearsay, did not research)

Capablanca-Fan
08-06-2010, 04:46 AM
I recently found out who Joshua was. It was he who asked God to hold the sun still till the massacre (genocide) of Caananites was complete. And here are everybody 3000 years later naming their children after him. How ridiculous!
Good. He got rid of a lot of child sacrificers who did many other vile things, yet God still gave them centuries to repent. See also How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites? (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html) and On “Argument by Outrage” as a fallacy of criticism of the Bible (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.html).


I wonder if one day Hitler will be a top name given to children?(the above story re Joshua is only hearsay, did not research)
The Jews that Hitler murdered were not child sacrificers, for one thing.

Rincewind
08-06-2010, 09:33 AM
The Jews that Hitler murdered were not child sacrificers, for one thing.

Abraham was (nearly).

antichrist
08-06-2010, 01:59 PM
Good Question...


How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites?


On those very rare occasions when God displays His judgment within human history, it is very sobering and one which we find genuinely disturbing--it reminds us that "ethics" is not just another branch of philosophy!
And even though each recorded case--regardless of scale--SHOULD 'trouble us', the case of God's alleged ordering the Israelites to annihilate the Canaanites has always been particularly disturbing to our 'status quo' of sensibilities. So, I frequently get a letter like this:

The entire concept of a God of justice and mercy ordering the slaughter of thousands of people (many patently innocent) on many occasions I find abhorrent.

This is an issue I have always had profound trouble with and one I suspended judgment on when I began to believe. Lately, though, it has started haunting me again, and I have been searching and praying for an answer or insight. The responses to this problem I have seen so far (God did them a favor, they were like cancer, or God's justice is beyond ours) seem to me to be lame or inappropriate.

Or, in a less conciliatory tone--

The Old Testament paints a picture of a God who is extremely bellicose, giving repeated instructions to "his people" to exterminate other nations, (because he is giving them their "promised land"), and giving them practical assistance on the battlefield.

It is easy to believe that such writings could be the attempted self-justification of a territorially minded people, who excuse their aggression and genocide against other nations as "divine instructions". It is almost impossible to believe that such writings are an accurate description of a God who has infinite love for people of all races.

And finally, a more pointed accusation:

"Is the God of the OT merely sanctioning genocide (nay commanding it)?... isn't this "god" merely an invention for the Jews' own political land-gaining ends?
------------------------------------------------------

AC
Well I am glad that other people also are quering a so-called God-given right to anything - esp someone else's land.

antichrist
26-05-2011, 06:29 PM
http://ezinearticles.com/?Joshuas-Longest-Day&id=3086050

Since I was a kid I have been told while Joshua was fighting the battle at Gibeon, the sun stopped in the sky for an extra day without moving. Supposedly we are also missing 23 hours and 20 minutes out of elapsed time because of it.

As I researched this alleged phenomenon, I could find no record in the Bible or in history that the sun did not go down one day. Wouldn't the other half of the earth have had an extra day of darkness? There is absolutely no record of the earth not rotating in the Bible or in history. There is no specific mention of any extra time in the Bible either.

How would they know "how long" the sun stayed in one place if it did not move? The sun was the way they told time back then! Is the intended meaning of "about a whole day" a 12 hour day from dawn to dark or a 24 hour day? It does not say the sun stopped, it says the "sun stayed." How can the sun "stay" in the sky and not go down?

Don't forget that it is not actually the sun that just stops in the sky, but the earth would have to stop rotating in order to accomplish this.

The earth rotates at 1,065 mph at the equator. The earth stopping would throw lakes, seas and rivers out of their beds. It would topple trees and crumble mountains, also causing earthquakes and volcanoes from the global stress. Did the Lord stop the whole solar system just for this one battle?

Another thing to consider is that God's very integrity is expressed by the unceasing progression of day and night! When we can stop the sun and moon from their established cycle, then we can break a Covenant with God! (Jer. 33:20, 21)



Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/3086050


AC
This stoppage of the earth's rotation would have cause massive tsunamis everywhere, are such recorded in any other ancient book. Also there is the point of the othe side of the earth having an extra long night of maybe darkness of 36 hours, the cocks would not have crowed etc, all of nature would have been mixed up. Pretty amazing scenario when one thinks about. Then God would have to undo the damage and make the rest of the world forget it, as it is not recorded in any other culture's books.

antichrist
27-05-2011, 09:24 AM
Imagine if you were up the North Pole or somewhere and you had only gathered enuf firewood or tucker etc to last a normal night, but then you get another 24 hours added on, and it was all dark and freezing, you would be cursing Joshua!

Or if you were travelling along dangerous canyons whatever, hoping to continue your journey the next morning, but lo & behold, it does not come for another 24 hours and you are stuck up on top of the Himalayas or somewhere. You would also be cursing Joshua.

Or even if it was your birthday but it stayed dark all day and ruined your VIP A list party you had spent a fortune on.

Or you were on the ocean on a wrecked boat and it was overcast so you can't read the stars, then no suns comes up either so you dont know which way to head for land, you would also be cursing Joshua.

Or if it was the final game for the 2000BC world chess champs and you miss out coz you cant travel in the contineous night, and GG was DOP who rules you forfeited - you also would hate Joshua!

antichrist
22-06-2011, 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Colliver
How can the shortest day occur at 3:16 am in the morning? Surely it starts in the morning and finishes in the evening.
Scott


AC
But what about Joshua's Longest Day - anything can happen.

And why the Great Big One create a stationery earth, many small suns around the earth that just lit up and went out every day so there would be uniform time around the world? As well we just pull like a toilet chain to make it rain - I would like to see that.