Kevin's Watch

Avatar wrote:Great post. Just one tiny point though, it was the Lord's creed that limited violence. The Oath of Peace. The Bloodguard had only their Vow.

--A

Damn - I knew it had been too long since I had read the original chronicles. I always attributed the "do not harm where holding is enough" thing to the Bloodguard in my head. I don't guess they worry much about that while they're kicking ass.

I guess they don't.

--A

I was raised by EXTREMELY fundamentalist Christians. I won't go into the stories about the many ridiculous things they did to permanently scar me, but suffice it to say my parents love God more than me. They took Abraham's test to heart, and felt it a personal example to live by.

Anyway, as a pre-teen, I began to gently question the logic behind the story they had been telling me since I was able to talk, and I realized it didn't make sense.

I went to college, studied philosophy and physics, and became even more convinced of its fallibility. I don't want to offend anyone by using any stronger language than this, but my feelings on the matter are MUCH stronger. However, I respect the choices others make, and I realize I'm in a diverse community.

But I'd be curious to see what the Christians here think about verses like Leviticus 25:44. Read it and get back to me how a verse like that (and many others I can give you) belong in a book that's supposed to be the Word of God, or ANY religious text.

I think if more people actually read their Bibles from cover to cover, they'd be horrified. Any one remember the charming story about how god sent a bear to kill a couple dozen kids because they called a prophet, "baldy?" No? That story wasn't taught to you in Sunday school? Didn't think so. And that's a mild one. They get much worse.

Malik, just don't even go there -- unless you really want to jump through the Flaming Hoops O' Anti-Logic that've been posted in other threads on this subject...

I think though that there are actually two fundamental questions involved here, each of which are, although connected, essentially seperate. The first is the logical question of whether or not a god exists in the first place.

The second, admittedly in principle dependent on the first, but not necessarily having to be discussed as such, is whether it's a god that you would want to worship.

In fact, ( ) doesn't raising the issue of the bears killing children, or of the validity or moral "correctness" of many of the verses in Leviticus, including that one about slaves, and the infamous one about witches, (originally "poisoners" in Hebrew IIRC) automatically assume that god does indeed exist?

Don't get me wrong, I've flung those, and similar, verses in the faces of those I disagree with, but surely if there is no god, it's a moot point? Asking "Is this the kind of god you want to worship?" seems a tacit admission that regardless of how deserving of worship he is, he exists?

Sorry. This suddenly seems very amusing to me, even though I agree with you in general, Malik. But I do think that they are two seperate questions, that can indeed be addressed individually.

--Avatar

In fact, ( icon_lol.gif ) doesn't raising the issue of the bears killing children, or of the validity or moral "correctness" of many of the verses in Leviticus, including that one about slaves, and the infamous one about witches, (originally "poisoners" in Hebrew IIRC) automatically assume that god does indeed exist?
...Asking "Is this the kind of god you want to worship?" seems a tacit admission that regardless of how deserving of worship he is, he exists?

You're kind of missing the point: The bear story doesn't disprove a Divine Being, it just casts serious doubt as to His/Her/Its name and attributes. Since the premise of the Judeo/Christian religions are based on the idea of an unchanging, infallible, and loving God, the changes in His attributes and character since the days when He was sending out bears to smite children who use the epithet "Baldy" seems more than a tad contridictory.

Y'know, if someone calls you "baldy", you really ought to smite them yourself. Especially children. What kind of a wuss WAS this guy?

"God, they called me NAMES!"

"Right, off goes a bear to smite them - why don't you just grow a pair next time? Snatch away their lollypops or something?"

Plissken, that was sort of my point. It's two seperate issues. Casting doubts upon the nature or attributes of god implies a god. It can be no other way. If there is no god, the story must be a fable and nothing more.

Sorry, it's a pedantic point perhaps, but it just struck me as funny how we, as people who don't believe in a god, will use these stories (about what a god did) to cast doubt on the worthiness of god to be worshipped. You don't see something amusing in that?

--A

Ah, but I'm only Agnostic -- I suspect that there is a creative force behind all of this, but I'm not arrogant or ignorant enough to pretend I know His/Her/Its name, ideology, or motives.

I also doubt that the Creator who came up with "Children" also sends bears to eat them when they make fun of mad, balding men.

Fair enough, and in that sense, absolutely right of you to use it. However, I get the feeling that Malik is not an agnostic, and that's what started it off really.

Personally, I'd like there to be something, (not the christain god as commonly portrayed though), but I just think its pretty damn unlikely at best. *shrug* Oh well.

--A

Avatar wrote: Personally, I'd like there to be something, (not the christain god as commonly portrayed though), but I just think its pretty damn unlikely at best.

Yeah, that is my area of greatest struggle with my agnosticism. I would like to think my grandfather is in some happy place where I'll see him again. But I realize that is an emotional wish, not based in any way upon knowledge of an actual afterlife.

However, I get the feeling that Malik is not an agnostic, and that's what started it off really.

Oh, yes I'm definitely agnostic (that sounds funny, oxymoronic). I thought this thread was more of a "how did you get to what you believe" thread, rather than a debate thread. I was just telling people how I came to not believe what I was taught.

I think atheism is just as indefensible as theism. Actually, at least there is an experiential basis for theism, whether or not it can be confirmed by others. So perhaps it is slightly more defensible than atheism. I've certainly had some experiences that make me wonder . . . just nothing conclusive.

Strictly speaking, I would like to keep this from being a debate thread.

I find it pretty interesting to hear what others have experienced. No need to debate it, either. Everyone's experience is valid.

A lot of my rejection of organized religion came out of my distrust of the "charismatic" version of christianity that much of my family has embraced. It seems to be shouting loudly about being accepting of differences, but in practice is exactly the opposite.

Malik23 wrote:

Avatar wrote:However, I get the feeling that Malik is not an agnostic, and that's what started it off really.

Oh, yes I'm definitely agnostic (that sounds funny, oxymoronic). I thought this thread was more of a "how did you get to what you believe" thread, rather than a debate thread. I was just telling people how I came to not believe what I was taught.

Sorry, my mistake, didn't see that come through, and thought the mention of "stronger feelings" implied strict atheism. Anyway, I agree with Bossk, every experience is valid, particularly to the person who experiences it.

--A