Bob often relates his experience at seeing a UFO in his youth, and in the same breath, explains that most reports of UFO’s arise from mistaken interpretations of natural phenomena. Its movements violated the laws of physics he tells us, and since it’s not, he determined, the work of God, it can only be the devil yet again endeavoring to deceive us.
This is an oft-recycled story. If there is some event we can’t right away explain, either Goddit and should that account not fit, then the devildidit. All things are of God or of the devil. White or black. An “X” or and “O.” Plus or minus. Positive or negative. Simple huh?
When in 1573 Tycho Brahe reported with full documentation the appearance in the constellation Cassiopeia of a new star over a period of months during the prior year, how do you suppose the theologians explained this apparent alteration in an Aristotelian, God-created unchanging universe? From these learned men, two responses: One, Mr. Brahe was simply mistaken; or two, it was the devil at work.
With his IQ of 160 and his voracious reading of the arguments, counter-arguments, rebuttals and re-rebuttals of science, can’t Bob come up with a new explanation for UFO’s?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Yeah, that was one of the great show's, Bob solve's the UFO phenomenon. I can't understand why Bob was'nt consulted on this sooner, he could have saved those, stupid, conspiring scientist's billion's of dollars in research and space exploration.
"God did it" problem solved. Can you imagine if scientist throughout history had listened to the like's of Bob, and not pusued answer's beyond "god did it"
I would love for some life form to be found on another planet just to hear Bob invent some fantasy explanation that allow's him to continue to live the lie.
I had the show turned on for literally five minutes today and heard part of this craziness. Bob was hypothesizing that the Devil might deliberately cause something bad to happen to you when you when you walk under a latter to reinforce superstitious beliefs. And to really sell the concept, that pesky Devil might also send good things your way when you pick up a penny, because this also reinforces superstitious beliefs.
Here's the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of "superstition":
1 a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
So Bob Dutko claims to use science and logic in his beliefs, yet he believes in things that are, by definition false, irrational, and maintained despite evidence to the contrary. Oh, and its all caused by the Devil.
What a maroon.
Wow, did you hear him today on Free for all Friday? somebody quoted the Bible and said that women should be quiet in church and not speak. Bob said "..you need to interpret that by considering the time of the Bible. Women weren't considered to be as important as men. There testimony in court would be worth half as much as a man". Thats probably true, but when did Bob stop taking the Bible literally? I think the last time he did that was when he compared Jesus, telling his apostles to sell there cloques and buy swords, to giving every American a gun. A sword was the most powerful weapon at the time by the way.... But wait, doesn't that mean that we should all have assault weapons or grenades...or even nukes!
Come on Bob, a little intellectual honesty por favor
Hey Jeff,
I don't think Bob believes that a black cat or a ladder has any special sort of power at all. It sounds like he is just saying that the devil may use these superstitions to lead people astray. Whether or not this is true I don't know, but the devil is definitely all about deceiving people. So it seems plausible.
Thanks ILive. Nothing like having somebody with an 8th century worldview explain what seems plausible.
I'm sorry, but Ilive... you are a moron. "So it seems plausible" people have been burned at the stake because "it seemed plausible" that they were in league with the devil, it was affectionatly known as "The Salem Witch Trials"
Hey auido and Kramer,
Just because someone believes in the devil does not mean that they support the Salem witch trials. From a Biblical perspective it is clear that the Salem witch trials are not justified. Jesus did not go out, try, and kill the demon possessed but rather He drove the demons out of them (Mark 1:34). From a Christian perspective, is not the devil the 'evil one' (Mathew 5:37, Mathew 6:13, John 17:15)? Of course, based on your comments, it seems that some of you don't believe in the "devil" or "evil one". Yet it is the very belief in good and evil that justifies opposition to the Salem witch trials. And if I did not believe in God and had only a subjective basis for good and evil, it would be hard for me to say with much (if any) meaning that the Salem witch trials were a bad thing. It would just be my opinion. And I don't believe that mere subjective opinion is sufficient to meaningfully define something as "good" or "evil", "right" or "wrong".
"The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods?"
Socrates in Plato’s Euthyphro
ILive, Plato demonstrated the logical independence of God and morality over 2,000 years ago. Despite this, you still cling to an illogical theology which holds that what makes an action right is that God wills it to be done. Yes, maybe Jesus didn't try and condemn the demon possessed, but their is an entire Old Testament full of examples of God demanding the death of people for witchcraft and sorcery as well as other minor social infractions. It's like the old Ten Commandments joke. When Moses came down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments, the people asked him what they revealed about how they should live their lives. Moses told them, "I have some good news and some bad news."
"Give us the good news first," they said.
"Well, the good news," Moses responded, "is that he kept the number of commandments down to ten."
"Okay, what's the bad news?" they inquired.
"The bad news," Moses replied, "is that he kept the one about adultery in there."
The point is that, according to your argument, nothing is right or wrong unless God makes it so. Whatever God says goes. So if God had decreed that adultery was permissible, then adultery would be permissible. If I accept your reasoning, the Ten Commandments could have gone something like this: "Thou shalt kill everyone you dislike. Thou shalt rape every woman you desire. Thou shalt steal everything you covet. Thou shalt torture innocent children as you please, etc., etc." After all, according to you, God's will determines what is right and wrong. So killing, raping, stealing, and torturing were not wrong before God made them so. Since God is free to establish whatever set of moral principles he chooses, he could just as well have chosen this set as any other. The philosopher Leibniz stated that "by believing that things are not good according to any standard of goodness, but simply by the will of God, one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory; for why praise him for what he has done, if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing the contrary? Where will be his justice and his wisdom if he has only a certain despotic power, if arbitrary will takes the place of reasonableness, and if in accord with the definition of tyrants, justice consists in that which is pleasing to the most powerful? Besides it seems that every act of willing supposes some reason for the willing and this reason, of course, must precede the act."
Leibniz's point is that, if things are neither right nor wrong independently of God's will, then God cannot choose one thing over another because it is right. Thus, if he does choose one over another, his choice must be arbitrary. But a God whose decisions are arbitrary is not a being worthy of worship. You can reasonably believe that God wills an action to be done because it is right, but to believe this is to believe that the rightness of an action is independent of God. So the view that the moral law requires a divine lawgiver is unsupportable. I absolutely agree that universal moral standards are required for the proper functioning of society. But it is juvenile to believe that God is the only possible source of such standards. Plato, Kant, and a myriad of other philosophers have logically demonstrated that it is possible to have a universal morality without God. For example, morality based on universal principles, such as honesty, benevolence, justice, autonomy and utility can be summed up in The Golden Rule: Treat others as you wish to be treated. Or even better, treat others as they would wish to be treated. Remember, even a two year old child is able to learn that certain actions, when reciprocated by others, cause unpleasant sensations. If you eliminate psyopaths from consideration, the Golden Rule has been shown to provide an effective constraint on undesirable social behavior as well as motivation for desirable social behavior in both human and non-human species. I also seem to recall that Jesus was a supporter of this rule in scripture.
Hey audio,
"Yes, maybe Jesus didn't try and condemn the demon possessed, but their is an entire Old Testament full of examples of God demanding the death of people for witchcraft and sorcery as well as other minor social infractions"
I am aware of this, but I am also aware of the new covenant that God established which, as made evident by Jesus' words and actions, does not bind us to the commands in the law of Mosses which told the Israelites to put people to death for many things (such as witchcraft). Why God established this New Covenant with us I don't know, it is perhaps a very deep theological discussion. But nonetheless God has established this New Covenant. This New Covenant is talked about in both the Old and New Testaments. Hebrews 8:6-13 talks about this clearly and deliberately. It includes a passage from the Old Testament (Jeremiah 31:31-34) that is prophesying about the New Covenant.
"Since God is free to establish whatever set of moral principles he chooses, he could just as well have chosen this set as any other".
In response to this as well as the objections of Socrates and Leibniz, the fact is that God is indeed the basis for what we can meaningfully cal right or wrong, yet what He tells us is right or wrong, good or evil, is not at all arbitrary. Dr. Del Tackett from the DVD series "The Truth Project" in response to 'Socrates's dilema' explains that God did not just flip a coin to decide what was good or evil and then told Moses to write that down (kind of like your joke was implying); but He told us what is right or wrong based on a very solid standard, something that is entirely consistent because it cannot change: the very nature of God. I have to agree with Dr. Tackett, the nature of God is not an arbitrary basis and it does not depend on anything else, therefore the objections raised by Socrates and Leibniz do not hold true. God could not have said that murder was right, or rape, adultery etc... because, as Dr. Tackett pointed out, these things are contrary to His very nature.
However, what is a strong objection to the idea that good and evil can have a meaningful basis apart from God and in man is if you take the statements of Socrates and Leibniz and ask them in another way, "Is something right because it is beloved by man or does man belove it because it is right?"(Socrates's dilemma turned around). If something is right because man decides it is then we have not only an arbitrary basis, or at least an inconsistent one, but we have an awful basis. It is easy to see how contradictory the different opinions of man are and how many of them are, quite simply, awful. "by believing that things are not good according to any standard of goodness, but simply by the will of man, one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of man and all his glory; for why praise him for what he has done, if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing the contrary? Where will be his justice and his wisdom if he has only a certain despotic power, if arbitrary will takes the place of reasonableness, and if in accord with the definition of tyrants, justice consists in that which is pleasing to the most powerful? Besides it seems that every act of willing supposes some reason for the willing and this reason, of course, must precede the act" (Leibniz's quote turned around). You can apply these same objections of a God-centered basis to a man-centered basis. Except one basis is solid and the other is not and it is clear which one is the better basis, the nature of man is subjective and can change, God's nature is not subjective and cannot change.
"I absolutely agree that universal moral standards are required for the proper functioning of society. But it is juvenile to believe that God is the only possible source of such standards".
Is it? A meaningful basis for good and evil must either come from man or from something else. It is doubtful that the basis for good and evil comes from man or at least hopeful that it does not. As Francis Bacon said, "It is a poor centre of a man’s actions, himself".
Of course you could say to base one's action not on just himself but on society. But not only is this an arbitrary claim (in the sense that it has no basis-if we are living for ourselves then it why would we care about society?) but society has many of the same problems as one's own self because society is just made of a bunch of people. So if a meaningful basis is not from man, then it must either come from something higher or something lower. Of course we could derive a meaning of good and evil from something lower than ourselves but that seems to be just plain ridiculous and the meaning would not be very meaningful due to the poor basis. That then leaves us with the conclusion that a meaningful definition must come from something higher than ourselves. This, I have concluded, must be God. I don't see any other meaningful source.
ILive,
You've just proved my point. If goodness is static, whether it is consistent with the very nature of God or not, then it is something that humans can discover with or without God. I know that killing my neighbor for accidently parking on my grass is bad based on the consequences for such an action as well as my human ability to have empathy towards another human being. This is evidenced by the millions of people in the U.S. alone that have no religion and believe in no God, yet lead by all objective standards moral, productive, loving lives. How is it that can occur without a God telling them what to believe and how to behave? Also, if it's true that God cannot change evil into good or good into evil by divine fiat then why do Christians claim that the new covenant wipes away the need for the death penalty for such minor civil infractions such as back-talking your parents, adultery (if you're a woman that is) or homosexuality when it is stated very clearly that these transgressions were worthy of death under the old covenant. Why was death a morally acceptable (good) consequence then but not now? Why can we now mix fabrics, eat shellfish or pork and not isolate women for menstrating? The sin is the same. The essence of the act remains unchanged. If good and evil is unchanging how did God's rewriting the contract change the essence of an acceptable act into an unacceptable one? Finally, you're point that the God of the bible is unchanging is demonstrably false. The God of the bible is full of every beautiful (love, compassion, forgiveness) and ugly (jealously, anger, vengefulness) quality found in man. Not surprising since man is the author of scripture. The God of the bible is anything but unchanging. No one can read the bible and come away from it with the impression that God behaves consistently or rationally. For example, why was wholesale slaughter of women, children and the elderly during times of war good and acceptable and demanded by God in the Old Testament but now frowned upon and condemded by Christians today? If it was good then why not now? I understand your point of view, but in the end your viewpoint is your opinion based on human reasoning that is just as subject (and I would argue apparently moreso) to the fallability of reasoning and understanding that any other human mind is. So just because you feel that you don't have the intellectual capability to determine what is right or wrong without some supreme-being writing it down for you doesn't mean that other people on this planet are incapable of doing so.
Bobn Dutko is a moron. Whenever someone points out flaws in his logic, he fillibusters and rapidly changes subjects.
Hey audio,
"If goodness is static, whether it is consistent with the very nature of God or not, then it is something that humans can discover with or without God"
The key part of your statement is "humans *can* discover ". Humans *can* come to conclusions that happen to line up with *some* Christian morals even though they do not have, from a Christian perspective, a proper basis. I think I understand your objection, 'If God is the basis for good and evil, how can people who don't believe in God know what good is?'. First of all, I don't know believe that atheists *cannot* do things that coincide with *some* Christian behaviors (aka: what is right from my perspective) such as protect innocent, not murder, etc. The objection raised is that there is no meaningful *basis* to determine what is good and evil from a purely atheistic worldview. Why atheists can, to use an ethical term, *normatively* decide what is right or wrong *some* of the time is another issue. I use the words *some* and *can* because many prominent atheists have beliefs that are grossly out of touch with Christian morals (and probably your own) so obviously, from a Christian perspective, atheists-and all kinds of non-Christians for that matter, do not always know good morals (though these morals may seem perfectly "good" to the people themselves). Geisler and Turek (2004) in their book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist write, “Princeton professor and Darwinist Peter Singer has used Darwinism to assert that ‘the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.’ Yes, you read that correctly” (p. 190). Geisler and Turek also well state, “…For if there is no God and humans have evolved from the slime, then we have no higher moral status than slime because there is nothing beyond us to instill us with objective morality or dignity” (p. 189). Dr. Del Tackett (2006) in the DVD series “The Truth Project” quotes David Brown, the former head of the Sierra Club, “While the death of young men in war is unfortunate, it is no more serious than the touching of mountains and wilderness areas by humankind”. Listen to Dr. William Provine, an atheist, evolutionist and professor of the history of biology at Cornell University, “[There are] No gods, no life after death, no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life and no human free will” (as stated in Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled", 2008). The list could go on but it is certainly evident that not everyone can "know" what is right and what is wrong, if nothing else this is made evident by the fact that many peoples' beliefs are contradictory-such as yours and mine. That is one reason I believe that there must be a higher thing, which I believe is God, to get any meaningful morals from. Otherwise how can I say with any meaning that Dr. Provine, or anyone else, has an "evil" belief
? How can I say it is any worse than my own?
-I can reply to other comments later, sorry.
I totally agree. Not everyone does know right from wrong. Including the ones who thump their bibles and wave God's instructions in front of others. And some people because of stupidity or other shortcomings may find it next to impossible to see the light so to speak. However, just because some people have used Darwinism and their lack of belief in god to exhort their own inhumanity to man does not make a belief in god necessary for an understanding of right and wrong. Because if you look at the basic commonalities between religions and cultures, especially isolated cultures, you will see a common thread of what humans consider good and evil. There will be some minor differences, but all cultures have very similar ideals about right and wrong. All without your Judeo-Christian God. I know you said you would answer my other points later, but I find it interesting that you ignored my most important objection to your standard of good and evil. God has apparently changed his ideal of what is acceptable throughout history so his ideals of good and evil must have changed also. (i.e the purposeful slaughter of innocents during wartime) Or maybe God still thinks that's fine and necessary and it's Christians that have decided that it's no longer such a palatable action. Your response to that would have been much more interesting than the one you gave citing what some non-believers believe as evidence to support your argument. As a side note, a belief in Darwinism does not confer atheism or a lack of respect for humanity. I have a degree in evolutionary biology and am also a Christian (although I'm sure not your brand of Christian).
"my most important objection to your standard of good and evil. God has apparently changed his ideal of what is acceptable throughout history so his ideals of good and evil must have changed also. (i.e the purposeful slaughter of innocents during wartime)".
I do not believe that God has changed His idea of good and evil. This is likely a very deep theological discussion that much more intelligent people have written many books on. But it seems that the reason for the differences in what is commanded of Christians today compared to what was commanded through the law lies again in the New Covenant that God has established with us. This New Covenant seems to be based on simply knowing God and Christ. In the Old Covenant God used the Israelites as His chosen people to show His love and compassion and to make His Name famous. God commanded the purposeful slaughter of "innocents" not for evil but for good (I have these quotations because innocent is a relative term in the context of your statement, no one is truly innocent in the sense of being perfect and blameless except for the man Christ Jesus). By definition everything God does is good. Perhaps it was beneficial for mankind to have a certain culture wiped out so that in the future something good would come to man. God knows everything that someone would have done if they had lived longer and everything that someone will do. All of these "innocents" would be dead now anyways (though perhaps not their descendants), and for some reason(s) (I couldn't say all of the reasons!) this was part of God's plan. Later, when God established the New Covenant, He had for some reason chosen this time to reveal a mystery to us, as Paul writes in his letter to the Ephesians, "2Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, 3that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. 6This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 3:2-6, [NIV]). So it was part of God's plan for good that all of these things happened at certain times. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the hearts of men were hard, " 8Jesus replied, 'Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery'" (Mathew 19:8-9, [NIV]). The fact that God commanded people do do different things at different times does NOT necessarily mean that God has changed. Does God have the exact same plan for every single person all of the time? Of course not. It could be that the people have changed, the times have changed or both. God knew everything that would happen before He even created the universe, and He has, and has always had a plan for how He would ransom us from our sins. I haven't gone into many details but the fact is that the reason God commanded His people to do one thing before the New Covenant and another thing after He established the New Covenant is quite simply because it is part of His plan.
This statement, "There will be some minor differences, but all cultures have very similar ideals about right and wrong" and this one, "All without your Judeo-Christian God", do not go hand in hand. Just because many different cultures can believe many things that coincide with Christian morals does not mean that they did so without God. I will say that they do not have a very strong basis and could and do come to conclusions that definitely do not coincide with Christian morals and beliefs (*and no non-Christians have a sufficient knowledge of what is good*). Yet there probably is some sort of moral compass inside of us; which makes sense from a Christian perspective seeing as we are all made in the image of God.
"[I] am also a Christian (although I'm sure not your brand of Christian)"
I didn't know I had a "brand" so to speak. If I am anything other than a follower of Christ Jesus let me know because then I need to change! Is that not what all Christians should be?
-P.S. sorry it takes so long for me to respond, I hope these comments are helpful.
ILive,
Your last post shows how scary blind faith truly is. You say that since everything God does is by definition good God must have commanded the purposeful slaughter of women, children and the elderly for "good" and to make his name "famous." That sends a chill down my spine. How people like you can take obviously evil acts and, because it was "God's will", claim that it must have really been for some unimaginable good that we just can't see because we are so limited in our understanding is beyond me. Did you ever think that maybe these "deep theological questions" really aren't all that deep and if it takes a greater mind then yours and mine to explain away such atrocities than maybe you should rethink your acceptance of such acts. When I mentioned your brand of Chrisitianity I was referring to Christians who have drank the kool-aid to the point of accepting anything and everything without true critical analysis simply because it's in the Bible. They act as if the Bible floated down from heaven on a silver platter, inscribed by the finger of God. They distort the true importance of Christ and his ministry in the name of being "saved" from this world. They accept injustice perpetrated in the name of God because they mistakenly believe that this life is not what it's all about despite Jesus insisting that the Kingdom of Heaven was to be experienced on this Earth. They see Bob Dutko as a beacon of light instead of the pillar of salt that he really is. That is the brand of Christian that I find so exasperating. So if your last post truly reflected your unquestioning acceptance of such horrendous acts I feel sorry for you.
Jerry Falwell tells Christians they are to exercise a “childlike faith” which LiveBecause and Dutko do with ferocious intensity and blind dedication. I cast aside child-like faith decades ago. How about you LiveBecause?
The bible condones slavery and reports death and cruelty by the hand of God and today we suffer diseases that God could eliminate with a wave of his all-powerful hand. True?
Yet we are told what God is righteous, meaning what he does is “good, just “ by definition. End of story. Bob then says to those such as I that disagree, “Who are you, a mere mortal of finite wisdom, to judge the infinite and eternal God? God made the universe and his actions define goodness absolutely. When you create the universe and everything in it, then you can make the rules. But until then God makes the rules.”
Bob has spent some time with callers addressing the possible causes of the rise in non-believers rising from 7% to 14% as reported in a recent Pew survey. What irony.
In the past decade increased prominence of the religious right and loopy folks like Falwell and Dutko spouting nonsense as described above is a probable contributor to the notable increase in non-belief.
I would bet that Ilivebcauseofjc, and Bob Dutko are one in the same.
Ilive
I think the very idea of good, and evil is made irrelevant by the existance of a god. I mean if god is perfect, never makes mistake's, is never wrong, and is guiding every step, and every action in every human life, how than can anything be said to be good or evil, it is neither, it just is.
Currently abortion in the USA is legal, but is claimed by christians to be evil, but god is ultimatly responsible for abortion being legal right now. God created abortion, and god put all the people, and events in perfect godly order that have lead to the legalization of abortion. So how than can it be evil to recieve or perform an abortion? Abortion is just the way god want's things now.
We as imperfect, mistake making, feeble minded humans (in comparison to the christian god) give "things" their lable of good or evil.
Would you say the holocaust was evil, and lead by evil people?
God created the people, places, and events that lead to the killing of million's of innocent Jew's. So who am I to second guess the allmighty, all knowing, puppet master. Why was Hitler not aborted before birth? because God wanted the holocaust to happen.
So if something, some person, or some event labeled evil by man but created or put into motion by god still be evil?
Hey audio,
"How people like you can take obviously evil acts..."
I think this is the crux of the issue. Because it seems there are only a few options of this issue, either:
1. God willed these acts for good (as I believe).
2. God did not will these acts because the Bible is not entirely accurate (as you believe [I think]).
3. God did will these acts but it was for evil (as neither of us believes [I think]).
So the real issue is: did the God of the Bible really will something for evil? I would say no. It is not that I have an "unquestioning acceptance of such horrendous acts". I am indeed open to discuss whether or not these acts were evil and why we think so. It is rather that I do NOT have an unquestioning acceptance that such acts were horrendous.
- I know that I have left Lumberjack and Kramer's posts unanswered and that, with this comment, I did not give support as to why I think that "these acts" were not evil but rather good. This is because I don't have much time right now but I still wanted to respond and hopefully this may lay solid ground for a productive dialogue. But I guess to answer part of Kramer's post: I am indeed NOT Mr. Dutko.
ILive,
I'm pretty sure I know why you believe these acts were not evil, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. First, your basic point of reference is that the Bible is inerrant. The actual, living Word of God. Everything in it is factual, true and historical. If the bible says it happened it happened. So, with your belief that God is by nature unerringly good and incapable of doing evil than when the bible says that God commanded his people to slaughter the elderly, women and children then it, by definition, had to be for good whether we can determine the reason or not. I understand your reasoning and I get your point of view. What I don't get is how you can rationalize acts that were supposedly attributed to the God of the bible as good when you wouldn't (at least I assume you wouldn't) condone such acts today, even if it was done by your own country under the belief that it was ordered by God. What authorities' proclamation would you accept today if it was announced that we had been commanded by God to slaughter everyone, and I mean everyone, in Iraq because someone in authority received a message from God that such an action would be used for an ultimate good? Would you accept it from a government leader or a Christian preacher? And if you wouldn't accept such an action today why not? It should have nothing to do with the new covenant. Because Christ dying for our sins would have no bearing on God's ability to use such an action for a future good. Remember, horrible things happen to Christians all the time and Jesus died for them. It is often said that these things happened for a reason and it must have been in God's plan. He is, after all, said in the bible to be the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. And if that is true, if He could use wholesale slaughter in the past for good he certainly could use it today for good. If you are correct than such an act should be no more unacceptable today than it was 4000 years ago. So, I understand where you're coming from. Believe me, I've been there. I was raised in the Church. In my early twenties I started attending your standard non-denominational bible-believing church that emphasized biblical study and a daily immersion in the word. Up until that point I had never really looked at what the Bible had to say and what I truly believed or why I believed it. But once I started to really study scripture and use the same human logic that the preacher's demanded I use to accept the biblical truth and the "word of God" I saw how mistaken such beliefs really are. The bible is the word of man. It is corrupted by human faults. That does not mean that I don't accept the bible as containing important spiritual truths. It doesn't mean that I don't accept the importance of Christ's ministry. But it does mean that I cannot, as a thinking, rational human being accept it as the inerrant word of God. Not when it contains what it contains. You are obviously an intelligent person. Your writings are not those of an uneducated person. But how someone can say that they have honestly sat down and done a rational study of scripture and still come away from it with the basic viewpoint of a "fundamentalist Christian" is perplexing. Not in the sense that I can't fathom why they continue to hold those views. Because I think that most who do are afraid to let go of the security blanket of eternal salvation because a realization that this life is all we have and nobody escapes the void of death is friggin scary. But when people tell me that they have studied the bible and see it as inerrant historical fact and the word of God I never believe that they have really sat down and critically read it. Because a lot of the theology in the bible is scarier than any devil or eternal damnation could ever be.
To everybody:
Who cares? This blog isn't meant to be a debate on the existence of God. I probably share a lot of Ilive's beliefs but hate Bob Dutko because of it.
The right wants this to be a believer vs. non-believer issue when it's anything but.
Hey Lumberjack,
I think child-like faith is a good thing if interpreted correctly. It makes sense to view yourself as God's child and to always have that perspective. In fact, "3And he [Jesus] said: 'I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven'" (Mathew 18:3-4 [NIV, and brackets added]). We may not always understand, and we may not always see; but one thing I know: that God is my Father and He is in control. This however does not mean to take up all attributes of children in all that you do, as Paul writes, "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me" (1 Corinthians 13:11 [NIV]).
"The bible condones slavery and reports death and cruelty by the hand of God and today we suffer diseases that God could eliminate with a wave of his all-powerful hand. True?"
I don't think this is entirely true, the Bible does not condone slavery and I don't believe it reports a cruel God. But I do agree that it is within God's power to eliminate all pain and suffering. In fact this is going to happen, "3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, 'Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away'" (Revelation 21:3-4 [NIV]). God will get rid of all these unpleasant things for His redeemed people at His appointed time. But that appointed time has not come yet-at least not for the living saints.
-P.S. let me know if the Bible quotes are too l o n g, I think it might help to give a bigger and clearer picture; but I could also use more concise ones.
Hey Kramer,
"Would you say the holocaust was evil, and lead by evil people?
God created the people, places, and events that lead to the killing of million's of innocent Jew's. So who am I to second guess the allmighty, all knowing, puppet master. Why was Hitler not aborted before birth? because God wanted the holocaust to happen.
So if something, some person, or some event labeled evil by man but created or put into motion by god still be evil?"
God did create us but He did not pre-program us so as to give us no choice in how we act. So God did not cause or want the holocaust to happen-people did. God gave Hitler a choice and he could have chose not to do what he did. So the verdict is not " how than can anything be said to be good or evil, it is neither, it just is" it is rather that God is good and people have acquired a sinful nature and often choose to obey their sinful nature rather than God. This is because of something God has given us and that is to some a phenomenon: free will.
Hey audio,
"So, with your belief that God is by nature unerringly good and incapable of doing evil than when the bible says that God commanded his people to slaughter the elderly, women and children then it, by definition, had to be for good whether we can determine the reason or not" I think that this would be an accurate statement of what I believe, but for clarification; I believe the reason it had to be good is because God commanded it and what is not entirely determinable (by us) are all of the reasons that God commanded it.
" Would you accept it from a government leader or a Christian preacher? And if you wouldn't accept such an action today why not?" I don't think I would because it would definitely be contrary to what I think God really wants us to do. I would probably determine that in reality God did not want this to be done and therefore it would not be good. One large reason I think that God would not want us to kill everyone in Iraq is indeed because of the New Covenant. I think it was part of God's plan to send Jesus to show us the Way; and not to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Mathew 5:17). Jesus said "38'You have heard that it was said, "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth." 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also'" (Mathew 5: 38-39 [NIV]) and "43'You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you'" (Mathew 5:43-44 [NIV]). So because of things like this that Jesus said I don't think that God would want us to slaughter everyone in Iraq today.
" It should have nothing to do with the new covenant. Because Christ dying for our sins would have no bearing on God's ability to use such an action for a future good" Interesting wording, you said, "no bearing on God's *ability*" (emphasis added), but I don't think it is helpful to ask 'Can God use this to do His will?' but I would rather ask, 'Will God use this/is it a part of His plan to use this to do His will?'. While I guess it is debatable as to weather or not Christ's coming in to the world, showing us the way, and dying for our sins affected God's *ability* to use certain actions; I think it is certain that it was a part of God's original plan and this New Covenant established new commands also. But asking if the New Covenant that God established affected His own ability to use certain actions is a different question than asking if the New Covenant that God established affected His commands on certain actions-as I believe it did.
"And if that is true, if He could use wholesale slaughter in the past for good he certainly could use it today for good. If you are correct than such an act should be no more unacceptable today than it was 4000 years ago".
Just because God used a certain act at a certain time to a certain people for a certain reason(s) does not mean that He wills it just us much today. Take this analogy of a chess player. Suppose the 'chess commander' moved up only his pawns and knights during the first part of the game (as a part of his good plan). If later on in the game it is part of his plan to use his queen rather than a knight or pawn does that necessarily mean that he has changed his mind of what is a good command and what is not? He couldn't command the queen early game but during late game it would have messed up his plan if he used the pawns or knights instead-this all known ahead of time to be a part of his good plan. Sure he *could* have used his pawn late game but that would have bad effects and is not and was not part of the good plan. I think that it is not part of God's plan for us to kill of an entire group of people today.
"Because a lot of the theology in the bible is scarier than any devil or eternal damnation could ever be".
Do you really believe this? I was lost until I heard of the Gospel; and, while there is a lot of stuff in the Bible that is really hard to understand, and is not politically correct; and that is perhaps even contrary to our initial emotional response, I still believe that it is the good news. And more than that, I believe that it is the truth. Really what good is false good news? Paul states. "17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." (1 Corinthians 15:17-19 [NIV]). However Paul goes on to say, "20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (1 Corinthians 15:20 [NIV]). And it is in this that followers of Christ take hope in- and this hope is not in something false (which, as stated in the Bible, makes our faith futile) but our hope is in the truth.
i found this blog because i was listening to dutko today and, as usual, he pissed me off. i don't have a problem with religious people, but it's folks like bob who really irritate me. i find his whole mission of using 'logic, historical facts,etc' to be incredibly insecure; isn't faith supposed to be just that: faith? why would anyone religious feel the need to prove anything to anyone unless they were somewhat insecure about their beliefs, since God will eventually sort us all out in the end anyways, right?
anyways, i knew that if i searched google for 5 seconds i'd find a forum for people who share my immeasurable dislike for bob, and lo and behold, here i am. thanks for this.
Hey zombieculthero,
"why would anyone religious feel the need to prove anything to anyone unless they were somewhat insecure about their beliefs"
Jesus calls us to "go and make disciples". So it is important for us to try to reach out to others and help others. And from a Christian perspective, it is like throwing a rope to a drowning person.
I don't think that Bob is very insecure in his beliefs but rather trying to help others.
"since God will eventually sort us all out in the end anyways, right?"
God will indeed judge us on Judgment Day. So isn't it important to help others know what they are going to be judged on? I certainly would want someone else to let me know about the only thing that could save me from death and give me eternal life.
JC, I understand your point. I've had Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door to try and spread the word. I've had strangers give me pocket Bibles. It's their "job," so to speak, and I find it to be a safe and mostly inoffensive way of practicing the 1st Amendment. I'm an atheist, but there's room for everyone and far be it from me to try and STOP anyone from just trying to give me a Bible or some literature about their faith. They're doing their part within their religious community.
My problem, then, is Bob's "you're in or you're out" type of attitude. It comes across as very black and white, and I get a real "Us vs. Them" feel from his rhetoric. This, to me, is the fundamental problem with religion; there's tons of different beliefs, and only one can be "right." The problem is that each faith sees theirs as right and blindly disregards the others, and since holy scriptures "cannot" be changed (as each faith sees their holy writings as dogmatic and either the literal word of God(s) or what God(s) literally said to the authors), differing faiths will forever be locked in stalemate.
"My problem, then, is Bob's 'you're in or you're out' type of attitude. It comes across as very black and white, and I get a real 'Us vs. Them' feel from his rhetoric".
I do believe that "you're in or you're out" in the sense that you are either saved or you're not. It would seem rather far fetched to claim that you are just kind of saved or just kind of not saved. Yet I do however totally agree that the idea of "Us vs. Them" is not a very good way to view things. If Bob really believes this (the idea of "Us vs. Them"), although I don't think he does, then I must disagree with him on this point. The Christian attitude should not be an attitude of opposition to non believers but of love and an attempt to help find their way out of captivity-the same captivity that once held us (this is kind of a paraphrase from Dr. Del Tackett in The Truth Project). This is also a good explanation as to why Christians try so hard (many have even paid their lives-even in the world today) to help others see what Christians believe is the truth of God,the good news and hope of salvation through Jesus Christ. Jesus even tells the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin and the prodigal son (These parables may all be found in the book of Luke in the 15th chapter). These parables explicitly and profoundly show God's love for the lost and the great level of rejoicing that God and His angels have when a lost person comes to Him. Jesus is very clear when He states, "17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him" (John 3:17 [NIV]). Christian should not try to condemn others or see them as enemies but rather let them know that God wants to save them.
"This, to me, is the fundamental problem with religion; there's tons of different beliefs, and only one can be 'right'"
You hit the nail right on the head. I think that it is a logical fallacy to believe that all religions can be true. Contradicting beliefs are by definition mutually exclusive. They cannot both be correct-either one is right and the other is wrong or they are both wrong. However, I don't think that this logical fallacy "is the fundamental problem with religion". There is, as stated earlier, the case that one of the mutually exclusive beliefs could be correct. I think that Christianity is correct.
"The problem is that each faith sees theirs as right and blindly disregards the others".
If this were the case then you might be right about religions being in a stalemate. But while I believe Christianity is right I do not just blindly disregard other peoples' faiths-or lack there of. In fact it is very interesting to see what other people believe and speculate why. And it is even more interesting to discuss with someone what they believe and why. I understand what you're saying (I think), but I firmly believe that Christianity is the truth.
Wow I dont' know bob but he sounds bright. In fact Ufo's are of the devil the tricky part of this ufo phenomenon is that the devil now has full power over the mind.
So the devil can cause you to hallucinate or have a vision of real everyday things like a car or bus or plane.
The ufo twist is only because the devil wants people to beleive it's other wordly visitors not related to the HOLY BIBLE because his existence depresses alot of unbeleivers.
Is there anything of Bob's I should read?
Post a Comment