|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 2/4 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4444 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Moral high ground | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4444 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined:
|
PD,
In your opinion is this a religiously motivated act -
quote: In your opinion is this a religiously motivated act
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4444 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
Hello everybody,
there are too many posts up since the last time I looked at this for me to do indidual replies. I would be covering the same ground many times. So this is a reply to many posts. PD - Message 124 Using your supplied definition of 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 It greatly depends on how you interpret a lot of the words in the definition you supplied. Would god not be ensuring faithful devotion to an acknowledged deity by killing those he believes to be disobeying his rules? Wouldnt killing people for not following his instructions be 'relating to religious belief or observances'? Genesis 7 - The one who created the people destroyed the people because he didn't like their behavior. Gods religious motivation for killing the people he viewed as corrupt was to advance christianity. He wanted to keep the true worshippers alive. He wanted to kill those who did not worship him. Thats one of the more common religious motivations. God killed these people because they were not following his rules. They were corrupt in his eyes. He made a godly judgement and decided to kill them all. A divine act. I would imagine that a divine act of retribution, after a judgement by a divine being, for breaking divinely mandated rules would be a religious act. But you will disagree I am sure. WHen you do, in your reply please include the correct definition of the following words - religion religious motivation god And also, I would like to know how you are able to seperate God from Christianity. You claim that saying that Stalin was an athiest but his killings were not motivated by athiesm makes sense. But Stalin is not the central figure of athiesm. There is no equivelant of God in athiesm. He is a deity. The deity. The creator or christianity. There is a big difference between God and Stalin. I am sure you dont or wont see that though. PD, from Message 143BFT is adamant that deaths from the Bible should be included for those people who believe the Bible is historically correct. If they believe that they have occured, and they are putting forward an argument of moral superiority due to death count, then yes, they should be included. They should be included in the discussion with that person. I dont see why, when I am in that discussion, I should be able to just brush away someones beliefs and say, 'your holy book is not true' so you cannot have developed your opinions regarding morals on it. That does not make sense. If it is a fact that they have developed their moral position on the book, then the book needs to be addressed.
God is not a religion, he is a supreme being. Yes, the central figure of a specific religion. The one and only. Anything god does is religiously motivated. God is the christian religion. (or judaism, Islam etc depending on who you are talking about). If Gods acts are not religious, what are they. People talk about the divine acts of god, acts requiring gods will. These acts further the christian faith. They are religious acts. Regardles of the semantic word game bullshit that you want to play. If god does it, he has excersised his divine will. What are his acts if they are not religious?
In the flood account. The supreme being destroyed the people he created. He didn't like the way the majority turned out. What's the supreme being's religious reason? What an oversimplified interpretation. You usually go into great detail and depth but this time you have chosen to be really simple, why would that be. Oh yes. Becasue it supports your position to oversimplify it. Reasons god flooded the earth
quote:(Source:Why did God destroy the earth in a flood (Specificsgiven) | Power of Prayer, Praise and the Word of God) God, the creator and central figure in a religion, the key religious figure of christianisty, judaism and Islam, passed divine jusdgement for breaking religious rules. He created a supernatural flood, and saved only people he decided were true followers of his religious rules. He wanted to kill all those who did not adhere to his religious rules. That is the religious motivation. with regards to Samson,
quote: AND THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD CAME UPON HIM and then he flew into a rage and killed 30 people. He was given strength by god in oreder to kill people. God directly intervened in order to help sampson kill people. I would put that on the religion side. He killed them for a stupid reason too. Read the chapter. It even gets worse. Later on, god gives him stregth again and he murders another 1000 men. With gods help, he murders people.
Saying that because God did it or because it is in the Bible makes it a religious reason is no better than saying because an Atheist did it makes it an atheistic reason. Are you seriously equating God, with any random athiest. Does God occupy any special religious position? Would you not agree that the deaths in Noahs flood are a direct result of the dogma of christianity? The rules of God had been broken, so they were punished by god. Without the rules of God (and without god), there would be no flood and no deaths. Without athiesm, Stalin would still have starved all of those Ukranians. Without religion, would Hitler have chosen the Jews to go to the gas chamber?
quote: The deaths at gods hands were commited because they contradicted Gods beliefs. God killed them because they did not meet the definition of a good or true christian. That certainly sounds like it is religiously motivated to me. PD from Message 147 We are working with stories in the Bible and since I said people or person, we are talking about humans. Where in the Bible do they refer to God as a person as in human individual? Are gods presented as humans in the Bible stories? from wiki -
quote: quote:(Source:http://carm.org/jesus-two-natures) So yes, Jesus is a human person. And Jesus is god in human form. You seem to want to seperate the OT and NT books as if they are totally disconnected and can be dealt with individually. I dont have a bible without the old testament books in it. CS from Message 158 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? God killing people for not following his rules. For being corrupt in his eyes. Divine judgement, supernatural flood, save the faithfull, kill the people who are not following the rule of God. That sounds like a religiously motivated act to me. Man doing the will of god = religiously motivated. God doing the will of god = not religiously motivated??? does that make sense to you? God was perpetuating the existence of his chosen faithful people. PD from Message 166 You brought the verses in as evidence of deaths motivated by religion. I disagreed because IMO stories are not valid sources of data for this type of comparison. You persisted, so now I've asked that you show that within the context of the stories that the deaths were actually motivated by religion since you wish to count them as true. You brought them in as evidence. This means you still dont get it. I do not wish to count the religious stories as true. The oerson who beliwves them to be true needs to count them. You seem to keep missing that regardles of the amount of times i tell you.
IMO, not a good hypothetical. The Christian using the Bible as fact would add to his numbers if he is actually using all the ones you listed (although I doubt if he would). My count should be lower. Why would I want to correct him when I'm ahead? Thats the second time you have use IMO in the one post. To quote Larry Flynt 'opinions are like assholes, everybodies got one'. You doubt that a hypothetical person would act in a certain way??? How well do you know this hypotheitical person? This is a good insight into your tactics. You would be dishonest in order to win a debate. Why would you correct him? Because winning a debate using deception is not worth shit.
Out of curiosity, has there actually been a Bible Literalist who counts the deaths from those stories in their numbers concerning moral superiority? There probably would not be many. But that is the point. Not counting some deaths in order to win a debate does not amke someone right. A bible literalist, who believes the bible is a history book, who also claim moral superiority due to death tolls, needs to face up to the deaths in the bible. You seem to doubt that there are people who believe that the bible is a history book and that they stand on higher moral ground because atheism has a higher death toll. Check out these websites (for as long as you can stomach the bullshit anyway). MILITANT ATHEISM EXPOSED: DEFEATING MILITANT ATHEISTS‘ AGENDA WITH FACTS AND REASON from that page on the flood of Noah -
quote: from the same website -
quote: This guy believes that the Bible was a history book and he had this to say regarding athiesm and moraltiy -
quote:(Source: Free Christian Web Hosting & List Hosting | Worthy of Praise) This apologetics website discusses all deaths since the beginning of human history -
quote: The page mentions Hitler, Mao and Stalin on the athiest death toll side. But they do not include any of the biblical deaths even though they believe they were factual. Why? because this would piss on their arguements. These following pages contain the same sort of shit - http://christian-apologetics.org/...omprehensive-debate-list Page not found - Apologetics Press Even Dinesh D'Souza gets on the bandwagon -
quote: check out the many and varied youtube vids - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP1KpNEeRYU heres a channel for it - https://www.youtube.com/user/atheistcrimes This page from Creation Ministries International website lists defenses of the deaths in the bible. The article is called "Is the Bible ‘evil’?Moral accusations against God and Scripture fall flat". The artilce advises that all of the deaths attributed to God are for 'capital offenses' so are not murder so are not morally wrong. The article misses a few major killings though. Check it out here - Evil Bible fallacies - creation.com heres another one connecting evolution/atheism and hitler - The Charles Darwin / Adolf Hitler connexion & correcting misinformation re slavery, racism - creation.com and another, this one covers Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin etc -Deconstructing Darwin: Darwins impact - creation.com and another - Stalin - creation.com and another - Christian vs evolutionary atrocities - creation.com and another - Freedom Defender: Atrocities of Atheism: Episode V -- The Evil Empire Strikes Back heres a book about it - Atheist Personality Disorder: Addressing a Distorted Mindset - John J. Pasquini - Google Books So yes, there are people who need to address the issue. And Creation Min is even making a small attempt at doing so. CS from Message 168 Well, what the hell do you mean by "religiously motivated". I think it means that you did something because of your religion. An action primarily performed to increase the power of a religion. An action for a chosen deity. An action to please a chosen deity. An action performed at the request or instruction of a deity. An action performed by a deity.
Its not about the end result at all. Its about the motivation for the act. If your religion is what motivated you to do the act, then that act was religiously motivated. God doesn't count as "religious" so he cannot be religiously motivated. Its not that complicated and its not a semantic distraction. Nice dance. If the motivation of the act is to kell lots of people for not following the instructions of a god, then it is religiously motivated. Remove religion from the bible, thus removing the deity and who will die? God can perform actions that are religiously motivated. Did Jesus not promote religion? I would suggest that Jesus (part of the Trinity) promoting religion would be religiously motivated.
quote: Jesus is the High Priest. That would certainly make him religious.
Holy shit, man, calm the fuck down. Argue the position, not the person. I mostly type with my feet up on a desk with a scotch in easy reach. I have fallen asleep in this position. I cant get much more calm. How come swearing means you are argueing the person? How come an accusation of argueing the person means that you automatically get to ignore all of the points brought up in that section of the post? I hope I didnt miss anybody. To putmy position on the table again. I think that the arguement that people of a given religion occupy the moral high ground because of their faith is ridiculous. I dont believe the arguement itself even makes sense. However, I do hear the arguement fairly often. The arguement needs to be dealt with in different ways depending on the person you are dealing with. If you are dealing with a bible literalist, who believes that the bible is a history book, then you can quite quickly and easily put their position down by listing the deaths in the bible commited by god with the intention of furthering or strengthening christianity (or Judaism if you are speaking to a Jew). Simply stating that their religious book is not a history book is not going to win you the arguement against someone who believes it is. If you are not speaking to a person who believes the bible is a history book, and they bring up hitler, stalin etc, you can use the historical evidence that exists against their position. Happy New YearI 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4444 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
I dont think your reply makes sense.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4444 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
A simple lack of belief isn't really something you can get behind. But as a positive belief, you can. An atheist regime can use the same cultural brain washing that a religious one does, but just put, for example, a dictator in place of a god. Wasn't that one of the points that Hitch made with Stalin, in the video that Mod linked to? Or would you say that that doesn't count as "atheist" if the Tsar is like a god? Its almost as if its "religious atheism"... so, er, would you count those deaths on the religion side then With regards to Stalin, if you remove the religious/athiest part of the equation, the death toll would have been near identical. Religion was a side note. With religiously motivated deaths, removing the religious elements greatly reduces or even eliminates the deaths alltogether. For example, Anglagard has introduced the Taiping Rebellion. If you remove religion from the equation, how many deaths do you think would have occured?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4444 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
Oh, i recognise what you did there.
Why i did not get it the first time is that the connections you are makong are imaginary. Not logical. Why is man doing the will of god not equal to god doing the will of god? If god wants to kill little jimmy, so he kills little jimmy or God wants to kill little jimmy, so he gets Stanley to kill little jimmy, then they are equal. Little Jimmy is dead. Can you explain why you think that little Jimmy being dead is different if God does it or if god asks Stanley to do it? Stanley is merely a tool. The same as if God used a gun or a knife. Your oversimplification does not make sense.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4444 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
my question - Why is man doing the will of god not equal to god doing the will of god? your reply - Because its man doing it not god doing it So, in my example, the will of god is little Jimmy being dead. In your opinion, is little Jimmy more or less dead because god killed him directly? There are several people under my direct supervision at work. I delegate tasks. I also perform some of the tasks myself. If I decide to do a task myself, or delegate the task to one on my minions, the task is still done. Me doing my will has the same end result as delegating the task. Me being of higher rank does not change the outcome.
Where religious morivation is man being motivated by his belief in god, you cannot have a religiously motivated god. Are you suggesting the the only definition of religious motivation is man being motivated by his belief in god? What about all of the other definitions that have been supplied? God is a religious figure. God deciding to do something is god excersising his will. Gods will. God doing the will of god is a religiously motivated act, the same as when man does gods will. You cant let god off the for all of the killing his killing. What do you think Gods motivation was? Pure homocidal, psychopathic rage? Boredom? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4444 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined:
|
Hey CS,
Against a very small subset of Christianity... Most people know The Flud was a myth. How does that myth being in the Bible lower the morality of Christianity, in general? The inroduction of the killings in the bible are only relevant to that very small subset of Christianity, the people who 'know' the flood is a historical event. I covered this extensively in Message 95 to PD. My point was that the deaths mentioned only need to be taken into account by those who believe they are hirtorical events. This does not effect the morality of christianity in general, just those who believe the bible is a history book. That is the point I have been making since PD arrived arround message 30.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4444 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
Purple Dawn,
My focus is on the specific stories, not a generality. Show me that that is the issue in any of the verses shared in Message 11. This has been done. By more than one poster now. It is not necessary to analyse every individual story. Once the judeo-christian god makes a divine judgement that people should die for not following his rules or being corrupt in his eyes, and then either uses a supernatural event (plague, flood, rain of fire etc) to kill people, uses his magic to kill someone (pillar of salt) or commands people to kill for him, it is a religious act. Are the miracles of God religious acts? If you wants to try to seperate the negative acts of god, then you will have to lose the good poitive acts of god as well. Where does this leave god?
In the flood story we aren't told that God required belief or obedience to specific rules. We aren't told that God gave humans any direction concerning how to behave. God saw how the humans behaved and he didn't like what he saw. He destroyed what he created. Show me where the religion is in that story. Gen 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. So God judged man. He judged that man had become wicked. He judged that they had become corrupt. They failed Gods judgement. He regretted making them because they did not please him. They were evil in his eyes. Was there a jury? But he did not kill everyone, he decided tnhat he should save one guy and his family. How did he make this choice? Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. Gen 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. Noah walked with God. Noah was not corrupt. God liked him. Noah followed the commands of God. Ans what did Noah do after he had survived the flood? Gen 8: 20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. He built an alter to God and cooked up a burnt offering. The Judeo-Christian God passed divine judgement over people he saw as violent and corrupt. He decided to save the man who was righteous before God. He saved the guy who was leading a life that was pleasing to him. Then he created a supernatural flood to kill everyone not pleasing to him. The first act of the guy who survived was to make a burnt offering. Tell me again why you cant see the religious motivation there?
This thread isn't about whether God's actions in the stories were good, bad, fair, or unfair. It is about the motivation behind the act. That is not what this thread is about. This is where you have taken the thread. Up to about post 30, the thread was about something different. The thread was a challenge for those who believe that they stand on the moral high ground due to the greater death toll of atheism to defend that position. You have usurped the thread and taken us on an essentially pointless journey because you cannot see the obvious. Can you use your admin powers to extend this past the usual post limit because the issue has yet to really be discussed in detail as I have had to repeatedly discuss the same thing with you. ABE: I double my request to continue the debate particularly in light of Chuck77's post above. 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024