In another thread, High Arka made a great comment about our Bronze Age ancestors. For those who don’t know, “bronze age” is a term some atheists like to toss around as if it is a great insult that implies barbaric thinking, ignorance, and superstition.
Many atheists, the evangelical kind, often deceive themselves by pretending they are pure of thought, not brainwashed, having relieved themselves of all signs of indoctrination. They then precede to quote word for word the memo they got from the alien overlords on the atheist mothership! It’s a somewhat amusing form of cognitive dissonance. Nothing says, “these are my own ideas” better than repeating the precise phrasing and quotes of another. Richard Dawkins is the atheist overlord that first spoke of ignorant goat herders and Bronze age believers.
Never mind all that however, I simply wish to honor my Bronze Age ancestors for a moment and celebrate those roots. Those people were amazing. In the interest of politically correct memes, discrimination, and stereotypes, stop the caveman hate!
It’s a bit funny, nothing says dumber than a box of rocks, then disparaging people from the past and acting as if the highly educated, fully evolved progressives of the modern era are all big and bad and intellectually superior. Hate to burst anybody’s bubble, but most of us are incredible wimps, pampered and sheltered by the conveniences of the modern world. In truth, we may well all be evolving backwards.
Given the low quality of many arguments made in debates these days, I’d have to say the superstitious ones from the Bronze Age could probably out debate most modern intellectuals and in short order, too. Of course if you got too obnoxious, I imagine they’d just poke you with a spear, which shows an admirable capacity for logic and reason. There is nothing worse than sitting around a roaring fire awaiting the roasting of meat, only to have your peace disrupted by a clanging gong hellbent on mentally pleasuring himself…..with more of himself. Just poke him with a spear and be done with it. For the collective good of all, of course.
Needless to say I take grave liberties with the idea of Bronze age goat herders and cavemen. There’s no need to point out the discrepancies in my historical recollections. I actually learned to color the Neanderthal brown. Actually I colored him purple, because purple is far prettier than brown. Trust me, you do not want to waste one moment trying to indoctrinate educate someone who prefers her Neanderthals purple.
Also, I drew fairy wings on my T-Rex. I truly love Tyrannosaurus Rex, but how can the poor guy possibly fly with those little tiny arms?? So you see, there’s really no point in arguing with someone like me. I am more than willing to just shamelessly settle things with a purple crayon.
The point High Arka made however, is quite true. We can all revel in our vast intellectual superiority, wisdom we gained by reading about it in a book. We piggyback the alleged evidence of our own wisdom by actually exploiting the work of our Bronze Age ancestors who had no books to learn from, no Google to search. They had to do things the old fashioned way, by trial and error, by actually doing them. It took a huge leap of faith, intellectual submission, a willingness to be open minded, to experiment and explore.
Contrast that kind of intelligence with the wisdom of today. How do you now this thing to be true? I read it in a book written by Richard Dawkins.
And you judge yourselves fit to mock my purple crayon.
Holly T. Ashley said:
Awesome!
LikeLiked by 1 person
silenceofmind said:
!YaY! for the cavemen and Bronze Age Barbarians!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Doobster418 said:
I admit that I’m an old guy, but even I wasn’t around in the Bronze Age and count no cavemen among my close associates. I have no way of judging the intelligence of Bronze Age dwellers. Perhaps there is a way to extrapolate that based upon brain size, but I don’t know that for sure. But as you said in your post, IB, “our Bronze Age ancestors had no books to learn from, no Google to search. They had to do things the old fashioned way, by trial and error, by actually doing them.”
Today we do have books to learn from, we do have Google to search. Is that a bad thing? We know so much more about our world and about the universe than our Bronze Age ancestors did. I’m not a big fan of Richard Dawkins, but I think the point he’s making is that we now have tools and knowledge at our disposal that our Bronze Age ancestors didn’t have. So what is wrong with leveraging that knowledge, those tools to further our own understanding? Why is it so offensive to acknowledge that these Bronze Age ancestors of ours were relatively superstition and ignorant of the world around them? Not necessarily ignorant per se, but ignorant in a primitive way and ignorant of the the realities of the world around them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
“Why is it so offensive to acknowledge that these Bronze Age ancestors of ours were relatively superstition and ignorant of the world around them? Not necessarily ignorant per se, but ignorant in a primitive way and ignorant of the the realities of the world around them.”
Because that is a false perception based on nothing more then human biases and modern ignorance and deception tends to offend me?
It is actually us who are ignorant of the world around us, Doobster. We can’t even seem to remember to take a blanket when we go across the mountain passes in case the car breaks down. Our barbaric ancestors were far more intelligent about the elements, the world around them, the nature of their own selves, than we are. We live in a highly insulated world full of modern conveniences that actually provide us with a somewhat distorted perception of biological realities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doobster418 said:
“Because that is a false perception based on nothing more then human biases and modern ignorance.” What is a false perception, IB? The perception that Bronze Age people were relatively superstitious and ignorant of the world around them. That’s about as false a perception as is yours that atheists are walled off and blind.
I’m not saying that people today have more common sense than did our primitive ancestors. I’m just saying we have more knowledge and a wider understanding. Our Bronze Age ancestors had a very limited perspective. They only saw what was within visual range, so their whole world was very narrow. And they didn’t understand natural occurrences in nature, like thunderstorms or floods or droughts. They were too busy trying to survive. But today we do know what causes those things.
By the way, how is your saying that “our barbaric ancestors were far more intelligent about the elements, the world around them, the nature of their own selves, than we are,” any less of a false perception based upon nothing more than your human biases and modern ignorance and deception trends” than what I posited about our Bronze Age ancestors?
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“They only saw what was within visual range, so their whole world was very narrow.”
And yet they saw bronze, Doobster. And trade routes……and writing itself. For allegedly being so myopic and narrow, they actually managed to bring into existence several of the things we now take for granted because we can actually see the evidence of them.
LikeLike
Doobster418 said:
IB, I was not saying the people of the Bronze Age were worthless or contributed nothing. Every age of humankind has contributed something. But still, by comparison with modern man, they were primitive, superstitious, and had a very limited view of the world around them. Are you going to argue with that statement as well?
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“Are you going to argue with that statement as well?”
I already did, Doobster. These alleged primitives with their “limited view” managed to “see” bronze, trade routes, and written language.
LikeLike
Doobster418 said:
Again, IB, I didn’t say they were blind or ignorant. I didn’t imply that they contributed nothing to humanity. I was making a relative statement in terms of knowledge of the world and of nature. You seem to disagree, and if that it the case, it’s your right to do so. We just see things from a very different perspective.
LikeLike
David said:
“For allegedly being so myopic and narrow, they actually managed to bring into existence several of the things we now take for granted because we can actually see the evidence of them.”
Yes, they knew some things. However, the accumulated knowledge available to a Bronze Age humans was a tiny, tiny fraction of the knowledge that we have today. And accumulated knowledge does matter. A simple question. Would you trade places with your Bronze Age parents? Would you like to try living your life with a Bronze Age-level of knowledge?
“I’d have to say the superstitious ones from the Bronze Age could probably out debate most modern intellectuals and in short order, too…Contrast that kind of intelligence with the wisdom of today.”
Apparently, your defense of the Bronze Agers requires you to denigrate and insult what we have today both in terms of our ability to think and our accumulated knowledge. I don’t understand why this is necessary. Again, accumulated knowledge does matter. Are you unable to say positive things about the Bronze Age without putting down what we have today?
The Bronze Age understanding of the natural world really was more primitive than our understanding today. They really were more likely to look for supernatural or magical explanations that we are today. So, they would attribute to disease to angry gods, and they might think that a regional flood had wiped out all life on Earth. This is why words like “superstitious” might be more likely to be associated with Bronze Age thinking. I don’t think that this makes them dumb, not at all, and obviously they had the ability to invent bronze. They just didn’t know what we know today.
By the way, for the most part, I don’t think that those who were using bronze were living in caves, and I’m pretty sure the Neaderthals were gone by the start of the Bronze Age. You’re confusing the Bronze Age and with the Paleolithic.
LikeLike
thetruthisstrangerthanfiction said:
“The Bronze Age understanding of the natural world really was more primitive than our understanding today. They really were more likely to look for supernatural or magical explanations that we are today. So, they would attribute to disease to angry gods, and they might think that a regional flood had wiped out all life on Earth. ”
David…. Here, once again, you are employing the tactic (as it would seem is so often used by “scientific” atheists) of assuming the truth of your presupposition before then going back and reinserting it into the debate which ought to precede the matter in question…
If one is first assuming that there is no such thing as a “spiritual realm” or “spiritual beings” in the first place, then of course they are going to be tempted to turn around and ridicule things as being “superstitious” if they do not fall within their own pre-supposed materialistic worldview.
Using terms like “primitive”, “magical”, “superstitious” etc. are all really just pejorative tools in what is the act of essentially just trying bully the other side into submission by calling them stupid for not entering the conversation holding the same underlying assumptions…
Modern science has indeed revealed to us many, many things, but it hasn’t in any way disproven the existence of a spiritual reality, since, by definition, it really could never do such a thing….
LikeLiked by 1 person
David said:
“David…. Here, once again, you are employing the tactic (as it would seem is so often used by “scientific” atheists) of assuming the truth of your presupposition before then going back and reinserting it into the debate which ought to precede the matter in question. If one is first assuming that there is no such thing as a “spiritual realm” or “spiritual beings” in the first place, then of course they are going to be tempted to turn around and ridicule things as being “superstitious” if they do not fall within their own pre-supposed materialistic worldview.”
This is exactly why I gave specific examples of what I meant. Specifically, I said “so, they would attribute to disease to angry gods, and they might think that a regional flood had wiped out all life on Earth.”
Now, unless you think that disease is caused by angry gods or that there was a global flood caused a particular angry god, then I don’t see why you would object to my use of these examples as being examples of “superstitions,” regardless of any “pre-supposed materialistic world views” on my part. In fact, my examples do not actually rely on a pre-suppostion that there is no such thing as a “spiritual realm.” I simply saying that in these particular cases (and I could come up with more examples), the understanding of Bronze Age humans would be described as superstitious, and today, we would attribute the cause of disease to other sources.
This isn’t about “presupposition,” this is about how the natural world works and how Bronze Age humans attributed specific aspect of the material world to supernatural causes. Don’t you think that it’s slightly “superstitious” to blame disease on angry gods or the old women down the road who put a curse on you?
LikeLike
David said:
“Using terms like “primitive”, “magical”, “superstitious” etc. are all really just pejorative tools in what is the act of essentially just trying bully the other side into submission by calling them stupid for not entering the conversation holding the same underlying assumptions…”
Uh, no. I’m not trying to bully anyone. It’s odd that you would see it this way. Do you feel “bullied.”
For crying out loud, I’m not calling anyone stupid, let alone the Bronze Age humans to whom I was referring when I used these terms.
LikeLike
thetruthisstrangerthanfiction said:
“Now, unless you think that disease is caused by angry gods or that there was a global flood caused a particular angry god, then I don’t see why you would object to my use of these examples as being examples of “superstitions,” regardless of any “pre-supposed materialistic world views” on my part. ”
As it so happens, I very much do believe that God caused a flood to wipe out all life on earth, although I don’t believe it was “regional” but rather, literally worldwide, covering the tops of the highest mountains… (but as for spirits having the ability to cause diseases, I don’t necessarily have a hardcore position on that one at this time…) 😉
So yes, your “specific examples” were duly noted, and in fact, your further comments really only serve to belabor my point, since they continue to do the very thing I was talking about, assuming that the spiritual realm is wholly non-existent, and therefore it is “superstitious” to believe in one. You are, in effect, pre-supposing the worldview of scientific-naturalism at every turn…
But I apologize, I didn’t mean to use the term “bullying” to imply that you were hurting my feelings or anything like that, merely that what is happening is basically a method of circular reasoning, in order to declare your own position to be true before it’s even been questioned adequately.
LikeLike
David said:
“As it so happens, I very much do believe that God caused a flood to wipe out all life on earth, although I don’t believe it was “regional” but rather, literally worldwide, covering the tops of the highest mountains.”
Ok, well, I would say that our current knowledge of geology makes this very, very unlikely. However, I understand how a Bronze Age individual would draw the certain inaccurate and supernatural conclusions about a regional flood, largely as a result of an absence of knowledge (I won’t use the I-word as it seems to offend people). And that individual would almost certainly be wrong.
“So yes, your “specific examples” were duly noted, and in fact, your further comments really only serve to belabor my point, since they continue to do the very thing I was talking about, assuming that the spiritual realm is wholly non-existent, and therefore it is “superstitious” to believe in one.”
Am I assuming that the spiritual realm is wholly non-existent? Not necessarily.
Again, it’s not necessary to make this broader assumption in order to conclude, that in specific cases cited, we are looking at superstitious thinking. There could be a spiritual realm, AND it could also be accurate to say that blaming diseases on angry gods or a global flood on a particular god would be superstitious thinking, because these specific events could have natural and non-supernatural causes. I’m not trying to rule out all possibility of a spiritual realm, I’m just pointing out that certain events that were once seen as supernatural are now thought to have a natural explanation.
” You are, in effect, pre-supposing the worldview of scientific-naturalism at every turn…”
I don’t think that concluding that microbes cause disease really qualifies as “pre-supposing the worldview of scientific-naturalism at every turn.”
“What is happening is basically a method of circular reasoning, in order to declare your own position to be true before it’s even been questioned adequately.”
I don’t think that this was my intent. Hopefully, my comments have explained my thinking here.
LikeLike
thetruthisstrangerthanfiction said:
“I’m just pointing out that certain events that were once seen as supernatural are now thought to have a natural explanation. ”
I’d almost be tempted to say that this is kind of stating the obvious, but the question, is that the sort of thinking that pans out in every case, all across the board?
If you are limiting yourself to a strictly naturalistic and non-spiritual cosmos, then I suppose I just didn’t see anywhere that would’ve suggested such an openness.
If you are starting from a perspective which has come to the place of accepting the reality of a divine Creator who has the infinite power and knowledge to make the entire universe ex-nihilo, then in fact, a little something like water covering the entire surface of the planet is really small potatoes by comparison…. 😉
Of course, “modern geology” does not accept such a Being as being remotely possible, so it’s quite expected that it would base it’s assessment of what type of flood is “possible” on a very different set of criteria….
Once again, it all comes down to an honest notation of pre-conceived assumptions…
LikeLiked by 1 person
David said:
“Of course, “modern geology” does not accept such a Being as being remotely possible, so it’s quite expected that it would base it’s assessment of what type of flood is “possible” on a very different set of criteria….”
It’s not really a question of accepting or not accepting such a Being as being remotely possible. Instead, I think that modern geology rejects the global flood, because the observations do not match the predictions made by the flood hypothesis.
Let’s say that a miracle occurred, and God covered the planet with water. Even miracles would leave specific and predictable physical and natural marks in the geological record. Unfortunately, when we look at the physical geological record, it does not match the predictions.
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
Doobster,
It is atheism that rejects all principles that advanced Christian Western Civilization to the hyper-civilization we wonder at today, and thus it is atheist who harkens back to that time when human life meant less than a bucket of warm spit, having to spend itself in disease-ridden, bone grinding poverty.
Even the Bronze Age superstitions you ridicule held more wisdom and understanding of reality than the fundamental doctrine of atheism which is,
“Everything just happened all by itself.”
Modern science has proven the truth of what the Bronze Age Hebrews contemplated and then wrote about in their holy books.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doobster418 said:
I’m not going to get drawn into a debate with you, SoM. So go ahead and say whatever it is you want to say. I give you free rein to make an ass of yourself.
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
Doobster,
Me stating the facts is not trying to draw you into an argument.
And if I ask you to explain why the Bronze Ager is superstitious for deducing the existence of a higher power and why the atheist is modern and erudite for believing that everything just happened all by itself, I’m not trying to draw you into an argument, either.
LikeLike
Doobster418 said:
SoM, you obviously have no idea what the definition of the word “fact” is.
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
Doobster,
Here is a fact:
“It is atheism that rejects all principles that advanced Christian Western Civilization to the hyper-civilization we wonder at today…”
Behold! It didn’t just happen all by itself
LikeLike
David said:
“It is atheism that rejects all principles that advanced Christian Western Civilization to the hyper-civilization we wonder at today…”
All principles? ALL principles?
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
David,
Yes, atheism is a total rejection of Christian Western values as stated in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness.”
From the first paragraph, the Declaration bases these self-evident truths on, “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”
The rejection of Natural Law and Nature’s God by atheists means that human rights are determined by those strong enough to impose their will upon others.
Thus the genocide of the unborn through abortion, gay marriage and Progressivism.
LikeLike
thetruthisstrangerthanfiction said:
Silenceof… why are you always dragging the notion of “Western civilization” and “Christian values” into such conversations? Just curious. While I don’t necessarily disagree with the underlying beliefs outlined by many of said “values”, I personally don’t understand the need to constantly defend the existence of God or the veracity of the Bible by means of trying to defend any particular “civilization”. Jesus didn’t come to give us some sort of political, cultural or intellectual “Renaissance”, despite whatever the various “founding fathers” might have believed.
He came to reconcile men and women back to the Father, in whatever cultural or historical context they were coming from…
LikeLiked by 1 person
silenceofmind said:
THE,
Western Civilization and modernity are proof of the wisdom and worth of Christian values.
It is no coincidence that Christian Western Civilization is the only civilization in human history that progressed past the slave and beast of burden as engines of the economy.
My endeavor is to challenge the fundamental dogma of atheism, that everything just happened all by itself, with the historically proven collection of ideas often called our Western Heritage.
Atheism rejects the Western Heritage, therefore it rejects all the ideas that made our modern hyper-civilization possible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
thetruthisstrangerthanfiction said:
Yikes, I am both a Christian, and a “Westerner”, and yet I find such argumentation to eventually be a tragic conflation and detraction from the true message of the Cross.
While I certainly don’t believe that the abolishment of slavery wasn’t a good thing, by no means does that establish that Christ came and died and rose again in order to bestow upon the world “modern hyper-civilization”!
I’m all for challenging the fundamental dogma of atheism, but good grief, waving the banner of “Western Heritage” is not the way, if the example of scripture and the apostles and Jesus Himself are given any say in the matter. “Modern hyper-civilization” indeed! That’s exactly the sort of pompous Anglo/Teutonic-centric attitude gloated by the missionaries of the 18th/19th centuries who believed they were doing God’s work by making the “heathen colored-peoples” wear Western clothing and learn how to soap like a “civilized person”.
After all, Jesus Himself rode a “beast of burden” into Jerusalem on that first palm Sunday, and I don’t think the purpose of what happened a week later was so that ultimately we could all ride in cars centuries later…. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
silenceofmind said:
THE,
It doesn’t make any difference whether you or I are Christians or of the West.
There is nothing I have written here that didn’t come out of a university level history class.
The Catholic Church warned about the pernicious effects of modernity at it’s Vatican II Council back in the 1960’s.
It seems that the same loss of identity that afflicted the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians has taken hold in the West.
Somehow our civilization has stopped teaching its society where it came from and what made it possible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
thetruthisstrangerthanfiction said:
Yeah, as you just outlined, it came from the Zeus-worshipping Romans, the political harlotry of Constantine, and the blasphemy of Catholicism. Quite a heritage indeed… but it isn’t Jesus’ heritage!
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
THE,
The reason I referred you back to the Book of Genesis is because its Bronze Age authors were somehow endowed with the understanding that the universe was orderly and created by a completely rational, systematic, just Creator.
The understanding of God, man and universe expressed in the Book of Genesis is like no other in the ancient world.
LikeLike
thetruthisstrangerthanfiction said:
ah, nevermind….. I’m clearly barking into the wind here.
It’s just, dang…. I spent like half the day yesterday talking to folks like Archenaten and others, trying to convince them that the Bible does not in fact preach of a message of “declaring a theocracy upon an unbelieving populace”, and yet, sure enough, here we see Believers in Christ trying to reinforce these unscriptural ideas about how “western society” owes it’s magnificence to “Christian values” etc..?
It’s maddening….
It’s such a funny thing to me, this whole schizophrenic mentality which tries to herald the “West” as this big trophy of Christianity, seemingly unphased by the fact that “Western” philosophy and political ideology and culture and “science” etc., etc. is at least every bit as much, if not more so, derived from all the way back as far as ancient Greece (hence the prevalence of Greco-Roman architecture and mythology everywhere we look, even today). Platonic thought is hardly reconcilable with the Bible, but that hasn’t stopped us from trying our darnedest…
I found this whole bizarre spectacle most excellently embodied in the work, “Dante’s inferno”, in which the author actually goes to far as to invent this sort of mini-“paradise” section of hell itself, where all the Greek philosophers and such are put, hilariously enough, and though they aren’t saved, and still very much in hell, they enjoy a sort of luxurious/privileged estate in Hades, due to their honorable contributions to good ol’ “Western civilization”…..
It would be an utterly stupid picture if it didn’t actually comprise a pretty accurate portrayal of what so many “Western Christians” sincerely believe…..
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“…the Bible does not in fact preach of a message of declaring a theocracy upon an unbelieving populace”
That is true! It does not.
However, set aside faith for a moment. The Western world is the only place on Earth where people have the freedom to not believe! So the idea encapsulated in scripture has been manifested in the Western world. The absence of a state theocracy is a biblical value and that is precisely what we are living out right here and now.
So in order to prevent a theocracy, be it religious or secular, we must stand up and defend those values.
LikeLike
thetruthisstrangerthanfiction said:
“The Western world is the only place on Earth where people have the freedom to not believe!”
hmmm, well, even though I’d heavily lean towards doubting the ability to prove such a claim in all instances throughout history, it really doesn’t matter to me in the end, because it still makes the broad assumption that this newfound existence of “freedom to believe or not” is what we are to prize, rather than the truth itself..
Think of the early church, the apostles, read the book of Acts… Those folks certainly weren’t enjoying the comforts of “western” civilization yet, (still a “gutter” religion as silence puts it…) yet what did they strive for? To change the laws? The culture? Succeed in making a Christian the next emperor? Were they seeking to dethrone the pagan emperor, and instill a “theocratic-free society”?
The answer is no in every case.
You keep saying, “set aside faith for a moment”. But honestly, how can you say that? That is the false dichotomy talking there, the very same false dichotomy of thinking which arose in order to try and justify the use of Christ as not THE Truth that saves lost souls, but as a set of “values” to use towards social engineering….
It’s like you’re continually trying to prove your answer to a question that the Bible would argue is falsely assumed to be valid in the first place….
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“…yet what did they strive for? To change the laws? The culture?”
Where they not striving to bring the gospel and the good news to all the world? Perhaps to ready the Earth for Christ’s return? Are we not all seeking paradise lost here?
Truth, you speak of social engineering. You are going to be engineered into the culture you live in. Would you not prefer to have one based on Christ’s values? God gives us freewill, free choice, he tells us to love one another.
The flaws that you see in Western society are not the result of Christian values, they are the evidence of what happens when we stray from them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
silenceofmind said:
THE,
Your thinking exemplifies the atheist dogma, of everything just happened all by itself.
Christianity and its values are woven into the fabric of Western Civilization and that weave began immediately after the Resurrection as the Apostles traveled into Europe, Africa and as far east as India.
The secular version of the Golden Rule is best expressed in the Western Tradition by the philosopher Kant.
But modern philosophers such as de Carte and Kant developed philosophies that replaced God with the State as the omnipresent, all-knowing, all-powerful arbiter of human affairs, morality and justice.
LikeLike
David said:
“Yes, atheism is a total rejection of Christian Western values..”
A total rejection? Total rejection? So, I can’t hold the belief that it’s best to do unto others as I would have them do unto me? I can’t hold some values that are similar to Christian values unless I buy into the whole belief system?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident…”
Ah, I see. By “hyper-civilization”, you are referring mostly political principles as opposed to the material culture. I thought that this post was more about technology, scientific knowledge, etc. I misunderstood where you were going with this.
“From the first paragraph, the Declaration bases these self-evident truths on, “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”
What are the Laws of Nature? Who is “Nature’s God.” Yahweh? Does it have to be the Christian God or could “Nature’s God” be some other Creator?
“The rejection of Natural Law and Nature’s God by atheists means that human rights are determined by those strong enough to impose their will upon others.”
Why? Why does the one follow from the other? Aren’t there plenty of largely secular nations in which the people enjoy a considerable number of rights?
If Christianity is the basis of our modern concepts of humans, it seems odd to me that took thousands of years for us to arrive at our current political views. It seems to me that the Bible supports the notion of the divine right of kings more than it supports the notion of human rights and representative democracy.
And did Jesus say that slaves have a right to liberty? I don’t remember seeing this in the Bible. So, where does the Bible say that I have right to liberty?
And what is the “pursuit of happiness” anyway?
“Thus the genocide of the unborn through abortion, gay marriage and Progressivism.”
Oh my God, not gay marriage! Not Progressivism! The horror, the horror!
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
David,
By hyper-civilization mean such things as poor people being able ride around in automotive chariots that are clearly a quantum leap ahead of anything available to the wealthiest royalty of yore.
And yes, it is possible for the atheist to hold precious those Christian values that he personally finds useful.
But the atheist can only pilfer values from the social environment since atheism all by itself, is a rejection of modernity and the values that make modernity possible.
Capitalism for example is THE economic system that took mankind from rags to infinite riches in barely 3 centuries.
Capitalism is the only economic system in human history that actually creates wealth where none existed before.
And you’d be surprised at the secret social ingredient that makes the creation of limitless wealth possible:
Cooperation.
The level of cooperation necessary for free market capitalism to flourish came from Christianity and no other religion or social medium.
And as you will probably attest, the atheist abhors the free market probably as much as he abhors Christianity.
Yet Christianity is the only religion that wove the Golden Rule into the consciousness of all people from top to bottom of the social strata.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David said:
Correction of a typo…
Change “If Christianity is the basis of our modern concepts of humans,” to “If Christianity is the basis of our modern concepts of human rights…”
LikeLike
David said:
“It is no coincidence that Christian Western Civilization is the only civilization in human history that progressed past the slave and beast of burden as engines of the economy.”
And how long did this take after the founding of Christianity? Thousands of years? Maybe Christianity isn’t the key after all.
“Atheism rejects the Western Heritage, therefore it rejects all the ideas that made our modern hyper-civilization possible.”
Who’s rejecting “Western Heritage?” Such broad generalizations!
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
David,
Again you express the atheist dogma everything just happening all by itself.
Christianity began it’s journey to global domination during and within the Roman Empire, the greatest, most technologically advanced civilization before Western Civilization.
China was great, Egypt was great, the Muslims came up with this or that, but the Romans systematized communication, language, civil engineering, road building, and the projection of military force like no other civilization.
The Romans kept and nurtured the stupendous Hellenization of Europe, North Africa, and the Near East.
During the Roman collapse (from 0 to 500 AD) Christianity went from a gutter religious cult to coin of the realm (Emperor Constantine).
And after the collapse of Roman culture and administration, the Catholic Church stepped in and became the most powerful institution in the Europe.
During those 1000 years, commonly called the Christian Middle Ages, the foundation for Western Civilization, modern science, modern economics and modern technology were laid down.
Before the Renaissance and without the Catholic Church, there really was no civilization at all, in Europe.
LikeLike
thetruthisstrangerthanfiction said:
Interestingly enough, I believe David makes several valid points here. Mainly he sums up the crux of the issue in these statements:
“So, I can’t hold the belief that it’s best to do unto others as I would have them do unto me? I can’t hold some values that are similar to Christian values unless I buy into the whole belief system?”
Because, indeed, if we are talking Christian “values”, then absolutely a person most definitely CAN hold certain individual values, and agree with particular quotations from Christ, picking and choosing which morsels of “wisdom” they would endorse, without believing in the “whole belief system”.
This is precisely why Jesus never preached a message of simply embracing His “values”, He preached that people must absolutely, unequivocally, embrace HIM. Not just as a wise dude, or “prophet”, or magician, but as who He really is, the Son of God, there at Creation, who died as the sacrifice for the sin of the world. Total faith. Not “values”.
“modern hyper-civilization” is a poor substitute for Eternal Life. A poor substitute put forth, (I would contend) not by God, but in fact by the Deceiver, whose tactic has always been to divert man’s attention away from the Eternal onto the here-and-now…
LikeLiked by 2 people
silenceofmind said:
THE,
Since you brought up scripture, I will offer a quote from John 1-3, and refer you back to the tale of Creation in the Book of Genesis.
1 At the beginning of time the Word already was; and God had the Word abiding with him, and the Word was God. 2 He abode, at the beginning of time, with God. 3 It was through him that all things came into being, and without him came nothing that has come to be.
Christian theology holds that Creation is comprehensible, that it is understood by understanding the rules or laws that govern its behavior and construction.
And as the Gospel of John says in its first three verses is that Jesus is Lord of the material world.
That means our understanding of creation comes from Jesus.
Consequently, since Western Civilization is the only Christian civilization in human history, it is no surprise that our science, technology and understanding of government, justice and human rights far surpasses those of any other civilization.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Truth, the issue that comes into play here with “values” is the idea of “cultural Christians,” non believers that at least believe in western society and the positive influence Christian values have had on civilization. Where does “do unto others” come from? Is that an Islamic value? A communist ideal? No, it is a Christian principle. Where does the freedom to be a non believer come from? From the Christian ideals that formed the Western world.
Faith is not dependent on one’s politics or values, but one’s life may well be. For all the problems you see in the Western world, it is still the one form of civilization that has granted people the most opportunity, the greatest safety, and the freedom to not believe.
One needn’t be a Christian to recognize that fact, but what gets a bit scary is when both Christians and non believers really do stop recognizing that fact, because if nobody wants to believe that Christian/Western values are superior to Islamic/fascist ones, we’re all sunk. What you do not value, you will not fight defend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
thetruthisstrangerthanfiction said:
Yes, I am quite familiar with the concept of “cultural Christians”, and even though I realize it has been repeated ad naseum in our modern “culturally-Christian” churches, it is nonetheless an idea which is not only nowhere to be found in the Bible itself, it actually runs totally counter to everything presented in the Bible….
Ultimately, instead of being any sort of truly meaningful attempt at trying to get non-believers to see and understand the beauty and wonder and riches of the gospel that saves, this arguing about “where do these values come from, Islam?” only confuses the issue entirely, and ultimately betrays the Euro-centric, imperialistic pseudo-Christians who first fabricated such notions in order to use the name of Christ to merely further their own political and financial aims…
“Christian values” are ultimately of no use without Christ Himself. This is huge piece of what the entire thrust of the Bible’s message is all about!
The whole argument based on “the West is still more free and full of opportunity than everywhere else” itself falls apart, when held up to the Word, because it actually has totally different definitions of the terms “freedom” and “opportunity”.
If you only believe the assault on “Christian values” comes from the likes of “Islamic/fascist” polarizations, then you are missing the far more subtle, and more effective, campaign that has been waged upon the Church in the West over the last few centuries. I would say that the Church that has had to endure true hardship and zero partnership with the State has historically come out looking far more like the unblemished Bride than we have here in America, with all of our comforts and “freedoms”….
LikeLiked by 2 people
thetruthisstrangerthanfiction said:
AHHHHH!! No sooner do I write my previous comment than I read your next one which makes me almost jump out of my chair!!
“During the Roman collapse (from 0 to 500 AD) Christianity went from a gutter religious cult to coin of the realm (Emperor Constantine).
“Gutter religious cult”?? WTF? (“What the fudge, chill out…) to “coin of the realm”? Oh… OH! You’ve got it so utterly, completely backwards!!
And after the collapse of Roman culture and administration, the Catholic Church stepped in and became the most powerful institution in the Europe.”
Most powerful institution in Europe. Agreed. Most powerful, bastardized, paganized, heretical, anti-Christ institution in Europe. Yep. Thx Rome….
(btw… your last comment there actually undercuts your entire argument based on “Western Heritage”, when you start praising Rome’s “systematized communication, language, civil engineering, road building, and the projection of military force”, etc., since that was happening before Christ….!!!) How do you point to a civilization and culture that is first utterly pagan and demonically inflamed as the starting point of your “Western Heritage” position…?
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
THE,
Yes, Christianity started out as a gutter religion.
The ignominious death of Jesus is proof of that.
He was the meat, cheese and sauce placed between two slices of criminal bread in the Roman slaughter sandwich called crucifixion.
Christians were hunted down and killed by both the Jewish and Roman authorities.
And regardless of how you characterize Emperor Constantine, he saw the immensely effective stabilizing influence of Christianity, and made it the state religion, or as I expressed it earlier, coin of the realm.
LikeLiked by 2 people
thetruthisstrangerthanfiction said:
Yes, the “stabilizing influence” of adopting Christianity as the State religion, for his own political expediency….
To bad Jesus Himself didn’t claim to have come in order to be a “stabilizing influence”, but instead, a rather “destabilizing” one! Not because they were committing crimes or preaching anarchy, but because the Gospel they declared was “a stumbling block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles”….
It saddens me more than I can even say to hear someone pointing to all the various apexes of Christianity’s whoring itself to the World as somehow being it’s most glorious accomplishments….
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
THE,
It doesn’t make any difference how you personally categorize the actions Emperor Constantine. That’s just your personal bias forming your opinion, not the facts.
The fact is, within 500 years after the death of Christ, Christianity was the coin of the realm.
And no matter what your personal feelings are about the Catholic Church, the fact is, the Church stabilized Medieval society and guided it so that the foundation of Western Civilization could be laid down brick by bloody brick over the 1500 years leading up to the Renaissance and the Reformation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David said:
“Again you express the atheist dogma everything just happening all by itself.”
Did I say anything remotely like our “hyper-civilization” just happened all by itself? More sweeping generalizations and misinterpretations which seem to gush from your personal biases (and yes, I admit to my biases, too).
I’m just saying that maybe there’s a lot more to the story than Christianity as your very own oversimplified recitation of a couple of thousands of years of history seems to demonstrate.
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
David,
Of course there is a lot more to the history of Western Civilization than Christianity.
But without Christianity there is no Western Civilization.
For example, if Charles Martel hadn’t defeated the Jihad at the Battle of Tours in 732AD, there would be no Western Civilization and no modern world.
LikeLike
David said:
“Where does “do unto others” come from?”
Seriously? Are you really and truly unaware of the many versions of the golden rule that have existed in many cultures for thousands of years, including cultures with little or no contact with the Christian West? This is hardly shocking, because reciprocity is the bases for most human interactions. Try googling the following…golden rule cultures. It’s easy. Try doing something that reduces the ignorance instead of embracing it.
“For all the problems you see in the Western world, it is still the one form of civilization that has granted people the most opportunity, the greatest safety, and the freedom to not believe.”
Hey, Western Civ is great, but it’s taken us a very long time to get to where we’re at. For example, this freedom to not believe thing is kinda new in Christian nations. I’m guessing that there’s a lot more to the explanation of how we got to where we’re at than just Christianity.
“One needn’t be a Christian to recognize that fact, but what gets a bit scary is when both Christians and non believers really do stop recognizing that fact, because if nobody wants to believe that Christian/Western values are superior to Islamic/fascist ones, we’re all sunk.”
Relax. Take a deep breath. You think that atheists are big fans of Islam? You really think that the West is going to trade in Christianity for Islam?
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“Try doing something that reduces the ignorance instead of embracing it.”
How about instead you stop assuming I’m ignorant and uninformed at every possible turn?
“You really think that the West is going to trade in Christianity for Islam?”
Yes. That is precisely what is happening as we speak. The only question at this point is whether or not the population decides to go along with it.
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
David,
That the Golden Rule is self-evident, that is, knowable through reason doesn’t speak to the fact that Christian Western Civilization is the only civilization that made it happen from the top to the bottom of society.
Traditional Christian values hold members of the Ruling Class to the same standards as everyone else.
The atheist on the other hand, makes one excuse after the other for organized crime bosses like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
Atheists support proven hoaxes like ObamaCare, gay marriage and global warming and make no bones about their will and intention to silence any opposition to these social catastrophes.
LikeLike
David said:
“By hyper-civilization mean such things as poor people being able ride around in automotive chariots that are clearly a quantum leap ahead of anything available to the wealthiest royalty of yore.”
Yes, it is a quantum leap, and this is due to Christianity?
“But the atheist can only pilfer values from the social environment since atheism all by itself, is a rejection of modernity and the values that make modernity possible.”
Huh? What? Rejection of modernity? What on earth are you talking about? More unsubstantiated generalizations.
“Capitalism for example is THE economic system that took mankind from rags to infinite riches in barely 3 centuries. Capitalism is the only economic system in human history that actually creates wealth where none existed before.”
I agree that capitalism played a major role in the “rags to riches” story, but I didn’t know that Jesus was a great promoter of capitalism. Jesus said “store up riches on Earth?” Jesus said to go out and make as much money as you can? Jesus said that what matters are earthly treasures?
And notice that your “three centuries” occurred thousands of years after Christianity became the dominant religion in the West. If Christianity is responsible for rags to riches, what took it so long?
“The level of cooperation necessary for free market capitalism to flourish came from Christianity and no other religion or social medium.”
Cooperation exists in all cultures. Countless cultures have invented cooperative systems, because reciprocity works.
Besides, I don’t see all that much “cooperation” in truly free markets. John D. Rockefeller? Not a very cooperative fellow.
“And as you will probably attest, the atheist abhors the free market probably as much as he abhors Christianity.”
Again, with the sweeping generalizations, and totally wrong. Many atheists love the free market. That’s blindingly obvious. You can’t swing a dead cat without hitting an atheist at a libertarian rally.
“Yet Christianity is the only religion that wove the Golden Rule into the consciousness of all people from top to bottom of the social strata.”
I don’t believe that this is accurate. Besides, it wasn’t the “bottom of the social strata” that drove the changes that gave us “hyper-civilization.”
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
David,
Yes, modern science is the result of the Christian worldview.
That’s why no other civilization in human history ever developed past the slave and beast of burden.
Not one!
That modernity appeared only in the Christian West is undeniable, except by atheists of course, because they believe that everything just happens all by itself.
LikeLike
David said:
“How about instead you stop assuming I’m ignorant and uninformed at every possible turn?”
How about you stop demonstrating your lack of understanding and lack of knowledge of other cultures?
“Yes. That is precisely what is happening as we speak.”
The West is going to choose to trade in Christianity for Islam? Utter nonsense.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“How about you stop demonstrating your lack of understanding and lack of knowledge of other cultures?”
How about you quit making assumptions about things you know nothing of?
“Utter nonsense.”
Let’s hope you’re right, because the trade you speak of won’t be a peaceful one.
LikeLike
David said:
“Ah, nevermind….. I’m clearly barking into the wind here.”
Truth? I fear that you are right.
We obviously disagree on many things, but I appreciate your point of view with respect to the West as a “trophy” for Christianity.
LikeLike
David said:
“How about you quit making assumptions about things you know nothing of?”
You said…”Where does “do unto others” come from? Is that an Islamic value? A communist ideal? No, it is a Christian principle.”
This suggests a lack of knowledge of other cultures. I did not assume a lack of knowledge, I saw a lack of knowledge. “Do unto others” has many origins in many cultures. You seemed unaware of this. If you were aware of this, then I apologize.
LikeLike
David said:
“The Western world is the only place on Earth where people have the freedom to not believe!”
Wouldn’t you expect that a Buddhist nation would give people the freedom to not believe?
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“Wouldn’t you expect that a Buddhist nation would give people the freedom to not believe?”
What I would expect is completely irrelevant as to what actually IS.
The problem with countries having a great deal of Buddhists within is that they are often run by communists who tend to favor neither freedom of religion or human rights.
LikeLike
David said:
“Of course there is a lot more to the history of Western Civilization than Christianity.”
Thank you.
“But without Christianity there is no Western Civilization.”
Well, you don’t get the exact same civilization as we have today, but if other key factors are in place (capitalism, etc.), then you might well get something similar to what we have today. Truth is, no one knows. You can’t really predict what we would have gotten by way of civilization, and you can’t go back and run the experiment, so all anyone can do is speculate about what might have been. Might have turned out for the better, might have turned out for the worse.
“For example, if Charles Martel hadn’t defeated the Jihad at the Battle of Tours in 732AD, there would be no Western Civilization and no modern world.”
There is simply no way to know if this is accurate or not. There is no control experiment here.
The Golden Rule is self-evident.”
Good, we agree.
“Traditional Christian values hold members of the Ruling Class to the same standards as everyone else.”
Not much evidence of this when you look at Western history.
Did Christianity really make the golden rule happen from top to bottom? I would say that throughout most of Christian history, the tops had very little interest in doing unto the bottom as they would have other do unto them. Most of the history of the West Civ is a history of those on top squashing those on the bottom. For most of Western history, the ruling classes simply wasn’t held to the standard of the golden rule, so there goes your claim that Christian Western Civilization is the only civilization that made it happen from the top to the bottom of society. It wasn’t until the ruled forced the rulers to behave differently that we see the ruling class held to the same standard. So, I don’t think that your statement is very historically accurate.
“Yes, modern science is the result of the Christian worldview.”
Unsubstantiated assertion. You simply don’t know what would have happened in the absence of Christianity if other key factors were still in play; as you noted, there is a lot more to the history of Western Civilization than Christianity (capitalism, etc.). Could be that modern science would have emerged even earlier in the absence of authoritarian Christian governments. There’s just no way to know.
“That’s why no other civilization in human history ever developed past the slave and beast of burden. Not one! That modernity appeared only in the Christian West is undeniable…”
Well, I’m not sure what you mean by “modernity,” but I assume that you’ve heard of correlation without causation? Again, look at the fact that these things take thousands of years post-Jesus to develop. Maybe Christianity actually delayed the development beyond the slave and the beast (my Southern Baptist ancestors thought the Bible strongly SUPPORTED slavery). So, we could be looking at an example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy here.
“They believe that everything just happens all by itself.”
Not correct. Ok, I see that you’re just going to repeat inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims, so there’s little point in continuing this.
“The atheist on the other hand, makes one excuse after the other for organized crime bosses like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Atheists support proven hoaxes like ObamaCare, gay marriage and global warming and make no bones about their will and intention to silence any opposition to these social catastrophes.”
Ok, now I understand. Now, I get it. Now I see why I don’t get answers to my questions or I get little beyond sweeping, unsubstantiated and inaccurate pronouncements. Turns out you’re barking mad.
Talk about unsubstantiated accusations! Yikes! You’re one scary dude.
LikeLike
David said:
“The problem with countries having a great deal of Buddhists within is that they are often run by communists who tend to favor neither freedom of religion or human rights.”
Are these countries run by Buddhists or not? If not, then you response does not really address my question.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Your question is irrelevant because there are no such countries.
Christ provides an example of behavior to follow, a book of scriptures to teach us, and faith in Him played an integral part in manifesting, actualizing, the religious freedom and respect for human rights we now have in the Western world.
LikeLike
David said:
“Your question is irrelevant because there are no such countries.”
Is one free to not believe in Bhutan? What is the dominant religion in Bhutan?
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Bhutan banned TV and internet until 1999. Less than 25 years ago, about one fifth of the population became refugees due to religious and ethic persecution.
LikeLike
David said:
“Christ provides an example of behavior to follow, a book of scriptures to teach us, and faith in Him played an integral part in manifesting, actualizing, the religious freedom and respect for human rights we now have in the Western world.”
I’m sure that you are aware that “religious freedom” is a relatively new feature of life in the Western world. The history of Christianity nations is largely a history of religious intolerance, including intolerance of different Christian denominations. The human rights and religious freedoms that we enjoy are a relatively late invention. So, I’m not sure that Christ is really providing the example that you claim that he is.
LikeLike
David said:
“Bhutan banned TV and internet until 1999. Less than 25 years ago, about one fifth of the population became refugees due to religious and ethic persecution.”
Today, in Bhutan, a predominantly Buddhist nation, is one free to not believe?
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“Today, in Bhutan, a predominantly Buddhist nation, is one free to not believe?”
I don’t know David. Since they expelled one fifth of their population for not conforming to ethnic and religious requirements and recently arrested some more Christian pastors, I’m going with no. There’s also that pesky bit about state mandated cultural heritage.
If you want to play games, I guess you could claim that since Buddhists don’t believe in God and since Buddhism is pretty much mandatory, one is not just free to not believe, one is mandated to do so.
LikeLike
David said:
“I don’t know David. Since they expelled one fifth of their population for not conforming to ethnic and religious requirements and recently arrested some more Christian pastors, I’m going with no. There’s also that pesky bit about state mandated cultural heritage.”
Let me remind you of your original statement. You said, “The Western world is the only place on Earth where people have the freedom to not believe!” Are you changing your original position?
In Bhutan today, you are free to not believe. This is clear. If you “go with no,” then you are incorrect. Bhutan is not in the Western world, and you are free to not believe. This is a fact.
Citing past conflicts does not change the fact that, today, in Bhutan, you are free to not believe. As I’ve noted, the history of Christianity is filled with religious conflict, but that doesn’t stop you from pointing out that, today, in the West, one is free to not believe. Same holds for Bhutan. (In any event, the expulsion that you refer to was primarily an ethnic expulsion that resulted from political conflicts, not religious ones.)
In addition, in Bhutan, you are also not mandated to not believe. What you can’t do is proselytize, and I’m pretty sure that this is why the pastors were arrested. What they were not denied was the right to not believe, and remember, your original claim was that the right to not believe is only found in the Western world. Do you wish to modify your original claim?
By the way, is Japan the “Western world?” South Korea?
LikeLike
thetruthisstrangerthanfiction said:
” Not necessarily ignorant per se, but ignorant in a primitive way and ignorant of the the realities of the world around them.”
Yes, these are the kinds of stones thrown at the stone agers, typically in an effort to ridicule all “superstitious” i.e. religious beliefs of all people, everywhere, in every age. How fair indeed.
Yes, the barbaric ancestors were indeed much more attuned to their physical environments than we. They planted and hunted their own food. How long could you live, even after having the benefit of years of access to books and google, if you had to feed yourself alone in the wildnerness…? (it’s not a personal jab, I probably wouldn’t do so hot myself…)
But I would also say that a lot of their “awareness” did indeed involve beliefs in a lot of the “odder” stuff. Then again, the Bronze-Age-mockers tend to forget that many of the ancients were doing things like chugging bowls of ayahuasca or ingesting ergot in order to enable themselves to explore some rather unfamiliar dimensional landscapes…
Most of those avenues are still around and in use today, by those trying to “leverage their knowledge”, and experience, in a more “unconventional” sort of way.
(I wonder how snickering towards “primitive superstition” someone like Dawkins would be after spending the night puking his own guts out and being serenaded by the snaky-insectoid spirit-creatures of the rain forest…..)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Doobster418 said:
“How long could you live, even after having the benefit of years of access to books and google, if you had to feed yourself alone in the wildnerness…?” Probably not long, but that’s because I’m a citizen of a society and culture that doesn’t require me to do so. It is not a necessity for my survival and well-being. If it was a requirement for survival, I would learn to survive in the wilderness or I would perish. Isn’t that the definition of evolution, of survival of the fittest, of natural selection?
LikeLike
thetruthisstrangerthanfiction said:
Indeed, we are citizens of a society and culture which is in fact making us markedly less “fit”, and reaping the glorious scientific benefits of poisonous chemicals in our food, water and air…
If natural selection is the true law of the jungle, then I suppose we are in many respects selecting our way right out of “nature” altogether…. 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
The V-Pub said:
These bronze aged barbarians were building the foundations of society in Sumer, and creating monolithic structures in Egypt that still mystify us in their construction. I wonder what these pseudo intellectuals will leave behind as their legacy.
LikeLiked by 3 people
insanitybytes22 said:
” I wonder what these pseudo intellectuals will leave behind as their legacy…”
LOL, hopefully not a one way ticket back to the lifestyle of our Bronze age ancestors?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The V-Pub said:
No kidding! 🙂
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
hi ib
Good topic
When I read Higharkas ending observation, about our ‘shallow imitation’ (I think was a phrase he used) I smiled, this is so true. The testing of metals having lesser means, incriminates us as to how we borrow on the labors of others without even thinking, and by debasing men of the past, we pretty much say how stupid we are. Not a good idea.
People act as if ‘bronze’ was bad, meanwhile they did more with less. I would suggest too that the world has yet to see the quality of the craftsmen who built the temple of Solomon. The descriptions given regarding the stones and their being transported, the tools, the detail, the hammering, the lack of noise when demanded, the cedar and the fir, the inlays, the mitres, perfection of the joints; Bob Vila would be jealous.
And oh, then are the bronze writers of scripture 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
thetruthisstrangerthanfiction said:
“There is nothing worse than sitting around a roaring fire awaiting the roasting of meat, only to have your peace disrupted by a clanging gong hellbent on mentally pleasuring himself…..with more of himself. Just poke him with a spear and be done with it. For the collective good of all, of course.”
Oh!! uproarious lol…. Still can’t wipe the smile off my face after reading this entire thing. Pure gold. (Or rather, pure purple bronze…) 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wally Fry said:
Very nice!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
IB, I like the idea of reverse evolution. That fits with Scripture’s view of a world suffering the effects of sin, of moving from a garden to a place man could only cultivate by the sweat of his brow. It also seems reasonable that, knowledge beginning with the fear of the Lord, those who talked and walked with God knew a lot more than we do today, especially those who don’t even recognize God’s existence. Yep, I think man’s capacity is moving backwards, though our tools give us the potential to know a lot. In some ways the tools themselves have become a detriment since we now think we don’t need God. We once understood we clearly did.
Becky
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Good point Becky. It’s really no accident that people tend to have great spiritual revelations in the midst of trauma and despair, because when you loose your insulation, your tools so to speak, there is God, right where He’s always been.
It’s really an interesting discussion, are we going forwards or backwards? I tend to read scripture and look about the world today and conclude that we are moving farther and farther away from paradise.
LikeLiked by 2 people
David said:
“It’s really an interesting discussion, are we going forwards or backwards?”
Have you ever walked through a 19th century graveyard?
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“Have you ever walked through a 19th century graveyard?”
How many were slaughtered in WW2?
LikeLike
David said:
“How many were slaughtered in WW2?”
I guess you missed my point. My point was about the value of accumulated knowledge. If we’re going backwards, why are we living longer?
Actually, there is good evidence that even with WW 2, your chances of dying a violent death at the hands of another human were actually lower in the 1900s then in any previous century. You should check out Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature.
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
That’s the way I see it too, IB.
LikeLiked by 1 person
madblog said:
The presumption that earlier peoples were necessarily more “ignorant”, by which is meant stupider, is fully on parade here in the comments without any reflection at all. Modern people may have vast knowledge at their fingertips on their little devices, but are they better able to make productive use of this knowledge? Plunk one of us down in the Bronze age environment and see if one of us can survive with only our innate sophistication to help us. Being able to quote pop science, Parks and Rec, or the latest youtube fad video isn’t going to be much help.
Can the average person recite the Iliad from memory with little variation, as our primitive ancestors routinely could? Most of us don’t need to exercise our brains much today; perhaps Bronze Agers had to.
I wouldn’t be too comfortable stacking up the average modern’s abilities against a Bronze Ager. You have lost the context to appreciate just how much ancient peoples accomplished.
LikeLiked by 3 people
David said:
“The presumption that earlier peoples were necessarily more “ignorant”, by which is meant stupider…”
I assume that you know the definitions of the words “stupid” and “ignorant?” Yes? These are not synonyms. If you read the comments, I think you will see that no one is called Bronze Agers stupid.
“I wouldn’t be too comfortable stacking up the average modern’s abilities against a Bronze Ager. You have lost the context to appreciate just how much ancient peoples accomplished.”
So, you’d like to go back and try to live your life with a Bronze Age-level of knowledge? Want to trade places?
LikeLike
madblog said:
No I don’t; that’s the point. I think life was a lot more difficult at almost any time before our own, and I don’t think most of us would fare well in another time, or even in this time without our exterior aids. Innate humanity has not become more able, more intelligent, or even more sophisticated. Indeed we may lose in a contest with our ancestors. And the idea that we are less superstitious is laughable.
Carl Sagan looked to a presence from beyond our planet which was wiser, vastly more intelligent, practically all-knowing, etc. In other words, he put his hope in a god with similar attributes of the True God, without being the True God…except that god was aliens.
LikeLiked by 6 people
David said:
“No I don’t; that’s the point. I think life was a lot more difficult at almost any time before our own.”
And why is that so?
“I don’t think most of us would fare well in another time, or even in this time without our exterior aids.”
Ok, but I’m giving you all this great Bronze Age knowledge. I’m giving you everything that a Bronze Ager would have. But I assume that you still wouldn’t trade.
“Innate humanity has not become more able, more intelligent, or even more sophisticated.”
Again, no one is saying that Bronze Agers are dumber.
“Indeed we may lose in a contest with our ancestors. ”
Well, I suppose it would depend on the contest.
“And the idea that we are less superstitious is laughable.”
I suppose this might depend on how one defines superstitious. I think you need to be more specific here. Why or how do you draw this conclusion?
LikeLike
thetruthisstrangerthanfiction said:
“I suppose this might depend on how one defines superstitious. I think you need to be more specific here. Why or how do you draw this conclusion?”
I would venture to say that it already seems fairly apparent what you mean by “superstitious”, David. See my other comment responding to you above….
LikeLiked by 1 person
madblog said:
Life would be more difficult because, yes, we have raised the standard of living and made ourselves more comfortable, at least in the first world. But there are two things to note about that. First, that we arrived here sitting on the shoulders of many who worked and figured before us; we are not living our comfy lifestyles by the sweat of our own brows. It was bequeathed to us in large part by those Bronze Agers. Second, we glean no superior ability or wisdom by having easy access to all that hard-won development. We as individuals didn’t earn it or learn much from it which intrinsically makes us in any way superior to our ancient ancestors. Those advances may ironically make us more vulnerable than they were because we’re apt to become soft and dependent.
‘“Innate humanity has not become more able, more intelligent, or even more sophisticated.”
Again, no one is saying that Bronze Agers are dumber.”
As you can see, I didn’t say dumber. Able. Sophisticated. And dumber is what you guys mean about ancient people anyway.
My point is that the old saw about ancients being more superstitious, more limited in their thinking is really just self-assuring supposition based on not thinking too much about it. Do some reading about the accomplishments of past people and you come away with a very different assessment. For all the knowledge we’ve gained which they didn’t have, we’ve lost a lot of knowledge that they DID have.
LikeLike
David said:
“Life would be more difficult because, yes, we have raised the standard of living and made ourselves more comfortable, at least in the first world.”
Right, and that is largely due to the accumulation of knowledge. So, accumulated knowledge matters
.
“But there are two things to note about that. First, that we arrived here sitting on the shoulders of many who worked and figured before us; we are not living our comfy lifestyles by the sweat of our own brows.”
Yes, of course, exactly. This has been my point all along. Accumulated knowledge matters.
“It was bequeathed to us in large part by those Bronze Agers.”
In large part? Not really. The list of discoveries, new technologies and innovations that post-date the Bronze Age is an extremely long one.
“Second, we glean no superior ability or wisdom by having easy access to all that hard-won development. We as individuals didn’t earn it or learn much from it which intrinsically makes us in any way superior to our ancient ancestors.”
What we’ve gained is a much, much greater understanding of the natural world and how the natural world works Here’s where accumulated knowledge really makes a difference, because this has led to naturalistic explanations for phenomena that were once thought to be caused by supernatural forces. That is, it has reduced the degree to which explanations are based on superstitions. This is NOT, NOT, NOT a trivial thing. Consider the impact of this on medicine alone.
“As you can see, I didn’t say dumber. Able. Sophisticated. “
Well, these are rather vague terms. What does it mean to be more or less sophisticated? We need specifics here.
“And dumber is what you guys mean about ancient people anyway.”
Wrong. Dead wrong. No one has said this, in fact, I’ve gone out of my way to stress the point that I don’t think that Bronze Agers were dumber. Don’t put words in my mouth.
“My point is that the old saw about ancients being more superstitious, more limited in their thinking is really just self-assuring supposition based on not thinking too much about it.”
Really? Care to provide some evidence to back this up? I’ve provided specific examples to support my position.
“Do some reading about the accomplishments of past people and you come away with a very different assessment.”
Sigh. People continue to misunderstand me. Do you disagree with the statement that the amount of accumulated knowledge that was available to the Bronze Agers was a tiny fraction of what is available to us today?
“For all the knowledge we’ve gained which they didn’t have, we’ve lost a lot of knowledge that they DID have.”
Examples? What do you think that they knew that we don’t?
LikeLike
David said:
“I would venture to say that it already seems fairly apparent what you mean by “superstitious”, David. See my other comment responding to you above….”
I’ve responded above.
LikeLike
madblog said:
David, it does seem as though you and the other contrarians on the thread only object to one brand of “superstition”. But alas, if we are honest, modern man does not come out ahead the ancients. Are we, across the board, really less superstitious than ancient people?
The need to attribute supernatural status does not develop out of us as we “evolve.” We only substitute a more palatable object for our god. Hence Carl Sagan. His “god” had the same attributes as God. But he required that his god be other than THAT god.
We all hold in our souls a place for an unimpeachable, all-friendly savior. There is no one who truly has no concept for this ultimate being in his mind or heart. The only variable is whether we are honest in giving the only and true Placeholder his place, or give His place to a lesser substitute.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David said:
“David, it does seem as though you and the other contrarians on the thread only object to one brand of “superstition”. But alas, if we are honest, modern man does not come out ahead the ancients. Are we, across the board, really less superstitious than ancient people?”
To support your argument that “modern man does not come out ahead of the ancients,” you will need to define the term “superstition” and provide evidence to support your case. Otherwise, this is just an unsupported opinion. I’ve tried to explain what I mean by “superstition” and I’ve provided examples to support my position.
“The need to attribute supernatural status does not develop out of us as we “evolve.” We only substitute a more palatable object for our god. Hence Carl Sagan. His “god” had the same attributes as God. But he required that his god be other than THAT god.
Is Carl Sagan’s “god” the same as Yahweh? I assume that this is what you mean by THAT god.
I don’t think that you understand either Carl Sagan or science. I would recommend that you read his book, The Demon Haunted World” as a way to understand him better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: I’m Going to Grow Up to Be Just Like IB | Flower of the Woods
Andrew said:
https://biblebased.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/dear-atheists-actually-its-not-a-bronze-age-book/
Men of Reason: bold, progressive
hammer wielders, depth resounders –
shout from the helm your Godless missive
as our Bible-lifeboat flounders.
Send that Flying Spaghetti Monster
(our imaginary friend)
to the myth-conception dumpster:
let the Bronze Age folktales end…
[stanzas from my lyric celebration of Freethinking Godlessness, to be published in April for Ntl. Poetry Month]
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kentucky Angel said:
Goodness, I’ve forgotten what I was going to say. I do know I couldn’t make it in the Bronze Age, and I don’t have half of the electronic toys people have these days. A cell phone, computer and eReader do me well, and I still know how to go to the library and check out real books, something that is quickly becoming obsolete these days. God help us all if the power goes out around the world and we have to read real books, cook real meals with gas stoves, and raise our own food in gardens. I can do that, but how many other people know where those veggies come from? Naturally, I would become vegetarian, because I don’t know how to butcher a cow or pig.
LikeLiked by 1 person
quixotic faith said:
I have nothing intelligent to add, but I am enjoying reading this discussion. Despite how ignorant/foolish/unwise etc. commenters might think each other here the discussion is actually quite intelligent and mostly respectful. This morning I was reading YouTube comments (WHY?) and this conversation is such a pleasure by contrast. I mean that sincerely. 😊
LikeLiked by 4 people
Pingback: Are We Smarter Than Our Biblical Forebears? - Wise Blood
Citizen Tom said:
Great post!
There is not much point in either romanticizing the people of the past or putting them down. Since we can look around the world in find people living in similar conditions today, we can sort of guess what people were like a couple of thousand years ago.
Because we have a relatively assured supply of food, clothing and shelter, we can spend more effort educating our minds. Some of us do that and some don’t. Most people spend a huge amount of time watching a boob tube.
Some people in past spent their days doing dull, monotonous work. I doubt plowing fields with a stick much improves the mind. Others lead more challenging lives hunting, fishing or in various crafts.
What we have today is more knowledge. What we don’t have is more wisdom. That’s why things remain the same.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Andrew said:
We underestimate the wisdom and knowledge possessed by early humanity.
Bronze Age explorers of the Minoan seafarer culture sailed across the Atlantic and up the Mississippi to mine and smelt copper ore next to the Great Lakes and brought the copper back to the Mediterranean:
http://www.gavinmenzies.net/lost-empire-atlantis/about-atlantis/
Menzies’ book is a great read if you are interested in Atlantis and/or Bronze Age history:
https://connecthook.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/beneath-the-waves-without-a-trace/
LikeLiked by 2 people
David said:
“Bronze Age explorers of the Minoan seafarer culture sailed across the Atlantic and up the Mississippi to mine and smelt copper ore next to the Great Lakes and brought the copper back to the Mediterranean”
I think that this is highly unlikely. However, regardless, I’m afraid that you’ve totally missed my point about accumulated knowledge.
I never said that that the Bronze Age residences of the ancient near east were totally ignorant and completely unaware of their surroundings. Of course, they had some knowledge of the world around them. I never said otherwise.
What I said that that the amount of accumulated knowledge that was available to the Bronze Agers was a tiny fraction of what is available to us today. RELATIVELY SPEAKING, what they knew then was a tiny fraction of what we, collectively, know today.
Understand?
LikeLike
madblog said:
David: To clarify, and I apologize for not being as clear as I might. I was saying that Sagan is a good example of a person who longs for a god to be very much as the God of the Bible but cannot countenance that the wished-for god BE that Biblical God. We all want a god who is trustworthy, powerful, on our side, preferably omnipotent, omniscient, merciful and forgiving…in short, all the things God is. But we don’t want to join those icky people we’ve heard about who are “religious”. So we invent our own pocket-sized version. The only difference is that our God does not hold us accountable for our actions or attitudes; he winks at our shortcomings and does as we want. But the true God is a Person who is who He is, the I AM, and we prefer our own easier-to-manage one.
Sagan, at least at one point, espoused a belief and a hope in alien beings who would basically be saviors to mankind. If you examine the attributes which he assigned them , it’s basically a list of the attributes of the God of the Bible…Perhaps he amended this later. I am not as well informed about Sagan as you seem to be.
LikeLike
David said:
“I was saying that Sagan is a good example of a person who longs for a god to be very much as the God of the Bible but cannot countenance that the wished-for god BE that Biblical God. We all want a god who is trustworthy, powerful, on our side, preferably omnipotent, omniscient, merciful and forgiving…in short, all the things God is.”
Thanks for the clarification, this is very helpful, and I think I see what your getting at here. I’m not sure that Sagan wanted a god that was specifically like Yahweh, because that OT god had some anger management issues. However, I would agree that we’d all (including Sagan) like for there to be a being who has some of the traits of the God of the Bible, especially traits such as omnipotence and mercy. We’d probably disagree about the details of what we want, but broadly speaking, I don’t disagree with you here.
Yes, it would be very nice to think that some great and powerful entity is running the show, but is this really the way that it is? The very fact that this is something that we might very much want would seem to make it likely that we might create such an entity in our minds, whether that entity actually existed or not. Historically, humans have “invented” many, many such entities, some pocket-sized, some bigger than that, some After all, we’re an inventive lot. When we have a problem and we want to solve a problem, we invent a solution. This is part of why I’m leery about claims about such entities.
“Sagan, at least at one point, espoused a belief and a hope in alien beings who would basically be saviors to mankind.”
He may well have done so, but I don’t think that he claimed that such aliens actually existed. Sagan may have wanted such aliens to exist, but he was also clear that he had zero evidence that they did exist. He didn’t claim that such alien “gods” were real. So, this isn’t quite the same as your claims about the God of the Bible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
madblog said:
I did mean that Sagan hoped for such beings, and allowed that they may be out there, not that he insisted that they existed.
Thank you for understanding me and for actual discussion–it can be so rare on these forums!
You lead me to the point I would always hope to make. The God of the Bible is much misunderstood until we honestly read for ourselves and gain some context. If you compare carefully, it becomes clear that He is much, much different than any other gods of our invention.
In fact, human beings would never invent the God of the Bible; He holds us to an absolute standard of holiness, he holds us absolutely responsible for our actions and even for our thoughts and intentions, while we prefer gods who let our “mistakes” slide. At the same time, He knows that we are incapable to meet His standard (the standard-holy-is who He is yet He wants to be in intimate relationship with us who are un-holy) and so provides the remedy and propitiation himself. He is the judge but he is also the one who stands in our place to receive the penalty. It is not a “religion” of legal checks and tallies but of relationship where the value is on mercy, my-life-for-yours, justice and mercy simultaneously achieved, relationship so intimate it is illustrated as a vine with its branches. God literally is love.
We moderns invent gods who are smaller, less powerful, who hold us accountable to small degree. They flatter us as they reflect what nice people we are. More primitive people invent gods in every tree and stone who are fearful, petty, vengeful. These people live in fearful appeasement.
LikeLike
madblog said:
The point is that the gods we invent appease something in us but never achieve what we need but don’t want. We don’t want a god who actually holds us accountable and would never invent him. The True God provides what we really need.
LikeLike
David said:
“In fact, human beings would never invent the God of the Bible; He holds us to an absolute standard of holiness, he holds us absolutely responsible for our actions and even for our thoughts and intentions, while we prefer gods who let our “mistakes” slide. “
As you’ve noted, many cultures have invented gods who were vengeful. When and why were these gods vengeful? Well, they were vengeful when the humans failed to live up to some standard, that is, these gods were holding the humans responsible for their actions. These gods did not let mistakes slide. So, with respect to this specific trait (not trying to go beyond this trait), I think that other cultures have invented similar gods or gods who actually hold us accountable.
“God literally is love.”
And what could be more appealing than that? This is certainly the kind of god I would invent. I’m not joking at all here. As I side note, I find that the love trait is somewhat in conflict with the eternal torturer trait, but I probably shouldn’t digress.
To return to the point, one of the great appeals of Christianity is its offer of eternal bliss via a god of love. It’s not that difficult to see how this might be something that human beings would invent. I can’t say for certain that this is what happened, I’m just saying that it’s not hard to see how this could happen.
“We moderns invent gods who are smaller, less powerful, who hold us accountable to small degree. “
I wonder if this is due, in part, to our increased ability to offer natural explanations for a variety of phenomena once attributed to supernatural causes. In other words, maybe the modern gods are smaller, because there’s simply less for gods to do these days.
LikeLike
madblog said:
David:
You have a way of going to the crux of the issue.
But you see, man’s need has not changed one iota since the beginning of the world. There is much for God to do. Our need is absolute and we are absolutely helpless.
Other gods expect us to work to achieve some sort of reward. Christianity is clear in that we can never work our way to salvation. The Bible says that even our most noble efforts are poisoned with self-interest. There is no one good, not one…all our righteousness is as filthy rags. It says we cannot do one good thing, that deep inside, we are desperately wicked all the time. Still think we invented this one?
This is not a God who can be appeased. We cannot bridge the gap between our sin and his holiness. The old Temple system of animal sacrifice was atonement, not forgiveness; it was symbolic; the Law was illustrative of the fact that we can never be good enough on our own. The remedy is nothing less than acknowledgement of our humble need for His saving grace (unmerited gift), and willingness to enter into a relationship with the Living God.
Other gods go one of two ways: you appease me or I kill you; or you’re acceptable no matter what. The gods of primitives are capricious, unjust, petty. They are untrustworthy. So they are feared, and the worshipper can never know if and when he is on good terms. The gods we moderns invent are cool and understanding with our faults. They are flattering self-reflections, and in such case our worship is pretty worthless.
Yes, we want a God of love but we want to define that love. What we mean by love is unconditional approval for me, not so uncritical for others. We hold others accountable for their offenses but make excuses for ourselves. We want approval but not accountability; we want no bowing to any greater authority before ourselves.
And do we naturally choose to love others when the definition of that love is..” This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” Humility and putting others before ourselves, self-sacrifice is the standard. This God asks us to open ourselves to relationship, with Him and with one another, totally on His terms. There is no negotiation, no halfway measures, nothing we can offer. We can bring nothing to the table and He brings it all. We don’t like this! We want at least some control.
Less for God to do? Man’s need is the same as it has ever been. We need a redeemer, a savior, an absolutely just yet absolutely merciful God. Someone to stand in our place where we are rightly judged and found wanting, so like us that he can take our place; yet so holy blameless and righteous that His propitiation counts.
Sorry for the novel.
LikeLike
David said:
I shall be brief. I hesitated to reply as I’m often seen as being argumentative.
“Other gods expect us to work to achieve some sort of reward. Christianity is clear in that we can never work our way to salvation.”
Yes, it does. One works one’s way to salvation by confessing sins, asking for forgiveness, worshiping and loving Jesus as a god. In other words, there are specific actions which the human could and should take to gain salvation.
“The Bible says that even our most noble efforts are poisoned with self-interest. There is no one good, not one…all our righteousness is as filthy rags. It says we cannot do one good thing, that deep inside, we are desperately wicked all the time. Still think we invented this one?”
Actually, the Bible often speaks well of the righteous humans, and it contrasts the righteous and the wicked which doesn’t make sense if we’re all equally scum. We are repeated encouraged to do good works, which again doesn’t make sense if we’re all “filthy rags.” It’s true that “works alone” are not sufficient, but at least some in the Bible are said to be righteous, and certainly in the OT, God directly rewards righteous behavior.
Or sure, we all sin, but there a remedies for this. I’d have to ask a rabbi about this to be sure, but I think that Jews consider atonement via Jewish rituals to be something that includes forgiveness.
“This is not a God who can be appeased.”
Yes, this god can be appeased. See above (confess sins, etc.) and your own “remedy” (acknowledge our humble needs, etc.). And if you appease this god, you get eternal bliss; very appealing.
Of course, if one fails to do this, one is threatened with eternal torture. This always a good way to coerce compliance, and we see this type of coercion in many religious systems.
LikeLike
silenceofmind said:
David,
The life of a Christian should be a life of virtue, that is, the pursuit of excellence.
All the great cultures, Chinese, Roman, Greek, Muslim, Hindu teach virtue as central to the fulfillment of human nature.
But since only God can reveal God, and God by definition is infinite excellence, it is impossible for the human being on his own to know God or be totally virtuous.
The religious life, or following the Commandments, as Jesus put it, does not earn us salvation, but it puts us in the position to be saved.
It doesn’t make sense to live like a drunken, vice-ridden sot and then claim to be saved by God.
It is through virtue that the human being endeavors to purify his mind and flesh, but only God can take us all the way home.
LikeLiked by 1 person
madblog said:
David, please excuse another book. I’m being brief here and could give many more proofs.
Please give me the credit of knowing my own field. I am telling you as an “insider” to the Biblical faith; I’m giving you the normative understanding among active ( not nominal) believers of Christianity. This isn’t some splinter sect view. Ask anyone who is committed, has a stake in, your basic evangelical Biblically-based faith. Besides, I hope you’ll agree that we ought to go to the source of the faith if we have one, and we do. Will you agree that the Bible is the number one authority and source to the believer in Christ?
No one has satisfied God’s “good enough” list…For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)
The penalty for our sin is death….For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)
The penalty for our sin was paid by Jesus Christ!
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)
If we repent of our sin, then confess and trust Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, we will be saved from our sins….For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13)
…if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10)
Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Paul wrote that believers are to consider ourselves heirs of Abraham because we are “in” the church based completely on faith, and not on physical inheritance, religious membership, or on righteous works.
And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”
Coersion. Let me give you a hypothetical child. I don’t know you so I don’t know whether you may be a parent. Would you prefer that your child have a computer chip installed in his brain which programmed him to always love you? Or would you prefer that your child love you because you will starve or beat him if he doesn’t love you?
Or would you prefer that your child freely chooses to love you, because you both share in a relationship?
That’s risky because your child may love you imperfectly. He may be very self-centered; he may want you to leave him alone to do as he wishes. He may feign love but live his life dishonestly against your wishes behind your back. Or he may completely reject you, turn his back and disappear from your life. He may choose to hate you.
When we offer someone our love it’s a risk because the other person has free will. God created us with free will and he values that free will utterly; he has never and will never violate it. He allows us to send ourselves to hell rather than disrespect the free will he gave us. When we suffer from our own life mismanagement he invites, he strongly suggests, but he never forces us. It would destroy the value of our free choice to love and honor him.
God wants a real, loving intimate relationship with us, and he wants us to choose to be in that relationship. It would make us robots otherwise. But the result is that we usually turn away to follow our own ways even though they are destructive. We like to create a Straw God then to justify our self-will. But God is merciful in providing a way back to him in which He did ALL the work, took all the penalty, totally provided all the remedy. You see, if it depended on us to get righteous, or even to stay righteous for more than about two minutes, it would fail. We needed a perfect redeemer.
As for Old/New Testament “differences”, you may also give me credit that the Bible is actually internally consistent. You can always cherry-pick things which seem to conflict but upon examination and understanding of context, you always find that they do not. That would be another book.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David said:
I’m going to try to keep this very short, because, well, I don’t want to be too argumentative.
I think this started with the following statement. “human beings would never invent the God of the Bible.”
To state this as briefly as possible, yes, I understand that Bible says that we are all sinners, and that’s not very nice. However, it also promises a remedy that includes an all-loving god and eternal bliss. Now, that’s very, very appealing. So, on balance, I don’t think that it’s very difficult to conclude that, yes, humans could have invented this god. Like most religions, Christianity features a description of what is right and what is wrong, a punishment and reward system, solutions for inevitable human failures and an hypothesis for what happens after death.
What would be difficult to explain would be the wide spread acceptance of religion that said that all humans are “filthy rags” AND there is no remedy and all will be tortured for all eternity. Now, that would be tough to explain. Someone might invent it, but I don’t think it’s likely that it would be widely accepted.
“Or would you prefer that your child freely chooses to love you, because you both share in a relationship?”
If the consequence of making the wrong choice is eternal torture, then I would implant the chip. This is a very, very easy call. Only a sadist would create a child if there was even the tiniest, tiniest chance that he or she would ultimately have to torture that child for all eternity. Such a creation would be the antithesis of love.
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
Quite a charge you make here fella:
Do show where God said all humans are filthy rags,’ to quote you exactly:
‘What would be difficult to explain would be the wide spread acceptance of religion that said that all humans are “filthy rags’ You are attributing to God what YOU think He said.
Sloppy reading coupled with careless understanding leads to impossible thoughts about God. Before you answer, you may want to read the text in question, and perhaps take another look at the first 5 chapters of Romans for context.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David said:
You are correct. I misread this. Magblog’s post was kinda long.
It’s our righteousness that is is as filthy rags. Right? Better?
In any event, you missed the key phrase in the sentence to which you refer. The key phrase is…AND there is no remedy and all will be tortured for all eternity. Get it?
So, let me re-word.
What would be difficult to explain would be the wide spread acceptance of religion that said that our righteousness that is as “filthy rags” AND there is no remedy and all will be tortured for all eternity.
You see? I may have misread, but correcting the wording doesn’t really affect the point that is being made here. The point still stands.
“Sloppy reading coupled with careless understanding leads to impossible thoughts about God. ”
Oh, nonsense. I make mistakes. Everyone does. Doesn’t mean it leads to impossible thoughts about God.
LikeLike
David said:
One other note.
“Do show where God said all humans are filthy rags?”
Actually, madblog kinda strongly suggested this when she said that no one has satisfied God’s “good enough” list…For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And on and on about how the Bible tells us what awful failures each and every one of is. Doesn’t directly say we’re filthy rags, but it comes close.
This was a key point in her argument that humans wouldn’t invent the God of the Bible, so maybe you should ask her about this.
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
Uh sir YOU said Humans are filthy rags, citing scripture. Madblog did not. She uses the word of God correctly, in context. For God’s sake even the greatest prophet born or women was ‘not worthy,’ and that came from his own lips.
You have heard the word; God is Holy, man is not. It’s pretty simple. Have a nice day void of recalcitrance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David said:
“Uh sir YOU said Humans are filthy rags, citing scripture. Madblog did not.”
Oh, chill. I corrected my initial mistake in my last comment (if only others were willing to do the same with their mistakes). I’ve acknowledged that I misread what she wrote, and I’ve made it clear that madblog did not specifically and word-for-word say that humans are filthy rags. Ok? Clear enough, old boy?
What I said that she strongly suggested this (filthy rags) with her emphasis on how the Bible describes humans as awful, terrible sinners whose righteousness is as filthy rags. Again, this was a key part of her argument that humans wouldn’t invent the God of the Bible.
I’m not being “recalcitrant.” This time, it’s you who need to read the words more carefully.
LikeLike
madblog said:
That’s the difference between you or me, and God. We value human life so little we’d rather people were predictable machines than other self-directed risky objects of our love. We’d rather control than be vulnerable. Basically, we want to be little gods of our own universes where other people orbit us at the center.
We like to think of ourselves as too nice to want others to be punished for their own crimes. We don’t want to be those judgmental people. But here again, we value human life too little. What about their victims? We say to them, sorry, I know he murdered you but your life doesn’t matter enough for him to make any kind of recompense. That would make me a mean person, and that’s what I care about.
In short, we tend to set up our own “religion” where the first principle is “how do I see myself?” In which the only object is feeling good about what kind of person I am. And in doing so, we make ourselves judge over the True God. He must be found wanting for me to be kinder than He is.
“…Such a creation would be the antithesis of love.” Yes, we want to define what love is.
You’ve just demonstrated the Straw God principle I mentioned. Here I’ve given you lots of evidence to the contrary, but you insist that God is the Mean Judge just waiting to punish. Your eternal destiny, as well as your influence in the world, are too important to leave to a poorly-informed choice. I’m saying, and intending, this in the kindest way possible: your understanding of Biblical Christianity is at about a first-grade level. You ought to get a mature and full understanding of it before you make a decision to reject it.
I hope you don’t take offense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David said:
“What about their victims? We say to them, sorry, I know he murdered you but your life doesn’t matter enough for him to make any kind of recompense.”
You missed my point, and now you’re the one building the straw men.
“Yes, we want to define what love is.”
I’m using biblical definitions.
But you insist that God is the Mean Judge just waiting to punish.”
Didn’t say that God is “just waiting to punish.” You misunderstood. Again. Doesn’t matter is God is “just waiting to punish.” What matters is that God creates souls knowing that God will be torturing at least some subset of these souls for all eternity. This is not love by any definition, biblical or otherwise.
It has nothing to do with setting up my own religion or feeling good about what kind of person am I. According to your beliefs, God tortures for all eternity. Just try to wrap your mind around what that means. Then tell me about love.
“I’m saying, and intending, this in the kindest way possible: your understanding of Biblical Christianity is at about a first-grade level.”
Well, given how often you misunderstand me, I’m not sure that you’re in a position to judge.
LikeLike
madblog said:
We would never invent this God:
There is no other god depicted as humbling himself to the point of becoming not only fully human, but submitting to the most humiliating life and ignoble death possible, completely for the benefit of his own creations.
There is no other god who tells his followers to do likewise, that utter selflessness for the benefit of others is the way you demonstrate his kind of love.
There is no other god who tells his followers to love their enemies, to do good to those who hate and despitefully use them.
There is no other holy book which depicts the founders and notables as utterly clueless, cowardly, self-seeking, murderous. The apostles, Peter, David, ETC.
Jesus told his followers that the power structure of the world was upside-down. In his kingdom, the last will be first, and to be servant of all is the job of the “greatest:.
This holy book also elevates women to equal status with men in testifying to the events of the Resurrection, in an age when women’s testimony in court was considered worthless.
It’s early and I’m not so sharp. So this is surely very short of my mark, but these are just a few small differences.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David said:
I don’t know how to reply without being accused of arguing for the sake of arguing.
I could address each of your points in turn, but that would be argumentative, and would require a review of both the history of Judaism and Christianity and a survey of world religions.
So, let me put it this way. Every religion on the planet is unique in some way or there would just be one religion. Each adherent to a given religion can assemble a list such as this one and say…”see, we would never invent this god.”
Humans are a very clever species. We are very, very good at inventing. I’ll limit my comments to that.
LikeLike
madblog said:
“And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”
__Hebrews 11:6 NIV
LikeLike
David said:
So, in the end, it’s not about the evidence. One simply believes.
LikeLike
madblog said:
I’ll finish up here with this comment. Apparently I did offend you and I apologize. But I did think we were having a reasoned exchange, and now I find that I was “misunderstanding” you all along. Oh well. I thought it was you who were glossing over my responses and not taking in what I said. You ended up with exactly the same view that you started with, so I guess I was not articulate enough.
Just the last comment of yours though…where do you see there that there must be no evidence before one chooses to have faith? Faith is based on evidence. Else you must believe that every religious believer in human history was a moron. C’mon, give people some credit.
The verse says something entirely else: that you must look for Him if you want to find Him, and that God rewards those who seek Him by being found by them.
Peace.
LikeLike
David said:
“Apparently I did offend you and I apologize.”
I wasn’t offended. I just think that maybe there were some misunderstandings on your part or perhaps we just read the same text and come to different conclusions. I’ve misunderstood the comments of other to me, and I’ve made my fair share of mistakes. It’s the internet. Misunderstandings happen, even in a reasoned exchange (and I do think that this was a generally reasoned exchange).
I think, in the end, we have the same text, but we’ve drawn different conclusions. I would note that this occurs within Christianity itself as well as between Christians and non-Christians. Such are the problems of texts.
“Faith is based on evidence. Else you must believe that every religious believer in human history was a moron. C’mon, give people some credit.”
This was not how I intended it. I don’t consider every religious believer to be a moron, and I apologize if that’s how it sounded. My point was, in the end, it’s about doing something that doesn’t directly involve evidence. As you put it, “you must look for Him.”
This is not an evidence-based action, but as I understand it, it’s the essential action. The reward comes from the act of seeking and not for the act of drawing conclusions from the evidence. This is what I mean by “one simply believes.”
LikeLike
David said:
A footnote.
“You ended up with exactly the same view that you started with.”
I assume that you did as well? Well, that’s how these things usually go, right? Regardless, I find it interesting to exchange ideas, so thanks for the conversation.
LikeLike
madblog said:
David: you’ve inspired a post. It’s short, I promise. Thanks–you encouraged me to crystalize an answer to our conversation. Please read:
http://madelynlang469.com/2015/02/18/the-jesus-god/
LikeLiked by 2 people
David said:
“David: you’ve inspired a post.”
Well, then, I guess maybe there’s some value to my comments, so that’s nice (and to be very clear about this, no, I’m not being the least bit sarcastic). While, in the end, we may both end us where we started (as is usually the case in these conversations), I appreciate the fact that you’ve provide thoughtful and substantive responses to my comments.
LikeLike
madblog said:
Thanks David. (I wouldn’t have thought you were being sarcastic, by the way.)
LikeLike
zeitgeist2012 said:
Great satire…
LikeLiked by 1 person
maggiequinn said:
I think you have a wonderful idea here. I wish to join you in honouring our bronze age ancestors, especially those who crafted some of the exquisite pieces of bronze that have been passed on to us. Such work is rarely seen these days except in museums. Ahh, to be so gifted.
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Why, thank you. I have come to appreciate our Bronze Age ancestors, too. There really is a level of artistry there that is quite unprecedented.
LikeLike