Sam Harris Slaughters Christianity

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I didn't say I don't care about statistics. I don't understand the point you were trying to make with it.

I'm pondering on how accurate it is no argue that our system of morality is similar to democracy, because of the inherent problems in democracy (mostly). Democracy is a system of representation, so it's interesting to compare it with a system of morality which is also a different set of representations.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
With this, I think you are pointing out that even in a democracy there are still select few representing the thoughts and feelings of the majority. Well, that's the case in our current forms of democracy, but in a true, properly functioning democratic republic the people should have more and better ways of collaborating and deliberating on important issues instead of electing people to decide for us. And yes, we do still vote on certain topics, but that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about public spheres where people get together and iron out issues that then feed into the government at large. It would be a government truly run by the people.

We don't have such public spheres, at least not here in the United States.

Yes, this is an interesting point. A more perfected kind of democracy alleviates the worst issues of the problem of having a representative of the people, but it brings a whole new number of problems regarding representation. One point of view is more likely to be coherent when making decisions if there is a single individual making the choices. Sure, we are assuming that the "leader" in question is well-informed and acts reasonably, but that's also the idea behind any kind of true democracy: voters are as well informed as possible and understand the weight of social responsability (they are not purely motivated by selfishness). The more people that need to be in such state of enlightment, the more difficult it is to have people keeping up with current knowledge. Otherwise truly being run by the people means being badly run.

I agree that the morality derived by the teachings of people actively Learning new moral processes tends to be more perfected than a from-the-top process where morality is "given". But at some point you also end up handing down those moral choices to people who haven't diggested them through the trials of decision making, which is a not truly a democratic process at that point.

Originally posted by SamZED
The podcast is "waking up with Sam Harris" I think. It's good, but Harris' calm tone works much better when he has someone to debate. Preferably someone with a temper.

I've listened to about a dozen of his podcasts so far and it's not just him speaking. A few of them were like that (and I definitely don't mind them because he's so well thought-out and eloquent), but he often has conversations/discussions with people and conducts interviews. For example the young girl who left the Westboro Baptist Church, the guy who does the Hardcore History Podcast, and I'm listen to another now where he's interviewing this brilliant documentary filmmaker, Joshua Openheimmer. I'm halfway through watching his film The Act of Killing and oh my god, it's incredible, stunning...

Patient_Leech: If you're born in the wrong part of the world, then sorry, you just missed the correct revelation to get to heaven.

Me: Not necessarily. You see, Abraham (Christ's EARTHLY ancestor/progenitor) BELIEVED GOD and it was ACCOUNTED TO HIM FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS. In other words, God HONORED Abraham's FAITH and gave him RIGHTEOUSNESS CREDIT, if you will. Abraham lived THOUSANDS of years before the WORD (Jesus Christ) became FLESH and dwelt among us, and long before He was crucified for the sins of the world. So there was NO WAY for Abraham to BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus at that time. He'd have to wait until the birth, sinless life, death, and RESURRECTION of the Lord Jesus Christ occurred BEFORE he could have an opportunity to believe on Him. Hence, if a person has not heard the gospel, but they BELIEVE GOD, God can give (or extend to) them righteousness CREDIT (or credit righteousness until such time as they are able to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and become saved OFFICIALLY). In addition, God can miraculously keep a person alive long enough to confess His Son Jesus if they exercise faith in Him (God), showing or demonstrating that they believe that He is God (Creator), even if they've never heard the gospel. The KEY in all of this is FAITH IN GOD not whether or not someone has heard the gospel in this type of extenuating situation.

Patient_Leech: Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice and when put in different contexts makes it look like the beliefs of a lunatic.

Me: Is the military a cult too? You see, many brave soldiers GIVE THEIR PRECIOUS LIVES on a daily basis so that people like you, me, and others in the world could be SAVED from the WAGES OF TERRORISM. Are these courageous soldiers lunatics for believing in HUMAN SACRIFICE too? The only difference between these soldiers and Christianity (in these real-life scenarios) is that the Lord Jesus is BOTH DIVINE AND HUMAN, so His HUMAN SACRIFICE SAVES those who believe on Him from the WAGES OF THEIR SINS.

Patient_Leech: Serial killers can go to heaven after a life of evil brutality just by saying a few words on death row.

Me: That's why many call it AMAZING GRACE. The BLOOD OF JESUS can save the most vile, wicked sinner if he/she truly wants to be saved. But did you know that there is NO DIFFERENCE IN THE EYES OF GOD between a serial killer and a person who has never physically murdered someone else? If they are NOT born again they're going to the SAME PLACE when they die because both are sinners. It just took Adam and Eve ONE sin apiece for them to become sinners in need of the Savior. But be not deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a person sows, that shall he/she also reap.

Patient_Leech: God is praised with some activities, but does he get the blame for atrocities? No, it's said that he's "mysterious."

Me: To those who are GROWING in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, God is praised for ALL of His acts. You see, we KNOW that God doesn't make mistakes. What you don’t understand is that ALL ATROCITIES are the result of humanity's WILLFUL REBELLION against God. It started in the Garden of Eden and has continued down through time. In addition, to willful rebellion humans have a SIN NATURE that manifests through the works (actions) of our flesh (and mind). If that wasn't enough the problem is COMPOUNDED by the fact that the devil and his angels (who are malevolent spirit beings with supernatural powers) are bent on deceiving and destroying as many people (both believer and unbeliever) that they can. There are numerous satanists, witches, sorcerers, warlocks, mediums, and others involved in the occult (such as those who practice Freemasonry, Spiritism, voodoo, etc.) who can attest to their existence, as well as many believers (myself included). But none of this chaos and lawlessness that we see on earth is goes on in Heaven. There is NO sin, terrorism, sickness, nuclear weapons, famine, recession, inflation, accidents, disease, natural disasters, pornography, drug addicts, hospitals, theft, prostitution, doctors, ambulances, stock market crash, mental illness, flooding or floods, fire departments, embezzlement, depression, child molestation, fire departments, depression, child molestations, police stations, clinics, abortion centers, war, sex trafficking, illegal drugs, guns, rape, medicine, crying/tears of anguish, death, sorrow, or pain. These things don't exist in Heaven because HEAVEN IS BEING RULED BY GOD. God is NOT ruling THIS WORLD. The devil is the god of this age (or world). So, all of the atrocities that occur on earth are the effects of a combination of things summed in one word: sin (human, demonic, and satanic sins)

Patient_Leech: When Elves die in The Lord of the Rings they can be reborn in Middle Earth. lol

Me: When believers die in the Lord, they go to Heaven if they are born again.

Patient_Leech: The God of the Bible is morally corrupt, but because it's declared that "He's God," it doesn't matter what he does or says, it's automatically good because he's God.

Me: Can you give me one example of God being morally corrupt? You do know it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to be morally corrupt right? It's like saying that the largest star that has been discovered thus far (VY Canis Majoris), has LESS mass than our sun. That's NOT POSSIBLE. The earth has a CIRCUMFERENCE OF 24,901.55 MILES, and an approximate MASS of 6.6 SEXTILLION TONS. That's MASSIVE. Yet, as immense as earth is it PALES in comparison to the sun—which can fit 100 EARTHS inside of itself. However, VY Canis Majoris DWARFS the sun. For example, if the sun were the size of a baseball, VY Canis Majoris would be a globe with a 400-foot diameter http://www.space.com/17342-extreme-stargazing-best-night-sky-sights.html. But the point is it is impossible for VY Canis Majoris to have less mass than the sun (unless it dies), and it is impossible for God to be morally corrupt (unless He dies, which is IMPOSSIBLE).

Originally posted by JesusLovesYou
[b]Patient_Leech: The God of the Bible is morally corrupt, but because it's declared that "He's God," it doesn't matter what he does or says, it's automatically good because he's God.

Me: Can you give me one example of God being morally corrupt? You do know it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to be morally corrupt right?[/B]

1 Samuel 15:3: "This is what the Lord Almighty says ... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "

Psalm 137:9: "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

Ephesians 5:22: "Wives, submit to you husbands as to the Lord

1 Timothy 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

1 Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."

Do you keep slaves, JesusLovesYou? Is this really the best map we have for human morality?

Romans 1:27: In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-11: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

And sorry, homosexuality is not wrong just because it was once written in a book claiming to be the word of God. That's not good enough evidence. It doesn't harm anyone and in fact demonstrates an adaptive survival mechanism for the planet, helping deal with overpopulation. So it is not to be discouraged. Thus sayeth the Leech.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
^ directly from God himself. Flagrantly immoral. "Thou shalt not kill" unless it's on a mass scale and God approves it, of course.

Well the imperative to not kill is in the context of unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew verb (retzach) translates to "murder" or "kill" but it has a wider ranger of meanings.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
And sorry, homosexuality is not wrong just because it was once written in a book claiming to be the word of God. That's not good enough evidence. It doesn't harm anyone and in fact demonstrates an adaptive survival mechanism for the planet, helping deal with overpopulation. So it is not to be discouraged. Thus sayeth the Leech.

What is your basis that homosexuality isn't morally wrong?

Originally posted by ESB -1138
What is your basis that homosexuality isn't morally wrong?

I think it's more appropriate to ask the opposite: what's the basis for it being morally wrong? Seems to me the obligation should be on the one condemning it to come up with "why." "Because God said so" isn't enough. But I'll humor you...

It doesn't harm anyone, doesn't cause any suffering of any kind and in fact increases the love bond between two human beings. Seems to me God would encourage it if He did indeed exist in a "personal relationship" sort of way.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I think it's more appropriate to ask the opposite: what's the basis for it being morally wrong? Seems to me the obligation should be on the one condemning it to come up with "why." "Because God said so" isn't enough. But I'll humor you...

I never said that homosexuality was morally wrong or right. And in fact you trying to take God out of context is something that happens a lot. We can look up the "homosexual" scriptures one by one and maybe you'll understand the verses once people stop cherry picking the Bible to try to fit whatever narrative they want it to fit.

First is Leviticus 20:13. Well, first Leviticus is a set of laws given to the people of Israel and the purpose of these laws was to set Israel apart from the nations that surrounded them. These people practiced Idol worship and God didn't want His people to follow any of their pagan practices or traditions. Some of these laws do seem odd when you don't take the context of the Levitical Laws into account. One of these laws forbid the Israelites from cutting the hair on the side of their head. And the reason is because some of the nations that surrounded Israel shaved the side of their heads to honor their pagan gods. The reason God didn't want them to do this was because God didn't want Israel to practice customs that is associated with idol worship.

Well cutting hair wasn't the only way that ancient peoples practiced idol worship. Sexuality was a big part of their religious worship. The Ammonites, for example, had men who served as temple prostitutes. If you wanted healthy children or a good harvest you would go plea to your god by having sex with one of the males at the temple. By offering your seed to that prostitute you were offering it to that temple's god. You can see why God would want to separate the Ancient Israelites from these practices.

The act of cutting hair by itself isn't wrong but becomes wrong when tied to idol worship. No one is cutting hair in our society in honor of a pagan god. Same can be said about homosexuality. It's the context that matters. These verses are tied to pagan debauchery and idol worship.

Another verse is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 which says, paraphrasing, that "homosexuals will not inherent the kingdom of God." So obviously that's cut and dry. In fact 1 Timothy 1:10 also says that "practicing homosexuality" is wrong. But does it?

Again, this comes down to taking a book written in Ancient Hebrew and Greek and translating it to modern day English. You're not going to get a perfect translation because some words don't have an English counterpart to it. The original Greek used for homosexuality in both verses is "Arsenokoites" which is a compound word made up of Arsen (meaning man) and Koites (which means beds). So the word means man who has sex in many beds. But translating compound words literally doesn't always say its meaning. Just think of the word "Butterfly" for example because compound words don't always equal the sum of their part.

So how can we find out what Arsenokoites means? The problem is that this word is only used twice in the entire Bible. And in both times they are used in a list where the context can't really be helpful in determining what the word is implying. But the word was being used in the ancient texts called the Sibylline Oracles which uses the word in the context of economic exploitation. The tax collector (after all) was a constant example of a sinner, after all, so with this in mind it seems more likely that Arsenokoites is referencing a tax collector's practice of exploitation rather than homosexuality.

So from a Christian standpoint, is homosexuality morally wrong? It's hard to say from a Biblical standpoint because when taking these verses in full context they are talking about idol worship like, again, the example of cutting your hair. And Arsenokoites doesn't give us a clear enough in-text understanding of what it's references but other writings of the word don't use it in reference of homosexuality.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Well cutting hair wasn't the only way that ancient peoples practiced idol worship. Sexuality was a big part of their religious worship. The Ammonites, for example, had men who served as temple prostitutes. If you wanted healthy children or a good harvest you would go plea to your god by having sex with one of the males at the temple. By offering your seed to that prostitute you were offering it to that temple's god. You can see why God would want to separate the Ancient Israelites from these practices.

Damn, those hookers had a good sell. "F*ck me or your kid is gonna be born sick".

Originally posted by ESB -1138
I never said that homosexuality was morally wrong or right. And in fact you trying to take God out of context is something that happens a lot. We can look up the "homosexual" scriptures one by one and maybe you'll understand the verses once people stop cherry picking the Bible to try to fit whatever narrative they want it to fit.

First is Leviticus 20:13. Well, first Leviticus is a set of laws given to the people of Israel and the purpose of these laws was to set Israel apart from the nations that surrounded them. These people practiced Idol worship and God didn't want His people to follow any of their pagan practices or traditions. Some of these laws do seem odd when you don't take the context of the Levitical Laws into account. One of these laws forbid the Israelites from cutting the hair on the side of their head. And the reason is because some of the nations that surrounded Israel shaved the side of their heads to honor their pagan gods. The reason God didn't want them to do this was because God didn't want Israel to practice customs that is associated with idol worship.

Well cutting hair wasn't the only way that ancient peoples practiced idol worship. Sexuality was a big part of their religious worship. The Ammonites, for example, had men who served as temple prostitutes. If you wanted healthy children or a good harvest you would go plea to your god by having sex with one of the males at the temple. By offering your seed to that prostitute you were offering it to that temple's god. You can see why God would want to separate the Ancient Israelites from these practices.

The act of cutting hair by itself isn't wrong but becomes wrong when tied to idol worship. No one is cutting hair in our society in honor of a pagan god. Same can be said about homosexuality. It's the context that matters. These verses are tied to pagan debauchery and idol worship.

Another verse is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 which says, paraphrasing, that "homosexuals will not inherent the kingdom of God." So obviously that's cut and dry. In fact 1 Timothy 1:10 also says that "practicing homosexuality" is wrong. But does it?

Again, this comes down to taking a book written in Ancient Hebrew and Greek and translating it to modern day English. You're not going to get a perfect translation because some words don't have an English counterpart to it. The original Greek used for homosexuality in both verses is "Arsenokoites" which is a compound word made up of Arsen (meaning man) and Koites (which means beds). So the word means man who has sex in many beds. But translating compound words literally doesn't always say its meaning. Just think of the word "Butterfly" for example because compound words don't always equal the sum of their part.

So how can we find out what Arsenokoites means? The problem is that this word is only used twice in the entire Bible. And in both times they are used in a list where the context can't really be helpful in determining what the word is implying. But the word was being used in the ancient texts called the Sibylline Oracles which uses the word in the context of economic exploitation. The tax collector (after all) was a constant example of a sinner, after all, so with this in mind it seems more likely that Arsenokoites is referencing a tax collector's practice of exploitation rather than homosexuality.

So from a Christian standpoint, is homosexuality morally wrong? It's hard to say from a Biblical standpoint because when taking these verses in full context they are talking about idol worship like, again, the example of cutting your hair. And Arsenokoites doesn't give us a clear enough in-text understanding of what it's references but other writings of the word don't use it in reference of homosexuality.

I'm well aware that the translations are often odd.

And connecting the passages to their supposedly historical context just makes them even less relevant today. It was tribalism, "Our god is the true god, yours is not."

It's just more reason to study these books as we would any other literature or poetry, not as a guide to morality.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
It's just more reason to study these books as we would any other literature or poetry, not as a guide to morality.

Is morality universal or is morality relative? And why?

Morality is in our heads, our brains. And that doesn't mean it's relative because we have evolved to work together and have great capacity for kindness.

It's just the in-group/out-group tribalism that needs to fade away.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Morality is in our heads, our brains. And that doesn't mean it's relative.

So morality is based on the collective or are you suggesting that there is no morality?

Originally posted by ESB -1138
So morality is based on the collective or are you suggesting that there is no morality?

Of course there's morality. If by "collective" you mean some sort of collaboration and deliberation sort of like a healthy democratic process, yes, I believe it is. That's all we have, is our brains and collaboration.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
If by "collective" you mean some sort of collaboration and deliberation sort of like a healthy democratic process, yes, I believe it is. That's all we have, is our brains and collaboration.

So when the majority are in favor of killing the minority, is that now morally acceptable?

Originally posted by ESB -1138
So when the majority are in favor of killing the minority, is that now morally acceptable?

Nope, not necessarily. Might depend on the reason (if the minority is fanatical Islamists, for example, heh). But no, the idea would be to minimize suffering.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Nope, not necessarily. Might depend on the reason (if the minority is fanatical Islamists, for example, heh). But no, the idea would be to minimize suffering.

Would you say that suffering would including preventing someone from pleasure or joy?

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Would you say that suffering would including preventing someone from pleasure or joy?

Where exactly are you going with this?

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Would you say that suffering would including preventing someone from pleasure or joy?

Originally posted by socool8520
Where exactly are you going with this?

Eating babies is my pleasure and joy. So it's perfectly morally acceptable. 👆

When I was younger, less experienced, and more naive, I thought Sam Harris was a true intellectual heavyweight. Then, I saw real intellectual heavyweights, and realized Sam Harris is mostly a fraud.

Just look at how easily William Lane Craig takes him down to size:

Edit: just got a message saying I can't post links until I'm more well known. Just go to YouTube and search "Sam Harris -VS- William Lane Craig - Foundation Of Morality. Science Debate" to see the video I was going to post.

Originally posted by MovieFreak92
...realized Sam Harris is mostly a fraud.

That's going a bit far with the hyperbole there, sir. Makes me doubt whether you've actually sat and understood his points of view. It's fine not to agree with him, but he's far from a fraud.

If Craig thinks that Jesus literally walked on water and was raised from the dead I think it's pretty clear who the quack is. Because there's no reconciling the facts of natural evolution with the literal miraculous events of the Bible. Let's see: scientific claims with solid evidence that can be repeated and can predict future events, or ignorant superstitious ramblings from hundreds of years ago?

(Not a difficult choice for me.)

Is it one of these? I actually haven't seen either one in their entirety yet...

YouTube video

YouTube video