In 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 Adam is mentioned as a historical figure in the same way that Jesus was a historical figure. If Adam is merely a myth then there is no historical fall into sin, which inevitably discredits Paul's theology that Jesus is the second Adam who restores what was lost in the fall.
Moreover, Adam is mentioned in Luke's genealogy in chapter 3. This begs the question, why would a mythical figure have a place in a genealogy? It makes no sense.
I was gonna write something similar, but you summed it up. None of it makes sense. But, the priest in this video, like many, desperately try to make sense of of things that should be all but forgetten by human beings. People emotionally need there to be a god, so, they need to find some way, no matter how irrational, to reconcile it all.
The concept interpreting Genesis as myth creates a certain amount of flexibility and ability to square the text with modern science. However, this liberal, spiritualized method of interpreting Genesis creates a theological problem when it comes to the New Testament.
Genesis is one of many creation myths common in primitive societies. Parts of it were gleaned from earlier creation myths. The bronze age hebrews just wrote another one of many.
My problem is obvious, and as a Christian it's pretty big problem. The book of Genesis is not literal? So God isn't literal, God could just be a representation of mans morality. If God is a metaphor, Moses created the Ten Commandments under the command of 'morality.' If God is metaphorical, Jesus wasn't the Messiah, his death just represents, lets say, how the world murders innocence. And if that is metaphorical then why be a Christian? No God, no salvation, no heaven. Where does metaphor end?
We can distinguish what is literally true, and what is a metaphor, using our God-given capacity to reason, much the same way as we do when we read poetry. Read Robert Burns' poem "A Red Red Rose," and you'll see quite easily when he uses metaphor to reveal the truth of his love for his beloved.
@KurtCobain198666 I hear you. I more than just cocked an eyebrow after he started saying that God was continually creating... at around 3:15. Sounds nice, but it just started to sound like BS after that.
@KurtCobain198666 - "Where does metaphor end?" - He adresses this in another video. The Bible isn't a book; it's a library. Catholic editions of the Bible (most often those published within the last 40 years) usually preface the books with historical facts. For instance, from these prefaces in my Bible, I've learned that much of the Book of Job is written in Hebrew verse, and that Job, as a historical person, may have never even existed. What can you gather from that about the Book of Job?
There's alot more to why I disagree with Father Barron than I can write in a 500 character post, but the most important thing to consider is genre, like Barron said. He gets it right that Genesis is nothing like the scientific method, but where he gets it wrong is not realizing that the Israelites took the Creation Story at face value. Yes, they took great meaning from the story, but they also believed that's actually how the universe came about, and today we know they were wrong about that.
It's curious that although Adam is no longer a literal figure in your religion, his act of original sin still is. Without original sin Jesus had no mission on earth. Just a though.
Here's another thought - Creation is a non-violent act in both of the Genesis creation stories but the gloves came off soon enough. The book of Genesis also includes Noah's flood.
Adam naming the animals also portrays man's authority over the animals (under God) insomuch as naming in the ANE was a sign of authority over what is being named (this is also seen previously in God naming everything he created).
This was a great video.
To anyone who's interested in studying the topic, I'd highly recommend Dr Bruce Waltke's "An Old Testament Theology."
Haha dang it! -If you don't believe, I will still love and pray for you, but if you have never yet felt God's love, you just won't be able to accept it. Blessings brother.
@Ndftblwannabe1 I have the impression that you are a moral and genuinely decent person. It is a crime that the absurd nonsense of your faith infects you so. I wish you healed friend.
Ugh-I am awful with character count! It is also a story of God continuously calling His unfaithful people to repentance, which often goes undone. He allows sinful nations who oppose Israel to be smote, but God long suffers with them (Romans 9).
Jesus was the promised Messiah, the One promised as God sent Adam and Eve from the garden. Jesus came to reconcile all sinners to God, and teach us, by word and example, what God truly wants us to do, though He invites, does not force us to. All in all, I realized that I believe in God, I have seen His power made manifest in physical form, and felt it in my soul, and seen it transform many lives...which I conclude with, who am I to ever tell God what to do or question it? If you don't believe,
@Not2Black I will say this for it, but I know it will not be accepted. I too struggle with things from the Old Testament, things just like your example...I often think and pray about an explanation for it. The Old Testament is the story of the first holy couple, first holy family, first holy tribe, and first holy nation (of Israel). Israel is the chosen people by God from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel) and the people of that nation going to the Promised Land (Canaan). It is also a story of
@Not2Black Yes of course I agree that a component in deciphering morality is weighing the harm done. I am not saying atheists are immoral and abusive people, not at all. My point though, is that without God there is no FOUNDATION for moral beliefs. Sure as a species we may come up with some ideas or what have you on morality, but thats just it, they are ideas, not moral laws. If we are just animals, morality means nothing...a person can do as he pleases regardless of any worldy authority. Will
Weird it cut off. An atheist has no grounds to tell anyone whether it is right or wrong, because it's just personal opinion based on a subjective view of morality. There is no foundation for morality; it is a "what's right for you may not be right for me" mentality. That's my point. If morality is just socio-biological evolution, then it has no real foundation other than what one person feels.
@Not2Black first, I want to say I apologize for saying it was idiotic...I am sorry for that brother. Secondly, I absolutely admit that his actions are horrible and he deserves to be held accountable. I agree that it is an immoral act regardless what anyone says certainly. However, my point is that there is no foundation for its immorality. Let's take child abuse for example, I'm sure you and I both agree it is wrong, but if you said that to the ones who do it, they would not agree. An atheist h
@Ndftblwa Your claim is that your objective foundation for morality is god.
But you and I agree that child rape is immoral and that this is the case irrespective of what anyone says.We agree that what makes this immoral is the harm and suffering inflicted. Harm is the key component in identifying the immorality or otherwise of the act.
If god says child rape is moral does it become moral?
If he says drowning the entire population of the planet is moral does that become moral?
@Not2Black I'm sorry brother, but that is an idiotic assumption. Morality is knowing right and wrong, but that doesn't mean consciousness of it means you are either or...that is based on action. So in your overly abused example by the less than 1% of priests GLOBALLY, no the priest is not justified whatsoever in his action, but sticking to my main point, if the man was an atheist for example, his action of being a pedophile has no foundation and isn't morally wrong, it would just be tabooed by
@Ndftblwannabe1 I've read what you've written several times but I still don't know if I understand it.
Do you agree with me that when a priest rapes a child this is an immoral act irrespective of his ability or willingness to acknowledge it as such?
Further do you agree that what makes the act immoral is the horrific protracted suffering inflicted on the child and on everyone with whom the child has a caring relationship?
Do you see that this is true irrespective of atheism?
"EXQUISITE THEOLOGY, THEOLOGICAL POETRY; GENESIS IS "THEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE ORIGIN OF ALL THINGS" ? THESE DESCRIPTIONS ARE TOTALLY NUTS AND NON-INTELLIGENT REGARDING GENESIS. COME ON PRIEST, SAY OR DO SOMETHING COHERENTLY TRUTH REVEALING RATHER THEN GIBBERISH AND FAITH FORCING. PLEASE?
After the doubts about 9/11, the wars, the carbon dating theory, and especially the doubts about evolution theory, that they have been cramming down our throats for 50 years as truth, I have no problem believing that it might be literally true what is written in Genesis. Lots of things the authorities call "evidence" nowadays, is subject to debate and doubt. On all kinds of matters. So who knows what to believe anymore? Not you or me. It's always a choice.
@Not2Black Punishing sin is not immoral. Would God be greater if He didn't punish sin?
If you want to argue about the story of the flood, you can't pick and choose parts of it. If you accept the part about God destroying the earth, you must also accept Gen 6:12 "When God saw how corrupt the earth had become, since all mortals had corrupted their ways on earth." Since ALL were wicked (Noah and his family excepted), all were guilty, and deserved punishment.
@damntull What do you suppose were the wicked and currupt actions of children under 5 such that they deserved to be torn the their mothers arms and drowned?
@damnt Yeah, now comes the bit where you must think independently rather than repeat what you've been told.
He had the option not to kill those children from the very start. Can't you see that the choice (and it was a choice freely made) to kill those children was made by god with full knowledge of the facts and a complete understanding of his options. Yet his choice was the one resulting in the slaughter of countless innocent children, by his hand
@Not2Black Please spare me your condescending remarks, ok? I do think at least as independently as you do. Do you think I haven't heard your objections before?
It's an unpleasant fact that children always pay the price for their parents' misdeeds. You have a HUGE burden of proof here. 1-Show that corporate punishment is unjust. 2-Provide a scenario where ONLY children less than 3 or 4 inhabit a devastated planet and don't suffer an agonizing death by starvation or dehydration.
@damntull Can we move on to the next one, because I fear you will tire of me soon. Hopefully you will continues to give direct response to questions for just a little longer. This is fascinating.
Would you care to comment on the perfect morality of this?
"Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves"
@damntull Yes I agree, needless mass slaughter of countless innocent children is perfectly morally acceptable to many theist. And as you point out, the burden is mine to prove that it should not be. Now can we move on to your defence of the next atrocity?
@damntull Ahrr, it's as I feared, just when it was getting fun.
Tell you what, if you will articulate your defence of the mass rape, the mass enslavement and the mass murder of the Moses incident above. I promise not to attack it, I'll just leave it there for all to marvel at. No, I'll go one further. I'll immediately concede that your argument has merit and coherence and that atheism is a dumb idea compared to the perfect morality offered by your murderous god.
@Not2Black If you really wanted to understand, you'd google midianites and read about it. It seems that instead, you are just interested in lobbing accusations.
Your offer is obviously disingenuous.
You'll never increase in understanding until you open your mind.
@damntull You're right my offer was disingenuous, I made it because I assumed you'd given up.
Truth is I do so want to listen.......but what I most want to listen to is your actual defence. Believe me it's what anybody following this wants to hear. With all due respect, your hand waving isn't interesting. Lets get to the meat, we've had enough garnish.
Lets hear you tell us why you think the mass enslavement, mass rape and mass murder demanded by your perfectly good god isn't immoral?
@Not2Black You don't want to listen with an open mind. You are not willing to change your mind. I can refer you to some good videos, though. Look for Paul Copan on youtube to learn that slavery in the OT is contractual indentured servitude, and not slavery like it was in the Americas and elsewhere. Look for the Christian Think Tank article on the Midianites. Not a cut and dry situation. Any Christian could say Moses just got it wrong.
@damntull Paul Copan doesn’t tell you what to think, you're not some mindless cult member simply parroting what you’ve been told, you can think independently remember?
So be brave, explain how you justify the killing and how you reconcile this most prolific of killers with the perfect goodness you claim for him.
What exactly did Moses get wrong? Which of his actions did god not fully endorse?
Explain what you think and why you think it, surely you can manage that by yourself.
I take it then, that you're not going to watch the video.
Have you ever gone to school? Who told you about the history of the US? Couldn't you have figured it out for yourself? Who told you about biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics? Why did you rely on their knowledge? Couldn't you have figured it out for yourself?
Are all of your ideas original? Did you come up with all of them entirely on your own?
@damntull As I suspect you're well aware, I'm not at all suggesting that you need originate any argument. I am however suggesting that you demonstrate your increasingly dubious claim of having given independent thought to someone else's argument, by explaining it.
I watch the video, I don't get your explanation, you demonstrate nothing.
@Not2Black Whoa! How in the world did I get the idea that you wanted an original argument from me? Oh my!
Glad you watched the video. I found the material on slavery (really indentured servitude) in ancient Israel particularly interesting. Did you? Would you like to revise your earlier charge of "mass enslavement?"
@damntull to be fare to you his basis argument is consistent with the one you've been espousing almost from the start of this exchange.
You argue murder is not murder when committed by god, it's punishment (all be it somewhat indiscriminate).
He argues that slavery did not mean slavery when condoned, facilitated and commanded by god. It meant something much nicer. It meant being a willing (not at all forced) servant.
No, his argument is not that slavery is OK when it's willed by God.
He is saying that it's incorrect to call Old Testament indentured servitude "slavery."
It was an institution designed to protect the destitute at a time when social services like those we have today just did not exist. Your charge of mass slavery is false.
@damntull "Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."
Do you think the young virgin girls enslaved in the scene above would have been taken for purposes of social protection?
Your comment is a tacit admission that you're only ASSUMING that they were being taken for sex. If you had read the article that I directed to you by the Christian Think Tank, you would realize this is not the case.
I'm interested in understanding what you think, how you justify the barbarism and how you reconcile gods rabid cruelty with your claim of his perfect morality. You made the assertion, at least have the courage to defend it.
After slaughtering their families, their friends and everyone they knew, having selected them specifically for their juvenile virginity, do YOU think their captors had the welfare protection of these children uppermost in their minds?
You're doing it again. You're making an assumption about why they were spared, by asking your leading question. Where in the text (which you believe to be false by the way), does it say that the girls were used for sex?
@d Is slavery another word I'm not allowed to mention in my effort to highlight the horrific nature of your evil god?
My claim is that your claim that god endorsed slavery is not an evil affront to humanity but is in fact a caring social welfare system, is almost as absurd as your claim that the flood genocide was a perfectly fare and proportional punishment for corruption
You seem unwilling to muster a defence of the Moses incident, are you ready to stick up for gods next atrocity?
You shouldn't use the term slavery because it is inaccurate. You are "misreading Genesis." Your insistence on using the term slavery shows you are intellectually dishonest.
Your deeply, faithfully held presuppositions permeate your comments. You use pejorative terms like "horrific," "evil," and "atrocity" without justification. You are completely out of your depth, as evidenced by your literalist, fundamentalist, self-serving interpretations of the text, oh Inquisitor!
@damntull Are you suggesting all the stories in the bible are not to be taken literally or is it just the blood soaked, slavery endorsing and rape facilitating bits that are allegory?
Are you now arguing that the genesis flood did not literally happen?
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed"
What symbolic metaphoric message do you take from the above instruction?
Ah, more pejorative characterization. It doesn't seem like you're interested in doing anything but venting your feelings. You're not listening to me. Case in point, I never said the genesis story happened - I think it's allegory. My point was that you had to take the story as a whole, or reject it as a whole.
@damntull "I never said the genesis story happened"
When I pointed out that the genesis flood killed countless innocent children, you then justified the flood with your comment "children always pay the price for their parents' misdeeds"
How can you argue that the slaughter is justified in a literal sense and then claim allegory when your justifications unravel?
Besides what's the lesson here? What do you believe the food story is allegory of?
"then claim allegory when your justifications unravel" - what planet are you on? That isn't what happened at all. You're in a fantasy world, dude!
Oh, I forgot, this is just more venting on your part. The world is unfair, isn't it? But thankfully, we can resign ourselves to the pitiless indifference of a cold, valueless, material universe which is mostly hostile to our insignificant existence.
The irony is, you falsely accuse me of making accusations without offering justification and yet this is precisely what you do here.
Perhaps you would now be specific about where exactly my account is in error?
If your allegory claim isn't just a convenient escape route but is in fact a conclusion you've reached after careful independent thought, perhaps you will explain it.
The fantasy is yours. But it's not a fantasy of creating, but the fantasy of ignoring. You ignore the fact that it's impossible for a material universe to be eternal, or that a universe composed only of contingent beings is impossible, that it's impossible to have a foundation for objective moral values in a purely material universe, that we're more than just physical objects, that Love is more than chemical interactions, etc. Why do you ignore the evidence around you?
It demonstrates my unwillingness to go around in circles with you when you don't listen. We talk and talk, and you keep repeating your pejorative characterizations without justification. If you showed any willingness to be open minded, I might continue to talk to you. Unfortunately you have shown the opposite.
@da Your arguments are not independent because they both attempt to prove the same point and therefore can not contradict each other. Your allegory argument refutes the idea that god killed at all, let alone for good reason. Independent arguments are 1 God killed innocent children in a flood because he is evil 2 God killed them because he believes children are expendable when righteous killing. These are independent arguments because they can both be true simultaneously
You're just wrong about independent arguments. They are independent because one does not depend on the truth of the other, and each can provide sufficient proof for a claim. Look it up.
Also, how about an answer to my question. I've answered many of yours. It it ever morally permissible to perform an abortion?
@da If we are to make any progress, it's quite important that you understand what constitutes coherent argument. You can not advance arguments that contradict each other and claim coherence. e.g. you can't argue abortion is wrong because innocent children suffer and say god killing countless innocent children is righteous.
If you think self contradiction is ok, why did you post this?
"You're contradicting yourself. First you say we are more than physical objects, but then you say..."
I have not advanced ANY arguments concerning abortion. I asked what your position is - so please tell me, is it every morally permissible to perform an abortion?
And hopefully by now you understand the concept of independent arguments - multiple arguments arguing for the same conclusion that do not depend on the truth of the others.
@da Multiple arguments arguing for the same conclusion can not contradict each other. Worse your arguments are self refuting since the first can be used to undermine the second This is the very definition of incoherence. How where you able to recognise that self contradiction is fatal to argument when you falsely accused me of it?
If you will make one attempt at showing why my contradictory arguments were invalid while yours are valid, I will immediately answer your abortion question
I offered two independent arguments, A and B, against your charge, C. In this case, let's assume my arguments are contradictory (they're not strictly contradictory, just that if the story IS allegorical, the other argument doesn't matter).
If C is true, then A and B are false.
If A is true, then B and C are false.
If B is true, then A and C are false.
Either way, if A or B is true, your charge, C, is false. It wouldn't matter if my arguments contradicted each other.
@damntull You miss the point entirely (perhaps deliberately)
I'm already fully aware of the fact that you believe "It doesn't matter that your arguments contradicted each other." This is well understood and needs no further explanation. The crucial bit that does need explaining is why you recognise that self contradiction is fatal to your opponents arguments?
Why did you object thus "You're contradicting yourself. First you say we are more than physical objects, but then you say.."
@da Didn't think I'd be the one to fold first, but this is a deal breaker for me. If you genuinely think self contradiction is ok, then the future of this discussion looks bleak and uninteresting.
That you objected the instant you thought I'd contradicted myself, suggests you do recognise this basic rule of coherent discourse. But rather than concede and move on you contrive to grant yourself exemption from it.
I thank you for your time and wish you healed, friend.
@damnt "you are just interested in lobbing accusations."
My only accusation is that you believe what the bible says, an accusation to which you readily confess.
It seems you don't appreciate the full horror of your claim. Try visualising countless people having their lives systematically crushed out of them. Refer to the immensity of their suffering in your justification, to show that you've uderstood it and then explain why it doesn't matter or show that something else matters more.
@Not2Black What about your accusation of our "murderous" God. Your presuppositions are so strongly held that talking to you is a waste of time. Our discussion of the Genesis account is a perfect example.
@damntull Are you really suggesting that I'm not allowed to mention the murders that are the subject of our discussion? I must refrain from referring to the genocides in the bible that undermine your claim that the god of the bible is perfectly good? Perhaps it's the word "murder" that you object to? If so I'm happy to stick to the word genocide.
@Not2Black I'm saying that you've already jumped to your conclusions. When you use the words "murder" and "genocide," you've already concluded God is evil. Why not just read the article and view the video I pointed you to.
@damnt Yes, I do conclude that anyone who (by own admission) has commited mass murder and multiple genocide is indeed evil. Seems to me that theses behaviours would tend to fit the description "evil", unless of course you've redefined that word too. In any case you have claimed that you are in possession of coherent argument and evidence not only exonerating god, but demonstrating his morality to be perfect.
If you have given Copan's argument independant thought, why not explain it?
Also, no where is the definition of morality "not inflicting needless punishment on others". While the essence of that idea does fit in, morality is consciousness between what is right and wrong, good or evil. Atheism has no right or wrong except for whatever the person decides, or government in this case, who then 'dictates' it into effect by law.
There is no absolute morality in an atheistic world. Morality is only "dictated" by the masses in such a case-law. Morality and law are not interchangeable terms, unless it would be divine law of course. Atheistic 'morality' is just subjective thoughts. Abortion? Up to you. Capital punishment? Up to you. The list goes on like this from culture to culture. Thats not morality, that's choosing. That's why atheistic 'morality' doesn't exist.
Yes, on this point we are in agreement. Atheism and morality are different independant subjects. An immoral act is still immoral irrespective of atheism. But many immoral acts committed by the faithful are logically impossible for atheists. e.g. human sacrifice.
If morality is only consciousness of right and wrong as you suggest, is your paedophile priest perfectly moral because he is conscious of the wrong he does?
I refer you to Dr Gerald Schroeder’s lecture on the scientific basis for Genesis” Scientific Proof of God
“ on youtube, tried loading a link but youtube would not allow . The more modern science reveals, in actual fact the closer to the Bible it gets. M-Theory, the elastic properties of Space time and the theory of greater structure outside of our universe, to name but a few.
Oh I see, Genesis was just poetic language to show that the world was created with no violence, which is consistent with the bibles theme of non-violence.
But evidence suggests the universe was in fact created in a cataclysmic big bang, which does sounds quite violent to me. Also most will have noticed that the bible has a far from consistent theme of non-violence.
Is there any part of the bible that can be read literally?
@badpanda84 "No one picks a relgion...based on what it offers."
If only this were true.
The vast majority of people don't get to pick at all, but are infected at birth by their parents. Those few who do get to pick, do so on precisely that basis and no other.
@Not2Black Your pejorative language is reflective of deep bias, a lack of sincerity, and shallow thinking. Rather than me being infected with faith, I would say that your lack of faith is evidence of your improperly functioning cognitive faculties.
@Mrmentalmadness123 Something tells me you waste plenty of time, Mr. Lego. Funny how you won't answer a simple question, then charge me with not being open to debate. Clear case of projection. Bye now.
Whoever the "Biblical authors" were - they were not informed about science or anything from a reading of it. They were simply men of their time. Creation isn't happening now Father, evolution is! Religion simply retards us as human beings. Atheism does not obviate morality - rather it encourages respect for the common humanity of all of us - because we are human - simply and precisely that. Given what we know now as humble humans, Genesis is embarrassing - please quit trying to justify it.
@damntull Because we have the potential for good and bad and big choices to make which have nothing to do with a God in my view. Also,our humanity is all we have and we should hold that in higher regard than the fear we have of upsetting a non existent God or the religious myths built up over the years.
@Mrmentalmadness123 Humanity has the potential for good and bad choices, therefore humanity is good. Doesn't follow, my friend. That's a terrible argument.
"Humanity is all we have and we SHOULD hold that in higher regard ..." That only follows if humanity is good, which you have failed to show if atheism is true.
@damntull It's not. It is just that you are imbued with the typical religious self loathing, guilt and instilled deathwish. We hsave survived this long despite religions because of our curiosity and determination. Evolution has given us a survivsl instinct - religion reduces that. Can you seriously imagine 19 atheists flying planes into buildings for the reward of an afterlife or because there is no God. Course not - it needs religious belief for that. Maybe you loathe yourself with good reason?
@damntull I cant and dont need to show Atheism to be true. I am not the one making ridiculous claims of a creator in the sky who watches us. The burdon of proof is on you and you know damned well you cant meet that challenge without referring to the study of the unknowable - the Catholic theolgical canon. You have no evidence. Maybe you are trying to divert me? I think perhaps so. You have failed. Theology, however eloquent is not evidence of anything other than theology.
@Mrmentalmadness123 I doubt that Fr. Barron would have any interest in engaging you in conversation. I asked you for good arguments as to why, on atheism, humanity should be considered 'good'? You responded with dime-store psychologizing, projection, and insults. Lame.
@Mrmentalmadness123 Fr Barron at least presents arguments in our conversations not simply insults. You cannot insult me away - I wouldn't give you the power to do that. I note you use a phrase about dime store psychology etc. If you are trying to insult someone at least try to be original and dont simply quote one of Fr Barron's put downs. This is the sign of a dulled intellect. If you do have a real question I'll try to answer - if you just want to wise crack carry on - it is of no consequence.
@damntull Humanity is good because goodness has an evolutionary benefit to the species. We are also venal and violent when needed and they can have benefits too. We are complex creatures. We are not good purely because we believe that punishment after death will follow - in my opinion. Even if we were, that's a pretty empty way to live your life. We can embrace the golden rule and survive. Religions simply justify one tribe is in the right the others wrong. We are growing above this nonsense.
@Mrmentalmadness123 This is called "equivocation," the logical fallacy that results from using the term "good" in two different senses. First, you use "good" in the sense of moral worth. Then, you use "good(ness)" in the sense of beneficial actions. Your reply is a logical fallacy.
The rest is pejorative characterization.
You still have no answer to the question - on atheism, why should humanity be considered good?
@damntull I have answered you several times. You simply have a tough time I feel understanding facts based on evidence. Moral worth and good actions are not mutually exclusive. I dont know who you are trying to impress but it isn't working. Come up with some sensible comments and I may respond again. I dont have unlimited time to try to educate you out of your indoctrination.
@Mrmentalmadness123 I didn't say moral worth and beneficial actions were mutually exclusive (though they are different subjects). What I said is that your answer to my question was logically fallacious. You claimed in an earlier post that atheism does not obviate morality - and I asked you to give a reason, on atheism, why humanity should be considered good? So far, we have not seen a sensible answer.
@damntull They are not mutually exclusive or different subjects.They are correlatives This is classical Catholic semantics. You cannot answer a question so try to tie the questioner up in endless nonsense. If they are athiest then accuse them of being somehow damaged or aggressive. As I have said all along - the burdon of proof is not with me. The silence of God speaks volumes in the favour of athiests everywhere. It's a hard fact to grasp but millions of us have come to that realisation.
@damntull So do you feel humanity is good or bad or indifferent? I think it is on balance good! I have told you of my reasons for believing so. I do believe Religions encourage guilt and that is a difficult mind set to escape. I am a moral person by anyone's standards but have managed to escape the guilt trip of religion and accept the fact that we are on our own as a species and we dont need this indoctrination to progress. Life is good without a God.
@Mrmentalmadness123 And I pointed out to you that your reason for believing humanity is good is illogical. You have still failed to explain why, on atheism, should humanity be considered morally good? As a Christian, I believe it is - but we're talking about YOUR reason to think so, if God does not exist. Give me a valid REASON.
@damntull I dont want to waste any more time on trying to convince you about our common humanity. I have tried. You are asking for a reason as to why god doesn't exist? The reason for me is that there is no evidence for a god. Why do you believe he does?
@Mrmentalmadness123 I'm not asking you for a reason as to why God doesn't exist. I'm asking you why, on atheism, should humanity be considered good? Give a REASON.
Really even after all the war and attroticies humans have commited.. what make you think humanity is good
In fact despite God saying "it was good" when he created humans -- a few chapters later he wiped out all of humanity in a flood ( expect for Noah) because they were wicked.
@damntull I'm acutally curious -- what make you think humanity is "good"
Humans beings from the time they are born are actually just selfish.
When you are born the only thing you know how to do is to cry and scream until people give you want you want ( ie change you diapers , feed you etc..)
@Mrmentalmadness123 Mt. 7:5 "You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye."
@Not2Black Our knowledge of moral values does indeed develop through argument, conversation, and consensus building. But the values themselves are objective. Would you really want to say that the consensus of Germans in 1935 concerning Jews or the consensus of Southern Americans in 1940 concerning blacks was properly determinative of what was morally right?
@wordonfirevideo "Would you really want to say the consensus of Southern Americans .. morally right".
No, but only because theses conclusions were arrived at through superstition, ignorance and bigotry rather than through evidence based reason and consensus. e.g. Southern states could not have made a coherent support for the morality of slavery with reference to evidence and reason, but instead found ample support for slavery in the pages of the bible.
@Not2Black What does reason appeal to if not some objective state of affairs? Your original position, I'm afraid, locks you into a subjectivism that conduces toward relativism.
@wordonfirevideo Do you weigh your moral dilemmas in terms of the likely harm & suffering versus the potential improvement to wellbeing or do you consider which option is objective, subjective or conducing toward relativism?
Do you agree that the later considerations are almost entirely irrelevant?
@Not2Black I second Fr. Barron's reply to you. You confuse moral ontology (foundation in reality of moral values) and moral epistemology (how we come to know what moral values and duties we have). You could come to a consensus that torturing children for fun is "immoral," but you could not give a coherent answer to the question, "Why is it immoral." On atheism, moral values are just statements of subjective feelings or preferences that can in no way be binding on others, except through force.
@damntull If you defined moral principles as "those likely to minimise suffering," then you could easily provide a coherent answer to the question, "Why is torturing a child immoral?"
I realise this definition may not be water tight but I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make.
It seems to me that moral values can not be objective because they need to change inline with our growing understanding of reality.
Perhaps you will explain why in priciple you believe this is not so?
@Not2Black "Water tight?" It doesn't hold water at all! If atheism is true, human beings (as everything else) are merely physical objects. What would be so important about the suffering of human beings if they are merely physical objects? Answer - nothing.
@damntull But humans are not merely physical objects, for one thing we are capable of experiencing suffering. This elevates us above the importance of say rocks, especially concerning issues of morality. This is the case whether or not atheism is true.
We are more than objects because of the range of experiences we are capable of having, this distinguishes us from mere objects like rocks. Suffering is bad because it is an unpleasant experience. e.g. when catholic priests rape children their suffering is intense & protracted. You should care because you are capable of empathy, this distinguishes you from a psychopath. All of this is true whether or not atheism is true.
Will you become imoral when you realise there is no god?
Thank you Fr. Barron, modern word and today's youth are longing to hear lectures like this.
00djworld 5 days ago
cont'd,
In 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 Adam is mentioned as a historical figure in the same way that Jesus was a historical figure. If Adam is merely a myth then there is no historical fall into sin, which inevitably discredits Paul's theology that Jesus is the second Adam who restores what was lost in the fall.
Moreover, Adam is mentioned in Luke's genealogy in chapter 3. This begs the question, why would a mythical figure have a place in a genealogy? It makes no sense.
wlemusic 1 week ago
@wlemusic
I was gonna write something similar, but you summed it up. None of it makes sense. But, the priest in this video, like many, desperately try to make sense of of things that should be all but forgetten by human beings. People emotionally need there to be a god, so, they need to find some way, no matter how irrational, to reconcile it all.
itzahazylife 4 days ago
Just a thought,
The concept interpreting Genesis as myth creates a certain amount of flexibility and ability to square the text with modern science. However, this liberal, spiritualized method of interpreting Genesis creates a theological problem when it comes to the New Testament.
wlemusic 1 week ago
Genesis is one of many creation myths common in primitive societies. Parts of it were gleaned from earlier creation myths. The bronze age hebrews just wrote another one of many.
DrWGONZALEZ 1 week ago
Ouf... theological poetry? When you read Genesis, that's definitely not what I understand.
Fooleth 1 week ago
My problem is obvious, and as a Christian it's pretty big problem. The book of Genesis is not literal? So God isn't literal, God could just be a representation of mans morality. If God is a metaphor, Moses created the Ten Commandments under the command of 'morality.' If God is metaphorical, Jesus wasn't the Messiah, his death just represents, lets say, how the world murders innocence. And if that is metaphorical then why be a Christian? No God, no salvation, no heaven. Where does metaphor end?
KurtCobain198666 2 weeks ago 2
@KurtCobain198666
We can distinguish what is literally true, and what is a metaphor, using our God-given capacity to reason, much the same way as we do when we read poetry. Read Robert Burns' poem "A Red Red Rose," and you'll see quite easily when he uses metaphor to reveal the truth of his love for his beloved.
Don't worry yourself over metaphor.
damntull 2 weeks ago
@KurtCobain198666 I hear you. I more than just cocked an eyebrow after he started saying that God was continually creating... at around 3:15. Sounds nice, but it just started to sound like BS after that.
Fooleth 1 week ago
@KurtCobain198666 - "Where does metaphor end?" - He adresses this in another video. The Bible isn't a book; it's a library. Catholic editions of the Bible (most often those published within the last 40 years) usually preface the books with historical facts. For instance, from these prefaces in my Bible, I've learned that much of the Book of Job is written in Hebrew verse, and that Job, as a historical person, may have never even existed. What can you gather from that about the Book of Job?
TenderTrap86 1 week ago
Sad that people try and fill the voids in their own lives by insulting others....
imax1971 2 weeks ago
There's alot more to why I disagree with Father Barron than I can write in a 500 character post, but the most important thing to consider is genre, like Barron said. He gets it right that Genesis is nothing like the scientific method, but where he gets it wrong is not realizing that the Israelites took the Creation Story at face value. Yes, they took great meaning from the story, but they also believed that's actually how the universe came about, and today we know they were wrong about that.
WorkOverTime 2 weeks ago
If you've never read "The Diaries of Adam and Eve" by Mark Twain put it on your bucket list. Light entertainment but it's very good.
quantumystery 2 weeks ago
It's curious that although Adam is no longer a literal figure in your religion, his act of original sin still is. Without original sin Jesus had no mission on earth. Just a though.
Here's another thought - Creation is a non-violent act in both of the Genesis creation stories but the gloves came off soon enough. The book of Genesis also includes Noah's flood.
quantumystery 2 weeks ago
Adam naming the animals also portrays man's authority over the animals (under God) insomuch as naming in the ANE was a sign of authority over what is being named (this is also seen previously in God naming everything he created).
This was a great video.
To anyone who's interested in studying the topic, I'd highly recommend Dr Bruce Waltke's "An Old Testament Theology."
AgApE010 3 weeks ago
Haha dang it! -If you don't believe, I will still love and pray for you, but if you have never yet felt God's love, you just won't be able to accept it. Blessings brother.
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ndftblwannabe1 I have the impression that you are a moral and genuinely decent person. It is a crime that the absurd nonsense of your faith infects you so. I wish you healed friend.
Not2Black 1 month ago
Ugh-I am awful with character count! It is also a story of God continuously calling His unfaithful people to repentance, which often goes undone. He allows sinful nations who oppose Israel to be smote, but God long suffers with them (Romans 9).
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
Jesus was the promised Messiah, the One promised as God sent Adam and Eve from the garden. Jesus came to reconcile all sinners to God, and teach us, by word and example, what God truly wants us to do, though He invites, does not force us to. All in all, I realized that I believe in God, I have seen His power made manifest in physical form, and felt it in my soul, and seen it transform many lives...which I conclude with, who am I to ever tell God what to do or question it? If you don't believe,
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
@Not2Black I will say this for it, but I know it will not be accepted. I too struggle with things from the Old Testament, things just like your example...I often think and pray about an explanation for it. The Old Testament is the story of the first holy couple, first holy family, first holy tribe, and first holy nation (of Israel). Israel is the chosen people by God from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel) and the people of that nation going to the Promised Land (Canaan). It is also a story of
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
@Not2Black Yes of course I agree that a component in deciphering morality is weighing the harm done. I am not saying atheists are immoral and abusive people, not at all. My point though, is that without God there is no FOUNDATION for moral beliefs. Sure as a species we may come up with some ideas or what have you on morality, but thats just it, they are ideas, not moral laws. If we are just animals, morality means nothing...a person can do as he pleases regardless of any worldy authority. Will
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
Weird it cut off. An atheist has no grounds to tell anyone whether it is right or wrong, because it's just personal opinion based on a subjective view of morality. There is no foundation for morality; it is a "what's right for you may not be right for me" mentality. That's my point. If morality is just socio-biological evolution, then it has no real foundation other than what one person feels.
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
@Not2Black first, I want to say I apologize for saying it was idiotic...I am sorry for that brother. Secondly, I absolutely admit that his actions are horrible and he deserves to be held accountable. I agree that it is an immoral act regardless what anyone says certainly. However, my point is that there is no foundation for its immorality. Let's take child abuse for example, I'm sure you and I both agree it is wrong, but if you said that to the ones who do it, they would not agree. An atheist h
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
@Ndftblwa Your claim is that your objective foundation for morality is god.
But you and I agree that child rape is immoral and that this is the case irrespective of what anyone says.We agree that what makes this immoral is the harm and suffering inflicted. Harm is the key component in identifying the immorality or otherwise of the act.
If god says child rape is moral does it become moral?
If he says drowning the entire population of the planet is moral does that become moral?
Not2Black 1 month ago
(oh but yes we agree you and I on those issues of morality...that is cut and dry.) Blessings brother.
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
@Not2Black I'm sorry brother, but that is an idiotic assumption. Morality is knowing right and wrong, but that doesn't mean consciousness of it means you are either or...that is based on action. So in your overly abused example by the less than 1% of priests GLOBALLY, no the priest is not justified whatsoever in his action, but sticking to my main point, if the man was an atheist for example, his action of being a pedophile has no foundation and isn't morally wrong, it would just be tabooed by
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
@Ndftblwannabe1 I've read what you've written several times but I still don't know if I understand it.
Do you agree with me that when a priest rapes a child this is an immoral act irrespective of his ability or willingness to acknowledge it as such?
Further do you agree that what makes the act immoral is the horrific protracted suffering inflicted on the child and on everyone with whom the child has a caring relationship?
Do you see that this is true irrespective of atheism?
Not2Black 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"EXQUISITE THEOLOGY, THEOLOGICAL POETRY; GENESIS IS "THEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE ORIGIN OF ALL THINGS" ? THESE DESCRIPTIONS ARE TOTALLY NUTS AND NON-INTELLIGENT REGARDING GENESIS. COME ON PRIEST, SAY OR DO SOMETHING COHERENTLY TRUTH REVEALING RATHER THEN GIBBERISH AND FAITH FORCING. PLEASE?
EGMAG 1 month ago
After the doubts about 9/11, the wars, the carbon dating theory, and especially the doubts about evolution theory, that they have been cramming down our throats for 50 years as truth, I have no problem believing that it might be literally true what is written in Genesis. Lots of things the authorities call "evidence" nowadays, is subject to debate and doubt. On all kinds of matters. So who knows what to believe anymore? Not you or me. It's always a choice.
blablabla1864 1 month ago
So you still insist that the good, or goodness, is not a noun?
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull No I don't insist, instead I acknowledge that I may be wrong on this point.
Do you insist that a perfectly good god is compatible with a genocidel one?
Not2Black 1 month ago
@Not2Black Oh good. Then the theistic account of objective morality is coherent.
I do not agree that God, as depicted in the Old Testament, is guilty of even a single immoral act.
Besides, an atheist has no grounds for describing any action as objectively evil, anyway.
If you think the Bible recounts occurrences of genocide, view:
watch?v=ZavMx3gsTSE
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull "I do not agree that God, as depicted in the Old Testament, is guilty of even a single immoral act."
Wow, this should be interesting.
Lets start with the Genesis flood, why was drowning the entire population of the earth not an immoral act?
Not2Black 1 month ago
@Not2Black Punishing sin is not immoral. Would God be greater if He didn't punish sin?
If you want to argue about the story of the flood, you can't pick and choose parts of it. If you accept the part about God destroying the earth, you must also accept Gen 6:12 "When God saw how corrupt the earth had become, since all mortals had corrupted their ways on earth." Since ALL were wicked (Noah and his family excepted), all were guilty, and deserved punishment.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull What do you suppose were the wicked and currupt actions of children under 5 such that they deserved to be torn the their mothers arms and drowned?
Not2Black 1 month ago
@Not2Black Right, they should have been left behind to starve, my bad.
damntull 1 month ago
@damnt Yeah, now comes the bit where you must think independently rather than repeat what you've been told.
He had the option not to kill those children from the very start. Can't you see that the choice (and it was a choice freely made) to kill those children was made by god with full knowledge of the facts and a complete understanding of his options. Yet his choice was the one resulting in the slaughter of countless innocent children, by his hand
Perfectly moral or Supremely Evil?
Not2Black 1 month ago
@Not2Black Please spare me your condescending remarks, ok? I do think at least as independently as you do. Do you think I haven't heard your objections before?
It's an unpleasant fact that children always pay the price for their parents' misdeeds. You have a HUGE burden of proof here. 1-Show that corporate punishment is unjust. 2-Provide a scenario where ONLY children less than 3 or 4 inhabit a devastated planet and don't suffer an agonizing death by starvation or dehydration.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull 3-Show God has a moral obligation to extend the life of any living being or any thing.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull Can we move on to the next one, because I fear you will tire of me soon. Hopefully you will continues to give direct response to questions for just a little longer. This is fascinating.
Would you care to comment on the perfect morality of this?
"Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves"
Not2Black 1 month ago
@Not2Black Wait - are we done with the flood? Do you agree that, if the story were true, then God's actions were morally acceptable?
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull Yes I agree, needless mass slaughter of countless innocent children is perfectly morally acceptable to many theist. And as you point out, the burden is mine to prove that it should not be. Now can we move on to your defence of the next atrocity?
Not2Black 1 month ago
@Not2Black No, since you're not listening.
damntull 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@damntull Ahrr, it's as I feared, just when it was getting fun.
Tell you what, if you will articulate your defence of the mass rape, the mass enslavement and the mass murder of the Moses incident above. I promise not to attack it, I'll just leave it there for all to marvel at. No, I'll go one further. I'll immediately concede that your argument has merit and coherence and that atheism is a dumb idea compared to the perfect morality offered by your murderous god.
Not2Black 1 month ago
@Not2Black If you really wanted to understand, you'd google midianites and read about it. It seems that instead, you are just interested in lobbing accusations.
Your offer is obviously disingenuous.
You'll never increase in understanding until you open your mind.
damntull 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@damntull You're right my offer was disingenuous, I made it because I assumed you'd given up.
Truth is I do so want to listen.......but what I most want to listen to is your actual defence. Believe me it's what anybody following this wants to hear. With all due respect, your hand waving isn't interesting. Lets get to the meat, we've had enough garnish.
Lets hear you tell us why you think the mass enslavement, mass rape and mass murder demanded by your perfectly good god isn't immoral?
Not2Black 4 weeks ago
@Not2Black You don't want to listen with an open mind. You are not willing to change your mind. I can refer you to some good videos, though. Look for Paul Copan on youtube to learn that slavery in the OT is contractual indentured servitude, and not slavery like it was in the Americas and elsewhere. Look for the Christian Think Tank article on the Midianites. Not a cut and dry situation. Any Christian could say Moses just got it wrong.
damntull 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@damntull Paul Copan doesn’t tell you what to think, you're not some mindless cult member simply parroting what you’ve been told, you can think independently remember?
So be brave, explain how you justify the killing and how you reconcile this most prolific of killers with the perfect goodness you claim for him.
What exactly did Moses get wrong? Which of his actions did god not fully endorse?
Explain what you think and why you think it, surely you can manage that by yourself.
Not2Black 3 weeks ago
@Not2Black
I take it then, that you're not going to watch the video.
Have you ever gone to school? Who told you about the history of the US? Couldn't you have figured it out for yourself? Who told you about biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics? Why did you rely on their knowledge? Couldn't you have figured it out for yourself?
Are all of your ideas original? Did you come up with all of them entirely on your own?
Come now - watch the video.
damntull 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@damntull As I suspect you're well aware, I'm not at all suggesting that you need originate any argument. I am however suggesting that you demonstrate your increasingly dubious claim of having given independent thought to someone else's argument, by explaining it.
I watch the video, I don't get your explanation, you demonstrate nothing.
Not2Black 3 weeks ago
@Not2Black Whoa! How in the world did I get the idea that you wanted an original argument from me? Oh my!
Glad you watched the video. I found the material on slavery (really indentured servitude) in ancient Israel particularly interesting. Did you? Would you like to revise your earlier charge of "mass enslavement?"
damntull 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@damntull to be fare to you his basis argument is consistent with the one you've been espousing almost from the start of this exchange.
You argue murder is not murder when committed by god, it's punishment (all be it somewhat indiscriminate).
He argues that slavery did not mean slavery when condoned, facilitated and commanded by god. It meant something much nicer. It meant being a willing (not at all forced) servant.
Is this your argument too?
Not2Black 3 weeks ago
@Not2Black
No, his argument is not that slavery is OK when it's willed by God.
He is saying that it's incorrect to call Old Testament indentured servitude "slavery."
It was an institution designed to protect the destitute at a time when social services like those we have today just did not exist. Your charge of mass slavery is false.
damntull 3 weeks ago
@damntull "Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."
Do you think the young virgin girls enslaved in the scene above would have been taken for purposes of social protection?
Not2Black 3 weeks ago
@Not2Black
Your comment is a tacit admission that you're only ASSUMING that they were being taken for sex. If you had read the article that I directed to you by the Christian Think Tank, you would realize this is not the case.
damntull 3 weeks ago
@da I've assumed nothing.
I'm interested in understanding what you think, how you justify the barbarism and how you reconcile gods rabid cruelty with your claim of his perfect morality. You made the assertion, at least have the courage to defend it.
After slaughtering their families, their friends and everyone they knew, having selected them specifically for their juvenile virginity, do YOU think their captors had the welfare protection of these children uppermost in their minds?
Not2Black 3 weeks ago
@Not2Black
You're doing it again. You're making an assumption about why they were spared, by asking your leading question. Where in the text (which you believe to be false by the way), does it say that the girls were used for sex?
damntull 3 weeks ago
@damntull I've made no assumption, nor have I mentioned sex, but I note that you've mentioned it twice.
You have claimed that god sanctioned slavery is in fact social welfare.
I simply ask whether you believe the scenario above is an example of that benevolent social welfare in action?
Not2Black 3 weeks ago
@Not2Black
Why do you keep using the term slavery?
What is it that you are claiming, then, Mr. Inquisitor?
Let us hear your views.
damntull 3 weeks ago
@d Is slavery another word I'm not allowed to mention in my effort to highlight the horrific nature of your evil god?
My claim is that your claim that god endorsed slavery is not an evil affront to humanity but is in fact a caring social welfare system, is almost as absurd as your claim that the flood genocide was a perfectly fare and proportional punishment for corruption
You seem unwilling to muster a defence of the Moses incident, are you ready to stick up for gods next atrocity?
Not2Black 3 weeks ago
@Not2Black
You shouldn't use the term slavery because it is inaccurate. You are "misreading Genesis." Your insistence on using the term slavery shows you are intellectually dishonest.
Your deeply, faithfully held presuppositions permeate your comments. You use pejorative terms like "horrific," "evil," and "atrocity" without justification. You are completely out of your depth, as evidenced by your literalist, fundamentalist, self-serving interpretations of the text, oh Inquisitor!
damntull 3 weeks ago
@damntull Are you suggesting all the stories in the bible are not to be taken literally or is it just the blood soaked, slavery endorsing and rape facilitating bits that are allegory?
Are you now arguing that the genesis flood did not literally happen?
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed"
What symbolic metaphoric message do you take from the above instruction?
Not2Black 3 weeks ago
@Not2Black
Ah, more pejorative characterization. It doesn't seem like you're interested in doing anything but venting your feelings. You're not listening to me. Case in point, I never said the genesis story happened - I think it's allegory. My point was that you had to take the story as a whole, or reject it as a whole.
If you want to vent, that's okay. I'll listen.
damntull 3 weeks ago
@damntull "I never said the genesis story happened"
When I pointed out that the genesis flood killed countless innocent children, you then justified the flood with your comment "children always pay the price for their parents' misdeeds"
How can you argue that the slaughter is justified in a literal sense and then claim allegory when your justifications unravel?
Besides what's the lesson here? What do you believe the food story is allegory of?
Not2Black 3 weeks ago
@Not2Black
"then claim allegory when your justifications unravel" - what planet are you on? That isn't what happened at all. You're in a fantasy world, dude!
Oh, I forgot, this is just more venting on your part. The world is unfair, isn't it? But thankfully, we can resign ourselves to the pitiless indifference of a cold, valueless, material universe which is mostly hostile to our insignificant existence.
damntull 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@damntull "That isn't what happened at all."
You didn't write "children always pay the price for their parents' misdeeds"
about 30 posts back?
Not2Black 3 weeks ago
@damntull "That isn't what happened at all."
The irony is, you falsely accuse me of making accusations without offering justification and yet this is precisely what you do here.
Perhaps you would now be specific about where exactly my account is in error?
If your allegory claim isn't just a convenient escape route but is in fact a conclusion you've reached after careful independent thought, perhaps you will explain it.
What's the morel in the genesis flood allegory?
Not2Black 3 weeks ago
@damntull "pitiless indifference of a cold, valueless, material universe which is mostly hostile to our insignificant existence."
Do you think it's better to believe in a nice fantasy than face up to a not so nice truth?
Do you think the universe owes you a happy ending?
Not2Black 3 weeks ago
@Not2Black
The fantasy is yours. But it's not a fantasy of creating, but the fantasy of ignoring. You ignore the fact that it's impossible for a material universe to be eternal, or that a universe composed only of contingent beings is impossible, that it's impossible to have a foundation for objective moral values in a purely material universe, that we're more than just physical objects, that Love is more than chemical interactions, etc. Why do you ignore the evidence around you?
damntull 3 weeks ago
@damntull Does this dramatic change of subject indicate your unwillingness to:
1. Specify where you think my quote of your words was in error.
2. Explain the morel in what you claim is the genesis flood allegory
Not2Black 2 weeks ago
@Not2Black
It demonstrates my unwillingness to go around in circles with you when you don't listen. We talk and talk, and you keep repeating your pejorative characterizations without justification. If you showed any willingness to be open minded, I might continue to talk to you. Unfortunately you have shown the opposite.
damntull 2 weeks ago
@Not2Black
"Discussion" with Not2Black
1. Make accusations without prior research or foundation and demand explanation.
2. Ignore explanation and/or counterarguments.
3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 as long as possible.
damntull 2 weeks ago
@da "Make accusations without .foundation"
Accusation = biblical god is child murderer
Foundation = bible = god killed every child on eartht via flood
"Ignore explanations/counters"
Your explanation 1 = he drowned them to save them starving.
My counter = could have prevented their deaths by not killing anyone
Your explanation 2 = genesis food is allegory
My counter = your explanations 1 and 2 are incompatible Also please explain the allegory
Your counter = I might not to talk to you
Not2Black 2 weeks ago
@Not2Black
Yes, I gave two independent defenses. You would have to defeat both of them to prove your point. You haven't defeated either.
Expl 1 counter counter - God was righteously judging evil people. He wouldn't be just if He didn't.
damntull 2 weeks ago
@damntull Does this mean you believe the flood story should be taken literally as well as allegorically?
Do you think the priest in this video would agree with you?
Do you see how such an argument is self refuting and incoherent?
Do you believe the worlds children are expendable when pursuing righteous killing?
If god told you to blow up a bus filled with wicked parents taking their kids to school, would consider it righteous?
Not2Black 2 weeks ago
@Not2Black
No, Not2Black, I'm saying I gave you two INDEPENDENT arguments. It's not a single argument. Don't you understand, Mr. Inquisitor?
Let me ask you a question and see if you answer: Is it ever morally permissible to perform an abortion?
damntull 2 weeks ago
@da Your arguments are not independent because they both attempt to prove the same point and therefore can not contradict each other. Your allegory argument refutes the idea that god killed at all, let alone for good reason. Independent arguments are 1 God killed innocent children in a flood because he is evil 2 God killed them because he believes children are expendable when righteous killing. These are independent arguments because they can both be true simultaneously
Do you see?
Not2Black 2 weeks ago
@Not2Black
You're just wrong about independent arguments. They are independent because one does not depend on the truth of the other, and each can provide sufficient proof for a claim. Look it up.
Also, how about an answer to my question. I've answered many of yours. It it ever morally permissible to perform an abortion?
damntull 2 weeks ago
@da If we are to make any progress, it's quite important that you understand what constitutes coherent argument. You can not advance arguments that contradict each other and claim coherence. e.g. you can't argue abortion is wrong because innocent children suffer and say god killing countless innocent children is righteous.
If you think self contradiction is ok, why did you post this?
"You're contradicting yourself. First you say we are more than physical objects, but then you say..."
Not2Black 2 weeks ago
@Not2Black
I have not advanced ANY arguments concerning abortion. I asked what your position is - so please tell me, is it every morally permissible to perform an abortion?
And hopefully by now you understand the concept of independent arguments - multiple arguments arguing for the same conclusion that do not depend on the truth of the others.
So will you answer my question?
damntull 2 weeks ago
@da Multiple arguments arguing for the same conclusion can not contradict each other. Worse your arguments are self refuting since the first can be used to undermine the second This is the very definition of incoherence. How where you able to recognise that self contradiction is fatal to argument when you falsely accused me of it?
If you will make one attempt at showing why my contradictory arguments were invalid while yours are valid, I will immediately answer your abortion question
Not2Black 2 weeks ago
@Not2Black
I offered two independent arguments, A and B, against your charge, C. In this case, let's assume my arguments are contradictory (they're not strictly contradictory, just that if the story IS allegorical, the other argument doesn't matter).
If C is true, then A and B are false.
If A is true, then B and C are false.
If B is true, then A and C are false.
Either way, if A or B is true, your charge, C, is false. It wouldn't matter if my arguments contradicted each other.
damntull 2 weeks ago
@damntull You miss the point entirely (perhaps deliberately)
I'm already fully aware of the fact that you believe "It doesn't matter that your arguments contradicted each other." This is well understood and needs no further explanation. The crucial bit that does need explaining is why you recognise that self contradiction is fatal to your opponents arguments?
Why did you object thus "You're contradicting yourself. First you say we are more than physical objects, but then you say.."
Not2Black 2 weeks ago
@Not2Black
If I were to say, "This car is blue" and "This car is green" at the same time, that is a logical contradiction.
What is happening in our discussion is:
You claim "The car is blue."
I offer two independent defenses against that claim:
1 - It can't be blue because there's no such color as blue.
2 - Even if there is such a color as blue, the car isn't blue, because it's actually a chicken.
Even though the defenses contradict each other, if either defense is true, your claim is false.
damntull 2 weeks ago
@da Didn't think I'd be the one to fold first, but this is a deal breaker for me. If you genuinely think self contradiction is ok, then the future of this discussion looks bleak and uninteresting.
That you objected the instant you thought I'd contradicted myself, suggests you do recognise this basic rule of coherent discourse. But rather than concede and move on you contrive to grant yourself exemption from it.
I thank you for your time and wish you healed, friend.
Not2Black 2 weeks ago
@Not2Black
I challenge you to copy and take this conversation to a logician and see for yourself.
As for healing: "first take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
damntull 2 weeks ago
@Not2Black
Also, your "foundation" is shallow indeed. No explanation of background, reasons, discussion of moral perogatives, etc.
damntull 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@damnt "you are just interested in lobbing accusations."
My only accusation is that you believe what the bible says, an accusation to which you readily confess.
It seems you don't appreciate the full horror of your claim. Try visualising countless people having their lives systematically crushed out of them. Refer to the immensity of their suffering in your justification, to show that you've uderstood it and then explain why it doesn't matter or show that something else matters more.
Not2Black 4 weeks ago
@Not2Black What about your accusation of our "murderous" God. Your presuppositions are so strongly held that talking to you is a waste of time. Our discussion of the Genesis account is a perfect example.
damntull 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@damntull Are you really suggesting that I'm not allowed to mention the murders that are the subject of our discussion? I must refrain from referring to the genocides in the bible that undermine your claim that the god of the bible is perfectly good? Perhaps it's the word "murder" that you object to? If so I'm happy to stick to the word genocide.
I don't understand, please explain?
Not2Black 4 weeks ago
@Not2Black I'm saying that you've already jumped to your conclusions. When you use the words "murder" and "genocide," you've already concluded God is evil. Why not just read the article and view the video I pointed you to.
damntull 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@damnt Yes, I do conclude that anyone who (by own admission) has commited mass murder and multiple genocide is indeed evil. Seems to me that theses behaviours would tend to fit the description "evil", unless of course you've redefined that word too. In any case you have claimed that you are in possession of coherent argument and evidence not only exonerating god, but demonstrating his morality to be perfect.
If you have given Copan's argument independant thought, why not explain it?
Not2Black 3 weeks ago
Also, no where is the definition of morality "not inflicting needless punishment on others". While the essence of that idea does fit in, morality is consciousness between what is right and wrong, good or evil. Atheism has no right or wrong except for whatever the person decides, or government in this case, who then 'dictates' it into effect by law.
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
There is no absolute morality in an atheistic world. Morality is only "dictated" by the masses in such a case-law. Morality and law are not interchangeable terms, unless it would be divine law of course. Atheistic 'morality' is just subjective thoughts. Abortion? Up to you. Capital punishment? Up to you. The list goes on like this from culture to culture. Thats not morality, that's choosing. That's why atheistic 'morality' doesn't exist.
Ndftblwannabe1 1 month ago
@Ndftblwannabe1 "atheistic 'morality' doesn't exist."
Yes, on this point we are in agreement. Atheism and morality are different independant subjects. An immoral act is still immoral irrespective of atheism. But many immoral acts committed by the faithful are logically impossible for atheists. e.g. human sacrifice.
If morality is only consciousness of right and wrong as you suggest, is your paedophile priest perfectly moral because he is conscious of the wrong he does?
Not2Black 1 month ago
Hi Father Barron,
I refer you to Dr Gerald Schroeder’s lecture on the scientific basis for Genesis” Scientific Proof of God
“ on youtube, tried loading a link but youtube would not allow . The more modern science reveals, in actual fact the closer to the Bible it gets. M-Theory, the elastic properties of Space time and the theory of greater structure outside of our universe, to name but a few.
God Bless.
shronemor 1 month ago
Oh I see, Genesis was just poetic language to show that the world was created with no violence, which is consistent with the bibles theme of non-violence.
But evidence suggests the universe was in fact created in a cataclysmic big bang, which does sounds quite violent to me. Also most will have noticed that the bible has a far from consistent theme of non-violence.
Is there any part of the bible that can be read literally?
And how can anyone tell?
Not2Black 1 month ago
You are confused by your own lack of coherence. I can't offer you anything else.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 I agree. Atheism has nothing to offer.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull "I agree. Atheism has nothing to offer."
IF we all picked a relgion based on what it has to offer then we would all be worshiping the Flying Spagetti Monster on Santa Claus
No one picks a relgion ( or lack of relgion) based on what it offers.
badpanda84 1 month ago
@badpanda84 If it had nothing to offer, like a coherent world view, why pick it?
damntull 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@damntull "If it had nothing to offer, like a coherent world view, why pick it?"
Firstly atheism is not a relgion so you can't "pick" atheism -- its a lack of belive in God because there is no evidence..
Its dosen't matter what relgion claims to offer -- if there is no evidence to support there claims -- then there is no reason to belive
badpanda84 1 month ago
@badpanda84 "No one picks a relgion...based on what it offers."
If only this were true.
The vast majority of people don't get to pick at all, but are infected at birth by their parents. Those few who do get to pick, do so on precisely that basis and no other.
Not2Black 1 month ago
@Not2Black Your pejorative language is reflective of deep bias, a lack of sincerity, and shallow thinking. Rather than me being infected with faith, I would say that your lack of faith is evidence of your improperly functioning cognitive faculties.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull "lack of faith is evidence of your improperly functioning cognitive faculties."
Perhaps you would care to explain why you believe lack of faith (belief without evidence) is evidence of dysfunction?
Are you dysfunctional because of your lack of faith in the tooth fairy?
Not2Black 1 month ago
@Not2Black "Those few who do get to pick, do so on precisely that basis and no other."
Really so you mean to tell me that people actually choose to be catholics..
I just find it hard to belive that anyone would choose to be catholic.
badpanda84 1 month ago
@badpanda84 "you mean to tell me that people actually choose to be catholics."
Our former war mongering prime minister Tony Blair famously converted to Catholicism 2007
Shoe bomber Richard Reid converted to Islam 1997.
Former cabinet minister Ann Widdecombe converted to Catholicism because SHE disapproved of women priests in the Anglican church.
Not2Black 1 month ago
@damntull No. Atheism has everything to offer. I don't - because you are simply not open to debate and I dont have time to waste.Goodbye.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Something tells me you waste plenty of time, Mr. Lego. Funny how you won't answer a simple question, then charge me with not being open to debate. Clear case of projection. Bye now.
damntull 1 month ago
Ho hum!
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
fascinating stuff fr. barron. thankyou
0011vintage 1 month ago
Whoever the "Biblical authors" were - they were not informed about science or anything from a reading of it. They were simply men of their time. Creation isn't happening now Father, evolution is! Religion simply retards us as human beings. Atheism does not obviate morality - rather it encourages respect for the common humanity of all of us - because we are human - simply and precisely that. Given what we know now as humble humans, Genesis is embarrassing - please quit trying to justify it.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123
On atheism, why is humanity good?
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull Because we have the potential for good and bad and big choices to make which have nothing to do with a God in my view. Also,our humanity is all we have and we should hold that in higher regard than the fear we have of upsetting a non existent God or the religious myths built up over the years.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 --you must be a homosexual.
TheGhostFromPlanetX 1 month ago
@TheGhostFromPlanetX Even if I was that would be better than being a bigotted cretin.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Humanity has the potential for good and bad choices, therefore humanity is good. Doesn't follow, my friend. That's a terrible argument.
"Humanity is all we have and we SHOULD hold that in higher regard ..." That only follows if humanity is good, which you have failed to show if atheism is true.
Again, on atheism, why is humanity good?
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull It's not. It is just that you are imbued with the typical religious self loathing, guilt and instilled deathwish. We hsave survived this long despite religions because of our curiosity and determination. Evolution has given us a survivsl instinct - religion reduces that. Can you seriously imagine 19 atheists flying planes into buildings for the reward of an afterlife or because there is no God. Course not - it needs religious belief for that. Maybe you loathe yourself with good reason?
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@damntull I cant and dont need to show Atheism to be true. I am not the one making ridiculous claims of a creator in the sky who watches us. The burdon of proof is on you and you know damned well you cant meet that challenge without referring to the study of the unknowable - the Catholic theolgical canon. You have no evidence. Maybe you are trying to divert me? I think perhaps so. You have failed. Theology, however eloquent is not evidence of anything other than theology.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@damntull Ho hum!!!!!!
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 I doubt that Fr. Barron would have any interest in engaging you in conversation. I asked you for good arguments as to why, on atheism, humanity should be considered 'good'? You responded with dime-store psychologizing, projection, and insults. Lame.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull You are an acolyte of Fr Barren. It is him I want to debate - the organ grinder not the monkey.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Fr Barron at least presents arguments in our conversations not simply insults. You cannot insult me away - I wouldn't give you the power to do that. I note you use a phrase about dime store psychology etc. If you are trying to insult someone at least try to be original and dont simply quote one of Fr Barron's put downs. This is the sign of a dulled intellect. If you do have a real question I'll try to answer - if you just want to wise crack carry on - it is of no consequence.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 I liked his phrase "dime-store psychologizing," so I used it. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
I asked you a real question, and in return you offered a non-sequitur and an assertion, followed by insults.
The question again - on atheism, why is humanity good?
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull Humanity is good because goodness has an evolutionary benefit to the species. We are also venal and violent when needed and they can have benefits too. We are complex creatures. We are not good purely because we believe that punishment after death will follow - in my opinion. Even if we were, that's a pretty empty way to live your life. We can embrace the golden rule and survive. Religions simply justify one tribe is in the right the others wrong. We are growing above this nonsense.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 This is called "equivocation," the logical fallacy that results from using the term "good" in two different senses. First, you use "good" in the sense of moral worth. Then, you use "good(ness)" in the sense of beneficial actions. Your reply is a logical fallacy.
The rest is pejorative characterization.
You still have no answer to the question - on atheism, why should humanity be considered good?
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull I have answered you several times. You simply have a tough time I feel understanding facts based on evidence. Moral worth and good actions are not mutually exclusive. I dont know who you are trying to impress but it isn't working. Come up with some sensible comments and I may respond again. I dont have unlimited time to try to educate you out of your indoctrination.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 I didn't say moral worth and beneficial actions were mutually exclusive (though they are different subjects). What I said is that your answer to my question was logically fallacious. You claimed in an earlier post that atheism does not obviate morality - and I asked you to give a reason, on atheism, why humanity should be considered good? So far, we have not seen a sensible answer.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull They are not mutually exclusive or different subjects.They are correlatives This is classical Catholic semantics. You cannot answer a question so try to tie the questioner up in endless nonsense. If they are athiest then accuse them of being somehow damaged or aggressive. As I have said all along - the burdon of proof is not with me. The silence of God speaks volumes in the favour of athiests everywhere. It's a hard fact to grasp but millions of us have come to that realisation.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Now you are just avoiding the question. Why, on atheism, should humanity be considered good?
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull So do you feel humanity is good or bad or indifferent? I think it is on balance good! I have told you of my reasons for believing so. I do believe Religions encourage guilt and that is a difficult mind set to escape. I am a moral person by anyone's standards but have managed to escape the guilt trip of religion and accept the fact that we are on our own as a species and we dont need this indoctrination to progress. Life is good without a God.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 And I pointed out to you that your reason for believing humanity is good is illogical. You have still failed to explain why, on atheism, should humanity be considered morally good? As a Christian, I believe it is - but we're talking about YOUR reason to think so, if God does not exist. Give me a valid REASON.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull I dont want to waste any more time on trying to convince you about our common humanity. I have tried. You are asking for a reason as to why god doesn't exist? The reason for me is that there is no evidence for a god. Why do you believe he does?
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 I'm not asking you for a reason as to why God doesn't exist. I'm asking you why, on atheism, should humanity be considered good? Give a REASON.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull
Are you claiming humanity is considered "good" ( which is a rather subjective term)?
Given all the war and attroicitres humans have commited -- you still think we are "good"
badpanda84 1 month ago
@badpanda84 Good but flawed.
damntull 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@damntull "Good but flawed."
Really even after all the war and attroticies humans have commited.. what make you think humanity is good
In fact despite God saying "it was good" when he created humans -- a few chapters later he wiped out all of humanity in a flood ( expect for Noah) because they were wicked.
badpanda84 1 month ago
@damntull I'm acutally curious -- what make you think humanity is "good"
Humans beings from the time they are born are actually just selfish.
When you are born the only thing you know how to do is to cry and scream until people give you want you want ( ie change you diapers , feed you etc..)
badpanda84 1 month ago
@badpanda84 Sorry, but I'm not interested in dialogue with you.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull Regardless I'm still intersted on why you think humanity is "good"
badpanda84 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@damntull "Why, on atheism, should humanity be considered good?"
That is a pretty pointless questions -- obviously there are some people that are good and other's like hilter which arent..
You probably shouldn't generailised all of humaniy as either good or bad
badpanda84 1 month ago
@damntull Sycophancy is the sincerest form of grovelling hero worship.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Why so angry? Who hurt you?
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull No-one. I am not angry I am very happy.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 If you are not angry, why call me a grovelling indoctrinated sycophant?
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull Because that's how you are behaving.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Mt. 7:5 "You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye."
See - it can be useful.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull "The question again - on atheism, why is humanity good?"
I was really hoping you would make your point.
On atheism humanity is not necessarily good, so what?
Not2Black 1 month ago
@Not2Black On atheism, there is no basis for objective moral values.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull "On atheism, there is no basis for objective moral values."
Why do moral values have to be objective?
Can they not be arrived at through rational evidence based conversation and consensus?
Don't you agree that this would ensure that we develop moral values that are consistent with our growing understanding of reality?
Not2Black 1 month ago
@Not2Black Our knowledge of moral values does indeed develop through argument, conversation, and consensus building. But the values themselves are objective. Would you really want to say that the consensus of Germans in 1935 concerning Jews or the consensus of Southern Americans in 1940 concerning blacks was properly determinative of what was morally right?
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo "Would you really want to say the consensus of Southern Americans .. morally right".
No, but only because theses conclusions were arrived at through superstition, ignorance and bigotry rather than through evidence based reason and consensus. e.g. Southern states could not have made a coherent support for the morality of slavery with reference to evidence and reason, but instead found ample support for slavery in the pages of the bible.
Not2Black 1 month ago
@Not2Black What does reason appeal to if not some objective state of affairs? Your original position, I'm afraid, locks you into a subjectivism that conduces toward relativism.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo Do you weigh your moral dilemmas in terms of the likely harm & suffering versus the potential improvement to wellbeing or do you consider which option is objective, subjective or conducing toward relativism?
Do you agree that the later considerations are almost entirely irrelevant?
Not2Black 1 month ago
@Not2Black I second Fr. Barron's reply to you. You confuse moral ontology (foundation in reality of moral values) and moral epistemology (how we come to know what moral values and duties we have). You could come to a consensus that torturing children for fun is "immoral," but you could not give a coherent answer to the question, "Why is it immoral." On atheism, moral values are just statements of subjective feelings or preferences that can in no way be binding on others, except through force.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull If you defined moral principles as "those likely to minimise suffering," then you could easily provide a coherent answer to the question, "Why is torturing a child immoral?"
I realise this definition may not be water tight but I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make.
It seems to me that moral values can not be objective because they need to change inline with our growing understanding of reality.
Perhaps you will explain why in priciple you believe this is not so?
Not2Black 1 month ago
@Not2Black "Water tight?" It doesn't hold water at all! If atheism is true, human beings (as everything else) are merely physical objects. What would be so important about the suffering of human beings if they are merely physical objects? Answer - nothing.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull But humans are not merely physical objects, for one thing we are capable of experiencing suffering. This elevates us above the importance of say rocks, especially concerning issues of morality. This is the case whether or not atheism is true.
Is your morality contingent on there being a god?
Not2Black 1 month ago
@Not2Black Human beings are not merely physical objects? What else are they composed of?
Why, on atheism, is human suffering bad? Why should it concern me that some human experiences pain?
damntull 1 month ago
We are more than objects because of the range of experiences we are capable of having, this distinguishes us from mere objects like rocks. Suffering is bad because it is an unpleasant experience. e.g. when catholic priests rape children their suffering is intense & protracted. You should care because you are capable of empathy, this distinguishes you from a psychopath. All of this is true whether or not atheism is true.
Will you become imoral when you realise there is no god?