Why Christianity has Contributed to the Development of the Porn Industry.

For the most part, Christians have always felt uncomfortable with their sexuality. In this post, I will explain why this is so, and why the attitude Christian society has towards the human body and human sexuality has led to sex being viewed as something "dirty," and that the human body itself is "filthy." The Christian view that humans are "born sinners" and that the body is filthy, and sex is "dirty" then leads people to act on their so-called "sinful nature"--which has inevitably contributed to the development of the porn industry.

The Christian Apologist Blogger JW Wartick Offers Fodder for the Case that the Bible Makes No Sense

The Christian apologist blogger JW Wartick, in his  book review on Paul Helm's “Eternal God: A Study of God Without Time,” states that:

"Helm here turns to compatiblism. He freely admits that timeless creation entails determinism (170). Thus, he denies that humans have free will in the libertarian sense. But this, he argues, does not undermine human responsibility. I don’t think I can do justice to the nuances of his argument, but the basic idea is that Helm argues that just because past actions/events determine our actions in the future, that doesn’t mean that we aren’t responsible for what we do. As I said, this is a really, really watered down version of his argument, but I think this is one of the weaker points of his work.

Why? Because the idea of responsibility simply does not make sense on determinism, particularly when it is theistic determinism. For consider the idea proposed here. God has created all of time and space as one bloc. Thus, everything I do or have ever done was created by God once he brought the universe into being. Literally, everything I did, I do because God created the universe such that I would do x. So how could it be that I am responsible for doing x, if I never chose to do x. I simply do x because I have to, I have “already” done it, on the static theory. If I could create a time travel device, I could travel forward in time and see myself doing x, and could not prevent it, because God created the world such that I would do x. But the core of responsibility is that I chose to do x. While we punish people for things they do by accident (vehicular manslaughter, for example, or accidentally breaking a window), these things still resulted from prior choices (playing baseball near breakable window/driving carelessly). I simply do not see how any account of responsibility could make sense unless someone can choose to do what they do."

So, according to Wartick, "... the idea of responsibility simply does not make sense on determinism, particularly when it is theistic determinism." This is exactly right, and as a result, WARTICK HAS ILLUSTRATED THAT THE BIBLE MAKES NO SENSE. First, let me set this out as an argument so that you can see how it works. Secondly, I will show that the bible does espouse responsibility and determinism. Here is the argument:

P1. If there are parts of the bible that espouse the idea of responsibility and determinism then the Bible makes no sense.

P2. The Bible espouses the idea of responsibility and determinism.

C. Therefore, the Bible makes no sense.

Note, P1 is supported by Wartick's claim that "... the idea of responsibility simply does not make sense on determinism, particularly when it is theistic determinism."

Many scholars, including Christian philosophers from Augustine to Pelagius, as well as secular philosophers, have long recognized the conceptual problem of the idea of responsibility and determinism presented in the bible via the roles played by man and Yahweh in the drama of salvation. According to the bible, redemption can come only through the offering of Yahweh of himself, and if a believer is saved, it is ONLY through Yahweh's grace, and it is NOT of themselves. (Ephesians 2:8) On the other hand, the bible also claims that humans chose to sin in the first place, and are FREE to make their own choices, and it must be their own choice to accept Yahweh's salvation, as the bible is also full of admonitions to repent and believe (Acts 3:19) Thus, we have a contradiction in that according to the bible, everything is due to, and determined by Yahweh; and the claim that salvation is the result of the responsibility of man's response to choose freely. As Wartick points out--THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!

As a result of this nonsense, as I mentioned above, Christian philosophers have battled over this issue for centuries, and to this day we have multiple denominations and groups in which some believe in determinism, and some believe in free will, and some believe both!. The battle has been raging for a long time, as the early Christian philosophers such as Augustine and Pelagius disagreed concerning the issue of determinism and free will, and the disagreements continued throughout history, as noted theologians such as Jacobus Arminius espoused the idea of free will, whereas John Calvin and Martin Luther were on the side of determinism.   All this disagreement is due to the fact that the bible is inconsistent and contradictory on the subject of free will and determinism.

According to Arminius, there is such a thing as prevenient grace, which is divine grace that precedes human decision. It exists prior to and without reference to anything humans may have done. As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin, prevenient grace allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer. Whereas Augustine held that prevenient grace cannot be resisted, and if it cannot be resisted, then the person has no free will on this matter.  Wesleyan Arminians believe that it enables, but does not ensure, personal acceptance of the gift of salvation. According to John Calvin, humans are in a state of total depravity, and there is no free will at all due to Divine Sovereignty.


This table, taken from Wikipedia, summarizes the classical views of three different Protestant beliefs about salvation.

All these inconsistent and contradictory views are based on the bible. The bible espouses the idea of responsibility and determinism via the passages mentioned above, as well as my favorite passage from (Proverbs 16:33),  "...EVERY decision is from the Lord." These, and other passages such as Ephesians 1:11; Lamentations 3:37-38; James 4:13-15; Psalm 139:16 and Matt 10:29-30 support the case for determinism.  For more information and arguments for the case on biblical determinism, see Calvinism.

As Wartick pointed out: "... the idea of responsibility simply does not make sense on determinism, particularly when it is theistic determinism." If there are parts of the bible that espouse the idea of responsibility and determinism then the Bible makes no sense. As I have shown, that is exactly what the Bible espouses--the Bible espouses the idea of responsibility and determinism. THEREFORE, THE BIBLE MAKES NO SENSE!!

Christian Blogger Wintery Knight Illustrates That the Christian God is Egotistical and Sadistic!

 

I had been meaning to post this earlier, but I got caught up in responding to comments made by "anonymous" on this blog. Now that that is done, time to move on.

In this blog post, I will show that Wintery Knight's attempt to answer the problem of evil fails, and that in fact, he shows us that if the Christian god exists, then he is egotistical and sadistic. Once again, the Wintery Knight has written a post in which his lack of thinking skills "hurts my brain." Ouch!! Let me illustrate. This is the conclusion he drew from a paper on the problem of evil:

What the atheist has to show is that God could have prevented some instance of evil that appears to be pointless without losing any overall goodness. I.e. - the atheist has to show how a dentist can fill a cavity without using a drill, (or even using air abrasion). That's the burden of proof on the atheist, and Alston claims that the atheist is not in a position to know that. It's not enough to say "I don't see why dentists would have to resort to letting me suffer". The atheist has to prove that there is a way to make the cavity go away without ANY suffering. He has to show that you can get the same good result without losing the good that allowing the suffering achieved.
Remember that on the Christian view, the good aim that God has is NOT to make humans have happy feelings in this life, regardless of their knowledge, wisdom and character. That's what atheists think, though. They think that God, if he exists, is obligated to make them feel happy all the time and not to be actively involved in forming their knowledge, wisdom and character without harming their free will. God has a purpose - to work in the world so that everyone who can freely respond to him will respond to him. The Bible says that allowing pain and suffering is one of the ways that he gets that group of people who are willing to respond to respond to him - FREELY. Who is the atheist to question whether God could get all the people who will respond to him to respond with less suffering? How would the atheist know that?
But as I said before, atheist confuse the purpose of life. They think that the purpose of life is to have happy feelings, and they wonder "how could allowing me to suffer create MORE happy feelings?" And that's where the problem arises. They can't get past the idea that God has a right to form their character, to put them through certain experiences, and to place humans in times and places where he can orchestrate a world that meets his needs, not our needs.

Wintery Knight's argument does not even get off the ground, because first he must prove a god exists before anyone could show that god could prevent any evil. Remember, the onus is on the one making the claim to prove that claim. It is only when he can show his all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful god exists that he can say atheists must show that God "could have prevented some instance of evil that appears to be pointless without losing any overall goodness." What an atheist has to show in this case however, is that the type of god Christians claims exists, i.e. an all-powerful, all good, all knowing god, is inconsistent with a world of suffering--THIS is the problem of evil. If Yahweh is all powerful, and all knowing he could accomplish any of his tasks without the need for suffering--or he would not be all powerful and all knowing. If he was all good, he would want to create a world without any pain and suffering, since it would be within his power and knowledge to do so. But clearly we have pain and suffering. Therefore, Yahweh is not all knowing, all good, or all powerful.

Wintery Knight's analogy in this case does not rid us of the problem of evil--in fact it supports the problem of evil!  Of course, the dentists cannot do their jobs without some pain and suffering, because they are not all good, all knowing and all powerful--they do not have the power and knowledge to do their jobs without some pain and suffering. Now it could be the case that there is no other way to do it given the way our world is, that is, according to the laws of nature. But then, that just goes to show that the dentist is not all powerful--that he is subject to the laws of nature. Likewise, it would also be the case then, that if Yahweh could not create a world without suffering because it is not possible to do so, then he is not all knowing and not all powerful--as there is something he cannot do. Note, some religions, such as Taoism claim that the Tao came before the universe and gods/goddesses. Thus, it makes sense in this case that any such gods and goddesses are not subject to the problem of evil, as the universe and the laws of nature were not created by them, and so, it follows that there may be things that they cannot do given the nature of the universe. However, the Christian god is claimed to have created everything, and therefore, as the bible tells us, is responsible for it all, as it states in Proverbs 16:33 and various other places that "...EVERY decision is from the Lord." Given this scenario, the Christians claimed he created the universe and the laws of nature. Thus, if he were all knowing and all powerful, then he could have created a universe without pain and suffering, and still have satisfied his needs--but he chose not to. This makes the best explanation for Yahweh is that he is egotistical and sadistic, or he did not create the universe and the laws of nature, and he is not all powerful, or all knowing.

The Christians face another dilemma. According to the Christian eschatological view, our pain and suffering is the result of the sin committed by Adam and Eve. But could not Yahweh have created a world where Adam and Eve were free, and chose not to sin? If he could have created such a world and chose not to, then the best explanation for our pain and suffering is that Yahweh is an egotistical sadist. Since Yahweh is said to have created heaven without pain and suffering, but not our world, this further illustrates that Yahweh is an egotistical sadist.  If Yahweh created a heaven where people are happy and "sinless,"Yahweh could have also created earth in the same manner--but chose to have his children be inflicted by pain and suffering instead. Surely--the actions of an egotistical and sadistic god. Christian apologists have been asked, "How can we be free in heaven and not sin?" Their answer has been that man does retain his free will in heaven, but loses the capacity to sin.  How does this work? We are told by the Christian apologists that the Christian god gives humans a new "godly nature" when they become "saved." They are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and given a new nature. 2 Peter 1:4 states "For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of the divine nature." So, we see that those who are saved are given a nature that is radically different than the fallen nature that is said to be inherited from Adam and Eve. This claim is based on Augustine's conception of original sin. Supposedly, this new nature is godly, agreeing with all the precepts and laws of God, and since they completely obey all God's laws, they would be sinless, as Jesus was said to be without sin, and therefore, he was perfect. (2 Cor. 3:21;Matt 5:17) Now, for our purposes, and with reference to the problem of evil, the most significant point is that this "nature" that is given to humans by god means that they will not sin, but yet, they are still considered to be "free." This hammers home the point that Yahweh could have created us in such a way that we were free, and yet never sinned in the first place--thus, avoiding pain and suffering. He could have created us with a "godly" nature in the first place, but obviously, according to Christians and the bible, he chose not to. Again, the best explanation for this, is that if Yahweh existed as depicted by Christians and the bible, then he is a egotistical and sadistic god because, as Wintery Knight tells us, Yahweh chose to make this world to satisfy HIS needs. He NEEDS to experience the pain and suffering of his children to satisfy some needs that he has. What needs could these be, other than sadistic needs, given the fact he could have created a world without pain and suffering, one in which love and respect is absolute?? All the pain and suffering could have been avoided if Yahweh had created a world in which humans had a godly nature, and thus had free will and no sin in the first place. Truly--a sadistic god.

Now, Christians might claim that if we do not experience pain and suffering, then we would have no knowledge of "good." The first point is that if this was the case, then Yahweh would not be all-knowing and all-powerful, as clearly he could have created us with a godly nature, and the knowledge of good, without having to experience pain and suffering, as this would be something he could not do. Thus, how is it that god knows the difference between good and evil, when according to Christians, he has this knowledge, but has not sinned? How did Yahweh have the knowledge of pain and suffering before the "Fall of Man"? He would have had no experience of pain and suffering, but yet, he knew what it was, and since he is said to be the creator of all things, he created pain and suffering. Thus, he could have created us with a godly nature, and knowledge of pain and suffering and good and evil, without having to have us experience it.

Wintery Knight claims that the "...good aim that God has is NOT to make humans have happy feelings in this life." According to Wintery Knight then, Yahweh is not about giving human beings happy feelings in this life. Now, based on the stories of the bible, and what we have experienced in this world throughout history, it confirms that Wintery Knight is at least right on this one point. It is clear that Yahweh is definitely not about giving human beings happy feelings! In fact, the bible tells us that Yahweh is responsible for misery! (I mean, he did create evil after all, and admits it in Isaiah 45:7) Assume this is true. If this is true, then given the pain and suffering depicted in the bible, and the pain and suffering we experience in our world, it would support the conclusion that Yahweh has no interest in the happiness of humanity. The best explanation for this behavior is that Yahweh is an egotistical sadist.

Wintery Knight goes on to say that "...allowing pain and suffering is one of the ways that he (Yahweh) gets that group of people who are willing to respond to respond to him - FREELY." According to Wintery Knight, people will respond FREELY to Yahweh when inflicted with pain and suffering--this is despicable. The use of pain and suffering in order to make someone "respond" to you is a form a coercion. (Just as the Christians did to the so-called witches" when they tortured them for crimes they had not committed until they FREELY "confessed") As I have shown above, Yahweh could have created a world where people respond to him as a result of their "godly nature." Instead, Yahweh could have created a world in which there would be no need for any coercion of any type--but he CHOSE to use pain and suffering in order to FREELY(?) ALLOW(?) us to respond to him--these, dear Wintery Knight, are the manipulations and actions of an egotistical sadist. Even if Yahweh had not made us with this "godly nature," your god could choose to whisper in our ears, or give us any number of signs--but no, he chose pain and suffering. How bizarre. Not only is it bizarre, but it is contradictory for a so-called "all-loving god" to manipulate his "children" this way. If he were an earthly father who was  abusing and torturing his children in order to bring them "closer" to him--he would be put him in jail. As mentioned in an earlierpost, Christians seem to believe that pain and suffering go hand in hand with love--which had lead to untold amounts of abuse at the hands of people that "love" us. Again--how bizarre, and sad at the same time.

Finally he says that, "...God has a right to form their character, to put them through certain experiences, and to place humans in times and places where he can orchestrate a world that meets his needs, not our needs." What right does Yahweh have to inflict, as I have shown above, unnecessary pain and suffering on humans, because he is god? Is Wintery Knight suggesting that "might makes right"?? Is it the case that something is right because god says it is right, or is it right because it IS right? The Divine Command theory in ethics states that whatever god says is right is right--in this case the Christian god Yahweh-- which would mean the slaughter of innocent children, pregnant women and their unborn fetuses would be considered right.  If this is the case then, there is no standard for good, as murder would be considered "good."  Therefore, true objective morality cannot come from such a god.   However, there is a positive reason to suppose that moral notions, even if brought into existence by God, apply independently from God's judgement once they exist. As such, Wintery Knight's claim that Yahweh has a right to form our character by any means necessary would be wrong, as Yahweh would also be subject to the same standards of right and wrong that we are. Otherwise, it would be the case that Yahweh brings moral facts into existence by his judgement. What this amounts to is, is that Yahweh has judged of himself that he is good. Christians however, want to say that it is Yahweh himself that is good--and not that he is good by his own self-judgement. For if it is just a mere self-judgement, Yahweh could be just like the entity that Christians claim is evil-- one whose goal is to create pain and suffering. This entity who is evil and creates this pain and suffering does not become good by a "self-pronouncement" or because someone like Wintery Knight claims this entity has a right to cause pain and suffering. To avoid this absurdity, we need to reject the claim that Yahweh has a right to do whatever he pleases, and that whatever he pleases becomes right. No, there is no such right that makes causing unnecessary pain and suffering "good" by mere self-pronouncement by an egotistical and sadistic god! Yahweh cannot avoid the problem of evil by mere "self-pronouncement"!!!

Wintery Knight says Yahweh "orchestrates a world that meets his needs." Yes, ACCORDING TO WINTERY KNIGHT, YAHWEH NEEDS TO HAVE LITTLE CHILDREN RAPED AND MURDERED.  HE NEEDS TO HAVE WOMEN BEATEN TO DEATH BY THEIR HUSBANDS, ETC. Again, those are not the actions of a loving god, but the actions of an egotistical sadistic god.  I have shown above that the atheist has no need to prove that there is a way to, as Wintery Knight says, "prove that there is a way to make the cavity go away without ANY suffering."  For as I have shown above, this is the case according to Christians and the Bible--Yahweh could have choose to make the cavity go away without any suffering--but chose not to.  Yahweh could have prevented every instance of evil, pain and suffering without losing any overall goodness. Otherwise Yahweh is not all knowing, all powerful, or all good!

On The Question Of Yahweh And The Slaughter of The Canaanite Unborn Fetuses: Dear Anonymous - Part One. My Response to a Recent Commenter on This Blog

 

This is part one of my response to a recent commenter on my blog. His/her comments went into a great deal of detail. As to respond in a scholarly fashion, I have chosen to write a series of blog posts in order to give a more thorough response. This is part 1. Enjoy.

Dear Anonymous,

If you have read my blog at all, you will notice that I have allowed many people who oppose my views to post comments--as long as they stick to the arguments, and do not fall prey to ad hominem, red herrings, etc. I also made it through your entire letter, which has prompted me to write this post (more will follow), as a few lines in a typical response would not do justice to what you had written.

You asked me if I thought all of the Canaanites that were slaughtered were innocent. (Deuteronomy 7:1-2) According to many Christians, the unborn are "sinless"--they are not yet born--so even if one pregnant mother, and one unborn fetus was innocent, your god would be unjust in causing its death.  On the other hand, many Christians also follow Augustine's concept of original sin.  This is the teaching that all people who are born, inherit the sinful state into which Adam and Eve passed due to their sin within the Garden of Eden.  Some argue that this happens at conception.  As a result of being born/conceived in sin, all humans are depraved and have a corrupted nature. I will go into more detail and present arguments against Augustine's concept of original sin in another blog post.  Like Pelagius did, I will show that Augustine's concept of original sin is inconsistent with the Bible and that it is a false doctrine. Furthermore, Augustine's concept of original sin is inconsistent with the notion of free will. Ethically speaking, it would be morally unjust for the Christian god to punish anyone for a deed they did not commit.

According to Christianity, the Christian god is all knowing.  Thus, the Christian god knows if a fetus will grow into an evil monster, so perhaps, just as you say about the Canaanite slaughter, i.e. those children could grow to be evil monsters if they were allowed to live; those fetuses that are aborted could also have grown into evil people, and your god is orchestrating their termination because as you say, he knows best "in the larger sense." Just like the Canaanite children could grow to be evil monsters if they were allowed to live, so could the aborted fetuses have grown to be evil monsters, so your god did not allow them to be born. Furthermore, the question then arises as to why your god allowed "evil monsters" such as Hitler to be born in the first place, who then went on to kill more than 6 million of his "chosen people." It makes no logical sense that an all-good, all knowing, and all powerful god would kill an entire group of "potentially evil" people, but fail to eliminate the fetus of one of the worst mass murderers in human history--the murderer of his own so-called "chosen" people!!  As you say in regards to the slaughtered Canaanite children:

"...those who still had a chance to love him were in danger of either being affected by this hate or destroyed by it. What if this being knew that the Canaanite children who were innocent at that time would have grown into a culture so predisposed against God that they too never would have had a chance to know him for who he really is and all of them would have chosen other than god. Is it possible that God actually spared their eternal lives by removing them from their temporal ones?"

Here, we can assume that if Yahweh exists, he would know, and since he knows, why would he not get rid of someone like Hitler? We can also apply what you say to the aborted fetuses. By what you say then, it would be possible that your God is sparing their eternal lives by removing them from their temporal ones. And since the bible tells us that "...EVERY decision is from the Lord" (Proverbs 16:33) this would be his will--according to what the bible tells us. Everything is determined by your god--including abortion, which you claim is the murder of the innocents.

You speak about me hating god--but I cannot hate something that has not been shown to exist--that would be like hating Santa Claus. What I do hate however, are the consequences of a belief system that encourages "moral laxity" as it promotes the idea that someone else (Jesus) pays for the mistakes of others. While there may be no god, there are many religious people, and  as the Christian philosopher Pelagius pointed out long ago, when people do not have to take moral responsibility for their actions, and are told they are "born sinners" and cannot help but to do bad things--and will be forgiven for any indiscretion as long as they repent (well--except blasphemy!)--this leads to moral laxity. It leads to a society full of people who believe they cannot help but to commit adultery, rape, murder, etc.--because they believe they were born bad--but it's ok because Jesus takes the consequences for their actions on the cross. When there is no personal responsibility, and no consequences--we have a society in chaos--which is exactly the case. There is also no justice for the victims of Christian crimes in this life. Furthermore, religious people of all faiths have caused the death and torture of millions of innocent people. From Chinese foot binding, to the cutting off of the clitoris of women in Africa, to the Christian murders of the so-called "witches" and the slaughter of innocent South and North American Indians, and Africans--my goal is to prevent future atrocities, and "moral laxity." To repeat, what I hate are the consequences of a belief that encourages "moral laxity," and unnecessary pain and suffering.

As for allowing small hurts to, as you say, prevent bigger hurts (as in slaughtering babies to prevent them from growing into evil monsters) --any kind of "hurting" would be unnecessary for an all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful god. If god is all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful, there should be no evil. ie., no "hurts." A possibility, that Descartes pointed out, is that Christians ought give up one of these attributes in order to avoid the problem of evil.

Of course, if one gives up the attribute that Yahweh is all good, it points to what might be the best explanation--Yahweh is a sadist. It would appear, via the writings of the bible, that one explanation could be that Yahweh is a sadist, and gets off on causing undo pain and suffering. According to the bible, if your god was real, he orchestrates a great deal of unnecessary suffering. We can say this because if Yahweh were all-powerful, he could just snap his almighty fingers to prevent any type of hurt--and if he were all-knowing, he would know how to prevent any type of pain and suffering--but he does not. Furthermore, the bible tells us that "...EVERY decision is from the Lord," therefore, he is responsible for the pain and suffering, resulting in the problem of evil.

Life is not something that as you said, is something to be "deserved." We are all born into life, which we know is limited--making it all the more precious. We must also co-exist, which is why societies form moral and ethical guidelines--no gods required. We have families, we love, we learn, and we live. This is life as many of us know it, but for others, life is nothing but a struggle for survival. Due only to the circumstances of their birth, many starve, or are dying of curable diseases. Yes, children that pray to your god every day, suffer and die needlessly, and I could never worship a god who is "bountiful" to men such as Benny Hinn (who was outed as fraud on "The Fifth Estate"--a Canadian news program) yet does nothing for the weak and suffering children in Africa and around the world. How bizarre that your god is given thanks when a quarterback throws the winning touchdown, but nothing is said of his responsibility when the innocent are allowed to suffer. If there was such a thing as an eternity with a god, I certainly would not want to spend it worshiping the god the bible describes as being narcissistic, egotistical, angry, vengeful and jealous. I prefer the idea of doing what is right in this life, via Normative Ethical Theories, as we do not require a god for objective morality-- and leaving that legacy for those that follow. That to me, would be a form of "eternal life."

Part 2 will be written in the coming days. Again, thank you for your comments--they have provided me with great fodder for the blog.