re: Correlation: Prayer out of schools to increase in mass shootings

quote:

---

these stupid fricking gun free zone signs signal to evil people where easy targets might be,

---

This. I don't understand why so many people don't understand this. The shooter shoots until he runs into a good guy with a gun and then either runs, surrenders or commits suicide.

quote:

---

objective standard on the definition of "good"

---

There's no such thing, even in religion.

Of course there is. Christians believe in an eternal unchanging and good Creator. That is most certainly objective. If you want to debate how we access that information, that's a whole different debate.

quote:

---

Of course there is.

---

This "objective" moral standard...

Does God command it because it is right? Or is it right merely because God commands it?

quote:

---

Does God command it because it is right? Or is it right merely because God commands it?

---

Divine Command Theory

quote:

---

I find your dodging frustrating, not your question.

---

You haven't posited anything to dodge. You've just proven my point. To you, good=whatever you think good is.

Hitchens was a fool who didn't understand the religion he liked to bash.

quote:

---

In order to be a Christian, you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth. Famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, all of that for 98,000 years. Heaven watches this with a complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago, thinks "That's enough of that. It's time to intervene,"

---

I won't debate the timeline as it doesn't matter for his point. Whether it's 10,000 years or 100,000 years, his point is that there's a long time that "Heaven" (God) doesn't do a thing about suffering in the world.

First of all, he doesn't understand what the religion teaches. The Bible (and thus Christians as a whole) doesn't teach that the point of Jesus' sacrifice was to remove human suffering here on earth. In case Hitchens hadn't noticed, suffering continued long after Jesus' death on the cross. We suffer today. God, therefore, wasn't watching and waiting for there to be enough suffering to send Jesus to die. He was being patient with His chosen people (Israel) and waiting on them to repent and trust in the promised messiah that was revealed from the 3rd chapter in the book of Genesis. In His own timing, God finally sent Jesus to become incarnate and begin His mission. It wasn't a "enough is enough" sort of thing, as if God--on a whim--just decided to step in after being outraged one last time. The timing was planned before we were even created.

The salvation found in Jesus is a spiritual salvation, not a physical one. The Bible tells us to continue to expect to suffer, even as Jesus suffered, and that our hope should be in Heaven, not in our earthly lives. It's why the Christian prosperity preachers are so far off base.

Secondly, the Bible teaches that God is not indifferent to human suffering. He doesn't delight in the death of the wicked (much less His own people) nor does He desire the consequences of sin, which is death. Suffering exists because we are sinners and our natural state is selfishness which leads to the suffering of ourselves and of others. Even nature is at war against us because of our sin. It's because God loves His creation that He gave an escape from suffering through faith in Jesus Christ, who if we trust in His sacrifice, will wipe away all the tears and heal all of the wounds of His people in Heaven.

quote:

---

and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice

---

The issue is one of justice. It wasn't simply a "human sacrifice", but a cosmic moral debt that needed to be paid. The death penalty has existed since the beginning of humanity. This one just happened to take away sin.

quote:

---

somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don't lets appear to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let's go to the desert and have another revelation there."

---

In his haste to belittle Christianity and the Bible, he ignores the truth: the revelation about Jesus happened where people were reading and writing (how did he think the New Testament was created?) and where people did question the validity of the claims. The gospel accounts are full of examples of people not believing Jesus was God in spite of His miracles.

His statement also insinuates that God should have chosen the most advanced civilization(s) to reveal Himself to if He wanted to be seen as credible. This misses on a few points. First, it ignores the theme of the scriptures wherein God chose the lowest of the low to be His people and to receive Him. He created the nation of Israel out of pagan nations. He lifted up the poor and the humble into positions of authority (like David). Jesus embraced the slaves and the widows and condemned the rich men who had no need for God, or the learned pharisees that relied upon their own knowledge and understanding rather than the truth of God.

Secondly, the statement ignores God's requirement for salvation: faith. Hitchens was a man of empiricism and would not accept anything that could not be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (that's not really true, but for the sake of argument...) and therefore he had no place for "faith" in his life. It's why, in his world, if God existed, it would be reasonable to leave His existence beyond question, appearing to people who would think critically about Him and thoroughly record every aspect and detail about Him. There are two problems with this: God condescends to give us proofs but He doesn't have to prove to everyone (beyond a doubt) of His existence because by nature we already know He exists and those who reject God fight against Him with all of their power. Secondly, salvation comes by faith, not by sight. Some who saw didn't believe and most who believe never saw. The point was completely missed by Hitchens, to his own detriment. I shudder to think about what he has to endure right now.

quote:

---

I'm not arguing semantics at all. I'm asking for an atheist to give an objective standard on the definition of "good". Personal or popular opinions aren't objective. Sorry that you find that so frustrating.

---

There is no concrete "objective" morality, in the sense of some universal truth or standard. Is that the concession you're looking for?

That doesn't preclude there being an accepted, innate morality among the majority of humanity. Some people will still be born lacking that morality for a variety of reasons (sociopaths etc), but the vast majority of humanity is innately aware of it and generally adheres to it.

quote:

---

There is no concrete "objective" morality, in the sense of some universal truth or standard. Is that the concession you're looking for? 

---

So you agree that when atheists say they don't need God to be "good", it's essentially gibberish.

quote:

---

1. The Israelites saying that a command was from God doesn't make it so.

2. God killing people is no more immoral than people killing ants.

3. It's also possible, the events never occurred and were simply folklore.

---

If part of the Bible is false, then according to most Christians I know, the whole thing must be false. It's why when I point out that I prefer listening to what Jesus says vs what Paul says, I get blasted by Christians for not heeding their teachings equally. It's why I went full blown agnostic.