Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 362 of 477 (562483)
05-29-2010 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 359 by dennis780
05-29-2010 12:36 AM


Re: Why & how did Jesus have to die for our sins?
dennis780 writes:
there is no truth in morality. Morality is a personal belief.
If morality is a personal belief, it is subjective. If morality was independent of the mind it would be objective.
It seems that you skipped over the substance of what I was saying to parrot some senseless "Confucius says" philosophy.
dennis780 writes:
Actually, by divorcing her I would be forcing my morality (and Gods, since infedility is grounds for divorce by biblical standards), because it influences her negitively.
You seem to be arguing that behaving according to your own morality is necessarily forcing that morality on others. I don't see how your behavior is going to prevent your wife from having her own standards of morality, and behaving according to them.
For instance, there are many people in the world who hold moral stances different from your own. Are you capable of exercising your moral stance?
dennis780 writes:
Since I am not perfect, how is it logical to consider what she did immoral?
Since when is perfection required to judge something immoral? In fact, the recognition of imperfection carries with it the implication that you can recognize and differentiate between moral and immoral actions. If you can find fault in your own behavior, then you can similarly find fault in others'.
dennis780 writes:
Since morality is not concrete anywhere in the world, I fail to see the relevance.
It is relevant in the sense that we have established morality as subjective. You almost continued on to the next step in this process on your own:
dennis780 writes:
If there is a supreme entity, I think it's level of morality on any subject would be given more weight than mine or yours.
Why?
Now this is a trickier question than it might at first appear. Is God's opinion on morality more important than our own because it is really powerful? That is the "big stick" code of morality, where the biggest bully on the block makes the rules. I reject that as unacceptable.
Or does God make the rules because it created us? I again reject that as unacceptable; even though parents are afforded certain privileges in raising children, it is generally agreed that once they reach a certain age and maturity they deserve to make their own decisions. You are not a slave to the will of your parents forever.
So, what makes the moral opinion of some "supreme being" more important than our own?
dennis780 writes:
I believe this is self refuting. Define perfectly moral.
Given that morality is subjective, moral perfection is also subjective. If one's behavior conforms perfectly to what one considers moral, that action is perfectly moral in their eyes.
But, the phrase was used in the colloquial sense of "perfectly reasonable", or "perfectly normal". I wasn't attempting to establish some ideal form of behavior.
dennis780 writes:
Deuteronomy teaches that no teaching or prophet will conflict with any other, or it is not from God. So if an interpretation conflicts with other scriptural teaching, then it has been interpreted incorrectly.
There are several problems with this. First, Deuteronomy is part of the Bible so that teaching could itself be misinterpreted. You cannot use an interpretation of the Bible to determine if that interpretation is correct, in the same way you cannot fly to the moon by tugging on your bootstraps.
Second, if an interpretation of the Bible conflicts with a different scriptural interpretation then you still don't know which one is right. It could be either one, or even neither. A three-way split makes it even more complicated. People can even have different opinions on if the interpretations even conflict or not.
I don't see you getting much mileage out of that method at all.
dennis780 writes:
They did not become like God from eating the fruit ... They were already like God before eating the fruit.
Genesis 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil..."
This passage specifically states otherwise. This is very clearly defined as a change, and it is that change that gets them kicked out of the garden.
(As an aside, it goes on to point out that God kicks Adam and Eve out specifically so they cannot gain eternal life. Why Christians think God offers it to them later is puzzling.)
dennis780 writes:
But why should I force my morality on my brother by saying he has had whatever I lend him too long? How long is too long? Why is my morality more important than his?
You seem to be suggesting that if someone stole from you, you would be unwilling to "force your morality" upon them and maintain your right to your own property. Not only do I find this concept ludicrous, but I also very much doubt you actually hold this position. Behaving according to your own moral code does not in general prevent others from behaving according to their different moral codes.
Furthermore, with such a view you damage your own case. By what right does God then "force" his subjective morality on us?
dennis780 writes:
Gods teachings are moral, because they appeal to the higher nature of man.
Says who? What defines "higher nature", and how can you prove that it isn't a subjective label? God teaches people to stone their children to death for disobedience, to enslave their fellow man, and kills babies for the crimes of their ancestors. I don't see how that appeals to a higher nature of man at all, if anything it appeals to the base bloodthirsty nature of ignorant desert tribes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by dennis780, posted 05-29-2010 12:36 AM dennis780 has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 405 of 477 (566092)
06-23-2010 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by hERICtic
06-22-2010 1:44 PM


Re: Why & how did Jesus have to die for our sins?
hERICtic writes:
Were the Hebrews slaves of the Egyptians? Did they have a choice in the matter?
Funny you should bring that up. Are you sure that the Jews actually *were* enslaved by the Egyptians?
So far as I know that story only appears in the Bible and there is absolutely no corroborating evidence in the writings or archaeological leavings of any other civilization at the time, Egyptian or otherwise. What do you think is more likely; that Egyptians enslaved enough Jews to equal their own total population and yet never mentioned their existence, exodus, or subsequent wandering (or anyone else for that matter)... or that it is a fiction?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by hERICtic, posted 06-22-2010 1:44 PM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by hERICtic, posted 06-23-2010 7:59 AM Phage0070 has not replied
 Message 407 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-30-2010 4:29 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 408 of 477 (567389)
06-30-2010 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by Artemis Entreri
06-30-2010 4:29 PM


Re: Why & how did Jesus have to die for our sins?
I think you replied to the wrong message since you don't quote my post anywhere, but I will attempt to reply in the vein of your inquiry.
Artemis Entreri writes:
You are asking questions that are not specific, nor that answerable, are they rhtorical?
Most likely, considering they are most likely about fictional events.
Artemis Entreri writes:
Those taken may have been allowed to leave eventually, often times indetered servitude and slavery were equated to be the same thing, its hard to say as it is not very clear.
Does it matter? I would argue that slavery for any period of time is still slavery; rape for any period of time is still rape. Obviously slavery or rape for shorter periods of time is better, but the point still stands. If God orders rape or slavery, for any period of time, he is responsible for those acts.
Artemis Entreri writes:
I think the hebrews more than likey were slaves in some form of the Egyptians, though contrary to popular presentation slaves could not have built the great pyramids, that was obviously completed by extremely skilled labor.
Why do you think they were slaves in some form? What evidence do you have in support of this belief?
Artemis Entreri writes:
Did women taken have a choice? Probably not, but thier other option was probably starving to death,...
Thats what happens when you kill all the males, not just those involved in battle or even capable of warfare. Societies can suffer through great losses in war but the purposeful genocide of killing all men, no matter their age, is intentionally directed at destroying the society itself.
God ordering such actions makes him responsible for the Catch 22 of starvation or rape/slavery. An omnipotent entity cannot avoid responsibility.
Artemis Entreri writes:
You have still failed to answer my question of what does this OT stuff have to do with Jesus, and him dying for our sins.
Everything! Jesus is only important because he fulfills prophecies in the Old Testament; "Christ" is a title, not a name. Jesus is only important because he is the son and also the same being as the deity introduced in the Old Testament; if we remove the OT, nobody has any idea what he means when he claims to be the "son of God". Jesus's death is only significant because it forgives violations of the laws of a deity introduced in the Old Testament; what are sins if that background doesn't exist?
The Old Testament stuff is crucial to the story of Jesus, especially because Jesus is claimed to be the same entity as God to some extent. If the OT God supports slavery, so does Jesus. If the OT God supports rape, so does Jesus.
If the Old Testament God is a bloodthirsty, rage-filled, despicable monster of a deity who cares only for the subservience of a single tribe of humans and even less for everyone else... so is Jesus.
Artemis Entreri writes:
Well I am Roman Catholic.
Dang, I'm sorry.
Say, do you consider the Pope as being infallible? Thats always good for a laugh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-30-2010 4:29 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-01-2010 10:05 AM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 420 of 477 (567625)
07-02-2010 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 409 by Artemis Entreri
07-01-2010 10:05 AM


Re: Why & how did Jesus have to die for our sins?
Artemis Entreri writes:
If God's followers have free will then God is free from blame as his followers have the option to disobey him as they do through sin every hour of every day.
The biblical God has shown a clear policy of punishing behavior against his will regardless of the morality or intentions behind those actions. Ordering unethical actions puts believers between a rock and a hard place; they either obey God and behave unethically, or disobey God and be punished for sinful actions.
Do you think God will reward people for obeying his unethical orders?
Artemis Entreri writes:
I like the Moses story. Evidence is unesscessary for belief.
If I can spin you a more attractive story than that of Moses, would you believe it considering evidence is unnecessary? Also, can you name another area of your life which you find evidence unnecessary for belief other than religious faith?
Artemis Entreri writes:
Free will is the avoidance to resposibility.
A paraplegic's free will to walk is not impaired, their ability to walk is impaired. My free will to desire at-will flight like Superman is not restricted, my ability to do so is restricted.
Similarly if I observed a man raping a woman, and I had the means at my disposal to stop him, I would not be impairing the free will of the rapist. I would however be impairing his ability to perform that crime. For me to stand by and do nothing makes me to some extent morally culpable in that rape.
In this same way, a god that is all-powerful would certainly have the ability to restrict the ability of humans to perform evil acts against others without restricting their free will. Having this ability places that god firmly in the moral picture with every evil action committed.
Artemis Entreri writes:
Nope. That is incorrect.
Please elaborate. Do you not consider them part of the same entity, or that they are separate faces which don't share the same traits?
Artemis Entreri writes:
Its obvious that one you either cannot comprehend the infallible doctrine, or you are not being serious, and just try to make a joke, so I'll plead the 5th on this one.
Here is the punchline: If God never changes his mind but upholds the edicts of the Pope in heaven, what happens when a Pope changes his mind, or different Pope's contradict each other?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-01-2010 10:05 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-02-2010 1:33 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 421 of 477 (567626)
07-02-2010 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 417 by Hyroglyphx
07-01-2010 9:11 PM


Re: Why & how did Jesus have to die for our sins?
Hyroglyphx writes:
Why is that offensive?
You are obviously too stupid and morally lacking to understand such concepts that define a civilized and ethical human being. I will ask my magical teddy bear tonight to help you figure out how you should behave, as it can clearly do it better than you.
The exercise above should demonstrate the connotations involved in theists stating that they will pray for atheists. You may not be offended, but it is easy to see why some would.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-01-2010 9:11 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2010 9:32 AM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 429 of 477 (567822)
07-02-2010 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 424 by Hyroglyphx
07-02-2010 9:32 AM


Re: Why & how did Jesus have to die for our sins?
Hyroglyphx writes:
Was that really necessary?
Yes. It was intended to be insulting, since you asked for clarification how something was insulting. I believe you now understand its insulting nature first-hand. If only all my explanations could be so instructive.
Hyroglyphx writes:
Some people mean no ill will towards you for praying for you.
My previous statement involved, nor was meant to imply, ill will. It implied pity for your sorry state.
Insulting, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2010 9:32 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2010 5:18 PM Phage0070 has not replied
 Message 435 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2010 7:15 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 430 of 477 (567833)
07-02-2010 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 427 by Artemis Entreri
07-02-2010 1:33 PM


Re: Why & how did Jesus have to die for our sins?
Artemis Entreri writes:
I am not an apologetic, I do not have to explain anything. I really think the OT, is not that important, for without the NT there would be no christianity, and we'd be having the debate if Ragnarok would ever happen or not.
Without the Old Testament there wouldn't be a Christianity either. Also, two answers for your denial of apologetics:
1 Peter 3:15 - "...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have..."
Second, you came to a discussion forum and posted in a thread called "Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity". I am going to ask you straightforward, hard-to-answer questions about the Bible/Christianity. Your participation is optional.
Artemis Entreri writes:
the Walt Disney company did a pretty good Moses and Exodus story a few years back. it had songs, was entertaining (i doubt you could do a better job than Disney, no offense), but in that story Jew were salves and building the pyramids, which I found to be unbelieveable.
I mean a better deal, not presentation value. Do you pick your unevidenced beliefs based on how much you would personally like them to be true?
Artemis Entreri writes:
Plate Tectonics, the Statistical understanding of the 4th deminsion, and Linear Regression Model, I believe these things but they make no sense to me,
Evidence for these concepts was provided. Is there anything else which you believed where there was no evidence?
Artemis Entreri writes:
another examples is Personal desktop computers, how does all this stuff work? I think its magic. I just plug it in and go, I have no clue what factors into how it works, and i don't care.
The evidence that personal computers work is staggering. The evidence for your god is nil. These are not equivalent concepts.
Artemis Entreri writes:
There is four. as a geographer I must understand the earth, and use a lot of statistical models, with PCs
I find it hard to believe that a geographer could have graduated any respectable university without at least a cursory understanding of the plate tectonics model, but thats quite off topic.
Artemis Entreri writes:
no it doesn't, you could just be minding your own business, maybe she should CCW. you can put that on me that I have to somehow intervene, as it is my duty.
Wow. What a despicable human being. Jesus wasn't kidding when he said Christians had a lot to learn from the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Artemis Entreri writes:
If your father commits a crime, before you are born, you are not guilty of the same crime.
Exodus 20:5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
God 1.0 in your terminology apparently disagrees. Which one is more powerful?
Artemis Entreri writes:
there has not been an infallible proclimation in 60 years.
How is this relevant to the question? A problem like this doctrine becomes no less a problem by being old.
As for the rest, you will need to reply to a post from HERICTIC for him to get a message, and to aid the post structure.
Edited by Phage0070, : threat - thread
Edited by Phage0070, : you - your

This message is a reply to:
 Message 427 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-02-2010 1:33 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-02-2010 6:21 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 434 of 477 (567855)
07-02-2010 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by Artemis Entreri
07-02-2010 6:21 PM


Re: Why & how did Jesus have to die for our sins?
Please split your posts according to the people to which you are replying. It greatly aids in readability.
If you have forgotten how to do this, simply press the reply button below a particular post and reply in the box to that post. Submit the reply, rinse, and repeat.
Artemis Entreri writes:
heck yes doesn't everyone?
Actually, no. At this point I have to call Poe's Law on you.
However, I will also propose you put your money where your mouth is. I tell you that in one week's time, you will go to a place/state better than the Christian heaven and remain there longer than eternity (it is of course difficult to describe using earthly terms, but it is much better than normal heaven, and arrives sooner!). You don't have to believe, have faith, or even suffer during the next week. The only requirement is that in the next 3 days you send me half of your liquid assets.
This is a better deal than Christianity. Your eternal bliss is better and longer, and you have more choices (don't want to eternally praise one being? No problem! You can still do that if you want though). You have no uncertainty about when this reward will come, and you can even commit suicide after you send me your assets and still get the reward!
Feel free to contact me through private message for mailing information.
Artemis Entreri writes:
Barack Hussien Obama was born in the United States (SARCASM), lol.
A genuine Hawaiian birth certificate constitutes evidence (not sarcasm). Try again.
Artemis Entreri writes:
hey fuck you too
Is that also your position toward Jesus's parable?
Artemis Entreri writes:
there is no problem with the doctrine. if so what is it?
Contradictory Papal decrees cannot both be upheld by God. Thats the problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-02-2010 6:21 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 437 of 477 (567860)
07-02-2010 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by Hyroglyphx
07-02-2010 7:15 PM


Insulting through Prayer
Hyroglyphx writes:
Praying for somebody and calling them an idiot are two entirely different things, no?
Not when they are praying for you to have understanding. The implication is that they don't, and that they don't through a deficiency on their part.
Hyroglyphx writes:
Or is it somehow worse if somebody covertly insults versus overtly?
Not really, but it becomes a problem when people don't realize or deny that they are being insulting. If they care, like you seem to, it helps to point out the implications which cause a perhaps well-meaning gesture to be insulting.
Hyroglyphx writes:
Are you offended by the act of someone praying for you or that they would have the audacity to intentionally insult you in the name of God?
Either, as long as the opinion conveyed is derogatory. The intention to insult counts more of course, but both qualify.
For instance, compare these two comments:
"You are to blame for your terrible alcoholism, and I consider you a lesser human because of it."
vs
"I sincerely hope that you get over your debilitating alcoholism which is preventing you from being a functional member of society."
Consider those two statements from the point of view of someone who does not consider themselves to have a problem with alcohol, and to be a relatively upstanding member of society. The first is perhaps more insulting than the latter, but they are both insulting.
It is possible to be unintentionally insulting, do you agree?
Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2010 7:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by AdminPD, posted 07-03-2010 6:58 AM Phage0070 has not replied
 Message 449 by dennis780, posted 08-31-2010 7:12 AM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 452 of 477 (578016)
08-31-2010 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 449 by dennis780
08-31-2010 7:12 AM


Re: Insulting through Prayer
dennis780 writes:
"God, I pray that you would be with Phage, and that his first child will be healthy."
The bad version of this would be?
Not all prayers are insulting. In fact, it doesn't depend so much on what the prayer is but rather how it is perceived by the person potentially offended. Some people might appreciate it simply for the sentiment, but others might not appreciate the sentiment itself or misinterpret your meaning.
Lets see how someone might take your example prayer wrong:
"I pray that you would be with Phage" Why does your God need to be with me? Are you suggesting that I cannot take care of myself, or that some ill will befall me without divine protection? Considering your god is supposed to be everywhere anyway this just seems like asking for special treatment; why am I less capable of operating without special supervision? Finally, if you look in the Bible people who are close with God are not assured a good life but seem disproportionately inclined toward hard and even short lives. Look at Job for example; are you wishing I am tight with God like that?
"and that his first child will be healthy." Why just my first child? Do you want my subsequent children to be ill, or do you just not care about them? Wishing all my children to be healthy wouldn't have been any more difficult, so what exactly are you getting at? Do you think I am incapable of looking after the health of my own children without the help of your god? Or do you simply think your god should only help my first child and ignore the rest?
dennis780 writes:
Of course. Many people are offended by this. My uncle almost slapped the white off me when I told him I was praying for him. But some people find it offensive to drive cars, since they are a greenhouse contributor. Does this mean everyone MUST stop driving now, or that in any way driving is bad?
Not at all. I firmly believe that being insulting must be protected through freedom of speech and expression, and that such freedoms are vital to a free society. Also, the quality of being insulting to a particular person has no particular bearing on the value or ethics of that behavior since practically anything you can do will be insulting to someone. However, you should realize that being insulting can have detrimental effects on your relationships between people.
Even if you mean well in praying for someone you can still damage your relationship with that person by telling them. For example, your uncle obviously didn't appreciate your prayers. But if you actually believe praying works in anything other than a placebo effect, why would you tell him? Is it your ego that requires you pat yourself on the back for your piety? Does that even make sense considering you essentially asked someone else (who probably doesn't exist) to help him out in undefinable and undetectable ways, rather than simply doing something helpful yourself?
So tell me this: When you started praying for your uncle, did you think he would respond positively to knowing you were doing so rather than neutrally or negatively? After you knew he didn't respond positively did you continue praying for him, and/or did you later tell him again about your prayers? Why, and what does this indicate about your motives?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by dennis780, posted 08-31-2010 7:12 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by dennis780, posted 08-31-2010 11:00 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024