Hate Mail

Michael Miller, Page 10

June 7, 2001 (2nd message):

Maybe if you read more they you would have a better idea of what you are critizing. Most of your arguments have come long before you. Have you nothing of your own or must you appeal to past authorites' arguments?

First you argue that the appeal to authority is a good thing (ie- when you use it) and then you accuse me of using appeals to authority (even though I have not), which obviously implies that you think it's a bad thing. That kind of blatantly self-contradictory behaviour is indicative of an irrational mind, but that doesn't surprise me in your case.

As for the fact that others have made the same points before, that does not mean that my arguments are appeals to authority because I explain and defend the points myself. The fact that they are coincident with similar arguments made in the past is not tantamount to an appeal to authority. Don't you even understand what the appeal to authority is?

[Trying to defend the vilification of Job's wife] No she was railing against God and tell Job to Curse God! Anger is one thing but it is how she reacted to that anger that was wrong.

So it's wrong to curse someone who murders your children? Interesting set of "family values" you've got there.

[Trying to defend Jesus' characterization of Canaanites as inferior, by calling them "dogs"]: No, not inferior, more like a heirarchy.

A hierarchy based on race. And you honestly can't see how that's racist?

The boss of a factory (for example) comes up with an idea and he discusses it with those directly below him not the lowly worker on the floor. Those managers are then required to take the idea to the rest of the company. But it does not preclude the lowly worker from talking with the boss.

In other words, all other races are "lowly" and destined to be subordinates to the leadership race, perhaps better referred to as the Master Race?

She as a lowly person came and asked the boss if she could work for him and was willing to do what he asked she was accepted. Most say I will work for you but here is only what I will do. How many people would get hired saying that.

And why was she a lowly person? Because she was born to the wrong race! That is racism! Don't you have any idea what racism is? If someone is deemed to be "lowly" simply because of her race, then that is a perfect example of racism!

[Trying to defend his use of appeals to authority] Ever hear of the quote: "Why reinvent the wheel?" Why should I do that when it has already been done and done very well?

You're not being asked to reinvent the wheel. You're being asked to explain and defend it yourself, instead of making vague reference to someone else. If you truly understand an argument, you should be able to easily explain and defend it. If you don't understand it, then you shouldn't be trying to use it.

That's the problem with your incessant appeals to authority. To use your analogy of the wheel, you can't use a wheel in an engineering design unless you completely specify it, giving dimensions and materials etc. But if you simply write "see inventor of wheel" on an engineering drawing where the wheel design should go, then the drawing is NFG.

You accused me of appealing to authority because my arguments were not original. But neither are most engineering designs. Nevertheless, as long as an engineering design is completely detailed and fully specified, it is valid. The fact that it is not the first of its kind is irrelevant. But in your case, you don't produce a design at all; you simply say that I should go look at someone else's design.

Look at it this way: God created us and we rejected Him.

For good reason. Why do you think I listed the litany of all the abuses he visited upon us? You ignored that entire list of God's flaws and simply restated your fundamentalist dogma. Typical fundamentalist behaviour ... when faced with an argument which you cannot deal with, you simply fall back upon your indoctrination and regurgitate the standard-issue doctrine that you were taught from childhood.

So God's perfect judgment required death (seperation from Him) remember the "wages of sin is death."

I dispute your claim that God's judgement is "perfect". I challenge you to provide a shred of evidence for this claim.

But He loved us so much He provided a way back to Him, the Laws of the Old Testament.

Which are morally abhorrent, since they condone the murder of nonbelievers.

[Editor's note: not to mention homosexuals, and all manner of sexual deviants, and children who don't respect their parents ...]

Human nature made that way difficult so God provided the Perfect way, Christ's Death. Now anyone is able to return to God through Christ.

Precisely how does Christ's death absolve you of responsibility for your sins? If you sin against me, only I can forgive you, and you cannot achieve genuine forgiveness through proxy.

Oh, wait a minute ... you consider sins against fellow humans to be insignificant, don't you? What a lovely moral code.

Actually it is pretty amazing that we are still hear at all, but God's mercy allows us to continue so that He may bring more people to Himself.

In other words, he only permits us to live so that we will worship him. All he cares about is his own glorification. Pure narcissist.

Actually there is no moral relativism in the Bible.

Wrong. The Bible says it's wrong to kill, and then gives countless situations in which it is perfectly acceptable to kill. It's all ... relative, isn't it? The Bible says it's wrong to kill, and then God kills not one, not two, not ten, but millions.

And therein lies the ultimate moral relativism of the Bible. It's wrong for us to kill, but it's acceptable for God to kill. In other words, "thou shalt not kill" is entirely relative.

But your proposing of relgious tolerance is what real relativism is all about and what is what I was refuting and talked about on the web page I linked.

Moral relativism is unacceptable. However, religious tolerance is an entirely different matter, and I never said that I agreed with everything that the author said. My agreement with him was strictly on the issue of moral relativism.

As for your belief that religious tolerance is wrong, you are simply admitting your religious bigotry. How odd for someone to claim that he isn't a bigot when he freely admits that he opposes tolerance!

I have seen the effects of your man made philosophies and been disgusted by them.

Provide examples of how humanist ethics have had abhorrent effects. Provide evidence that those effects are more abhorrent than the effects of Christianity throughout history, which has caused tens of millions of deaths throughout the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the African slave trade and conquest, the North American conquest and genocide, and in this century, Hitler's Holocaust.

I'll stick to the Bible at least there I have assurance of who and what I am and where I am going.

Of course. The way you read it, it provides easy answers rather than posing provocative questions. And you're too close-minded to realize that there's more than one way to read it.

[Editor's note: one of the problems with the fundamentalist doctrine of Biblical inerrancy and God's perfection is that one is forced to mindlessly defend even the most heinous, horrifying acts of torture and murder if the Bible says that God condoned them. The doctrine removes one's ability to evaluate those events in a clear-eyed manner, as an atheist or even a moderate Christian might be willing to do. This guy has decided that God is "perfect" and that the Bible is "inerrant", so he is forced to defend two losing propositions: that the Bible is completely, literally, scientifically accurate, and that God is perfect despite all the horrifying things the Bible describes]

Continue to Michael Miller, Page 11

Jump to sub-page:

Jump to: