Jump to content


Ken Gilmour's Content

There have been 17 items by Ken Gilmour (Search limited from 29-March 23)


Sort by                Order  

#432337 Is God a Moral Monster?

Posted by Ken Gilmour on 25 May 2011 - 06:19 AM in Apologetics

Ok these are my last comments on the matter... I will be otherwise engaged in other things for a while...

So here we have examples from both sides. Non-qualified people creating amazing inventions, better than qualified people, and qualified people being rejected by other qualified people and ultimately going on to exceed them (there are other complexities involved here that I don't want to go into right now but I understand your point that the context is different for Acharya, but it's not very different if you try to spot all of the similarities).


It is actually very different, because the other people you've mentioned were successful and managed to prove their theories to such an extent that they were universally accepted by mainstream experts in their chosen field, while Acharya is not successful and her theories have never been accepted by any mainstream experts in her chosen field.


The similarities:

They were not successful before they had proof;
Their writings were rejected by scholars but they still stood by them;
They made very wild claims that changed the way people had been thinking for a long time beforehand, which causes serious controversy and relentless attack and embarrassment. (Ok Higgs probably wasn't attacked for his claims, but a rejection of such claims can cause embarrassment and people to question your authority on the matter). The act of perseverance even through embarrassment is what eventually gets other people to start re-thinking. You will probably think I am setting a bad example of perseverance by giving up on the topic now :)

Here's a good explanation about Moral Absolutism from Delos McKown (Disclaimer: I haven't read the book which I have linked to the name, I added the link to identify the author of the below quote as required by BTDF guidelines).


Moral absolutism is an interesting issue. Do you believe that secular humanism contains no moral absolutes whatsoever? I just need to be clear about where you stand on this issue.


I'm not sure what the absolutes that you're thinking about are. When I say I subscribe to Moral Relativity I mean I subscribe to relativity in general, being that everything is relative. e.g. Gravity is only relative to certain planets. Other parts of the universe don't have any gravity, even certain places on earth have different amounts of gravity than others (e.g. a moving rocket, or a fast moving machine), but gravity on Earth is effectively absolute.

Morality is the same. Killing is considered morally wrong, but if you're a victim of a rape or attack on your life and must defend yourself, which may require killing the attacker.

I would consider rape and cold-blooded-murder to be morally wrong relative to my emotional maturity and human intelligence, if I was an animal; rape and murder may be required in order for my species to survive. I hope humanity doesn't come to that point - ever.

I'll leave it there. Thanks for the debate. I have no doubt there will be many rebuttals on this afterward but I will not be responding to the thread any more.



#432318 Is God a Moral Monster?

Posted by Ken Gilmour on 24 May 2011 - 01:34 PM in Apologetics

Evangelion,

Ok thank you, these are strong arguments about the lack of academic qualifications held by Acharya S that are difficult to refute. I guess I should think twice before using cheap digs in the future :). I generally don't resort to cheap digs and no excuse is acceptable for it, however some of the content from other authors made it difficult for me to maintain control and diplomacy.

I still stand on my original opinion though. Just because someone doesn't have the necessary qualifications doesn't mean that they are wrong, likewise people who are brushed off by academics are not necessarily wrong either e.g. Peter Higgs in 1960 discovered the Higgs mechanism and submitted an article to a European Journal. It was rejected for the cause of "no relevance to physics". He resubmitted the paper to a different Journal (I think it was in the US), it was published shortly thereafter. When CERN in Europe read the article they began to create the worlds largest most expensive project in that particular field, (The Hadron Collider) costing billions of Euro (I think it was estimated to cost around the €2.5bn to €3bn mark).

So here we have examples from both sides. Non-qualified people creating amazing inventions, better than qualified people, and qualified people being rejected by other qualified people and ultimately going on to exceed them (there are other complexities involved here that I don't want to go into right now but I understand your point that the context is different for Acharya, but it's not very different if you try to spot all of the similarities).

The whole topic here has morphed into something completely different to what I originally intended because of cheap digs on completely off-topic subjects and "taking the bait" from both sides.

On that note. I haven't been convinced yet though that God is not a Moral Monster according to current Western ideas of Morality. I still subscribe to Moral Relativism because I think that Morality is relative to the culture that you were born into.

Here's a good explanation about Moral Absolutism from Delos McKown (Disclaimer: I haven't read the book which I have linked to the name, I added the link to identify the author of the below quote as required by BTDF guidelines).

Context: On January 27, 1987 Delos McKown was set up to debate the Rev. Dr. Norman Geisler of Dallas Theological Seminary about "Humanism vs. Christianity." The debate was held in the ballroom at Auburn University.

Geisler had trouble staying on the general topic, focusing rather on abortion, in the most grisly terms. Humanists, he tells, are right in there with the Nazis in disregard of human life. Their despicable deeds are made likely, if not inevitable, by their moral relativism. How much firmer is the ground under Christians, who stand on moral absolutes!

During rebuttal, I said that my favorite moral absolute in scripture was in Luke 6:30 where Jesus is reported to have said, "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again." I then turned to the Rev. Dr. Geisler and asked him for his money. Since it was not forthcoming, I knelt on one knee and begged for it, trying to cover all spiritual bases.

With a pale look about his gills, he finally pulled out a dollar bill and waved it wanly at me to which I said, "No, not a dollar; I want all of your money. But I'm not mean; I won't keep your wallet or credit cards." Geisler did not, in fact, comply with the moral absolute in Luke 6:30 (also see Matthew 5:42 and Luke 6:35). If he had given me his money, I would have taken it and kept it. Thus, we would both have been blessed, I with extra cash and he with a clear conscience for having met the challenge of obeying a moral absolute of his lord. I fear his conscience still troubles him over this episode, something I would gladly have spared him by keeping his money.


Just one example of why morality differs by culture. Some people say they live by moral absolutes but they don't, some people think they do but they don't (e.g. once a week Christians), and some people take it to a whole other extreme and will have nothing else.



#432294 Is God a Moral Monster?

Posted by Ken Gilmour on 24 May 2011 - 03:51 AM in Apologetics

Doesn't matter what you think is necessary, I asked for references from six reliable sources.


Multiple sources are necessary in order to confirm a contested fact or debated point. They aren't necessary to determine the list of qualifications provided by a someone who lists their own qualifications. Your request was querulous.

I contest this:

I don't know who Aishwarya is. Are you perhaps referring to "Acharya S"? She is not a credible academic. She is certainly not a quotable authority.


So I am requesting references to back up the claim that she is not credible. The evidence provided does not prove that she is not a credible academic, just like my previous examples of Thomas Edison and Nikolai Tesla not being "credible academics" and my own education which led me to disbelieve everything that I was taught and turn a completely different direction.

So give me six references to prove that she is not a credible source. It was requested of me so it's not unreasonable for me to request it of you either.

Also note that the request was for references from "reliable sources" saying that she is not reputable.


I didn't note that as a matter of fact; where did you say that?

Here:

Unsubstantiated claim - Give me six references from reputable sources to prove it :)

Reputable / Reliable, in this context it is the same thing. Reputable = reliable = reputable

If you don't consider her a reliable source then why did you use her as a source?


No one has claimed she isn't a reliable source of information for her own qualifications. What is contested is that she is a reliable source in academic fields in which she has no formal qualifications, and concerning which she is unsupported by the scholarly consensus.

Citation needed - (six sources please) Which scholars disagree her hypotheses? I will accept nothing less than six sources of the same standards which you have previously required from me.

OTOH, I studied in WIBI, Canada and Calvary Christian Center, Ireland (some Apologetics also); was a missionary; helped plant some Churches; was in a worship band; youth group leader, etc... I am now an Atheist :). What does that tell you?


It tells me absolutely nothing.


It will probably tell some people that the examples I gave of people with no academic qualifications have made a major impact to everyday life, and the person who has some qualifications in a certain field (me) has decided to choose a completely different path.



#432291 Is God a Moral Monster?

Posted by Ken Gilmour on 24 May 2011 - 02:29 AM in Apologetics

You can start with her own words. No other citations are necessary.


Doesn't matter what you think is necessary, I asked for references from six reliable sources. If I am expected to do this then I expect it to be reciprocated. Also note that the request was for references from "reliable sources" saying that she is not reputable. If you don't consider her a reliable source then why did you use her as a source?

If you think that sending me an article where someone says that they don't really have "world renowned credentials" will help me to believe she is an idiot then you're wrong. On that basis, Tesla (although he did go to several universities) did not complete any courses or attain any degrees before his major inventions which are a very important part of our daily lives today (e.g. semiconductors) http://en.wikipedia....i/Nikola_Tesla. Thomas Edison had no formal qualifications but was a pioneer in many things http://en.wikipedia..../Thomas_Edison.

OTOH, I studied in WIBI, Canada and Calvary Christian Center, Ireland (some Apologetics also); was a missionary; helped plant some Churches; was in a worship band; youth group leader, etc... I am now an Atheist :). What does that tell you?

So no, the reference you provided does not refute her hypotheses or invalidate any of her work.



#432287 Is God a Moral Monster?

Posted by Ken Gilmour on 24 May 2011 - 01:18 AM in Apologetics

No one is objecting to you quoting it; what we're objecting to is your breach of forum guidelines by failing to identify your source.


Had I quoted the links provided as the source of my quote I would have been lying. Bible seminary is where my source is, the person quoting it on the Internet probably got it from my original source. I copied and pasted someone else's explanation of it, there was no way to improve on it.

If I walked to the supermarket to buy milk and wrote on my blog "I walked to the supermarket to buy milk" and then someone else copied that into a forum, was subsequently called up on the fact that he used the exact same wording as me I wouldn't make them change it to say "Walked to the supermarket I did, to buy milk." with the voice of Yoda.

Now if I copied and pasted the whole article and called it my own, then that's plagarisation.



#432286 Is God a Moral Monster?

Posted by Ken Gilmour on 24 May 2011 - 01:09 AM in Apologetics

I don't have to do anything. You're the one who made the claim, so the burden of evidence lies with you.


I don't know who Aishwarya is. Are you perhaps referring to "Acharya S"?


Yes that's the one.

She is not a credible academic. She is certainly not a quotable authority.


Unsubstantiated claim - Give me six references from reputable sources to prove it :)

I'm going to make a friendly suggestion: you've bitten off more than you can chew. You should probably drop several lines of argument and focus on the ones you believe are strongest.


Good advice



#432284 Is God a Moral Monster?

Posted by Ken Gilmour on 24 May 2011 - 01:04 AM in Apologetics

Hi Ken,

This claim caught my eye so I looked into it. I need to remind you that this forum's guidelines prohibit plagiarism and require proper citation of sources. I found the quote above verbatim on 2 different websites on the first page of a Google search. One of the websites attributes the quote to a Paul Fritz.

How to Use An Understanding of Culture - Sermon Central

How to Use An Understanding of Culture - Free Sermons

I'm sure you understand the need for complete transparency in discussions such as this one. :)


Actually, I already knew about this long before Paul Fritz wrote this article. My teacher at Calvary Christian Center, where I studied Apologetics in order to become a missionary and church planter was the source of this quote back in around 1999 or thereabouts, feel free to call them and ask :). I am sure Michael would be happy to see some of the stuff he taught spreading around on the Internet.

In order to recall it correctly (since correctness is what this forum seems to be all about) I looked it up on Google to find the exact cultural reference and found this perfectly written explanation (schweeeeet).

Might I remind you of the copyrighted nature of the biblical translations that other people are quoting? Under your understanding of my using a quote from an article, what everyone else is doing could also be considered as plagarising parts of the Bible :). Do you have written consent from the copyright holders of the specific translations to be able to quote from their translation on to your website?

Regards,

Ken



#432257 Is God a Moral Monster?

Posted by Ken Gilmour on 23 May 2011 - 02:01 PM in Apologetics

Ok Fortigurn,

I did not write this myself but found it from a very short amount of research. I think it nicely sums up some of the Biblical contradictions with brief explanations. Some of them I would question slightly but at least it buys me some time while giving you something to read up on while I begin to construct my other articles :)

http://www.infidels....radictions.html

The topic has already become quite acrimonious and I generally like to try to avoid that, I'm not sure how it ended up happening this time.



#432256 Is God a Moral Monster?

Posted by Ken Gilmour on 23 May 2011 - 12:28 PM in Apologetics

Ken, Thanks for the constructive and polite reply. I will think about it and reply in due course.



#432255 Is God a Moral Monster?

Posted by Ken Gilmour on 23 May 2011 - 12:25 PM in Apologetics

As I have already explained, the issue under discussion is not the fact that different religions, cults, and sects have different beliefs based on different cultural understandings. The issue is your failure to provide proof of your claims concerning the correct interpretation of these passages.


I don't really want to end up leading you to anger but I'll grace you with a response. I have told you that I don't think the Bible is accurate and that I will follow up with some articles explaining why (have some patience lad). My point is that the Bible is to be interpreted. I don't want to continue going around in circles. Wait for my article... If I post snippets (like the short answers here) it can be taken out of context easily.

The only way to truly understand the Bible is to read between each line and to understand the culture and laws imposed on the person writing it and at the time it was written.


But you aren't doing that. You're making up interpretations which have nothing to do with the text or its socio-cultural context.


Nothing to do with your cultural context at least. (Deleted the rest of the stuff I was about to say)

Well in lack of the evidence that you have presented I will look at my own evidence, which is what I base my opinions on :).


I have already provided evidence for all of my claims. Not only that, but you haven't provided any evidence for yours.


Sorry, I must have missed that evidence of yours. I am not sure if you have properly re-read my above posts which contain evidence and cross references, and evidence of you switching the order of some sentences and context.

A prophecy is not based on fact, and some times not even on predictions. It is based on what someone thinks that God has told them. There is some times no proof.


This is irrelevant. The issue is not whether or not the prophecy is true, or whether it will come true, or what it's based on. The issue here is your claim that a certain passage means X, and your failure to provide any evidence that your claim is true.


I am not sure why you want me to keep reiterating - It is a matter of interpretation. Scholars interpret scripture, lawyers interpret law, medical doctors interpret symptoms of illness. Each of them can be right and each of them can be wrong. A prophecy is a word from God about the future. It can only be interpreted, not proven. A certain interpretation of it cannot be proven either, unless it comes to fruition.

If a prophecy was actually a prediction, you could scientifically or mathematically prove or disprove it. Since it is a voice from within a persons head it can be difficult to interpret correctly.



#432254 Is God a Moral Monster?

Posted by Ken Gilmour on 23 May 2011 - 11:44 AM in Apologetics

Well, that's as easy as naming four people who died for our sins (Jesus, Horus, Mithra, Krishna).


OK, I'll bite. Please provide evidence from the relevant peer reviewed academic literature that Horus, Mithra and Krishna "died for our sins." You can use as many sources as you like, but I'll accept a minimum of six for each individual. :thank:


Ok this is turning out to be a lot more work than I anticipated. I don't really have time to go finding 6 references for each question when you can do it yourself (and get me a coffee while you're at it) :), if you have time to sift through the pile of infinitely plagarised garbage about it.

I will try to provide one good source for each, from recognised historians. You're probably familiar with Aishwarya who was made famous by the Zeitgeist movie, however has subsequently been considered as not reputable due to the sheer ratio of angry Christians to genuine historians, so I can imagine that you won't accept this as a source, therefore I will try to find some more reputable sources.

I will post about this in my blog as a new article after I have finished the other two articles which I promised earlier, it is completely off-topic to the initial debate here.

In the meantime, I'll provide a summary:

  • Horus: fought with Set many times, but was never killed and did not "die for our sins"
  • Mithra (Zoroastrian): Persian deity of the sun; saviour of the First Man; was never killed and did not "die for our sins"
  • Mithras (Roman): obscure deity worshipped by various mystery cults under the collective name of "Mithraism"; did not "die for our sins"
  • Krishna: killed by a hunter's arrow while meditating under a tree; later reborn as an incorruptible being; did not "die for our sins"


Getting with the times ( :) ), People of high stature (or high enough to have been documented) did not die. Their bodies were buried in a tomb where their "spirit" would have to negotiate several spiritual obstacles in order to attain eternal life (a bit like Jesus fighting Satan) before returning to their body (like the Rapture). This is why Pharaohs would have servants, food, valuables and pets, with them, they thought that certain gods would assist them to their place in the afterlife, and before John the Baptist was to teach about a single deity.



#432249 Is God a Moral Monster?

Posted by Ken Gilmour on 23 May 2011 - 06:03 AM in Apologetics

This is getting far too long to be useful to anyone...

I think I have answered all of your questions as best I can and some of my words have been twisted or context changed. Please re-read all of the above without taking offence and imagine there is a smiley face at the end of every sentence.

I will elaborate on some of the new ones though :)

Because it backs up my point that the Bible is only correct to the reader's cultural understanding of the translation.


Quite apart from the fact that the grammar of this statement is wrong, it doesn't make sense. You originally quoted the KJV to prove your interpretation of the passage was correct. I have already proved your interpretation wasn't correct, and it isn't correct regardless of the version you use.


It's grammatically correct. Religions, cults and sects are founded based on cultural biblical understanding. To them, their understanding of the Bible is correct, just as yours is to you.

If I was to go to Ireland and ruffle my hair up a bit and say "Aww man I am so wrecked" they would take that to mean that I am very tired.

If I was to go to North America and ruffle my hair up a bit and say "Aww man I am so wrecked" they would take that to mean that I have been in a vehicle accident.

If I was to go to Malta ruffle my hair up a bit and say "Aww man I am so wrecked" they would take that to mean that my boat has sunk.

The only way to truly understand the Bible is to read between each line and to understand the culture and laws imposed on the person writing it and at the time it was written.

My point is that there is no proof of what a prophecy means, which is what this was, it was a prophecy. It is open to interpretation and actively exploited by Christians. I gave my interpretation of it. I can't prove that my interpretation is correct until the prophecy is fulfilled, so I have presented my interpretation of it.


Thank you for acknowledging that you have no proof for your interpretation. I prefer to use standard scholarly principles of hermeneutics instead of the kind of guesswork to which you resort. The meaning of a passage is not completely up for grabs; there is evidence that a passage means X, Y, or Z.


Well in lack of the evidence that you have presented I will look at my own evidence, which is what I base my opinions on :). A prophecy is not based on fact, and some times not even on predictions. It is based on what someone thinks that God has told them. There is some times no proof. Can you prove to me that the Apocalypse is going to happen for instance? You can probably give me a pointer to what you think is fact beyond reasonable doubt, but if it doesn't happen, you could probably also give me a different explanation stating that you interpreted it differently (the recent Rapture prophecy for instance).

Scientists were tortured and executed for saying the earth was not flat.


Really? Name three.


Well, that's as easy as naming four people who died for our sins (Jesus, Horus, Mithra, Krishna). I will rephrase that sentence above to say "Scientists were tortured and some were killed for saying that the world was flat and that it revolved around the sun, contrary to the Church's teachings:
Galileo was given the second degree of torture (threat with exposure to the instruments of torture) and sentenced to house arrest for life. He was not executed.

Copernicus was on his death bed when his book was published, so nothing was done or could be done to him.

Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1590 for affirming the Earth's motion and for claiming a multiplicity of worlds around other stars.

I still don't think these are erroneous for very complex reasons, which I have offered to explain over email if you _really_ want to want to ask the pertinent questions.


I really want to know. Please post your reasons here, or on your page.


Ok I have lined up two articles to write on my site. I will post a link here once they have been written.



#432244 Is God a Moral Monster?

Posted by Ken Gilmour on 23 May 2011 - 12:17 AM in Apologetics

This is getting really long!

I'll answer the quick ones and work on answering the more complex ones in time.

That's not right. It explicitly mentions 144,000 people who have not defiled themselves with women. Regardless of whether you take it literally or not it means the same thing.


This doesn't make any sense; the literal and figurative meaning cannot be the same.


A man predicted we would all be raptured yesterday. He literally prophesied "Everyone will be raptured at 6PM". No one was raptured. In 1994 he made the same prediction, which he then turned around to be a "figurative" prediction stating the end of the church age had begun.

Now Revelation prophesied that literally 144,000 virgin men will ascend to heaven when Jesus comes back on the clouds. Anyone could say he was figuratively speaking. 1 = 2 for greater instances of 1, that's figurative, it doesn't work when you try to calculate 144,000 = 1,000,000,000 for greater instances of 144,000, that's literal.

Remember that your argument was that this passage is discriminatory of women, and your claim is that this passage says that only male virgins can get to heaven (women can't).


Yes, I remember :). Anything which excludes anyone is discriminatory. There is no other way to interpret the verse to mot mean those things.

For this argument to be valid, you must prove that this is what the text actually says. The problems are:

* This passage says nothing about anyone going to heaven

The passage is talking about the people who have been raptured a few minutes beforehand while God gives his angels charge to damn the remaining people on earth.

* This passage does not say that women don't go to heaven

That's right. It doesn't say it explicitly, but it implies it by exclusion. There is no mention of women, only 144,000 virgin men, therefore by exclusion, women are not included in the 144,000.

* This passage does not say that women are defiling

Again, not directly, but it mentions only pure men who have not been defiled by women will be the ones who understand the song.

Now you are quoting from a completely different book, original quote in the article was from 1st Peter.


I'm talking about this quotation you used to support your claim that women are subjected to their husbands without qualification.

Well it was a poor argument. If I took out the book of Mormon right now to quote to you why I think other scriptures back up the discrimination scriptures you would probably laugh at me, however some people view the BOM as more divine than the Bible. In this case you used a totally different book, by a totally different author, completely out of context.

The context was that men should love their wives and receive no punishment if they don't. While women should love their husbands while receiving a stoning to death if they don't. The point is that the Bible does teach to love one another but gives harsher punishments to women than men, which makes it discriminatory.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (Bible, Ephesians 5:22-24)



So where's the evidence for your claim that 'this passage could be interpreted to mean that if you are a woman married to a psychopathic, violent husband, you must submit to him, obey his commands, allow him to abuse and beat you regularly, at the same time as you try to change his ways by means of the example of your long-suffering obedience, purity, and piety'?

Already answered in previous posts

Check out the KJV version verse 10-12:


Why? Why would I use an out of date translation for one thing, and why quote the KJV when it doesn't change the facts to which I've already referred?


Because it backs up my point that the Bible is only correct to the reader's cultural understanding of the translation.

So Adam and Eve are in the modern-day garden of Eden and Adam says "I didn't commit any crime because Eve gave me the fruit and I ate it, she is a deceptive devil woman" - same thing.


You haven't provided any evidence that ths is what the Bible says. Adam didn't say 'I didn't commit any crime', and he didn't say 'she is a deceptive devil woman'. You're just making things up.


You missed the "in the modern-day garden of Eden" - i.e. it was a metaphor. Genesis 3:12 shows where Adam blamed the woman, and the woman blamed the snake and then the snake had his feet removed (because it was previously a lizard?... I won't go there just yet).:)

You are avoiding the issue. The reason why I told you I am not interested in what others think is that I asked you for proof of your claims. Instead of providing proof of your claims concerning what the text means, you simply said 'Well these other people think X, Y and Z'. So what? That doesn't provide any proof of your claims concerning what the text means.


My point is that there is no proof of what a prophecy means, which is what this was, it was a prophecy. It is open to interpretation and actively exploited by Christians. I gave my interpretation of it. I can't prove that my interpretation is correct until the prophecy is fulfilled, so I have presented my interpretation of it.

Different translations of the Bible say completely different things for good reason, and they are translated based on the cultural understanding of the time and place.

Example - Jesus said, "Behold I stand at the door and knock, if anyone hears my voice and opens the door I will come into him and fellowship with him and he with me." (Rev. 3:20) To the Zanaki people in Uganda, knocking is considered evil. Only thieves knock on people’s doors. An honest man will come to a house and call the name of the person inside. A good man will identify himself by his voice and knowledge of the people’s names in the house. However, a thief would not want to let people know who he is so he will remain silent and knock. If no one is at home, he will quickly sneak into the house, steal what he wants, and leave.

In this case the correct translation for the Zanaki people is, "Behold, I stand at the door and call!"

Your page does not say 'Here are some interpretations of what the Bible says', your page explicitly claims:

* 'women may be discriminated against in Christianity and denied an opportunity to get into heaven'
* 'there are some examples of discrimination in the Bible'
* 'Both Christianity and Islam seem to exclude women from heaven'
* 'So women are impure, who aside from defiling men; by implication do not get to go to heaven. This was the opinion of the Christian saints'
* 'There are other texts in the Torah, Bible and Quaran which preach discrimination against women, degradation and subjugation of women, and even violence against women'
* 'In other words, the texts of these "holy books" systematically ensure a second-class status for one half of the world population - women'
* 'Jews, Christians, and Muslims all berate women for causing humanity to be driven out of paradise'
* 'The fault of this first and original sin rests heavily upon the shoulders of a woman'
* 'Indeed, many passages in the Torah and the Bible teach us that women are not only inferior, but also must obey men'
* 'For example, this passage could be interpreted to mean that if you are a woman married to a psychopathic, violent husband, you must submit to him, obey his commands, allow him to abuse and beat you regularly, at the same time as you try to change his ways by means of the example of your long-suffering obedience, purity, and piety'
* 'This is but one extreme example of the many, many instances of discrimination against women in the Bible'
* 'It seems that women are the ones who bring down men and lead them to sinning and subsequently Hell'
* 'According to the Bible, this is one-way, the woman led the man to sin in this example'
* 'Women are considered by this verse as sinful, and many other verses in the Bible also tell us that women are also unclean, such as this example'
* 'In other words, humans are doomed to die because they are born out of unclean women'
* 'As if this were not enough, killing infants and ripping open pregnant women during wars is also encouraged'

These are not lists of other people's beliefs about what the Bible means, they are your beliefs and claims about what the Bible means. I have already demonstrated that these claims are false, and when I ask you for proof that your claims are accurate, directing me to what others say on the subject is simply avoiding the issue.


Not really. I believe that the Bible is inaccurate based on evidence (I will write a blog post about historical inaccuracies soon to demonstrate, but it will take a while to do it accurately). I believe that Jesus was a great man who revolutionized thinking.

If you go to court you will find that you are presenting your belief about a circumstance versus another persons understanding. Your lawyer will try to defend you based on his interpretation of the Law and circumstances, and the same with the other person's lawyer. Depending on the type of court-case an outcome or final interpretation may be agreed upon by a majority vote (Jury) or by a single Judge, at which point it doesn't matter what the losing party's interpretation of the circumstance or law is, the common understanding becomes the status quo.

This is the same as the Bible. Some people have been put into jail wrongfully because of the above, and some innocent people have been set free. The translation of the Bible changes with the status quo, therefore we have many translations.

The majority is not always right. Scientists were tortured and executed for saying the earth was not flat. So I have presented my opinion and interpretation as another possible option.

I would like to create a link to this forum post at the bottom of the one you quoted with your permission since I like to publish both sides of the story without bias.


You're free to create such a link, but what you really want to do (if you want to 'publish both sides of the story without bias', is correct the glaring errors in your page.


I still don't think these are erroneous for very complex reasons, which I have offered to explain over email if you _really_ want to want to ask the pertinent questions. Since this discussion is off-topic for the article you are referring to it would be better to create a new article. I simply want to reference this blog to show other people's opinions on the matter.

As much as I try to answer questions diplomatically some matters can be extremely offensive and controversial so I don't want to go into them over a public forum.



#432242 Is God a Moral Monster?

Posted by Ken Gilmour on 22 May 2011 - 11:22 PM in Apologetics

Why is it unlikely that Paul wrote Ephesians?


Hi Richard,

Raymond E. Brown "The churches the apostles left behind Paulist Press" 1984. ISBN 978-0809126118, p. 47.

Its authorship has traditionally been credited to Paul, but it is now widely accepted by critical scholarship to be "deutero-Pauline," that is, written in Paul's name by a later author strongly influenced by Paul's thought.



#432228 Is God a Moral Monster?

Posted by Ken Gilmour on 22 May 2011 - 05:26 PM in Apologetics

Yes. Try not to confuse people with words like "moral relativism" :). Morality is relative to the culture you were born in. The American understanding of Morality is blasphemous to other cultures.


I don't think anyone here is going to be confused by the term 'moral relativism', and you've just demonstrated you understand it perfectly well.

I wouldn't consider my understanding of vocabulary as normal :) I understand lots of things, and I don't understand lots of other things. I was pointing out that most casual readers trying to find "truth" probably won't understand things like that, and it would just cause confusion more than anything.

Yes, It doesn't seem relevant due to the amount of text I quoted in order to keep it in context. The most pertinent parts if read carefully are these:

No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth (The ones who know the song will be taken from Earth to Heaven, no one else is mentioned as being taken to Heaven). These are those who did not defile themselves with women (i.e. virgin men), for they kept themselves pure.


The problem here is that the only words which support your interpretation are the words you have inserted yourself. It doesn't say anyone goes to heaven, and in the symbolism of the book purity from defilement refers to spiritual purity; this passage isn't supposed to be literal (even if it was, it still doesn't say what you claim).

That's not right. It explicitly mentions 144,000 people who have not defiled themselves with women. Regardless of whether you take it literally or not it means the same thing.

Consider the laws of the day.


Ok, I've considered them. Now what? Talking about Sarah is irrelevant; Paul isn't talking about the laws of Sarah's day. He also says this (which you carefully didn't quote):

Ephesians 5:
28 In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
33 Nevertheless, each one of you must also love his own wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.


Now you are quoting from a completely different book, original quote in the article was from 1st Peter. They were written by two different people (1st Peter was written by the apostle Peter and Ephesians was credited to being written by Paul (although it's unlikely that he actually wrote it)).

However, the point of the article you are quoting is to demonstrate the differences in punishments, which you nicely led to. What I previously quoted was along the lines of: "Women obey your husbands no matter whether or not he is a psychopath, not doing so will lead to death by stoning", but for the men "You must love your wife as if she is your right arm", no consequences or punishments are explicitly mentioned for not doing so.

It's talking about a man who meets a prostitute and that the prostitute will lead him to hell, not that he's sinning by sleeping with her, but that she is unclean and will lead him astray.


It's not talking about a prostitute, it's talking about an adulterous woman (verse 5). She is dressed like a prostitute (verse 10), but she is married (verse 19), and entices the man to adultery (verse 18). Quite apart from the fact that you haven't read the chapter properly, your claim was 'It seems that women are the ones who bring down men and lead them to sinning and subsequently Hell'. This is not supported by the chapter at all.


Check out the KJV version verse 10-12:

And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart.(She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house: Now is she without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait at every corner.)


She's dressed like a harlot, she is "without" (poor) and she waits on the corner for a man while her husband is out, probably in order to be able to provide. That looks to me like a prostitute, not just an adulteress... maybe a married prostitute, or a woman who was captured from another tribe.

So Adam and Eve are in the modern-day garden of Eden and Adam says "I didn't commit any crime because Eve gave me the fruit and I ate it, she is a deceptive devil woman" - same thing.


Says who?

Genesis 3:12 "She did it", and then Eve blamed it on the snake.

Some Christian denominations take the Bible as the literal Word of God, even parables. They say that God inspired the authors of the Bible to write it the way it was written, therefore God wrote it.


So what? I'm not interested in what they think it means, I'm interested in you justifying why you claim that's what it was intended to mean.

It has been used by Christians who claim to be from one of the "Born Again" denominations of their ownership of women. For the record, I think that the Bible is one of the most inaccurately interpreted historical books ever printed and was likely copied from earlier books. See this article on the Resurrection for instance.

The idea behind mentioning it is to show that the Bible is open to interpretation (whether or not it be a correct interpretation). If I was to have the same argument with a Baptist, Pentecostal, Brethren, Jehovah's Witness or Seventh Day Adventist I would very likely get very different and plausible answers to the same question. By far the lamest answer that I have had is "I'm not interested in what [others] think it means".

Since I have very limited time-slots to be able to answer all questions quickly I think I missed some of the other questions you asked because it requires time to think and cross-reference other facts, but if you want me to answer them separately in email I would be glad to. You should be able to find me quickly and easily on Google or my blog.

Finally, this argument seems to have strayed a little from the topic. The question was "Is God a Moral Monster?", my answer was that Morality is a matter of opinion depending on your culture, in my opinion God is a Moral Monster, but Jesus was one of the greatest moral teachers that ever lived (you will notice I have declared this publicly at the footer of every page of my Blog as well).

I would like to create a link to this forum post at the bottom of the one you quoted with your permission since I like to publish both sides of the story without bias.



#432220 Is God a Moral Monster?

Posted by Ken Gilmour on 22 May 2011 - 05:46 AM in Apologetics

Since you have already committed to moral relativism, that judgment doesn't carry much weight. By the way, is this your honest opinion?

Yes. Try not to confuse people with words like "moral relativism" :). Morality is relative to the culture you were born in. The American understanding of Morality is blasphemous to other cultures.

Both Christianity and Islam seem to exclude women from heaven:

Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads. And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless. (Bible, Revelation 14:1-5)

So women are impure, who aside from defiling men; by implication do not get to go to heaven. This was the opinion of the Christian saints.


That's your argument for claiming that Christianity excludes women from heaven?


Yes, It doesn't seem relevant due to the amount of text I quoted in order to keep it in context. The most pertinent parts if read carefully are these:

No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth (The ones who know the song will be taken from Earth to Heaven, no one else is mentioned as being taken to Heaven). These are those who did not defile themselves with women (i.e. virgin men), for they kept themselves pure.

For example, this passage could be interpreted to mean that if you are a woman married to a psychopathic, violent husband, you must submit to him, obey his commands, allow him to abuse and beat you regularly, at the same time as you try to change his ways by means of the example of your long-suffering obedience, purity, and piety.


But how could you honestly interpret it that way? There's a difference between interpretations which are valid and interpretations which are invalid, and this is not a matter of guesswork.


Consider the laws of the day. Sarah had well documented obedience during both of her marriages (to Abraham and Pharaoh), they both took her to be their wife according to the law of the land at the time which was:

  • Marriage is a divine institution for the human race, for believers and unbelievers.
  • Marriage contracts are made by men. The father of the bride (or nearest male relative) makes an agreement (the Marriage Contract) with the father of the groom (or the groom).
  • The woman is never consulted about marriage. She does not get a vote even under the New Covenant to the Church.
  • Marriage Contracts were often made between the parents of the groom and the parents of the bride before the bride and groom were adults.
  • Marriages were consummated when the groom and bride became adults. The groom would go to the home of the bride. The bride's father would give her to the groom. The groom would take his new bride to the home of his parents or to a home he had prepared for consummation of the marriage. Consummation of the marriage was sex between the groom and bride and was often accompanied by a week (or more) of celebration with drinking, singing, and dancing.
  • Marriage Contracts were legal and binding documents under the laws of the government.
  • Marriage is administered under authority. The bride does not have authority.

Therefore since you must submit to the husband who you had no right to choose, you must also set an example for him by being obedient, even under extreme conditions. If you did not obey the laws of the day (and were a woman) you would be stoned to death.

It seems that women are the ones who bring down men and lead them to sinning and subsequently Hell. According to the Bible, this is one-way, the woman led the man to sin in this example:

Many are the victims she has brought down; her slain are a mighty throng. Her house is a highway to the grave, leading down to the chambers of death. (Bible, Proverbs 7:26-27)


This passage is not talking about women in general. Look at the context.



It's talking about a man who meets a prostitute and that the prostitute will lead him to hell, not that he's sinning by sleeping with her, but that she is unclean and will lead him astray. So Adam and Eve are in the modern-day garden of Eden and Adam says "I didn't commit any crime because Eve gave me the fruit and I ate it, she is a deceptive devil woman" - same thing.

I am not sure about laws in the US (or wherever you are) but where I live, if you go on to the street and try to get a prostitute you will be arrested for it, and the prostitute will also be arrested (for her protection as well as for breaking the law). This passage refers to the woman leading the man to sin, not the man allowing himself to be led to sin.

Women are considered by this verse as sinful, and many other verses in the Bible also tell us that women are also unclean, such as this example:

Man that is born of a woman is of few days and full of trouble. He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not. And doth thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest me into judgment with thee? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. (Bible, Job 14:1-4)


Could you show me where this passage says that women are unclean? And while you're at it, could you demonstrate that this is a divinely commanded teaching? This wasn't said by God at all, nor is it presented in this chapter as a belief which God wants people to hold. On the contrary, it's the record of a speech by a man concerning whom God said that he had spoken wrongly about God.


Take a look at the last sentence "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one." If you can interpret that any differently than "Men are unclean because they come out of unclean women" then please elaborate :).

Some Christian denominations take the Bible as the literal Word of God, even parables. They say that God inspired the authors of the Bible to write it the way it was written, therefore God wrote it.

As if this were not enough, killing infants and ripping open pregnant women during wars is also encouraged:


The verse you quote does not encourage any such activity, still less in the generalized manner you claim.


Imagine if this was presented to a Jihadist as a notice from Osama Bin Laden: "Because I have redeemed you, the people of a certain city's women will be chopped up, and pregnant women's babies will be torn to shreds" would you interpret that to mean that Osama is going to go and do that personally? Or that it is a call to arms?

When the old testament was written, the "nomads" were probably no different from Jihadists and probably would see this as an encouragement to carry out such acts.



#432216 Is God a Moral Monster?

Posted by Ken Gilmour on 22 May 2011 - 03:15 AM in Apologetics

Interesting post (from the man with the same name as me) :). I have a few questions about the original post. I've never read the book you've referred to so I am completely neutral but I would just like to ensure the publishing of unbiased Fact, especially if it comes from a website called "The Bible Truth".

I am puzzled by the adjective 'sadomasochistic' as one will struggle to find any reference in the Bible where God could be described as a masochist, as well as a sadist. Florid prose such as this does give the sophomoric atheist a few memorable quotes to hurl around discussion forums, but it hardly inspires confidence that the book will be anything other than a relentlessly polemical screed.


Saying whether the Bible explicitly mentions a certain word or not is really irrelevant. The Bible (especially when translated to a different language from the original and read by someone with a different cultural understanding) is open to interpretation. This is why we have many different Christian denominations. Therefore saying that the Bible doesn't explicitly say something doesn't mean that it's not that way.

For example, some serial killers are sadomasochists, authors of books about such people may not have used that exact word to describe them but it is implicitly understood that someone who receives pleasure from inflicting pain on people and seeing others in pain is most probably a sadomasochist. It is what it is.

If someone told you to "Sacrifice your children on an altar in order to please me" then is it not probable that that person is either a sadist, a masochist or a sadomasochist? Regardless of the reasons for them asking you to do so.

Topic in hand (question being "Is God a Moral Monster"). Depending on your denomination, if you ignored the teachings of Jesus on morality (and the teachings that Jesus is God) and focus on other parts of the Bible there are lots of things suggesting that God is a moral monster such as passages in both the old and new testament which discriminate against virtually anything that is not a man. If it's true that Jesus is God then some times he is a sadomasochist and some times he is not.

I think the Bible in general (based on the number of stories about doing bad things versus the number which were about Jesus doing good deeds) teaches about being a "Moral Monster" where you should discriminate, that God is not always love, even leaving the rapture open to questioning.

In my opinion, morality, good, bad, love, hate, etc are all a matter of opinion. In the past (and even in some of today's religions), it was / is considered morally acceptable to beat your wife to the point of death if she refused to obey your commands. It was considered morally acceptable to rape women from another tribe and take them as your slave while you beat and kill their husband, just because she was from another tribe. The teachings of this have not changed, only people's understanding or interpretation of them, or their decency.

In summary, in my opinion of morality, and what I know from over two decades of reading the Bible, I do think that God is a Moral Monster.

Regards,

Ken