Worldviews in view reviewed: Atheism, Theology, Occult, UFOs, Cultural Commentary, etc.
While evilbible.com condemns what they perceived as the Bible’s approval of rape we must recall that they are merely presenting their opinions, personal preferences, assertion, upon unfounded assertion, upon unfounded assertion, and building a tel of arguments from outrage, arguments from personal incredulity, arguments for embarrassment, etc.
Now, to the relevant portions of the next text in the evilbible.com arsenal, Numbers 31:7-18,
The “Problem of Evil”:
Note that Dan Barker has proven his case, at least in his own peculiarly imaginative mind. According to Barkerian ethics anything can be moral. What about forcing a mother to cannibalize her own child’s face while the child is still alive? Sure, that could be moral if aliens came to earth and demanded…well you know the story. Is it any wonder why Dan Barker has stated “I think abortion is a blessing” during his debate with John Rankin?
Moreover, I find it odd that Dan Barker could claim that it would be immoral to refrain from rape because that would mean that “you would kill all of us.” After all, according to a general understanding of Dan Barker’s worldview all of humanity will become exterminated when the sun explodes. During his debate with Paul Manata Dan Barker stated, “There is no moral interpreter in the cosmos, nothing cares and nobody cares.” He makes a point to the effect that what happens to us or a vegetable ultimately does not matter. Will it? He states, “…what happens to me or a piece of broccoli, it won’t, the Sun is going to explode, we’re all gonna be gone. No one’s gonna care.” He then concludes that we should be good to each other etc.
Yet, this does not necessarily follow. I could claim that all of humanity will someday be extinct so be nice or conclude that all of humanity will someday be extinct so oppress humanity. I could conclude that I should love my neighbor or beat up my neighbor. I could feed the poor or eat the poor. The Barkerian ethic is foundationless and so it is merely an open door to make any excuse that you want for any behavior whatsoever.
Aliens may make rape moral, Timothy McVeigh’s justifications could make blowing up a building inhabited by men, women and children moral, Dan Barker makes a living from besmirching the majority of humanity and considers it moral, etc.
Now Dan Barker has brought us to the most important point to be gleaned from the Barkerian ethic. This is the main point that we have been driving towards in so carefully dissecting his statements on ethics:
By his very own standards he has utterly and absolutely discredited his own criticism of religion, Christianity, the Bible, God, Jesus, etc.
This is the pertinent though experiment and the question that should be asked each and every time that he does criticize any ethic at all (remember this is according to his very own standards): if I can think of an exception, even one single one, even one that involves voyeuristic aliens then Dan Barker has absolutely no right to condemn any actions at all as being immoral-no past actions, no present actions and no future actions.
The way this works is, for example, by pointing out that Dan Barker disapprovingly stated that “the God of the Bible commanded and condoned rape.” This is, of course, a self-serving emotive polemical point yet which ends up discrediting Dan Barker further since it is utterly false. There is no logical argumentation that is easier to deal with than when someone discredits themselves.
Yet, let us grant this fallacy momentarily in order to note that all we have to do is respond thusly, “But if aliens can turn rape into a moral action then so can God.”
Or his statement, “Any ethical system that’s based on threats and promises is morally bankrupt.” We may respond thusly, “But since I can think of an exception then the threats and promises based ethic is moral.”
What if God has a reason-even one single reason, even one reason that we do not know about, even one that never occurred to us, maybe even one that we would reject as being fallacious-for performing a certain action or allowing a certain action to take place?
This is what philosophically answers the “problem of evil.” If God has even one reason or any sort for allowing evil then there is no “problem of evil.”
I say, “philosophically” because the only “problem of evil” that remains is an emotional problem, and rightly so. Simply because there is a satisfying logical explanation does not mean that it is easy to deal with emotionally. Dan Barker, for one, has virtually based his career as a professional activist atheism by playing on the emotions of those for whom “the problem of evil” is a deeply emotional issue.
While we could certainly emphasize with this shared and basic human tendency it should not be simply granted as an excuse for Dan Barker to offer up condemnations based purely on arguments from outrage.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.
“A man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book.”
Thus stated Joseph Smith in regards to the Book of Mormon.
This article is a review of a video produced by the Mormon Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints about the Book of Mormon.[1] This video is very telling of the manner in which Mormonism determines the truth of its claims.
The video begins with a short retelling of the basic premise behind the Book of Mormon’s origins, finding and translation. We are told that Joseph Smith stated, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on Earth and the keystone of our religion. And a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book.” We added emphasis in order to highlight two key points: One, the Book of Mormon is the keystone and not a keystone nor one of the keystones of Mormonism. Two, we may get closer to God by following its teachings than by any other book, by logical conclusion this excludes the 66 books of the Bible (as well as the Mormon Church’s own Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, Book of Abraham, etc.).
The rest of the video tells the story of two men and how they came to believe in the divine inspiration of the Book of Mormon.
Parley P. Pratt’s story begins in 1830 as he feels a calling from the Spirit to travel and preach. As he is doing so a certain Baptist Deacon tells him of the Book of Mormon. Mr. Pratt spends about a day and a half reading it incessantly. He states, “As I read, the Spirit of the Lord was upon me and I knew and comprehended that the book as true. As plainly and manifestly as a man comprehends and knows that he exists.”
Note that the Deacon who mentioned the book to Mr. Pratt only knew what the book claimed of itself. Also, once Mr. Pratt had read it he asked the Deacon if he knew what was in the book to which the Deacon replied that he did not since he has been lending it out so often that he had not had a chance to read it. From here Mr. Pratt travels in search of Joseph Smith and eventually ends up becoming a member of the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church.
The next story, told in much more detail, is that of Vincenzo Di Francesca who was a Protestant minister from Sicily. In 1910 he received a Pastoral degree with honors from Knox College, in New York. That same year he found a book in a barrel of ashes, this book had its title page missing and so he did not know its title nor who had published it. He read it and eventually said a prayer in which he asked whether the book was of God. As an answer he received what is known as the burning of the bosom. “I knew that the book came from God,” he stated.
Di Francesca had been active as a Pastor and begun to incorporate the teachings of the Book of Mormon into his sermons. In 1912 he was charged with “heretical preaching and promotion of disharmony among the pastoral brotherhood.” He stated, “I find the book precisely in harmony with the writings of the prophets.” He then laid out the claims of the, as of yet, unnamed book and stated, “It gives us more light and more knowledge than we now have.” Next he tells the synod of the burning of the bosom and states, “I feel it.” He is asked to burn the book and repent but refuses, stating that he would leave the ministry if he had to. Again in 1914 he is brought before the synod and asked to burn the book, which he again refuses to do and is therefore stripped of his status as pastor.
After World War I he is allowed back into the fold as a lay parishioner and is eventually sent to a mission to Australia on an experimental basis. While there some of the immigrants raised questions about translations and editions of the Bible and Di Francesca tells them that there are in fact errors but that there are other sources from which to learn the words of our Savior. He again preaches the message of the Book of Mormon and finds himself in trouble with the Protestant church.
The rest of his story is basically that of his finally finding out the book’s title and who published it. Thereafter, he attempts to be baptized into the Mormon Church.
The reason we stated that this video is very telling of the manner by which Mormonism determines the truth of its claims is that we are not told of any sort of historical verification of the Book of Mormon; no archeology, no manuscript evidence, no ancient history. Neither are we presented with any hermeneutics (method of proper interpretation), except for one single statement – I find the book precisely in harmony with the writings of the prophets, which of course, falls far short of any viable reasoning or actual demonstration of said harmony.
What reasoning are we presented with? None at all, the main point that comes through is one that will not be surprising to anyone who has any knowledge of Mormonism. What are we left with as a determining factor with regards to validating the Book of Mormon? I knew and comprehended that the book as true…I knew that the book came from God…I feel it. Mormons rely virtually exclusively on the burning of the bosom, which is a purely subjective method of determining “truth.” At the conclusion of a discussion with two Mormon Elders one of them told me that all they could leave me with is the suggestion that I pray about whether or not Mormonism is true. I stated that the Bible tells us to “test all things,” (1st Thessalonians 5:21) and that we are to “test the spirits; whether they are from God” (1st John 4:1). Therefore, if I prayed and received a response I would have to test it. I then started to talk about the evidence of the reliability of the Bible to which one of the Elders replied, “Don’t rely on the evidence.” Clearly, according to the Elders, subjective emotional experience outweighed empirical fact.
There is a Mormon bookmark that reads, “Book Mark for your Book of Mormon-Turn to page 520 and read verses 4 and 5 Learn how you may Know that this book is True.” When we turn to p. 520 we find 10:4-5 which reads, “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.”
Christian apologist Ron Carlson told of an instance in which a Mormon asked him if he had prayed regarding Mormonism’s validity, Mr. Carlson answered, “‘I honestly have,’ and I said, ‘God told me that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and Mormonism was a lie.’ And he rocked back on his heels, all of a sudden it became his subjective testimony versus my subjective testimony and we were lost in a sea of relativity.”[2] If one person prays and gets the burning of the bosom and another person prays and does not, does that mean that the Book of Mormon is only the Gospel truth for one person and not the other?
Recall that Joseph Smith said, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on Earth…”Consider that most Bibles have maps in them; this is because we know for a fact where many events took place. However, the Book of Mormon has no maps because it remains historically unsubstantiated. Where evidence is not present the Mormon calls for a subjective emotional experience.
Note also that “the Book of Mormon has been altered 4,000 times; 3,913 up to 1980 and from 1981 to the present at least 100 more changes.”[3] It also still contains incorrect historical, scientific and zoological information. In fact, the Mormon Church has recently reprinted the original Book of Mormon where the changes are clearly seen by comparison to contemporary editions.
These many errors are simply, though not satisfactorily, explained away in the front page of the Book of Mormon, “if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.” Thus, we learn a few things; we find that there are so many errors in the book that Mormonism preemptively states that it is the fault of men and not of God. But the Book of Mormon is supposed to be the most correct, and most correctly translated, book on Earth having been translated letter by letter from golden plates that mysteriously (or conveniently) disappeared. Also, note the scare tactic in that by judging the Book of Mormon as wrong you are speaking out against God and risk being judged by Christ.
Lastly, Mormonism claims that the Bible is the word of God, as long as it is translated correctly; precisely by which sort of scientific methodology is accurate translation determined? Manuscript evidence, linguistics, etc.? No, rather if it deviates from Mormon doctrine then it is considered not to be translated correctly with absolutely no regard to any viable evidence. Yet, here we might likewise state that Mormonism believes that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God, as long as it is translated correctly since if there are faults they are the mistakes of men.
How Rare a Possession – The Book of Mormon is a very informative video. However, not in the way that the Mormon Church would hope; we do not end up convinced of Mormonism’s keystone but do end up learning a lot about replacing emotions in place of facts.
Biblically speaking, it is the followers of Jesus Christ (as described within the pages of the New Testament) whom were and are called Christians, yet the tide is turning. There are cults, which are now attempting to turn the table and claim that they are the true Christians and that it is biblically orthodox Christians who are the cults.
Let us offer a practical definition of what a cult is: a cult is a group which has gotten far enough away from its origins and the foundational orthodoxy from whence it came that it is no longer recognizable. Thus, there are four major groups that are technically defined as pseudo-Christian cults and these are The Church of Jesus Christ-Latter Day Saints a.k.a. Mormons; The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society a.k.a. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science and some would include Seventh Day Adventism.
The issue is that if you were to mention virtually any orthodox biblical Christian doctrine these groups will deny it. Note however that it is very important to define your terms because on occasion you may find yourself agreeing due to common terminology, yet you will come to find out that when you define terms you will disagree on the meaning.
I will comment on the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses in particular, since these groups have recently commented on this issue. In the beginning these groups set themselves apart from the world of Christendom i.e., they were not Christians but were rather Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. They claimed to be God’s true religion; the Mormons with their priesthood, prophets and extra-biblical scriptures and the Jehovah’s Witnesses with the Watchtower and Kingdom Halls.
These groups are now starting to use a very interesting tactic; they are now claiming to be the true Christians. A Newsweek article made the following observations preceding the 2002 Olympics that took place in Salt Lake City, Utah (the center of the Mormon universe):
the church now insists it be regarded as a Christian church… the church’s hierarchy recently advised the media that the term Mormon Church is no longer acceptable. Henceforth, officials declared, short references to the church should read: “The Church of Jesus Christ.” In this way the church hopes to emphasize what Mormons share with historic Christianity, not what makes them different… In 1971, images of Jesus appeared only five times in the church’s official monthly publication, the Ensign; in 1999, the Ensign published 119 of them…
Jan Shipps, who has studied the Saints for 40 years. [states] “After a century of cultivating their separate identity as a religious people, Mormons now want to stress their affinities with traditional Christianity yet highlight their uniqueness.”1
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Watchtower is teaching,
True Christians manifest their loyal support of Jehovah’s chosen King by declaring “this good news of the kingdom” to others.-Matthew 24:14.
Those who support the Kingdom arrangement through Christ, the Son of the living God, will live to enjoy eternal blessings.2How do True Christians today show that they are for rule by God? In advocating God’s Kingdom, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not mix in politics or foment rebellion, even in lands where the Witnesses are banned. (Titus 3:1)
They make a positive contribution in the way that Jesus and his early disciples did and strive to help people adopt wholesome Biblical values, such as honesty, moral cleanness, and a good work ethic.3
The bottom line is that these groups are claiming to be the authentic Christians and they define orthodox-fundamental-biblical-Christianity as being in error. Do not underestimate the appeal of unorthodox doctrines, for instance if you find it hard to accept the Trinity, the physical resurrection, the divinity of Jesus, hell etc., etc., the pseudo-Christian cults are out there telling you not to worry about it since they believe no such thing themselves while still claiming to be Christians. Liberal and cultic Christianity feed the cults and often, more than just the pseudo-Christian cults but on into some of the non-Christian syncretistic religions (which are not truly syncretistic but pseudo-syncretistic).
Be prepared because more and more it will be orthodox-fundamental-biblical-Christianity that will be defined as not only cult-like but, as we already are, narrow and bigoted and it will be the pseudo-Christian cults that will be hailed as open minded, liberal and diverse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.
How To Be Ethical Without a God:At 33:49 into part 1 Dan Barker explains his ethical viewpoint:
How can I summarize how we naturalists know how to be ethical without a God? Here it is, it’s very simple. It’s a principle, it’s not a rule, it’s a principle. If you intend to act in a way that minimizes harm by your actions in the real world, then by definition you can be called an ethical person. If you don’t intend to act in a way that minimizes harm you are not ethical…compassion, charity, goodwill, all of it has to do with lessening suffering. And what is harm, what is suffering? It’s a physical thing it’s part of the natural world. Harm is something that can be measured and analyzed naturally, it’s not something that we need somebody from the outside to tell us that this hurts or doesn’t hurt. And it’s all relative to the situation…there are no moral absolutes…there are no action in and of themselves are always absolutely right or wrong. It depends on the context. You cannot name an action that is always, absolutely right or wrong, I can think of an exception in any case…it depends on the situation, it depends on the context…
telling a lie can sometimes be a very good moral thing to do.
Note Dan Barker’s interesting and very telling qualifiers, “principle…not a rule…intend…it’s all relative…there are no moral absolutes…It depends on the context.”
“Contemplation, Perseverance, Imagination, and Free Will. From the morality play Hickscorner. Reproduced in H.W. Mabie, William Shakespeare (1900).”1
One of the most interesting points thus far is that according to the Barkerian ethic a person does not have to do or not do anything in order to be ethical. What counts is intention, “If you intend to…you can be called an ethical person.” Note the term “called,” this will come into play as we continue our contemplation.
At 46:57 into part 1 the point about “intentions” is solidified:
the key word here is “intention.” We don’t always know the consequences we’re not always fully informed. But if it is your intention to act in ways that minimizes harm then you will try to be as informed as possible. And even if you goof, even if you make a mistake, if your intention was to minimize harm you can be labeled an ethical person.
Well, there is a saying that good intentions are a paving to some sort of road. This sort of ethic basically amounts to the generic concept of self-esteem or otherwise spirituality: do whatever you want (or, do not do whatever you do not want) and at day’s end look in the mirror and tell yourself that you are a good person.
In my essay James Randi the Amazing Atheist I pointed out that it never ceases to amaze me how a person’s true personality comes out if they are simply given a few minutes to express themselves. They may begin with an air of intellect and erudition only to succumb to their uncontrollable emotions. It appears that Dan Barker reached this point at 4:32 into part 2 when he stated:
He [God] might exist and be some kind of robotic law giver but he is not a being, a personal being, whom I would respect in any sense that I would wanna worship. And if he wants to prove to him [sic] what a big daddy in the sky he is, if he wants to prove what a big macho man he is and send someone to me [sic] to hell for having the audacity to think for myself and challenge his moral actions then let him do it. I would rather suffer an eternity in hell, burning in flames with some dignity, than pretending to bow down and worship at the feet of this, this brutal blood thirsty dictator of the Bible.
Clearly, this is atheism as anti-theism, particularly anti-Judeo-Christian theism.
Emotionally charged outburst may be exciting and useful for inciting those who already agree with you but they are not the stuff of reasoned discourse-particularly during a debate. This reminds me of a debate tactic employed by Keith Parsons who on numerous occasions during a debate with William Lane Craig literally yelled “I cannot believe!…I cannot believe!…I cannot believe!…I cannot believe!”
Believe it or not; our personal incredulity does not shape reality.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.