Misconceptions of Christianity

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
581

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The point was to illustrate the intellectual dishonesty with which christians approach the subject.

It is dishonest to claim you see objective proof of something, when the fact is that you will twist any outcome to be “proof”. This is not proof, its wanton confirmation bias.

Oh, and another intellectually weak and dishonest technique: accuse the person of lying.

I’m about done here. Have fun.[/quote]

LOL - intellectual dishonesty? Come on - man up and show me any intellectual dishonesty in my Christianity - it’s nice to build straw men and burn them down and all, but here I am . … a real life, intellectually honest Christian . . . hit me with your best shot. Prove that anything that I believe is intellectually dishonest . . . come up - no more rants or rhetoric, a real example of where my Christianity is based on intellectual dishonesty . . . .

582

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…and then they say god works in mysterious ways![/quote]

Jesus loves you.[/quote]

…that’s an odd thing to say D. What prompted you to make that comment?
[/quote]

Maybe odd, but true from my point of view. Just thought you would like to hear that, and anyone else that would want to hear that.[/quote]

…well okay, but why did you think i’d like to hear that?
[/quote]

Just had a feeling. I beleive that everyone wants to know they are loved. Whether it is by a family member, friend, or God. I just had a feeling that people would like to know that Jesus Loves Them. This is the bases of Christianity. If we can not communicate that Jesus Loves You then we are failing as Christians.

Did it make you feel better?

583

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The point was to illustrate the intellectual dishonesty with which christians approach the subject.

It is dishonest to claim you see objective proof of something, when the fact is that you will twist any outcome to be “proof”. This is not proof, its wanton confirmation bias.

Oh, and another intellectually weak and dishonest technique: accuse the person of lying.

I’m about done here. Have fun.[/quote]

LOL - intellectual dishonesty? Come on - man up and show me any intellectual dishonesty in my Christianity - it’s nice to build straw men and burn them down and all, but here I am . … a real life, intellectually honest Christian . . . hit me with your best shot. Prove that anything that I believe is intellectually dishonest . . . come up - no more rants or rhetoric, a real example of where my Christianity is based on intellectual dishonesty . . . .[/quote]

sigh

  1. You operate from the foregone conclusion that the bible is perfect and god exists, because the bible, which is perfect, says so.

The intellectually honest method of looking at the possibility of the bibles perfection is to start with the belief that it may be the case that the bible is perfect, or it may not be the case that the bible is perfect.

In order to test this, you look at the bible, searching for any inaccuraces, falsehoods, contradictions, etc. When you find some, you conclude that the bible is not perfect (impeccable, inerrent, etc).

For example, the bible says there is a dome above the earth, holding out the waters of heaven, that the sun and moon are set into. This is not fact. The bible is wrong.

So, it is not the case that the bible is inerrent. Therefore, claiming that something else written in the bible must be true, because it is written in the “perfect” word of god, is untrue. Things in the bible may be true or not, but being written in your bible does not inherently make them true or false.

You, however, ignore this because it does not work as confirmation for what you “already know” - that the bible is without error.

  1. Intellectual terrorism - you stoop to using fear as a tactic to convert people to your side. If what you were saying was true, you wouldnt need threats of eternal torment from your “omnipotent benevolent” creator.

  2. You ignore evidence against your cause and cherry pick evidence for it. As explained with the coin flipping analogy, you twist any outcome of any situation to be proof of your cause, shifting the rules with each step.

You still have yet to answer my question: Why can gods benevolent character be directly observed when you see something “good”, yet “bad” events do not reveal a malevolent character?

That would be intellectually honest: to say gods character can be directly observed by what we see.

However, you take the dishonest approach; that gods character can be directly observed by what we see ONLY when we see something good, however, when we see something bad, gods character cannot be directly observed, but, instead, there must be a deeper or hidden meaning behind his action.

You change the rules back and forth and create double standards in order to preserve a foregone conclusion. That is intellectual dishonesty.

584

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

When those actions are obviously influenced by the teachings of christianity, yes, its the religions fault.

I’m not saying christianity is bad because some priests molest children - that would be blaming the relgion for the actions of some of its members.
[/quote]

Can you please show me where burning crosses or lynching someone of another race, or molesting children is a Christian teaching.

Edit: Another misconception of Christianity-if people who claim to be Christians do something evil, it must have been taught to them through Christianity. Leaving the blame not in their hands, but the religion they claim to be a part of.

[/quote]

Read what I wrote again. I’m NOT doing that.[/quote]

Not doing what? You brought up the KKK and it’s claim of Christianity and then implied the actions are “obviously” influenced by the teachings of Christianity.

[quote]However, the bible says homosexuality is evil, and christians are bigoted against gays IN ACCORDANCE with their religion.

Christians believe men should have final say in all family decisions BECAUSE the bible teaches this

Doctor assisted suicide is made illegal BECAUSE the bible says its wrong.[/quote]

I think you are over generalizing and trying to group every person calling themselves a Christian AND their PERSONAL views and opinions and applying them wholesale to all Christianity.

I’m assuming then that you’ve conducted a survey of these issues with every Christian and found that indeed over 50% of all Christians feel this way, right? I do think it would be unfair to BackInAction and Chusin if I lumped them into the same group I put you in just because you share a few similar viewpoints.

585

Capped, answer me this question if you would. Do you feel there are ANY redeeming or good qualities about Christianity? Or are you wholeheartedly dead set against it? And to be clear, I’m not talking about those who practice it.

586

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
sigh

  1. You operate from the foregone conclusion that the bible is perfect and god exists, because the bible, which is perfect, says so.

The intellectually honest method of looking at the possibility of the bibles perfection is to start with the belief that it may be the case that the bible is perfect, or it may not be the case that the bible is perfect.

In order to test this, you look at the bible, searching for any inaccuraces, falsehoods, contradictions, etc. When you find some, you conclude that the bible is not perfect (impeccable, inerrent, etc).

For example, the bible says there is a dome above the earth, holding out the waters of heaven, that the sun and moon are set into. This is not fact. The bible is wrong.

So, it is not the case that the bible is inerrent. Therefore, claiming that something else written in the bible must be true, because it is written in the “perfect” word of god, is untrue. Things in the bible may be true or not, but being written in your bible does not inherently make them true or false.

You, however, ignore this because it does not work as confirmation for what you “already know” - that the bible is without error.

  1. Intellectual terrorism - you stoop to using fear as a tactic to convert people to your side. If what you were saying was true, you wouldnt need threats of eternal torment from your “omnipotent benevolent” creator.

  2. You ignore evidence against your cause and cherry pick evidence for it. As explained with the coin flipping analogy, you twist any outcome of any situation to be proof of your cause, shifting the rules with each step.

You still have yet to answer my question: Why can gods benevolent character be directly observed when you see something “good”, yet “bad” events do not reveal a malevolent character?

That would be intellectually honest: to say gods character can be directly observed by what we see.

However, you take the dishonest approach; that gods character can be directly observed by what we see ONLY when we see something good, however, when we see something bad, gods character cannot be directly observed, but, instead, there must be a deeper or hidden meaning behind his action.

You change the rules back and forth and create double standards in order to preserve a foregone conclusion. That is intellectual dishonesty.[/quote]

LMAO!! This is what you have? OK, letâ??s deal with them in the order that you raised them.

Q 1. You operate from the foregone conclusion that the bible is perfect and god exists, because the bible, which is perfect, says so.

A 1. LOL. No, I don’t. I have explained multiple times in these threads that my certainty in the existence of the Divine came from my study of the Tao and Science. Then, in comparative study of religions, Christianity is the one that has remained true in the face of all assaults, and from there, the textual veracity of the scriptures is settled by unassailable literary and archeological evidence. You got the sequence back-asswards . .

Pick your best examples of textual inaccuracies of scripture and there is an explanation for them . . . every last single one of them - how do i know? I examined every single one them - and in the original languages as well . . . Have you done that?

So I know the Bible is true, because I tested it . . . Have you personally tested it or are you just parroting what someone else has stated . . . who’s being intellectually dishonest now?

Q 2. Intellectual terrorism - you stoop to using fear as a tactic to convert people to your side. If what you were saying was true, you wouldnt need threats of eternal torment from your “omnipotent benevolent” creator.

A 2. Wrong again - I never use intellectual terrorism on anyone! I never use fear to “convert” anyone, because I never try to convert anyone. I explain my views, correct misunderstandings about scripture based on what I know and leave the decision up to the individual. I cannot convert you to Christianity - that is the work of the Holy Spirit. Evry Christian knows this. Salvation is between God and the individual. I have nothing to do with your salvation, other than bearing witness of what He has done in my life through my words and deeds.

So, no, I do not use the threat of eternal torment to do anything. I only explain what I believe, nothing more. No threat, no intimidation - just what I believe. To accuse me of anything else is in itself intellectually dishonest . . .

Q 3. You ignore evidence against your cause and cherry pick evidence for it. As explained with the coin flipping analogy, you twist any outcome of any situation to be proof of your cause, shifting the rules with each step.

A 3. No, I do not ignore EVIDENCE against my cause . . . I do not twist any outcomes. Any evidence offered to me is examined impartially and with any personal assumption of right/wrong ignored - it is only proof that counts in matters of veracity.

I did answer your Question about a benevolent God - the outcome of events cannot be declared at the moment of the their occurence - an event we deem as bad, may prove to be good for us in the long term. I do not use events to prove God’s benevolence. To accuse me of a practice I have never used is intellectually dishonest . . .

So apparently, your accusations are the only thing intellectually dishonest in your post . . .

587

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< However, you take the dishonest approach; that gods character can be directly observed by what we see ONLY when we see something good, however, when we see something bad, gods character cannot be directly observed, but, instead, there must be a deeper or hidden meaning behind his action. >>>[/quote]
Please allow me to humbly interject the reformed (biblical =] ) view at this point. Every fact and event in all of creation is ordered by God Himself in such a way as to glorify His person/s, nature and power. This includes the existence and work of Satan himself.

The short version is, it is God who defines “good and evil” and much of what we humans call either is anything but, however even by His own definitions “good” displays God’s mercy and “evil” displays His justice. People misunderstand divine judgment as being merely the consequence of sin when in reality being further abandoned TO sin is itself a righteous judgment.

God displays His common grace wherein he works upon all men, saved or not, to restrain their sin within wise limits set individually by Himself lest they destroy the earth by nightfall. “Good” indicates either saving or strong common grace. “Evil” indicates God’s entirely just, wise and holy purpose in choosing not to restrain as strongly and this is observed in direct proportion to the specific evil at hand and again defined exclusively by Him.
Try this. Isaiah 10:5-19 Isaiah 10 NASB 1995
Here we have God using the king of Assyria to deliver judgment on backslidden Israel.
The prophet reports that the King does not intend this, His intention is to invade other nations, but God moves on his heart so that the king decides to attack Israel instead. Even going so far as to call Assyria “the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hands is My indignation,” Once the pagan Assyrian king has defeated Jerusalem God punishes the king for so doing and failing to recognize it as the God of Israel’s plan and power. Verse 15: “Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it?”

So God sends an evil idolatrous heathen king to loot kill and plunder His own people, even though said king had no such intention on his own. Then God terribly judges the king’s nation for doing it and taking credit to himself rather than glorifying a God he didn’t even know.

Such are the decrees, sovereignty, power AND JUSTICE of the one true God with whom we have to do. ALL OF IT VERY VERY GOOD

588

TL;DR

but from the posts I have read…there are some good Christians here

Matthew 7

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

This thread re-affirms why I’m not a part of all this. How can the Word of God be entrusted on man when this is what we do with what we think it is?

/my contribution, enjoy

589

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Tell you what, lets flip a coin. If its heads, god exists and is all loving. If it doesnt, god doesnt exist or isn’t omnipotent benevolent.

Then, no matter what the coin says, you can claim to be right: either you’re proven right by heads, or the tails simply means god refuses to show himself because proof would destroy faith.

Either way you always win and never have to consider the possibilty that you could be wrong.[/quote]

I have faith that the coin will come up heads. My wife and I did this to decide if we should get married. We flipped it once and it came up heads. We flipped it six more times and all of them came up heads.

If I truely beleived that you would start beleiving in God then I would tell you to flip the coin, but I do not think you would beleive. When it came up heads and you would become a mighty warrior for Christ I would tell you to flip the coin.

I say if it came up heads you would say it was just a flip of a coin and it is nothing more than a coincidence. If it came up tails you would say that it proves that God does not exist.

When you get some change today flip the coin. Let God show you who he is.[/quote]

Just flipped. Came up tails.[/quote]

If it did, you wouldn’t have to tell us.[/quote]

The point was to illustrate the intellectual dishonesty with which christians approach the subject.

It is dishonest to claim you see objective proof of something, when the fact is that you will twist any outcome to be “proof”. This is not proof, its wanton confirmation bias.

Oh, and another intellectually weak and dishonest technique: accuse the person of lying.

I’m about done here. Have fun.[/quote]

And so you athiests do the samething, twist anything to prove your point. Choosing to ignore proofs or logical arguments in order to hold fast to your preempted conclusion is what you accuse Christians of doing, but isn’t it yourselves who are doing that with you little “spaghetti-monster” and “sky wizard” analogies. Then, because people who claim to be Christian act poorly, you assert it must necessarily be because of the religion they are apart of.

There is a complete ignorance of the fact that the world is in fact a better place because of Christianity. Tremendous good has also been done by many many Christians, but that stuff isn’t sexy. It doesn’t get the headlines, it’s much more fun to pick at only the bad.

You cannot say te same thing for atheism. Who has been driven to do good by atheism? Who has desired to be a better person because there is no God? Nobody has been better for being an atheist, atheistic beliefs don’t help your fellow man, it merely an absolution for the most part.

You put trust in your five senses, I have put trust in something that has never failed me, no I cannot prove it.

We don’t arbitrarily pick out something out of thin air to worship… We worship the creator of existence. While you think existence came from nothingness. The is evidence of something from something all over the known universe. There is not a single microscopic shred of evidence of something from nothing…Which really sounds crazier?

My curiosity is this, what requirement do you have to believe. Is there anything that would convince you God exists? If there is not what’s the point? Atheism doesn’t make sense to me…You could convince me if you could prove it.

Greetings from Sin City! It’s 95 degrees and only 9:15 am…ouch. It was 103 when I landed at midnight!

590

[quote]pat wrote:

My curiosity is this, what requirement do you have to believe. Is there anything that would convince you God exists? [/quote]

…personal revelation; unequivocal and unambiguous [sp?]…

591

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

My curiosity is this, what requirement do you have to believe. Is there anything that would convince you God exists? [/quote]

…personal revelation; unequivocal and unambiguous [sp?]…
[/quote]

are you talking about God appearing before you in person to prove his existence to you?

or is it a matter of any form of revelation specially performed just for you?

your answer is a bit ambiguous . . .

592

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…and then they say god works in mysterious ways![/quote]

Jesus loves you.[/quote]

…that’s an odd thing to say D. What prompted you to make that comment?
[/quote]

Maybe odd, but true from my point of view. Just thought you would like to hear that, and anyone else that would want to hear that.[/quote]

…well okay, but why did you think i’d like to hear that?
[/quote]

Just had a feeling. I beleive that everyone wants to know they are loved. Whether it is by a family member, friend, or God. I just had a feeling that people would like to know that Jesus Loves Them. This is the bases of Christianity. If we can not communicate that Jesus Loves You then we are failing as Christians.

Did it make you feel better?[/quote]

…no, it didn’t make me feel better, or worse, in any way. Being loved and cherished by other humans is something i value more than [what to me would be] a figment of my imagination…

593

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

My curiosity is this, what requirement do you have to believe. Is there anything that would convince you God exists? [/quote]

…personal revelation; unequivocal and unambiguous [sp?]…
[/quote]

are you talking about God appearing before you in person to prove his existence to you?

or is it a matter of any form of revelation specially performed just for you?

your answer is a bit ambiguous . . .[/quote]

…according to the bible god appeared [in disguise] before a select few. Paul had his revelation[s], and others were guided by angels or other divine interventions, so why not me?

…if it meant that much to him, and he’d know what i need from him to believe, then let him make himself known to me through revelations or apperition. I wouldn’t mind at all…

594

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< Pick your best examples of textual inaccuracies of scripture and there is an explanation for them . . . every last single one of them - how do i know? I examined every single one them - and in the original languages as well . . . >>>[/quote]For the record I am onboard with stuff like this and the archaeological evidence for instance. I’ve done plenty of study in these areas as well. I have no fear of or aversion to scholarly study despite what it may SEEM like I’m saying sometimes. I’m addressing this is more to others than you.[quote]IrishSteel wrote:So, no, I do not use the threat of eternal torment to do anything. I only explain what I believe, nothing more. No threat, no intimidation - just what I believe.[/quote]I don’t generally go this route either because I no more believe somebody can be frightened into repentance (per se) than I do they can be argued there. However, the implicit threat of judgment has been used of God at times. Such as after Peter’s glorious sermon to the jews at Pentecost in the 2nd of Acts where he finishes up with "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ–this Jesus whom you crucified." Luke reports that they were “pierced to the heart” and many repented and were saved. In fact 3000 of them.

Unlike Stephen in the 7th chapter who after preaching a comprehensive historical journey though God’s plan of salvation, brings down the sledgehammer saying:"You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. “Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become; you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it.” They were not blessed. They stoned him to death.

595

[quote]forbes wrote:

  1. Order. Basically, its as if the universe was fine tuned for our existance. I can elaborate if anyone wants.[/quote]

This is the anthropic fallacy - the idea that the universe was created “just for us.” It’s like a puddle saying “this hole in the ground was created just for me.” It’s the other way around - life adapted to it’s environment.

Several theories on this, one being that we may live in multiverse, and several universes smaller universes known as “membranes,” each with physics that are very different, crashing together produce the energy needed to create a Big Bang. This is the M-theory.

However, even if we don’t know what came before the Big Bang, all this shows is that we don’t know what came before the Big Bang. This is the argument from ignorance fallacy - “We don’t know what did it, therefore God did it.” It’s also called the “God of the gaps” argument - if we can’t explain it, God did it. These are not valid proofs of God.

That’s not the law of entropy. The law of entropy states that things tend toward disorder, energy is required to restore order, and that ultimately all energy will eventually dissipate. Thus, things are kept well-ordered by energy. However, cosmologists are no longer certain that the universe will ultimately suffer a “heat death” where all available energy will be used up. There’s all the issues of dark matter/dark energy which I don’t have time to explore.

As for the “first cause” argument, even if it can be shown that the first cause of the universe was some supernatural deity, this does not prove the existence of the God of Christianity or any other religion. At best, this may prove the existence of a Deistic God that started the universe but now no longer intervenes in human affairs.

The whole “God will not reveal Himself to you because you are a sinner” is a cop out by believers for avoiding the reality that there is no evidence of a God. At best, it shows that God is a petty, malicious, self-absorbed being. If I were an all powerful entity and decided to create little creatures on a little planet, why in the world would I need these creatures to worship me? People who are insecure require others to tell them how great they are, i.e., they need worship and praise. If I held all of the power in the universe, why would I need to be told how great I am? I’m already all-powerful! And if I gave my creatures a set of rules to follow and some of them broke those rules, sure I might be “upset” by this. This is assuming that I would even bother to give them a set of rules (I might) and if I, as an all-powerful being, could even get upset or have any other emotion. However, assuming I could get upset, I’d pretty much forgive them very quickly. No need of going through the trouble of having a “son” by virgin birth and later watching that son suffer a horrible death by execution. I’d just wave my hand and everything would be good. And here’s another thing - I wouldn’t purposely try to “set up” any one of my creatures by sending a talking snake to try to convince them to break one of my rules. The Garden of Eden was simply one big set up. Only a mean and petty being would do something like that. My rules would be simple: “Here’s a planet, here are some creatures and plants for you to eat. Be kind to each other and try not to blow things up. You’ve got free will - think things out for yourselves. And don’t bother me on Sundays because that’s when I go skiing. Even in the summer. I can make snow in summer because I’m all powerful. Now enjoy your lives.” I would definitely be a much cooler God than the one in the Bible.

596

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
<<< The whole “God will not reveal Himself to you because you are a sinner” >>>[/quote]God has and is revealing Himself in and too all men through His creation. Unbelievers cannot see the self evidently obvious because they are spiritually dead and blind just like I once was. The inability to see doesn’t mean northing’s there [quote]MikeTheBear wrote:is a cop out by believers for avoiding the reality that there is no evidence of a God.[/quote] I said right at the beginning of this thread that this is what any thinking unbeliever would understandably say. [quote]MikeTheBear wrote: <<< God is a <<<>>> self-absorbed being. >>>[/quote] God IS a self absorbed being and quite righteously so. He can be that way and we can’t [quote]MikeTheBear wrote: If I were an all powerful entity <<<>>> I would definitely be a much cooler God than the one in the Bible. [/quote]No particular offense friend, seriously, but this is just pure carnal ignorance. You haven’t the first flickering clue who or what the God of the bible is and I’m promising you He does not care how cool you, I or anybody else thinks He is or isn’t.

597

On another note…Just how much of an evolutionary/biological dead end has atheism/secularism turned out to be? Children tend to hold onto the faith of their religious fathers, while the atheist doesn’t seem to be able to breed at replacement rates. Isn’t that something? Are we arguing with a Darwinian dead-end, as bizarre as that may sound? Demographically, the righteous really will inherit the earth.

598

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
God has and is revealing Himself in and too all men through His creation. Unbelievers cannot see the self evidently obvious because they are spiritually dead and blind just like I once was. The inability to see doesn’t mean northing’s there.[/quote]

As I said, the existence of the universe and life on earth only proves that the universe exists and that earth can support life. Just because we’re completely sure how it all got here does NOT mean that God did. It’s not evidence; it’s a leap of faith.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
God IS a self absorbed being and quite righteously so. He can be that way and we can’t [/quote]

Sure he can be that way, but why? It would be like a big strong powerlifter walking into a kindergarten class and proceeding to brag how much bigger and stronger he was than all of them. If a kid challenged him, he would throw that kid against the wall. Does this sound like a good person to you? Being self-absorbed, conceited, requiring praise - these are all human characteristics. So, you are attributing human characteristics to a supernatural entity. Moreover, these are very negative characteristics. Who wants to be around a self-absorbed and conceited person who constantly requires praise? I don’t.

[quote]No particular offense friend, seriously, but this is just pure carnal ignorance. You haven’t the first flickering clue who or what the God of the bible is and I’m promising you He does not care how cool you, I or anybody else thinks He is or isn’t.
[/quote]

You’re right - I don’t have a clue of the nature of God. And unless you possess special powers that I don’t have, neither do you. But since you specifically referenced the God as described in the Bible, that being is just a mean bully. He is a powerlifter who likes to pick on small children. He is a being who apparently likes to tempt people into breaking rules with talking snakes. It just occurred to me that under modern criminal law, Adam and Eve would have been acquitted of any “crime” based on the defense of entrapment. Modern society is actually more compassionate and forgiving than the God that is described in the Bible.

600

[quote]Sloth wrote:
On another note…Just how much of an evolutionary/biological dead end has atheism/secularism turned out to be? Children tend to hold onto the faith of their religious fathers, while the atheist doesn’t seem to be able to breed at replacement rates. Isn’t that something? Are we arguing with a Darwinian dead-end, as bizarre as that may sound? Demographically, the righteous really will inherit the earth. [/quote]

First, where did you get the statistics that atheists are not breeding at replacement rates? At any rate, breeding is irrelevant. Many atheists/agnostics were raised in religions families and were once religious, some very much so. I was raised Catholic, and subsequently determined that it was a bunch of crap. Second, a choice to limit family size is not evolutionary in nature as it is not based on natural selection or adaptation. In fact, I would argue that the humans that are best adapted to modern society are the ones who have rejected ideas that came from the Bronze Age. Statistics on religiosity show that in the U.S., atheists, agnostics, and those who answered “none” for religious preference have nearly doubled in the last 10 years. Religious belief in industrialized nations is decreasing. Sweden is about 80% atheist/agnostic. England about 40%. By contrast, religiosity is increasing at a very fast rate in Third World countries. What does that tell you?