Saturday 3 July 2010

Christopher hitchens


sadly christopher hitchen has cancer. Hitchens is a beakon of reason and know for wiping the floor with christians in debates. Hopefully he will recover from it seeing as atheism needs somebody with his logic around

It kinda raises the question of why you sky daddy gave christopher hitchens cancer. Is that your sky daddys response? Somebody is beating all his people in debates so they retaaliate by giving them cancer.

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Mike.

Question for you.. If God sought retribution from an atheist because the atheist was winning arguments, wouldn't that disprove the atheist?

The only way God could punish anyone, is if God exists, right?

Instead of the Problem of Evil disproving God's existence, it actually affirms God's existence.


God Bless,
johnny

Snowbrush said...

I hadn't heard about this, and am so sorry.

Don't you just love it when theists tell you, "God Bless"? Either they're simply not thinking or else they are, and I don't know which is worse.

johnny said...

Don't you just love it when theists tell you, "God Bless"? Either they're simply not thinking or else they are, and I don't know which is worse.[/quote>

What exactly is your problem with this, Snowbrush?

Snowbrush said...

"What exactly is your problem with this, Snowbrush?"

May I refer you to my last blog post where I take up the issue at length?

johnny said...

i'll take a look.

johnny

johnny said...

Hi Snowbrush, thanks for the "invite" to your blog for your explanation.

Just don’t pray for me here because it’s like praying for me in my own home.

Because of this, i'll will try to abide by your wish. I try to more or less respect Mike's wishes here, although i have slipped a time or two. Mike hasn't made much of a deal about it, and i've hoped that i haven't offended him too much over the past couple of years.

Even though i read your post and about half a dozen or so comments, i am still a little bit confused with what you have against a Christian praying for someone else, regardless of that person being an atheist, but particularly when the person being prayed for, is not you.
Maybe you can help me understand.

You said, " Isn’t telling an atheist you’re going to pray for him a little empty, maybe even passive aggressive? Jesus instructed his followers to PRAY IN SECRET, after all."

I don't think that telling someone that i'm going to pray for him/her is empty if, when i say it, it is sincere. If i told someone that i was going to set a trust fund for the sake of fighting dementia, the only way the statement is empty, is if it is not sincere. That person's beliefs or understanding of trust funds or dementia has no bearing on the claim, as far as i can tell.

As far as Jesus' telling His to pray in secret, i'm pretty sure that the 'secret' part was not the main emphasis, but rather as a way to fight the attitude of pride. i.e. "they thought my prayer was powerful. God should reward me", or something to that effect.

You also said, "If you must pray for me, I had really rather you KEEP IT TO YOURSELF."

I guess this is fair enough.. or at least a fair enough request. The misunderstanding that i have, is that, as an atheist, you don't believe in God. How could prayer, to the God you don't believe in, even matter to you?

I guess, if i were an atheist, i would just lift one eyebrow and shrug my shoulder, since i would think him daft, and then move on about my day.


On a slightly different note, out of curiousity, have you ever asked someone how they were doing, but you didn't really give a hoot about their answer?
(and yes, i admit that i have during the hustle and bustle of life, but i do try to care some, if i ask, else i try not to ask during those times)

johnny

p.s. I was going to respond on your blog, but i've many too many accounts for this and that, and i don't wish a google account at this time.

johnny said...

Hi Snowbrush, thanks for the "invite" to your blog for your explanation.

Just don’t pray for me here because it’s like praying for me in my own home.

Because of this, i'll will try to abide by your wish. I try to more or less respect Mike's wishes here, although i have slipped a time or two. Mike hasn't made much of a deal about it, and i've hoped that i haven't offended him too much over the past couple of years.

Even though i read your post and about half a dozen or so comments, i am still a little bit confused with what you have against a Christian praying for someone else, regardless of that person being an atheist, but particularly when the person being prayed for, is not you.
Maybe you can help me understand.

You said, " Isn’t telling an atheist you’re going to pray for him a little empty, maybe even passive aggressive? Jesus instructed his followers to PRAY IN SECRET, after all."

I don't think that telling someone that i'm going to pray for him/her is empty if, when i say it, it is sincere. If i told someone that i was going to set a trust fund for the sake of fighting dementia, the only way the statement is empty, is if it is not sincere. That person's beliefs or understanding of trust funds or dementia has no bearing on the claim, as far as i can tell.

As far as Jesus' telling His to pray in secret, i'm pretty sure that the 'secret' part was not the main emphasis, but rather as a way to fight the attitude of pride. i.e. "they thought my prayer was powerful. God should reward me", or something to that effect.

You also said, "If you must pray for me, I had really rather you KEEP IT TO YOURSELF."

I guess this is fair enough.. or at least a fair enough request. The misunderstanding that i have, is that, as an atheist, you don't believe in God. How could prayer, to the God you don't believe in, even matter to you?

I guess, if i were an atheist, i would just lift one eyebrow and shrug my shoulder, since i would think him daft, and then move on about my day.


On a slightly different note, out of curiousity, have you ever asked someone how they were doing, but you didn't really give a hoot about their answer?
(and yes, i admit that i have during the hustle and bustle of life, but i do try to care some, if i ask, else i try not to ask during those times)

johnny

p.s. I was going to respond on your blog, but i've many too many accounts for this and that, and i don't wish a google account at this time.

johnny said...

Hi Snowbrush, thanks for the "invite" to your blog for your explanation.

Just don’t pray for me here because it’s like praying for me in my own home.

Because of this, i'll will try to abide by your wish. I try to more or less respect Mike's wishes here, although i have slipped a time or two. Mike hasn't made much of a deal about it, and i've hoped that i haven't offended him too much over the past couple of years.

Even though i read your post and about half a dozen or so comments, i am still a little bit confused with what you have against a Christian praying for someone else, regardless of that person being an atheist, but particularly when the person being prayed for, is not you.
Maybe you can help me understand.

You said, " Isn’t telling an atheist you’re going to pray for him a little empty, maybe even passive aggressive? Jesus instructed his followers to PRAY IN SECRET, after all."

I don't think that telling someone that i'm going to pray for him/her is empty if, when i say it, it is sincere. If i told someone that i was going to set a trust fund for the sake of fighting dementia, the only way the statement is empty, is if it is not sincere. That person's beliefs or understanding of trust funds or dementia has no bearing on the claim, as far as i can tell.

As far as Jesus' telling His to pray in secret, i'm pretty sure that the 'secret' part was not the main emphasis, but rather as a way to fight the attitude of pride. i.e. "they thought my prayer was powerful. God should reward me", or something to that effect.

You also said, "If you must pray for me, I had really rather you KEEP IT TO YOURSELF."

I guess this is fair enough.. or at least a fair enough request. The misunderstanding that i have, is that, as an atheist, you don't believe in God. How could prayer, to the God you don't believe in, even matter to you?

I guess, if i were an atheist, i would just lift one eyebrow and shrug my shoulder, since i would think him daft, and then move on about my day.


On a slightly different note, out of curiousity, have you ever asked someone how they were doing, but you didn't really give a hoot about their answer?
(and yes, i admit that i have during the hustle and bustle of life, but i do try to care some, if i ask, else i try not to ask during those times)

johnny

p.s. I was going to respond on your blog, but i've many too many accounts for this and that, and i don't wish a google account at this time.

johnny said...

sorry, for some reason it asked if i wanted to leave this page when i hit submit and left the comments in the comment box, so i thought i screwed up somehow, so i hit submit a couple more times.

johnny

Snowbrush said...

" i am still a little bit confused with what you have against a Christian praying for someone else"

I never meant to say that I object to anyone whomsoever praying for me or for any other person. What I was objecting to was people who visit my blog and who know that I'm an atheist telling me that they're praying for me on my blog. Believers who expect nonbelievers to honor their religious sensitivities should likewise honor non-believers sensitivities by not offering them the "gift of prayer" when they know it's meaningless if not downright offensive.

One thing that brought the issue up for me more heatedly than it otherwise would have was the refusal of any Christian to ever address any of the many objections I've raised to their religion and to theism in general. ALL they have done is to assure me that they know god is real because they experience him within their hearts and to add that they are praying for me. To me, this makes them appear asinine. I fully accept that many of them are fine people in many ways, but in this area of their lives they fall flat.

johnny said...

Snowbrush,

I never meant to say that I object to anyone whomsoever praying for me or for any other person. What I was objecting to was people who visit my blog and who know that I'm an atheist telling me that they're praying for me on my blog.

But i had not been to your blog, and i had not posted on it.

Mike has asked we Christians not tell him Jesus died for him. I've slipped a time or two but it had been part of the conversation and not for the sake of violating his wish.

when they know it's meaningless

then this is where we disagree

if not downright offensive

When i smoked and my dad was still alive, he would offend me by preaching about how terrible smoking was. He didn't care that i was offended by his anti-smoking message. He also didn't care that i enjoyed smoking.

He did this because he loved me and wanted better for me.

If i offend you because i don't care about you or your feelings, shame on me.

Also, shame on me, if i believe God to be true and Jesus to be the Christ, but i don't try to tell you the Gospel because that would be the effect that i don't think you are good enough for God's love and Salvation.

With all due respect, i hope that i can have the opportunity to offend you.

One thing that brought the issue up for me more heatedly than it otherwise would have was the refusal of any Christian to ever address any of the many objections I've raised to their religion and to theism in general.

Were those part of that dialog you wrote?
My apology, but some of those were kinda caricatures.. umm.. strawmen. At least, that's how i saw them while trying to find your objections to my saying 'God Bless' to Mike.

If you would like, I would be willing to take a stab at some of your objections, but i'm not the best apologist around and i often don't have much time to spare (i happen to be on vacation this week, so between chores around the house and various other stuff i've procrastinated on..)

Otherwise, some of the folks over at Theologyweb might be able to address your objections better than i. The problem i have sending you there, is that some tend to be rather rude and i disagree with their line of thinking in that matter.

ALL they have done is to assure me that they know god is real because they experience him within their hearts and to add that they are praying for me.

Here's a great book that might help you..
Faith & Reason by Dr. Ronald H. Nash
ISBN 0-310-29401-0

His apoligetic course can be listened (free) to at

www.biblicaltraining.org

To me, this makes them appear asinine. I fully accept that many of them are fine people in many ways, but in this area of their lives they fall flat.

Without having looked closely at your objections, i would venture that i would probably use arguments from Nash's book and course.

Anyway, there are a few alternatives for you to consider.

johnny

Snowbrush said...

Johnny, after I responded, I felt badly that I'm using someone else's blog as a vehicle to converse about my own, yet I appreciate your objection to having yet another account. I was up to ten pages of them recently until I dumped two pages. I found that it's often easier to set up an account than to delete it. Some places literally won't let you out once you're in.

johnny said...

Snowbrush,

Johnny, after I responded, I felt badly that I'm using someone else's blog as a vehicle to converse about my own

While i can't speak for Mike regarding how he feels about his blog being used for things other than his main intended purpose (i mean, we were discussing a tangent of his general topics), compared to many bloggers, it seems like it is one of the ways they promote their own blogs... so it appears to me that it might be a culturely ok practice in blog world.

yet I appreciate your objection to having yet another account. I was up to ten pages of them recently until I dumped two pages. I found that it's often easier to set up an account than to delete it. Some places literally won't let you out once you're in.

Part of the problem was when i started misplacing passwords and screen names.. especially when ya get a new computer. Another problem is that i tend to get too spread out-- this conversation here, and that conversation over there and 6 or 10 conversations on Tweb. Sometimes the conversations can be pretty light, but other times, like discussion objective vs. subjective morality or the problem of evil, things get more intense.

At any rate, unless it's a problem with Mike, why not just discuss thing in Mike's blog for a bit?... just to be respectful, we'll just try to stay on whatever Mike's topics are.
Has any of your objections been voiced somewhat, by Mike?

johnny

Snowbrush said...

"why not just discuss thing in Mike's blog for a bit?"

Well, Johnny, another objection that came to me after I wrote, is that I prefer my topics to be discussed on my blog so that everyone who is interested in the topic brought up can see what others have to say. Also, I tend to devote the lion's share of my attention to current posts, and I just put another one up today.

johnny said...

I understand, Snowbrush. If you change your mind, let me know, i've been visiting Mike's blog for about two years, and i don't forsee a change any time soon.

I did put your blog in my favorites, since i read your Hitler post and i think you write well. It was interesting.

Nice talking to you.
johnny

Snowbrush said...

Thanks, Johnny. By the way, one way to handle usernames and passwords is to have a few different ones that you use, and allocate the best of those to the sites where you have a lot to lose, and the shorter and easier to remember ones to sites where security isn't crucial.

Ahab said...

It wouldn't surprise me if some fundamentalist Christians believed that cancer was God's punishment for Hitchen's insolence. Fundies have blamed other horrors -- Hurricane Katrina, the earthquake in Haiti, HIV/AIDS -- on insufficient piety, so it would be nothing new.

Sadly, such an approach would show how little empathy or compassion they have, faith notwithstanding.

I wish Hitchens the best and hope that there is a chance for recovery. At the very least, I hope that he doesn't suffer needlessly as he battles his sickness.

johnny said...

Hi Ahab, you said, It wouldn't surprise me if some fundamentalist Christians believed that cancer was God's punishment for Hitchen's insolence.

ummm, isn't that what Mike (a non-Christian) said?... "It kinda raises the question of why you sky daddy gave christopher hitchens cancer. Is that your sky daddys response? Somebody is beating all his people in debates so they retaaliate by giving them cancer."

Fundies have blamed other horrors -- Hurricane Katrina, the earthquake in Haiti, HIV/AIDS -- on insufficient piety, so it would be nothing new.

Two things... 1. can you say, with 100% truth, that these claims are false?
2. whether they are true or false, are you trying to say that these claims are objectively/absolutely immoral?

Sadly, such an approach would show how little empathy or compassion they have, faith notwithstanding

Your statement here is irrelevent. Here's an example why:
If a doctor said that the cancer that C.H. has is entirely his own fault, would it be a lack of empathy or compassion on the part of the Dr., to voice this truth?

His stating the truth is not an indication of his compassion or empathy-- perhaps he's a Dr. that has not learned how to "soften" the truth. Or maybe he knows he needs to "blurt" the truth out, despite his compassion or empathy.

God Bless,
johnny

Snowbrush said...

"...those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?" Luke 13:4

Jesus would seem to be speaking to those who presume to know the mind of god--as did Job's interlocutors when god allowed him to be afflicted with all kinds of problems in order to win a bet.

When the people of Boston began installing lightning rods, the city was struck by an earthquake. Naturally, the local clergy blamed it on on the lightning rods, their argument being that being struck by lightning was god's punishment on the wicked, and that lightning rods were an attempt to avoid god's punishment, therefore god was obliged to use a another method.

johnny said...

Snowbrush, What did Jesus say, right after Luke 13:4?

There are times when God uses pain, suffering, etc. to bring about His purpose. He used the enemies of the Israelites to punish the Israelites. His punishment to Adam and Eve extends to us. He even took His wrath , that was meant for us, out on His Son.


I've never said that Hitchen's cancer was a punishment for being an atheist, but i did ask Ahab (and now you) if he can say, with 100% truth, that God never uses instances like these, as punishments? (and keep in mind that, in general, punishments in this life are meant to keep from eternal punishment)

johnny

Snowbrush said...

"Snowbrush, What did Jesus say, right after Luke 13:4?"

He said that all who don't repent will perish, which means that ALL (except, of course, for Jesus' pals) are deserving of death as opposed to the ones who the tower fell on having acted especially badly. There is an arrogance and self-righteousness that sucks to high heaven within those who presume that god goes around arranging disasters to befall particularly egregious sinners, and that they themselves are qualified to know to whom these things happen and why they happen. If a church-goer dies, the preacher says that god needed another angel in heaven, whereas if an atheist dies, then god was obviously punishing a sinner.

"i did ask Ahab (and now you) if he can say, with 100% truth, that God never uses instances like these, as punishments?"

Yes, I can say this with 100% certainty. Only those who accept the existence of supernatural being need wonder what it was that they did to deserve a flat tire or an esophageal tumor. I will leave it to them to announce that Port Au Prince was destroyed because it had sinned, or that New Orleans was destroyed because it had too many homosexuals. I will also leave it to them to explain why a Christian president led this country into two ridiculous wars that have cost thousands of deaths and billions of dollars, yet he himself has gone unpunished, and why another Christian president has been allowed to continue said wars.

"in general, punishments in this life are meant to keep from eternal punishment"

By a merciful god, no less. You worship such a being, whereas, if I believed he did exist, I would like nothing better than to spit in his face. I had as soon kneel before Hitler.

johnny said...

I'm going to be very brief.. i stayed up way too late last night..


"He said that all who don't repent will perish, which means that ALL (except, of course, for Jesus' pals) are deserving of death as opposed to the ones who the tower fell on having acted especially badly."

The only exception are those that repent. If you want to call them "Jesus' pals".. well.
And as far as your, "ALL are deserving of death as opposed to the ones..."
Jesus was answering a question with a question.
To paraphrase, Jesus was saying that you're just as bad as them, they're just as bad as johnny... all y'all deserve (eternal) punishment. The roof didn't fall on their head as a punishment.

There is an arrogance and self-righteousness

I disagree that arrogence/self-righteousness follows from the "preacher's" claim. It's not necessarily arrogence or self-righteousness if a Dr. says, 'joe, if you don't lay off them cigs now, you'll be dead in a year'... it's the Dr.'s learned opinion. Are you being arrogent or self-righteous, claiming that the "preacher's" claim is arrogent/self-righteous?

Yes, I can say this with 100% certainty.

I gotta remember that different people understand this question differently. A different conversation i have going on, the guy says (almost rightly) that we can't have 100% certainty on anything.
For now, i'll drop this question.

Only those who accept the existence of supernatural being need wonder what it was that they did to deserve a flat tire or an esophageal tumor.

Why only those that accept the existence of God?... God exists or not, independent of what people accept.

By a merciful god, no less. You worship such a being, whereas, if I believed he did exist, I would like nothing better than to spit in his face. I had as soon kneel before Hitler.

Isn't that what ALL sin is? Metaphorically spitting in God's face?

If God doesn't exist, what is the purpose of your reference to Hitler? Are you trying to say that if God does not exist, Hitler did something objectively wrong?

johnny

Snowbrush said...

"Are you trying to say that if God does not exist, Hitler did something objectively wrong?"

Our evolution as a social species has given us our standards of morality, and by those standards, what Hitler did was wrong. Nazism was a religion and Hitler its demigod. Oftentimes, when people set aside human standards of morality and murder millions, become suicide bombers, burn people at the stake, etc. it is because religion has superseded their sense of right and wrong.

johnny said...

That didn't answer my question.. it defined subjective morality and it defined it pragmatically.

johnny

Snowbrush said...

Morality is inseparable from the human experience. It came from the human experience and has no meaning aside from the human experience.

johnny said...

That means then, that Hitler did no wrong... he was only acting out his desires. If your statement is correct, then his desires just happened to be against yours (or, rather, the Jews)-- but, so what?.. he was just attempting to have his human experience the way he wanted.

johnny

Snowbrush said...

I didn't say that human morality is simply a matter of individual desire. I said that it is the result of our evolution as a social species. Theists often propose that, for morality to be binding, it must be god-given, yet I haven't observed much agreement among them as to just what it is that god wants. Just tonight, I heard on the news that the god of the Taliban wants them to kill United Nations aid workers to flood ravaged Pakistan. A few hours earlier, I read of a Florida preachers whose god wants him to hold a "Burn the Koran Day."

johnny said...

I didn't say that human morality is simply a matter of individual desire

I realize you didn't SAY that, but if it's not binding, then it doesn't actually exist. It boils down to being preference.

I said that it is the result of our evolution as a social species

Which means it could have gone some other direction, and therefore, is not binding.. which means that it's not objective but subjective.

Theists often propose that, for morality to be binding, it must be god-given, yet I haven't observed much agreement among them as to just what it is that god wants

Nor is there agreement on what "evolution" "wants".
However, there is agreement that morals exist, and that morals are binding.

Further, Christian theism (well, we can include all three Abramic religions) explain the differences in morals by the account of the Tower of Babel AND sin in general (remember, sin is "spitting in God's face" or, "gotta do it MY way").

Just tonight, I heard on the news that the god of the Taliban wants them to kill United Nations aid workers to flood ravaged Pakistan. A few hours earlier, I read of a Florida preachers whose god wants him to hold a "Burn the Koran Day."

The simularity here is not "them vs. us" but rather, obedience to God.



On a different note, i know my writing "skills" suck, and i've read a few things from your blog so by comparison, LOL, please don't compare.

johnny

Snowbrush said...

Morality is binding legally, and it is also influenced by peer pressure and by what normal (non-sociopathic) people feel inside themselves. Such is the legacy of our evolution as a social species. When a religious person informs me that all that is keeping human beings from robbing, murdering, and raping with wild abandon is that god forbids it, I tell him that I don't believe in god, yet I personally feel no desire to rob, murder, and rape. However, if HIS belief in god is the only thing that prevents HIM from committing heinous crimes, then I suppose it's just as well that he has such a belief. Yet, I can't help but think of all those believers who commit heinous crimes continually. Rather than restraining their worst impulses, their god encourages them.

johnny said...

Happy Friday Snowbrush,

Morality is binding legally

Only objective morality is binding, yet natural processes/evolution did not make objective morality.

and it is also influenced by peer pressure

affirming the consequent.. speculation

and by what normal (non-sociopathic) people feel inside themselves

I would agree with you here.. however, it doesn't say much... both theism and non-theism claims that this is the norm.

Such is the legacy of our evolution as a social species

Again, speculative... and considering our "social" species has gone through and to a great extent, still are very much in a "might is right" legacy.

When a religious person informs me... , I tell him that I don't believe in god, yet I personally feel no desire to rob, murder, and rape.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)


However, if HIS belief in god is the only thing that prevents HIM from committing heinous crimes,

Only if morals are objective, does this make sense. If morals are subjective, what you call heinous crimes is better than banana cake w/ chocolate frosting to a Jeffry Dahmer or a Ted Bundy or Adolf Hitler, etc.

Yet, I can't help but think of all those believers who commit heinous crimes continually

Again, only if morals are objective and not relative, does this say anything other than your likes and dislikes.
But nature, red in tooth and claw, did not make objective morals.

Rather than restraining their worst impulses, their god encourages them.

oh boy, there is tons to agree and disagree with that little sentence.
Ok, briefly.. first, yes, people have and do, use (misuse) doctrines and whole religions as an excuse to violate others, however, again, only if morals are objective, has any violation actually occurred.
Second, if God is creator of all things, then He has "property" rights of all things. This means, IF He commands (as in the cases of the OT) the slaughter of a people, no violation has occurred. Disobedience would be a violation.
(this principle even applies to Islam)

johnny

Alot more could be said, but that's plenty for now.

johnny said...

Here is an article from Dr. Glenn Peoples' blog:

www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/does-the-moral-argument-point-to-a-benevolent-god/#more-2020

Snowbrush said...

Johnny, you appear to use objective morality and god given morality synonymously, and to believe that the only other basis for morality is individual whim and preference. I've presented my case briefly and hurriedly, to be sure, but I've presented it well enough to have made it intelligible, I trust. People like yourself who believe that it would be moral to do absolutely anything if you heard a voice that you imagined to be that of god telling you to do it are the same people who flew the planes on 9/11, and they are the same people who are blowing up buses, mosques, and schools even today. Over the millennia, millions have been tortured and killed at their hands. The only difference in you and them is that you haven't heard any voices as of yet, but if you should, then, like them, you too will become a murderer. Of course, you won't call it murder, you will call it serving god and say that it would have been immoral to have done otherwise. Perhaps, I will even be among those you kill, and you will be glad to have had the opportunity to do so in the name of your deity.

I appreciate the time and thought you have put into our discussion, but I am through here.

Anonymous said...

I tried to post a reply and on Mike's main page, the comment counter went from 32 to 33, but the post never showed up. When i refreshed the main page, the counter went back to 32.

No time right now to re-reply but maybe a little later today. I realise you're done with the conversation, but i still feel obligated to reply.

johnny

Anonymous said...

Johnny, you appear to use objective morality and god given morality synonymously, and to believe that the only other basis for morality is individual whim and preference.

You're pretty close. Either morality is objective or subjective. Please don't think that Plato's Euthyphro was correct in limiting objective morality to either God is subject (subservient) to morality, or that things are wrong, simply because He arbitrarily declared them to be wrong (meaning then, that morals are not objective).

People like yourself who believe that it would be moral to do absolutely anything if you heard a voice that you imagined to be that of god

So what you are saying is that you have 100% proof that Abraham did not hear God, but just imagined to hear some voice that he figured to be God?
And how did you come about this evidence?

telling you to do it are the same people who flew the planes on 9/11, and they are the same people who are blowing up buses, mosques, and schools even today.

Just remember that there is a difference between 'imagined' voices commanding, and God commanding. (cont. in response to your next statement)

...The only difference in you and them is that you haven't heard any voices as of yet, but if you should, then, like them, you too will become a murderer.

The difference is whether the voice was real or imagined. If it was actually God, the Creator and owner of everything, then it's not murder (to use your example) just like it's not violating ownership laws if you work at a slaughter house and the own has you kill his cow (compared to killing his cow without his permission/commission)

Of course, you won't call it murder, you will call it serving god and say that it would have been immoral to have done otherwise

you're correct, however, i hope now you can see that your objection does not serve it's purpose.

I appreciate the time and thought you have put into our discussion, but I am through here.

Nice talking to you.. have a nice life. Since i could not help you past your obstacles, i hope someone, someday, will help you understand.

johnny

johnny said...

Snowbrush, just in case you're still reading Mike's blog, and since i'm not always very clear (no, really. I know it's hard to believe, but it's true).


Maybe this http://

will be more clear than i've been..

rzim.org/resources/listen/justthinking.aspx?archive=1&pid=1940


johnny