Home » Rational Content » RRS Authors » Todd Gates

Science, religion, and "truth" vs. "Truth"

Submitted by ToddGates on December 1, 2007 - 8:30pm.

‹ Pre-Christian virgin birth stories, and the "Satanic pre-plagiarization" hypothesisupStephen Colbert on religion - excerpts from "I Am America (And So Can You!)" ›
»

   cool, tod is back,

Submitted by I AM GOD AS YOU on December 2, 2007 - 2:48am.

   cool, tod is back, debunking the silly .... I like it ~

what is Armstrongism?

Submitted by caposkia on January 27, 2008 - 2:05pm.

Hello Todd.  I'm glad you touched on this topic a bit.  It seems that there is definitely a world view of Christianity that is really... well... not coherent with the truth... Capital T or small t, it doesn't matter, either way, they think they're right. 

I wanted to provide a link that I think will clarify for people who have talked to me in past forums where I'm coming from, and also shed more light on the real Biblical view of Christianity.  

The link does go in greater depth and onto more topics than need to be addressed here, but skiming through can give the basic idea of where most non-believers are getting the "wrong idea" and why Christianity in my opinion, seems to be so easily contradicted.  

http://www.realtruth.org/articles/080104-001-religion.html?cid=RT0029

It's about how the churches over the years distored and conformed what would be understood as truth to what they wanted it to be, therefore making it illogical from not only a Christian perspective, but scientific as well.  This would include the young Earth followers believing Earth was built in a week vs. the logical and scientific conclusion.  e.g.;

"What Herbert W. Armstrong taught so plainly from the pages of God’s Word refuted nearly every belief and tradition commonly taught by the churches and denominations of traditional Christianity."

I follow Armstrong's views.  At least from what I know of his teachings so far. 

Todd, does this help you at all? 

  FYI, Todds many xlint

Submitted by I AM GOD AS YOU on January 27, 2008 - 11:15pm.

  FYI, Todds many xlint videos are here http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=ToddAllenGates&p=r

Todd is also a cool pianist , plays harmonica too, he even turns metal into jazz arrangments ....

here, http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=ToddGates&p=r

, metal into jazz?, from another dude , Metallica's Enter Sandman  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKHJpMdebiE

thanks todd ....

 

 

 

Atheism Books.

Response to Caposkia and I AM GOD AS YOU

Submitted by ToddGates on February 2, 2008 - 3:10am.

<Todd is also a cool pianist , plays harmonica too, he even turns metal into jazz arrangements>

Thanks I AM GOD AS YOU.

For everyone reading this, the “metal into jazz” refers to my piano version of Slipknot’s Wait and Bleed. The verses are actually more classical-influenced (the left hand borrows from Chopin’s Revolutionary Etude) and the chorus is more of a Fats Waller stride blues feel . . . the reharmonizations are the only real jazz aspect. Here’s the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFUzoAadiiU.

< CAPOSKIA: Hello Todd.  I'm glad you touched on this topic a bit.  It seems that there is definitely a world view of Christianity that is really... well... not coherent with the truth... Capital T or small t, it doesn't matter, either way, they think they're right. [snip] I follow Armstrong's views.  At least from what I know of his teachings so far. Todd, does this help you at all? >

Hi Caposkia,

First, my apologies for not getting back to you sooner, and for not being a regular participant on this site (especially the page that had the most activity). Just been crazy busy. I’m trying to complete a revision of my book, but family obligations (I have four children) and my pesky day job fill up most of my day.

Anyway . . . I read the “What is Armstrongism?” article---and I certainly won’t deny that Armstrong often gives more humane interpretations than is usually heard from mainstream Christians, and that his interpretations are plausible. But a problem with the Bible is that sadistic interpretations---such as people being tormented in hell for eternity---are equally plausible. Interpreting John 15:6 as directions to burn heretics at the stake is also plausible. (“If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.”) It’s also plausible that the Bible teaches us that dinosaurs lived side by side with man, or that dinosaurs never existed at all, or maybe God doesn’t mention that 160-million year time period because it’s outside of the Bible’s scope of interest. SO many ways to interpret things, and to combine different passages in different ways to prove different points.

It just seems to me that if there is indeed a Creator out there who did a good enough job at designing the world to ensure that babies can breathe both inside and outside the world, and keep the earth in orbit around the sun (etc.)---and this Creator wrote a Holy Book that was intended to be useful to us---S/He would have provided directions that were a bit more clearcut, and not what we see before us: thousands of competing middlemen (i.e., religions) all hawking what they claim is God’s Word, and not only do the competing middlemen contradict each other’s Divine Message, even middlemen from the same group rarely agree on just what it is that our Creator meant.

- Todd

ToddGates wrote: Hi

Submitted by caposkia on February 7, 2008 - 9:48pm.

ToddGates wrote:


Hi Caposkia,

Anyway . . . I read the “What is Armstrongism?” article---and I certainly won’t deny that Armstrong often gives more humane interpretations than is usually heard from mainstream Christians, and that his interpretations are plausible. But a problem with the Bible is that sadistic interpretations---such as people being tormented in hell for eternity---are equally plausible. Interpreting John 15:6 as directions to burn heretics at the stake is also plausible. (“If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.”) It’s also plausible that the Bible teaches us that dinosaurs lived side by side with man, or that dinosaurs never existed at all, or maybe God doesn’t mention that 160-million year time period because it’s outside of the Bible’s scope of interest. SO many ways to interpret things, and to combine different passages in different ways to prove different points.

It just seems to me that if there is indeed a Creator out there who did a good enough job at designing the world to ensure that babies can breathe both inside and outside the world, and keep the earth in orbit around the sun (etc.)---and this Creator wrote a Holy Book that was intended to be useful to us---S/He would have provided directions that were a bit more clearcut, and not what we see before us: thousands of competing middlemen (i.e., religions) all hawking what they claim is God’s Word, and not only do the competing middlemen contradict each other’s Divine Message, even middlemen from the same group rarely agree on just what it is that our Creator meant.

- Todd

I knew you were a busy man, but 4 kids... wow dude, I tip my hat to you!  beautiful music btw.  very creative I thought.  Let us know when you do other hard rock covers!

On to topics: 

The reason why it seems to me that there are so many contradictory understandings of "God's intentions", is not because God was unclear, but because people are telling the story.   99% of any contradictory information about what I supposedly believe presented to me by a non-believer is what someone else told them or presented to them.  I've told many people many many times not to listen to people, but to come to their own conclusions through logical and serious research. 

A good example you bring up is John 15:6.   You claim it plausable that it's giving directions to burn heritics at the stake.  Sure... if that's all you read.  If you read the whole story, you'll see it's a metaphore describing what it's like spiritually to be a person without Jesus Christ abiding in them. (or for a non-believers terms, accepting Jesus as their savior)   One would not get that unless they took the whole story into context.  

Ironically, if you take that whole book (John) into context, you could clearly see that your conclusion (obviously just an example on your part) would be completely illogical and against the teachings of  Jesus Christ.  However, your example conclusion is plausable if that's what you're told by someone else and you take their word and actions for it.  

 In conclusion, as a follower of Christ. I can say that God's directions are simple and clearcut.  Sure there's tons of stories and lots of controversial topic written in this book assembled by people called The Bible.  If you take just the instructions from the New Testiment on what a Christian should do in their lifetime, you'll find that it comes down to the basic task of;  telling the world about Gods love for them.    The rest of the details are there to help you help others answer those difficult questions that of course would be asked. e.g. "why so much pain in the world." etc... 

Caposkia wrote: The reason

Submitted by magilum on February 7, 2008 - 10:01pm.

Caposkia wrote:
The reason why it seems to me that there are so many contradictory understandings of "God's intentions", is not because God was unclear, but because people are telling the story.
This begs the question as the only stories we know originate from people, so to draw a comparison one must assume some alternative, like a divinely-inspired narrative -- which hasn't been substantiated. You probably think this is an incidental nit-pick because you're used to making this assumption, but whatever follows based on it is contingent on an unsubstantiated premise.
Caposkia wrote:
99% of any contradictory information about what I supposedly believe presented to me by a non-believer is what someone else told them or presented to them. I've told many people many many times not to listen to people, but to come to their own conclusions through logical and serious research.
This is a stolen concept. If you take "what another person told me" out of the equation, religion cannot be transmitted. "The meaning is clear and uncontroversial," so say the thousands of sects.

    magilum ? Possibly

Submitted by I AM GOD AS YOU on February 8, 2008 - 5:17am.

    magilum ?

Possibly the smartest mind on this planet !  Smile

magilum wrote: This begs

Submitted by caposkia on February 19, 2008 - 3:38pm.

magilum wrote:
This begs the question as the only stories we know originate from people, so to draw a comparison one must assume some alternative, like a divinely-inspired narrative -- which hasn't been substantiated. You probably think this is an incidental nit-pick because you're used to making this assumption, but whatever follows based on it is contingent on an unsubstantiated premise.

You think I'm used to making assumptions.  My "assumption" that God is real was concluded in the same manner as people "assuming" that gravity is real.  

What i meant by "people telling it" was that everything falsely concluded about any religion was told to someone by someone else.  They did not take it upon themselves to come to that conclusion.  It's "well, they said so, so it must be true". 

If anyone reads the Biblical scriptures with the earilest texts original intentions in mind, (the ancient Greek for New Testiment and the Hebrew for the Old Testiment)  it will be very hard to come to opposing views.  I'm talking about reading it as a whole as well, not take a sentence out and conclude your point. 

If you research actual Bible scholars, (atheistic or theistic it doesn't matter), you'll find that the arguement doesn't come down to whether this said this or not, it's whether we should be taking the written words as real evidence of a God or not.  Many may be surprised to see that most won't even argue the historical accuracy of many claims be it that 100's of Biblical writings have proven true in history.  Many atheistic scholars however will dismiss them as ironic versus divine intervention.  

magilum wrote:

This is a stolen concept. If you take "what another person told me" out of the equation, religion cannot be transmitted. "The meaning is clear and uncontroversial," so say the thousands of sects.

Which is why true followers are not a part of any sect.  Sects like to make things convenient for themselves.   

caposkia wrote: magilum

Submitted by magilum on February 19, 2008 - 4:25pm.

caposkia wrote:

magilum wrote:
This begs the question as the only stories we know originate from people, so to draw a comparison one must assume some alternative, like a divinely-inspired narrative -- which hasn't been substantiated. You probably think this is an incidental nit-pick because you're used to making this assumption, but whatever follows based on it is contingent on an unsubstantiated premise.

You think I'm used to making assumptions.  My "assumption" that God is real was concluded in the same manner as people "assuming" that gravity is real.

Things fell to the ground, or across space, before anyone gave it a name. Naming it, experimenting with it, writing out formulas, helped make the phenomenon more predictable. It isn't assumed, it's demonstrable, repeatedly and consistently. If there were a phenomenon to study, there would no doubt already be a theory of Yahweh, or a theory of Vishnu. But there isn't and there ain't, because it's not demonstrated as a phenomenon, and conceptually it isn't even coherent or specific enough to add anything of value to the discourse.

caposkia wrote:

What i meant by "people telling it" was that everything falsely concluded about any religion was told to someone by someone else.  They did not take it upon themselves to come to that conclusion.  It's "well, they said so, so it must be true".

I'll say it once more, then I'll make unflattering assumptions about you and move on. That is the only way religions are transmitted.

caposkia wrote:

If anyone reads the Biblical scriptures with the earilest texts original intentions in mind, (the ancient Greek for New Testiment and the Hebrew for the Old Testiment)  it will be very hard to come to opposing views.  I'm talking about reading it as a whole as well, not take a sentence out and conclude your point. 

If you research actual Bible scholars, (atheistic or theistic it doesn't matter), you'll find that the arguement doesn't come down to whether this said this or not, it's whether we should be taking the written words as real evidence of a God or not.

Reading scripture is still taking another person's word -- worse yet, an unknown person.

caposkia wrote:
Many may be surprised to see that most won't even argue the historical accuracy of many claims be it that 100's of Biblical writings have proven true in history.

I'm not even sure what you're claiming here.

caposkia wrote:
Many atheistic scholars however will dismiss them as ironic versus divine intervention.

Or here.

caposkia wrote:

magilum wrote:

This is a stolen concept. If you take "what another person told me" out of the equation, religion cannot be transmitted. "The meaning is clear and uncontroversial," so say the thousands of sects.

Which is why true followers are not a part of any sect.  Sects like to make things convenient for themselves.   

If you're with a number of people that agree on a particular interpretation, you're in a sect.

magilum wrote: Naming it,

Submitted by caposkia on March 3, 2008 - 5:41pm.


magilum wrote:
Naming it, experimenting with it, writing out formulas, helped make the phenomenon more predictable. It isn't assumed, it's demonstrable, repeatedly and consistently. If there were a phenomenon to study, there would no doubt already be a theory of Yahweh, or a theory of Vishnu. But there isn't and there ain't, because it's not demonstrated as a phenomenon, and conceptually it isn't even coherent or specific enough to add anything of value to the discourse.

Well, this is a matter of opinion really.  There are numerous credible historians, scientists, geologists, etc.  whom would disagree with your above statement.

 

The other problem with your statement above is you claiming "It isn't assumed, it's demonstrable" then going on to say that YHWH is not.   The majority of the people in the world believe in a higher power.  The majority of THEM believe in YHWH.  The majority of the YHWH believers would claim your assumption that God is not even a phenomenon is beyond an assumption, it's downright ignorant.  My personal opinion.  You should probably read the Bible more, then confirm what you feel never happened by researching other texts that would prove that.  If you find anything, let me know. 

Science also bases itself upon the fact that others can come to the same conclusion that you did through the same process.  There are millions of people out there that have gone through the same process and have come to the same conclusion... that YHWH is real. 

 

magilum wrote:

What i meant by "people telling it" was that everything falsely concluded about any religion was told to someone by someone else. They did not take it upon themselves to come to that conclusion. It's "well, they said so, so it must be true".

 

I'll say it once more, then I'll make unflattering assumptions about you and move on. That is the only way religions are transmitted.

This is why I don't associate myself with religions.

 

magilum wrote:

Reading scripture is still taking another person's word -- worse yet, an unknown person.

well, if you do your history research, these people aren't exactly unknown... Granted there is some debate about certain books and who wrote them... but then that's not as important as the credibility of the source.  The credibility of the Bible comes in when not only other unrelated texts back it up, but the more we find out scientifically/historically, the more Biblical writings line up with what we discover as truth. 

I've already heard the argument that more science is disproving the Bible, but i have yet to see that science... I mean the stuff that actually disproves any part of it.

magilum wrote:

Many may be surprised to see that most won't even argue the historical accuracy of many claims be it that 100's of Biblical writings have proven true in history.

I'm not even sure what you're claiming here.

that history proves accuracy of Biblical writings.


magilum wrote:

This is a stolen concept. If you take "what another person told me" out of the equation, religion cannot be transmitted. "The meaning is clear and uncontroversial," so say the thousands of sects.

It's one thing to take another persons word... It's another thing if that one person told you something that can be effectively backed up by outside sources or from the original source.

magilum wrote:

Which is why true followers are not a part of any sect. Sects like to make things convenient for themselves.

 

If you're with a number of people that agree on a particular interpretation, you're in a sect.

alright... that would mean you are as well.  Therefore in this aspect, we're in the same boat. 

caposkia wrote: magilum

Submitted by magilum on March 4, 2008 - 2:24am.

caposkia wrote:

magilum wrote:
Naming it, experimenting with it, writing out formulas, helped make the phenomenon more predictable. It isn't assumed, it's demonstrable, repeatedly and consistently. If there were a phenomenon to study, there would no doubt already be a theory of Yahweh, or a theory of Vishnu. But there isn't and there ain't, because it's not demonstrated as a phenomenon, and conceptually it isn't even coherent or specific enough to add anything of value to the discourse.

Well, this is a matter of opinion really.  There are numerous credible historians, scientists, geologists, etc.  whom would disagree with your above statement.

It's not what you think, it's what you can demonstrate.

caposkia wrote:
 

The other problem with your statement above is you claiming "It isn't assumed, it's demonstrable" then going on to say that YHWH is not.   The majority of the people in the world believe in a higher power. The majority of THEM believe in YHWH.  The majority of the YHWH believers would claim your assumption that God is not even a phenomenon is beyond an assumption, it's downright ignorant.

Appeal to popularity fallacy.

caposkia wrote:
  My personal opinion.  You should probably read the Bible more, then confirm what you feel never happened by researching other texts that would prove that.  If you find anything, let me know.

I see. So the burden of proof is on me to go on a fishing expedition in your religious texts to try to prove a negative. That's shifting the burden of proof, and that such a tactic is necessary for someone in the overwhelming majority just betrays the weakness of your position.

caposkia wrote:

Science also bases itself upon the fact that others can come to the same conclusion that you did through the same process.  There are millions of people out there that have gone through the same process and have come to the same conclusion... that YHWH is real.

If you close your eyes and someone presses down on your head for thirty seconds, when they let go, you feel like you're floating. I'm not even going to dignify your anecdotal appeals to popularity further. If you say it again, I'm deleting it from my replies.

caposkia wrote:
 

magilum wrote:

What i meant by "people telling it" was that everything falsely concluded about any religion was told to someone by someone else. They did not take it upon themselves to come to that conclusion. It's "well, they said so, so it must be true".

Already dealt with repeatedly.

caposkia wrote:

I'll say it once more, then I'll make unflattering assumptions about you and move on. That is the only way religions are transmitted.

This is why I don't associate myself with religions.

Yes you do, already dealt with.

caposkia wrote:

magilum wrote:

Reading scripture is still taking another person's word -- worse yet, an unknown person.

well, if you do your history research, these people aren't exactly unknown... Granted there is some debate about certain books and who wrote them... but then that's not as important as the credibility of the source.  The credibility of the Bible comes in when not only other unrelated texts back it up, but the more we find out scientifically/historically, the more Biblical writings line up with what we discover as truth.

Post some infamous Caposkia examples. Do you have any raving derelicts you'd like to paraphrase?

caposkia wrote:

I've already heard the argument that more science is disproving the Bible, but i have yet to see that science... I mean the stuff that actually disproves any part of it.

Same answer as above.

caposkia wrote:

magilum wrote:

Many may be surprised to see that most won't even argue the historical accuracy of many claims be it that 100's of Biblical writings have proven true in history.

I'm not even sure what you're claiming here.

that history proves accuracy of Biblical writings.

magilum wrote:

This is a stolen concept. If you take "what another person told me" out of the equation, religion cannot be transmitted. "The meaning is clear and uncontroversial," so say the thousands of sects.

It's one thing to take another persons word... It's another thing if that one person told you something that can be effectively backed up by outside sources or from the original source.

Rhetoric.

caposkia wrote:

magilum wrote:

Which is why true followers are not a part of any sect. Sects like to make things convenient for themselves.

If you're with a number of people that agree on a particular interpretation, you're in a sect.

alright... that would mean you are as well.  Therefore in this aspect, we're in the same boat. 

There's nothing to interpret, so your tu quoque fails. I'm not informed by atheism; it's merely a conclusion one comes to as a result of thinking critically. It could easily be overturned if evidence turned up to contradict it. But it's not looking too spiffy in that arena, lo these millennia of your ilk's failure to produce anything of substance.

 

A YouTube-comments debate with a liberal theist

Submitted by ToddGates on June 17, 2008 - 12:49pm.

Below is a copy & paste from the YouTube comments section with a liberal theist by the YouTube name of “DoomHippie” (who responded to my ‘Science, religion, & "truth" vs. "Truth"’ video-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AzuU_9yx8Y). YouTube’s 500-character comment limit is making our discussion unwieldy, so I’m taking the liberty of copying & pasting all the exchanges we’ve made so far to this site.

Comment from DoomHippie: Yes, the bible was written by humans. Nowhere in the bible does it say "Written by God." Anyway, Genesis is NOT an accurate representation of how the world was made Genesis was written to explain Why the world was made.

 

ToddAllenGates: 1 of 3: > Yes, the bible was written by humans. Nowhere in the bible does it say "Written by God."

Hi DoomHippie, True-believers would disagree, and could quote 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as proof that God DID inspire the Bible: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness . . ."

2 of 3: > Anyway, Genesis is NOT an accurate representation of how the world was made

No question, but it took advanced science to figure that out. For over 1,000 years, most believers assumed that "God meant what He said." This is why Copernicus's work was banned, and Galileo was convicted of heresy.

3 of 3: > Genesis was written to explain Why the world was made.

Your above sentence could be interpreted in two different ways . . . as either:

(1) "GOD wrote Genesis to explain why the world was made" or

(2) "PEOPLE made up Genesis and other explanatory myths (such as those of Zeus, Apollo, Baal, Thor, etc.) to guess at why (and how) the world was made."

Perhaps needless to say, I believe the latter is the more plausible.

 

DoomHippie: True-believers would disagree? I AM A TRUE BELIEVER!! AND I AGREE! Why does a "true-believer" have to be a Conservative Christian? There's a whole other liberal side of Christianity, you know. I take a more lenient view of the bible because it WAS written by humans.

 

ToddAllenGates:

> True-believers would disagree? I AM A TRUE BELIEVER!! AND I AGREE! Why does a "true-believer" half to be a Conservative Christian?

Sorry, I stand corrected. I should have said "fundamentalists" or "conservatives" or something to that effect.

 

ToddAllenGates:

1 of 6: > There's a whole other liberal side of Christianity, you know. I take a more lenient view of the bible because it WAS written by humans.

Hi again DoomHippie, All my videos involve scrutinizing the claims of Christian proselytizers, so I readily acknowledge that I often bypass liberal interpretations of Christianity (and indeed have a great deal of ignorance about such interpretations), as liberal interpreters tend not to proselytize.

2 of 6: But if you don’t mind extending our conversation a bit further, I do have three questions about the liberal man-wrote-the-bible perspective:

ONE: Why do you think God didn’t provide something to the effect of a “read-only” file of the Bible? With such an important task as providing guidance and salvation to mankind, why do you think He didn’t make sure that His Instructions were genuine and trustworthy?

3 of 6: TWO: Although you agreed that the Bible was written by humans, you also identified yourself as a true believer . . . so I’m assuming that your believe that God had some kind of influence in the Bible’s text: that there’s at least *something* more divine about the Bible than, say, the Greek myths. But how can we tell which passages represent the Will of God, and which represent man’s imagination?

4 of 6: Leviticus 18:22’s line about homosexuality being an abomination: from God, or from man’s imagination? Mark 16:16’s line about salvation based on faith, not deeds: from God, or from man’s imagination? James 2’s passages about salvation based on deeds, not faith: from God, or from man’s imagination? Deuteronomy 13’s line about stoning apostate family members to death: from God or man? How can we tell which is which?

5 of 6: THREE: On what basis did you reject non-Christian religions? For example, it seems that the human bigotry and cruelty of Hinduism’s caste system is an immediate reason for dismissing it as Divinity’s Word . . . but once we accept the “fallible MAN wrote the Scriptures” argument, couldn’t it be true that the Rig Veda contains examples of human prejudice only because fallible man recorded it? If a Hindu apologist were to use this argument, would you find it flawed or acceptable?

6 of 6: If you find it flawed, why? If you find it acceptable, what makes Christianity preferable to its many rivals? Thanks, and I hope I don’t sound like I’m being arrogant or accusing (tone is often hard to interpret when it comes to the written word). It’s just that liberal Christians tend to be far less vocal than their conservative counterpoints, so I don’t often hear their views, and am very interested in hearing yours.

- Todd

 

DoomHippie: I'll answer each question individually.

ONE I believe at one point of time the bible was probably divinely inspired. But, years of rewritting it and corrupt priests adding things for their own benefit has mucked down the true message. To answer: He probably did make a read-only" file of the Bible, but it has long since been lost.

TWO: Hmmm. I seem to mostly have answered this already. It is left to humans to use their own judgment in finding what is Divine or Man-Made in the bible. A passage supporting this belief is: Luke 12:56-57- “Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the Earth and Sky. How is it that you don't know how to interpret this present time? Why don't you judge for yourself what is right?"

THREE: You seem to be under the presumption that I reject non-Christian faiths. Let me ask you this, if I worship a god and call him "the Lord" and someone else worships a god with similar characteristics and calls him "Allah" isn't he the same god? If you call something a "Tree" and I call it a "Cow" does that change what it is? I am one of few who believe there are more worshiping the True God then just Christians. I see other believers in Jews, Muslims, Agnostics, Wiccans, and other religions.

ToddAllenGates:

1 of 25: Two preliminary notes: (1) YouTube’s 500-character limit makes a discussion on this topic unwieldy, so I’ve taken the liberty of copying & pasting our exchanges to my subpage on the Rational Response Squad’s site’s post of this video (see the link in the Description box). If you’d rather continue our discussion here on YouTube, however, that’s okay with me too.

2 of 25: (2) I feel the effects of religion are a complex mix of the positive and the negative . . . and "the negative" stems primarily from fundamentalists: those who KNOW Divinity's Will and feel therefore obligated to impose it on others, even making it state law: banning evolution in schools, making homosexuality a crime, stoning to death the apostate who turns from Islam, and killing the Untouchable who dares to touch (and thus contaminate) anyone from an upper caste.

3 of 25: So when it comes to those such as yourself who sees aspects of both God and man in multiple faiths, I have no real argument--as people who interpret sacred texts liberally will rarely (if ever) seek to impose their interpretations on others.

4 of 25: So while my argument is with the fundamentalist's worldview and not yours, I will--just in the manner of an exchange of ideas, not a vehement disagreement--discuss why I personally don’t subscribe to the liberal "The Truth is One; the sages call it by many names" perspective.

5 of 25:

ONE (the "scriptures have been corrupted" issue)

- When the CEO of my company, a being whose power is quite insignificant compared to the power a Creator of the Universe would necessarily possess, wants to send instructions to all employees, that message is fairly tamperproof. And if unauthorized subordinates tried to distribute corrupted versions of the CEO's message, the problem would be swiftly discovered and remedied.

6 of 25: Yet the "Corrupted Message" theory has it that the Highest Power in the Universe has no such Quality Control over His Holy Word. MY POINT: to me, the “Corrupted Message” theory gives us a contradictory depiction of God’s capabilities.

7 of 25: It says a Creator who is powerful and detail-conscious enough to craft everything from comets to caterpillars--and who is presumably still active in the universe and in human affairs--is too powerless / sloppy / careless / unconcerned to achieve the comparatively easy task of maintaining an authorized and reliable record (something comparable to a “read-only” file) of His Holy Word.

8 of 25:

TWO (which parts of holy texts are divine and which are made up by people?) You quote Luke 12's line "Why don't you judge for yourself what is right?" . . . but if the Bible has been corrupted, how do we know that Jesus really said that? Maybe some meddling human who wanted to be free of Jewish dietary commands slipped that line in. And besides, “judge for yourself” is hardly the consistent message of the Bible.

9 of 25: The far more common is “obey me and you’ll be rewarded; disobey me and you’ll be punished.” As for the general “people should judge for themselves what God meant” philosophy, I feel that would be fine if only it were all a matter of harmless opinion--something similar to the way one person follows the horoscope of Magazine X, another person follows the horoscope from Magazine Z, and another person doesn’t follow horoscopes at all.

10 of 25: But unlike the casual and “fun only” attention that most people give to horoscopes, many people take what they believe are “Commands from the Creator” very seriously (and if their premise were only correct, I actually agree that they SHOULD take them very seriously!)--just as seriously, if not more so, as laws from our country’s government.

11 of 25: In comparing ‘obedience to government laws’ to ‘obedience to God’s laws,’ let’s limit our scope of gov’t laws to those of traffic. If people were to adopt the “choose for yourself which traffic laws need to be obeyed or not” philosophy, the deadly consequences would be immediate as certain individuals would no doubt ignore speed limits, red lights, and Yield signs.

12 of 25: (Not to mention the inevitable clashes about parking tickets--who’s to say which “No Parking” signs are valid?) The parallels between religious laws and traffic laws are not perfect, but there ARE similarities--and arguably, following the correct religious law is even *more* important: after all, an eternity in a blissful or hellish afterlife could be at stake!

13 of 25: Yet even though religious laws should be more important (as long as we’re assuming there IS a Creator, and He *has* issued Divine Directions) than traffic laws, look at how well-managed traffic laws are in comparison to the chaos we find in religion. For one, we can almost always easily discern genuine government issued laws vs. those made up people (a genuine post of a 65-mile hour speed limit vs. a graffiti-tampered one that posts a 650-mile hour speed limit).

14 of 25: Second, our traffic laws are almost always (as far as I know) “harmonious” with each other (i.e., one side has a green light while the other side has a red light). And when laws change because traffic conditions change, these changes are clearly posted: “No Right Turn On Red” / “Approaching 15-Mile Hour Speed Limit ” ) .

15 of 25: So why is it that when it comes to important laws that need obeying, puny man does a reasonably competent job at establishing authorized and consistent rules, yet a Being of Infinite Superiority doesn’t do the same? Given the lack of consistent and clearly authorized rules, people do indeed “decide for themselves” which Divine Laws are really from God and which are not.

16 of 25: And while this is harmless in some circumstances (following the Golden Rule vs. the Law of Karma, etc.), it can also be oppressive (re: gay marriage, abortion rights, creationism in science classes) and even deadly: between Muslims & Jews, Sunnis & Shiites, Catholics & Protestants, etc.

17 of 25: MY POINT: It strikes me as contradictory to believe that a Being powerful and brilliant enough to create the universe would set forth such a recipe for disaster as “Sort through this here Holy Book and decide for yourself which laws should and should not be given Divine Weight.”

18 of 25:

THREE:

> You seem to be under the presumption that I reject non-Christian faiths. Let me ask you this, if I worship a god and call him "the Lord" and someone else worships a god with similar characteristics and calls him "Allah" isn't he the same god?

True enough, but different religions have LOTS more differences between them than just using different words for "God." Their doctrines clash with one another, especially the monotheistic ones, and often violently:

19 of 25: - “There is only ONE God!” vs. “There are MANY gods!” and - “Divinity FORBIDS idolatry!” vs. “Divinity DEMANDS idolatry!” and - “Divinity FORBIDS human sacrifice!” vs. “Divinity DEMANDS human sacrifice!” - “There is NO such thing as a caste system!” vs. “There IS a caste system--and failure to obey caste rules means you may be reincarnated as a cockroach!”

20 of 25: Why the inconsistencies? Did God purposely inspire Consecrated Contradictions? If so, that makes God something of a sadist, purposely setting up religions to be in perpetual conflict with one another.

21 of 25: Are the contradictions the result of man’s corruption of His Otherwise Harmonious Holy Word? If so, then we’re back to the “Sloppy CEO” scenario--the contradictory notion that a Being who’s wise & powerful enough to create the universe has no Quality Control over something as important as His Instructions to humanity.

22 of 25: > I am one of few who believe there are more worshiping the True God then just Christians. I see other believers in Jews, Muslims, Agnostics, Wiccans, and other religions. Deists would agree, but Deists also tend to see God only in creation, and perhaps as having sort of influence in the life’s designs, and in human reason--but they generally see God as having no role in so-called sacred texts whatsoever.

23 of 25: From our exchanges so far, my guess (although maybe I’m wrong) is that you believe God *did* inspire at least “parts” of the Judeo-Christian Bible, the Koran, the Rig Veda, possibly Mayan & Aztec religious beliefs, etc. IN CONCLUSION: I know you’re not trying to persuade me of anything, just as I’m not trying to persuade you. I’m only offering my reasons for why I find the “God says to judge for yourself” philosophy untenable.

24 of 25: My own position when it comes to so-called sacred texts is that taken by both atheists and Deists: humans made up stories to explain creation, to explain suffering, to set up rules for living, and to declare what happens after one dies, and they’ve packaged these stories & beliefs & rules in texts we call “Scriptures”--but they all stem from nothing more than a mix of human guesswork, human wisdom, human savagery, wishful thinking, history blended with legend, and so on.

25 of 25: Laws that stem from religion may indeed sometimes have merit--but it’s their merit alone that should determine whether or not they influence our lives, not on religious leaps of faith that “Divinity said so.”