Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moral high ground
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(3)
Message 151 of 318 (645389)
12-26-2011 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by purpledawn
12-26-2011 6:06 PM


Re: Religious Reasons
Do I have to re-quote YOU? You asked:
PD writes:
Where in the Bible do they refer to God as a person as in human individual?
You have quite the number of bible believing christians to dispute the fact that jesus is god and jesus was a MAN who roamed the desert 2011 years ago with. I know full well you dispute a lot of shit typical christians say, but you shouldn't be saying with so much "MY interpretation is the right one, they're wrong" lest you appear as just another one of 'em. The purpose of this thread, much to your chagrin I'm sure, is NOT "why does purpledawn claim a moral highground for her religion and let's make her defend it". I understand you find it hard to believe that christians don't believe the same shit you do, but it's true.... Just because you have apologetics and beliefs lined up to defend some of the shit we sling your way, does NOT mean that churchgoing, bible thumping, throw jesus in your face-he's my lord and savior christians DO believe it AND live the shit.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: This message resulted in a 1 week suspension - See here

Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by purpledawn, posted 12-26-2011 6:06 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by purpledawn, posted 12-26-2011 7:57 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 152 of 318 (645396)
12-26-2011 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by hooah212002
12-26-2011 7:32 PM


Re: Religious Reasons
I assumed my opposition was intelligent enough to stick with the portion of the Bible referenced. The verses being addressed were in the OT. The God in the verses is the God mentioned in the OT. Jesus is not the God of the OT. Jesus is not the God of Abraham. That's why they need the trinity if they want to maintain that God is one.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to rant because what I present is different than what you've heard. This is a debate forum. We pick a side or position and try to support it. I'm quite aware that people understand things differently than I do. They will present support for their own position. If you feel I've interpreted a passage incorrectly then provide support for your interpretation, don't rant at me.
The current issue is about the OT verses presented in Message 11 and what the religious reasons are for those deaths.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by hooah212002, posted 12-26-2011 7:32 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 153 of 318 (645410)
12-26-2011 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by purpledawn
12-26-2011 10:45 AM


Re: Religious Reasons
Your discussions recently seem to belie some other problem you are having.
Good luck with that.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by purpledawn, posted 12-26-2011 10:45 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 154 of 318 (645462)
12-27-2011 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by purpledawn
12-26-2011 6:06 PM


Re: Religious Reasons
Purpedawn writes:
Sigh... The Synoptics do not present Jesus as a supernatural being.
Agreed, he was just a very naughty boy.
(who just happened to perform miracles)

Life, don't talk to me about life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by purpledawn, posted 12-26-2011 6:06 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 155 of 318 (645463)
12-27-2011 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by purpledawn
12-26-2011 2:45 PM


purpledawn writes:
quote:
Where in the Bible do they refer to God as a person as in human individual?
Matthew 9:2-6
Mark 2:3-12
John 1:1
John 1:14
John 5:16-18
John 8:58
John 10:30-31
John 10:38-39
John 14:9
John 20:28
Acts 20:28
Colossians 1:16
Colossians 2:9
1 Timothy 3:16
Titus 2:13
Philippians 2:6
Hebrews 1:8
Revelation 1:17
Revelation 22:13
1 Timothy 3:16 is pretty explicit:
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
I can understand why there might be some confusion with those early verses I mentioned since "Son of Man" is an unusual phrase to talk about the divinity, but "God was manifest in the flesh" is pretty much exactly what you were going for.
Now, the Bible immediately contradicts those claims...sometimes in the same chapter. In John 8:40, Jesus says he isn't god:
But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
But then just a few verses later in 8:58, he claims he is:
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
A similar contradiction takes place in John 14. First Jesus says he is god and not two dozen verses later, he says he's not. No wonder everybody was having trouble with the accusations against him about whether he claimed to be the son of god.
quote:
Are gods presented as humans in the Bible stories?
With regard to Jesus? Yes.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by purpledawn, posted 12-26-2011 2:45 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by purpledawn, posted 12-27-2011 6:06 AM Rrhain has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 156 of 318 (645465)
12-27-2011 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Rrhain
12-27-2011 4:45 AM


quote:
With regard to Jesus? Yes.
Unfortunately that's another whole subject for debate. Even if one feels that Jesus was a god, does that make the God referred to in the flood story or any of the Hebrew Bible stories a human individual?
Was I correct in Message 135, when I said that God killed the people in the verses listed and not a person?
If we are going to tally up deaths caused for religious reasons, then we need to know that there was a religious reason for the deaths.
God did it, IMO, is not a religious reason. That just tells us who caused the deaths. If we're pulling the data from stories, we need to discern the reason from the story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Rrhain, posted 12-27-2011 4:45 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Rrhain, posted 12-28-2011 1:10 AM purpledawn has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 318 (645479)
12-27-2011 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Dr Adequate
12-25-2011 11:36 AM


Re: Relative Death Tolls
So, let's get this straight ... if I were to slay a bunch of people "because God wants them dead", that would be a religious reason, but if God does exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason, it isn't?
I'd say that's right. It seems silly to me to call God religious. What religion does God follow? Too, there's the difference of the latter being self-motivation while the former is other-motivated. Isn't the whole point being motivated by something other than yourself?
On the other hand, I wouldn't call "because God wants them dead" a religious reasons unless its following some particular religion.
Regarding the double standard, Portillo specifically mention comparing "Atheistic regimes" with "religious atrocities", so yeah, it doesn't seem to be apples-to-apples from the get-go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-25-2011 11:36 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Tangle, posted 12-27-2011 1:16 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 161 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-28-2011 1:49 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 318 (645494)
12-27-2011 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Butterflytyrant
12-24-2011 11:39 PM


Re: Christians Off The Hook
You are missing the one important point. The only people who need to add the deaths in the bible to their tally are the people who believe that the Bible is a historically accurate book.
If they have arrived at their position of moral superiority by counting the death toll of the respective teams, then they need to make sure that they count the deaths in the bible.
Only those who belive that the biblical deaths did occur need to do this.
So which deaths in the Bible are they going to count as religiously motivated? (that is what we/they're counting, right?)
You counted the victims of the flood earlier, but don't you think those shouldn't be counted as religously motivated since they were not caused by someone who was motivated by religion?
How do you determine which deaths in the Bible were religiously motivated and which weren't? How do you determine that for any death, regardless of whether it was in the Bible or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Butterflytyrant, posted 12-24-2011 11:39 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 159 of 318 (645510)
12-27-2011 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by New Cat's Eye
12-27-2011 10:54 AM


Re: Relative Death Tolls
Catholic Scientist writes:
It seems silly to me to call God religious. What religion does God follow?
Are you seriously suggesting that God isn't Catholic?
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-27-2011 10:54 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 160 of 318 (645563)
12-28-2011 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by purpledawn
12-27-2011 6:06 AM


purpledawn responds to me:
quote:
does that make the God referred to in the flood story or any of the Hebrew Bible stories a human individual?
Since humans are made in god's image and upon eating of the Tree of Knowledge became as gods, knowing good and evil, that's an interesting question.
Certainly Jewish theology is that there is only one god. That is the crime of Jesus: Claiming to be god. One of the big points of Judaism is that it is a monotheistic culture. That's the very first commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. The idea that there could be another is anathema.
quote:
Was I correct in Message 135, when I said that God killed the people in the verses listed and not a person?
Irrelevant.
quote:
If we are going to tally up deaths caused for religious reasons, then we need to know that there was a religious reason for the deaths.
Indeed. And god casting judgement is religious...especially over people who aren't his.
quote:
God did it, IMO, is not a religious reason. That just tells us who caused the deaths. If we're pulling the data from stories, we need to discern the reason from the story.
Unless you are presuming that god is taking his orders from somewhere else or that it was an accident, then the deliberate machinations of god are inherently religious. Part of the problem of being the source of all morality is that you don't get to behave outside of that. Anybody who has been in positions of high authority can tell you that: Authority means everything you do is part of that.
Theology is concerned about that comprehension of good and evil and everything god does is part and parcel of that. It's the age-old question of: "Does god do it because it's good or is it good because god does it?" In either case, if god kills someone, it is definitively connected to that question of religion.
You're right that "god did it" is insufficient. But if god ever has an intention, that is all the justification needed.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by purpledawn, posted 12-27-2011 6:06 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by purpledawn, posted 12-28-2011 7:50 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 161 of 318 (645566)
12-28-2011 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by New Cat's Eye
12-27-2011 10:54 AM


Re: Relative Death Tolls
I'd say that's right. It seems silly to me to call God religious. What religion does God follow?
The right one, obviously.
Too, there's the difference of the latter being self-motivation while the former is other-motivated. Isn't the whole point being motivated by something other than yourself?
It's not clear.
On the other hand, I wouldn't call "because God wants them dead" a religious reasons unless its following some particular religion.
"Because God wants it" is pretty much the only religious reason, in the last analysis. When religious people refer to something else, e.g. "Because the Bible says so", they're only doing that because they suppose the Bible is instructions from God telling them what he wants.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-27-2011 10:54 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-28-2011 10:32 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 162 of 318 (645577)
12-28-2011 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by hooah212002
12-26-2011 3:59 PM


Re: Religious Reasons
Somehow responded to wrong poster
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by hooah212002, posted 12-26-2011 3:59 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 163 of 318 (645582)
12-28-2011 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Rrhain
12-28-2011 1:10 AM


quote:
Indeed. And god casting judgement is religious...especially over people who aren't his.
I disagree. We're looking specifically at the Bible deaths as actual events. We aren't discussing generalities. Message 11
What's right and wrong isn't just an issue with theology. Civilizations have rules. Even animals have rules. When rules are broken there are consequences. I don't feel right and wrong are inherently religious. The religious might feel that they are, but that doesn't make it so. When one group tries to force their right and wrong on to another group, we have clashes. When one group wants another groups property, we have clashes. Casting judgment also isn't inherently religious.
Religious
1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
I don't see that God casting judgment in the stories is religious whether it is over his chosen people or not. Gods casting judgment on mankind seemed to be an accepted norm in those days. I don't see how a god casting judgment is different than a king casting judgment.
In the flood story, the supreme being created humans and didn't like the way they turned out, so he wiped the majority of them out.
In the Exodus, God was rescuing his people.
IMO, we need to look at the issue in context of the story, not just that if a deity does something it is automatically deemed a religious reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Rrhain, posted 12-28-2011 1:10 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Butterflytyrant, posted 12-28-2011 8:59 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 164 of 318 (645586)
12-28-2011 8:43 AM


wondering if anyone is going to deal with reality?
From what I can understand, Purple Dawn and now Catholic scientist do not think that the deaths at the hands of God are religiously motivated.
I think this is a excersise in semantic bullshit. I cant understand why anyone would say that when God commands someone to kill, then it is religiously motivated, but when god decides to do hi own dirty work, it is not.
What a load of bullshit.
This is some sort of pointless distraction argument designed to lead people away from the actual discussion. An activity that I seem to notice PD is involved in quite a lot.
God killed a lot of people because they did not do what he said or did not worship him.
They did not follow the instructions of god so he killed them.
How can killing people for not following the instructions of god only count as religiously motivated when a person does it, but not when God does it himself?
Doing what god tells you to do means it is religiously motivated, but God doing what he wants is not religiously motivated?
So if I killed nearly every person on earth because they are breaking gods rules, that would be religiously motivated. Yet if god kills nearly every person on earth because they are breaking his rules, then it is not religiously motivated.
What a load of bullshit.
This question is for PD -
Lets say I am a bible literalist and I say that I am moraly superior to you. You ask me to provide my count. I include all of the deaths from the history books that I have (including the bible). You count up all of the deaths from the history books you have. My position of moral superiority has been created using the bible as fact. I have come to my position using the bible as fact. I provide my numbers of the deaths, including those deaths cause by god and you tell me that I cannot use those figures because you do not believe that my religious book is fact. I have based my whole fucking life around this book. Including my position on morality. And you, you arrogant fuck are going to stand/sit there and tell me that my book is fictitious so my position is invalid? You are telling me that I cannot have developed my own opinions because the book I based my opinions on is not fact in your view.
Does that hypothetical situation seem sensible to you at all?
Why do you swear on the bible in court if it is just a book?
Why dont you go down to a court house and tell them that they should just throw their bibles away. the book is not true, so swearing on a bible should mean nothing. But to a lot of people it does mean something. It does not matter that it is a work of fiction.
Why do people (Message 113) automatically give Christopher Hitchins a hard time because he wrote a negative review of Mother Teresa?
Because people develop their opinions and positions on things that are often not true. That does not make their position any less real.
How about you go talk to the Jews and tell them that they dont have to circumcise their baby boys anymore because even though they believe that they have to, you are right and they are wrong, the bible is a work of fiction so it can all stop.
Then you can head over to Africa and tell them all that condoms are OK again because the popes position is based on a work of fiction so everyone can tarp up whan they fuck from now on. (the church has recently changed their position on this issue)
Then you can tell the Jehovahs witnesses that its ok for them to have blood transfuctions because their book is a work of fiction, you are right about this and they are wrong. it does not matter if they believe it to be true. They just need to do whatever you say because you say so.
Then you can do a big 'Purple Dawn saves us all' world fucking tour. you will need to visit many nations and you can tell all of the crazy islamic extremists that there is no heaven. Their book is a work of fiction so there is no reason to perform any actions or develop any opinions using the book. They will tell you it is fact. You can nod and smile in a condescending way and just keep telling them you are right and they are wrong. Tell them that they need not develop any opinions of positions on the teachings of their book, even if they do believe that it is fact because it is not. Any they should take your word for it.
People do some very stange things and develop strong opinions based on the teachings of their favourite holy book.
People develop their opinions of morals on their holy book.
I know that you can be justified in saying that their opinion may not be valid in all debates.
But who the fuck are you to tell them that their own opinions are not valid because you do not believe that their holy book is true.
I could base my morals on the 'Clifford the Big Red Dog Books' if I wanted to. And I could do a damn sight worse. Would my moral position be invalid because the books are a work of fiction? Of course they wouldnt. Just because the events that have lead me to my current position did not happen in your view does not mean they cannot be an effective means of justifying a personal position.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by purpledawn, posted 12-28-2011 9:39 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied
 Message 168 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-28-2011 10:22 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 165 of 318 (645589)
12-28-2011 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by purpledawn
12-28-2011 7:50 AM


PD,
In your opinion is this a religiously motivated act -
quote:
God tells a guy to tell his followers to kill everyone, so the guy says - GOD TOLD ME WE MUST GO FORTH AND KILL EVERYONE - his followers go and kill everyone
In your opinion is this a religiously motivated act
quote:
God goes and kills everybody himself
The two statements end in the same result. Everybody dies.
From what I understand, even though they both end with Gods desired outcome (everyone dead) and they both involve the same act of killing. One is religiously motivated because a human tool is involved, the other is not religiously motivated because god does his own killing.
Is this your position?
Are you actually planning on dealing with the OP at all?
I have seen you hand out off topic warnings for less wandering bullshit than you have taken us all on now.
PS - Free Hooah!

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by purpledawn, posted 12-28-2011 7:50 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by purpledawn, posted 12-28-2011 9:49 AM Butterflytyrant 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