Originally posted by Scott R:
That I'm glad I'm not a member of the tribe of Judah.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:^^
Originally posted by Scott R:
I love the Old Testament. I draw guidance from it using the same method I use with the New Testament and Book of Mormon: I evaluate the situations and doctrine described there, and ponder how I can relate them to my life.
quote:One of my Bishops once said it nicely, if I can remember
If you believe in Christianity, how do you view the old testament? Do you draw moral guidance from it? If so, in what way?
quote:While I read the Hebrew scriptures and believe they contain a great deal of wisdom (I'm particularly found of Ecclesiastes), I believe that it most be interpreted in the historical context of the time and in light of the teachings of Jesus and later theology.
What the fundamentalists don't understand is that Christians have always interpreted the Old Testement through the lens of the New.
quote:The message of the Old Testament is very simple: If you are faithful to God you will be blessed, and if you are not, then you will have to suffer the consequences. I think it's quite pertinent to modern Christians. If you focus on the promises of blessings rather than on the descriptions of punishments, I think it's easy to see it as an expression of God's love.
Originally posted by Euripides:
If you believe in Christianity, how do you view the old testament? Do you draw moral guidance from it? If so, in what way?
quote:Can I ask what conclusions you drew from pondering Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Exodus?
Originally posted by Scott R:
I evaluate the situations and doctrine described there, and ponder how I can relate them to my life.
quote:That I'm glad I'm not a member of the tribe of Judah.
Can I ask what conclusions you drew from pondering Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Exodus?
quote:I love that quote. I'd have to agree. One of the problems I have with some of my evangelical people is the way they stress the anger and punishment aspect of God, which I believe comes from the old testament. And they tend to stick to believing word for word what that book says. Whereas my experience in catholicism is rooted in the New Testament and Jesus' teachings about a loving God.
Originally posted by PrometheusBound:
One of my Bishops once said it nicely, if I can rememberquote:While I read the Hebrew scriptures and believe they contain a great deal of wisdom (I'm particularly found of Ecclesiastes), I believe that it most be interpreted in the historical context of the time and in light of the teachings of Jesus and later theology.
What the fundamentalists don't understand is that Christians have always interpreted the Old Testement through the lens of the New.
quote:Except you know, the first five statements, or four depending on how you count.
Originally posted by Stephan:
The 10 commandments alone seem to form the basic laws and moral guidance of many religions.
quote:Lord, am I tired of nonsense like this.
Originally posted by PrometheusBound:
No Jews, even the most Orthodox, follow the Law exactly either.
quote:Not to be rude, but what are Lisa's views on sexuality?
Originally posted by PrometheusBound:
Furthermore, and I am not trying to be rude here but it needs to be said, your views on human sexuality...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:I don't know how you draw this conclusion from what I've said; can you explain yourself?
I am not sure I want to be part of your religion, Scott. You're God seems rather more malevolent than benevolent.
quote:Again, I don't understand what your point is here.
I don't believe in an "old man up in the sky," rather malevolent or benevolent.
Looking at the Old Testement, one thing that strikes me is the need for Christianity to become more like Judaism. I think becouse Christianity allows depictions of God and often refers to God in anthropomorphic terms, many Christians have taken to viewing God as a man up in the sky with great powers.
quote:Okay. Is this in response to something I've said?
A man up in the sky with great powers is not God, it is just a man up in the sky with great powers.
quote:I'd imagine so.
Originally posted by Scott R:
That I'm glad I'm not a member of the tribe of Judah.
quote:No. As a Mormon, I believe that at the same time God was rearing the sons of Israel, and teaching them to be obedient, He was actively working among other people on the earth to help them come to Him as well. A record of one of these peoples can be found in the Book of Mormon, in the book of Ether.
Does it bother you though, that Jesus and the god of the new testament are the same entity which gave the Israelites those laws?
quote:More correctly, I state that in addition to Father, God is our King. Too often, we forget that He is a King, not just a parent; and His love and service is for all people, not just for individual children.
You emphasize God as King, not as Father, and refer to God "afflicting" people.
quote:Sorry, I should be more specific; the focus of my question wasn't the 'gave it to the Israelites' bit. I meant, does it bother you that your god at one point saw fit to prescribe capital punishment for crimes like adultery or cursing one's parents? Or that he once said to Moses that the handicapped may not approach his altar, since they carry a blemish?
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:No. As a Mormon, I believe that at the same time God was rearing the sons of Israel, and teaching them to be obedient, He was actively working among other people on the earth to help them come to Him as well. A record of one of these peoples can be found in the Book of Mormon, in the book of Ether.
Does it bother you though, that Jesus and the god of the new testament are the same entity which gave the Israelites those laws?
quote:Pelegius, you said that even Orthodox Jews don't keep Jewish law, and that's crap. You don't know enough about the subject to make such a claim. Admit that you were talking out of the wrong end, and be done with it, tiresome child.
Originally posted by PrometheusBound:
"It's all still binding on all Jews. Period"
In your opinion and the opinion of other members of your branch of Judaism. I reject your view that Orthodox Judaism is the only true Judaism as, evidently, do the majority of American and European Jews.
quote:Heh. You must realize that any sentence that starts this way is inherently rude, right?
Originally posted by PrometheusBound:
Furthermore, and I am not trying to be rude here but
quote:Again, this is like a physician fielding questions from a witch doctor. Yawn.
Originally posted by PrometheusBound:
it needs to be said, your views on human sexuality, unless I am very much mistaken, are not in agreement with those of most Orthodox.
quote:They aren't branches. They're breakaway movements. And there's no such thing as "Reformed". It's "Reform".
Originally posted by PrometheusBound:
They are, however, in agreement with Reformed and Reconstructionist Jewish teachings, although you do not believe in the validity of those branches.
quote:Again, you speak from ignorance.
Originally posted by PrometheusBound:
Therefore, in at least on case, you favor an interpretation of the Law which is more liberal than the historical and current Orthodox interpretation.
quote:If I jump on you, it'd be for using "starLisa". I have no problem at all with what you wrote. You didn't try making claims about what Jews believe or do, like Pelegius did.
Originally posted by Eaquae Legit:
(note to starLisa et al., this whole post presupposes a Christian perspective. I'm very aware we look at this all differently. Don't jump on me, please.)
quote:How sad...if it's true, that means our atoms will still be around, but will have no conscience; depriving all the dead atheist their last hooray.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Who knows? Perhaps in 15,000 years we'll finally all conclude that He doesn't exist.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
quote:I think this prohibition is only relevant to Jews (and, I think it is only linen and wool). There is a very short list (in Jewish law) of requirements for non-Jews.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
I think I often make and/or wear cloth out of more than one raw textile but I can only hope that all is forgiven?
quote:Yeah, parents do. My youngest isn't allowed to drink soda; my oldest is. (8 vs 20 months). My eight year old isn't allowed to date; when she gets old enough, she will be. We don't allow our son to take baths with the girls; but we do give the youngest girl and the youngest boy baths together.
parents doesn't change the system of morality they teach their kids as they grow older; they adjust their methods of getting the message across.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
(The law makes all of humanity accountable.) (This explains why a Christian's salvation does not pertain to the stringent rule of having to live life according to every letter of the law.) (Through the grace of God we are saved.) (Observing the law, and always being aware of the law is still important.)
quote:I don't mean this belligerently, but could you explain why you think Mosaic law is cruel?
Originally posted by Euripides:
And mosaic law (which is very cruel) was appropriate and moral in the context of biblical times because the world at that time was different (often immoral and cruel)?
quote:Aren't you, though? I'm so confused all of a sudden...
Originally posted by Lisa:
If I jump on you, it'd be for using "starLisa". I have no problem at all with what you wrote. You didn't try making claims about what Jews believe or do, like Pelegius did.
quote:The fact that the temple in Jerusalem doesn't currently exist has a lot to do with that. It's not possible for Jews today to carry out such a sentence because one of the required elements is missing. It's about more than the number of witnesses, I believe.
Originally posted by PrometheusBound:
Secondly, I did not say that Orthodox Jews don't keep Jewish law. I did say that they do not keep all aspects of Mosaic law as it was kept by the ancient Israelites. Over the past few millenia, Rabbis have made some changes in interpretation. Most notably, even with the correct number of witnesses being present etc., stoning is no longer practiced.
quote:My name is Lisa.
Originally posted by Eaquae Legit:
quote:Aren't you, though? I'm so confused all of a sudden...
Originally posted by Lisa:
If I jump on you, it'd be for using "starLisa". I have no problem at all with what you wrote. You didn't try making claims about what Jews believe or do, like Pelegius did.
quote:Whatever.
Originally posted by PrometheusBound:
"Pelegius, you said that even Orthodox Jews don't keep Jewish law, and that's crap"
First of all, I am not Pelegius, I am PrometheusBound or ProBo or PB. Pelegius was, I believe, the name of a poster who posted here before I came. Using that name could only lead to confusion.
quote:You wrote this:
Originally posted by PrometheusBound:
Secondly, I did not say that Orthodox Jews don't keep Jewish law. I did say that they do not keep all aspects of Mosaic law as it was kept by the ancient Israelites.
quote:
Originally posted by PrometheusBound:
No Jews, even the most Orthodox, follow the Law exactly either. Maybe the tiniest of fractions of them wish they could stone people for adultry, but I have never heard of this actualy hapening.
quote:That's part of what I meant when I said you don't know what you're talking about.
Originally posted by PrometheusBound:
Over the past few millenia, Rabbis have made some changes in interpretation.
quote:You don't know what the requirements are. Stoning is absolutely still the law. It simply can't be carried out when there's no Sanhedrin sitting in session on the Temple Mount.
Originally posted by PrometheusBound:
Most notably, even with the correct number of witnesses being present etc., stoning is no longer practiced.
quote:Doesn't matter what you think. They aren't branches of Judaism. They're movements of Jews. There are a lot of Jews in the Democratic Party as well. That doesn't make it a branch of Judaism.
Originally posted by PrometheusBound:
"They aren't branches. They're breakaway movements."
I am pretty sure that a branch is a breakaway movement. The Western and Eastern Church broke away from eachother, Sunni and Shia broke away, Protestant and Catholic, Anglican and Methodist, Mennonite and Amish, Conservative and Reconstructionist.
quote:Ah. Thanks for the correction, rivka.
Originally posted by rivka:
It's not the Temple (in that case, although it is the issue in some of the earlier examples Pel-- er, PB gave) that is the issue. It's the lack of a real Sanhedrin.
Then again, even with a Sanhedrin, the law is deliberately constructed in such a way as to make it extremely rare that anyone was actually convicted of a capital crime.
quote:I don't consider that a change in the system of morality. They are the different rules (with appropriate conditionals) that are prescribed by Mormonism and your own moral precepts.
quote:Yeah, parents do. My youngest isn't allowed to drink soda; my oldest is. (8 vs 20 months). My eight year old isn't allowed to date; when she gets old enough, she will be. We don't allow our son to take baths with the girls; but we do give the youngest girl and the youngest boy baths together.
parents doesn't change the system of morality they teach their kids as they grow older; they adjust their methods of getting the message across.
Even further than those general rules, each child has individualized rules, meant to direct the child toward becoming better at their own individual weaknesses.
quote:Well no, I'm more than happy to discuss this with you too. I just don't want my questions to appear out of context. I wouldn't have put the query to you the way I did, knowing that your views on Christianity differ from Scott's.
If you only want to discuss this with Scott, then I'll let the two of you have at it after saying this:
quote:Depending on what you're referring to when you say "Christianity", I think you're partly right and partly wrong.
Christianity is not a closed system. Mortal human beings amend our understanding of Christianity all the time. And while Mosaic Law is undeniably significant, Christianity doesn't hinge on it and it certainly doesn't hinge on whether humanity's understanding of that morality has always been perfect.
quote:I did read through them, and thanks for taking the time to pick them out. But what's with the tongue-extending emoticons? There are 8 of them; IIRC, the maximum number allowed in a post.
I tried to explain this in my own words, but after reading through Romans, I couldn't put it better myself. I hope you take the time to read through it. I cut and paste parts pertaining to the "Law" and why although we are no longer slaves to it, we still abide by them.
quote:This is one of the more ambiguous passages in the bible. The law defines (or elucidates) what is sin, and proscribes sin (which applies to all humanity); yet, the law does not actually apply to non-Israelites. (?)
3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. (The law makes all of humanity accountable.)
quote:Okay, not sure how that was relevant to my point on the inconsistency of morals between mosaic law and the doctrine of grace.
7:1 Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
quote:While I have trouble understanding what it means to "die to the law through the body of Christ" and how that is evidence that a new way of serving god is made possible without the obligation of following the law as it was, I've already conceded that the bible says mosaic law doesn't apply to all Christians. Though there are some bible passages that are ambiguous on that point also.
4 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (This explains why a Christian's salvation does not pertain to the stringent rule of having to live life according to every letter of the law.)
quote:But doesn't the law elucidate what is sin? Is what was sinful according to the law still sinful "under grace"?
6:14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. 15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! (Through the grace of God we are saved.)
quote:This to me is a sign of Paul's moral poverty.
7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."
quote:Do you believe mosaic law should be observed, or not?
(Observing the law, and always being aware of the law is still important.)
quote:As Tom mentioned, one of the things that stands out is the frequent prescription for capital punishment.
I don't mean this belligerently, but could you explain why you think Mosaic law is cruel?
quote:I would have laid my suspicions to rest a while ago if it weren't for the symbolism of the name.
It so suits his self image as one who comes to bring his knowledge to us, and is punished for his largesse.
quote:So, is United States law a qualified pseudo-substitute for mosaic law?
Those with Law are judged by it, and those without Law are judged by what laws they know or have. Christ makes up the difference.
quote:Can you please expand on this part?
where the written code was to regulate behavior, Christ's Grace allows us to change our very nature if we so live our lives.
quote:What is sin? Only what conflicts with Jesus' rather simplified doctrine of grace?
In a way that means that if we sin, then we are not under Grace.
quote:This is what Euripides is talking about...
Was Moses joking when he told the Israelites to kill the male Midianite children and women who had lost their virginity, and to keep the virgins for their own pleasure?
quote:It seems to me you conflate the term 'cherry-pick' with 'prioritize' entirely too often. There are only so many hours in a day, only so many things human beings can think about and really focus on for any given hour, day, week, month, or year.
One can't cherry pick from the bible. Yet every religious moderate does.
quote:No, that's not what I mean. Frankly if that's the spin you're putting on the discussion before I even began talking about it with you, well, I just stopped caring about this thread.
Well if by "prioritise" you mean "ignore all the bad parts, even of the New Testament," then yes.
quote:Hmm... well, taking into account the fact that Paul emphasized missionary work; and in 1 Corinthians 7 stated that the unsanctified spouse is sanctified in the believing spouse...
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
quote:As for the ten commandments. I think that they are good commandments. They pretty much boil down to love God and love your neighbor. It doesn't really matter to me whether God wrote them with some giant Godlike finger (which I find unlikely, but what do I know?) or that God dictated them to Moses or that Moses was inspired to write them down or that the Moses or that the story of Moses bring actual tablets down from the mountain is a mythologized story of how the law came to the Israelites.
Originally posted by Euripides:
Thanks Kate.
How about the ten commandments? Do you believe that god gave those to Moses in writing as the bible says?
And Jesus? Being the son of god (and the father at the same time), can we trust his word to reflect god's, or could there be a discrepancy by virtue of Jesus being of the flesh?
quote:Oh, no worries.
About the emoticons, it just happen to be the one I picked randomly. I was using it as an easy way to separate my words from Romans. I'm new here, and I don't normally post on forums, so my knowledge on forum etiquite is poor. Please forgive.
quote:You can put anything in a blockquote by preceding it with "[ QUOTE ]" and appending "[ /QUOTE ]" at the end, except without the spacing within the square brackets.
I don't know how to do the multiple quote thing you did in your post. I'll just be copying and pasting.
quote:I have to ask; what about all the laws prescribing stonings, and the ones that conflict with Jesus' doctrine of grace? It seems like a contradiction rather than an expansion in those cases.
quote:It most certainly is, but Jesus expanded upon it. What he did was to emphasize our relationship with God through him, rather than through the law. Jesus gave us freedom by humanizing the law. Jesus broke some laws according to the Jewish elders of his time. For example, when he asked them that if they were to see someone in danger on the sabbath; did God intend for them to ignore the needy as long as they kept the law of resting on the sabbath. He called them hypocrites because if it was their donkey (property) in trouble, they would do whatever it took to save it.
But doesn't the law elucidate what is sin? Is what was sinful according to the law still sinful "under grace"?
quote:Ah, okay. My above objection applies here as well I think.
quote:Yes, but under the guidance provided by Jesus in the New Testament (NT).
Do you believe mosaic law should be observed, or not?
quote:Again, this would make sense if the doctrine of grace was an expansion of the OT laws. I actually think it was intended to be, since Jesus maintains that the OT laws were moral and in his discourse he's often consistent with OT doctrine; but the often broad and benevolent statements he makes are usually taken to be the most important aspect of the doctrine of grace, but unfortunately conflict with so much else. Consider for example how often Jesus emphasises fear of god and fear of punishment or hell to motivate 'moral' behaviour.
Here's the tricky part. Although it seems that living under grace is easier than under the law, in reality it is not. The law required only the minimum from a believer. If you check off on all these requirements you are good. The NT urges us to live like Jesus did; to love one another no matter what. To deny ourselves, and live according to his will. Jesus says you have to go beyond that. You have to love your enemy.
quote:Certainly. I know little about the Mormon scriptures though, and wanted to focus on Christianity in general.
Also, you need to keep in mind that some of us don't consider the Bible to be the Ultimate Source of God's Will.
Mormons have three other books of scripture, in addition to living prophets who tell members what it is God wants today.
quote:How about if they were invented by man? Would they still be good commandments, and would you care about their historical origin?
I think that they are good commandments. They pretty much boil down to love God and love your neighbor. It doesn't really matter to me whether God wrote them with some giant Godlike finger (which I find unlikely, but what do I know?) or that God dictated them to Moses or that Moses was inspired to write them down or that the Moses or that the story of Moses bring actual tablets down from the mountain is a mythologized story of how the law came to the Israelites.
quote:Yep, I recognise that distinction.
As for Jesus's words, what we are actually trusting is what various writers of the Gospels recorded as what Jesus said. Decades after the fact, gleaned from the stories His followers told about Him. And what Church "fathers" decided were the most reliable and accurate of the written-down versions centuries after the fact. I believe they are reliable, but I think this is an important distinction.
quote:Except that the "for their own pleasure" thing is an interpolation. They were taken as slaves. And yes, some of them were probably eventually married. But they weren't toys.
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:This is what Euripides is talking about...
Was Moses joking when he told the Israelites to kill the male Midianite children and women who had lost their virginity, and to keep the virgins for their own pleasure?
quote:It goes back to the purpose of the Law, and the purpose of the Savior. The Law is there to condemn you, he is there to save you. Because of him, a sinner can be saved/redeemed. God took away from the Law the power to make the final decision.
I have to ask; what about all the laws prescribing stonings, and the ones that conflict with Jesus' doctrine of grace? It seems like a contradiction rather than an expansion in those cases.
quote:I don't think it conflicts at all. In the OT fear of the Lord is a connerstone to knowing God. Fear is a sign of respect, as well as love.
since Jesus maintains that the OT laws were moral and in his discourse he's often consistent with OT doctrine; but the often broad and benevolent statements he makes are usually taken to be the most important aspect of the doctrine of grace, but unfortunately conflict with so much else. Consider for example how often Jesus emphasises fear of god and fear of punishment or hell to motivate 'moral' behaviour.
quote:The scripture I linked seems to contradict your interpretation.
Except that the "for their own pleasure" thing is an interpolation. They were taken as slaves. And yes, some of them were probably eventually married. But they weren't toys.
Nor was it a question of virginity.
quote:If you're saying that Moses didn't really say, 'Keep the girl-virgins, the rest get the sword,' I'm open to learning how you support that.
13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
quote:So, just to clarify: there are circumstances in which exterminating all the men (including infants) of a given tribe and all the non-sexed-up females would be A-OK?
Until you know the disposition and sociology of both the Israelite culture and these particular Canaanites how can you possibly pass judgment?
quote:Is that really your defense? "You should have genocided them already, so quit yer bitchin'?"
What of the fact the Israelites had disobeyed God's commandment in this matter and there were Canaanites alive in the first place?
quote:Do you really think it would be IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a situation however implausible?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:So, just to clarify: there are circumstances in which exterminating all the men (including infants) of a given tribe and all the non-sexed-up females would be A-OK?
Until you know the disposition and sociology of both the Israelite culture and these particular Canaanites how can you possibly pass judgment?
quote:Is that really your defense? "You should have genocided them already, so quit yer bitchin'?" [/QUOTE]
What of the fact the Israelites had disobeyed God's commandment in this matter and there were Canaanites alive in the first place?
quote:
Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
dkw...you make me want to go back to school!
Really! That was amazing.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:They were a clear and present spiritual danger. Back then, spiritual issues were a little more clear cut. They entice some of our men into sinning, and God hit us with a plague.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
And you're going to say that this wasn't evil because...?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:Since this was before we entered Canaan, the issue of Canaanites being left alive isn't relevant. But yes, when a spiritual danger is as immediately lethal as a physical one, it's not only okay, but correct, to eliminate it. In this case, we were specifically commanded to do so.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:So, just to clarify: there are circumstances in which exterminating all the men (including infants) of a given tribe and all the non-sexed-up females would be A-OK?
Until you know the disposition and sociology of both the Israelite culture and these particular Canaanites how can you possibly pass judgment?
quote:Is that really your defense? "You should have genocided them already, so quit yer bitchin'?"
What of the fact the Israelites had disobeyed God's commandment in this matter and there were Canaanites alive in the first place?
quote:My apologies. I assumed you meant the same thing Euripides did.
Originally posted by Scott R:
Er... I didn't post that the Midianite girls were specifically kept to make concubines of them. That was Euripides.
Lisa misinterpreted my post as agreeing with Euripides' conclusions; I can kind of see why, as I didn't elaborate.
She's clarified what she meant. So I'm good to go.
quote:No, we hadn't. You're chronologically mistaken.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The Israelites had already disobeyed a direct order,
quote:Because, seriously, dude, I have no problem holding the God of all Creation to a higher moral standard than primitive desert tribes.
Why do you keep looking at the harsh measures God took in the OT rather then also taking into account the terrible things the people at the time were doing?
quote:I know. That disappoints me. I'm even more disappointed in your god.
I see nothing evil at all about wiping them out.
quote:I'd have to agree. For reference, I'm going to add the following exchange from a thread that was closed for a different reason.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I know. That disappoints me. I'm even more disappointed in your god.
I see nothing evil at all about wiping them out.
quote:
quote:Wow. This is bizarre. So, hypothetically, if the Holocaust *was* ordered by God, there would be nothing wrong with it?
Originally posted by Lisa:
You mean the Canaanites? Sure I will. I'm proud of it. God told us to destroy them, and we did. The only thing we did wrong was in not completing the job fast enough, and we paid the price for that.
I'm consistent, you see. Now, you can say that God told the Inquisition to burn Jews alive. If you do that, then I say it's a lie, or that any religious claim that God commanded any such thing is blasphemy.
To reiterate, genocide is not inherently bad, just genocide not-sanctioned by God?
With apologies to Dag, perhaps another comparison to children is in order link :
quote:
"Tamarin [an Israeli psychologist] presented to more than a thousand Israeli schoolchildren, aged between eight and fourteen, the account of the battle of Jericho in the book of Joshua:
Joshua said to the people, 'Shout; for the LORD has given you the city. And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction...But all silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are sacred to the LORD; they shall go into the treasury of the LORD.'...Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and assess, with the edge of the sword...And they burned the city with fire, and all within it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.
Tamarin then asked the children a simple moral question: 'Do you think Joshua and the Israelites acted righty or not?' They had to choose between A (total approval), B (partial approval) and C (total disapproval). The results were polarized: 66 per cent gave total approval and 26 per cent gave total dissaproval, with rather fewer (8 per cent) in the middle with partial approval. Here are three typical answers from the total approval (A) group:
In my opinion Joshua and the Sons of Israel acted well, and here are the reasons: God promised them this land, and gave them permission to conquer. If they would not have acted in this manner or killed anyone, then there would be the danger that the Sons of Israel would have assimilated among the Goyim.
In my opinion Joshua was right when he did it, one reason being that God commanded him to exterminate the people so that the tribes of Israel will not be able to assimilate amongst them and learn their bad ways.
Joshua did good because the people who inhabited the land were of a different religion, and when Joshua killed them he wiped their religion from the earth." (pp 255-256)
Continuing on a little further:
"Tamarin ran a fascinating control group in his experiment. A different group of 168 Israeli children were given the same text from the book of Joshua, but with Joshua's own name replaced by 'General Lin' and 'Israel' replaced by 'a Chinese kingdom 3,000 years ago'. Now the experiment gave opposite results. Only 7 per cent approved. In other words, when their loyalty to Judaism was removed from the calculation, the majority of children agreed with the moral judgements that most modern humans would share. Joshua's action was a deed of barbaric genocide. But it all looks different from a religious point of view. And the difference starts early in life. It was religion that made the difference between children condemning genocide and condoning it." (p 257)
quote:I suppose for myself, it is that there's so much that has to be justified. When there are hundreds, if not thousands, of things that your God triumphs as good but that to our sensibilities are fairly evil except under extremely unprobable situations, I'm more likely to not like your God than to find constant excuses for his actions.
Why do you keep looking at the harsh measures God took in the OT rather then also taking into account the terrible things the people at the time were doing?
I can't pretend to know all the details of this situation, and I am not sure why you think you do. If you want to take what details you do know and say, "No way could this be fair, the God of the OT is evil." that's your business, but I disagree that it's impossible to justify His actions in this instance.
quote:Perhaps, but then why was Moses, "Wroth" with the captains after the battle and queried as to whether the women had been slain or not? It says nowhere that God commanded Israel to "Slay just the men."
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:No, we hadn't. You're chronologically mistaken.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The Israelites had already disobeyed a direct order,
quote:What are you talking about? Have you even read the Old Testament? God does not randomly and sadistically torture the Israelites or slap them around. He promises them happiness and prosperity if they obey, and death and destruction if they do not. More often then not, God simply does not help the Israelites when they disobey. Foreign armies are permitted to molest them, drought is allowed to blight their crops. It's no different from a parent who initially spanks their child and down the road just stops letting them borrow the car when they keep coming home drunk.
Because, seriously, dude, I have no problem holding the God of all Creation to a higher moral standard than primitive desert tribes.
quote:I would get a new emissary or say and do the things myself. I would NOT commit evil acts to try and get my emissary in line. Two wrongs don't make a right.
What would you do if you had an emissary that represented you to the world and they kept saying and doing things that were in stark contrast to what you were all about?
quote:Get a new emissary's huh? So how would you get the old one to stop representing you? Just allow him to go off and continue saying he represents you? You CAN'T say and do everything yourself, you are God, you must allow people to exercise their agency, you can't just be ever present right in front of them as then they do not really have much to decide on.
Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:I would get a new emissary or say and do the things myself. I would NOT commit evil acts to try and get my emissary in line. Two wrongs don't make a right.
What would you do if you had an emissary that represented you to the world and they kept saying and doing things that were in stark contrast to what you were all about?
quote:SOP. Unless specified otherwise. In any case, you had claimed earlier that we hadn't wiped out the Canaanites, and these were Midianites.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Perhaps, but then why was Moses, "Wroth" with the captains after the battle and queried as to whether the women had been slain or not? It says nowhere that God commanded Israel to "Slay just the men."
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:No, we hadn't. You're chronologically mistaken.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The Israelites had already disobeyed a direct order,
quote:Hey, now. Slow down. Some men did that. It was hardly "the Israelites" as a group.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The Israelites are supposed to be God's chosen people and live up to a code of conduct that those around them can see and admire. Instead they turn to the idols of their neighbors some of whom belonged to religions that were nothing short of evil.
quote:You've been reading too much Lynn Austin. But yes, they were bad news.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Where men and women mutilated their bodies sometimes inviting spirits to posses their bodies so that they could divine the future. Where children were placed bound in the arms of bronze bulls, the base of the bulls were heated with fire and the children literally were burned to death, their screams drowned mostly out by the beat of drums.
quote:He's judging it as though a group of people today were to do the same thing, when God operates in a more hidden way.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Where visitors were in danger of being molested or raped. That does not even cover everything. Surrounded by such evil how could the Israelites possibly live in those communities, they removed the occupants with the sword, and when they themselves fell into iniquity God did not protect them and their neighbors were permitted to come in and remove them.
quote:What good does the God of the Old Testament do that is not a cure for something He did in the first place?
I believe the God of the OT and NT still accomplished far more good.
quote:SOP? I am not familiar with that abbreviation.
SOP. Unless specified otherwise. In any case, you had claimed earlier that we hadn't wiped out the Canaanites, and these were Midianites.
quote:Oh in some circumstance I WOULD go so far to say they did it as a group.
Hey, now. Slow down. Some men did that. It was hardly "the Israelites" as a group.
quote:I've never heard of her, I gleaned all my comments of my own study of the scriptures and from supplementary material. At least we agree they were bad news.
You've been reading too much Lynn Austin. But yes, they were bad news.
quote:"he" as in BlackBlade? I was not sure who you were addressing. Why should God be more subtle now and unable to act openly now as in ancient times? I see the Jews in Israel now to be the fulfillment of many scriptures that predicted this very pattern of events. I expect subsequent events to follow the pattern laid out already.
He's judging it as though a group of people today were to do the same thing, when God operates in a more hidden way.
quote:Well first define what you mean by "He did in the first place?" For example assuming we accept everything in the scriptures as true are you saying everything that exists as it does in YOUR life is God's will? If I robbed you would that be God's will? Is he responsible for allowing it to happen? Or are you talking about what God does directly? If its directly well theres,
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:What good does the God of the Old Testament do that is not a cure for something He did in the first place?
I believe the God of the OT and NT still accomplished far more good.
quote:Created the universe and all that is in it.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:What good does the God of the Old Testament do that is not a cure for something He did in the first place?
I believe the God of the OT and NT still accomplished far more good.
quote:Standard Operating Procedure
SOP? I am not familiar with that abbreviation.
quote:1.2% does not a majority make.
7000 out of all of Israel? Can you agree that is most likely not a majority?
quote:Hello, my name is DevilDreamt, and I am a monster. BB, you have views on the Devil, but I wonder how well you have thought them out?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The truth does indeed make us better people, but intentional rebellion to that truth makes us the same monsters the devil is, why do we then always blame religion when some of the people we find within it turn out to be terrible people? I expect I'd find the worst humanity has to offer next door to some of the best. Judas was one of Jesus' inner sanctum of 12 followers, Cain was the son of Adam just like Abel. The men who worked the hardest to see Joseph Smith murdered were former members of the church. Satan himself had a very high position, else why would be called, "Son of the Morning?" And yet he turned against God and now seeks to make us all as miserable as he is.
quote:You contradict yourself here. Humanity couldn't steal anything if it didn't already have agency.
2: Giving humanity its agency - Humanity wasn't given agency. Humanity stole it and was punished for it. Most charitably, it can be said that humanity paid for agency.
quote:But he still left us speech.
3: Instructing the first humans as to what was right and wrong. As well as teaching them a system of speech and written language. - God enumerates what is "right" and "wrong" with no explanation, and goes to some lengths to keep further knowledge from His children. Additionally, He later sees fit to obfuscate speech and written language once mankind gets too uppity. Indian giver.
quote:You slipped from "effects of sinful behavior" to "punishment" here. Makes a big difference.
5: Provided a way for ALL mankind to overcome the ill effects of sinful behavior. - Only after He decided what the ill effects of sinful behavior would be, and then declared what would be sinful behavior -- with full knowledge, mind you, of how many people would commit sinful behavior by His definition and be punished according to His punishments.
quote:Your complaints seem to have a common theme - "God didn't give us everything I think he could have."
6: Systematically manifested himself to those who would listen thus preserving these teachings. - But not so systematically that even all the various Judeo-Christian sects agree on them.
quote:After withholding the grace which was always his to withhold.
7: Saved the ancient patriarchs are their children from famine. - After sending the famine as punishment.
quote:After not interfering with free agency and allowing the Egyptians to make them slaves, you mean.
8: Delivered the patriarchs descendants when their hosts the Egyptians plunged them into slavery - After sending them into slavery.
quote:As opposed to simply allowing them to be destroyed.
9: Accepted their stubborn and rebellious natures and provided a law wherewith they could be tempered and become a wonderful people. - You think God "accepted" the stubborn rebellion of mankind and "tempered" them into wonderfulness? Or are you speaking purely of the Jews as a chosen people? Bear in mind that we're discussing the Old Testament God, who the last we see of Him is busy driving the Jews out of Israel as punishment for their stubborn rebelliousness.
quote:We know that the northern kingdom, having divorced themselves from Jerusalem and the Temple, drifted away from Torah observance. Syncretism (worshipping other deities along with God) was common there.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
18 Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him." (emphasis added)
7000 out of all of Israel? Can you agree that is most likely not a majority?
quote:He as in Tom Davidson.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:"he" as in BlackBlade?
He's judging it as though a group of people today were to do the same thing, when God operates in a more hidden way.
quote:Whoa. "Unable"? God stated Himself that as part of the exile, He would "hide His face" from us. We live in a time of hester panim ("hidden face"), where God operates behind the scenes.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I was not sure who you were addressing. Why should God be more subtle now and unable to act openly now as in ancient times?
quote:Me too. I suspect we may be talking about different patterns, though.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I see the Jews in Israel now to be the fulfillment of many scriptures that predicted this very pattern of events. I expect subsequent events to follow the pattern laid out already.
quote:That doesn't make any sense. We were created with free will. We didn't "steal" it. Hell, it took free will to eat that fruit. We just used it incorrectly in that case.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
2: Giving humanity its agency - Humanity wasn't given agency. Humanity stole it and was punished for it. Most charitably, it can be said that humanity paid for agency.
quote:I am not grateful to my parents for having sex. I'm grateful to them for raising me. The mere act of creation isn't that impressive.
Yes, they should. I, for one, am grateful both to them and God.
quote:If free will is not the ability to act contrary to the desires of God, what is it? The first time it was exercised, all of mankind was punished for it. You're saying that we should be grateful to God for giving us a "gift" that actually results in all the sorrow in the world, and is directly responsible for any personal damnation. It's a dollar bill with a string on it, and the string's tied to a scorpion.
Humanity couldn't steal anything if it didn't already have agency.
quote:Which language do you think we owe to God?
But he still left us speech.
quote:What "effects of sinful behavior" are not direct or indirect consequences of God's condemnation of sin, from a Catholic POV?
You slipped from "effects of sinful behavior" to "punishment" here. Makes a big difference.
quote:No kidding. He's God. He created the Universe, or so it's said. If He's no more useful to your average person than a hypothetical dotty, wealthy uncle living under an assumed name in Monte Carlo, I think it's reasonable to ask why. Heck, some of the authors of Psalms agree with me. *grin*
Your complaints seem to have a common theme - "God didn't give us everything I think he could have."
quote:Well, no. But if you're going to call "sending a famine" "withholding grace that was His to withhold," I'm not sure that we'll find a common perspective on that one. Were the floodwaters of Heaven His to hold back?
After withholding the grace which was always his to withhold....After not interfering with free agency and allowing the Egyptians to make them slaves, you mean.
quote:You're saying that was God's only other option?
As opposed to simply allowing them to be destroyed.
quote:This actually explains a lot about our differing worldviews.
I am not grateful to my parents for having sex. I'm grateful to them for raising me. The mere act of creation isn't that impressive.
quote:You think the only exercise of agency was eating the fruit? I'd like to know what you base the unstated premise that nothing done prior to the fall was by the conscious choice of the people involved.
If free will is not the ability to act contrary to the desires of God, what is it? The first time it was exercised, all of mankind was punished for it.
quote:All of them.
Which language do you think we owe to God?
quote:Too much to go into right now in detail, and from past experience it won't be fruitful, anyway. But the key is separation from God. Adam and Eve didn't hide from God because they were afraid of punishment. They hid because they were ashamed. They voluntarily separated themselves from God after eating the fruit.
What "effects of sinful behavior" are not direct or indirect consequences of God's condemnation of sin, from a Catholic POV?
quote:"No more useful"? When's the last time a wealthy uncle gave you life, the capacity for speech, the ability to reason, the ability to love.
No kidding. He's God. He created the Universe, or so it's said. If He's no more useful to your average person than a hypothetical dotty, wealthy uncle living under an assumed name in Monte Carlo, I think it's reasonable to ask why. Heck, some of the authors of Psalms agree with me. *grin*
quote:Can you cite the passage in reference to the famine? You're getting into specifics, and that won't work if I don't know where you're getting the specifics from - precisely.
Well, no. But if you're going to call "sending a famine" "withholding grace that was His to withhold," I'm not sure that we'll find a common perspective on that one.
quote:No, and you know perfectly well I didn't say anything to suggest that.
You're saying that was God's only other option?
quote:Are you confusing consciousness with agency? Angels are supposedly conscious. The ability to think is not the ability to act independently; that independence only has value insofar as it is used contrary to the will of God.
You think the only exercise of agency was eating the fruit? I'd like to know what you base the unstated premise that nothing done prior to the fall was by the conscious choice of the people involved.
quote:I'm assuming you also think that all animals capable of speech or learning speech -- like, say, Koko -- have also received this from God?
"Which language do you think we owe to God?"
All of them.
quote:Absolutely. You've got to earn the title "good" from me. You can't spend six days in the metaphorical closet with Eve from Marketing and then declare that it's not only your right but an essential good to beat the crap out of any resulting children.
I'm saying you are acting under the assumption that God should give you more than he has if he is to be considered good or just.
quote:OK, by that strained and basically useless (to this discussion) definition, there was no exercise of agency until the fall. You've defined yourself into correctness.
Are you confusing consciousness with agency? Angels are supposedly conscious. The ability to think is not the ability to act independently; that independence only has value insofar as it is used contrary to the will of God.
quote:You've done no favors for Sophie when you haven't let her eat whatever she wants? That's not a sustainable premise at all.
You basically go on to give God credit for all the fruits of the human mind: love, reason, etc. As far as I'm concerned, this is part and parcel of the "creation" bit: if you made us, fine. Big whoop. But if you then slap us down and withdraw those gifts -- life, language, etc. -- whenever we act in the fashion we were made, but contrary to your own desires, you've done us no measurable favor.
quote:I didn't say "infinite gratitude" nor did I say that existence is preferable to non-existence. I do believe that existence only becomes preferable to non-existence through choice made by the existee.
What you're ultimately saying, from my perspective, is that existence is always preferable to the alternative, regardless of the quality of that existence, and that the mere fact of existence justifies infinite gratitude.
quote:No, I can't. I'm not God. Beyond that, any creation I participate in is secondary - that is, derived from things given to me and not earned - and incomplete. It's entirely different from someone who literally gave you every single thing you have, have ever had, or will have.
Absolutely. You've got to earn the title "good" from me. You can't spend six days in the metaphorical closet with Eve from Marketing and then declare that it's not only your right but an essential good to beat the crap out of any resulting children.
quote:On the contrary, genocide is the most fitting word for it. Consider the internationally recognized definition of it:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Genocide is an extremely misleading word in this instance. They left the virginal women alive did they not? They didn't target this group of people BECAUSE of their ethnicity, they targeted their religion. If anything it should be called theocide, as they burned all their idols too. The rationale for killing the non virginal women was that they as a group invited Israelites to participate in their fertility rites, and this included having sex in the presence of idols.
quote:How could such an act not be classified as genocide? AFAIK, they qualify as a religious group and the Israelite war criminals inflicted all of a) through d).
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
quote:Wow. So God is like the ultimate deadbeat dad. Most deadbeat fathers can only aspire to skipping the occasional child support payment.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:You've done no favors for Sophie when you haven't let her eat whatever she wants? That's not a sustainable premise at all.
You basically go on to give God credit for all the fruits of the human mind: love, reason, etc. As far as I'm concerned, this is part and parcel of the "creation" bit: if you made us, fine. Big whoop. But if you then slap us down and withdraw those gifts -- life, language, etc. -- whenever we act in the fashion we were made, but contrary to your own desires, you've done us no measurable favor.
You are owed nothing. You, in fact, were nothing. Until the very moment of your creation. Now you have many things - all essentially gifts, either directly given or achieved by you by gifts that you had no part in making.
quote:We are given freedoms in America. Quite a few actually. I can disagree with the President. I can object to a lot of things about the government. However, my indepenence is limited. I cannot kill the President. I cannot sabotage the government if I don't agree with the way it handles matters. I cannot obstruct a government investigation. Those limitations do not diminish the value of my freedoms. I'm not sure why it would be any different with God. Free will with certain limitations is still free will.
If free will is not the ability to act contrary to the desires of God, what is it?
quote:Nope. If you want to discuss things with me, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say any such thing.
Wow. So God is like the ultimate deadbeat dad. Most deadbeat fathers can only aspire to skipping the occasional child support payment.
This God in fact owes nothing and has no responsibility to raising his own creation.
quote:The world is different now. At the time, we killed only those who posed a clear and present danger. They would not be considered, in modern terms, as having posted such a clear and present danger, yet they did at the time. We had fresh Israelite corpses to remind us of that fact.
Originally posted by Mucus:
How could such an act not be classified as genocide? AFAIK, they qualify as a religious group and the Israelite war criminals inflicted all of a) through d).
quote:If I put a poison-laced cake down in front of my daughter, leave her in the company of someone who's telling her that it's a yummy cake, and walk away, I have done her no favors.
You've done no favors for Sophie when you haven't let her eat whatever she wants? That's not a sustainable premise at all.
quote:This is a premise I do not accept.
Now you have many things - all essentially gifts, either directly given or achieved by you by gifts that you had no part in making.
quote:If everything I am and everything I have is owed directly to the Godhead, what could I possibly not feel grateful for? How could He wrong me? You even go on to say "It's entirely different from someone who literally gave you every single thing you have, have ever had, or will have." This is, as far as I can tell, infinite gratitude: "I will forgive you anything, God, because you birthed me."
I didn't say "infinite gratitude" nor did I say that existence is preferable to non-existence.
quote:Yes, they do; you just don't realize it because you drew the analogy badly. Are you free to criticize the President, if the consequence of that criticism is jail? What if the President gets to decide what the consequence is? How free are you to cross the street if it has been decided by someone else that you must cross the street blindfolded and backwards, wearing a clown nose, or be shot dead by Boy Scouts?
However, my indepenence is limited. I cannot kill the President. I cannot sabotage the government if I don't agree with the way it handles matters. I cannot obstruct a government investigation. Those limitations do not diminish the value of my freedoms.
quote:Lisa, if and when a Sanhedrin is ever re-established, will this again be true?
Back then, when they attacked us spiritually, we died.
quote:You left out the warning.
If I put a poison-laced cake down in front of my daughter, leave her in the company of someone who's telling her that it's a yummy cake, and walk away, I have done her no favors.
quote:Whether you accept it or not, it's true. While your effort was necessary for some of the things you've achieved, it was sufficient for none of them. Your entire ability to exert effort is based on something that was given to you. The fact that we live in a universe where effort can have permanent effect is basedon something you had nothing to do with.
This is a premise I do not accept.
quote:The infinity of the thing given does not automatically mean that the gratitude is infinite.
If everything I am and everything I have is owed directly to the Godhead, what could I possibly not feel grateful for? How could He wrong me? You even go on to say "It's entirely different from someone who literally gave you every single thing you have, have ever had, or will have." This is, as far as I can tell, infinite gratitude: "I will forgive you anything, God, because you birthed me."
quote:It wouldn't diminish your agency; it would make it so that you are less willing to exercise your agency in a particular fashion.
Yes, they do; you just don't realize it because you drew the analogy badly. Are you free to criticize the President, if the consequence of that criticism is jail? What if the President gets to decide what the consequence is? How free are you to cross the street if it has been decided by someone else that you must cross the street blindfolded and backwards, wearing a clown nose, or be shot dead by Boy Scouts?
quote:So at what point do you believe that it would be an appropriate response for someone to no longer feel grateful to God?
The infinity of the thing given does not automatically mean that the gratitude is infinite.
quote:Right. Which is why I'm saying "agency" is a meaningless gift; it's useful ONLY when acting in a way contrary to God's desires, which is not only punished by God but presumably non-optimal in the first place.
It wouldn't diminish your agency; it would make it so that you are less willing to exercise your agency in a particular fashion.
quote:It isn't related to the Sanhedrin. At least not so far as we're aware.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Lisa, if and when a Sanhedrin is ever re-established, will this again be true?
Back then, when they attacked us spiritually, we died.
quote:You should feel grateful to God. That's my point.
So at what point do you believe that it would be an appropriate response for someone to no longer feel grateful to God?
quote:It is not meaningless when not being used contrary to the will of God. The will of God does not mean everyone does the same thing all the time. There are infinite possibilities within the will of God, and it is agency that allows us to choose among them.
Right. Which is why I'm saying "agency" is a meaningless gift; it's useful ONLY when acting in a way contrary to God's desires, which is not only punished by God but presumably non-optimal in the first place.
quote:So, to reiterate this, there is nothing that God could do to you that should obviate the need for gratitude? And the only reason you don't want to call this "infinite" gratitude is that you don't believe we humans have the capacity to express infinite gratitude?
You should feel grateful to God. That's my point.
quote:So what's the point of having possibilities that contradict the will of God? Remember that God created those possibilities according to your theology, too.
There are infinite possibilities within the will of God, and it is agency that allows us to choose among them.
quote:At least it will be blatantly obvious for a few years. If Maimonides is right (never heard of him), how long before the events are just called myth again and people start hating Jews again? Given the history of your people, it doesn't sound like something he describes would be a very long term solution, which I would expect the coming of your Messiah to be.
Basically, there's an event described by almost all of the prophets as the "Day of the Lord". Sometimes as the "Great and Awesome Day of the Lord". It's going to be so huge that it will overshadow the Exodus as the pivotal event in our history.
...
It's going to be an event so blatantly obvious that it will be clear to everyone that God did it.
...
Maimonides wrote that there is no difference between this world and the days of the Messiah except for the end of oppression by the nations of the world. Others disagree.
quote:No. I don't know where you're getting this from. God could do a lot of things.
So, to reiterate this, there is nothing that God could do to you that should obviate the need for gratitude?
quote:There's a lot of different possibilities for the reason, none of which I can do justice to here. But I find it conceivable that you can't think of some yourself, even if you disagree with them.
So what's the point of having possibilities that contradict the will of God? Remember that God created those possibilities according to your theology, too.
quote:Like...? Specifically, what could God do to you that would make you no longer grateful for your existence?
No. I don't know where you're getting this from. God could do a lot of things.
quote:Can't think of a one, if we're assuming an omnipotent and omniscient God. He's not going to learn anything by turning us loose, and we're not going to learn anything that He couldn't put in our brains in the first place.
But I find it conceivable that you can't think of some yourself, even if you disagree with them.
quote:For a lot of things, yes. But Tom has a point. We're grateful to God for creating food for us to eat. But then, He created us with a need for food in the first place. If someone were to view that as sort of hobbling us, it could be seen as cause for less than gratitude.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:You should feel grateful to God. That's my point.
So at what point do you believe that it would be an appropriate response for someone to no longer feel grateful to God?
quote:That's the thing. Yes, we're stubborn. Like mules, the bunch of us. It's a double-edged sword. It's the reason we've managed to preserve His Torah all this time, and it's the reason we've gotten in so much trouble with Him so often.
Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:At least it will be blatantly obvious for a few years. If Maimonides is right (never heard of him), how long before the events are just called myth again and people start hating Jews again? Given the history of your people, it doesn't sound like something he describes would be a very long term solution, which I would expect the coming of your Messiah to be.
Basically, there's an event described by almost all of the prophets as the "Day of the Lord". Sometimes as the "Great and Awesome Day of the Lord". It's going to be so huge that it will overshadow the Exodus as the pivotal event in our history.
...
It's going to be an event so blatantly obvious that it will be clear to everyone that God did it.
...
Maimonides wrote that there is no difference between this world and the days of the Messiah except for the end of oppression by the nations of the world. Others disagree.
quote:While I think I agree with your general point, I am grateful not only for being raised by my parents but also for my mother enduring nine months of discomfort and pain to bring me in to existence. I am also grateful for being wanted. While having sex isn't all that impressive, enduring many of the consequences is.
I am not grateful to my parents for having sex. I'm grateful to them for raising me. The mere act of creation isn't that impressive.
quote:While none of the things that Jesus did were evil, or to my recollection even bad, I do not have trouble with the concept that Jesus and the God of the OT are the same sort of being. I find many of Jesus' teachings to focus on the same obey or pay mentality as the God of the Old Testament
Can you really read that and get the impression that the God of the OT is not the same sort of being that Jesus is?
quote:The biggest thing that Satan is credited for is turning hearts against God. From the descriptions of this God, I'm not sure that that's such a horrible thing. The Satan part of the equation is irrelevant to me unless God appears to be an entity worthy of worship.
completely discount the efforts of the force that has declared war on God. God is interested in letting us be agents unto ourselves and his enemy is interested in enslaving us and blaming God for it.
Why do we pretend he is not a big part in any equation?
quote:I don't see a conflict between the exercise of agency and the ability to have physical evidence of my existence. Think about almost anything secular that you make choices about- your job, your clothes, contaceptives, what tv you watch, etc. Does the knowledge of various options/ truths limmit your ability to choose something else? I believe that knowledge is power.
You CAN'T say and do everything yourself, you are God, you must allow people to exercise their agency, you can't just be ever present right in front of them as then they do not really have much to decide on.
quote:I think it is more that there is no reason to believe that your God is actually a good entity and that the only way to excuse the realyl horrible behavior he engages in is to say "Oh, we just don't understand."
Trying to convince someone who is coming from Tom's stated position that God knows what He's doing and that He's doing things for the best, even if we can't always understand it, is about as useless as telling an adolescent that his parents really do have good reasons for the rules they impose.
quote:Not just for that, but their existence as a whole - including an eternity of perfect natural happiness - is certainly something to be grateful for. And it's possible that, from the perspective of that eternal natural happiness, their might be something in the suffering to be grateful for.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Dag,
Take for example a baby that is born with a condition that means that all their brief life they are going to be consumed with agony. Should they be grateful to God for that?
quote:You're clearly overstating your case, Mr. Squicky. No reason? You can't even think of one reason why God might be good? Even as a potential reason, not one you agree with?
I think it is more that there is no reason to believe that your God is actually a good entity and that the only way to excuse the realyl horrible behavior he engages in is to say "Oh, we just don't understand."
quote:I don't know how to feel about your comment. It is condescending, but you seem so pleased by my obscure world view that I'm not sure what to do.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Oh, wow! A Golden Compass Satanist! It's cute!
*pats head*
There's something charming about buying into an entire foundational myth and then deliberately choosing the losing side.
quote:Well... a pretty large chunk of the rest of the world isn't going to survive the Day of the Lord. It seems that either 2/3 or 8/9 of the world's population is going to get wiped out that day. That's the kind of thing that makes an impression on the survivors.
Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
Lisa,
I wasn't talking about Jews forgetting so much as the rest of the world. Sorry I didn't get that across very well. I was also mildly curious about the POV that not much would change before the coming as to after. It seems like it would be a bigger deal than that. *shrug*
quote:I do. I find Satanism utterly, inherently unworkable (and completely inconsistent), but am endlessly and absolutely fascinated by the ways people try to make Satanism work for them. It requires a level of abstraction that's quite interesting.
I'll ... trust that you seriously think it's charming.
quote:When I was 17, it occurred to me that I was a person, and my parents were people. I wasn't an incompetant or an infant, so why were their opinions of any greater value than mine? Greater life experience isn't a lock on being correct, after all. Hell, the first time I was right in a dispute with a teacher, I was probably 8.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I think it is more that there is no reason to believe that your God is actually a good entity and that the only way to excuse the realyl horrible behavior he engages in is to say "Oh, we just don't understand."
Trying to convince someone who is coming from Tom's stated position that God knows what He's doing and that He's doing things for the best, even if we can't always understand it, is about as useless as telling an adolescent that his parents really do have good reasons for the rules they impose.
Malicious adults manipulate children all the time by preying on their trusting nature. In so far as I can judge, your God is an evil being. So I don't just trust that there are actually reasons that make him good.
quote:Devil fans are cute. In a sad sort of way.
Originally posted by DevilDreamt:
quote:I don't know how to feel about your comment. It is condescending, but you seem so pleased by my obscure world view that I'm not sure what to do.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Oh, wow! A Golden Compass Satanist! It's cute!
*pats head*
There's something charming about buying into an entire foundational myth and then deliberately choosing the losing side.
I'll be a little annoyed that you called me "cute" and patted my head, but trust that you seriously think it's charming.
quote:What do we have to offer God beyond blind obedience? Do you think we can surprise Him, or offer Him new perspectives?
Obedience, sure, but not the old blind sort.
quote:To what end? Does He need them? Did He lack them?
Love, thanks, company...
quote:Wait, if whether He needed them or lacked them is relevant, then you need to demonstrate a need or lack of blind obedience.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:To what end? Does He need them? Did He lack them?
Love, thanks, company...
quote:God punishes disobedience more directly than He punishes a lack of love. The Bible is quite explicit about the failure to obey God. I don't know why He demands obedience, but His desire for obedience is made clear in the text. His desire for company is at least one order of magnitude less obvious.
Wait, if whether He needed them or lacked them is relevant, then you need to demonstrate a need or lack of blind obedience.
quote:Behold the Miracle of the Fig Tree! And other temper tantrums.
Originally posted by Amanecer:
[QUOTE]While none of the things that Jesus did were evil, or to my recollection even bad...
quote:Capable of lying because there is evidence of Him lying, or because in your view He did so many other horrible things that He is morally bankrupt and therefore lying is not also out of the question?
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Because a God who does all the things that the Old Testament God is said to have done is clearly capable of lying.
---
Also, this holds true if this God doesn't exist and it is a series of stories that people tell. The lessons of the story are built around an evil, childish deity.
quote:Sometimes that is also part of being a good parent.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Because a God who does all the things that the Old Testament God is said to have done is clearly capable of lying.
Often, a part of being an abusive parent is telling your children that they deserve their treatment or that you are really doing this for their own good.
---
Also, this holds true if this God doesn't exist and it is a series of stories that people tell. The lessons of the story are built around an evil, childish deity.
quote:You don't want me to speculate on this, I'm sure.
Why do atheists and agnostics insist on taking the Scriptures more literally than most Christians take them?
quote:That is actually an interesting proposition.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:The world is different now. At the time, we killed only those who posed a clear and present danger. They would not be considered, in modern terms, as having posted such a clear and present danger, yet they did at the time. We had fresh Israelite corpses to remind us of that fact.
Originally posted by Mucus:
How could such an act not be classified as genocide? AFAIK, they qualify as a religious group and the Israelite war criminals inflicted all of a) through d).
quote:What's your evidence for Him being evil? I mean, what has He done that you see as evil? Maybe a better question would be, How do you define good and evil? We should probably nail that down before using the terms, no? We could be using them differently.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Lisa,
You didn't actually answer my post. I get that there may be entities that know more than we do. That's not really an issue. What I'm saying is, how do we know that they are good? From what I can see, your God is pretty clearly evil. Why should I trust that he is not?
quote:God may be capable of anything, but He doesn't lie. "God is not a man that He should lie".
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Because a God who does all the things that the Old Testament God is said to have done is clearly capable of lying.
quote:Sure. The satan (notice the definite article, rather than a personal name) is only an aspect of God Himself. All angels are. That's what an angel is -- essentially a finger of God, so to speak. That's why in Judaism we say that two angels cannot have the same task, and one angel cannot have more than one task. Because the angel is the task. If it had two tasks, it would be two angels.
Originally posted by DevilDreamt:
In the book "When Bad Things Happen to Good People," by Harold S Kushner, Kushner (a rabbi) presents the idea that The Old Testament portrays the Devil as being a part of God, and not a rebel angel at all.
quote:See, we don't have a devil at all. A satan is a misleader. It comes from the word "soteh", which means to deviate from a path. A satan is just one who engages in that behavior. A person can be a satan.
Originally posted by DevilDreamt:
He uses the verses about God being the source of both good and evil, the alpha and the omega, the source of all things, and the intro part of Job to show that the Devil really isn't outside of God's plan.
quote:Yup. But that's not the concept you were talking about. You were invoking a deity concept of a Devil who could "kill God". That has nothing to do with the idea of the satan in Judaism.
Originally posted by DevilDreamt:
He argues (much better than I ever could) that the Jewish tradition (or at least a part of it) did not view the Devil as a separate being from God, but rather as the part of God sent to test them.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by DevilDreamt:
He also argues that the creation of the Devil as a being with a will independent from God is a Christian idea and poorly supported in the Old Testament, at best.
quote:Pretty much what you described. But we wouldn't call that "the Devil". That term refers to a Christian concept of Satan -- a demigod who is more or less God's opposite number.
Originally posted by DevilDreamt:
I wish I could find the book and present more of his argument. I am wondering what your views on the issue are? As an orthodox Jew, what do you believe when it comes to the Devil?
quote:Luke 13:1-9
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Why do atheists and agnostics insist on taking the Scriptures more literally than most Christians take them?
edit to add: DD, even a cursory examinination of the gospels would indicate the fig tree story is understood to be a lesson rather than an actual happening. It is tied to the parable of the fig tree (see Luke 13 6-9).
quote:Nope. You have the Israelites wandering in the desert. The Midianites saw the Israelites and thought they were scary, so they hired a guy named Balaam to curse Israel. Balaam tried, but God didn't let him.
Originally posted by Mucus:
That is actually an interesting proposition.
Keep in mind that all I know about the situation at hand is that related in this thread. That is the sequence of events is like this (as gathered from Lisa and BB:
1) There are two groups of people, group A (Isralites) and group B (Midianites).
2) A third party C (God) gave a set of instructions to group A to kill the males and the non-virgin members of group B.
3) Group A refused or failed to do so.
4) Party C killed some of group A to force the issue
5) Group A followed the orders and killed the males and non-virgin members of group B.
6) The remaining members of B were taken as slaves (possibly married)
quote:True.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Yeah, but Lisa, what you are quoting is only a reliable guide if your god is not a liar; therefore, it cannot be used to show that your god always tells truth.
quote:Obviously, I disagree.
Originally posted by King of Men:
As for evil, I don't think a general definition is going to be forthcoming, but I can point to some specific instances: The killing of the Midianites was evil; the killing of all the world's people and animals in the flood was evil; and the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah was evil.
quote:Have you read Steven Brust's To Reign in Hell, or John De Vito's The Devil's Apocrypha? The first is a retelling of Milton's war in heaven, told as a fantasy novel. The second is weird, but kind of interesting. Neither one makes God look particularly good. But they're fun to read.
Originally posted by DevilDreamt:
edit: Thank you Lisa. I did not know if Kushner accurately represented things or not. Yes, I invoked a view of the Devil as a demigod, but only because BlackBlade did it first. I enjoy discussing religion and I find the Devil particularly interesting. Not that this has anything to do with anything, but throughout this and other threads, I have gained much respect for the Jewish religion, and less and less for Christianity.
quote:Yes, I understand that. The point is, if these things had been done by anyone other than your god, you would agree that they were evil. But your god gets a special pass. Why?
Obviously, I disagree.
quote:I predict the answer will be "Because He's God."
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Yes, I understand that. The point is, if these things had been done by anyone other than your god, you would agree that they were evil. But your god gets a special pass. Why?
Obviously, I disagree.
quote:For the same reason that if my parents had sent me to my room, it would have been completely different than if someone had kidnapped me and confined me to a room.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Yes, I understand that. The point is, if these things had been done by anyone other than your god, you would agree that they were evil. But your god gets a special pass. Why?
Obviously, I disagree.
quote:Speculate away. Why do you take a literal view of Scripture when that isn't accurate? When it doesn't take into account the audience for whom it was written, the literary conventions of the culture, when it doesn't generally convey the truth of what the various writers were saying? Why do you insist on a fairly recent practice that often leads to misunderstanding a lot of it?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You don't want me to speculate on this, I'm sure.
Why do atheists and agnostics insist on taking the Scriptures more literally than most Christians take them?
quote:Not particularly, omitting the the spin, the only changes are that Party C now kills some of group A in part 4) before giving instructions in part 2) (a change which makes it seem even less fair) and that the instructions are changed from targeting the males and non-virgins to "all but wiping them out."
Originally posted by Lisa:
Very different story than the one you just described.
quote:That's really not what you said earlier; you've moved the goalpost on this debate.
quote:It goes back to the purpose of the Law, and the purpose of the Savior. The Law is there to condemn you, he is there to save you. Because of him, a sinner can be saved/redeemed. God took away from the Law the power to make the final decision.
I have to ask; what about all the laws prescribing stonings, and the ones that conflict with Jesus' doctrine of grace? It seems like a contradiction rather than an expansion in those cases.
quote:Most of the time, that was not the fear Jesus talked about. He was definitely referring to fear of punishment and eternal damnation.
Let me explain: When you love someone more than you love yourself "fear" of disappointing them becomes a factor of your thought process.
quote:Why is it unlikely? There are precedents indicating Moses and the Israelites didn't find rape as objectionable as we find it today. Consider for example Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
Scott: It does not state for what purpose the virginal women were kept. "Keep alive for yourselves" could mean ALOT of things.
1: Keep alive for yourselves as maid servants.
2: Keep alive for yourselves as adopted children
3: Keep alive for yourselves as slaves
edit: 4: Keep alive for yourselves as future wives/concubines (Decided to add that as a possibility but IMO an unlikely one.)
quote:And the Nazis didn't get all the Jews, either.
Genocide is an extremely misleading word in this instance. They left the virginal women alive did they not?
quote:You give god the benefit of the doubt in saying that there could be a complicated higher reason for acting immorally. Would you extend the same possibility to the Nazis?
If you want to take what details you do know and say, "No way could this be fair, the God of the OT is evil." that's your business, but I disagree that it's impossible to justify His actions in this instance.
quote:Because I'm judging god, not bronze age humans.
Why do you keep looking at the harsh measures God took in the OT rather then also taking into account the terrible things the people at the time were doing?
quote:It's very very different. God created those foreign armies and droughts, and knowingly allowing people to be killed does not compare with refusing to loan someone your car.
More often then not, God simply does not help the Israelites when they disobey. Foreign armies are permitted to molest them, drought is allowed to blight their crops. It's no different from a parent who initially spanks their child and down the road just stops letting them borrow the car when they keep coming home drunk.
quote:Do you seriously want to start cataloguing the evils of other religions at the time? Was the law of Moses much better?
Instead they turn to the idols of their neighbors some of whom belonged to religions that were nothing short of evil. Where men and women mutilated their bodies sometimes inviting spirits to posses their bodies so that they could divine the future. Where children were placed bound in the arms of bronze bulls...
quote:A lot of your rebuttals seem to revolve around the argument "It could have been worse."
quote:Your complaints seem to have a common theme - "God didn't give us everything I think he could have."
6: Systematically manifested himself to those who would listen thus preserving these teachings. - But not so systematically that even all the various Judeo-Christian sects agree on them.
quote:I for one thought you were an atheist playing devil's advocate.
quote:I don't know how to feel about your comment. It is condescending, but you seem so pleased by my obscure world view that I'm not sure what to do.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Oh, wow! A Golden Compass Satanist! It's cute!
*pats head*
There's something charming about buying into an entire foundational myth and then deliberately choosing the losing side.
quote:I have asked this before many times too. What parts are to be taken literally, and what parts metaphorically? How do you know?
I have said this before, too. The Scriptures are not all one thing. They include history - not as we would record it - but in the style of the people who recorded it; laws - most of which make a lot of sense even today, some of which might have made sense at the time but don't now, some that might have just been people getting it wrong; poetry, allegory, letters, legal documents.
quote:I was trying to, but no one wanted to play with me, so I ended up engaging in a fruitful conversation with Lisa instead, so everything's okay.
Originally posted by Euripides:
DevilDreamt,
quote:I for one thought you were an atheist playing devil's advocate.
quote:I don't know how to feel about your comment. It is condescending, but you seem so pleased by my obscure world view that I'm not sure what to do.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Oh, wow! A Golden Compass Satanist! It's cute!
*pats head*
There's something charming about buying into an entire foundational myth and then deliberately choosing the losing side.
quote:I don't know how I moved the goal post, but what I do see is that when you read Matthew 7:14, you see condemnation. In my reality (due to my relationship with God) I see guidance. To me 7:14 tells me that the road to "heaven" is not the popular one. It's a road that requires my attention to ensure I don't veer off to the right or left.
It also makes no sense, especially when Jesus himself that most people will end up going to hell (Matthew 7:14). There is still a morality there, condemning people to damnation (sometimes irredeemable, such as speaking blasphemies about the spirit, which I've done repeatedly), and so far what you've done is obscure and obfuscate the relationship between the morality and mosaic law.
quote:You can call it guidance, and you wouldn't be wrong. But it's god's guidance that we follow his way, or else we will face damnation and hell; according to rules he made.
In my reality (due to my relationship with God) I see guidance. To me 7:14 tells me that the road to "heaven" is not the popular one. It's a road that requires my attention to ensure I don't veer off to the right or left.
quote:No, I wouldn't. There are many passages in the bible that encourage good. Otherwise Christianity is unlikely to have survived to this day.
If your view of God is of a hateful, vengeful, dictating God, then no matter how much evidence I use to show otherwise will gain him any credit. The reason being that the same evidence I present, you will use to condemn him.
quote:Just to be clear, I'm not playing devil's advocate; I mean what I'm saying.
I've experienced the same questions and played the Devil's advocate.
quote:But god is the one who gave sin those consequences in the first place.
Of course it conflicts. All the Law did was show the consequence of sin - death. Grace gives someone underserving the opportunity to live, to be saved through Christ.
quote:I really don't expect Christians to advocate the law. I started this thread wondering how a Christian could be okay with the fact that their god advocated so much stoning and violence. And thank you for trying to answer it: "I'm trying to help you see why a Christian does not have an issue between the Law."
Why am I going to advocate for the Law when my salvation is the product of grace.
quote:Okay, I understand why you don't stone people. But is it still a sin with the same metaphysical consequences it had in old testament times? Surely not everything is forgiven?
Why do I not care now that if someone commits adultery they are NOT stoned to death? I'll tell you why. Because of Christ's teachings. He preached forgiveness, understanding, and redemption.
quote:Sorry, I don't understand this. You need god's grace to be able to follow the law (but the law is not in effect)? So you do try to follow Moses' teachings?
The Law is important to me because it tells me what sin is, but it's through God's grace that I'm able to live by it.
quote:Honestly, it's a mix. In the OT I see a God that exercises "tough" love as a method of correction. But he does show compassion and love at the same time.
Can you read the old testament and see god as forgiving?
quote:Do you know what is sin's ultimate consequence? Sin separates you from God. Sin and God can can not be together. That's why the Bible talks about being cleansed by the blood. God is Holy. The definition of Holy means that there is no sin within him. If a man even commits one sin through out his whole life (meaning he was a pretty good guy in our standards) he would die in God's prescense, because God can't be in the same vicinity of sin.
But god is the one who gave sin those consequences in the first place.
quote:Homosexuality is still a sin. Sin is sin Euripides. There is no scale to it. Sin carries the same consequence if you cheat, lie, steal, or murder.
Is homosexuality still an abomination? Is it still wrong to wear a jumper of wool and linen? Or is that a particular sin that we're always forgiven for? If so, which ones are we forgiven for and which ones still earn us damnation?
quote:I follow the teachings of Jesus. His teaching boils down to this; Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Sorry, I don't understand this. You need god's grace to be able to follow the law (but the law is not in effect)? So you do try to follow Moses' teachings?
quote:The analogy doesn't speak to the concrete used. It speaks to the dynamic. I'm surprised to see you make that mistake.
Originally posted by King of Men:
I don't think that's a good analogy. Genocide is not the equivalent of being sent to your room, it's the equivalent of being told to kill your brother or else you're going to get it yourself. The flood is not being sent to bed without supper, it's being hung upside-down in the basement and hit with baseball bats. We would consider such parents evil even if they only did it to their own children.
quote:I'm not using your inane "party" nomenclature. The Midianites tried, twice, to wipe us out. We wiped them out both in response and to prevent them from trying again. I have no qualms about that whatsoever.
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Not particularly, omitting the the spin, the only changes are that Party C now kills some of group A in part 4) before giving instructions in part 2) (a change which makes it seem even less fair) and that the instructions are changed from targeting the males and non-virgins to "all but wiping them out."
Originally posted by Lisa:
Very different story than the one you just described.
quote:No, it's not. All God forbade was anal sex between two men. Not "homosexuality" in general. There are far more prohibitions that relate to men and women.
Originally posted by Barabba:
Homosexuality is still a sin.
quote:Well, if you want to call it that. I personally wouldn't use the phrase 'tough love' to describe class-A war crimes.
Honestly, it's a mix. In the OT I see a God that exercises "tough" love as a method of correction. But he does show compassion and love at the same time.
quote:I don't see how god's hand was forced, which I think you're implying. He's the one who defined sin and its consequences in the first place, as I've said.
Look at the books at Kings for an instance, when I read how stubborn the people of Isreal were time and time again, God shows his Grace by forgiving them until he had to cast them out of the promised land. (Because there are consequence when you sin. God is a righteous judge that CAN'T let sin go unpunished if it isn't rectified by his grace. Can the pot complain to the potter?)
quote:But do you disagree that god is the one who defined what sin is?
quote:Do you know what is sin's ultimate consequence? Sin separates you from God. Sin and God can can not be together.
But god is the one who gave sin those consequences in the first place.
quote:Well that's disappointing.
quote:Homosexuality is still a sin. Sin is sin Euripides.
Is homosexuality still an abomination? Is it still wrong to wear a jumper of wool and linen? Or is that a particular sin that we're always forgiven for? If so, which ones are we forgiven for and which ones still earn us damnation?
quote:Does the bible say that?
There is no scale to it. Sin carries the same consequence if you cheat, lie, steal, or murder.
quote:I'm glad.
Here is the difference now - as oppose to OT times. I will not stone a homosexual. I have family members that are gay that I still love. They don't have to answer to me for their gayness.
quote:Well, this summary is part of what I take objection to. I can't disagree that this is a great rule to live by, but such a simplification whitewashes all the ugly stuff in the bible.
I follow the teachings of Jesus. His teaching boils down to this; Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
quote:You start from the assumption that your religion contains truth; you have previously said that you can't imagine any amount of evidence that would sway your opinion on this issue. Therefore, where the Scriptures deviate from what you observe to be truth, you assume those Scriptures are metaphorical, or speak of truths for a different era, or simply written by fallible men.
Why do you take a literal view of Scripture when that isn't accurate? When it doesn't take into account the audience for whom it was written, the literary conventions of the culture, when it doesn't generally convey the truth of what the various writers were saying?
quote:Equally, it can look like a powerfully compelling argument for the non-divine way in which the Bible has been handed down for thousands of years.
In fact, arguing that different people find different "truths" in the Bible, to a non-believer, often looks like a powerfully compelling argument for the non-divine origin of the Bible.
quote:And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between faith/belief and conviction. I don't share the view that no amount of evidence would sway my opinion as to the truth of my religion. Furthermore, I don't start from the assumption that it's true.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You start from the assumption that your religion contains truth; you have previously said that you can't imagine any amount of evidence that would sway your opinion on this issue.
Why do you take a literal view of Scripture when that isn't accurate? When it doesn't take into account the audience for whom it was written, the literary conventions of the culture, when it doesn't generally convey the truth of what the various writers were saying?
quote:Jewish tradition holds that Isaac was 37 years old at the time. And both aware of what God had commandment, and as willing as his father to carry it out if required to. I wouldn't worry so much about trauma.
Originally posted by Euripides:
In the book of Genesis for example, after god stops Abraham from sacrificing his son (I can't imagine the psychological trauma Isaac must have endured), he says that he now knows that Abraham fears him. Nevermind that god, being omniscient (if you believe that; some Christians don't), would have known Abraham's mind beforehand.
quote:There is a difference between obvious metaphor and/or parable and saying "Oh, that whole story there is a metaphor, even though there's no reason to think so except for its obvious falsehood."
I allow for the possibility of metaphor in the Bible because Jesus said he was the gate to the sheepfold, and it's obvious he didn't mean that he had hinges installed on him and people moved him to let sheep out.
quote:But the bronze age humans are part of the equation when you judge Scripture. You are judging a "picture" of God drawn by the bronze age humans. Here is a (necessarily imperfect)analogy*. A child who owns two crayons - orange and blue - sees a beautiful flower and draws a picture of it and gives it to you. The child is a remarkable artist for a three year old and the picture is beautiful. But it isn't a photograph. The colours are limited by the crayons that the child has, he only drew three leaves, there is no sense of perspective and depth. You wouldn't assume that, as beautiful as the drawing is, that the whole flower is conveyed accurately and completely by the drawing.
Because I'm judging god, not bronze age humans.
quote:You could spend years, a lifetime, learning the accumulated scholarly research of centuries. You could study the work of people who have done that. There are probably hundreds of thousands of books that explain scripture. We don't assume that we can understand Shakespeare without some knowledge, study etc. this is considerably more true when reading ancient religious texts.
I have asked this before many times too. What parts are to be taken literally, and what parts metaphorically? How do you know?
quote:So what you call "Truth" here is actually a pretty bald-faced "lie." The Bible presents it as if it happened; it's clearly not intended to be read as parable, even if it IS parable.
Bear in mind that this was written around the time of the revolt and the destruction of the Second Temple. It looked very much as if the Jewish people were in danger of being withered, scattered, possibly destroyed.
quote:It does not matter to me what qualms you may have.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:I'm not using your inane "party" nomenclature. The Midianites tried, twice, to wipe us out. We wiped them out both in response and to prevent them from trying again. I have no qualms about that whatsoever.
Originally posted by Mucus:
Not particularly, omitting the the spin, the only changes are that Party C now kills some of group A in part 4) before giving instructions in part 2) (a change which makes it seem even less fair) and that the instructions are changed from targeting the males and non-virgins to "all but wiping them out."
quote:What's your evidence of that?
They would have understood it as it was meant to be understood.
quote:I'm of the opinion that any time you start requiring an oral tradition to explain your scripture, you've pretty much moved beyond the utility of the scripture.
And it is possible that Jesus did zap a fig tree - which would have been understood as a prophecy regarding the "fruitlessness" of the Pharisees and the destruction of the Temple.
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
What we call the Old Testament is a record of one people's understanding of God from the perspective of people who lived in a fairly brutal culture.
Why do atheists and agnostics insist on taking the Scriptures more literally than most Christians take them?
quote:As odd as Counter Bean may be, he actually has a point here. Many Christians are amiable people, do not take the scriptures literally, and live peaceful non-offensive lives.
Originally posted by Counter Bean:
The fact of the matter is that so long as the majority of Muslims do nothing, they are not politically significant. They are a null program. If they want to learn from the lessons of history then they need get a handle on their crazy folk before we need to do it ...
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Rivka, how useful! (A case where utility is a good thing!)
Ok, so I really should have added the phrase "in scripture."
quote:Does a parent have the right to kill his child? To rape it? To dash its head against a stone and be made happy thereby? We recognise limits on parental authority, even though those limits are broader than those on mere adult authority. If those bounds are overstepped, we call the parent evil. A spanking is one thing; we speak here of killing and rape, not being sent to bed without supper.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:The analogy doesn't speak to the concrete used. It speaks to the dynamic. I'm surprised to see you make that mistake.
Originally posted by King of Men:
I don't think that's a good analogy. Genocide is not the equivalent of being sent to your room, it's the equivalent of being told to kill your brother or else you're going to get it yourself. The flood is not being sent to bed without supper, it's being hung upside-down in the basement and hit with baseball bats. We would consider such parents evil even if they only did it to their own children.
We weren't told "Kill the Midianites or God will kill you." We were told "The Midianites killed you and will do it again, so kill them."
quote:OK. It wasn't clear to me what you meant.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There is a difference between obvious metaphor and/or parable and saying "Oh, that whole story there is a metaphor, even though there's no reason to think so except for its obvious falsehood."
I allow for the possibility of metaphor in the Bible because Jesus said he was the gate to the sheepfold, and it's obvious he didn't mean that he had hinges installed on him and people moved him to let sheep out.
quote:I think your definition of "utility" is broken if you can imagine any situation in which it would not be a significant goal.
Not all of us consider "utility" a significant goal.
quote:In that case, the text fulfills no useful purpose.
That is why useful understanding requires going beyond the text.
quote:That's true of a chemistry paper, an engineering specification, and often even works of fiction, but I think it's fair to suggest that the historical context of a collection of ancient stories should be considered. If the author of a text or speech expected it to be interpreted in a certain way because that's how people at a given place and time tended to interpret texts and speeches, we probably ought to consider that when we read it or listen to it millennia after the fact.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:In that case, the text fulfills no useful purpose.
That is why useful understanding requires going beyond the text.
quote:But we don't know that's how the author intended it. We're looking at this, concluding that it's inconsistent, and then proceeding from the assumption that there must have been a different authorial intent to justify our desire to reinterpret the written scripture. It's the failing inherent in any analysis of "authorial intent," be it fiction or scripture; the reader's will will always be imposed on the author's in that situation.
If the author of a text or speech expected it to be interpreted in a certain way because that's how people at a given place and time tended to interpret texts and speeches, we probably ought to consider that when we read it or listen to it millennia after the fact.
quote:I think it depends on the purpose of the text. What's the point of the Bible?
If I pick up an advanced chemistry paper with no knowledge of context, abbreviations, specialized vocabulary, and very little understanding of chemistry would you say that the paper was useless because I didn't properly understand it?
quote:"No" useful purpose? Maybe not the useful purpose that you'd assumed, but your conclusion doesn't follow.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:In that case, the text fulfills no useful purpose.
That is why useful understanding requires going beyond the text.
quote:Human beings can find meaning in anything. When bothering to read God's instructions to His creation, I would prefer that I find His instructions instead of what I choose to bring to the text.
Just because it is beyond your expertise and mine, doesn't mean that human beings can't ever find meaning in it.
quote:If this was in response to me, you are defending where I have not attacked. The question was quite general: If a text is so vague that opposing interpretations (that is, "You should do X" and "You should not do X") are equally valid, can we agree that this text is useless? As an example, consider the following pseudo-scripture:
And again. "Takes some work to understand" is not the same thing as vague and without meaning.
quote:Nope. It's just that Kate has said that she believes the Bible is divinely inspired, but that God apparently didn't bother to clear up issues of interpretation when inspiring people. I think that's a major failing of any such inspiration.
You know, boots has been pretty clear in her approach to this and has stated it many times, so much so that I'm beginning to think that Tom is being deliberately obtuse.
quote:Um I dunno how about, 2Peter 1:19-21
Originally posted by kmbboots:
First explain what you mean by "had a hand in" and specifically what part of the scriptures.
quote:So that's would be why even the Gospels contradict themselves, then? Or - wait, I know - that's the part your god isn't inspiring?
It is for that reason that the scriptures are more accurate then what the mere recollections of normal men are capable of, because God himself actually dictated some of the events and words to his prophets who wrote them down. Its why we know so much minute detail of Christ's ministry because even though his apostles wrote after the fact they were promised the Holy Ghost would bring those events and words to their rememberence.
quote:We all existed before living on this earth, according to record most of us were extremely pleased to take the next step in emulating God by coming to earth, 1/3rd of God's children were persuaded by Satan to believe otherwise and they chose an alternate path, filled with misery BTW. So yes us being born on earth is a result of our choice that God allowed us to make we should be grateful for the chance to experience mortality.
1: Creating humanity - This is an unasked-for boon. Would you say that children should be grateful to their parents for the mere fact of their existence?
quote:Dag pointed this out but we did not STEAL our own agency. God put us in a situation where the human parents Adam and Eve could choose to remain in blissful ignorance or experience true joy in knowing good and evil in full and opting for good. It is a mistake to believe they were deceived into making the crucial choice they made.
2: Giving humanity its agency - Humanity wasn't given agency. Humanity stole it and was punished for it. Most charitably, it can be said that humanity paid for agency.
quote:God does not need to explain what is right and wrong as he himself already follows the righteous code to perfection. He didn't set the rules, he simply knows them. He has stewardship over us and He asks that we trust his superior wisdom and follow his example. As we put our faith in him he enlightens our understanding to the excellency of His way.
3: Instructing the first humans as to what was right and wrong. As well as teaching them a system of speech and written language. - God enumerates what is "right" and "wrong" with no explanation, and goes to some lengths to keep further knowledge from His children. Additionally, He later sees fit to obfuscate speech and written language once mankind gets too uppity. Indian giver.
quote:Perhaps I am. But isn't it one thing to let people make a choice then BANG, intervene, and quite another to let people make choices and observe the long term effects of those choices? We are even allowed to pursue our own preference on a multitude of topics for which there IS no right or wrong answer.
4: Allowed human beings to reject those teachings and learn for themselves what the results of their decisions are. - I think you're restating #2, here.
quote:Again, incorrect. God did not define what is right and wrong, he exemplifies what is good perfectly and thus anything that does not fall into that example is evil. It says in the scriptures that the natural disposition of men is to be carnal sensual and devilish, but we still have the capacity for greatness and godlike behavior. It is a challenge to choose to pursue that which is excellent and discard that which is easy yet wrong. Yes God knew many of his children would fail and get themselves kicked out of heaven and be in a worse state then they were before they came to earth. But he still had to give us the opportunity to decide what direction we want to go in. According to God there is no static condition, we are always progressing or always falling.
5: Provided a way for ALL mankind to overcome the ill effects of sinful behavior. - Only after He decided what the ill effects of sinful behavior would be, and then declared what would be sinful behavior -- with full knowledge, mind you, of how many people would commit sinful behavior by His definition and be punished according to His punishments.
quote:It falls back into agency, God does more then enough to make his words known, it is the agency of men that corrupts those teachings and makes them inaccessible to other people. All God has said on this topic is that all will be made right in the end and we will still be able to live lives where we are expected to live according to whatever truth we ARE given.
6: Systematically manifested himself to those who would listen thus preserving these teachings. - But not so systematically that even all the various Judeo-Christian sects agree on them.
quote:I am referring to Joseph in Egypt who saved the Egyptians and his entire family from famine after being sold into slavery and rising into a position of power. The famine in this instance was not a result of iniquity, at least the Bible does not suggest it was. Rather God knew the famine would occur and positioned Joseph to be a in a situation where he could demonstrate the power of God's wisdom.
7: Saved the ancient patriarchs are their children from famine. - After sending the famine as punishment.
quote:Again God did not command the Egyptians to enslave the Hebrews or command the Hebrews to allow themselves to be enslaved. The Egyptians using that same agency that all men have enslaved the Hebrews and abused them. When the Hebrews asked God to deliver them God listened and sent them deliverance.
8: Delivered the patriarchs descendants when their hosts the Egyptians plunged them into slavery - After sending them into slavery.
quote:I am speaking of the Jews in this instance, rather then simply discarding them he carefully crafted a law that would suit them according to their natures/culture. A law that would keep them in constant remembrance of the God who sustained them.
9: Accepted their stubborn and rebellious natures and provided a law wherewith they could be tempered and become a wonderful people. - You think God "accepted" the stubborn rebellion of mankind and "tempered" them into wonderfulness? Or are you speaking purely of the Jews as a chosen people? Bear in mind that we're discussing the Old Testament God, who the last we see of Him is busy driving the Jews out of Israel as punishment for their stubborn rebelliousness.
quote:Seems you did not read many of the preceding verses of the ones you quoted. Rape was capital offense in most cases. Only in the instances where the woman (if she was betrothed or married) objected, is the death sentence commuted. And in the verses you quoted it is not clear if the virginal woman is being raped or simply having sex with a man. Making the man pay 50 shekels and marrying the woman he had raped certainly would deter folks rolling around in the hay spontaneously and it would deter quite a few men from acting on their lusts.
Why is it unlikely? There are precedents indicating Moses and the Israelites didn't find rape as objectionable as we find it today. Consider for example Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
quote:Oh please, it wasn't for lack of trying Euripides.
And the Nazis didn't get all the Jews, either.
quote:Um...nope, the Nazis are not perfect and thus do not have a perfect understanding of all that is. If God was directing their actions then yes. God has not informed me that this is the case, so I continue to condemn their actions.
You give god the benefit of the doubt in saying that there could be a complicated higher reason for acting immorally. Would you extend the same possibility to the Nazis?
quote:Bear that in mind the next time somebody says OJ getting off with murder was terrible, your response if you are honest should be, "Sparing people from jail and being executed is a good thing, I am not judging OJ I am judging judge Ito."
Because I'm judging god, not bronze age humans.
quote:What? God did not tell the Babylonians, "Hey go take some shots at Israel!" and though God can certainly cause a drought he can also know one is coming and refuse to inform his people while they are acting in a wicked manned, see the example of Joseph I cited for Tom. As for killing not being the same as not letting somebody borrow your car, in my analogy its a difference in magnitude not in kind. God is not obligated to protect people when they do not want his protection. And God killing his own creations is NOT the same thing as you or me killing them. God has stewardship over all humanity, neither of us have that. When we commit murder we are knowingly going against the will of God who has put all men on this earth. Only He (without mistake) can decide when it is best that they live or die. He may or may not delegate part of that responsibility to human beings.
It's very very different. God created those foreign armies and droughts, and knowingly allowing people to be killed does not compare with refusing to loan someone your car.
quote:Yes, yes it was, much better. The only short coming that I am willing to place on the Law of Moses is that it was a step below what God wished to give the Israelites. But since they were not ready for his more excellent law he prepared them with the Law of Moses.
Do you seriously want to start cataloguing the evils of other religions at the time? Was the law of Moses much better?
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Perhaps we could start at the beginning. Can we agree that a text is useless if it is so vague that anyone can read anything at all into it?
quote:Beginning. Heh. Tom is like a kitten scratching his favorite post.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
You know, boots has been pretty clear in her approach to this and has stated it many times, so much so that I'm beginning to think that Tom is being deliberately obtuse.
quote:I shouldn't think they are FAR different, but I would be appreciative if you could explain to me what you believe those two scriptures are saying if not that the Holy Ghost inspired holy men to write what they did.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
BB, you and I have different ideas of Scripture.
Tom, in my understanding of Scripture, inspired is not the same as dictated.
quote:lol, I'll agree with you on that.
Let me just observe that "Pearls Before Swing" would be the greatest band name ev-ar.
quote:You do realize that I've done a fair bit of Bible study, right, and disagree with a lot of it?
Most mainstream Christians believe in the importance of some study.
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
What we call the Old Testament is a record of one people's understanding of God from the perspective of people who lived in a fairly brutal culture.
Why do atheists and agnostics insist on taking the Scriptures more literally than most Christians take them?
quote:Ironically, Lisa sums up my feelings on why agnostics and atheists probably insist on interpreting the Scriptures literally.
Originally posted by Lisa:
Any ideology that separates people into "us" and "them" is guilty of that. Religion is just one very big one. Or rather, one very big set of them.
...
If I wasn't convinced that it was true, I wouldn't have anything to do with it
...
The only justification for religion, in my opinion, is if it is true. Literally true. Otherwise, it's just one more division between people, and one more cause of grief and suffering.
quote:It's not so ironic. I'm an atheist (or agnostic, at the very least) by temperment. I'm not just mouthing platitudes when I say that I'm not like most theists.
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Ironically, Lisa sums up my feelings on why agnostics and atheists probably insist on interpreting the Scriptures literally.
Originally posted by Lisa:
Any ideology that separates people into "us" and "them" is guilty of that. Religion is just one very big one. Or rather, one very big set of them.
...
If I wasn't convinced that it was true, I wouldn't have anything to do with it
...
The only justification for religion, in my opinion, is if it is true. Literally true. Otherwise, it's just one more division between people, and one more cause of grief and suffering.
quote:Filled with misery? I'm interested to know exactly where you got this idea. Even if they willingly condemned themselves to a path filled with misery, maybe you should stop and consider why they would do this and consider the possibility that their sacrifice actually means something, BTW.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
We all existed before living on this earth, according to record most of us were extremely pleased to take the next step in emulating God by coming to earth, 1/3rd of God's children were persuaded by Satan to believe otherwise and they chose an alternate path, filled with misery BTW.
quote:Although you might admit that if God did explain what is right and wrong it would be really really handy for, you know, making our own decisions and stuff.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
God does not need to explain what is right and wrong as he himself already follows the righteous code to perfection.
quote:I have read those passages from Isaiah before, and I am pretty certain they are talking about an actual person, not a supernatural being. If you follow the link presented on “Lucifer” it even says that those are all names for the King of Babylon. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I was under the impression he was merely human.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Devil Dreamt:
The Pearl of Great price spells out Satan's fall from grace, but even if we use the Bible,
" Isaiah 14:12-15 (continue reading if you wish to, it certainly says alot about Satan, and that coupled with Peter's description, "Like a lion prowling about seeking whom he can destroy," paints a pretty distinct picture of the devil.
quote:Just to be clear, I never said this was the case. However I am not willing to chalk up multitudes of glaring inconsistencies and examples of evil to an 'incomplete understanding.'
The idea that Scripture could be understood by anybody just as it's written without any special scholarship is a fairly new concept. As I understand it, it grew in 19 century America as a response to what was seen (probably rightly) as an elitist view of religion.
quote:Except that 'picture' contains many unambiguous moral instructions and examples of evil. If the child in your analogy drew a spider next to the flower, would you have grounds for ignoring the spider and seeing only the flower?
quote:But the bronze age humans are part of the equation when you judge Scripture. You are judging a "picture" of God drawn by the bronze age humans. Here is a (necessarily imperfect)analogy*. A child who owns two crayons - orange and blue - sees a beautiful flower and draws a picture of it and gives it to you. The child is a remarkable artist for a three year old and the picture is beautiful. But it isn't a photograph. The colours are limited by the crayons that the child has, he only drew three leaves, there is no sense of perspective and depth. You wouldn't assume that, as beautiful as the drawing is, that the whole flower is conveyed accurately and completely by the drawing.
Because I'm judging god, not bronze age humans.
quote:Again, I understand this and the literary theories which rightly argue that total objectivity in a text is simply impossible. Yet there are moral absolutes in the bible, and even the metaphorical meanings of passages are often ugly. What kind of message is one to draw from Abraham and Isaac's story? You would have to twist rhetoric and manufacture arguments to conclude that it is anything other than that blind obedience to god is the right way.
quote:You could spend years, a lifetime, learning the accumulated scholarly research of centuries. You could study the work of people who have done that. There are probably hundreds of thousands of books that explain scripture. We don't assume that we can understand Shakespeare without some knowledge, study etc. this is considerably more true when reading ancient religious texts.
I have asked this before many times too. What parts are to be taken literally, and what parts metaphorically? How do you know?
quote:That's fascinating, but are adulters still going to hell?
Often the writing was hugely symbolic, and Jesus's actions were also symbolic much of the time. One example: when a gospel writer says that "Jesus stood" or "Jesus sat" that is significant to the listener, it is a clue about what is coming next. Body position was symbolic. If I recall, sitting was a teaching position, "Jesus sat" would be a clue to the listener that what comes next is a lesson.
quote:I don't know much at all about this example. I wasn't the one to bring it up in this thread though. And yes, I understand that understanding certain passages can be extremely complicated.
For example: The Fig Tree
quote:If we're refering to Jesus' life time, iron was around for over a millenium in the Middle East. Moses, I can't be sure about, especially since we can't date his existence accurately. IIRC the Hittites were the about the first to introduce iron weapons into the region. Wikipedia says maybe 14th century BCE.
*I am not calling Bronze Age (someone tell me if it is indeed Bronze Age) Jews children. I am talking about human understanding of God in general.
quote:The preceding examples prescribe capital punishment, yes. But can you show me evidence that the actual verses I cited prescribe a fine and an obligation to marry, rather than execution? And yes it is quite clear that it is rape; it is preceded by "lay hold on her" and is one among a list of other rape laws.
quote:Seems you did not read many of the preceding verses of the ones you quoted. Rape was capital offense in most cases. Only in the instances where the woman (if she was betrothed or married) objected, is the death sentence commuted. And in the verses you quoted it is not clear if the virginal woman is being raped or simply having sex with a man.
Why is it unlikely? There are precedents indicating Moses and the Israelites didn't find rape as objectionable as we find it today. Consider for example Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
quote:Do you care about the woman and her choices?
Making the man pay 50 shekels and marrying the woman he had raped certainly would deter folks rolling around in the hay spontaneously and it would deter quite a few men from acting on their lusts.
quote:So it wouldn't be genocide if they made an exception for a certain subset of Jews? Like, say, collaborators?
quote:Oh please, it wasn't for lack of trying Euripides.
And the Nazis didn't get all the Jews, either.
quote:Can you tell me then; what is the difference between you and a religiously motivated terrorist, except your understanding of god's will?
quote:Um...nope, the Nazis are not perfect and thus do not have a perfect understanding of all that is. If God was directing their actions then yes. God has not informed me that this is the case, so I continue to condemn their actions.
You give god the benefit of the doubt in saying that there could be a complicated higher reason for acting immorally. Would you extend the same possibility to the Nazis?
quote:How does that follow? I claimed that god's decision to smite the Israelites with plagues was evil. The fact that the Israelites acted immorally is not an excuse to me. Especially if god is the arbiter of good and evil, and apparently is all good and no evil.
quote:Bear that in mind the next time somebody says OJ getting off with murder was terrible, your response if you are honest should be, "Sparing people from jail and being executed is a good thing, I am not judging OJ I am judging judge Ito."
Because I'm judging god, not bronze age humans.
quote:No, he didn't tell the Babylonians to attack. But he created the Babylonians in the first place.
What? God did not tell the Babylonians, "Hey go take some shots at Israel!" and though God can certainly cause a drought he can also know one is coming and refuse to inform his people while they are acting in a wicked manned, see the example of Joseph I cited for Tom.
quote:Okay, thanks for the information on the lost nuances.
Also, the Hebrew term that's translated as "fear" means that, but it isn't synonymous with the English word in all its senses and connotations. It also means "awe". It also means "respect", in the sense of respecting and recognizing the relative positions of two or more parties. When we talk about fearing God, we don't mean cowering at an omnipotent being with lightning bolts at his disposal. We're talking about recognizing who God is and what His status is vis a vis us.
quote:Not sure if I understand what you are asking, the fine/marriage requirement are stated during and right after the verses you stated. Are you a Hebrew linguist? How do you know "lay hold of her" is a synonymous with "against her will?"
The preceding examples prescribe capital punishment, yes. But can you show me evidence that the actual verses I cited prescribe a fine and an obligation to marry, rather than execution? And yes it is quite clear that it is rape; it is preceded by "lay hold on her" and is one among a list of other rape laws.
quote:Don't ask questions you already know the answer to, of course I care about the woman and her choices, but as stated before the law of moses was not the perfect law of the gospel, it was a preparatory law, (at least to Christians it was.) And it has nothing to do with, "Screaming loud enough" it has to do with objecting to it in the first place. I seriously doubt if you gagged a girl or rendered her unconscious that she could then be liable and executed. Perhaps the oral torah sheds some light on these verses, ask some of our sons/daughters of Abraham hatrackers.
Do you care about the woman and her choices?
What do you make of the rule regarding rape victims who don't scream loud enough when being "humbled" in the city?
quote:Funny, usually intent is what is used to describe an action. Its how murder becomes manslaughter, and mistaken becomes perjury. If you want to cling to what was done, then yes, a people of a specific ethnicity were killed by the Israelites. But if the Midianites were some sort of conglomeration of ethnic groups like say the US the Israelites would have still done what they did. I think intent is more important then just misleadingly dropping the, "genocide" label, especially since genocide is usually used to describe something that was intended, Enders Game notwithstanding.
So it wouldn't be genocide if they made an exception for a certain subset of Jews? Like, say, collaborators?
You argued that the Midianite incident was technically not genocide because the virgins were spared. Is it always intent that defines genocide, or the act of destroying or mostly destroying a people?
quote:What's the difference between you and an atheist who thinks the religious are a dangerous liability that need to be eliminated?
Can you tell me then; what is the difference between you and a religiously motivated terrorist, except your understanding of god's will?
quote:Well good luck with your trying to make normal human beings better without using negative reinforcement at all.
How does that follow? I claimed that god's decision to smite the Israelites with plagues was evil. The fact that the Israelites acted immorally is not an excuse to me. Especially if god is the arbiter of good and evil, and apparently is all good and no evil.
quote:So? As far as we know, He didn't make the Babylonians into the culture they became, that was their own doing. Are you suggesting God should not allow anyone who is not going to live a more or less perfect life to be born? Or else he is liable for the people who make evil choices? Well we are all glad that Jesus fall into that group, looks like the rest of us are screwed.
No, he didn't tell the Babylonians to attack. But he created the Babylonians in the first place.
quote:Bear in mind that you're saying this to God. Does He need the luck?
Well good luck with your trying to make normal human beings better without using negative reinforcement at all.
quote:Negativge reinforcement? This is how you refer to killing off several thousand people using nasty diseases? These are real people, you know. They bled and screamed and quite likely pleaded for mercy. They're not some abstract characters in an old book that you can just wave off as 'negative reinforcement'. I have to wonder how you'd refer to the Holocaust if you believed it had been ordered by your god. Endlosung, perchance?
Well good luck with your trying to make normal human beings better without using negative reinforcement at all.
quote:Well, considering that rape is the generally accepted translation of that verse and it's directly preceded by other laws referring to rape (which you've already conceded), I think the onus is on you to show how it isn't rape.
How do you know "lay hold of her" is a synonymous with "against her will?"
quote:I'm talking about Deuteronomy 22:24. There is another verse following it regarding rape in a field (i.e. not in the city or near people) which 'excuses' the rape victim from punishment because there would have been no one there to help her if she had cried out. It's not about objecting or not; it's about crying out and getting help.
And it has nothing to do with, "Screaming loud enough" it has to do with objecting to it in the first place. I seriously doubt if you gagged a girl or rendered her unconscious that she could then be liable and executed.
quote:Many Nazis thought they were cleansing the earth's genetic pool. In the case of genocide, international precedent has been to try war criminals according to their crimes rather than their intent. Though I'll concede that is not always the case. Speer for example is a grey area. He was largely responsible for keeping the German war machine running in its final years, and may not have had a direct hand in the Holocaust (though he probably knew about the shipments of supplies - and people - headed to the concentration camps). I'd say he knew enough to not want to know more.
Funny, usually intent is what is used to describe an action.
quote:The difference is that I consider genocide inherently to be a moral abomination. Whereas you've said that genocide would not be evil, or would be morally justifiable in the name of some cause, if it were directed by god:
quote:What's the difference between you and an atheist who thinks the religious are a dangerous liability that need to be eliminated?
Can you tell me then; what is the difference between you and a religiously motivated terrorist, except your understanding of god's will?
quote:It seems to follow that you don't find genocide to be inherently immoral, and that you would be okay with acts we consider heinously immoral today so long as they were "directed by god." That is unless you're willing to concede that god engages in 'necessary evils' for some reason, and is not purely good.
quote:Um...nope, the Nazis are not perfect and thus do not have a perfect understanding of all that is. If God was directing their actions then yes. God has not informed me that this is the case, so I continue to condemn their actions.
You give god the benefit of the doubt in saying that there could be a complicated higher reason for acting immorally. Would you extend the same possibility to the Nazis?
quote:Negative reinforcement? Like jail terms and fines? You know, even those don't work as well as a good education system does.
Well good luck with your trying to make normal human beings better without using negative reinforcement at all.
quote:I forgot that you don't necessarily believe god is omniscient.
quote:So? As far as we know, He didn't make the Babylonians into the culture they became, that was their own doing.
No, he didn't tell the Babylonians to attack. But he created the Babylonians in the first place.
quote:Is smiting people with plagues really equivilent to all forms of negative reinforcement? I think there are maybe a few things you can do that are slightly lower in degree than this.
Well good luck with your trying to make normal human beings better without using negative reinforcement at all.
quote:Beautiful sig.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
- "I don't think it's right to shoot your kids."
- "Yeah, well you try to get them to behave without punishing them in any way whatsoever."
quote:The Book of Mormon makes it even more clear,
Filled with misery? I'm interested to know exactly where you got this idea. Even if they willingly condemned themselves to a path filled with misery, maybe you should stop and consider why they would do this and consider the possibility that their sacrifice actually means something, BTW.
quote:I already stated as much, by trusting God we can learn through personal experience the superiority of his way.
Although you might admit that if God did explain what is right and wrong it would be really really handy for, you know, making our own decisions and stuff.
quote:I'm not saying that to God, I'm saying it to Euripides.
Bear in mind that you're saying this to God. Does He need the luck?
quote:Oh grow up, I take the death of a human being every bit as seriously as you do, your the one who jokes about once you are in charge removing all traces of religion from civilization by violence if necessary. God says time and time again to the Israelites once they settled in Canaan and got down to the business of being wicked in effect, "Had the Canaanites been decent people I would have allowed them to continue living on the land you now live in." The God's people in the Book of Mormon actually at one time surpass in wickedness everyone on the continent and God allows them to kill each other into extinction with internal wars. And are you railing on God for managing his creations period or for using human beings as an instrument?
Negativge reinforcement? This is how you refer to killing off several thousand people using nasty diseases? These are real people, you know. They bled and screamed and quite likely pleaded for mercy. They're not some abstract characters in an old book that you can just wave off as 'negative reinforcement'. I have to wonder how you'd refer to the Holocaust if you believed it had been ordered by your god. Endlosung, perchance?
quote:generally accepted sez you, <looks around for Lisa>.
Well, considering that rape is the generally accepted translation of that verse and it's directly preceded by other laws referring to rape (which you've already conceded), I think the onus is on you to show how it isn't rape.
quote:You presume too much, do you know what the "tokens of viginity" are? I get the impression you are simply guessing.
And again, there are precedents for such cruelty, so there's little reason to be surprised. For example, if a newly wed couple make love and the husband claims that his wife is not a virgin, she could be executed unless proof of her virginity is produced. Presumably in the form of bloodied bedsheets.
quote:OK so the Nazis are hypocrites and inconsistent in what they SAID they were trying to do. And seeing how the genetic pool has never asked anybody to clean it, its amazing how many people are willing to try anyway.
If your argument regarding the Midianite case though is that it wasn't genocide because the Israelites deliberately left the virgins alive, then consider that the Nazis deliberately left certain collaborators alive, even among Jews (Kapos, Jewish police).
quote:Inherently a moral abomination huh? Well we will have to disagree then, I think there ARE instances where genocide is preferable to extinction, like say if a disease germinated in a certain country of such devastation the country had to be completely obliterated to prevent it from spreading.
The difference is that I consider genocide inherently to be a moral abomination. Whereas you've said that genocide would not be evil, or would be morally justifiable in the name of some cause, if it were directed by god:
quote:OK look, what is inherently wrong with a human being taking the life of another human being? What is inherently wrong with God bring to a close the mortality of his creation? Especially in view of the idea that this life is not the only time men and women have to live? I see murder and killing as wrong as I am using my agency to terminate the agency of another human being. I am wiping out all the possibilities of tomorrow in this world for him, whether he is prepared or unprepared to meet God, I have sent him to the next life anyway. I have in effect played God with another man's life when I am not God.
That is unless you're willing to concede that god engages in 'necessary evils' for some reason, and is not purely good.
quote:And look, God publishes his teachings and attempts to educate people. But even you have to concede that fines and jail time are preferable to no jails, no fines, or only jail/only fines.
Negative reinforcement? Like jail terms and fines? You know, even those don't work as well as a good education system does.
quote:Actually I do, but omniscient does not mean "Aware of all that is, and makes all that is so." Unless again you believe that if God knowingly does not stop me from say falling over, that its God's fault I fell.
I forgot that you don't necessarily believe god is omniscient
quote:As I said before God does not have a "to smite or not to smite" policy. If you read the Bible and think God does nothing but smite people you have seriously missed MOST of the passages found therein. I really cannot tell if people are arguing that God should not ever kill his own creation regardless of what they do, that people are unable to rationally and justly end the lives of other human beings on a large scale, or that God has punished humanity too much.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Is smiting people with plagues really equivilent to all forms of negative reinforcement? I think there are maybe a few things you can do that are slightly lower in degree than this.
Well good luck with your trying to make normal human beings better without using negative reinforcement at all.
---
- "I don't think it's right to shoot your kids."
- "Yeah, well you try to get them to behave without punishing them in any way whatsoever."
quote:Its been said many times before, but in the Midianites case I suspect they went to the spirit realm, where they would be informed of the truth. The truth would either move them into a state of sorrow followed by repentance, or else some would remain committed to their evil mindset and eventually find themselves in a place that is not heaven.
Originally posted by camus:
Kate and BlackBlade,
What are your individual beliefs regarding what happened to the souls of the Midianites after they were killed? For those that believe that God was responsible for those deaths, then whatever afterlife these people were ushered into should be taken into account when judging the morality of this event.
quote:I'm sorry, I am not feeling well today, and I have been up and down over the last 1.5 weeks, I somewhat understand what you are saying, but could you restate it alittle more simply so there is no chance of mistake on my part?
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Yeah, but you responded with "I think it was evil to smite them with plagues with what I quoted." I'm talking about the Bible, in toto. I'm talking about your non sequitor response to a challenge.
You seemed to be justifying a specifc harsh action by asserting a need for a general class of things that that action could belong to without addressing the specific action brought up. It seemed to me to be a very poor response and basically equivilent to the shoot your kids thing I posted.
quote:You responded with:
How does that follow? I claimed that god's decision to smite the Israelites with plagues was evil. The fact that the Israelites acted immorally is not an excuse to me. Especially if god is the arbiter of good and evil, and apparently is all good and no evil.
quote:I felt this was a very poor response. See, Eurip was talking about a specific instance where he felt what God did was wrong. You responded by not addressing this specific instance, but instead implying that there was a need for "negative reinforcement". Euripides never said there wasn't. He was taking issue with a particular case that could fall under the heading of negative reinforcement.
Well good luck with your trying to make normal human beings better without using negative reinforcement at all.
quote:Out of more than 2 billion Christians. Also, historically it is a relatively new (between 100 and 200 years) method of interpreting Scripture.
Originally posted by Mucus:
The other point is that you insist on painting people who believe in the literal truth of the Bible as some radical small group. The problem is that its not particularly true, the group is still pretty sizable at about 28% of Americans (link) or about 84 million Americans or so.
quote:OH IC, I responded in the way I did because I was fairly certain that Euripides was not suggesting that God would knowingly make an evil decision. If Euripides does believe that, we really can't have any further discussion, therefore I thought he was suggesting that commanding the midianites be killed was evil because punishing people period is evil.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Sure.
Euripides said:quote:You responded with:
How does that follow? I claimed that god's decision to smite the Israelites with plagues was evil. The fact that the Israelites acted immorally is not an excuse to me. Especially if god is the arbiter of good and evil, and apparently is all good and no evil.quote:I felt this was a very poor response. See, Eurip was talking about a specific instance where he felt what God did was wrong. You responded by not addressing this specific instance, but instead implying that there was a need for "negative reinforcement". Euripides never said there wasn't. He was taking issue with a particular case that could fall under the heading of negative reinforcement.
Well good luck with your trying to make normal human beings better without using negative reinforcement at all.
In the same way, if I said "Hey, I don't think you should shoot your kids." and someone responded with "Yeah, well good luck getting them to behave without disciplining them." they would not have answered my challenge at all.
quote:Killing them was not a sin. God commanded it.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
camus, my answer is not dissimilar to BlackBlade's. I believe they were in relationship to God (should they choose) and were able to understand the truth. I think the same for the Jews that killed them. I hope both groups repented for the wrong they had done and were forgiven, both by God and by each other.
I don't think this particularly mitigates the sin of what was done on either side.
quote:Clearly kmbboots does not believe that is so Lisa.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Killing them was not a sin. God commanded it.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
camus, my answer is not dissimilar to BlackBlade's. I believe they were in relationship to God (should they choose) and were able to understand the truth. I think the same for the Jews that killed them. I hope both groups repented for the wrong they had done and were forgiven, both by God and by each other.
I don't think this particularly mitigates the sin of what was done on either side.
quote:If God could use an angel to kill 185,000 Assyrians in a night, why couldn't he have done the same here? That would have prevented any deaths to the Israelites resulting from the battle, and it would have removed any ambiguity over whether it was God's command or not.
Killing them was not a sin. God commanded it.
quote:I apologize that my example wasn't exciting enough for you. It was supposed to be an example of how what we see as actions are often symbols.
Originally posted by Euripides:
I understand your position that the bible can't be taken at face value, and I fully agree. And while your insistence that there are thousands of books out there to explain scripture and that you yourself don't have sufficient understanding to explain which parts are metaphor does smack of 'hiding behind obfuscation,' I can accept that this would be the case because there are plenty of humanists who have a very limited understanding of secular moral philosophy.
What I can't accept is giving that argument a blank cheque and making a conscious effort to ignore the ugly bits and whitewash god (and resolving paradoxes). Were all those plagues metaphor? Did god really mean that you were supposed to stone poeple for doing this and that? Does one really go to hell for sins like speaking blasphemies about the spirit?
The bible needs so much adjustment, correction, and reinterpretation that if it was any other historical text, it's overall validity would be highly suspect.
quote:Again, I understand this and the literary theories which rightly argue that total objectivity in a text is simply impossible. Yet there are moral absolutes in the bible, and even the metaphorical meanings of passages are often ugly. What kind of message is one to draw from Abraham and Isaac's story? You would have to twist rhetoric and manufacture arguments to conclude that it is anything other than that blind obedience to god is the right way.
quote:You could spend years, a lifetime, learning the accumulated scholarly research of centuries. You could study the work of people who have done that. There are probably hundreds of thousands of books that explain scripture. We don't assume that we can understand Shakespeare without some knowledge, study etc. this is considerably more true when reading ancient religious texts.
I have asked this before many times too. What parts are to be taken literally, and what parts metaphorically? How do you know?
quote:That's fascinating, but are adulters still going to hell?
Often the writing was hugely symbolic, and Jesus's actions were also symbolic much of the time. One example: when a gospel writer says that "Jesus stood" or "Jesus sat" that is significant to the listener, it is a clue about what is coming next. Body position was symbolic. If I recall, sitting was a teaching position, "Jesus sat" would be a clue to the listener that what comes next is a lesson.
quote:This conversation is (subject matter aside) incredibly similar to the conversations I have with people who think that a week of bitter cold in Chicago disproves global climate change. Or who think that global warming will just mean nicer weather in Canada. They think that my explanations are convoluted, too. Intuitively it seems like it makes sense, but the more you learn, the more you realize that it isn't a simple as it appears.
Sorry I've repeated myself in my response. I think the same point of not giving convoluted interpretations a blank cheque applies to most of your examples and arguments.
quote:Of course they didn't care. Women were basically property. Rape was less a crime against the woman than it was a property crime against her father or husband. As was true for most cultures at the time - and for a long time after. You are judging ancient people by modern standards. What you seem to be missing is that the relationship that the Jewish people had with God made things better than they had been before. More humane. The Law seems cruel because we don't see it in comparison to what things were like before the Law. Concepts such as care for the poor for example.
BlackBlade,
quote:Seems you did not read many of the preceding verses of the ones you quoted. Rape was capital offense in most cases. Only in the instances where the woman (if she was betrothed or married) objected, is the death sentence commuted. And in the verses you quoted it is not clear if the virginal woman is being raped or simply having sex with a man. The preceding examples prescribe capital punishment, yes. But can you show me evidence that the actual verses I cited prescribe a fine and an obligation to marry, rather than execution? And yes it is quite clear that it is rape; it is preceded by "lay hold on her" and is one among a list of other rape laws.
Why is it unlikely? There are precedents indicating Moses and the Israelites didn't find rape as objectionable as we find it today. Consider for example Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
quote:Do you care about the woman and her choices?
Making the man pay 50 shekels and marrying the woman he had raped certainly would deter folks rolling around in the hay spontaneously and it would deter quite a few men from acting on their lusts.
What do you make of the rule regarding rape victims who don't scream loud enough when being "humbled" in the city?
quote:Do I have an omnipotent God on my side?
If you're an athiest who likes to point at this story to proclaim the evils of G-d, try to imagine how you might survive a week in the time before the creation of Israel, or any time in antiquity, with the morals and ethics you clothe yourself in now.
quote:No, you're saying it to God. The hypothetical was this: you're trying to train a people without besetting them with plagues. Your argument is that this is too hard to do. But Euripides, in this hypothetical, is God.
Bear in mind that you're saying this to God. Does He need the luck?
I'm not saying that to God, I'm saying it to Euripides.
quote:She hasn't said so in so many words. Since it's a direct quote, that'd be kind of surprising.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Clearly kmbboots does not believe that is so Lisa.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Killing them was not a sin. God commanded it.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I don't think this particularly mitigates the sin of what was done on either side.
quote:It's interesting. If you read the story, God commands Moses to take revenge on the Midianites on behalf of the Israelites. Moses commands the people to take revenge on behalf of God. Neither one was doing it for themselves.
Originally posted by camus:
quote:If God could use an angel to kill 185,000 Assyrians in a night, why couldn't he have done the same here? That would have prevented any deaths to the Israelites resulting from the battle, and it would have removed any ambiguity over whether it was God's command or not.
Killing them was not a sin. God commanded it.
quote:I think the lesson is that Abraham made the wrong choice. When someone in power tells you to commit an evil action, the proper response is not unquestioning obediance. Much of the horrible things in the Bible and the history of Judaism and Christianity can be seen as contributed to by the reverence of this act.
I think the lesson in the Abraham/Isaac story is that God's wants obedience instead of human sacrifice. Human sacrifice was not a particularly uncommon thing in many cultures.
quote:Mr S. That may be the lesson you see, but its not the lesson the Bible is trying to teach.
I think the lesson is that Abraham made the wrong choice. When someone in power tells you to commit an evil action, the proper response is not unquestioning obedience.
quote:Err...aren't they, often?
Lay down your life for God and you find it. People seem to think that the religious who take that sentiment to heart are at best mindless zombies or at worst genocidal suicide bombers.
quote:Yes. I've been going on about the effects of the belief structures of religions for a while, both in this thread and in others. They're far from universally beneficial.
Even the short term results of a religion can be observed by a studious observer.
quote:Isaac wasn't his first born. Are you talking about God's slaughter of the innocent Egyptians? I'm not sure how that would be relevant.
doubtful that God under normal circumstances would ask his people as a whole to up and sacrifice their firstborns.
quote:
Originally posted by Rose the ____:
Gee, many of our people go off to some dirty orgies and come back, and -suddenly- we've got a plague! Maybe G-d's not the only reason to end the threat of these nearby people?
quote:How completely creative. If only some perpetrators of genocide had ever accused their victims of spreading disease and immorality, their crimes would be completely excused.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Inherently a moral abomination huh? Well we will have to disagree then, I think there ARE instances where genocide is preferable to extinction, like say if a disease germinated in a certain country of such devastation the country had to be completely obliterated to prevent it from spreading.
quote:Uh-huh. Your healthy, clean-minded teenagers are sleeping with their dirty sluts, so the only possible solution is to wipe them out, down to the last non-virgin. Right. Do you hear what you are actually saying?
Well, today, of course, we'd have them quarantined, and we'd look into a way to cure them of their icky VDs. germ theory didn't exist thousands of years ago, and we weren't enough of a force that people would look at us and say - uhm, let every last one of us leave our village afore we are royally spanked - so war was the only option left.
quote:Pardon me, but you have just proved that, in fact, you do not. You are quite willing to dismiss the deaths of thousands as 'negative reinforcement' if that is necessary to excuse your god of an evil act.
I take the death of a human being every bit as seriously as you do
quote:Since the morality of your god is the topic of discussion, its propaganda should not be taken at face value. Consider what you would think if the word 'Canaanites' in that sentence is replaced by 'Jews'.
God says time and time again to the Israelites once they settled in Canaan and got down to the business of being wicked in effect, "Had the Canaanites been decent people I would have allowed them to continue living on the land you now live in."
quote:His first legitimate born. God calls him his firstborn -- that's good enough.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Isaac wasn't his first born.
quote:There, fixed that for you. Incidentally, what's your source for human sacrifice by Greeks and Romans?
Because of unknown factors, the Jews stopped performing human sacrifice relatively early.
quote:God also calls him his only son.
His first legitimate born. God calls him his firstborn -- that's good enough.
quote:The Jews are hardly the only people to discount illegitimate offspring.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:God also calls him his only son.
His first legitimate born. God calls him his firstborn -- that's good enough.
There's actually only one person who meets both those requirements and it ain't Isaac.
quote:Actually, yes it is. God says so.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:God also calls him his only son.
His first legitimate born. God calls him his firstborn -- that's good enough.
There's actually only one person who meets both those requirements and it ain't Isaac.
quote:Which, as I say, deals with Mycenean Greeks. You might as well say that witch trials are part of our culture because "The Crucible" portrays them.
I'm thinking of Iphegenia at Aulis for the Greeks.
quote:Yes, but the issue is when. Quoting Homer to show that Classical Greeks practiced sacrifice is like quoting "The Crucible" to show that Americans had witch trials in the 1950s.
Witch trials were part of our culture.
quote:This is not my impression, but I could be wrong.
But the gladiator games were (originally) to please the gods, yes?
quote:Remind me again, is that a part of the Bible that is to be taken literally, or is it allegory? In any case, I don't think the Jews were necessarily unusually early in ceasing human sacrifice, but here you get into archeological evidence which Christians are generally reluctant to accept.
Many cultures at one point in their history practiced human sacrifice. Most cultures stopped. So did the Jews. The Abraham/Isaac story address that change away from human sacrifice.
quote:That female consort was an artifact of Samaritan syncretism. Even the Bible says that the Samaritan tribes worshipped Anat and Asheira along with God. And I'll buy that the Israelites in the northern kingdom did the same thing. After all, they were destroyed because of their idolatry. It's when people theorize without any basis that this came before Israelite monotheism that I have a problem.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Here it is my understanding that Biblical dating tends to disagree with dating from other sources; this also ties in with the female consort to Yahweh, which Lisa at least has absolutely refused to believe in. Not being a literalist you perhaps have less trouble with this.
quote:You can hardly argue that the change was actually caused by their gods, though, as you did with the Jews.
My guess is that their understanding of the nature of God changed as well.
quote:Yes, well - your reason for believing that monotheism came first is the oral tradition plus the Torah; since the trustworthiness of that tradition is precisely what is being doubted, oops, suddenly you don't have any evidence either. Incidentally, did you intend to respond to my last post touching the evil of genocide?
It's when people theorize without any basis that this came before Israelite monotheism that I have a problem.
quote:There's a reasonableness test. The Bible absolutely does mention people worshipping goddesses along with God. It's not like the issue is ignored.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Yes, well - your reason for believing that monotheism came first is the oral tradition plus the Torah; since the trustworthiness of that tradition is precisely what is being doubted, oops, suddenly you don't have any evidence either.
It's when people theorize without any basis that this came before Israelite monotheism that I have a problem.
quote:Can you give me a link? The pages in this thread are pretty long, and I must have missed what you said. Unless I read it and it was just you repeating what you'd already said before and what I'd already disagreed with, in which case, don't bother.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Incidentally, did you intend to respond to my last post touching the evil of genocide?
quote:Page five of this thread, 7th post on the page.
Can you give me a link?
quote:Context. The Bible mentions it as a new-fangled abomination, in the time of the temple reforms. If that were true, you would not expect to find mentions of such a practice in much older inscriptions, would you?
There's a reasonableness test. The Bible absolutely does mention people worshipping goddesses along with God. It's not like the issue is ignored.
quote:Yes, but just as often it makes for perfectly decent and upright people. Not trying to pride myself, but I consider myself neither a zombie or a suicide bomber, but I suppose my nature is up for anybody to judge. I hope you place the same protocols on science as you do on religion, will we blame science if somebody takes the terrifying miracle of the atomic bomb, places it in a suitcase and detonates it in the middle of a city? Fortunately for humanity the power of God cannot simply be reigned in when men see fit.
Err...aren't they, often?
quote:Sorta like how the benefits of all that has been called science is has not been universal? Could you pass me a leech please?
Yes. I've been going on about the effects of the belief structures of religions for a while, both in this thread and in others. They're far from universally beneficial.
quote:I'm not talking about Abraham's sacrifice per se, I am discussing the possibility of God commanding his followers to take such a drastic course of action.
Isaac wasn't his first born. Are you talking about God's slaughter of the innocent Egyptians? I'm not sure how that would be relevant.
quote:I have no idea why this statement applies to anything that has been discussed.
How completely creative. If only some perpetrators of genocide had ever accused their victims of spreading disease and immorality, their crimes would be completely excused.
What a novel idea!
quote:Consider yourself pardoned. You have not proven that the act of killing the Midianites was evil, Ill thank you for not speaking as if it is assumed that it was. I find it puzzling that you who speak so lightly of a happy world where all religion is somehow suppressed and eradicated now suddenly champion the rights of a group of people steeped in conflict, licentiousness, and violence all under the guise of an idol based religion.
Pardon me, but you have just proved that, in fact, you do not. You are quite willing to dismiss the deaths of thousands as 'negative reinforcement' if that is necessary to excuse your god of an evil act.
quote:Well since the only record we have of this incident is the Bible, I'm going to have to discard your suggestion. And if you are going to deign to call God's justification "propaganda" I have nothing more to discuss with you on this topic as you have made discussion futile.
Since the morality of your god is the topic of discussion, its propaganda should not be taken at face value. Consider what you would think if the word 'Canaanites' in that sentence is replaced by 'Jews'.
quote:This sort of parallel always baffles me. Are people destroying cities in the name of science nowadays?
I hope you place the same protocols on science as you do on religion, will we blame science if somebody takes the terrifying miracle of the atomic bomb, places it in a suitcase and detonates it in the middle of a city?
quote:Perhaps I have not been clear about how I believe God works. Referring to it as "divine intervention" would, I think, mischaracterize it. As I said, I don't know enough about Egyptian mythology to speculate, I know less about Aztec mythology. The Jews recorded their evolving relationship with God so that helps.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Ah. Well, if you're going to argue that divine intervention caused the Jews and Egyptians to cease human sacrifice 'relatively early', as you did in the post that started this, then you'll also have to accept that divine intervention caused the Aztecs to cease human sacrifice only when they were overrun by more technologically advanced peoples. As an explanation, it explains nothing.
quote:Does nuclear testing count?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:This sort of parallel always baffles me. Are people destroying cities in the name of science nowadays?
I hope you place the same protocols on science as you do on religion, will we blame science if somebody takes the terrifying miracle of the atomic bomb, places it in a suitcase and detonates it in the middle of a city?
quote:Sure thing.
Sorta like how the benefits of all that has been called science is has not been universal? Could you pass me a leech please?
quote:No; religious people, for example, are highly liable to start killing off the unbelievers, and should be pre-emptively destroyed.
Just so we are clear, are you saying that you can see no reason why an entire group of people could ever be so dangerous or destructive as to warrant removal?
quote:You did. Flippantly, even.
And quit acting like I just DISMISSED the deaths of the Midianites
quote:We know nothing of the kind. Read the thread again; the worst accusation that has been leveled against the Midianites is that some of their horrible slutty shiksas seduced good upstanding Jewish boys. Gosh, how awful.
all we know is the Midianites attacked Israel, and in response they were commanded to eradicate them.
quote:Yes, yes, "you expect". And you expect this because you have decided that your god is good, without looking at the evidence.
I've already told you many times I expect God to be able to explain completely adequately why He did what he did.
quote:WHAT? Many thousands of people die, and somehow the burden of proof is on me to show that this is a bad thing? Are you listening to yourself? How about you try to show it was a good thing?
You have not proven that the act of killing the Midianites was evil, I'll thank you for not speaking as if it is assumed that it was.
quote:According to the annals of the Jews, who violently wiped them out after a conflict caused by Jewish boys sleeping with their women. Are you sure you're being completely unbiased in your judgements, here?
a group of people steeped in conflict, licentiousness, and violence
quote:I don't care how it's done. Your exact words were "because of God". The phrase goes just as neatly into explaining why the Aztecs were still doing human sacrifice when the Spanish invaded.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Perhaps I have not been clear about how I believe God works. Referring to it as "divine intervention" would, I think, mischaracterize it. As I said, I don't know enough about Egyptian mythology to speculate, I know less about Aztec mythology. The Jews recorded their evolving relationship with God so that helps.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Ah. Well, if you're going to argue that divine intervention caused the Jews and Egyptians to cease human sacrifice 'relatively early', as you did in the post that started this, then you'll also have to accept that divine intervention caused the Aztecs to cease human sacrifice only when they were overrun by more technologically advanced peoples. As an explanation, it explains nothing.
quote:Not relevant. You find decent people everywhere; you find suicide bombers only among the religious. The conclusion must be that religion (edit) is not the only thing causing people to become decent, but is the only thing that can cause them to become suicide bombers. This is elementary logic.
Yes, but just as often it makes for perfectly decent and upright people.
quote:The first isn't true. The Jews never practiced human sacrifice.
Originally posted by King of Men:
"Because of God, the Jews stopped human sacrifice relatively early."
"Because of God, the Aztecs stopped human sacrifice relatively late."
What is the difference? You have no evidence for the first, you have no evidence for the second. Since the subject of discussion is whether the god in question is good or not, you can't use its goodness as a premise, as you are doing.
quote:It occurred that way, and it was a good thing.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Because I was having a discussion with BlackBlade and Lisa, who both believe, if I understand them correctly, that
a) The slaughter of the Midianites occurred as described
b) It was a good thing, or at least not too bad.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question: Suppose for a moment that those Bronze Age shepherders actually had the correct understanding of their god, that the universe really was that way. Would you then agree that that god was evil?
quote:And by war you mean genocide. So women from a neighbouring tribe seduce some men in your own tribe. They get STDs, and while germ theory was unheard of, the Jews like any ancient people would have been able to put two and two together and see that diseases are contagious in some way, and that intimate contact tends to result in contracting diseases. So killing them all off is the only option? Excuse me?
Well, today, of course, we'd have them quarantined, and we'd look into a way to cure them of their icky VDs. germ theory didn't exist thousands of years ago, and we weren't enough of a force that people would look at us and say - uhm, let every last one of us leave our village afore we are royally spanked - so war was the only option left.
quote:If the Israelites believed the events occurred as they're described in the book of Numbers, then yes, this is probably the message they would take away from the genocide. It's mighty unfortunate.
And then the lesson we decided to take from this, instead of - letting your children play around in orgies is a very bad idea, as you don't know what diseases they'll take from the experience - was, if G-d tells you to kill an entire people, you kill them, no questions, no griping.
quote:No, it's not. It certainly isn't obvious either.
To equate this with the Shoah is so obviously disgusting.
quote:The entire country? What about the people who made that propaganda? They had other reasons.
Nazi Germany wanted the Jews out because of propaganda that any rational thinker at the time could find his way out of.
quote:Who did? The decision to establish concentration camps was not one which was made by all the German people, while I'm convinced that a great many people knew about it to some degree; such as the Germans living in the vicinity of concentration camps actually located in Germany, like Dachau.
They lost patience with deportation and moved on to killing.
quote:They could have left themselves, or stayed away from the Midianites.
The Jewish people didn't have the power, the knowledge, the option to simply make the Midianites stop their dangerous religious practices, or make them leave.
quote:On the contrary the Israelites themselves intended to sell the survivors off as slaves. It was common practice to take prisoners, and considered heavy handed in the ancient world to annihilate cities.
the only answer for the time was war, and when you made war in those times and left survivors, you were asking for another war.
quote:Whole heartedly agreed. In fact, I'd rather not even word it as "an answer to a problem," though I realise you were just echoing the 'Final Solution' wording.
The Shoah was an answer to a problem that did not exist.
quote:This is your argument against our modern moral sensibilities?
If you're an athiest who likes to point at this story to proclaim the evils of G-d, try to imagine how you might survive a week in the time before the creation of Israel, or any time in antiquity, with the morals and ethics you clothe yourself in now.
quote:We're railing on god for behaving immorally, yet claiming to be the embodiment of good.
And are you railing on God for managing his creations period or for using human beings as an instrument?
quote:I've checked over a dozen translations. They all refer to raping, laying hold, seizing, or taking hold. Only one refers to 'speaking her into' sex. So you tell me. What's the standard interpretation?
quote:generally accepted sez you, <looks around for Lisa>.
Well, considering that rape is the generally accepted translation of that verse and it's directly preceded by other laws referring to rape (which you've already conceded), I think the onus is on you to show how it isn't rape.
quote:You ignored completely the substance of the question, but I'll humour you. Deuteronomy 22:17 refers to the father 'spreading the cloth' as evidence of her daughter's virginity. It would appear it's you who hasn't read the passages preceding the one I cited.
quote:You presume too much, do you know what the "tokens of viginity" are? I get the impression you are simply guessing.
And again, there are precedents for such cruelty, so there's little reason to be surprised. For example, if a newly wed couple make love and the husband claims that his wife is not a virgin, she could be executed unless proof of her virginity is produced. Presumably in the form of bloodied bedsheets.
quote:What are you trying to say?
OK so the Nazis are hypocrites and inconsistent in what they SAID they were trying to do. And seeing how the genetic pool has never asked anybody to clean it, its amazing how many people are willing to try anyway.
quote:It's your god who we're talking about here, and whether it was moral or not to set up a scenario in which the Israelites are obliged to commit genocide.
quote:Inherently a moral abomination huh? Well we will have to disagree then, I think there ARE instances where genocide is preferable to extinction, like say if a disease germinated in a certain country of such devastation the country had to be completely obliterated to prevent it from spreading.
The difference is that I consider genocide inherently to be a moral abomination. Whereas you've said that genocide would not be evil, or would be morally justifiable in the name of some cause, if it were directed by god:
quote:What a question to ask.
OK look, what is inherently wrong with a human being taking the life of another human being?
quote:Obviously I don't believe there is such a life. And even if I did I would consider it highly immoral to force such a decision on them.
What is inherently wrong with God bring to a close the mortality of his creation? Especially in view of the idea that this life is not the only time men and women have to live?
quote:Is your only reason for seeing murder as immoral the fact that 'it's not your place,' because you didn't create the victim?
I see murder and killing as wrong as I am using my agency to terminate the agency of another human being. I am wiping out all the possibilities of tomorrow in this world for him, whether he is prepared or unprepared to meet God, I have sent him to the next life anyway. I have in effect played God with another man's life when I am not God.
quote:Yeah, like people who wear wool and linen jumpers.
I think you are overplaying the danger of my beliefs. If we take the Bible at its word then God has only asked good people to wage war on the people who are wicked beyond correction.
quote:My point is that we have jails and fines. Those are what I think of when someone says 'negative reinforcement'. Not genocide.
But even you have to concede that fines and jail time are preferable to no jails, no fines, or only jail/only fines.
quote:Your criteria for patience are different from mine. For an omnipotent being who created the universe, herding the Israelites and (repeatedly and on many occasions) killing lots of them when they start complaining or breaking a few of that being's rules is not a sign of patience. Especially when the human impulses (which are supposedly base) were created by that being.
God is also extremely patient, he didn't punish the Israelites for every offense, he let them descend into serious iniquity before correcting them.
quote:It is god's responsibility that we live in a world where we can fall.
quote:Actually I do, but omniscient does not mean "Aware of all that is, and makes all that is so." Unless again you believe that if God knowingly does not stop me from say falling over, that its God's fault I fell.
I forgot that you don't necessarily believe god is omniscient
quote:Well, would he? Or is something moral simply by virtue of the fact that it is god doing it?
OH IC, I responded in the way I did because I was fairly certain that Euripides was not suggesting that God would knowingly make an evil decision.
quote:Asking science to provide us with moral precepts is like trying to hammer a nail using a saw. The tool you want is called moral philosophy.
I hope you place the same protocols on science as you do on religion, will we blame science if somebody takes the terrifying miracle of the atomic bomb, places it in a suitcase and detonates it in the middle of a city? Fortunately for humanity the power of God cannot simply be reigned in when men see fit.
quote:As I explicitly said, I understood that.
I apologize that my example wasn't exciting enough for you. It was supposed to be an example of how what we see as actions are often symbols.
quote:Could you explain why you believe this?
I don't think adulterers were ever going to "hell". Unless they choose to be.
quote:You've worded it more congenially, but it's still god demanding blind obedience over Abraham's own moral reasoning.
I think the lesson in the Abraham/Isaac story is that God's wants obedience instead of human sacrifice.
quote:I interpreted that as a roundabout way of calling me an idiot.
This conversation is (subject matter aside) incredibly similar to the conversations I have with people who think that a week of bitter cold in Chicago disproves global climate change. Or who think that global warming will just mean nicer weather in Canada.
quote:Actually, I don't see your arguments as convoluted. I said you tend to give more weight to convoluted interpretations of the bible that lend the desired result; a benevolent image of god. When we discuss examples of evil in the bible, you're prepared to distance god from scripture and consider him a more nebulous influence, but at the same time you're prepared to draw some fairly specific conclusions about god based on other parts of scripture.
They think that my explanations are convoluted, too. Intuitively it seems like it makes sense, but the more you learn, the more you realize that it isn't a simple as it appears.
quote:On what grounds do you judge the good bits to be absolute and the bad bits to be the unfortunate consequences of cultural incompatibility?
What you seem to be missing is that the relationship that the Jewish people had with God made things better than they had been before. More humane. The Law seems cruel because we don't see it in comparison to what things were like before the Law. Concepts such as care for the poor for example.
quote:That would be genocide as well.
No; religious people, for example, are highly liable to start killing off the unbelievers, and should be pre-emptively destroyed.
quote:Euripides is correct. Rape is not a capital crime, biblically. The only time it is is when the woman was married. And in that case, it doesn't matter if she was raped or seduced or just into it when it comes to the man. It's adultery that makes it a capital crime. The circumstances only matter for the woman.
Originally posted by Euripides:
BlackBlade,
quote:The preceding examples prescribe capital punishment, yes. But can you show me evidence that the actual verses I cited prescribe a fine and an obligation to marry, rather than execution? And yes it is quite clear that it is rape; it is preceded by "lay hold on her" and is one among a list of other rape laws.
quote:Seems you did not read many of the preceding verses of the ones you quoted. Rape was capital offense in most cases. Only in the instances where the woman (if she was betrothed or married) objected, is the death sentence commuted. And in the verses you quoted it is not clear if the virginal woman is being raped or simply having sex with a man.
Why is it unlikely? There are precedents indicating Moses and the Israelites didn't find rape as objectionable as we find it today. Consider for example Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
quote:My tongue was poking ever so slightly into my cheek, there.
That would be genocide as well.
Please don't give atheists a bad name.
quote:I did get that feeling. I didn't think that was a great place for such a remark though.
quote:My tongue was poking ever so slightly into my cheek, there.
That would be genocide as well.
Please don't give atheists a bad name.
quote:Okay, I'll do the same. (assuming that by 'take at face value' you mean 'thoughtfully consider beyond face value'
Ok firstly, I'd appreciate it if you would go into the conversation with some respect for me as an individual. Perhaps I did not extend the same courtesy to you and you are reacting, but I honestly try to take your arguments at face value and that you have good intentions.
)quote:For purely theoretical purposes, I've said that genocide could potentially be justified, but that the circumstances in which it could be are incredibly improbable.
1: Genocide is universally evil. You are suggesting that it is impossible for genocide to be necessary, and therefore good. I have tried to argue that it CAN be necessary in certain circumstances but we keep getting tied up with, "But the Midianites didn't have diseases! They were not really that evil!" Disregarding that can we focus on whether or not genocide CAN be justified.
quote:A resounding no.
2: (Probably contingent on how we conclude our first point.) If Genocide is justifiable, could it be in the instance of the Midianites.
quote:I think the only possible defence you could make for mosaic law respecting the rights of women is "it could have been worse."
Lastly, I can concede that I think you are correct that, "to lay hold upon" in most instances means by force and the connotation is rape. And that "tokens of virginity" is bloody sheets. I guess I got the impression that you felt the law of Moses completely ignores the rights of women, which,
1: I don't think is true
quote:OK so we are using the words differently then. In this case would you say that if God using his infinite knowledge knew that say genocide was necessary to preserve a much larger group of people both present and future, that genocide would be "justified" but not "good?"
For purely theoretical purposes, I've said that genocide could potentially be justified, but that the circumstances in which it could be are incredibly improbable.
If the existence of a single say, Japanese person on earth would somehow predicate the extinction of the rest of humanity, genocide would be justifiable but never good. I object to killing on principle, so I don't equate 'justifiable' with 'good.' A necessary evil.
Even killing in self-defence isn't good. The act of killing was evil, but the fact that you saved a life (yours in this case) from someone trying to do you harm just outweighs the evil. And we're assuming that there are no alternatives.
quote:I could. All you need to do is read "The Objectivist Ethics", and it'll be fairly clear. There is a set of things which are inherently immoral. Murder, theft, etc. These are things that don't require religion in order to be wrong.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
But again, could you flesh out why you think murder is inherently wrong?
quote:Not to be snarky (or genocidal), but I do not accept "The Preservation of Humans as a species." as the end all of morality.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:I could. All you need to do is read "The Objectivist Ethics", and it'll be fairly clear. There is a set of things which are inherently immoral. Murder, theft, etc. These are things that don't require religion in order to be wrong.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
But again, could you flesh out why you think murder is inherently wrong?
I can't see recapitulating that entire essay when it was so well done the first time around. Suffice it to say that that essay is the entirety of my argument in this case, and I stand by it as if I'd written it myself. Unfortunately, copyright restrictions prevent me from posting it.
quote:I'm not sure that's a fair summation of the argument. In fact, I'm sure that it isn't, because the issue isn't humanity as a species, but each and every one of us as an individual.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Not to be snarky (or genocidal), but I do not accept "The Preservation of Humans as a species." as the end all of morality.
quote:Responded to your email, perhaps my next post will be me extolling the essay's masterful arguments. Or perhaps I will eat it for breakfast, who can know these things?
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:I'm not sure that's a fair summation of the argument. In fact, I'm sure that it isn't, because the issue isn't humanity as a species, but each and every one of us as an individual.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Not to be snarky (or genocidal), but I do not accept "The Preservation of Humans as a species." as the end all of morality.
quote:Not if god was omnipotent. If he wasn't, only to the extent that Hitler might have been justified because he had a higher purpose in mind which the rest of the world couldn't comprehend.
OK so we are using the words differently then. In this case would you say that if God using his infinite knowledge knew that say genocide was necessary to preserve a much larger group of people both present and future, that genocide would be "justified" but not "good?"
quote:I'm 'dissatisfied' because: (I hope you don't find this format patronising; I've only done this in the interest of clearer discussion)
I have given you my own opinion on why murder is wrong, you were dissatisfied with it, could you perhaps articulate what you have to add to it?
quote:Why is that the case?
But for me, a necessary evil would be for example, allowing evil to exist as it is necessary for righteousness.
quote:Do you have any evidence for this, other than scripture?
Scriptures state that without the ability to make evil choices human beings could not really make righteous choices.
quote:I'm not sure how I can be clearer, but I'll give it a go.
But again, could you flesh out why you think murder is inherently wrong?
. I attended a talk by a certain Dr. Frank Mobbs, who offered a decidedly flawed and at times evasive refutation of Dawkins' book.quote:Again I approach omnipotence from the angle of, "All that can be done," not, "Can do anything." Hitler is not a good example because he did not (IMO) have a good reason that could be articulated to anyone at anytime for his Final Solution.
Not if god was omnipotent. If he wasn't, only to the extent that Hitler might have been justified because he had a higher purpose in mind which the rest of the world couldn't comprehend.
quote:I don't think this is entirely true. I will say that asking me to read the mind of God and demand an answer that I could then write in this forum is not something within the realm of current possibilities. God says it was necessary, God's understanding of the universe surpasses mine by infinite degrees of magnitude, God has told me that he does only those things that will maximize the happiness of mankind. I believe God, if God is capable of dishonesty I am screwed anyway as God obviously does what he wants and has more power then me.
In order for you to justify god's moral crimes, you would have to state precisely what consequences he was avoiding, and how the genocide helped to avoid them. Otherwise an appeal to god's infinite wisdom holds about as much water as Goebbels talking about the way his fuhrer is some kind of Übermensch creating a better world by cleansing it of inferiors.
quote:Personal experience? Do you have evidence that this is not so? Lets pretend that good and evil are embodied in the concepts of left and right. Lets eliminate the concept of left completely, it does not exist, we cannot perceive it, we cannot describe it, the idea of leftness does not even begin to enter our minds. Now, if an understanding and mentality of rightness is a requisite for happiness, is it possible to to achieve that without an understanding of its opposite? Shoot take any opposite, is pleasure understood without experiencing pain? Is happiness understood without sorrow? Is vice understood without virtue? I honestly do not believe they can be, anymore then we could say we understand what light would look like had we lived in darkness eternally.
But for me, a necessary evil would be for example, allowing evil to exist as it is necessary for righteousness.
Why is that the case?
quote:Scriptures state that without the ability to make evil choices human beings could not really make righteous choices.
Do you have any evidence for this, other than scripture?
quote:And were I to phrase things your way from my POV, "There should be no higher purpose then eternal progression, and a secular code of morality places an undue emphasis on mortality.
That last sentence is what I find most crucial and true in Objectivist ethics. There should be no higher purpose than life on earth, and a religious code of morality places the will of an imaginary entity above it.
quote:And if God's goal is the exact same thing, does it not follow that he would have a better idea of how to obtain that ideal, and help us work towards it? If so we are not living to please God, but the effort to live righteously will please him anyway.
However, I'll never change my mind about the fact that the purpose of morality is life and happiness. I don't live to please god or anyone else, and neither should you.
quote:It can, I suppose. But it needn't. Your statement presupposes "imaginary", and it supposes that life on earth is all there is. What if it isn't, and what if He's not?
Originally posted by Euripides:
That last sentence is what I find most crucial and true in Objectivist ethics. There should be no higher purpose than life on earth, and a religious code of morality places the will of an imaginary entity above it.
quote:I have no doubt that from your point of view, the Hitler example and the Yahweh example are qualitatively different. But this gets back to my point on faith.
quote:I don't think this is entirely true. I will say that asking me to read the mind of God and demand an answer that I could then write in this forum is not something within the realm of current possibilities. God says it was necessary, God's understanding of the universe surpasses mine by infinite degrees of magnitude, God has told me that he does only those things that will maximize the happiness of mankind. I believe God, if God is capable of dishonesty I am screwed anyway as God obviously does what he wants and has more power then me.
In order for you to justify god's moral crimes, you would have to state precisely what consequences he was avoiding, and how the genocide helped to avoid them. Otherwise an appeal to god's infinite wisdom holds about as much water as Goebbels talking about the way his fuhrer is some kind of Übermensch creating a better world by cleansing it of inferiors.
quote:What personal experience?
Personal experience? Do you have evidence that this is not so? Lets pretend that good and evil are embodied in the concepts of left and right. Lets eliminate the concept of left completely, it does not exist, we cannot perceive it, we cannot describe it, the idea of leftness does not even begin to enter our minds. Now, if an understanding and mentality of rightness is a requisite for happiness, is it possible to to achieve that without an understanding of its opposite? Shoot take any opposite, is pleasure understood without experiencing pain? Is happiness understood without sorrow? Is vice understood without virtue? I honestly do not believe they can be, anymore then we could say we understand what light would look like had we lived in darkness eternally.
quote:I think the latter part is better worded as 'places an undue sense of finality on mortality', because in my experience and from what I've read, it's theists who expend more time and effort thinking about and discussing mortality. Atheists tend to emphasize life as we know it, and making the most of it while we have it.
And were I to phrase things your way from my POV, "There should be no higher purpose then eternal progression, and a secular code of morality places an undue emphasis on mortality.
quote:The onus isn't on me to disprove the hypothesis, but for you to prove it. There's a possibility, but in the absence of any evidence it's a very slim chance.
But hey I understand that you do not accept my POV and I of course do not accept yours. Just thought I'd point out that the assumption that man has only this time on earth to exist to me is a false and unprovable one.
quote:What makes you believe that the life and happiness of humans is his goal?
And if God's goal is the exact same thing, does it not follow that he would have a better idea of how to obtain that ideal, and help us work towards it? If so we are not living to please God, but the effort to live righteously will please him anyway.
quote:Yet you urge us to lean on god's understanding about how to achieve our own happiness.
I do believe we as God's creations owe him our loyalty, but he has given us the ability to choose and rationalize for ourselves, and thus I take full advantage of that gift. God created me so that I could live, not so that he could live through me.
quote:Yes, it does presuppose that. I don't think that Objectivism and your particular views on Judaism conflict by principle; but as an atheist I'm inclined to think that you've made a serious error in examining the evidence for god's existence or non-existence.
quote:It can, I suppose. But it needn't. Your statement presupposes "imaginary", and it supposes that life on earth is all there is. What if it isn't, and what if He's not?
That last sentence is what I find most crucial and true in Objectivist ethics. There should be no higher purpose than life on earth, and a religious code of morality places the will of an imaginary entity above it.
quote:Don't sell religion so shortly. God is not some invisible force that randomly reveals itself to people. At least according to the Christian tradition if you seek God you will find him. Ask from Him and you will receive. In my case I took God up on it and did not find the promise wanting. It is that that separates God from Hitler. God is omnipotent and has provided a means for us to contact Him. Hitler never claimed to be a God or possessed of superior reasoning skills then everyone else. So it follows that he was a person just as we all are.
In the absence of any sound empirical evidence for a god, you have faith in him and his omniscience, just as many Nazis had faith in their leader's moral superiority and the righteousness of their race as the master race.
quote:Can you demonstrate why that wouldn't be the case? Back to my opposing examples, virtue/vice, pain/pleasure, etc. Or what of things that must be defined by what they are not? Take salt for example, how would you describe to me what salt tastes like assuming I have NEVER tasted it before. Not sweet? Not sour? Salty?
What personal experience?
If left was inconceivable and we therefore didn't use our metaphorical left hand, the implication is that we don't do evil. If no one is doing evil, what's the point of a moral system? We don't need to define good and evil anymore if good is all there is.
Your analogy also has more to do with the limits of the human imagination than it does with what's possible in reality.
The analogy presumably is hinting at the possibility that our ignorance of the idea of evil might make the concept of good impossible to conceive. First of all, I don't know if that would be the case.
quote:Because human beings are not God, we are embryos. Part of being a human being is deciding what direction you want to take your existence. To clarify, God not to create us and say, "Off you go start sinning so you can know how bad it is and what goodness is." He put us on earth and said, "Here is what you must do to be happy, doing otherwise will make you less happy or potentially unhappy, but I know you will make mistakes, learn from those mistakes, change your ways, and in time you will be as happy as I am." Mortality is not an isolated experiment, human beings are social creatures and I imagine we always will be.
And second, why would god create us in such a way that our imaginations can't conceive of good without examples of evil? And why is there so much of it (evil)? So the Rwandan massacres, the Holocaust, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all the evil humanity has perpetrated; that is the cost we must pay in order to gain knowledge of what is good?
quote:Your version of my words works just fine. Theists don't discard mortality as important or even say not to live life to the fullest. We do guard against,
think the latter part is better worded as 'places an undue sense of finality on mortality', because in my experience and from what I've read, it's theists who expend more time and effort thinking about and discussing mortality. Atheists tend to emphasize life as we know it, and making the most of it while we have it.
quote:Firstly I was not attempting to place the onus on anyone. I leave proving God's existence to God, his format for proving it has satisfied me completely, and I am convinced that were you to attempt the same experiment you would find identical results.
The onus isn't on me to disprove the hypothesis, but for you to prove it. There's a possibility, but in the absence of any evidence it's a very slim chance.
I actually find an animistic theory of the afterlife marginally more plausible. There is really no good reason to discriminate between homo sapiens and all other species of animal, which presumably according to Christianity don't earn an afterlife.
quote:Because He has told me, and I have seen it in my life and the lives of many others.
What makes you believe that the life and happiness of humans is his goal?
quote:I am not sure what you are getting at. I didn't say lean perpetually on God's arms and just forget about trying to think. If you are in algebra class would you disagree with me if I said look to the teacher for instruction on algebra? You could consult other students and likely you would get some truth but just as likely misconception and inaccuracy. You could try the text book (assuming you somehow had it without the teacher giving it to you) but more then likely you would just be confused and draw incorrect conclusions from the text.
I do believe we as God's creations owe him our loyalty, but he has given us the ability to choose and rationalize for ourselves, and thus I take full advantage of that gift. God created me so that I could live, not so that he could live through me.
Yet you urge us to lean on god's understanding about how to achieve our own happiness.
quote:And likewise thank you.
Thank you for taking the time to reply so extensively and politely Euripides,
quote:What do you mean by 'find him'? The way you use the phrase 'seek god' or 'ask and you will receive', it seems as though I have to approach the problem with faith to begin with.
quote:Don't sell religion so shortly. God is not some invisible force that randomly reveals itself to people. At least according to the Christian tradition if you seek God you will find him. Ask from Him and you will receive. In my case I took God up on it and did not find the promise wanting.
In the absence of any sound empirical evidence for a god, you have faith in him and his omniscience, just as many Nazis had faith in their leader's moral superiority and the righteousness of their race as the master race.
quote:But he claimed in his speeches to be guided by God and Providence, and many Nazis believed him. Many believed also that the persecution (and if they knew about it, the systematic genocide) of the Jews was moral because of some higher principle embodied by Hitler.
It is that that separates God from Hitler. God is omnipotent and has provided a means for us to contact Him. Hitler never claimed to be a God or possessed of superior reasoning skills then everyone else. So it follows that he was a person just as we all are.
quote:Using your thought experiment/analogy with the left and right, let's imagine again that left is a concept we find ourselves unable to conceive of. Nothing is left, we have no idea what left would mean.
quote:Can you demonstrate why that wouldn't be the case?
The analogy presumably is hinting at the possibility that our ignorance of the idea of evil might make the concept of good impossible to conceive. First of all, I don't know if that would be the case.
quote:The issue with tastes and smells is that we lack the mental machinery to revisit smells through long term memory, and our language is ill equipped to accurately describe such qualia.
Back to my opposing examples, virtue/vice, pain/pleasure, etc. Or what of things that must be defined by what they are not? Take salt for example, how would you describe to me what salt tastes like assuming I have NEVER tasted it before. Not sweet? Not sour? Salty?
quote:Why is it necessarily a 'part of being human'? What does that mean?
quote:Because human beings are not God, we are embryos. Part of being a human being is deciding what direction you want to take your existence. To clarify, God not to create us and say, "Off you go start sinning so you can know how bad it is and what goodness is."
And second, why would god create us in such a way that our imaginations can't conceive of good without examples of evil? And why is there so much of it (evil)? So the Rwandan massacres, the Holocaust, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all the evil humanity has perpetrated; that is the cost we must pay in order to gain knowledge of what is good?
quote:So god created creatures which are so flawed that they would do things like go on crusades and jihads, wage world wars and commit genocide, so that they might learn from their mistakes?
He put us on earth and said, "Here is what you must do to be happy, doing otherwise will make you less happy or potentially unhappy, but I know you will make mistakes, learn from those mistakes, change your ways, and in time you will be as happy as I am." Mortality is not an isolated experiment, human beings are social creatures and I imagine we always will be.
quote:Thanks for the reminder. I sometimes get carried away with a post and forget who I'm writing it to.
VERY IMPORTANT. Remember that from a Mormon's perspective God did not create the concepts of good or evil, those concepts are eternal in nature and have no beginning or end. God merely understands them perfectly and embodies all that is good, and reveals to us what good and evil is as a means to assist us.
quote:Few atheists say that. Living life to the fullest doesn't mean living like there's no tomorrow, and it certainly doesn't mean behaving amorally to suit yourself (something I've inferred from the 'drinking' part, though I personally don't see drinking as immoral - it makes the advise seem even worse, because usually you get a hang-over the next morning). One should still work to achieve the long-term happiness that only achieving your deepest aspirations will offer. Living life to the fullest can mean bringing up a family, it can be loving someone, being great at your job, or taking pride in yourself and your integrity for being morally upstanding. Happiness involves more than the physical pleasures of a good meal, the giddiness of inebriation, and the enjoyment of a dance.
quote:Your version of my words works just fine. Theists don't discard mortality as important or even say not to live life to the fullest. We do guard against,
I think the latter part is better worded as 'places an undue sense of finality on mortality', because in my experience and from what I've read, it's theists who expend more time and effort thinking about and discussing mortality. Atheists tend to emphasize life as we know it, and making the most of it while we have it.
"Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die."
Such a philosophy is damaging and contrary to the truth.
quote:What is the experiment? Is it something I can try without approaching it with a faith in god to begin with?
I leave proving God's existence to God, his format for proving it has satisfied me completely, and I am convinced that were you to attempt the same experiment you would find identical results.
quote:I didn't know that. Thanks.
Also, according to Mormon theology it is not true that animals have no afterlife, they have a duty and purpose as God's creation just as we do, if they fulfill it, they will be happy.
quote:Is that through scripture, or in a more personal sense?
quote:Because He has told me, and I have seen it in my life and the lives of many others.
What makes you believe that the life and happiness of humans is his goal?
quote:You said that god's goal is the happiness and life of humans, and that as an omniscient being he would know the best way to achieve this goal. So where our understanding and his differ, we should just follow god. In fact, since god's goal is also our own, we should just listen to what he commands and that would be the same as living to achieve happiness.
quote:I am not sure what you are getting at. I didn't say lean perpetually on God's arms and just forget about trying to think. If you are in algebra class would you disagree with me if I said look to the teacher for instruction on algebra? You could consult other students and likely you would get some truth but just as likely misconception and inaccuracy. You could try the text book (assuming you somehow had it without the teacher giving it to you) but more then likely you would just be confused and draw incorrect conclusions from the text.
quote:Yet you urge us to lean on god's understanding about how to achieve our own happiness.
I do believe we as God's creations owe him our loyalty, but he has given us the ability to choose and rationalize for ourselves, and thus I take full advantage of that gift. God created me so that I could live, not so that he could live through me.
Leaning on God is not a forfeiture of rational thought, its a test to see if he can teach us things we do not know. To God, the mysteries of the universe are open to him, he can teach us anything that is good for us should we desire it of him. I'd only suggest leaning on God continually if you find that by so doing, your understanding is consciously increasing.
quote:Keeping an open mind to the question of God already demonstrates faith, at least enough faith to consider that possibility. Hoping that there is a God who can tell us what is going on is a step up from there. If you can go that far, I think more often then not God will knock on your door.
What do you mean by 'find him'? The way you use the phrase 'seek god' or 'ask and you will receive', it seems as though I have to approach the problem with faith to begin with.
quote:That is the beauty of Christianity, nobody can claim exclusive communication with God, a person who really has spoken with God will always encourage others to ask God for themselves if what has been told them is right.
But he claimed in his speeches to be guided by God and Providence, and many Nazis believed him. Many believed also that the persecution (and if they knew about it, the systematic genocide) of the Jews was moral because of some higher principle embodied by Hitler.
If Hitler was shown to be a genius with reasoning skills far beyond what was thought humanly possible, would you begin to doubt the immorality of the Holocaust?
quote:correct, but by adding the concept of the "center" you are inadvertently presenting concepts that deal with leftness. As evil is the absence of good, the absence of right is the substance of left. I cannot tell you WHY good must exist with evil, I cannot tell you the nature of why things are this way in the first place, I suppose God MIGHT have the answer, but my guess would be that God would say, "It has always been thus from eternity to eternity, and will always be so."
Using your thought experiment/analogy with the left and right, let's imagine again that left is a concept we find ourselves unable to conceive of. Nothing is left, we have no idea what left would mean.
Does that mean that right and centre are meaningless too? Say that we are driving a car, and a passenger tells a driver to follow his nose or to turn right. Those directions would still have meaning, because while right can't be compared with left, it can be compared with centre; if you like, in a metaphorical sense, the absence of rightness.
quote:Understanding is only part of the problem. Can you really say, "I have chosen the good and happiness" if you have never given evil a chance to offer you a well thought out proposal? You know how they say, "What a person does when they have 15 minutes of spare time says alot about that person?" In same token spending a lifetime on the earth without God playing Big Brother says alot about who you are as a person. God already knows the choices we will make, He is allowing us to discover for ourselves just who we are.
So if evil was inconceivable, there is still a valid comparison between what is good and what is the absence of good.
quote:Again, I do not know why both exist in the first place, I only know that it is so.
We could give ourselves a headache by arguing about whether centre is just the left of right, but really; if evil did not exist and we therefore couldn't conceive of it, what's the point of a moral system? To maximise good? How is that aided by the existence of so much evil?
quote:Mormons believe something similar to that, from the Book of Mormon,
Why is it necessarily a 'part of being human'? What does that mean?
According to Christian doctrine, man's natural impulses are base. Correct me if I'm wrong on Mormon doctrine, but that's from the bible.
quote:Again Mormon theology does not support the idea that once you are in hell or heaven, thats it, game over, nothing more to do. There is some Biblical support of this view as well.
Learning from one's mistakes is rather difficult too, when one is in hell and is doomed to spend eternity there.
quote:That's alittle backwards isn't it? God created human beings knowing that WE of our own volition would choose to do those things, but in spite of those evils, many of us would embrace the light more fully and choose to walk the path God does.
So god created creatures which are so flawed that they would do things like go on crusades and jihads, wage world wars and commit genocide, so that they might learn from their mistakes?
quote:I was not suggesting that atheists cannot feel a sense of morality. I believe all human beings have some of God's light, and are partially accountable insofar as they know what they are doing.
Few atheists say that. Living life to the fullest doesn't mean living like there's no tomorrow, and it certainly doesn't mean behaving amorally to suit yourself (something I've inferred from the 'drinking' part, though I personally don't see drinking as immoral - it makes the advise seem even worse, because usually you get a hang-over the next morning). One should still work to achieve the long-term happiness that only achieving your deepest aspirations will offer. Living life to the fullest can mean bringing up a family, it can be loving someone, being great at your job, or taking pride in yourself and your integrity for being morally upstanding. Happiness involves more than the physical pleasures of a good meal, the giddiness of inebriation, and the enjoyment of a dance.
quote:Why do you think having ANY faith automatically corrupts the results? Do you apply that same standard to all truth in that you think if anyone hoped the results would be thus we must reject the results if they then are?
What is the experiment? Is it something I can try without approaching it with a faith in god to begin with?
quote:Both
Is that through scripture, or in a more personal sense?
quote:Because God actively educates you as to the excellency of his ways. He doesn't just tell us to blindly obey, but he does say take a few steps into the unknown darkness and see if you find the way suddenly illuminated a few more steps.
You said that god's goal is the happiness and life of humans, and that as an omniscient being he would know the best way to achieve this goal. So where our understanding and his differ, we should just follow god. In fact, since god's goal is also our own, we should just listen to what he commands and that would be the same as living to achieve happiness.
How is that not a forfeiture of rational thought?
quote:So I take it you hang out at strip clubs?
Can you really say, "I have chosen the good and happiness" if you have never given evil a chance to offer you a well thought out proposal?
quote:I don't need to intentionally seek out the temptations of the female body. It finds me just fine.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:So I take it you hang out at strip clubs?
Can you really say, "I have chosen the good and happiness" if you have never given evil a chance to offer you a well thought out proposal?
quote:Again they will all find me eventually. Especially the ones I show a weakness towards.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
But your assertion is that one of the reasons we exist is to be exposed to temptation. What if there are temptations you've missed that you really need to experience?
quote:I dunno. There are temptations that you would never feel if you didn't deliberately expose yourself to situations where they'd be likely to arise.
Again they will all find me eventually.
quote:Can you give me an example, or examples? I'd rather not just say your wrong
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I dunno. There are temptations that you would never feel if you didn't deliberately expose yourself to situations where they'd be likely to arise.
Again they will all find me eventually.
quote:I think we might be using the word 'faith' differently here. When I concede that god is a possibility, I don't consider that to be a sign of my (weak) faith; I'm conceding it because I have no evidence that precludes all possibility of a god. I define faith as belief unsupported by empirical evidence.
quote:Keeping an open mind to the question of God already demonstrates faith, at least enough faith to consider that possibility. Hoping that there is a God who can tell us what is going on is a step up from there. If you can go that far, I think more often then not God will knock on your door.
What do you mean by 'find him'? The way you use the phrase 'seek god' or 'ask and you will receive', it seems as though I have to approach the problem with faith to begin with.
quote:Glad we agree there.
Hitler being smart does not make the holocaust more acceptable.
quote:I made the Hitler analogy for an illustrative purpose. Obviously I know that you wouldn't condone the Holocaust, and that's what makes the illustration work.
I believe the devil is an exceptionally cunning and clever being, but he is still purely evil. The difference is that God were he to allow his creation to die or actively kill them does so in part as an act of mercy, and always to accomplish greater happiness.
quote:I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at here. Could you please clarify?
What happens if God allows his creation to live in gross sin? He must allow his children to be born into those societies, living lives of misery and iniquity. Better to end that terrible evil existence and bring them to a plane of existence where they can actually learn what existence is all about. (Not happy with the composition of that last sentence btw)
quote:I don't necessarily agree that evil is the absence of good; I used the example of light to illustrate the point that good on its own can exist in degrees, without there being an opposite. The closest thing to an absence of good is amorality, not immorality; but as soon as amorality results in an immoral circumstance, the concept of evil will most likely be born.
As evil is the absence of good, the absence of right is the substance of left.
quote:Why does that matter if the end result is that everyone behaves morally anyway?
quote:Understanding is only part of the problem. Can you really say, "I have chosen the good and happiness" if you have never given evil a chance to offer you a well thought out proposal?
So if evil was inconceivable, there is still a valid comparison between what is good and what is the absence of good.
quote:I've never heard that before, but okay.
You know how they say, "What a person does when they have 15 minutes of spare time says alot about that person?"
quote:How is god not playing Big Brother? I think that's exactly what he's doing. Big Brother in the true 1984 sense constantly observes everyone through cameras and microphones, and tends to know what potential rebels are thinking or will be thinking (the thought police are experts in behaviourist psychology, and have plenty of precedents to study).
In same token spending a lifetime on the earth without God playing Big Brother says alot about who you are as a person. God already knows the choices we will make, He is allowing us to discover for ourselves just who we are.
quote:But god created the 'nature of human beings', did he not?
quote:Mormons believe something similar to that, from the Book of Mormon,
Why is it necessarily a 'part of being human'? What does that mean?
According to Christian doctrine, man's natural impulses are base. Correct me if I'm wrong on Mormon doctrine, but that's from the bible.
"For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."
If I had to say my POV I would say that God did not intentionally make us flawed, but that is the nature of all human beings, we have an infinite capacity for good or an infinite capacity for evil.
quote:I'm not familiar with Mormon teachings. When you say god's capacity to choose evil, do you mean Jesus being tempted by Satan etc.? Also, what leads you to believe that god would be incapable of creating humans without the inclination to sin?
God cannot create us in his likeness and still omit that capacity for choosing evil, and like I said if we could not choose evil, we could not truly say we had chosen the good on its own merits.
quote:I didn't say that evil was not attractive. I just don't believe that human impulses are naturally or necessarily immoral, as the bible suggests. I'm referring for example to Christianity in a broad sense equating materialism, promiscuity, and even many forms of consumption with sin.
Anyone who thinks there is nothing attractive in evil action is deluding themselves.
quote:What can one do to redeem oneself in hell?
Again Mormon theology does not support the idea that once you are in hell or heaven, thats it, game over, nothing more to do. There is some Biblical support of this view as well.
quote:Aren't you just affirming what I said? Sure, we did it out of our own volition, but we ultimately owe that volition and the built-in temptations to god. Did he condone humanity's evil behaviour because it would help others "embrace the light more fully"? If that was god's justification for allowing the Rwandan genocide to happen, I'd find him reprehensible to say the least.
quote:That's alittle backwards isn't it? God created human beings knowing that WE of our own volition would choose to do those things, but in spite of those evils, many of us would embrace the light more fully and choose to walk the path God does.
So god created creatures which are so flawed that they would do things like go on crusades and jihads, wage world wars and commit genocide, so that they might learn from their mistakes?
quote:I didn't suggest that having faith in a certain outcome necessarily corrupts the results; so long as the data from the experiment is subjected to thorough scientific scepticism.
quote:Why do you think having ANY faith automatically corrupts the results? Do you apply that same standard to all truth in that you think if anyone hoped the results would be thus we must reject the results if they then are?
What is the experiment? Is it something I can try without approaching it with a faith in god to begin with?
quote:Could you show me which parts of scripture suggest this?
quote:Both
Is that through scripture, or in a more personal sense?
quote:Which promised results are we talking about here?
The more something delivers on its promised results the more we trust it, is that not so? Is that not rational?
quote:I can easily "revisit" both smells and tastes, by which I mean call to mind remembered smells and tastes and it is as if I am actually smelling or tasting them. The same with touch. However I have very crappy visual memory. I cannot summon up a remembered visual and see it "in my mind's eye."
The issue with tastes and smells is that we lack the mental machinery to revisit smells through long term memory, and our language is ill equipped to accurately describe such qualia.
quote:I can't imagine what that would be like. All I remember after eating something delicious is my impression of it as being delicious/sweet/etc.
Originally posted by dkw:
I can easily "revisit" both smells and tastes, by which I mean call to mind remembered smells and tastes and it is as if I am actually smelling or tasting them. The same with touch. However I have very crappy visual memory. I cannot summon up a remembered visual and see it "in my mind's eye."
quote:I see the problem. Having a smell indicates BO or having a whiff of something, while having a taste would mean taking a bite out (or trying out a shot of heroin?).
We talk about people "having visions" -- what do you call an equivelant experience that is not visual but olfactory, tangible, or taste-based?
quote:If you put a loaf of bread in the oven do you say "What am I doing wrong?" when it has been there but a few minutes? If I trust your description of your mindset completely I do not think you are doing anything wrong, just continue to keep an open mind, and continue considering the existence of God in your mind. Live your life as best you can and you will be blessed, of this I am sure. But I cannot postulate what God's will concerning you is
You seem to have replaced the usual 'faith' with 'hope' in that sentence. You know, I really would prefer that there was a benevolent entity willing to explain how this universe works. I'd really like that, and I hope it's true. But god hasn't knocked on my door. What am I doing wrong?
quote:I agree there are parallels, but not enough to make them synonymous. You are right I cannot summon God to appear before everyone and say that what he does is just and right.
There are parallels with god in the genocide scenario. There is no empirical evidence for him or his benevolence, let alone omniscience. Yet you are going to assume that there is a greater happiness to be gained through the genocides god condoned or commanded.
quote:I'm attempting to a degree to shed some light on why genocide of an evil populace could be justified on a basis of minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness.
I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at here. Could you please clarify?
quote:
I don't necessarily agree that evil is the absence of good; I used the example of light to illustrate the point that good on its own can exist in degrees, without there being an opposite. The closest thing to an absence of good is amorality, not immorality; but as soon as amorality results in an immoral circumstance, the concept of evil will most likely be born.
However I do think the 'Is there good without evil?' question is one which philosophers have been trying to answer for millennia and haven't come to a consensus on.
quote:Well,
Why does that matter if the end result is that everyone behaves morally anyway?
quote:I don't want to just say you are wrong, but I think if God was really trying to play big brother he would be doing alot more direct interfering with what you do on a day to day basis. As it is, if I chose here and now to do my very best to convince you to disbelieve in the existence of a God and try to undermine the religion I currently believe is the truth, I have virtually no doubt that God would let me be your stumbling block.
How is god not playing Big Brother? I think that's exactly what he's doing. Big Brother in the true 1984 sense constantly observes everyone through cameras and microphones, and tends to know what potential rebels are thinking or will be thinking (the thought police are experts in behaviourist psychology, and have plenty of precedents to study).
quote:Well yes, and to realize that our potential is limitless, but there are principles that must be obeyed if we are to be happy and progress. As we obtain knowledge and abide by it we are entrusted with greater knowledge ad infinitum.
Why is it important that we learn this about ourselves, and why through first hand experience? Is that the purpose of our lives? Just to find out what kind of people we are?
quote:When I say God's capacity to choose evil I mean it in a literal sense. If I were to speculate, I would say that were God to sin, the entire universe would cease to exist. God is not unable to sin, he simply chooses not to, as he has himself faced temptation of increasing degrees until he has conquered all of it and firmly planted his feet on the path of righteousness.
I'm not familiar with Mormon teachings. When you say god's capacity to choose evil, do you mean Jesus being tempted by Satan etc.? Also, what leads you to believe that god would be incapable of creating humans without the inclination to sin?
quote:I am not sure what one can do to redeem themselves, but since I believe that human experience shows that somebody is either progressing or its opposite, I do not believe one dies and eternally remains static in their condition. As for scriptural passages, consider 1Peter, where Peter mentions what Christ was doing for the 3 days he was dead and not yet resurrected,
What can one do to redeem oneself in hell?
Could you point me to the supporting biblical passages?
quote:I can agree that God is in a sense responsible for the evil that humankind will commit as he allows Satan to tempt us. But God does not tempt us himself, temptation is a part of existence. But just because some people will refuse to be educated, or even use education towards evil ends, that in of itself is not a good enough reasons to keep everyone in ignorance and educate nobody.
Aren't you just affirming what I said? Sure, we did it out of our own volition, but we ultimately owe that volition and the built-in temptations to god. Did he condone humanity's evil behaviour because it would help others "embrace the light more fully"? If that was god's justification for allowing the Rwandan genocide to happen, I'd find him reprehensible to say the least.
quote:When did I say just Christians? I think everyone in the world has opportunities to live and grow. Christians may have an advantage in that they IMO are in possession of more truth then many others, that is not even close to a get out of jail free card. Not to mention that the more truth you have, the more condemnation you stand to receive if you sin against it. Jesus himself says that many who profess to follow him will find the gates of heaven shut.
Are you suggesting that such evil exists in order to give Christians a chance to come closer to god? I would find that argument disgusting and highly presumptuous, to be honest.
quote:You can have a hope that a result is true and still keep your skepticism intact. I would not suggest you profess loyalty to God until you yourself are convinced of his presence. I do not believe skepticism in of itself deadens your senses to God. It like anything else must be used in moderation, like when you start asking for visual manifestations of God's power before you will profess belief. Skepticism can become hard heartedness, just as somebody who is, " too believing" can be lead astray.
What I'm getting at is; if I need faith to initiate the experiment, I've already decided to believe in a certain outcome, and there wouldn't be much need for an experiment any more.
It also makes available to theists a convenient trick to use against opponents; a 'You can't see the evidence because your eyes are clouded by scepticism' argument.
quote:James 1:5
Could you show me which parts of scripture suggest this?
quote:Actual personal communication from God to you.
Which promised results are we talking about here?
quote:Okay, I'll do that. I'll let you know if I hear from Him.
If you put a loaf of bread in the oven do you say "What am I doing wrong?" when it has been there but a few minutes? If I trust your description of your mindset completely I do not think you are doing anything wrong, just continue to keep an open mind, and continue considering the existence of God in your mind. Live your life as best you can and you will be blessed, of this I am sure. But I cannot postulate what God's will concerning you is
quote:Has god spoken to you about that particular genocide? Did he explain why it was necessary?
But I can encourage you or anyone else to seek a communique from God about the matter, and I fully expect a personal revelation to be within the realms of possibility.
quote:We are still talking about the genocide of the Midianites in the book of Numbers, right? What made them "an evil populace" apart from worshipping other gods like Baal, and for some of the women, seducing Israelite men?
I'm attempting to a degree to shed some light on why genocide of an evil populace could be justified on a basis of minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness.
quote:I'm not sure if it's coercion if god simply defined the 'nature of humanity' as basically good.
quote:Well,
Why does that matter if the end result is that everyone behaves morally anyway?
1: People are not behaving morally, they are acting morally without any say on the matter.
2: If I am coerced into doing good I am not acting morally, as it is immoral to force someone to act in any fashion.
quote:Okay, but the way this world runs, it seems like a very inaccurate way to teach people the results of right living and evil living.
God is trying to give us an experience in good and evil. He wants us to learn for ourselves what the results of right living and evil living are.
quote:That kind of precludes any method I could use to deny it, doesn't it? Couldn't I say that at some point in the future but not necessarily in this life, Allah or an invisible pink unicorn will visit you in your dreams?
But more realistically if I inadvertently say something that offends you to the point that you never want to hear about Mormonism again, I again doubt God would stop that. He would likely do something to soften your heart again, but no guarantees that it will happen soon or even in this life.
quote:That's a great question, which I'd like to ask anyone who believes in the trinity but also that god is incapable of sin.
Jesus is a real world example of this process. He was tempted (and if he were incapable of sin why would Satan have bothered in the first place?) and yet he yielded not to temptation.
quote:I see. The Harrowing seems to be a one-off event though. Otherwise scripture is rather insistent that a sinner's term in hell is eternal.
quote:I am not sure what one can do to redeem themselves, but since I believe that human experience shows that somebody is either progressing or its opposite, I do not believe one dies and eternally remains static in their condition. As for scriptural passages, consider 1Peter, where Peter mentions what Christ was doing for the 3 days he was dead and not yet resurrected,
What can one do to redeem oneself in hell?
Could you point me to the supporting biblical passages?
1Peter 3:18-20
quote:But what of the people who were actually killed in those genocides? I'm sure many if not the vast majority of them were decent people.
quote:I can agree that God is in a sense responsible for the evil that humankind will commit as he allows Satan to tempt us. But God does not tempt us himself, temptation is a part of existence. But just because some people will refuse to be educated, or even use education towards evil ends, that in of itself is not a good enough reasons to keep everyone in ignorance and educate nobody.
Aren't you just affirming what I said? Sure, we did it out of our own volition, but we ultimately owe that volition and the built-in temptations to god. Did he condone humanity's evil behaviour because it would help others "embrace the light more fully"? If that was god's justification for allowing the Rwandan genocide to happen, I'd find him reprehensible to say the least.
quote:But if Christianity is the truth, then religions like Hinduism would be less close to god than say, Judaism, right?
quote:When did I say just Christians? I think everyone in the world has opportunities to live and grow. Christians may have an advantage in that they IMO are in possession of more truth then many others, that is not even close to a get out of jail free card. Not to mention that the more truth you have, the more condemnation you stand to receive if you sin against it. Jesus himself says that many who profess to follow him will find the gates of heaven shut.
Are you suggesting that such evil exists in order to give Christians a chance to come closer to god? I would find that argument disgusting and highly presumptuous, to be honest.
quote:I guess I'm not quite doing that.
You can have a hope that a result is true and still keep your skepticism intact.
quote:Oh, good.
I would not suggest you profess loyalty to God until you yourself are convinced of his presence.
quote:That verse doesn't indicate that god's goal is human life and happiness. It says that god is happy to grant wisdom to those who honestly seek it from him and are faithful; but will not grant it to the "wavering" (I think religious sceptics fall under that category).
quote:James 1:5
Could you show me which parts of scripture suggest this?
Upbraideth meaning "rebuke, or scold"
The power of the Holy Ghost is no small thing, as I have learned from experience.
quote:In your experience, what form does this personal communication take?
quote:Actual personal communication from God to you.
Which promised results are we talking about here?
quote:It wasn't exactly a case of "some women". It was a national decision, and the women who did it were acting as agents of all of them.
Originally posted by Euripides:
We are still talking about the genocide of the Midianites in the book of Numbers, right? What made them "an evil populace" apart from worshipping other gods like Baal, and for some of the women, seducing Israelite men?
quote:Likewise thank you for being so enjoyable to discuss things with.
BlackBlade,
Thanks for your reply, and for being patient and reasonable with me in the other thread.
quote:I have not personally asked for a detailed justification of that particular genocide TBH. As I said before, I believe God to be good, and all he does is just, not because he defines what is just but because he knows what is just. I do expect to fully understand why such drastic measures were taken, as it stands I think I have some ideas, but nothing that I think stands up completely.
Has god spoken to you about that particular genocide? Did he explain why it was necessary?
quote:Again I can only speculate. Remember the Israelites at this point had left Egypt only 40 years ago, and they had wandered those 40 years because the openly revolted against God who had done so much for them right before their eyes. Now that they were finally being given the promised land they are found mingling with the Canaanites and worshiping their Gods. I detailed in a previous page the evils of Canaanite God worship. We should also consider that at the time the Midionites were actively seeking ways they could destroy Israel, such as soliciting the help of Balaam the prophet hoping to curse Israel.
We are still talking about the genocide of the Midianites in the book of Numbers, right? What made them "an evil populace" apart from worshipping other gods like Baal, and for some of the women, seducing Israelite men?
quote:I do not think God can do that. It might interest you to know that according to some of our scriptures, Satan fell from grace to demonic status because he posed a plan in opposition to God's plan. His plan was in effect to control all of humanity during their time on earth and force them into doing only good by taking away their agency. His mistaken rationale was that, "Not one soul would be lost." God rejected that plan, and Satan got angry and rebelled, as well as convincing a sizable number of God's unborn spirit children to rebel with him.
I'm not sure if it's coercion if god simply defined the 'nature of humanity' as basically good.
quote:You are welcome to pose a better plan.
Okay, but the way this world runs, it seems like a very inaccurate way to teach people the results of right living and evil living.
quote:You could, but I did not say anything about dreams. God has myriad ways of contacting us. I suspect he would use a means that would be perceived by you, possibly only you. Also again, I leave it to God to explain to you why he made you wait until you were dead to explain things.
That kind of precludes any method I could use to deny it, doesn't it? Couldn't I say that at some point in the future but not necessarily in this life, Allah or an invisible pink unicorn will visit you in your dreams?
quote:What of, Psalms 16:10
I see. The Harrowing seems to be a one-off event though. Otherwise scripture is rather insistent that a sinner's term in hell is eternal.
quote:Do you have any proof? But disregarding that, remember death is not so bad when there is the possibility of a better existence in the next. Plenty of babies come into the world and die either at or soon after birth.
But what of the people who were actually killed in those genocides? I'm sure many if not the vast majority of them were decent people.
quote:Not necessarily, but "close to God" is sorta vague. I personally believe that Prince Siddhartha was likely inspired by God. In addition I found it often much more difficult to do missionary work with other Christians then certain Buddhists. Christians were certain that I was the cultist and they had the real Jesus.
But if Christianity is the truth, then religions like Hinduism would be less close to god than say, Judaism, right?
I'm not sure how including more than just Christians makes this much better. Genocides and rape happen because it causes others who are close to god to come closer to him?
quote:I'm alittle lost, how did I say that genocides bring people closer to God? At best it demonstrates the horrors of evil, and shows us the folly of choosing evil.
I'm not sure how including more than just Christians makes this much better. Genocides and rape happen because it causes others who are close to god to come closer to him?
quote:Well the scriptures do not pretend to tell the whole tale.
I guess I'm not quite doing that.
That is, I hope that there is a god that can tell me the truth and is benevolent and watches over me, but I wouldn't want to meet anyone like Yahweh, if we take scripture as truth.
quote:Sorry I thought you were requesting a scripture that indicates God will provide us with personal experiences wherein he speaks the truth to us. There are many scriptures where God says his goal is our happiness,
That verse doesn't indicate that god's goal is human life and happiness. It says that god is happy to grant wisdom to those who honestly seek it from him and are faithful; but will not grant it to the "wavering" (I think religious sceptics fall under that category).
quote:And you are right to be careful, I too believe that for whatever means God uses to contact people Satan has a similar counterfeit means of doing so. Almost nothing is more dangerous then a person who has been convinced by Satan to believe that God has commanded them to do something evil. Like I said previously, make sure you do not have an overabundance of skepticism. Its hard for me to detail my own experiences as I hold them sacred to me. Conversely I do not want to just say, "When it happens, you will know." There are guidelines that God operates within, but there is not a set manner in which he reveals himself to us. But I will say that when God uses the Holy Ghost to communicate with men it is more convincing and powerful then any single sense confirming the same truth.
In your experience, what form does this personal communication take?
It's a leading question; sorry. As you know, from my perspective any claim to personal revelation has to be treated with extreme scepticism. There are so many more plausible explanations for these experiences that are grounded in science and psychology.
quote:I'm very happy you weren't in charge of the Occupation.
Had it been up to me, every single member of the Nazi Party -- every single person who fought on the Nazi side in WWII -- would have been put to death. That's pretty close to genocide, no? But it would have been justified. When a nation attempts to destroy you, the only sane thing to do is to destroy them. The idea of war as some sort of Marquis of Queensbury game is horrible.
quote:The latter point is more important I think, because mosaic law in practice, while an improvement over other religious practices, was still very heavy-handed and IMO evil. I'm also wary of pre-emptive wars, and strongly doubt that a genocide was necessary to stop them or cause them to reconsider.
quote:Again I can only speculate. Remember the Israelites at this point had left Egypt only 40 years ago, and they had wandered those 40 years because the openly revolted against God who had done so much for them right before their eyes. Now that they were finally being given the promised land they are found mingling with the Canaanites and worshiping their Gods. I detailed in a previous page the evils of Canaanite God worship. We should also consider that at the time the Midionites were actively seeking ways they could destroy Israel, such as soliciting the help of Balaam the prophet hoping to curse Israel.
We are still talking about the genocide of the Midianites in the book of Numbers, right? What made them "an evil populace" apart from worshipping other gods like Baal, and for some of the women, seducing Israelite men?
quote:This is true. Yet what we call genocides in history have rarely if ever been complete. Further, the cause of their oppression and hostility to Israel was at least partially grounded in the genocide they suffered in the book of Numbers.
Try also to consider that the Midianites were not all wiped out in this incident. We see them back in business oppressing a wicked Israel when we read in Judges 6.
quote:Well, don't you know good people who nevertheless suffer both physically and psychologically?
quote:You are welcome to pose a better plan.
Okay, but the way this world runs, it seems like a very inaccurate way to teach people the results of right living and evil living.
quote:Um, yeah. Okay.
How about this, if you and I die and God has no good explanation for you, you can come find me and tell me off.
quote:To be fair though, that's what David believed. And even if he didn't remain in hell, there are a long list of verses impressing upon bible readers that hell is a place one goes for eternity. Matthew 18:8-9 for example, or Mark 9:43-48, or 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9.
quote:What of, Psalms 16:10
I see. The Harrowing seems to be a one-off event though. Otherwise scripture is rather insistent that a sinner's term in hell is eternal.
General consensus is this Psalm was written after David murdered Uriah and Nathan the prophet condemned him. David was guilty of murder, and yet we find that he does not believe that he will abide eternally in hell.
quote:If you don't mind, that would be great.
Also realize that Mormon scripture in detail explains that scriptures stating, "eternal punishment" or "eternal damnation" do not literally mean "forever." If you are interested in reading some of these explanations that God himself gives just say so and Ill link some.
quote:I was referring to Rwanda at the time.
quote:Do you have any proof? But disregarding that, remember death is not so bad when there is the possibility of a better existence in the next. Plenty of babies come into the world and die either at or soon after birth.
But what of the people who were actually killed in those genocides? I'm sure many if not the vast majority of them were decent people.
quote:Well, you said that evil is permitted to exist because it encourages people to reject it and come closer to god.
quote:I'm alittle lost, how did I say that genocides bring people closer to God? At best it demonstrates the horrors of evil, and shows us the folly of choosing evil.
I'm not sure how including more than just Christians makes this much better. Genocides and rape happen because it causes others who are close to god to come closer to him?
quote:Okay, thanks.
There are many scriptures where God says his goal is our happiness,
Ezekiel 18:23
from Mormon scripture, God's description of his purpose, "39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." and, "Men are that they might have joy."
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Apparently our mileage varies. I was not suggesting that Balaam could have succeeded in cursing Israel, indeed by his own admission he could do no more or less then what God commanded him to say. I was merely using Balaam as an example of what the Midianites were planning.
The latter point is more important I think, because mosaic law in practice, while an improvement over other religious practices, was still very heavy-handed and IMO evil. I'm also wary of pre-emptive wars, and strongly doubt that a genocide was necessary to stop them or cause them to reconsider.
And if they weren't superstitious, they wouldn't have feared Balaam; but of course we judge them by the standards of their times.
quote:But do we have evidence that genocide took place or was even attempted? Would we call Japan's invasion of China a genocide? Millions of Chinese were killed, but I think were we to call that a genocide it would become synonymous with, "Waging war with one ethnic group."
This is true. Yet what we call genocides in history have rarely if ever been complete. Further, the cause of their oppression and hostility to Israel was at least partially grounded in the genocide they suffered in the book of Numbers.
quote:Yes, Jesus.
Well, don't you know good people who nevertheless suffer both physically and psychologically?
quote:Doctrine and Covenants 19:4-13
To be fair though, that's what David believed. And even if he didn't remain in hell, there are a long list of verses impressing upon bible readers that hell is a place one goes for eternity. Matthew 18:8-9 for example, or Mark 9:43-48, or 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9.
quote:Also realize that Mormon scripture in detail explains that scriptures stating, "eternal punishment" or "eternal damnation" do not literally mean "forever." If you are interested in reading some of these explanations that God himself gives just say so and Ill link some.
If you don't mind, that would be great.
quote:It can also be one of our more wonderful tenants. Its only frightening insofar as we say to ourselves, "Killing this man is not as bad as its not as if I am wiping out his existence." Or if we say, "Murder ought not to be punishes as seriously as it is." Indeed within Christianity harsh measures are suggested to punish murderers regardless of intent.
The belief that death is not so bad; that's one of the more frightening conclusions of religious belief.
quote:"Permitted to exist" may not be the phrase I want to use. Speaking for myself I do not believe God can force evil into a jar and hide it in the pantry. Evil has its territory and bounds, just as righteousness does. I cannot pretend to even begin to comprehend the full nature of evil, where it came from, and where it exists in the universe. I imagine that will be more understood after I have thrown off its influence on me entirely.
Well, you said that evil is permitted to exist because it encourages people to reject it and come closer to god.
quote:God is certainly capable of war, and will certainly assist the righteous in their wars against the wicked. That does not mean he is some sort of God of War that must be prayed to specifically at the start of any conflict to ensure victory. Good and Evil are constantly at war. God's stance on war as far as I can tell is a very complicated one. I too have alot of questions about the topic. In some instances God seems like he allows his followers to go to war for their own self preservation, but in others he points out the virtues of refusing to fight and trusting in his power. All I can really suggest is continued study for enlightenment, I do not have a satisfactory answer for war in all respects. I do know that if everyone follows God's will, war amongst human beings would cease.
Doesn't the bible also say things like "the Lord is a man of war" (Exodus 15:3), and why does god choose the Israelites, and clear Canaan of its inhabitants to make way for them? Where all the Canaanites irredeemable? And what to make of Matthew 10:14-15?
quote:Bad example. I'd certainly call what happened at Nanking genocide. It certainly fits under the internationally recognized definition of genocide at the UN.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Would we call Japan's invasion of China a genocide? Millions of Chinese were killed, but I think were we to call that a genocide it would become synonymous with, "Waging war with one ethnic group."
quote:If you don't mind, could you enlighten me on what the UN's definition of genocide is?
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Bad example. I'd certainly call what happened at Nanking genocide. It certainly fits under the internationally recognized definition of genocide at the UN.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Would we call Japan's invasion of China a genocide? Millions of Chinese were killed, but I think were we to call that a genocide it would become synonymous with, "Waging war with one ethnic group."
quote:Madeleines? Proustian?
Originally posted by dkw:
We talk about people "having visions" -- what do you call an equivalent experience that is not visual but olfactory, tangible, or taste-based?
quote:No problem.
I apologize that this took me so long to respond to, honestly I forgot about the thread
quote:We might have to agree to disagree on this matter. I think that genocide, 99.99999999[add more nines]% of the time can not be justified and is always a moral abomination. You believe that the genocides Yahweh helped to orchestrate or otherwise condoned were either justified, or examples of god letting human agency take its course. Am I right?
Apparently our mileage varies. I was not suggesting that Balaam could have succeeded in cursing Israel, indeed by his own admission he could do no more or less then what God commanded him to say. I was merely using Balaam as an example of what the Midianites were planning.
quote:Aren't we talking about the Bible on the premise that it's true, since you believe it is?
But do we have evidence that genocide took place or was even attempted?
quote:Well, there are grey areas in defining the word, but as Mucus pointed out, the massacre at Nanjing probably fits the definition. And how about those instances where advancing Japanese troops burned Chinese villages to the ground, killed the men and children, and (gang-)raped the women repeatedly and then killed them; I don't know if that fits the technical definition of genocide, but for the sake of moral evaluation it's just as abominable. Unfortunately people have been doing those things for centuries during times of war. Since genocide is a fairly new word (at least only popularized recently), we don't often think of applying it to say, Mediaeval times.
Would we call Japan's invasion of China a genocide? Millions of Chinese were killed, but I think were we to call that a genocide it would become synonymous with, "Waging war with one ethnic group."
quote:Well sure. According to their god, they had issue with everyone but the virgin girls.
Is it possible that the Israelites did not wage war with all of Moab and simply stopped fighting the Midianites when the ones they had issue with were defeated/slain?
quote:To put it mildly.
I agree the Midianites were probably not endeared to the Israelites after the events of numbers.
quote:Thanks. And I'm reading the Bible cover to cover now. One of these days, after the Torah and the Qur'an and the Bhagavad Gita, I'll get to the LDS texts.
quote:Doctrine and Covenants 19:4-13
If you don't mind, that would be great.
If you are interested continue reading and Christ describes the exquisiteness of the pain that constitutes, "God's Punishment" that he himself experienced on behalf of humanity in the garden of Gethsemane.
quote:It could also be reprehensible when say, a person is encouraged to rough out hardships on Earth and forego certain worldly ambitions and pleasures in the name of the afterlife.
quote:It can also be one of our more wonderful tenants. Its only frightening insofar as we say to ourselves, "Killing this man is not as bad as its not as if I am wiping out his existence." Or if we say, "Murder ought not to be punishes as seriously as it is." Indeed within Christianity harsh measures are suggested to punish murderers regardless of intent.
The belief that death is not so bad; that's one of the more frightening conclusions of religious belief.
quote:Yep, rivka pointed that out to me a while ago.
Look at the Sanhedrin procedure in criminal cases. It took ALOT to convict somebody to death, and there were many small things that could prevent a death sentence from being passed.
quote:But honestly, it would mean that you hold life on Earth as less precious than someone who believes that it is the sum total of life, wouldn't it?
Just because we believe that when somebody dies that they may be going on to a better place or even at worst, that they still exist does not mean we do not hold life precious.
quote:Sure, if everyone adopted the same religion and the same denomination, with exactly the same interpretation of what god wants and condones, and remains that way forever, I agree.
I do know that if everyone follows God's will, war amongst human beings would cease.
quote:Do you believe that every single Canaanite was wicked?
God chose the Israelites over the Canaanites because the Canaanites according to God were evil and to the point that they could not be saved. For Mormons we believe the American continents to be a chosen land. It is believed that if we reject God he will scourge us and drive us from the land until we repent. I am having trouble recalling the verse but God says to the Israelites in effect, "Do you think I would have allowed you to drive the Canaanites out of their land if they had been righteous? Why do you think you are inherently better then them?"
quote:So if a missionary (a special one, who has a very close relationship to god) preaches at a city but fails to impress its inhabitants (would the Athenians count among them?), the city deserves a fate worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrha?
Your Matthew verse is a very complicated concept but Ill do my best to explain it. Remember these instructions were given to the Apostles by Jesus, so its not as if Jesus is saying, "Missionaries must all use this procedure." Apostles are Jesus' official messengers, and represent Him in a more literal way then your average Christian. If they are turned away at a home, they are to leave. If an entire city rejects their message then they dust off their feet as a demonstration that they have fulfilled their responsibilities as witnesses of Christ to that city. If the gospel is true, then an entire city rejecting it would have to be an uncommon demonstration of moral decadence.
quote:And Indonesians, and Filipinos, and the Vietnamese, and...
The key element is "intent to destroy" but the convention does not necessarily limit the methods to violence and death. The Japanese were also quite clear that they intended to do the same thing in Taiwan and Manchukuo to all Chinese people, a national and ethnic group under that definition. It definitely fits.
quote:I think this is true, but I wouldn't draw a straight line from pre-Feudal Japan to Nanjing. China's less than sterling performance against the British, and Japan's own success in holding its own against the West--and defeating Russia, considered at least partly a European and certainly a Western power, in 1905; a complete shock to the rest of the world--not only gave the Japanese an opportunity to usurp Middle Kingdom status, but also confirmed its general racial superiority complex. The treatment of the Chinese by Japanese troops was probably among the worst, but the treatment of other occupied peoples wasn't much of an improvement.
Ironically, the Japanese were first when China was strong, they copied huge swaths of Chinese culture. But underneath it all was a hatred, a burning inferiority complex that came to surface during the Nanking Massacre. Centuries of being looked down on, the Japanese leapt at a chance to look down on and dehumanize the Chinese in turn.
quote:Indeed. The GEACPS has to be one of the most disgusting euphemisms ever engineered.
Of course the Japanese had a similar relationship with America when they were "opened" by Commodore Perry. Look up to the Americans and Europeans, copy them. Look down on their crimes in colonialism (which was their pretext for invading a number of Asian countries) but then have a burning desire to eclipse them in the same as a new colonial power under their "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere"
Its all very contradictory.
quote:It's unfortunate; since these are the people who are most likely to define Chinese policy, aren't they?
At the same time, the same people (and I literally mean the very same people, successful middle-class university students are a good example) are just as likely to demonstrate and protest when the slightest provocation comes from Japan (see the Japanese visit to their Shinto (war criminal) shine) or from the US (spy plane incident, bombing in Belgrade).
quote:This is the way I see it too. Just to be clear, I wasn't disagreeing with you above; just wanted to expand it a bit from my Japanese perspective. It was an interesting read. Thanks.
Its a love-hate relationship mixed with a inferiority complex.
quote:Nope. It's not a zero-sum game.
Originally posted by Euripides:
quote:But honestly, it would mean that you hold life on Earth as less precious than someone who believes that it is the sum total of life, wouldn't it?
Just because we believe that when somebody dies that they may be going on to a better place or even at worst, that they still exist does not mean we do not hold life precious.
quote:One's agency is limited in heaven?
Since it is only in this world that we have the power to act and to make choices, every second, every moment, every BREATH in this world is precious beyond measure.
quote:Yes.
We might have to agree to disagree on this matter. I think that genocide, 99.99999999[add more nines]% of the time can not be justified and is always a moral abomination. You believe that the genocides Yahweh helped to orchestrate or otherwise condoned were either justified, or examples of god letting human agency take its course. Am I right?
quote:This was more a question of whether genocide fits the Numbers/Midianites affair.
But do we have evidence that genocide took place or was even attempted?
Aren't we talking about the Bible on the premise that it's true, since you believe it is?
quote:As Mr. Card himself said to me, "If we can't digress, why bother conversing in the first place?"
Apologies for the tangential rant.
quote:Everyone is a bit misleading, I don't think we can say with accuracy that EVERY Midianite was present at the battle. If God had really wanted every Midianite dead, he would have commanded the Israelites to continue until they were all dead.
Well sure. According to their god, they had issue with everyone but the virgin girls.
quote:Good for you! If you are not through the OT yet might I suggest 2 things. 1: When you read the parts in Numbers where they list #s of animals and items donated by each head of each family of each tribe, just skip over it
Thanks. And I'm reading the Bible cover to cover now. One of these days, after the Torah and the Qur'an and the Bhagavad Gita, I'll get to the LDS texts. [Wink]
2: Isaiah is pretty rough to comprehend, I pretended the first time that a Shakespearean actor was monologuing the words to me in my head so that I would not get bored. I was reading the King James Version so it just seemed like a good idea. Read it slowly, don't give into the temptation to just skip, there is so much that is precious in that book. But don't worry, if you get to the Book of Mormon there is a good chunk dedicated to explaining the writings of Isaiah.quote:It would be if there was no order to it. I did not suggest that somebody go out and seek hardship, there are plenty that will come our way naturally. But ambition is not an end unto itself. Sometimes what we want for ourselves is not what is best. In high school, my parents planned a trip to Cambodia over Christmas break, this may shock you but I refused to go. Why? Because I had been to plenty of places growing up and it felt like I spent all my holidays traveling and I was tired of it. I wanted to spend my vacation playing video games, hanging out with friends, and frankly my family had gotten on my nerves. I was spoiled, what else can I say? My parents pleaded and begged me to come, they even bought a ticket and held on to it, hoping I would change my mind and they ate the cost of the ticket for holding on to it beyond the date of refund. That holiday ended up being the worst of my life. My friends were not able to hang out with me, I found that even reading or video games under certain conditions are not fun. I found out that I cannot stand the feeling of being alone, I need the presence of other people I love or enjoy being with. I spent the week feeling miserable and close to tears. My family returned and of course rubbed in the fact that I had missed out on a wonderful trip, I looked at all their pictures and especially the family photos and saw that I was not there, it was as if I was dead. I knew I belonged there, in every photo there was a place I could picture myself being in, next to my mom or my sisters. But those photos would never let me in them. Ill never know what memories I could have obtained by going to Cambodia. Today I beg my parents to let me go on trips with them, but I just can't afford plane tickets right now, and I cannot expect them to foot the bill, I am an adult now. My parents knew, that I should go to Cambodia with them, but they did not force me along for the ride. Who knows I might have come around, but I also might have resented that infringement on my agency.
It could also be reprehensible when say, a person is encouraged to rough out hardships on Earth and forego certain worldly ambitions and pleasures in the name of the afterlife.
quote:I don't think so. Rivka presented an interesting analogy. Couldn't I make the same false argument that atheists then do not hold their lives to as high a standard as I do as they do not believe in the afterlife? I believe a crucial part of mortality and eternal happiness is seeking out a companion and raising a family. Can I look at the man or woman who decides, "My career comes first" and say their way leads to equal happiness?
But honestly, it would mean that you hold life on Earth as less precious than someone who believes that it is the sum total of life, wouldn't it?
quote:Of course not, Ruth the ancestor of Jesus being a perfect example of a virtuous Canaanite.
Do you believe that every single Canaanite was wicked?
quote:Not exactly. The key there was not a closeness with God but a calling to the apostleship. As well as the indispensable fact of whether God wills it or not. Lets say I as a missionary attempted to teach to the Athenians. Lets say I encountered much rejection and became depressed because of it. My depression causes me to be far less effective as a missionary as God does not mope about depressed as he does his work. My ineffectiveness causes the rest of the people of Athens to reject my message completely. If I dusted my feet off and condemned the city I doubt God would honor that condemnation.
So if a missionary (a special one, who has a very close relationship to god) preaches at a city but fails to impress its inhabitants (would the Athenians count among them?), the city deserves a fate worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrha?
quote:I allowed someone to be shot to death in front of me rather than die myself. I was not an atheist at the time.
I fail to see why the atheist would argue that he must die while I must live. I would be interested in hearing rationale for it. Arguing that the atheist could not live with my death on his conscience is not valid as you are then basically calling his life after the gun incident the afterlife and he does not wish to enter it on bad terms.
quote:Yep, and since we're discussing the matter on the basis that the Bible is essentially true, we can say that the incident in the book of Numbers was a war crime which definitely fits the modern definition of genocide.
quote:This was more a question of whether genocide fits the Numbers/Midianites affair.
Aren't we talking about the Bible on the premise that it's true, since you believe it is?
quote:Wise words.
quote:As Mr. Card himself said to me, "If we can't digress, why bother conversing in the first place?"
Apologies for the tangential rant.
quote:Well, the Israelites killed the Midianite kings and razed all their cities. The implication is that they would have gotten most of the population.
quote:Everyone is a bit misleading, I don't think we can say with accuracy that EVERY Midianite was present at the battle. If God had really wanted every Midianite dead, he would have commanded the Israelites to continue until they were all dead.
Well sure. According to their god, they had issue with everyone but the virgin girls.
quote:Sorry to hear about your vacation; I can imagine how crumby it must have been for you.
Sometimes what we want for ourselves is not what is best.
quote:But I digress.
Tanzan and Ekido, two monks, were once traveling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was falling.
Coming around a bend, they met a lovely girl in a silk kimono and sash, unable to cross a large mud puddle stretching across the road.
"Come on, girl," said Tanzan at once. Lifting her in his arms, he carried her over the mud.
Ekido did not speak again until that night when they reached a lodging temple, then he no longer could restrain himself. "We monks don't go near females", he told Tanzan, "especially not young, lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you do that?"
"I left the girl there", said Tanzan. "Are you still carrying her?"
quote:It wouldn't be the equivalent. It would presuppose that both the theist and the atheist value material life to be as valuable, which is not always the case. That's kind of the problem.
quote:I don't think so. Rivka presented an interesting analogy. Couldn't I make the same false argument that atheists then do not hold their lives to as high a standard as I do as they do not believe in the afterlife?
But honestly, it would mean that you hold life on Earth as less precious than someone who believes that it is the sum total of life, wouldn't it?
quote:Being an atheist doesn't mean screwing up one's priorities.
I believe a crucial part of mortality and eternal happiness is seeking out a companion and raising a family. Can I look at the man or woman who decides, "My career comes first" and say their way leads to equal happiness?
quote:I don't understand this line of reasoning.
If a man points a gun at me and another person and says, "I WILL kill one of you, the other I will spare." If me and the other person are equal in everything but belief in the afterlife, I would volunteer myself to be killed. I could not justify pleading for the other man's death to save my own. I fail to see why the atheist would argue that he must die while I must live. I would be interested in hearing rationale for it. Arguing that the atheist could not live with my death on his conscience is not valid as you are then basically calling his life after the gun incident the afterlife and he does not wish to enter it on bad terms.
quote:But it would be if you were an apostle.
And rejection in of itself is not a good enough reason to condemn a city.
quote:No. Ironically, I was on a religious pilgrimage at the time.
Tom, I'm not sure how I should respond. The burden you carry must be heavy.
Were you in the service?
quote:I can only speak for Jewish beliefs. (My understanding is that Mormons believe otherwise, and I don't know about others.) And I don't like the word "agency" -- mostly because I don't know what it's supposed to mean. Also, "heaven" (and the Jewish concept is VERY different that the Christian concept you seem to be citing) is not a physical place, with physical rules.
Originally posted by Euripides:
quote:One's agency is limited in heaven?
Since it is only in this world that we have the power to act and to make choices, every second, every moment, every BREATH in this world is precious beyond measure.
I suppose god can't have people going around killing each other in his kingdom. I've often wondered about the workability of heaven.
quote:I was under the impression that all Moabites were Canaanites but not all Canaanites were Moabites. Wasn't Moab the country of the Midianites?
Ruth was not a Canaanite. She was a Moabite.
quote:None of the above. Nether Moav nor Midian were part of Canaan -- they were neighboring countries. And while there were points at which the Moabites and Midianites were allies, they certainly did not come from the same country.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:I was under the impression that all Moabites were Canaanites but not all Canaanites were Moabites. Wasn't Moab the country of the Midianites?
Ruth was not a Canaanite. She was a Moabite.
quote:We were talking the other day about the movie 2001: A Space Oddysey. Someone actually wrote a book about this movie and what the reaction of people who saw it says about the evidence for God.
Originally posted by Euripides:
Lisa,
quote:Yes, it does presuppose that. I don't think that Objectivism and your particular views on Judaism conflict by principle; but as an atheist I'm inclined to think that you've made a serious error in examining the evidence for god's existence or non-existence.
quote:It can, I suppose. But it needn't. Your statement presupposes "imaginary", and it supposes that life on earth is all there is. What if it isn't, and what if He's not?
That last sentence is what I find most crucial and true in Objectivist ethics. There should be no higher purpose than life on earth, and a religious code of morality places the will of an imaginary entity above it.
quote:I think it's a reasonable claim. A single regularly shaped object, as opposed to the world of complexity we live in?
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
"I mean, the chances of a huge, perfectly formed rectangular monolith forming on the moon over the time the moon has existed are actually much greater than the chances of the world coming into existence as it is, with the complexity of the human body and other organisms, "
Are you sure about this? How are you calculating the odds of each?
quote:Color me corrected! I made a mistake in that Balak king of Moab petitioned Balaam the prophet to curse the Isrealites. Later, Balaam is slain along with the kings of the Midianites and so I associated Moab with the Midianites. Ill have to be more careful in my OT study!
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:None of the above. Nether Moav nor Midian were part of Canaan -- they were neighboring countries. And while there were points at which the Moabites and Midianites were allies, they certainly did not come from the same country.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:I was under the impression that all Moabites were Canaanites but not all Canaanites were Moabites. Wasn't Moab the country of the Midianites?
Ruth was not a Canaanite. She was a Moabite.
The seven tribes that are referred to collectively as Cana'anim (Canaanites): Emori (Amorites), Chiti (Hittites), Prizi (Perizites), Cana'ani (Canaanites), Girgashi (Girgashites) -- who actually picked up and left prior to the conquering of the Land, Chivi (Hevites), Yevusi (Jebusites).
quote:See, that's the thing. We don't think God is complex at all. On the contrary.
Originally posted by King of Men:
And what are the chances of a creator sufficiently complex to create everything we see coming into being 'by accident'?
quote:Even if that premise were true--that the perfectly rectangular object is more probable than life coming into existence--the fact of the matter is that the beginning of life can be an extremely improbable event. Through telescopes, spectroscopes, and other instruments we see and study countless multitudes of stars and their planets, but we find that few are in the 'Goldilocks zone' with conditions similar to Earth's, and of the planets we've studied, we haven't found a single one which shows solid evidence of supporting or having supported life. Yet the fact that we are here talking about this means that we must be on one of those very rare planets. I think what I'm getting at is called the anthropic principle.
But was it? Why was it so obviously an artifact? I mean, the chances of a huge, perfectly formed rectangular monolith forming on the moon over the time the moon has existed are actually much greater than the chances of the world coming into existence as it is, with the complexity of the human body and other organisms, but I'm willing to bet that not a single person walked away from the movie 2001 shaking his head and saying, "But that's dumb. So there was a big rectangular block on the moon. What does that prove?"
quote:I don't think we have grounds for calling the Big Bang an accident, but even if we did, it doesn't make a creator likely at all. God can't be simple if he could create the universe, and positing his existence only moves the question of origin to a further remove; who created god?
I don't see the "world as accident" view as plausible. Even if we knew nothing about God, the world itself is evidence that there's a creator.
quote:Snowflakes, crystals. You could conceivably have a square crystal.
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
"I think it's a reasonable claim. A single regularly shaped object, as opposed to the world of complexity we live in?"
On the other hand, regularly shaped objects don't appear in this world of simplicity we live in. And its really a rather simple universe, with a few basic laws governing the entirety of what exists. The complexity seems to stem in large part from iterative processes.