Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 5:53 AM
25 online now:
PaulK, Porkncheese, Pressie, vimesey (4 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,657 Year: 3,694/19,786 Month: 689/1,087 Week: 58/221 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Author Topic:   Are Fundamentalists Inherently Immoral
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1318 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 76 of 161 (521641)
08-28-2009 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Stile
08-28-2009 9:45 AM


Re: Clarification
It is important to remember that an open wound is still bad for all situations (including this one), just as it is important to remember that rape is still wrong for all situations (including this one). It's just the limitations of the situation that prevents us from attending all wounds, or avoiding all wrongs.

This is very true. In one of my ethics classes, we were looking at Utilitarianism, which I have a soft spot in my heart for. One of the papers we looked at claimed to be a refutation of Utilitarianism. IN it, it created a very contrived situation in which it could be shown that Utilitarianism would pick a nation that instituted slavery as a better place than one that didn't. It was claimed that, since we know slavery to be a preeminently immoral act, any moral code that would require slavery in any situation must be wrong. The problem I had with the scenario was that the other option was preeminently immoral as well. What this did is merely show that there are degrees of immorality and, according to Utilitarianism, there is something worse than slavery.

Similarly, in this case, we are merely showing that in our respective codes, there is something worse than rape, namely the genocide, torture, and forced relocation of 100,000s of people. That sounds about right to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Stile, posted 08-28-2009 9:45 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Holyfire23
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 161 (521654)
08-28-2009 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by dwise1
08-27-2009 11:42 PM


So then you are telling us that morality is indeed not absolute, but rather depends on the circumstances? It's all relative?

Tell me then, what circumstances constitute the murder of women and children?

Edited by Holyfire23, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by dwise1, posted 08-27-2009 11:42 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by jacortina, posted 08-28-2009 12:11 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded
 Message 80 by hooah212002, posted 08-28-2009 12:21 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded
 Message 108 by dwise1, posted 08-29-2009 3:37 AM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

  
Holyfire23
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 161 (521656)
08-28-2009 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Coragyps
08-28-2009 7:48 AM


You're not gonna answer my quostion, huh?
None of your three options reflect the plan your God is said to have commanded: kill the men, kill the womed, kill the boy children, kill the grandpas and grammaws, and take the virgin girls back to your house. Then screw 'em. That's murder + rape. You have said, on this thread, that rape is always wrong. How do you justify this God guy promoting it?

Please give me an example of when God has ever killed someone without provocation? Also, when has God ever condoned rape?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Coragyps, posted 08-28-2009 7:48 AM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by purpledawn, posted 08-28-2009 1:51 PM Holyfire23 has responded
 Message 88 by Coragyps, posted 08-28-2009 2:37 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

  
jacortina
Member (Idle past 3164 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 79 of 161 (521658)
08-28-2009 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Holyfire23
08-28-2009 12:01 PM


Being Hittite or Amorite or Canaanite or Perizzite or Hivite or Jebusite appears to be a good enough reason according to Deuteronomy 20:13-17.

Others just have all the men killed and the women and goods taken, but the above are to be wiped out completely.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Holyfire23, posted 08-28-2009 12:01 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 80 of 161 (521662)
08-28-2009 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Holyfire23
08-28-2009 12:01 PM


Maybe you should ask your god, because he does it often.

quote:
1 Samuel 15:3 (King James Version)

3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Holyfire23, posted 08-28-2009 12:01 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

    
Holyfire23
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 161 (521682)
08-28-2009 1:25 PM


Being Hittite or Amorite or Canaanite or Perizzite or Hivite or Jebusite appears to be a good enough reason according to Deuteronomy 20:13-17.
God never unleashed His wrath without provocation.

Maybe you should ask your god, because he does it often.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Samuel 15:3 (King James Version)
3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Again, if you had read the verse in context you would know that Amalek and his tribe had acted maliciously towards the Israelites.

This is like the fifth time I have had to defend against these accusations. Has anybody here read the Bible? Does anyone known the context in which these verses were written? Or do you just go to an internet Bible site and do a word search on "smite"? You all forget that there is a second half to the Bible know as the New Testament. When Jesus came he fulfilled all the rerquirements of the Jewish Law. All the rules which said, "All the sinful nations must be destroyed."...they are all fulfilled. God no longer demands that man pay for his sins on this earth. Jesus came and did it all for us. If Jesus had not come, God would still demand that man pay for his sins and alot of what went on in the OT would still be happening. But God does not want any of His children to parish.

2 Peter 3:9 writes:

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

God does not want His people to die. I can tell you with great confidence that God did not want all the people in the OT to die. But He is a just God. That is the only reason those people were punished. For that reason He sent Jesus to be punished for all of us. Is this not loving? Would you give up your son or daughter to be tortured so that the very people who tortured him or her could have a chance at being saved? Forget about God's existence if you want and speak hypothetcaly.

Edited by Holyfire23, : Poor spelling is a bad symptom of my bad typing lol.


Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by hooah212002, posted 08-28-2009 1:28 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded
 Message 86 by purpledawn, posted 08-28-2009 2:31 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded
 Message 89 by jacortina, posted 08-28-2009 2:42 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 82 of 161 (521684)
08-28-2009 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Holyfire23
08-28-2009 1:25 PM


Again, if you had read the verse in context you would know that Amalek and his tribe had acted maliciously towards the Israelites

Explain to me how infants and "sucklings" (presumably newborns) could possibly act maliciously towards anyone??????? You are mental man if you defend this shit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Holyfire23, posted 08-28-2009 1:25 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1538 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 83 of 161 (521686)
08-28-2009 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Holyfire23
08-28-2009 12:07 PM


God Easily Provoked
quote:
Please give me an example of when God has ever killed someone without provocation? Also, when has God ever condoned rape?
Although you don't seem to like addressing my posts, the Midianite story is a very good example. Message 71

Here are some others. God is provoked by name calling, curiosity, restraint, and a helping hand. These are not incidents that should provoke anyone to kill, least of all a loving and just god.

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24)

And he smote of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of Jehovah, he smote of the people seventy men, `and' fifty thousand men; and the people mourned, because Jehovah had smitten the people with a great slaughter. And the men of Beth-shemesh said, Who is able to stand before Jehovah, this holy God? and to whom shall he go up from us? (1Samuel 6:19-20)

Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him. (1 Kings 20:35-36)

They set the ark of God on a new cart and brought it from the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, were guiding the new cart with the ark of God on it, and Ahio was walking in front of it. David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating with all their might before the Lord, with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals. When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God. (2 Samuel 6:3-7)

Then we have the first born in Egypt before the Hebrews left. Pharaoh may have provoked the Hebrew god, but not every first born in Egypt could have provoked him.

The Hebrew God's responses are definitely overkill.

Explain to me how God was intentionally provoked in these situations by the people killed.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Holyfire23, posted 08-28-2009 12:07 PM Holyfire23 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Rahvin, posted 08-28-2009 2:05 PM purpledawn has responded
 Message 91 by Holyfire23, posted 08-28-2009 2:53 PM purpledawn has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1267 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 84 of 161 (521687)
08-28-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by purpledawn
08-28-2009 1:51 PM


Re: God Easily Provoked
Then we have the first born in Egypt before the Hebrews left. Pharaoh may have provoked the Hebrew god, but not every first born in Egypt could have provoked him.

Addendum - Pharaoh was going to let the Hebrews go...several times. God specifically "hardened his heart" and made him change his mind.

God punished all of Egypt for what God forced Pharaoh to to.

It doesn't even make any sense. That's like me forcing my son's hand into a cookie jar, and then spanking his sister for it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by purpledawn, posted 08-28-2009 1:51 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by purpledawn, posted 08-28-2009 2:36 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1011 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 85 of 161 (521689)
08-28-2009 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Rahvin
08-26-2009 7:19 PM


Objective morality versus good and evil
First of all I want to thank you Rahvin for an absolutely brilliant post. I have c&p'd it to save as a reference, just amazing.

Your first point nails an important concept that cannot be stressed enough:

Rahvin writes:

False. The concept of objective right and wrong ceases to exist, but that doesn't matter - the assertion that morality is relative includes the rejection of an objective moral standard and the aceptance that ethics are subjectively determined by human beings.

This addresses the classic "bait and switch" tactic unscrupulous theists use when discussing the 'problem of evil'. Get your opponent to admit that some things are right and some things are wrong (subjective morality) then switch to objective morality as if synonymous. I think Ravi Zachiarias does this best in his famous and constantly repeated anecdtote:

Ravi Zachiarias writes:

Ravi Zacharias tells of a student who stood up in a lecture he was given and shouted "There's too much evil in the world! God can't exist!" Ravi asked him to stay standing for a little while. This would only take a moment.

He said "When you are saying that evil exists are you not admitting such a thing as good?" The student thought and said he guessed so. Ravi continued, "And are you not then saying there is a moral law on which to differentiate the two?"

Returning to his student he said, "So if there is a moral law aren't you saying there is a moral law giver? If there is no moral law giver, there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, there is no recognizable good. If there is no recognizable good, there is no recognizable evil. Thus, you are using evil to disprove that which you are trying to prove. What was your question?"

This exchange is often presented as a "checkmate!" proof of god, but is really quite a flawed argument meant to impress the already convinced.

To the OP, I find it sad but not surprising that fundies are hesitant to declare rape (or slavery, etc) as immoral. When confronted with demonstrations of their deity's apparent condoning of said immoral acts they immediately become moral relativists ("well those were different times...."). Anyway, thanks again for the post!


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Rahvin, posted 08-26-2009 7:19 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Rahvin, posted 08-28-2009 2:45 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1538 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 86 of 161 (521690)
08-28-2009 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Holyfire23
08-28-2009 1:25 PM


Not Loving or Just
quote:
Again, if you had read the verse in context you would know that Amalek and his tribe had acted maliciously towards the Israelites.
When did the Amalek act maliciously towards the Israelites?

In Exodus 17, the Israelites won. Why wait so long to go back and destroy?

In Numbers 14, God told them not to go to the hill country. He would not be with them in that battle and they would lose. Again, why wait so long to go back and destroy?

Since the verse says the Israelites were waylaid as they came up from Egypt, there seems to be a great amount of time between the encounter and the revenge. If I have missed the incident the verse is referring to please provide the verse.

quote:
You all forget that there is a second half to the Bible know as the New Testament. When Jesus came he fulfilled all the rerquirements of the Jewish Law. All the rules which said, "All the sinful nations must be destroyed."...they are all fulfilled. God no longer demands that man pay for his sins on this earth. Jesus came and did it all for us. If Jesus had not come, God would still demand that man pay for his sins and alot of what went on in the OT would still be happening. But God does not want any of His children to parish.
Please provide the law that says all the sinful nations must be destroyed.

Fulfilling the law and not destroying it means interpreting the law correctly, as opposed to not interpreting the law correctly.

The issue here is your position that God's morality never changes and yet there is a difference between what is in the OT and what is in the NT. Of course the OT is more nation oriented and the NT is more individual oriented.

quote:
I can tell you with great confidence that God did not want all the people in the OT to die.
No you can't. The writings in the Bible show otherwise. Show me that God was saddened by all these deaths.

quote:
But He is a just God. That is the only reason those people were punished. For that reason He sent Jesus to be punished for all of us. Is this not loving? Would you give up your son or daughter to be tortured so that the very people who tortured him or her could have a chance at being saved?
No it is not loving and God is not always just, as shown in the OT. I would not ask my child to suffer for a useless action that serves no purpose. God didn't, and still doesn't, need a sacrifice to forgive people. God didn't, and still doesn't, need any ransom paid. I'm not sure what other dogma you have dancing around in your head, but these cover the most common ones.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Holyfire23, posted 08-28-2009 1:25 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1538 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 87 of 161 (521692)
08-28-2009 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Rahvin
08-28-2009 2:05 PM


Re: God Easily Provoked
quote:
Addendum - Pharaoh was going to let the Hebrews go...several times. God specifically "hardened his heart" and made him change his mind.

God punished all of Egypt for what God forced Pharaoh to to.

It doesn't even make any sense. That's like me forcing my son's hand into a cookie jar, and then spanking his sister for it.


Exactly! That also puts a kink in the whole free will issue. God does tamper with people as it serves his purpose. So there really is no reason he couldn't just take all the evil out of humanity and save everyone a lot of bloodshed and grief.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Rahvin, posted 08-28-2009 2:05 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 88 of 161 (521693)
08-28-2009 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Holyfire23
08-28-2009 12:07 PM


Please give me an example of when God has ever killed someone without provocation? Also, when has God ever condoned rape?

Numbers chapter 31? "...Now therefore kill every male among the little ones..."? Or any of several dozen other places in Genesis through Judges?

Why won't you answer direct questions, Holyfire? Didn't I ask you about this "God who never changes" several days ago? The one who commanded "tooth for a tooth" and then advised against that?


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Holyfire23, posted 08-28-2009 12:07 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

    
jacortina
Member (Idle past 3164 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 89 of 161 (521694)
08-28-2009 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Holyfire23
08-28-2009 1:25 PM


God never unleashed His wrath without provocation.

What possible provocation makes genocide moral? How did the children and infants of those peoples provoke God?

Sorry, but 'they had it coming' is one of the most immoral justifications for ANY action.

Face it. The God of the Bible picks and chooses what is 'moral' from moment to moment. There is no hint of constancy, let alone anything like the 'absolute' you keep trying to tout.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Holyfire23, posted 08-28-2009 1:25 PM Holyfire23 has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1267 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 90 of 161 (521696)
08-28-2009 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Lithodid-Man
08-28-2009 2:31 PM


Re: Objective morality versus good and evil
First of all I want to thank you Rahvin for an absolutely brilliant post. I have c&p'd it to save as a reference, just amazing.

Thanks!

Your first point nails an important concept that cannot be stressed enough:
quote:
Rahvin writes:

False. The concept of objective right and wrong ceases to exist, but that doesn't matter - the assertion that morality is relative includes the rejection of an objective moral standard and the aceptance that ethics are subjectively determined by human beings.


This addresses the classic "bait and switch" tactic unscrupulous theists use when discussing the 'problem of evil'. Get your opponent to admit that some things are right and some things are wrong (subjective morality) then switch to objective morality as if synonymous. I think Ravi Zachiarias does this best in his famous and constantly repeated anecdtote:

quote:
Ravi Zachiarias writes:

Ravi Zacharias tells of a student who stood up in a lecture he was given and shouted "There's too much evil in the world! God can't exist!" Ravi asked him to stay standing for a little while. This would only take a moment.

He said "When you are saying that evil exists are you not admitting such a thing as good?" The student thought and said he guessed so. Ravi continued, "And are you not then saying there is a moral law on which to differentiate the two?"

Returning to his student he said, "So if there is a moral law aren't you saying there is a moral law giver? If there is no moral law giver, there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, there is no recognizable good. If there is no recognizable good, there is no recognizable evil. Thus, you are using evil to disprove that which you are trying to prove. What was your question?"


This exchange is often presented as a "checkmate!" proof of god, but is really quite a flawed argument meant to impress the already convinced.

I've seen YouTube clips of that guy. You'll note that he never actually debates anyone with his bait-n-switch. He simply recounts slightly different versions of his personal anecdote - meaning he "wins" the "debate" every time, becasue his opponent is simply a character in his story. He tells the story to people who already agree with him - and so his tactics and logic are never questioned, but rather met with resounding applause and laughter at those silly deluded atheists.

To the OP, I find it sad but not surprising that fundies are hesitant to declare rape (or slavery, etc) as immoral. When confronted with demonstrations of their deity's apparent condoning of said immoral acts they immediately become moral relativists ("well those were different times...."). Anyway, thanks again for the post!

It would be more honest of them to say "God's will be done" or something similar. They're obviously authoritarian - they don't believe in objective morality either, they believe in following the moral dictates of their deity. If God says kill these people, and then later says that we should turn the other cheek, well God knows best. They just confuse the issue by claiming God to hold up some objective, unchanging standard - when the Bible itself practically screams that that isn't the case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Lithodid-Man, posted 08-28-2009 2:31 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by dwise1, posted 08-29-2009 3:54 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019