Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[Rillion]

A bit of a loaded question, isn't it?  Of course God cannot do "wrong" so one has to look at other elements of the question and the pre-conceived conclusions within.  

Forgive me, what I should've said was "How do you reconcile your belief that men can't have authority over others with the idea that Moses wielded authority over others by order of God?"

If you don't, in fact, believe that God ordered Moses to do so, that's an easy resolution.  But if you do, then you're faced with the problem that if you were one of the people Moses was trying to order around, you would have had to reject his orders on principle since he was a man asserting authority over you. 

[theCelestrian]

Wow.  This thread still keeps on keepin' on.  Though this looks this has turned from 'Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer' into the 'FTL debate thread of any and all things religious.' Not that that's a necessarily a bad thing I guess.

However:

I do believe that God spoke to Moses and I believe that Moses tried to carry out what he understood to be the will of God.  Moses, however, is a man and men are imperfect.  Since I know that Moses was just an imperfect man such as myself I have to conclude that he made mistakes in both his understanding of what God was asking him to do and in the execution of those orders.  I do not know what his "error" rate was and can only guess.  My guess would be that Moses had an error rate of maybe 5% on both his understanding of his orders AND his execution of those orders...

This is interesting, Gene.  Couple things:

• Why "5%" - I understand this is your guess, but where did this number come from other than what you're "feel good" percentage was, which my guess resulted from an internal question that went something like, "Self, what do I think would be highest % allowable that would not significantly undermine my core beliefs?"
  
  ...and that's the tricky thing about arbitrary assumptions. While this supposition may be valid and meaningful to you, I think barring some kind of compelling evidence this "percentage" will be met with extreme skepticism (if not outright derision) amongst those whom you are trying to make your case to.
  
  
• Your paragraph here has some profound implications for all of Judeo-Christianity.  If it's possible that all men (let's exclude Jesus lest we go down the man/divinity made flesh debate), including moses are capable of misunderstanding the word of God even when He speaks DIRECTLY to them, then this would mean that:
  
  
  • All Holy Books are suspect: Meaning all of the recorded actions of both Biblical figures and indeed God Him/Her/Itself may or may not be true.
    
    
  • Therefore, the Ten Commandments are equally suspect: In regards to Moses, the 10 Commandments are immediately cast into doubt regarding their validity.  Who's to say it wasn't the One Commandment - "Thou Shalt Not Kill," and Moses decided that God wasn't taking a hard enough line in requiring the Hebrews behave and worship him properly?  Going even a step further, couldn't that also means it's possible because Men misinterpret God's words/directives then, that He/She/It is for the most part, disinterested in ensuring that human beings worship Him/Her/It as envisioned as the elderly, beneficent Shepherd?
    
    
  • The actions of Jesus as written may be false: What happens, if indeed x% of the Bible is a result of "misunderstanding/misinterpretation" - actually is represented by entire books being pure fabrications?  Some very interesting consequences depending on which would be fabricated - especially if those happen to be books of the New Testament.
    
    
  • Omnipotence/Omniscience? - How can an all knowing, all powerful being communicate in such a way that he would be misunderstood, or not be aware that his impending discussion would result in a "mis-fire?"
    
    

At the end of the day - I'm sure to the devout it won't matter, as again it's a matter of faith.  What caught my attention, however, was your self-admission of human inaccuracy, and I was merely curious on your thoughts of how willing you were to follow that logic train to the station.


but don't use my post as a mean to dodge this 

Forgive me, what I should've said was "How do you reconcile your belief that men can't have authority over others with the idea that Moses wielded authority over others by order of God?"

If you don't, in fact, believe that God ordered Moses to do so, that's an easy resolution.  But if you do, then you're faced with the problem that if you were one of the people Moses was trying to order around, you would have had to reject his orders on principle since he was a man asserting authority over you. 

edit: cleanup grammatically of one of my questions.
edit: changed "let's" to "lest," which was the word intended.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Of course God can do wrong.  How many prophets argued with him?  Do you remember which prophet argued for God to not destroy a whole city of sin?

Sorry but no.  If you are writing the "rules" as to what is right and wrong, you can hardly "do" wrong.  God writes the rules and we can only look at Him and either obey or disobey.  Most of the time we disobey.  If this "argument" happens as you claim it did, then I propose that God was acting a part to make a point.  Of course He knew whether he was going to destroy a city or not and that would have nothing to do with what some man said to Him.  Personally, I don't believe this conversation ever occurred.  Perhaps you do.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Wow.  This thread still keeps on keepin' on.  Though this looks this has turned from 'Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer' into the 'FTL debate thread of any and all things religious.' Not that that's a necessarily a bad thing I guess.

However:

I do believe that God spoke to Moses and I believe that Moses tried to carry out what he understood to be the will of God.  Moses, however, is a man and men are imperfect.  Since I know that Moses was just an imperfect man such as myself I have to conclude that he made mistakes in both his understanding of what God was asking him to do and in the execution of those orders.  I do not know what his "error" rate was and can only guess.  My guess would be that Moses had an error rate of maybe 5% on both his understanding of his orders AND his execution of those orders...

This is interesting, Gene.  Couple things:

• Why "5%" - I understand this is your guess, but where did this number come from other than what you're "feel good" percentage was, which my guess resulted from an internal question that went something like, "Self, what do I think would be highest % allowable that would not significantly undermine my core beliefs?"
  
  ...and that's the tricky thing about arbitrary assumptions. While this supposition may be valid and meaningful to you, I think barring some kind of compelling evidence this "percentage" will be met with extreme skepticism (if not outright derision) amongst those whom you are trying to make your case to.
  
  
• Your paragraph here has some profound implications for all of Judeo-Christianity.  If it's possible that all men (let's exclude Jesus lest we go down the man/divinity made flesh debate), including moses are capable of misunderstanding the word of God even when He speaks DIRECTLY to them, then this would mean that:
  
  
  • All Holy Books are suspect: Meaning all of the recorded actions of both Biblical figures and indeed God Him/Her/Itself may or may not be true.
    
    
  • Therefore, the Ten Commandments are equally suspect: In regards to Moses, the 10 Commandments are immediately cast into doubt regarding their validity.  Who's to say it wasn't the One Commandment - "Thou Shalt Not Kill," and Moses decided that God wasn't taking a hard enough line in requiring the Hebrews behave and worship him properly?  Going even a step further, couldn't that also means it's possible because Men misinterpret God's words/directives then, that He/She/It is for the most part, disinterested in ensuring that human beings worship Him/Her/It as envisioned as the elderly, beneficent Shepherd?
    
    
  • The actions of Jesus as written may be false: What happens, if indeed x% of the Bible is a result of "misunderstanding/misinterpretation" - actually is represented by entire books being pure fabrications?  Some very interesting consequences depending on which would be fabricated - especially if those happen to be books of the New Testament.
    
    
  • Omnipotence/Omniscience? - How can an all knowing, all powerful being communicate in such a way that he would be misunderstood, or not be aware that his impending discussion would result in a "mis-fire?"
    
    

At the end of the day - I'm sure to the devout it won't matter, as again it's a matter of faith.  What caught my attention, however, was your self-admission of human inaccuracy, and I was merely curious on your thoughts of how willing you were to follow that logic train to the station.


but don't use my post as a mean to dodge this 

Forgive me, what I should've said was "How do you reconcile your belief that men can't have authority over others with the idea that Moses wielded authority over others by order of God?"

If you don't, in fact, believe that God ordered Moses to do so, that's an easy resolution.  But if you do, then you're faced with the problem that if you were one of the people Moses was trying to order around, you would have had to reject his orders on principle since he was a man asserting authority over you. 

edit: cleanup grammatically of one of my questions.
edit: changed "let's" to "lest," which was the word intended.

I don't disagree with most of what you said.  I take all "history" as suspect, even the collection of writings we call "The Bible".  I do, however believe that it is quite accurate (maybe 95%).  So I have to determine for myself what writings I believe to be true.  Many will call this "cherry picking" but I call it reality.  Anything written in a different language and time and then translated to current language will have inaccuracies.  This is where I use my own life experiences and understanding of the creation come to play.  Ultimately we all interpret the creation from our own perspective.  For this reason, I tolerate all belief systems even those I find abhorrent to me since their perspective has led them to where they are.  I can try to change their perspective by sharing my own, but that has only a minor affect on their lives...

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

Of course God can do wrong.  How many prophets argued with him?  Do you remember which prophet argued for God to not destroy a whole city of sin?

Sorry but no.  If you are writing the "rules" as to what is right and wrong, you can hardly "do" wrong.  God writes the rules and we can only look at Him and either obey or disobey.  Most of the time we disobey.  If this "argument" happens as you claim it did, then I propose that God was acting a part to make a point.  Of course He knew whether he was going to destroy a city or not and that would have nothing to do with what some man said to Him.  Personally, I don't believe this conversation ever occurred.  Perhaps you do.

Have you ever read the bible?

[ChristianAnarchist]

Of course God can do wrong.  How many prophets argued with him?  Do you remember which prophet argued for God to not destroy a whole city of sin?

Sorry but no.  If you are writing the "rules" as to what is right and wrong, you can hardly "do" wrong.  God writes the rules and we can only look at Him and either obey or disobey.  Most of the time we disobey.  If this "argument" happens as you claim it did, then I propose that God was acting a part to make a point.  Of course He knew whether he was going to destroy a city or not and that would have nothing to do with what some man said to Him.  Personally, I don't believe this conversation ever occurred.  Perhaps you do.

Have you ever read the bible?

Hey, I don't have to actually read anything to be an expert on it.   

[ChristianAnarchist]

Sounds like you've been put in the same queue as Jeremy.

I see that yesterday "Alex in NJ" also called the amp line and spent 2 hours on hold (113 minutes into the amp version of the podcast) and you can hear Ian very sheepishly trying to say that it's tough to get on Saturdays.  Mark was a bit more honest and it sound like he was trying to say "It's tough being a chronic idiot"?  Hard to understand as Ian was talking over Mark.  So that's at least 3 of us in this "queue for quirky quacks"??  How many more of us are on Ian's "special list"? 

[theCelestrian]

I don't disagree with most of what you said.  I take all "history" as suspect, even the collection of writings we call "The Bible".

A fair position.

I do, however believe that it is quite accurate (maybe 95%). 

Again, I think this a dangerous position to take when discussing/debating/peruading the benefits of Christian Anarchy as the only sensible answer, because it's again premised on an arbitrary declaration, and because of that it opens the argument up to being called out as fallacious.

So I have to determine for myself what writings I believe to be true.  Many will call this "cherry picking" but I call it reality. 

...but then you say this and I'm almost inclined to "forgive" the potential pitfall of your previous statement for a simple reason:  At least you're being honest about it .  You acknowledge that some fundamental underpinnings of your argument rely on acceptance of arbitrary and unprovable statements.

Fair enough - at that point Individuals will either accept, reject or question the positions further.

Anything written in a different language and time and then translated to current language will have inaccuracies.

Absolutely.

This is where I use my own life experiences and understanding of the creation come to play.  Ultimately we all interpret the creation from our own perspective. 

Also fair, but I would encourage you to be ever wary of the Fallacy of Personal Experience.

For this reason, I tolerate all belief systems even those I find abhorrent to me since their perspective has led them to where they are.  I can try to change their perspective by sharing my own, but that has only a minor affect on their lives...

You know what, Gene?  This is by far the smartest and most insightful thing I've ever seen you write.


edit: removed a redundant word, "be" because it repeated itself - thus being redundant.

[anarchir]

Ok ok their data gathering methods suck but...
http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/30/churchgoers-more-likely-to-back-torture-survey-finds/

[ChristianAnarchist]

This is where I use my own life experiences and understanding of the creation come to play.  Ultimately we all interpret the creation from our own perspective. 

Also fair, but I would encourage you to be ever wary of the Fallacy of Personal Experience.

And I don't believe in this "Fallacy of Personal Experience" since this is all we have on this planet.  We have our own "personal experiences".  Even if I rely on the "experiences" of others, I ultimately have to rely on my own judgment as to whether to believe those other people (which judgment is a direct result of my past experiences of whether people are trustworthy)...

For this reason, I tolerate all belief systems even those I find abhorrent to me since their perspective has led them to where they are.  I can try to change their perspective by sharing my own, but that has only a minor affect on their lives...

You know what, Gene?  This is by far the smartest and most insightful thing I've ever seen you write.

That's because I'm a smart and insightful guy... 

[theCelestrian]

Just to nitpick:

And I don't believe in this "Fallacy of Personal Experience" since this is all we have on this planet. 

So are you saying that you believe that is both logically consistent and correct to make general declarative statements of fact based upon your personal experience?

example:

• It has rained every time I have been in Chicago on a Sunday.

therefore:

• It rains in Chicago every Sunday.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Just to nitpick:

And I don't believe in this "Fallacy of Personal Experience" since this is all we have on this planet.

So are you saying that you believe that is both logically consistent and correct to make general declarative statements of fact based upon your personal experience?

example:

• It has rained every time I have been in Chicago on a Sunday.

therefore:

• It rains in Chicago every Sunday.

Partially true.  I believe it is logically consistent to conclude that it "rains in Chicago every Sunday" given those circumstances, however that conclusion would be incorrect...

Just like it was "logically consistent" for the majority of "scientists" of the world to conclude that there was a thing called "man made global warming" (something my life experiences proved to me to be false) given the manipulated data they were examining...

One thing my "life's experiences" have taught me is that men called "scientists" are no more dependable than anyone else...

[Johnson]

You don't to have to be a scientist to say "magical powers aren't real". You just need common sense.

It doesn't take a degree to say, "hey, it's pretty obvious that almost everything the bible says is a lie, and Christians can't agree on anything about it, and yet all claim to know the will of a deity that is obviously a work of fiction." It doesn't take special scientific equipment to realize that ALL religions are works of fiction - lacking any sort of basis in reality, not becuase the possibility doesn't exist that there MIGHT be some kind of deity... But because the things Christians claim to know about the will and nature of their deity are so blindly simplistic and backwards and contradictory, that they are obviously being fabricated based on personal desires. It's a fairytale, not a study of reality. It's obvious becuase most Christian depictions of thier god or savior read like a comic book or roleplaying game. It's fantasy.

If your life experience has taught you that all science is "no more dependendable than anyone else" becuase of the actions of a FEW liars who KNEW they were lying - then you are simply an old fool. A doddering idiot who deserves nothing but a mocking. A dummy who should get sick and die without the medical benefits of those who are "no more dependable than anyone else". In fact, throw your COMPUTER right out the window or the science demons might get you.

If you want to compare your religion to SCIENCE Gene, why don't you run your religious beliefs through the scientific method a few times (if you've ever actually seen or read the BASIS for all science)

Also, if I had to choose Christianity vs say....

Computers, microwaves, cell phones, cameras, x-rays, CT scans, RADIO shows, electricity and any thing else I enjoy so much....

 Well, let's just say that your "scientists are no more dependable than anyone else" argument is dead like Galileo.

[The ghost of a ghost of a ghost]

ZZZZZZZZZZing!  Ouch

[theCelestrian]

Partially true.  I believe it is logically consistent to conclude that it "rains in Chicago every Sunday" given those circumstances, however that conclusion would be incorrect...

Unfortunately, Gene, I can't agree with this assertion.  The whole point of logical fallacies is that they show that conclusions are incorrect or that the logical argument is inconsistent, meaning all cannot be true at the same time.  A good, and often used example of this, is Reductio Ad Absurdum - whereby a superficially consistent argument produces absurd results.  Alarmist arguments of Climate change that I think you're referencing later (we don't call it "global warming" anymore because heat may actually not be the result, remember?) could fall under this category.

More distubingly, your supposition would then mean that it's possible for:

• Racism
• Bigotry
• Murder
• Genocide
• Aggressive, coercive violence
• Forced Governance

...all to be logically consistent if the fallacy of Personal Experience is indeed not a fallacy; a supposition you often contradict by (correctly) claiming that forced government is indeed logically backwards.  In fact, the title of this thread makes that very same assertion be claiming (a form) of Anarchy is the only sensible (read: rational) answer - thus making all other forms of government nonsense (read: irrational).

Don't believe me?

• Every Japanese person I have met has been dropping bombs on my house
• Dropping bombs is trying to kill me

therefore:

• All Japanese people are trying to kill me
• It's okay to kill all Japanese people because it's self defense.

If you honestly believe these kind of arguments are logically consistent - with or without quotations, then I'm not sure if we'll have really have a point of departure to discuss anything relevant.   . . .and that's extremely unfortunate.

Just like it was "logically consistent" for the majority of "scientists" of the world to conclude that there was a thing called "man made global warming" (something my life experiences proved to me to be false) given the manipulated data they were examining...

One thing my "life's experiences" have taught me is that men called "scientists" are no more dependable than anyone else...

When I start seeing a lot of quotations around commonly understood words, that tends to raise a red flag for me. This is because it tends to indicate that the "meaning" of the "word" being "used" is not something "others" typically associate with the "word." If indeed the scientists willfully manipulated the data - then their argument is in fact not logically consistent because at least one of their assumptions (the data) is objectively and verifiably false. End of Story.  Fallacious assumptions produce fallacious conclusions.


I have to imagine, Gene, that after listening to you call the show numerous times, that this cannot be a correct reflection of your intellectual and personal predilections.  So how can we adjust the position as you've written it to make it maintain the core sentiment of your argument (it's never smart to take anything anyone says at face value), but to get rid of all the nasty hangers-on that end up muddying the moral and logical worthiness of your position?

(edit prior to posting): I see Johnson took the hard line in answering your position. His sentiments and the points he makes when you get past the third paragraph is why I would consider this a very dangerous position for you to hold as you've expressed; the risks of having the good things you have to say being summarily dismissed as crack-pottery is significant and profound.



edit: added missing word "position"
edit: changed "results" to "conclusions" to more accurately reflect the point.