The Conservative Bible

[Cythieus]

No offense but I don't believe in your omnipotent deity, so I have nothing to fear. Human progress comes from our inherent curiousity, if we continue to allow the mind numbing doctrines of theistic belief systems to halt our development, humankind will become desolate and backward.

I didn't ask you any of that and you didn't counter anything. Don't brag that you can counter any argument and then begin with a strawman about how you don't believe in my deity. I am simply questioning how we can question the logic behind a being that predates our knowledge of logic and possibly has a superior one based on absolute truths that we can't perceive.

In other words why should I care what kind of logic my dog, or insects or jellyfish use and why would I, if I could know this, want to apply their lackluster, simpleton logic to myself.

Instead of talking about the Human aspect of theism try talking about the base belief.

[Neroon]

Steady on there, mate.  This thread is supposed to be about the pros and cons of retranslation/rewriting of the Bible not a debate on which team is better, the atheists or the believers.

Let's keep it well mannered and let's avoid descending into trolling.  I'm sure we don't want to have to lock this thread, do we?

[Avi]

Huh.......Glass Houses? Wut?

"Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones."  In other words, don't criticize someone for something when you're not practicing what you preach.  I personally find it reprehensible for people on either side of the debate to call the other side foolish or idiotic, since both sides have stupid people and extremists included within them.

[Cythieus]

Steady on there, mate.  This thread is supposed to be about the pros and cons of retranslation/rewriting of the Bible not a debate on which team is better, the atheists or the believers.

Let's keep it well mannered and let's avoid descending into trolling.  I'm sure we don't want to have to lock this thread, do we?

I didn't mean to drag the debate off topic, I think that at the heart of this, things like the Conservative Bible stem from a lack of understanding about what the other side is all about. There are conservatives out there who literally think that a liberal ideal is synonymous with the Devil.

We need to understand people are just PEOPLE.

[HairyHeretic]

You'll find idiots everywhere, with every set of beliefs known to man. Whatever your opinion of others beliefs, they have as much right to them as you to yours. While debating here, you will show respect for others, so no name calling.

[The Overlord]

If this omnipotent god existed wouldn't he've created a perfect bible that is unalterable? I mean that'd be the logical "perfect" solution to prevent this, this is yet another piece of evidence disproving theism.

I believe it definitely disproves theism as it’s been handed to use by the popular faiths.


Injecting a little more logic and critical thinking into this-


If god is truly omniscient and omnipotent, than yes, god knows what we’re all up to and is certainly capable of preventing it…but yet doesn’t prevent it.

The common counter-argument here is the free will debate, but only goes so far before it starts breaking down.

If god is giving us enough free will indiscriminately kill each other and ravage the planet, endangers other species and not just our own, then god condones this level of discord and violence on some level, and there goes any idea of that loving, father figure of a supreme being.

Religionists will always grasp further and further and squeak in any possible factor to get their proof that their book is right, even to the extent of throwing logic and common sense to the four winds.

We must first come down to the first fundamental truth here- The Bible, Qur’an, Torah and other theological writings are not the word of god. They are the words and inventions of those mortal men who would have you believe they are representing god, and nobody represents god.



When you cut out all the bullshit and non-logic it comes down to one glaringly obvious conclusion- God simply isn’t there in any form or definition that these books are explaining the creator in.

[Serephino]

Can you cite a passage of Scripture forbidding masters from teaching slaves how to read?  Counseling slave-holders not to teach slaves to read?  If not, then your (justifiable) umbrage at the practices of slaveholders keeping slaves illiterate should be directed elsewhere (like at those age-old vices of greed and avarice).

I never said the Bible said slaves shouldn't be allowed to read.  Someone said something about priests being the only ones who were literate in the middle ages and that meant something.  Though I could also point out that nobility could read as well.  I was just saying the only reason the common people couldn't read is because of the logic that uneducated people are easier to control.  You seem to have misunderstood me there.  I should've been more clear. 

It isn't in the Bible, but if you study American History, it was illegal to teach a slave how to read in the South.  Again, because the uneducated are easier to control.

Also, I'm very much aware that in order to have it translated into English for people to read it is impossible for it to have been done without losing a little something in the translation.  That is one of the major reason I personally don't trust it.  It just pisses me off that people point out that little sentence that it's a horrible unforgivable sin to change anything in it so it must all be the true word of God.  I know damn well it's been changed in translation if nothing else. 

[Serephino]

For the record, I'm not against Christians in general, just the stupid ones.  In fact, I dislike stupid closed minded people in general, so I'm not discriminating there. 

In this topic I've just been talking about the morons that feel the need to change the Bible.  Of course I also said I think the Bible is a bunch of bull anyway...  That's my opinion and I have my reasons for it.  That and other books are cases of humans putting words into God's mouth. 

Why doesn't he do anything about it?  I don't know.  I'll admit I can't answer that question, but that's not proof he doesn't exist.  I agree with whoever said he's probably watching us grumbling about what idiots we all are. 

What I wonder is why Atheists think that they are so special that God, a being that is above them on so many levels, is obligated in any way to prove his existence to them.  Seriously, y'all keep demanding proof, but why should he have to?  We are his bitches, not the other way around.  And why should those of us who believe have to constantly justify ourselves? 

Believe or don't, it doesn't make much difference to me.  The only way to prove who is right beyond a shadow of a doubt is to drop dead, so I doubt the debate will ever truly be settled here on earth.  If you're an Atheist and I'm right, your proof will come when you die and you come face to face with him.  If Atheists are right, well then that sucks, but at least I will have lived my life in a way that makes me happy.  Where's the harm in that?  I'm not trying to force anyone to believe as I do.     

[Neroon]

I believe it definitely disproves theism as it’s been handed to use by the popular faiths.


Injecting a little more logic and critical thinking into this-


If god is truly omniscient and omnipotent, than yes, god knows what we’re all up to and is certainly capable of preventing it…but yet doesn’t prevent it.

The common counter-argument here is the free will debate, but only goes so far before it starts breaking down.

If god is giving us enough free will indiscriminately kill each other and ravage the planet, endangers other species and not just our own, then god condones this level of discord and violence on some level, and there goes any idea of that loving, father figure of a supreme being.

Religionists will always grasp further and further and squeak in any possible factor to get their proof that their book is right, even to the extent of throwing logic and common sense to the four winds.

We must first come down to the first fundamental truth here- The Bible, Qur’an, Torah and other theological writings are not the word of god. They are the words and inventions of those mortal men who would have you believe they are representing god, and nobody represents god.



When you cut out all the bullshit and non-logic it comes down to one glaringly obvious conclusion- God simply isn’t there in any form or definition that these books are explaining the creator in.

Far be it from me to go against my suggestion that we not stray from the original point on the thread but your post was interesting enough to tempt me to it.

I have to say that you are arguing from a false premise, namely:

- that it is possible to argue someone into or out of a religious faith.

All that happens if you try to argue with a true believer (whatever they might believe) is that they will find a way to ignore any logic or critical thinking you might try to use.  In the end you simply find yourself preaching to the choir- or perhaps anti-choir might be more appropriate.  It is, ultimately, an exercise in futility and will only get you hot under the collar.

For example, your assertion that an omniscient and omnipotent god would want to create an unalterable bible is not necessarily true and would allow for the following counterargument to your proof of the non-existence of said omniscient and omnipotent god.

Our putative deity would know that human society is bound to progress and that, consequently, any unchanging scripture would gradually become irrelevent as a result.  Quite simply, society would leave it behind unless that scripture was able to evolve.  Thus all of the interpretations and retranslations of scripture would not be prevented by any omniscient and omnipotent god but would, in fact, be encouraged as the means of bringing about the evolution of scripture. 

Moreover, said god would also know that any possible worshippers might have very variable needs with respect to fulfilling their religious duties.  Hence variable interpretations allowing a multitude of sects would also be encouraged as it gives a way for more people to become worshippers.  All paths to the summit of the moutain are valid so long as you reach the summit, to loosely quote a Hindu saying.

That's the trouble with trying to argue the non-existence of whichever deity you want.  There's always a loophole which will allow a believer to ignore all your brilliant feats of logic.  Of course, that applies as much when the person you're arguing with fervently believes that no form of god can exist as when they are as devoted to their chosen deity as imaginable.

Oh crap! I've just realised that, while I really dislike the idea of the "conservative Bible, I've just argued- in the religious mode that is- that it might be a good idea.

See what you made me do?  *grins ruefully*

[All Powerful Nateboi]

Far be it from me to go against my suggestion that we not stray from the original point on the thread but your post was interesting enough to tempt me to it.

I have to say that you are arguing from a false premise, namely:

- that it is possible to argue someone into or out of a religious faith.

All that happens if you try to argue with a true believer (whatever they might believe) is that they will find a way to ignore any logic or critical thinking you might try to use.  In the end you simply find yourself preaching to the choir- or perhaps anti-choir might be more appropriate.  It is, ultimately, an exercise in futility and will only get you hot under the collar.

For example, your assertion that an omniscient and omnipotent god would want to create an unalterable bible is not necessarily true and would allow for the following counterargument to your proof of the non-existence of said omniscient and omnipotent god.

Our putative deity would know that human society is bound to progress and that, consequently, any unchanging scripture would gradually become irrelevent as a result.  Quite simply, society would leave it behind unless that scripture was able to evolve.  Thus all of the interpretations and retranslations of scripture would not be prevented by any omniscient and omnipotent god but would, in fact, be encouraged as the means of bringing about the evolution of scripture. 

Moreover, said god would also know that any possible worshippers might have very variable needs with respect to fulfilling their religious duties.  Hence variable interpretations allowing a multitude of sects would also be encouraged as it gives a way for more people to become worshippers.  All paths to the summit of the moutain are valid so long as you reach the summit, to loosely quote a Hindu saying.

That's the trouble with trying to argue the non-existence of whichever deity you want.  There's always a loophole which will allow a believer to ignore all your brilliant feats of logic.  Of course, that applies as much when the person you're arguing with fervently believes that no form of god can exist as when they are as devoted to their chosen deity as imaginable.

Oh crap! I've just realised that, while I really dislike the idea of the "conservative Bible, I've just argued- in the religious mode that is- that it might be a good idea.

See what you made me do?  *grins ruefully*

Thankfully, you only *almost* made that argument.

No one's arguing that the bible shouldn't occasionally have the ancient manuscripts re-looked at to ensure appropriate translation, and that the explination and meaning of the parables and what not can't be re-examined to make sense to modern modes of thinking. Well, no one who understands how this stuff works is arguing that, anyway.

What Conservapedia is doing is not that. They're taking the King James version (in it's original English) and deducing meaning from *that*.

IT's kind of like playing a game of telephone, taking the sentence when it's in the middle of it's course, and proclaiming that you're going to figure out the *real* meaning of the statement from that.

[Neroon]

Thanks.  I was starting to feel a little iffy there!

[Oniya]

I actually caught a news blurb this morning about a pastor that has declared the KJV to be the only valid Bible, to the point of actually burning other Bibles.  O_o

[Neroon]

I assume he means the second edition and not the first edition, all copies of which were burned after it was realised that they had omitted the not from the seventh commandment.

[The Overlord]

I have to say that you are arguing from a false premise, namely:

- that it is possible to argue someone into or out of a religious faith.

All that happens if you try to argue with a true believer (whatever they might believe) is that they will find a way to ignore any logic or critical thinking you might try to use.  In the end you simply find yourself preaching to the choir- or perhaps anti-choir might be more appropriate.  It is, ultimately, an exercise in futility and will only get you hot under the collar.

Pared down, this is sadly the gist of the debate. As I was saying earlier, I firmly am convinced it comes down how a brain is wired, socially if not physically.

I realize this is going to risk sounding insulting, but it’s not far off from trying to break it to a kid that Santa Claus isn’t real, and they’re going deeper into a tantrum and irrationality and tears, the more you try to tell them. And these days with the crazy religious and political crap I see in the US, I tend to wonder how far off the mark that analogy is.

You’re effectively trying to take away a security blanket…the true hardcore religionists, I tend to feel that they’re not very strong people. They want their convictions no matter what, and too bad if evidence and common sense gets in the way.



When you have to step further and further off the path of logic to back up your claim, you need to stop immediately and consider what you’re doing and how you arrived at that point.

Saying our logic can’t apply to god because god is unknowable is a bullshit tactic too, it’s just basically saying ‘well it’s magic, so I win the argument’.

As the video linked in my argument against faith thread said, the more qualities and details you put on a specific deity, you only end up massing the burden of proof against you that much more. Going the other way and trying to prove an abstract and unknowable god only makes it that much more irrelevant.



I guess it comes down to a good old fashioned stalemate. You might never win the argument with them, but they don’t even have the proverbial snowball’s chance in their Hell of ever winning it…except within the confines of their own skulls.

[kylie]

As the video linked in my argument against faith thread said, the more qualities and details you put on a specific deity, you only end up massing the burden of proof against you that much more. Going the other way and trying to prove an abstract and unknowable god only makes it that much more irrelevant.

I guess it comes down to a good old fashioned stalemate. You might never win the argument with them, but they don’t even have the proverbial snowball’s chance in their Hell of ever winning it…except within the confines of their own skulls.

     As far as simply arguing the existence of a certain intangible God (or not) goes, I think that about sums it up.  I was watching a campus protest and counter-protest for some time today...  Finally pointed out some historical issues with interpretations of the Bible to one of the avowedly anti-gay Christian protestors, only to be told essentially: Well this is what has been passed down for ages, see the cover it says "Holy Bible" doesn't it?  And I am simply convinced they are going to hell, so this is just my public service announcement. 

     What concerns me is that the Christian God often fielded by the evangelical American right seems to serve as a sly front for social platforms that are not explainable through good logic either.  While Christian philosophies have been used to do some good things, they have also been used to:

1.  Disempower women.  For one example:  In the process of power plays rejecting Gnosticism back smack between Jesus and the Bible as most people know it.
2.  Claim divine backing for colonialism and racism...  Black sexuality as "out of control," the Muslims "hate us for our freedoms" but God must be on our side, etc.
3.  Attempt to delay and scare away the increasingly real, popular progress of gay rights - not least by quoting passages from a language that didn't even have the idea of homosexuality... 

     So, we do not simply have a bunch of people saying, "I really believe in this book and you should or you'd go to Hell."  We have people saying that who are holding signs saying "God Hates Homosexuals" and many other things widely accepted among a younger, more liberal generation.  Evangelical Christians say they are concerned for your soul but often they take very pragmatic action.  These are designed to get in others' way, attempt to deny resources, and try to divide and conquer based on fear of things that are flat untrue or grossly misrepresented.  Anti-gay Evangelicals are not marching around with 10' high signs condemning everything from gays to "Jesus mockers" to video games and pizza simply as an expression of mere belief in a nice, comforting creator for themselves.  They want something from me.  At least enough to disrupt traffic around my campus long enough for someone to think, oh look a flashy political mob we have to deal with.

     This one selective, elitist book made by a papal gathering almost 400 years after Jesus (assuming disparate, retrospective authors got something right about him in the first place) to the exclusion of dozens of holy documents of the time, is continually held up as an excuse to hold or steal real social privileges.  Again, as mentioned in the video...  My problem is that disinterested persons and different, often less bullying persons are supposed to take the social policy demands on faith.  In fact, the political system lends some ear to these actions (and thus allow their clearly discriminatory agendas) simply because they create a ruckus.  This is simple dirty politics and it therefore gives spirituality a la the Christian Right a bad name.  Shouting in the street is one thing, but this is shouting about "my way or the highway."  It's not any sort of practical argument.

     It's not just the historical distortions of a book.  It's the book as a front for distortions of current reality that go unexamined because to ask more seriously debatable philosophical and practical policy questions is framed as an "attack on people's faith."  It would be nice to drop the faith -- and "faith versus orientation."  Instead of assuming one or the other type of household or relationship is always automatically good, let's talk about various how people from either side actually win and lose through their particular relationship models here on Earth.  About what kind of society each platform might build, and where that might go.  This is what's really at stake when we shout sexual freedom or oh, that's going to Hell.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

That seems a bit unfair to lay that at the feet of the Bible.  People take documents from all sources and attempt to twist them to the way they wish for life to be.  From the Old Testament to the Koran to scientific studies, all of these items are manipulated into someone’s ideals.  Science has also been used to combat “social ills” and will continue to be twisted into such a way. 

[Cythieus]

That seems a bit unfair to lay that at the feet of the Bible.  People take documents from all sources and attempt to twist them to the way they wish for life to be.  From the Old Testament to the Koran to scientific studies, all of these items are manipulated into someone’s ideals.  Science has also been used to combat “social ills” and will continue to be twisted into such a way. 

Exactly, as much as some Christians use the Bible to press their bad agenda, Atheists use it the same way. People being manipulative is to blame, not Christianity or God or the belief in God.

[Chea]

For the record, I'm not against Christians in general, just the stupid ones.  In fact, I dislike stupid closed minded people in general, so I'm not discriminating there. 

In this topic I've just been talking about the morons that feel the need to change the Bible.  Of course I also said I think the Bible is a bunch of bull anyway...  That's my opinion and I have my reasons for it.  That and other books are cases of humans putting words into God's mouth. 

Why doesn't he do anything about it?  I don't know.  I'll admit I can't answer that question, but that's not proof he doesn't exist.  I agree with whoever said he's probably watching us grumbling about what idiots we all are. 

What I wonder is why Atheists think that they are so special that God, a being that is above them on so many levels, is obligated in any way to prove his existence to them.  Seriously, y'all keep demanding proof, but why should he have to?  We are his bitches, not the other way around.  And why should those of us who believe have to constantly justify ourselves? 

Believe or don't, it doesn't make much difference to me.  The only way to prove who is right beyond a shadow of a doubt is to drop dead, so I doubt the debate will ever truly be settled here on earth.  If you're an Atheist and I'm right, your proof will come when you die and you come face to face with him.  If Atheists are right, well then that sucks, but at least I will have lived my life in a way that makes me happy.  Where's the harm in that?  I'm not trying to force anyone to believe as I do.     

Well, It'd be stupid for "God" to expect people to believe in him if you have no proof he exists. We are the only people with the common sense to think " hey religion and the belief in deities are totally irrational".Why would any intelligent person worship something that doesn't present itself to the followers it supposedly has unconditional love for, and who it has never helped?

To be quite honest my personal beliefs don't even fit the Atheist M.O anymore, I'm much closer to becoming an Antitheist because fact the people still believe in that god stuff is ridiculous! I mean come on all you have to do is think alittle bit to notice that any form of theism is complete and utter nonsense.

[Oniya]

*drops a Babel Fish into the room, and proceeds to avoid zebra crossings for a while*

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Chea, I would sincerely ask that you show some respect for the beliefs of other people.  I think most people attempt to keep that simple bit of pleasantry.  Doing otherwise is simply provocative for the sake of wanting to cause trouble and is the quickest way to have these threads shut down.  Thus far your only contribution to this thread has been ridicule with little true substance.  Please be respectful of other belief systems and ways of life outside your own.

[Jude]

Well, It'd be stupid for "God" to expect people to believe in him if you have no proof he exists. We are the only people with the common sense to think " hey religion and the belief in deities are totally irrational".Why would any intelligent person worship something that doesn't present itself to the followers it supposedly has unconditional love for, and who it has never helped?

To be quite honest my personal beliefs don't even fit the Atheist M.O anymore, I'm much closer to becoming an Antitheist because fact the people still believe in that god stuff is ridiculous! I mean come on all you have to do is think a little bit to notice that any form of theism is complete and utter nonsense.

I'm sure if you try you can imagine a god that could exist.  Take deism for example; I don't see any logical contradictions there.  That's my problem with hard atheism; it's illogical to wipe out an entire array of possibilities because all of the examples you've seen were false.

I'm not saying it's likely that a god exists.  I'm simply saying that you don't know a god doesn't exist, and for that very reason saying "god doesn't exist" is just as much a statement of faith as saying "god does exist."  It may be a safer bet, but it's still a wager.  That's why I'm agnostic; I don't know if god exists and I don't see the point in hardening my position (or a compelling case for it either).

As far as Evangelicals go, hard atheists are helping create them.  People like Dawkins, etc. who have a very "your god does not exist and I look down on you for your point of view" way about them basically galvanize otherwise moderate people into being extremist.  Nothing causes people to take a radical viewpoint like coming up against another radical viewpoint in opposition to their own.

I agree religion should not intrude on public life.  Evangelical Christians disturb me; but so do Evangelical Atheists.  They're two sides of the same coin.  The solution to the problem does not include blind adherence, respect for, or conformation to either viewpoint.

Conservative commentators, religious figures, etc. have done an excellent job of making a segment of the country feel like their ideology is under attack.  Not all of the people in that group are intolerant bigots.  I think a lot of them would be perfectly fine with doing their own thing and letting other people live their own life the same way.

Most human beings become insecure and uncomfortable when they're surrounded by different cultures and people; we all feel best in our element.  Combine this with the outright attacks many atheist figures and groups like to make on religion and it's the perfect fuel for the zealot fire.

Every time I listen to conservative talk radio, I realize that the power isn't in what they're saying exactly, it's the examples and the way they twist them.  Atheists and other extremists give them those examples that they make their entire case off of.

[The Overlord]

What I wonder is why Atheists think that they are so special that God, a being that is above them on so many levels, is obligated in any way to prove his existence to them.  Seriously, y'all keep demanding proof, but why should he have to?  We are his bitches, not the other way around.  And why should those of us who believe have to constantly justify ourselves? 

Believe or don't, it doesn't make much difference to me.  The only way to prove who is right beyond a shadow of a doubt is to drop dead, so I doubt the debate will ever truly be settled here on earth.  If you're an Atheist and I'm right, your proof will come when you die and you come face to face with him.  If Atheists are right, well then that sucks, but at least I will have lived my life in a way that makes me happy.  Where's the harm in that?  I'm not trying to force anyone to believe as I do.     

No…let’s get that straight. YOU may be god’s ‘bitch’…not I.


I didn’t ask for this shit…I didn’t ask to be created and get dumped on this rock with you glorified monkeys and your trivial crap. But now that I’m here, I want some damned answers.

I don’t fear god, if god wants to face me down go for it. I’ll tell him straight up I want answers.

He wants my acknowledgment? What the hell do I care about how many levels up god may or may not be?

Through one cause or another, natural, god-given, or pure accident, I am cosmic material sprung up and evolved to the point that I can ask questions.

If a creator is so base and twisted that he wants to condemn me for the very thing he gave me the aptitude for, then I say bring that shit on. Don’t you dare send me to your opposite number…I’ll gladly work for him.

[Jude]

This reminds me of a personal favorite of mine.  I assure you it's well worth the read and implore you all to check it out.

    "But I've still better things about children. I've collected a
great, great deal about Russian children, Alyosha. There was a
little girl of five who was hated by her father and mother, 'most
worthy and respectable people, of good education and breeding.' You
see, I must repeat again, it is a peculiar characteristic of many
people, this love of torturing children, and children only. To all
other types of humanity these torturers behave mildly and
benevolently, like cultivated and humane Europeans; but they are
very fond of tormenting children, even fond of children themselves
in that sense. it's just their defencelessness that tempts the
tormentor, just the angelic confidence of the child who has no
refuge and no appeal, that sets his vile blood on fire. In every
man, of course, a demon lies hidden- the demon of rage, the demon of
lustful heat at the screams of the tortured victim, the demon of
lawlessness let off the chain, the demon of diseases that follow on
vice, gout, kidney disease, and so on.
    "This poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture
by those cultivated parents. They beat her, thrashed her, kicked her
for no reason till her body was one bruise. Then, they went to greater
refinements of cruelty- shut her up all night in the cold and frost in
a privy, and because she didn't ask to be taken up at night (as though
a child of five sleeping its angelic, sound sleep could be trained
to wake and ask), they smeared her face and filled her mouth with
excrement, and it was her mother, her mother did this. And that mother
could sleep, hearing the poor child's groans! Can you understand why a
little creature, who can't even understand what's done to her,
should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and
the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to
protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and
humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and is
permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth,
for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that
diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why, the whole world
of knowledge is not worth that child's prayer to dear, kind God'! I
say nothing of the sufferings of grown-up people, they have eaten
the apple, damn them, and the devil take them all! But these little
ones! I am making you suffer, Alyosha, you are not yourself. I'll
leave off if you like."
    "Nevermind. I want to suffer too," muttered Alyosha.
    "One picture, only one more, because it's so curious, so
characteristic, and I have only just read it in some collection of
Russian antiquities. I've forgotten the name. I must look it up. It
was in the darkest days of serfdom at the beginning of the century,
and long live the Liberator of the People! There was in those days a
general of aristocratic connections, the owner of great estates, one
of those men- somewhat exceptional, I believe, even then- who,
retiring from the service into a life of leisure, are convinced that
they've earned absolute power over the lives of their subjects.
There were such men then. So our general, settled on his property of
two thousand souls, lives in pomp, and domineers over his poor
neighbours as though they were dependents and buffoons. He has kennels
of hundreds of hounds and nearly a hundred dog-boys- all mounted,
and in uniform. One day a serf-boy, a little child of eight, threw a
stone in play and hurt the paw of the general's favourite hound.
'Why is my favourite dog lame?' He is told that the boy threw a
stone that hurt the dog's paw. 'So you did it.' The general looked the
child up and down. 'Take him.' He was taken- taken from his mother and
kept shut up all night. Early that morning the general comes out on
horseback, with the hounds, his dependents, dog-boys, and huntsmen,
all mounted around him in full hunting parade. The servants are
summoned for their edification, and in front of them all stands the
mother of the child. The child is brought from the lock-up. It's a
gloomy, cold, foggy, autumn day, a capital day for hunting. The
general orders the child to be undressed; the child is stripped naked.
He shivers, numb with terror, not daring to cry.... 'Make him run,'
commands the general. 'Run! run!' shout the dog-boys. The boy runs....
'At him!' yells the general, and he sets the whole pack of hounds on
the child. The hounds catch him, and tear him to pieces before his
mother's eyes!... I believe the general was afterwards declared
incapable of administering his estates. Well- what did he deserve?
To be shot? To be shot for the satisfaction of our moral feelings?
Speak, Alyosha!
    "To be shot," murmured Alyosha, lifting his eyes to Ivan with a
pale, twisted smile.
    "Bravo!" cried Ivan delighted. "If even you say so... You're a
pretty monk! So there is a little devil sitting in your heart, Alyosha
Karamazov!"
    "What I said was absurd, but-"
    "That's just the point, that 'but'!" cried Ivan. "Let me tell you,
novice, that the absurd is only too necessary on earth. The world
stands on absurdities, and perhaps nothing would have come to pass
in it without them. We know what we know!"
    "What do you know?"
    "I understand nothing," Ivan went on, as though in delirium. "I
don't want to understand anything now. I want to stick to the fact.
I made up my mind long ago not to understand. If I try to understand
anything, I shall be false to the fact, and I have determined to stick
to the fact."
    "Why are you trying me?" Alyosha cried, with sudden distress.
"Will you say what you mean at last?"
    "Of course, I will; that's what I've been leading up to. You are
dear to me, I don't want to let you go, and I won't give you up to
your Zossima."
    Ivan for a minute was silent, his face became all at once very
sad.
    "Listen! I took the case of children only to make my case clearer.
Of the other tears of humanity with which the earth is soaked from its
crust to its centre, I will say nothing. I have narrowed my subject on
purpose. I am a bug, and I recognise in all humility that I cannot
understand why the world is arranged as it is. Men are themselves to
blame, I suppose; they were given paradise, they wanted freedom, and
stole fire from heaven, though they knew they would become unhappy, so
there is no need to pity them. With my pitiful, earthly, Euclidian
understanding, all I know is that there is suffering and that there
are none guilty; that cause follows effect, simply and directly;
that everything flows and finds its level- but that's only Euclidian
nonsense, I know that, and I can't consent to live by it! What comfort
is it to me that there are none guilty and that cause follows effect
simply and directly, and that I know it?- I must have justice, or I
will destroy myself. And not justice in some remote infinite time
and space, but here on earth, and that I could see myself. I have
believed in it. I want to see it, and if I am dead by then, let me
rise again, for if it all happens without me, it will be too unfair.
Surely I haven't suffered simply that I, my crimes and my
sufferings, may manure the soil of the future harmony for somebody
else. I want to see with my own eyes the hind lie down with the lion
and the victim rise up and embrace his murderer. I want to be there
when everyone suddenly understands what it has all been for. All the
religions of the world are built on this longing, and I am a believer.
But then there are the children, and what am I to do about them?
That's a question I can't answer. For the hundredth time I repeat,
there are numbers of questions, but I've only taken the children,
because in their case what I mean is so unanswerably clear. Listen! If
all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony, what have children
to do with it, tell me, please? It's beyond all comprehension why they
should suffer, and why they should pay for the harmony. Why should
they, too, furnish material to enrich the soil for the harmony of
the future? I understand solidarity in sin among men. I understand
solidarity in retribution, too; but there can be no such solidarity
with children. And if it is really true that they must share
responsibility for all their fathers' crimes, such a truth is not of
this world and is beyond my comprehension. Some jester will say,
perhaps, that the child would have grown up and have sinned, but you
see he didn't grow up, he was torn to pieces by the dogs, at eight
years old. Oh, Alyosha, I am not blaspheming! I understand, of course,
what an upheaval of the universe it will be when everything in
heaven and earth blends in one hymn of praise and everything that
lives and has lived cries aloud: 'Thou art just, O Lord, for Thy
ways are revealed.' When the mother embraces the fiend who threw her
child to the dogs, and all three cry aloud with tears, 'Thou art just,
O Lord!' then, of course, the crown of knowledge will be reached and
all will be made clear. But what pulls me up here is that I can't
accept that harmony. And while I am on earth, I make haste to take
my own measures. You see, Alyosha, perhaps it really may happen that
if I live to that moment, or rise again to see it, I, too, perhaps,
may cry aloud with the rest, looking at the mother embracing the
child's torturer, 'Thou art just, O Lord!' but I don't want to cry
aloud then. While there is still time, I hasten to protect myself, and
so I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It's not worth the
tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with
its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its
unexpiated tears to 'dear, kind God'! It's not worth it, because those
tears are unatoned for. They must be atoned for, or there can be no
harmony. But how? How are you going to atone for them? Is it possible?
By their being avenged? But what do I care for avenging them? What
do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since
those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of
harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I
don't want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to
swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then
I protest that the truth is not worth such a price. I don't want the
mother to embrace the oppressor who threw her son to the dogs! She
dare not forgive him! Let her forgive him for herself, if she will,
let her forgive the torturer for the immeasurable suffering of her
mother's heart. But the sufferings of her tortured child she has no
right to forgive; she dare not forgive the torturer, even if the child
were to forgive him! And if that is so, if they dare not forgive, what
becomes of harmony? Is there in the whole world a being who would have
the right to forgive and could forgive? I don't want harmony. From
love for humanity I don't want it. I would rather be left with the
unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering
and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a
price is asked for harmony; it's beyond our means to pay so much to
enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I
am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And
that I am doing. It's not God that I don't accept, Alyosha, only I
most respectfully return him the ticket."
    "That's rebellion," murmered Alyosha, looking down.
    "Rebellion? I am sorry you call it that," said Ivan earnestly.
"One can hardly live in rebellion, and I want to live. Tell me
yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a
fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the
end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and
inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature- that baby
beating its breast with its fist, for instance- and to found that
edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the
architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth."
    "No, I wouldn't consent," said Alyosha softly.

[Chea]

Chea, I would sincerely ask that you show some respect for the beliefs of other people.  I think most people attempt to keep that simple bit of pleasantry.  Doing otherwise is simply provocative for the sake of wanting to cause trouble and is the quickest way to have these threads shut down.  Thus far your only contribution to this thread has been ridicule with little true substance.  Please be respectful of other belief systems and ways of life outside your own.

Are you trying to call me a troll, Askie? I'm bringing legit counterarguements to the table. But for the sake of preventing the thread from being closed and staying on topic, I'll keep all future post I make in this thread relevant to the topic at hand. And because I'm not an asshole, I apoligize for disrupting the ongoing debate here. Make no mistake though I'm a staunch antitheist......then again that's why I avoid these kinds of topics with my religious friends.  :P

[Cythieus]

So you mean to sat you're anti-something instead of standing on your own beliefs? Basically you're dedicating yourself to the purposeful downplaying of others because they don't believe like you? That's quite frankly silly and it seems childish. Why oppose someone, especially when their belief causes you no harm?