Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2019 4:03 PM
28 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, Hyroglyphx, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (7 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,729 Year: 9,765/19,786 Month: 2,187/2,119 Week: 223/724 Day: 62/93 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
212223
24
2526Next
Author Topic:   Pick and Choose Fundamentalism
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1273 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 346 of 384 (517301)
07-30-2009 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Peg
07-30-2009 10:30 PM


Re: Double standards?
Peg writes:

I am in no way advocating anything...im trying to correct your wrong accusation that the God of the bible is somehow evil because the soldiers made the captive women their wives.

So commanding the murder of children and babies is not evil?

So commanding kidnapping and human traficking is not evil?

So commanding and regulating the enslavement of people is not evil?

So what is evil then?


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Peg, posted 07-30-2009 10:30 PM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-31-2009 11:22 AM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 347 of 384 (517303)
07-30-2009 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by DevilsAdvocate
07-30-2009 10:46 PM


Re: Double standards?
DevilsAdvocate writes:

Who cares whether they used the word rape or not. The end result is the same

If you are looking for an honest answer, then you should be looking at what word the writer used. Thats imperative to gaining a correct understanding. You refuse to do that and you dont seem to care what words they used because you've already decided it was rape. Doesnt matter that it wasnt.

The fact is, the writer did not use the word for rape. which means he was not referring to the act of rape. Pretty logical really. But you go on believing your fairylie.

I prefer the truth.

DevilsAdvocate writes:

Are you that stupid to think that these women and girls wanted to become wives of the very people that slaughtered there families and took everything they had away from them.

you are talking about ancient times when people thought very differently to us. Women were not liberated and free to make their own decisions. They were property, men put them in that position and they had no choice. They accepted it and it was a normal part of life for them. When a man wanted to marry a woman, he didn't ask the woman, he asked the womans father.

I dont agree with it, but im not going to sit here and argue over why ancient cultures practiced certain traditions.

All i know is that they did not think the same way we do and therefore to judge them by modern standards is unreasonable. How can you judge a primitive tribe by a modern set of values???


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-30-2009 10:46 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by anglagard, posted 07-31-2009 4:05 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 348 of 384 (517312)
07-31-2009 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 347 by Peg
07-30-2009 11:07 PM


Lack of Integrity
Peg writes:

I dont agree with it, but im not going to sit here and argue over why ancient cultures practiced certain traditions.

All i know is that they did not think the same way we do and therefore to judge them by modern standards is unreasonable. How can you judge a primitive tribe by a modern set of values???

Yet you seem to state unequivocally that all of the Bible is inerrant and therefore not just a guide, but rather an infallible rulebook that all must follow to the letter regardless of time or place. It appears you say we can't judge some Bronze Age tribe by our standards, yet their primitive folk beliefs constitute a final judgment upon all for all time.

Since you willfully refuse to understand what Purpledawn is saying, I see no hope you will realize the self-contradictory nature of your position in this matter.

From what I understand, you insist we must abandon all geology, nearly all biology, and very central concepts of physics and chemistry as it contradicts your understanding of a creation account in Genesis.

Then you turn around and state that Hebrew slavery is OK because they came from a different time and culture.

I prefer the truth.

Does that mean you are going to retract your statement that it requires a huge amount of energy to create water from hydrogen and oxygen, or is your false pride more important than the truth?

There is a word for what I am talking about here, that word is integrity. Until you start showing a glimpse of what that word means, you will remain a joke among those who do know.

Edited by anglagard, : add second sentence for clarity


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. Its us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Peg, posted 07-30-2009 11:07 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
Hill Billy
Member (Idle past 3526 days)
Posts: 163
From: The hills
Joined: 01-26-2008


Message 349 of 384 (517346)
07-31-2009 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Perdition
07-20-2009 2:54 PM


Re: same old
Perdition writes:


I've sacrificed myself to the torment of Hell so that the baby would never have to experience the evil that lives in this world.


That's very generous of you, however...

most of the ones who aren't probably won't convert anyway

here the the real hole in your argument.
What you would be taking from these individuals is their opportunity to gain admittance to heaven of their own free will.
As I see it the real gift here is the freedom to choose.

this is your philosophy taken to it's logical conclusion

No, actually it isn't. My philosophy, taken to it's logical conclusion, allows all folks to make their own choices and face the consequences, even if they may choose to reject GOD.


The years tell what the days never knew.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Perdition, posted 07-20-2009 2:54 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Perdition, posted 07-31-2009 11:31 AM Hill Billy has not yet responded

  
Hill Billy
Member (Idle past 3526 days)
Posts: 163
From: The hills
Joined: 01-26-2008


Message 350 of 384 (517349)
07-31-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Perdition
07-23-2009 12:14 PM


Re: Less logical than I thought
Perdition writes:

No, he didn't.

Really?

He told Adam, "Don't eat of this or you'll die."

Sounds like something to me.

Adam would eat of the tree and, well not die

Come on, more of your deception, unless he is hiding out at your place, Adam did, in fact, die.

He made a Universe where there was no other option but for Adam to disobey

This is the opposite of the truth. GOD created a universe with nothing but choices for us.

If I know what I'm doing won't stop something bad from happening, and I know there's something I could do to stop it from happening

Folks have the option of doing something bad or not. To stop folks from doing something bad you would need to rob them of the opportunity to choose something good.

Clearly GOD choose to gift people with the freedom to choose what they believe, yes, knowing some, even many, would make choices contrary to GOD's will. This is the gift of love, freedom to choose. Under this program you are responsible for your own choices, even if your choices are known to GOD.

I don't understand what this has to do with the argument

Oh, I think you understand just fine. I think it's the implications of dimensional manipulations that trouble you. An entity that can move freely in and out of, and around in dimensions like space and time would certainly invalidate your position, so you had best ignore it.

It includes all available information at hand

Not the truth and not surprisingly so.
Logically, a logical argument must include all relevant information, however, if your position would crumble using all available information then it is logical that you would misrepresent that information in an attempt to maintain the illusion that your position is logical.


The years tell what the days never knew.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Perdition, posted 07-23-2009 12:14 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Perdition, posted 07-31-2009 11:29 AM Hill Billy has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5690
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 351 of 384 (517360)
07-31-2009 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by DevilsAdvocate
07-30-2009 10:49 PM


Re: Double standards?
So what is evil then?

Whatever God deems evil is evil. He of course is able to change his mind at will, regardless of contradiction. Must be nice.


"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-30-2009 10:49 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 352 of 384 (517365)
07-31-2009 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by Hill Billy
07-31-2009 10:02 AM


Re: Less logical than I thought
Come on, more of your deception, unless he is hiding out at your place, Adam did, in fact, die.

But not for close to a thousand years, right? If I tell you, "Don't steal my stuff or you'll die." You then steal my stuff, and I say, "Ok, you're gonna get it!" But then I walk away and 50 years later, you're lying on your deathbed from old age, and I pop my head in and say, "See, I told you! What do you think about stealing my stuff now?!" Does that sound like I carried out my threat?

God KNEW that Adam would disobey him if he created the Universe he created, right? God is omnipotent, and could have created a slightly different Universe where he knew Adam would choose not to eat the fruit, right? So, the fact that God, knowing what would happen, chose to make this Universe anyway means he set Adam up to fail.

Folks have the option of doing something bad or not. To stop folks from doing something bad you would need to rob them of the opportunity to choose something good.

Clearly GOD choose to gift people with the freedom to choose what they believe, yes, knowing some, even many, would make choices contrary to GOD's will. This is the gift of love, freedom to choose. Under this program you are responsible for your own choices, even if your choices are known to GOD.

But, see, you're using the word choice. How can I choose contrary to what God knows I'll choose? If I do so, he's no longer omniscient. Given the 6000 years since he created the Universe, if people could choose contrary to what he knew (or in this case, it would be "thought," since "know" implies "is right") God would have little to no idea what was going to happen next, he'd be just like us.

Oh, I think you understand just fine. I think it's the implications of dimensional manipulations that trouble you. An entity that can move freely in and out of, and around in dimensions like space and time would certainly invalidate your position, so you had best ignore it.

Not at all. It matters not what he can do, that's sort of implied by the word "omnipotent." I'm not concerned with that word. I'm concerned with the word "omniscient." It's the fact that he knows what will happen and yet doesn't do anything to stop it that makes him responsible. Do we share responsibility, I guess you could argue that, and I won't necessarily disagree, but you have to admit that God has some responsibility.

Logically, a logical argument must include all relevant information, however, if your position would crumble using all available information then it is logical that you would misrepresent that information in an attempt to maintain the illusion that your position is logical.

Ok, show me where I missed available information, rather than just saying that if I had, my argument would be invalid, which is sort of implied.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Hill Billy, posted 07-31-2009 10:02 AM Hill Billy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Peg, posted 07-31-2009 11:03 PM Perdition has responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 353 of 384 (517366)
07-31-2009 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by Hill Billy
07-31-2009 9:25 AM


Re: same old
No, actually it isn't. My philosophy, taken to it's logical conclusion, allows all folks to make their own choices and face the consequences, even if they may choose to reject GOD.

So, somehow it's better to let the baby enter into a world full of pain, lies and the chance of being separated from God's glory and salvation for all eternity, rather than making it a certainty that the baby will never suffer for ever and ever amen? Doesn't that make your philosophy sort of sadistic?

"I have a way to give a baby, and in fact all babies, eternal love and salvation, never having been touched with any little bit of corruption, but I won't do it because I feel it's better for them to feel corruption and fear and sadness." Sadisitc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Hill Billy, posted 07-31-2009 9:25 AM Hill Billy has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 354 of 384 (517448)
07-31-2009 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by Perdition
07-31-2009 11:29 AM


Re: Less logical than I thought
Perdition writes:

But not for close to a thousand years, right? If I tell you, "Don't steal my stuff or you'll die." You then steal my stuff, and I say, "Ok, you're gonna get it!" But then I walk away and 50 years later, you're lying on your deathbed from old age, and I pop my head in and say, "See, I told you! What do you think about stealing my stuff now?!" Does that sound like I carried out my threat?

i can see what you are saying and by the way you've put it, it certainly seems plausible that God did not carry out his pronouncement on Adam.

But if Adam had the opportunity to live forever, then God did carry out his pronouncement by allowing Adam to grow old and die.

The angels live forever because God allows them to live...Adam & Eve could have been permitted to live forever also, but they werent because God did not allow them to.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Perdition, posted 07-31-2009 11:29 AM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-01-2009 9:54 AM Peg has responded
 Message 358 by Perdition, posted 08-03-2009 11:54 AM Peg has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5690
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 355 of 384 (517525)
08-01-2009 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Peg
07-31-2009 11:03 PM


Re: Less logical than I thought
The angels live forever because God allows them to live...Adam & Eve could have been permitted to live forever also, but they werent because God did not allow them to.

I think what he is pointing out is that you can't have your cake and eat it too, which is in the spirit of the title of the thread. If anyone is going to take the inerrant and literal interpretation of the bible, they don't get to cherry pick on things that don't suit their religious and personal agenda's. They just have to accept it for face value.

Various passages have the LORD instructing Hebrew soldiers to dash upon the rocks, little children and ambushing and slaughtering whole villages because they worshiped idols. And according to the bible, it was God who ordered all this carnage.

So if you want to be a literalist, then you have to accept this as true and Godly. But how can you defend something so transparently immoral and call it moral?

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Peg, posted 07-31-2009 11:03 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Peg, posted 08-03-2009 2:56 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 356 of 384 (517875)
08-03-2009 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Hyroglyphx
08-01-2009 9:54 AM


Re: Less logical than I thought
Hyroglyphx writes:

So if you want to be a literalist, then you have to accept this as true and Godly. But how can you defend something so transparently immoral and call it moral?

i'll admit that if i read the account on face value, i'd come to the same conclusion as everyone else

But when you weight it up in the context of the times, it becomes apparent that the Cananites chose to war against Gods people rather then allow them access to the land the was given to them as an inheritence. So if you 'choose' war then thats what you get.

While its true that God commanded that the Cananites, their cities and all of their children were to be destroyed, it doesnt mean that he acted in unrighteousness or wickedness. He actually saved those cananites who requested it such as Rahab and her whole family and the cities of the Gibeonites.

So on one hand God has decreed that the Cananites be destroyed, but on the other hand he has rescued the ones who wanted to be rescued. The rest didnt want to be rescued, they wanted to fight and because of that they all died.

Who really is to blame?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-01-2009 9:54 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Mothership, posted 08-03-2009 7:30 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 359 by Taz, posted 08-03-2009 2:43 PM Peg has responded

    
Mothership
Junior Member (Idle past 3463 days)
Posts: 9
From: Ohio, USA
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 357 of 384 (517900)
08-03-2009 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Peg
08-03-2009 2:56 AM


Re: Less logical than I thought
Peg asked "Who is to blame?"

Well not god that's for sure since he was and is a figment of someone's imagination.

Let's see, could it be the Israelites who were to blame? BINGO!

Nothing works as well as making up a god and then threatening everyone with his supposed power and then finising off your enemy yourself and then feeling justified because after all it wasn't YOUR idea, it was GOD'S idea.

Even Hitler used that tactic. If you don't believe me, read Mein Kampf. The SS even had the words "God with Us" inscribed on their belt buckles as they invaded other countries. Hmmm, I am beginning to see a pattern.

Edited by Mothership, : corrected typos

Edited by Mothership, : corrected typos


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Peg, posted 08-03-2009 2:56 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1410 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 358 of 384 (517941)
08-03-2009 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Peg
07-31-2009 11:03 PM


Re: Less logical than I thought
But if Adam had the opportunity to live forever, then God did carry out his pronouncement by allowing Adam to grow old and die.

Can you quote me where it says Adam would have lived forever? If he would have, why would God have created the Tree of Life, which he worries Adam and Eve will eat from and live forever?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Peg, posted 07-31-2009 11:03 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Peg, posted 08-03-2009 8:46 PM Perdition has responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1463 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 359 of 384 (517964)
08-03-2009 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Peg
08-03-2009 2:56 AM


Re: Less logical than I thought
Peg writes:

But when you weight it up in the context of the times, it becomes apparent that the Cananites chose to war against Gods people rather then allow them access to the land the was given to them as an inheritence. So if you 'choose' war then thats what you get.


Several people asked you this already but you've decided to LIE your way out by dodging and ignoring us. So, let me ask you again and don't LIE this time.

If a group of people come to your country, you know, the land where your forefathers established their civilization and passed it down through the generations to you, and told you to get up and leave because their god had given this land to them, would you get up and leave?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Peg, posted 08-03-2009 2:56 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by Peg, posted 08-03-2009 8:51 PM Taz has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 360 of 384 (518043)
08-03-2009 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by Perdition
08-03-2009 11:54 AM


Re: Less logical than I thought
Perdition writes:

Can you quote me where it says Adam would have lived forever? If he would have, why would God have created the Tree of Life, which he worries Adam and Eve will eat from and live forever?

the tree of life was in the garden just as the tree of knowledge of good and bad was. Both those trees represented something. The tree of life represented exactly that, Life. God prevented them from eating from that tree in order that they may not live indefinitely.

Gen 2:9 "...he made to grow out of the ground every tree desirable to one's sight and good for food and also the tree of life in the middle of the garden...

Gen 3:22 "...and now in order that he may not put his hand out and actually take [fruit] also from the tree of life and eat and live to time indefinite...""

so along with the tree of knowledge and all the other fruit trees, was the 'tree of life' It was available to be eaten from, but God prevented Adam from eating from it by removing him from the garden.

Had he allowed them to eat from it, they could have lived indefinitely.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Perdition, posted 08-03-2009 11:54 AM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Perdition, posted 08-05-2009 4:30 PM Peg has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
212223
24
2526Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019