A pro-Destiny post
The HoS reports:
A Destiny Church pastor working for a child-fostering organisation that gets $10 million a year of taxpayer money is placing vulnerable children with Destiny members of the congregation.
New Plymouth Destiny pastor Robyn Edmonds oversees foster placements as the Taranaki branch manager of the Open Home Foundation, which helps “disadvantaged and hurt” children.
The foster kids are expected to attend Destiny’s controversial services each Sunday. …
He said it was part of the group’s ethos to have foster children attend church on a Sunday unless their natural parents specifically objected.
Former Destiny members from Taranaki said the congregation was encouraged to open its homes to foster children.
“They were encouraging people to go into social work,” said one.
The object was to have members make their homes suitable as potential foster homes, from which children could be taken to church services.
Another member said the extra children meant a greater income and higher tithes. However, he said the appeal was fresh membership.
In a statement, Child, Youth and Family national operations manager John Henderson said the foundation received $8.9m in funding last year, mainly for foster-family work. The group’s own records put total taxpayer funding at $10.7m.
“There have been no concerns raised with the Ministry of Social Development or Child, Youth and Family in relation to Open Home Foundation or Destiny Church,” he said.
My views on Tamaki are well known, and I suspect the motivation for the fostering is about more membership.
However if CYF has no issues with the quality of care given by Destiny members, then good on them for offering foster homes. NZ has a shortage of good quality foster parents, and kids do better in an actual family home than they do in an institution.
Some of the work done by Destiny Church is laudable, and this is an example.
However that does not make Arch Bishop Brian the physical manifestation of God, and does not excuse the extortion tithing racket which nets him a million dollars a year.
March 21st, 2010 at 12:39 pm
I didn’t construe that as a pro-Destiny article DPF. I actually read it as the HoS having a go at Open Home for being infiltrated by Destiny foster parents via the Pastor’s wife.
I agree with your conclusion though that this is laudable. Much as I disgaree with Tamaki’s theology on giving and the way it is manifested within the Destiny Church, the MSM risks overkill when tenuous links such as this are used to try and discredit the church.
March 21st, 2010 at 12:48 pm
I would seriously question a state agency which gives money (OUR money) to a religious organisation, especially one which is in the business of brainwashing children into their sick delusions.
I think pressure should be brought to bear to stop this abuse of trust immediately. No pressure will be brought to bear of course, because organisations like this CYF are a law unto themselves and they obviously think they have a right to fund delusional maniacs in their attempts to pervert children.
March 21st, 2010 at 1:34 pm
I thought the article tried to paint Destiny as using the foster care programme to recruit young people into the church and increase tithings. However, I think that the families who are attending Destiny are more likely to be decent types and good role-models for troubled youth, so agree this is not such a bad thing.
However, just because decent people attend Destiny that doesn’t stop Tamaki from being nothing more than a money-grubbing racketeer.
March 21st, 2010 at 1:43 pm
NZ has a severe shortage of foster carers in general, and more specifically of good foster carers. Unfortunately the amount of money paid to foster carers is very low, and the risks that they face are substantial:
– their house insurance is void if a child with known problems burns down or damages their house
– same if their stuff gets stolen
– their own children are often at risk of abuse – particularly if the foster child is older than their children
The money just doesn’t compensate for the risk, so the only reason you’d do it is if you feel a calling of some sort. Many people who feel this sort of calling are religious. I’d agree that people with a religious calling are sometimes not the best people to be fostering problem children (they can tend to impose very strict rules – spare the rod and spoil the child type views that can be counter productive with difficult children). But unless you’re prepared to be a foster parent yourself, I don’t believe you should be complaining about CYF placing children with people who are prepared to be foster parents.
The CYF rules on when to go to foster placement are clear. The child has to be at a pretty substantial risk before they’ll be taken from the home rather than the issues managed in the home – so we’re talking physical or sexual abuse, or severe neglect. Next, the legislative preference is always for in family placement, so we’re also talking about a situation where there is either no extended family at all, or that extended family is so dis-functional as to be unsuitable.
In this situation, the child is simply better off in any stable home that is away from their home environment. Whether the parents are members of Destiny church or not is irrelevant given this context. Firstly, government agencies shouldn’t be even questioning what religious beliefs you have, secondly I would expect that most Destiny church members are good law abiding citizens, who just happen to have a nutty pastor running their church, thirdly CYF isn’t in a position to be choosy about religions, v’s being choosy about things that matter like whether the house is clean, safe and available. Sure, if there are lots of potential placement options that are clean, safe and available, then they could start worrying about less important criteria, but the reality is that there are not.
March 21st, 2010 at 1:58 pm
The threshold test set for foster parents is often quite low – in my experience working in this area. It seems that sometimes the only test that is applied is whether the foster parents can provide an environment just a little less undesirable than the child’s current environment. This seems to be especially the case in short term/emergency fostering. Social Workers have little time and resources, so sometimes are making just the most cursory appraisal. Of necessity it becomes a case of “dump and run”.
However, even with that low standard, there are still fewer foster parents available than are required. We need more good parents coming forward to offer their parenting to children in need. Before you consider criticising anyone offering foster care – consider whether you would open your home in that way to a child in need.
The quality of foster care is like the quality of jury verdicts – it is largely dependant on the quality of people who put volunteer their service.
I note that I have nothing but contempt for Brian Tamaki – he is a venal, self-aggrandising narcissist. If Destiny followers truly want to walk the Christian path – then I suspect they would be better advised to follow Jesus. If they choose to follow “Bishop” Brian instead, I fear they will discover that the Bishop of Bling’s path heads in another direction entirely.
March 21st, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Much as I applaud the recent scrutiny of Tamaki’s cult, it would be unfair to single them out on the basis of setting rules designed to grow congregations and brainwash the next generation of adherents. That’s all standard operating procedure for any religion…
March 21st, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I am concerned that it appears that an organisation is helping by fuinneling recurits into its own membership rather than focus on the needs of the children as the first priority. Particularly if the child is already being raised in a particular faith not entirely compatable with that of Destiny Church.
Say Sanity for example.
March 21st, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Whilst I have grave reservations about Brian Tamaki
This seems to be a beat up to me and it is aided and abetted by all I read here from you lot.
All it seems is tainting words towards the Destiny people who foster kids.
Some of you by innuendo and others more open.
You should be ashamed of yourselves!
Clearly the article was written to taint these people as they are at a Destiny church or because they identify as Christians.
what will be the result?
that many will not foster or be witchhunted out. (is that your intention?)
what will be the result?
that kids who need these people won’t get them. ( as they are probably brown some of you don’t give a fig)
why?
because people like you are arseholes and don’t think of the unintended or intended consequences.
I hope this is ignored and blows over as it should do.
Are the kids looked after?
Are they protected?
Are they fed and clothed?
Do they go to school and get homework support?
This is all that matters…………..
then STFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFU
March 21st, 2010 at 3:25 pm
otoh the fact that as a condition of being taken away from an undesirable situation they are required to worship a make believe man in the sky who is supposedly all loving but has allowed the child to be tormented to the point where they have to be taken from home is a bit of a problem.
no problems with anyone fostering kids when its needed, but having it conditional on brainwashing to someones man in the sky cult is wrong.
March 21st, 2010 at 6:36 pm
My thoughts exactly Grendel. I would say precisely the same whatever religion these poor kids were being delivered into. It is not the state’s proper function to act as a recruitment agency for any kind of mindfuck… Let alone this turkey’s crazy cult. I suppose this CYF outfit will be delivering kids to the local mosque next … … ?
March 21st, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Grendel and Dave Mann,
It’s funny (well, sad actually) how you atheists blame God for all the woes of the world even though you don’t believe He exists. Rather than seeing that it is Man that is evil, and by him worshipping himself (the creature) and relying on human philosophy, and not applying biblical standards and God given values, that it is Man alone who is responsible for the demise and many woes of society.
If anyone’s been brainwashed it is your type; with your proud arrogance and self conceitedness.
When reality hits you between the eyes, and it will, no doubt it will be your ilk that will complain the loudest, despite the many warnings you received during your lives.
And while those that believe on the one true God; Jesus Christ, will basically say, “I told you so – I warned you”, it will be with no pleasure that they make such comments.
Repent now ye sinners – while ye still have the breath of life within you; for tommorrow may be too late!
March 21st, 2010 at 7:12 pm
See guys? This kind of idiot rave is what these kids are being delivered into. Kris K you illustrate my stance perfectly. Tragically but perfectly nonetheless.
March 21st, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Is repent really just code for “join our club and we’ll turn a blind eye to your crap”?
It seems Ratzinger may have fallen for that one, while he tries to make amends in Ireland his own past looks like it is coming back to haunt him. Allowing a quick repent and move on to bugger up someone else’s life doesn’t cut it.
March 21st, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Dave Mann 7:12 pm,
And YOU confirm perfectly your “proud arrogance and self conceitedness” that is common with your ilk.
You may mock God today, but sadly for you, the Lord shall have the last laugh on the day you stand before him.
The arrogance of the creature shaking his fist at his Creator – if it wasn’t so sad it WOULD be funny.
I’ll leave you with your ignora … I mean arrogance.
March 21st, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Pete George 7:15 pm,
Wrong again, Pete – AS USUAL.
March 21st, 2010 at 8:58 pm
I have friends who foster & they take their foster children to church (not Destiny) because their whole family goes to church. Its hard enough fostering (theft, temper tantrums, breakage, violence, swearing, vandalism, endless meetings with CYP & schools & social workers etc) – they do it for the kids sake. They go separately to most things because its difficult to take the whole family if they both want to go somewhere. It would be a real shame if they were told not to take their foster kids to church – it would mean they would not have that time together either.
I did not read the article as positive about Destiny. And there are other churches involved in this type of social work. The foster money does not go to them it goes to the foster parents to help them feed & look after an extra child.
PaulL has made some very good points. Government Departments are concerned about the race of the foster parents rather then the religion, but in the end the evidence is in their home environment – will it be better for the child than the home they are in?
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:26 am
Kris K, ‘us atheists’ do not spend any time blaming god, god does not exist.
its the nutters who believe in their god that are the problem. and i don;t care which version you call god, Jesus, Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, L Ron Hubbard etc. they are all the same, they don’t exist, but some just have better marketing than others.
You can quote all the goofy quotes you want, its just as made up as your religion so has no meaning on anything rational.
having seen some of the messed up kids that end up in foster care ( my mother fostered 5 kids at one point from one family, 1 was heroin addicted and could not speak at 2yrs old, 3 had foetal alcolhol syndrome and all were ADD/ADHD) i would say the last thing they need is to be told that praying to an imaginary friend is the answer.
what they need, and what they were taught is that you need to look after yourself, not to have your hand out either physically (in terms of welfare etc) or spiritually (thinking some magic man is going to make it work).
these kids will have a hell of a lot of barriers in front of them as it is and the last thing they need is a reason to remove responsibility for themselves which religion does.
i have this awful feeling that one day i will see the names of at least one of the kids my mother had in the news, because despite the effort she put in, the work she did, cyfs decided to give the kids back to their mother despite the fact she was arrested for putting another girl out on the street after drugging her. cyfs decided it was better to ruin their lives by having them with their mother than give them a chance at life. religion will never help these kids, it will only ruin them.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:12 am
Grendel 10:26 am,
Translation:
” ‘us atheists’ [the arbiters of ALL truth] do not spend any time [I'm too lazy to even be honest with myself] blaming god, god does not [I really, REALLY hope God doesn't] exist.”
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:23 am
Kris, you seem to have zero understanding of what it’s like to simply not believe in a god. There doesn’t need to be any convoluted explanations like you need to believe in a god.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:36 am
Well it depends on your concept of ‘God’. A transcendent, entity not bound by time or space? A common binding force between all objects?
I like Kris K’s comments here (except when quoting scripture as fact);
and I like Schopenhauer’s view that what binds all things is The Will and that only by freeing oneself from The Will can one attain enlightenment. It’s quite a Buddhist view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhavacakra
I have a strong feeling that following ‘Bishop’ Tamaki will only result in an ‘enlightenment’ of one’s hip pocket and I abhor the idea that kids are put into home where worship of anything is linked to money.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:48 am
Pete George 11:23 am,
The problem I have, Pete, is with individuals making categorical statements such as “There is no God”, when to make such a statement requires ALL knowledge.
An honest representation would be, “I BELIEVE there is no God”.
Saying “There is no God” reeks of arrogance and pride, and is intellectually dishonest.
But then I regard such individuals as fools; as does God Himself:
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:54 am
DPF — it’s good to see you looking at the other side of the issue. We can agree that Brian Tamaki and Destiny church does at less some good in the community.
In reply to Grendel and Dave Mann — some pretty wild anti-Christian rhetoric there. For your information and for our readers many of the people who foster children are Christian. They do this because they believe in helping others — love your neighbour — which Christ has commanded us to do.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:55 am
Lutzie 11:36 am,
I guess all individuals that believe in God/a god will have their authorities for the basis of their belief.
As a Christian my authority is God’s word; the Bible, and so I cite it to support my belief at times, rather than just giving my ‘opinion’.
Afterall, opinions are like ‘rectal orifices’ – everyone has one.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:56 am
Kris,
Is the same true of saying “God exists”?
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:07 pm
exactly what i was goign to ask Ryan.
if saying there is no god reeks of arrogance and pride, and is intellectually dishonest what is saying there definately is a god?
at the least ignorant Hubris, at worst its arrogance and intellectually void.
and stop putting words in my mouth, you are the one who tried to make atheists a group, an its not being lazy, i don;t spend anytime blaming the easter bunny for kids cavities either.
and i don;t hope god does not exist, the same i don;t hope either way about the loch ness monster. i simply do not beleive in your sky god, the tooth fairy, loch ness monster or socialism that works, its all mythology.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:19 pm
I cannot believe the continual Beat up against Brian Tamaki and the Destiny Church. No as stated previously I am not a member as they don’t even have a church in my location.
However since the enough is enough rally about FIVE years ago they have faced a continual barrage from the media. It has been unprecedented to my knowledge in this country.
I know many of the good things they do amongst the people of South Auckland. They have produced results that the government has failed to achieve despite the millions of taxpayers monies they have poured in. The only thing Destiny gets attacked on is money yet they are spending money generated from within! plus the fact that they love to say he is a self appointed Bishop yet my understanding was he was ordained by Bishop Eddy Long who is under Bishop T.D Jakes! Where is the self appointment here?
I think one of the things that is upsetting and challenging our very PC world is that he is trying to challenge Men to be Men again and to stand up for what is Right and Wrong and that goes down like a lead balloon today!
Yet Fathers are more needed today in New Zealand than ever and at least the Bishop challenges his Men to take up their responsibilities like a Man and not to be the pansy whooshes who love to live life on their “feelings” Live life according to our responsibilities would certainly be a refreshing change.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Ryan Sproull 11:56 am,
Is it time for our monthly exchange again, Ryan?
And I do hope you’re in a better mood than you were on Friday.
But to the question at hand:
The reality and evidence that confronts those that believe/know God is, in their minds, beyond question.
And I can testify to this as a Christian of over thiry years.
The creation and God’s indwelling Spirit being just two of those evidences.
On the other hand to say there is [categorically] no God requires ALL knowledge (only God has ALL knowledge; not the creature).
Perhaps I can parallel this with my view of the none existence of aliens.
I can only say, “I BELIEVE aliens don’t exist”. If I say, “Aliens don’t exist” then, in essence, I am saying I have ALL knowledge and have been to all parts of the universe. Which is patently untrue, and intellectually dishonest.
The defence rests, your honour.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:35 pm
you just disproved your own view with your own view of aliens. If you say that God exists then in your own words that means that “I have ALL knowledge and have been to all parts of the universe. Which is patently untrue, and intellectually dishonest.”
which you don;t you only ‘beleive’; you have no evidence. voices in your head are not evidence, a strong wish that its true is not evidence.
if you think that wishing and voices in your head are evidence then you need help.
>>
And I can testify to this as a Christian of over thiry years.
The creation and God’s indwelling Spirit being just two of those evidences.
>>
none of this is evidence, its either coincidence at best or wishful thinking at worst.
Gods indwelling spirit could be either indigestion or mental illness.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Grendel 12:35 pm,
Are you an idiot, or do you just specialise in coming across as stupid?
If I know God; He dwells in my heart, and the evidence is all around me, then I don’t have to go to the farthest reaches of the universe to find Him – He’s right here.
And regarding aliens: I can only say “I BELIEVE there are no aliens”, I cannot say categorically “There are no aliens” …
But I’m starting to repeat myself … and I hate repeating myself, it becomes tedious.
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:09 pm
I usually try to give you a few weeks to lick your wounds.
So people who say that God doesn’t exist have to put “I believe” before the statement, or else they “reek of arrogance and pride” and are “intellectually dishonest”. But people who say that God does exist don’t have to say “I believe”, because people who believe that God exists actually infallibly know that God exists – and there’s no arrogance, pride or intellectual dishonesty there.
You are wrong that disbelieving in God requires “ALL knowledge”. Someone might disbelieve in God because they find the idea logically impossible. You don’t have to have “ALL knowledge” to say there are no square circles in the universe, do you?
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Ryan Sproull 2:09 pm
Hey – that’s my line!
People who don’t know God personally; those who believe in some higher power, for example, would have to say “I believe God exists”. A little bit like hearsay, if you like, where you hear something second hand, but you don’t actually know.
But for those who know God personally there is no problem in them saying “God exists”.
Much in the same way as I know “Ryan Sproull” exists and the evidence is my personal exchanges with him.
Disagree.
I find aliens logically impossible, but I still have to say “I BELIEVE aliens don’t exist”, because not everyone may share my so called logical perspective. I also can’t PROVE their non existence.
We assume that “square circles” cannot exist elsewhere because they do not exist on earth. But this is on the basis that we BELIEVE that the laws of the universe are constant throughout – something which I do hold to by the way.
But this is the argument that some hold to to justify aliens existing elsewhere – there are different laws elsewhere.
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:48 pm
You could be wrong, though, about both. You’re not infallible. You are capable of hallucination.
You’re willing to admit the possibility that the very foundations of logic could be different at some other location in the universe, but you don’t think it’s at least possible that someone who believes in God could be mistaken, hallucinating, etc?
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:53 pm
>
If I know God; He dwells in my heart, and the evidence is all around me, then I don’t have to go to the farthest reaches of the universe to find Him – He’s right here.
>
Crap, total utter crap. Ryan’s ripping apart of your blinkered stupidity says it all.
if you want to find evidence around you of existence, then fine, children getting cancer is pretty good evidence that there is no god, and if there is, he is total prick, not this all loving sky fairy you worship.
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Ryan Sproull 2:48 pm,
If Ryan Sproull is a figment of my imagination, then I guess we’re both in trouble, Ryan.
Although, on second thoughts, “Let there be … Ryan … and Kris saw that Ryan was good … and he rested after the first day because Ryan took excessive amounts of his creative force”.
[I know you're familiar with the material]
No I’m not, but some others adhere to that line of thinking.
It depends on what that belief is founded. Is it just a hope or is it a relationship?
For example, Muslims worship a god (Allah) who is unknowable – the Koran says as much.
And of course there are many imaginary gods (or demonic entities masquerading as gods) which people adhere to. So while the (demonic) entity may be real, what they say consists of lies and deceit, and is with the aim of leading the individual away from the one true God.
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Man, rest after you create me because it’s all downhill after that, baby.
And those people are just as certain that they’re right as you are certain that you’re right. They are capable of being mistaken and you are capable of being mistaken.
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:43 pm
@Ryan Sproull
I agree- once you start discussing specific Gods (and in this context, the God of Abraham) there are a number of claims made about the property of this God. These properties can be logically tested to evaluate whether such a God exists.
Unfortunately for the God of Abraham, neither the biblical accounts or events in the world, demonstrate the existence of a benevolent, merciful, loving being who has given us free-will.
As Ryan is also successfully pointing out, the principle that personal revelation (knowledge of God) can prove the existence of God does not constitute a valid argument. There is no basis to distinguish that revelation from other religion’s revelations, or indeed, in some instances hallucinations.
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Ryan Sproull 3:30 pm,
Disagree, as we’re not comparing apples with apples. God exists independent of the certainty of my belief in Him.
And if we take your argument to it’s logical conclusion, how do we know ANYTHING is real or true?
Are we all just suffering a group delusion? – I know some people adhere to this.
But in a sense I agree with those sentiments – without the Creator God nothing makes sense, and of course nothing would exist, either. God is indeed the AUTHOR of His creation.
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Oh GOD, this again…
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Chthoniid 3:43 pm,
You should really qualify that with, “… to my [your] satifaction”. Luckily your satisfaction has little to do with it.
To those that know the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel) the fact of God’s exsitence is beyond question.
It really is KNOWLEDGE – relationship.
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:10 pm
To whom does Brian Tamaki tith?
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:12 pm
RRM 4:08 pm,
Blame Ryan, I’m just here for the free beer.
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Yvette 4:10 pm,
Brian Tamaki Incorporated?
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:24 pm
at this point it is clear you are certifiable. God exists becuase he exists, because he is god? yep, you are gone, its all over.
so to use your phraseology but a hell of lot less mentally deranged. God, the tooth fairy, zeus, allah, Pan, Cthulu and Santa do not exist, completely independent of how much or little i beleive in them.
thats better.
for you maybe nothing makes sense without god, but you have already shown to be needing a rubber room.
If this god of yours is all powerful can he make a rock so heavy even he cannot lift it?
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:38 pm
You’ve got that completely wrong. There is NO evidence or real knowledge of a god.
Completely wrong again. You can believe in nothing. An honest representation would be:
“I have never seen any evidence of a god, therefore I have no knowledge that one exists”.
It is more intellectually honest than saying “There is God”. But most people who don’t believe in a god don’t say that, they just say “There is no evidence of God”.
Foolish perceptions are in ones own mind.
I don’t see how you can speak for the God you say you believe in. If he is what you claim you have no right or power to presume how he would regard people with honest views on there being no evidence of him..
I presume you have only ever “met” your god in your own mind?
March 22nd, 2010 at 4:42 pm
I actually do believe in gods, but not in the same way you do Kris.
A god is very real to some people, as a part of their mind, of their imagination.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:13 pm
That is exactly what Muslims say about their knowledge that their god exists.
That’s not so much the logical conclusion of my argument as what I’ve been saying all along. I don’t know anything for sure. You agree that I don’t know anything for sure. You just need to explain better why you can know something for sure, why you are infallible while people who disagree with you are fallible.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Ryan Sproull 5:13 pm,
This is where it all falls down, Ryan.
If you genuinely believe you can know nothing for sure, then no matter what evidence I put forward for any view/opinion, etc you can just deny it on the basis that even if it’s my reality, it’s not yours.
Basically it would boil down to, “We all make our own reality, and therefore everything is subjective and there is no, and neither can there be, absolute objective truth”. Which is our old argument once again.
It just becomes one opinion versus another opinion.
And like I mentioned to someone earlier today:
“Opinions are like ‘rectal orifices’ – everyone has one.”
There can only be absolute objective truth if there is an untimate law maker/giver.
Which is pretty much what I’VE been saying all along.
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:33 pm
@Kris K
This sidesteps the problem that the claims of “the God of Abraham’s” personal properties don’t mesh with the supplied evidence. Neither the biblical record- cf the Noachian flood- nor the suffering caused by natural disasters- are reconcilable with a being possessing an unusual, supernatural abundance of love and mercy. Ergo, the God of Abraham does not exist.
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:47 pm
It seems pointless trying to know the unknowable. “Absolute objective truth” is beyond our universe. It seems kindergarten-ish to argue over whose beliefs are the only correct ones.
Trying to seek an “ultimate law/maker/giver” also seems futile. My overriding interest and responsibility beyond myself is for my family, my wife foremost but ultimately for my children. There is no way I would accept some “higher authority” that took any precedence over my interest in them. Myself, family, community, country, Earth in that order, interpretations of ancient interpretations are a very distant consideration.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Nope. I can say that you’re fallible, however. That you are not infallible. That you, like I, are capable of being wrong.
Don’t be silly. I said that no one can be absolutely sure that they’re right – obviously I mean no one can be absolutely sure that they’re right about objective truth. If it was “subjective truth”, everyone would always be right, to themselves, which is clearly not what I said.
Opinions about objective truth, yes. And your opinion is that God exists and that you are not hallicinating. But you could be wrong.
Well, you’re wrong that absolute objective truth requires someone to decide what it is. But that doesn’t matter, because you seem to just be avoiding the question over and over. I’ll ask it very very very clearly.
Kris, ARE YOU INFALLIBLE REGARDING YOUR CLAIM THAT GOD EXISTS?
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Either you are infallible or you could be wrong about God existing.
If you are infallible, how did that happen?
If you could be wrong about God existing, why do you get to call people “intellectually dishonest” and “reeking of arrogance and pride” for not prefixing their claims with “I believe” while doing the same thing yourself?
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:16 am
Ryan,
Someone telling me that ‘categorically’ “there is no God” is like someone telling me “I had no mother”. In both cases I have/had relationship with these individuals. So how do I deny that which is patently true for me?
And I come back to, once again, either there are absolute truths (eg God exists, and I know Him personally), or else we all just live in our own self made realities.
And therefore regarding your “Either you are infallible or you could be wrong about God existing.” my answer is – No, I cannot deny knowing God any more than I can deny having known my mother. So I guess, in this regard, I’m ‘infallible’ in my knowledge of God, just as I am ‘infallible’ in my knowledge of my mother.
And thus someone telling me “Your mother didn’t exist”, just like them saying “God doesn’t exist” IS “intellectually dishonest” and “reeking of arrogance and pride”.
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:40 am
Virtually everyone knows that every person, animal, bird, reptile etc has to have a mother, it is not disputed and is easy to prove.
I accept that God exists in your mind. What could you do to prove that it existed beyond being in your mind?
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:01 am
I’m not saying you should deny it. I’m saying that you should admit that you are as fallible as those you call “arrogant” and “intellectually dishonest”.
That is irrelevant.
No, it’s not. Someone who finds your description of God to be logically impossible is easily as certain of your god’s non-existence as you are certain of its existence. If you describe your mother as being a woman who can fly, travel back in time, is entirely bald and has long flowing brown hair, it would be entirely fair for someone to tell you that this mother does not and cannot exist – and that you therefore must be mistaken.
As you have said, you believe yourself to be infallible when it comes to the existence of God. You do not believe you can be mistaken. You called Pete George arrogant and intellectually dishonest for failing to say “I believe” before “God does not exist”.
Pete George, is it possible that you are wrong about God’s existence?
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:16 am
I believe that “I believe that God does not exist” is a nonsense statement. I can believe in something, I can’t believe in nothing.
Anyway, I do believe that God exists, it’s just that my perception of what “God” is differs substantially to what Kris’ perception of God is.
I have no reason to believe that my perception is more or less correct than Kris’. Thoughts that are real in my head head are not necessarily real in the physical world, they are just how I view real (and unreal) things.
Ryan, yes, it’s possible I’m wrong. And I think it’s probable, in fact almost certain, that no one is anywhere near completely right (outside their heads). You can know what you believe, but you have no way of knowing if that is more or less correct than the beliefs of others.
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:31 am
So Pete admits he could be wrong, Kris claims he is infallible.
But Pete is arrogant and intellectually dishonest.
It’s all moot anyway.
Any claim at all has an implied “I believe” before it, whether or not it’s said.
I believe any claim at all has an implied “I believe” before it, whether or not it’s said.
I believe it’s all moot, anyway.
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:34 am
Is your claimed belief that it’s all moot infallible?
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:36 am
No, no, I could be wrong, but I’m fairly certain.
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:48 am
“And thus someone telling me “Your mother didn’t exist”, just like them saying “God doesn’t exist” IS “intellectually dishonest” and “reeking of arrogance and pride”.”
Just because someone beleives they have a relationship with an imaginary being doesn’t make it real anymore than someone not having a relationship with such thing. Its just a view point.
Going to get out of this fry pan now
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:51 am
Yes, that brings us back to the Muslim thing. That would mean that telling a Muslim that their God doesn’t exist is like telling them that their mother doesn’t exist.
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:42 am
Once again a blog hijacked by religious zealots & holier than thou atheists, it plays like a game of soggy cracker, and you guys all seem to like the taste.
If people want to foster other peoples children & they happen to be of a certain religious persuasion I say so what, what’s the big fucking deal? Better for them to be in a home where they’re wanted & loved as opposed to the cess pits they’ve come from.
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:47 am
And me!
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:16 am
Ryan Sproull 9:31 am,
I never said or implied Pete was guilty of those things (if you look back it’s pretty clear who the two individuals were as I engaged with them both). I place Pete more in the category as he just described; there is some kind of God or power out there. Whether Pete thinks he can know Him personally, well that’s a whole other matter.
And just for clarification; the example of “my mother” was more about the fact of relationship I shared with her than a biological link. I used the same example yesterday regarding my relationship with Ryan which I have through Kiwiblog. The issue I was trying to highlight was that if I have relationship with God then He is just as real as any other individual I may have relationship with. This is why in the Bible ‘relationship’ is synonymous with ‘knowledge’ – Christians proclaim to have knowledge of God through their relationship with him, and vice versa.
Ryan 9:51 am,
Not the same at all.
Muslims, and I said this yesterday, do not know Allah – the Koran describes Allah as unknowable; they do not have personal relationship with him (any Muslim will openly admit this).
The God of the Bible is the ONLY God who can be known personally, and with whom you can have personal relationship. And when you know someone personally there is no question as to the reality of the existence of that individual – which is the whole point I’m trying to make here.
I really do feel I’m just repeating myself, Ryan.
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:30 am
Ryan Sproull 9:36 am,
Yes, yes, I am right, and I’ll stake my eternity on it.
Just to contrast with “I’m fairly certain” – even Ryan isn’t prepared to wager his eternal destiny against his viewpoint – but I am. And most Christians who KNOW God would be prepared to match my wager. Whereas most/all Muslims only hope Allah is real and that if they’re good enough they’ll make Allah’s heaven – even Mohammed was uncertain on this count. Similarly Mother Teresa was uncertain if her (the Roman Catholic) god was real.
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:36 am
Your quote was originally in response to Pete George, so I assumed you were talking to him about him, rather than to him about someone else. I can ask whomever you were accusing if they think they’re infallible too, if you like.
That’s not quite what Muslims believe, and Muslims do tend to believe that they have a personal relationship with God, just as Christians tend to believe it, but there’s no point getting into it.
That’s because you are repeating yourself. It’s how you manage to write so much without addressing my point.
It is possible to believe that you have a personal relationship with someone who does not objectively exist. Mentally ill people do it all the time. Do you or do you not agree?
And if you agree that it is possible to have a personal relationship with someone who does not objectively exist, like a mentally ill person, can you explain how you are immune from this possibility?
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:36 am
I don’t believe there is some kind of God or higher power out there (except for abstracts like the “power of nature”). I acknowledge that a variety of people have a variety of beliefs along God/higher power lines.
That is simply your arrogant belief?
I don’t see how you can have a personal relationship with a non-person – whatever you may believe God to be, it’s not a person. The relationship is not in the physical, it is entirely as thought within one’s head.
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:39 am
Easy for you – you’re immune to being mistaken, according to you.
Let’s not add to the presence of the word “arrogance” in the thread by declaring what other people’s spiritual lives are like, even if you are infallible. Being prepared to make large wagers is not evidence of truth or sanity to me. After all, a few years back some people were so certain they knew God and were going to heaven that they flew planes into buildings and murdered thousands of people.
My first response was not, “Man, if they’re willing to take a bet like that, they’ve GOTTA be right!”
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Ryan Sproull 11:36 am,
Is it possible to have a relationship with a non real entity? I would say ‘no’ – as relationship is a two way exchange.
So just as I KNOW ‘Ryan Sproul’ is real based purely on the reasoned responses (some more so than others) that pop up from time to time on my monitor, I too KNOW ‘God’ because of the exchanges we have and the many other ways He reveals Himself to me. The evidence for God is much greater then the ‘evidence’ for Ryan, and yet I’m absolutely certain of Ryan’s existence.
As I just said, you can only have relationship with a real objective entity. I’m not going to buy into your ‘collective delusion’ argument, Ryan.
And anyway, a mentally ill person ‘imagining’ someone would, in my opinion, be much the same as an individual you may dream of in your sleep – purely a concoction of the mind, and not real in a relational sense.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Mentally ill people hear the voices answering back. Yes, it is possible to have a relationship with a non-real entity, or at least it is possible to be certain you are having a relationship with a non-real entity.
You could be mistaken about my existence.
And what makes you infallibly certain that you do not have a relationship with a concoction of your mind? It may not be a real relationship, but the delusional person is certain that it is a real relationship, just as you are.
You haven’t given any reason to believe you are less fallible, less capable of delusion, than anyone else.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Pete George 11:36 am,
Not at all, Pete:
Deu 32:17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.
The God of the Bible can be known; other gods cannot.
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
Only those that ‘believe on Christ for their salvation’ can KNOW God. The wisdom of the world will never lead to relationship with, and therefore KNOWLEDGE of, God
God IS in fact a person, Pete:
2Co 2:10 To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;
Jesus Christ is indeed a person; fully man and fully God – God incarnate.
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
God’s (the Father) person is expressed in the image of His Son; the Lord Jesus Christ.
So both God the Father and God the Son are in fact ‘persons’.
So do I, or do I not, have a relationship with you, Pete? – even though we have never physically met in the flesh.
Relationship is about communication. And just as you are not a construct of my mind, neither is God.
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Ryan Sproull 12:42 pm,
The evidence is overwhelming; and yet nothing compared to the evidence for God.
How do you determine what is REAL, Ryan? – what’s your argument for something existing?
What sort of proof were you hoping for regarding me not being delusional?
And if you reject the evidence presented to me that ‘Ryan Sproull’ exists, why would I expect you to accept the evidence that DPF exists, for example, or anybody else who hasn’t physically manifested themselves before me. You could add any historical figure to that list – how does anyone know Ghengis Khan existed, or Alexander the Great, or Hitler (we have to reject eye witness accounts as they might be delusional), etc., etc.
Basically we are limited to those people we have physically met in the flesh using your line of thinking.
We may as well empty out the libraries and burn all the books – where does it all stop, Ryan?
I’ll repeat again:
What is YOUR test to prove the reality of the existence of anyone/anything aside from personally seeing the ‘object’?
And is reality limited purely to things we can see with our own eyes?
March 23rd, 2010 at 1:57 pm
No we’re not. It can include people that other people have met in the flesh. People like Genghis Khan and Jesus are widely believed to have existed because many people have reportedly met them.
If someone tells me they met Ryan Sproull at the Bank Bencher I would accept that as quite feasible – I think Ryan probably exists due to his presence here, I think the Bank Bencher probably exists because I have seen it on TV and heard about it. I can easily get corroboration – Google confirms the probability of the pub existing and suggests further possibility that Ryan exists. I could easily try visiting the pub “in the flesh” to further confirm, and it’s feasible that I could arrange to meet the bloke “in the flesh”.
On the other hand, if someone tells me they have a friend that they talk to in their head and only people that believe in this friend can see “evidence” of it existing I am very skeptical. I have not heard of any proof of anyone meeting any in-head friend in the flesh. It all just seems airy-fairy.
How barmy is the Dalai Lama?
March 23rd, 2010 at 4:20 pm
The evidence is indeed overwhelming. You’d have to be crazy not to believe I exist. But the fact remains that there is the possibility that you are mistaken, just as there is the possibility that someone who every strongly believes that there are no gods could be mistaken.
You misunderstand me. I’m not saying you shouldn’t believe that I exist. I’m saying that you should admit the possibility that you could be wrong. Similarly, I’m not saying that you shouldn’t believe that God exists. But you should admit the possibility that you could be wrong, especially in the context where you are calling someone arrogant for them not admitting that they could be wrong.
March 23rd, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Ryan Sproull 4:20 pm,
Once again, Ryan, you’re putting words in my mouth.
I never said, “I believe God exists”, what I did say is that “I KNOW God exists” because I have relationship with Him – in the same way I have relationship with someone I know personally.
I will NEVER admit not knowing someone who I actually do know – that would be dishonest.
Would you ever admit that your brother, Kris, might possibly NOT exist?
To equate someone who KNOWS God personally to some arrogant prig who states categorically “God doesn’t exist” is ludicrous, and I expect better from you than that, Ryan!
You’re beginning to insult my intelligence!
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:31 pm
I can’t see why you would be upset about this Kris. The God you believe in exists to you. But it doesn’t mean it should have to exist the same for someone else. God as you have described it does not exist for me. That shouldn’t matter should it? Each to their own.
March 24th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Right. You believe you know God exists. You have a relationship with Him, in the same way that someone has a relationhip with their friend, with their father, or – if they’re mentally ill – with their imaginary friend.
It’s possible Kris doesn’t exist, though I’d have to have an awfully creative/disturbed subconscious to have hallucinated him.
It’s not ludicrous at all. You are both people making statements without explicitly saying “I believe” in front of them. I suspect that whomever it was that you accused of being arrogant would, when asked, admit that they could be wrong, that they are fallible. You, on the other hand, claim you are incapable of being wrong.
You know, if my brother Kris could see you and I was on the phone to him, I could ask him what colour your shirt is and he’d be able to answer me. If your relationship with God is so much like a relationship between people, and God can see me right now, shouldn’t you be able to ask him the same question?
March 24th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Ryan Sproull 8:44 am,
You need to get over this “mentally ill [individual] with their imaginary friend.”
As I said; relationships BY DEFINITION are two way and real.
And I would have to admit that I share a GROUP “creative/disturbed subconscious” with ALL Christians throughout ALL [recent] history, in our KNOWLEDGE through RELATIONSHIP with the Creator God, that God exists.
Which of course I don’t.
Once again; you’re putting words in my mouth – there is no implied (or otherwise) “I believe” preface in my statement.
Relationship IS knowledge.
Knowledge of the existence of REAL entities (forget your ‘square circles’) is completely different to the KNOWLEDGE of the NON EXISTENCE of something, real or otherwise, as this requires ALL knowledge, which is patently absurd.
And I could ask Him, but whether or not He chooses to inform me of that information (your shirt colour) is in His court. Him not answering doesn’t prove or disprove God’s existence.
I have asked God many questions which have not been answered, but I have also asked Him for guidance and wisdom and He HAS given me those things. And God generally speaks through His word, the Bible, and by His Holy Spirit, not an audible voice like in the Old Testament – but I’m sure you know this.
Basically, Ryan, God doesn’t fit in nice boxes of our construction – but He does indeed ‘speak’ to each and everyone of us. It’s just sad that many choose to close their spiritual ears and eyes to Him. The evidence is indeed OVERWHELMING!
March 24th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Kris
Where you this much of a bible basher at school?
March 24th, 2010 at 11:02 am
I think Kris, at this point your claims about your knowledge of God reduces to ‘special pleading’- that the means by which you have got this knowledge- which is asserted to be qualitatively different to other religions (or delusions) is easily recognisable as fallacious.
Religious experience through revelation is an entirely subjective experience, that is not amenable to verification or contrast to other similar subjective experiences. Afterall, it is kind of obvious that nobody gets talked to via burning bush these days.
The credibility of your assertions that such knowledge can be true, is somewhat undercut by the falsity of some of the beliefs. The geological column for instance, demonstrates that your belief about the age of the earth is wrong and that the source of your knowledge cannot be true.
The moral claims also about the God of Abraham are also wrong. The selective mass murder of Egyptian children during the passover- infants without responsibility or influence over the Pharoah- is a palpably evil act. Yaweh cannot be a being of supernatural abundance of love and mercy. Logically, that God does not exist.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Fine. Then the mentally ill person has the experience of a relationship without it actually being a relationship, and the question remains – how can you be absolutely 100% certain that you are not in the same boat?
You would not have to admit that you do. You would have to admit that it is possible – that you and all the Christians and Muslims and so on who agree with you are fallible.
And to think you know something is true is to believe that it is true.
In this case, the issue is simply that they are alike in that neither you nor atheists are infallible, yet you claim that you are infallible while calling atheists arrogant.
No, but it does make your relationship significantly different from the person-to-person relationships you compared it to.
My brother speaks in an audible voice. I don’t think my belief in my brother’s existence is all that similar to your belief in God’s existence at all.
The fact remains, you are no more infallible than atheists.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:51 am
Ryan Sproull 11:08 am,
I’ve said all I’m going to say on this, Ryan – the defense rests.
The jury are left to ponder our submissions and come to their own conclusion.
March 24th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
big bruv 10:43 am,
I received Christ when I was in the 5th form (1978). I did share my faith at that time (5th – 7th forms), but was probably not as mature in my faith, and therefore as forthright as I am in later life as an older Christian.
What years were you at Rongotai – who knows, I may have ‘bashed’ you if you were there same time as me.
I know quite a few of us that contribute here are Rongotai oldboys.
I know DPF is one, too.
March 24th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Fair enough. My summing statement is the same as my first and middle statements, and remains unaddressed by you: you are not immune to being mistaken.
March 24th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Surely Kris has to agree with that, according to most Christians “his” god is the only one that cannot be mistaken, so unless he claims to be that god he must not be immune to being mistaken.
He has no way of being certain what his god “tells him” is correct or not. If anyone other than his god can be fooled then he could be fooled. Wouldn’t it be arrogant to claim differently?