Demolishing Sam Harris who demolishes Christianity Tongue in cheek title, a bitter irony there. It is as easy for Harris to use the question of evil to destroy faith, as it is easy for me to destroy their human platform using my way. It’s not a sporting contest either way.

Whose fault is it when a teenager disobeys their parents, decides to get into a car and have immoral sex to create a child, and then the child dies in a car accident?

Some debaters would say this is the fault of the father, because the father raised the child. Others would say this is the fault of the child, who wanted to be an adult and transgressed. Others would say this is the fault of other adults and other people, who interfered with the child, now a teenager. A dead teenager with a dead child, of course.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus

To counter that requires Socrates. Always question people to determine if they are truly wise or not. Also, always question Socrates, to determine if he is as wise as others say he is. The more Socrates learned, the more he learned of the things he didn’t know.

Then whence cometh evil? If good exists, so does evil. If light exists, so does darkness. If dark matter exists, where is the rest of the matter. If antimatter exists, then regular matter opposes it. If light is a wave, then it is also a particle. For there to be yang, there also must exist yin. For a creation created with free will, evil and good must exist side by side, otherwise the test is invalid as someone is cheating. The aO is titled the god of gods, a special elohim that stands above all the other elohim, which people call gods and angels.

Thus as many human religions would tell you, evil came from the gods and the angels. Whether this is the story of the Greek titans or the story of the Garden of Eden and the serpent/watcher/angel in it, or the story of the Norse or the Babylonians or the Sumerians. Humanity was made guilty because humans decided to embrace this evil. If the gods are evil, then serving the gods is evil. Since angels and gods are free to decide which side they want to be on, they are either loyalists to their father, as the sons of god, or they are disloyal and become rebels like Lucifer. Humans are merely proxies, the way the Soviets and the US used Vietnam.

The problem centers around a power play. Lucifer did not want to worship or allow the creation of Adam. There was a problem in it for him. This makes little sense unless Adam was actually a threat to the angels. Not as he was then, but later when resurrected as a perfect existence like Jesus of Nazareth.

Is he able but not willing? Then he is benevolent, for all the trials and tribulations are for the benefit of humanity, of Adam, and of the sons of Adam and the sons of Man. In human terms, a loving father is the one who breaks the limbs of their children in order to make them safe from the world, and a cruel father is the one that gives his children freedom to become lost in the world and hurt by the world; Epicurus has that version, but benevolence reverses it and flips it like a mirror.

Before the Last Judgment, which is Ragnarok to the Norse, the righteous and unrighteous will be resurrected. So it doesn’t actually matter that souls have no idea what the divine truth is. Humans are proxies in this spiritual war, they aren’t expected to figure out everything before they die. Thus the plan includes a safety buffer. Just resurrect them and give them the truth, then test them again until they pass or they don’t pass. Lucifer, for example, isn’t passing no matter what happens, he is just due for processing. The issue of whether souls go to hell or heaven, isn’t even relevant to humans that can’t resurrect dead people.

One of the well known serial killers and even warlords from Africa, have explained their conversion to Christ in unusual ways. For them, they often say that they sometimes or always have no recollection of the events in which they are charged for crimes against humanity. This would be consistent with demonology, when demons possess a person and make them do what the demon wishes to do. In that sense, is the human guilty or is the demon guilty?

If a person punches a pregnant woman in the stomach, and another person puts the woman into a car and drives it into a lake so she drowns like Ted Kennedy did, exactly who carries the guilt here?

Harris’ debate partner, William Lane Craig, isn’t particularly good. Craig is far from a prophet and far from inspiration. Sam Harris’ title of one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse is far more impressive than the list of secular worldly degrees that Craig has to his credit. Worldly knowledge could never equal divine knowledge, and if the debate wants to get to the heart of the matter, they will need the divine knowledge and not the human knowledge. The full debate at Notre Dam is here. As for aO ordering the slaughter of various human tribes, there’s an interesting story about that, which doesn’t come from the philosopher degrees. Philosophy of Religion… heh, what a unique and ironic human nomenclature.

Harris claims that free will and the self is an illusion. That makes logical sense, since an enemy of aO would have to destroy free will first of all to get anything done, but not before utilizing free will for the purposes of Lucifer’s rebellion. It was Lucifer that believed free will was unnecessary for the salvation of the angels and for humanity. It was free will that required a payment for aO’s absolute divine justice. If people didn’t have free will, then they could not sin, and if they could not sin, then they could be brought back and upgraded to heaven or translated to heaven, without the need for divine justice. It would mean as little punishing tools and slaves, as it would be to stomp on the ground to blame it for all the children killed in an earthquake. The Harris morality depends upon the superseding of free will and self, which the fallen angels of Enoch’s day would be happy to help with, for their own purposes.

One of the problems (another one) with relying on humanity to solve human problems using morality and social resources is that humans are corrupt and humans lack the power to transform sociopaths into compassionately trained monkeys. Besides, crows and ravens have more intelligence and application of problem solving than monkeys or apes, so that’s anther thorn in the side of evolution. It is an interesting argument on the part of Sam Harris, that everything he has produced including his lack of free will, his spiritual growth and his atheistic IQ upgrades, are the result of his creative control, yet it is only possible in a country where supernatural forces saved George Washington. It is verging on plagiarism and copyright violations there. It is a pride akin to the self sense of the psychopath and sociopath, where everybody else in the world is their tool and not equal humans. The malignant narcissist uses other people as tools because they don’t really believe other people are equal to them or deserve the same thing as their own selves. This process turns into sociopathy in the rare circumstances where the human just doesn’t care about the difference. So far, certain spiritual revelations have been capable of changing African warlords and sociopaths into humans that have a conscience, no matter whether they had lost it, discarded it, or was born without it. This runs counter to the idea that compassion and morality can be trained, the way monkeys and apes can be trained. In order to achieve that, the Sam Harris faction has to have mind machine interfaces that indoctrinate people, schools equivalent to Catholic indoctrination centers and Islamic education centers to indoctrinate certain concepts and behaviors into humans. Since free will doesn’t exist for Sam Harris, it makes no difference if you have to use a cattle prod or a religious debate to mold a person’s behavior into the “correct” one envisioned by society. If there is a person’s will and soul to violate, then it might be wrong to transgress that for the greater good. But if it is just an animal or an object tool, then it has no will and no soul, so no harm no foul. Sam Harris has a few books with interesting and I believe new content. He is designated as the author and thus the creator, as he has creation rights. How would he respond to critics who deny that he is the creator of these works, and that in fact nobody created them and that Sam Harris is merely playing a jealous puppetmaster by forcing people to recognize his claim as the creator? In such a fashion does a human intentionally or unintentionally accomplish the same thing with the universe on the claim that it has no creator, thus nobody has rights to it.

Explore posts in the same categories: Spirituality

3 Comments on “Demolishing Sam Harris who demolishes Christianity”

  1. G6loq Says:

    Longer compilation of the above: one wonders

  2. ymarsakar Says:

    Half of them are just idiots, trolls, and zombies. The powerful supernatural forces are a bit more “impressive” and dignified.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: