Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is God good?
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(8)
Message 106 of 722 (682196)
11-30-2012 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by jaywill
11-29-2012 11:26 PM


Re: Really?
Let me guess that you are vehemently PRO LIFE in your ethics ?
Yes / No ?
Close. I'm vehemently pro-sentient life. I don't much care about insects and squirrels and so on from an ethical standpoint. I care even less about a fetus (until later in the pregnancy, when brain activity indicative of self-awareness is detectable).
If not then you must believe that some instances of taking a child's life might justified by you. Are you decidedly anti-abortion in your social ethics?
A fetus is not self-aware. I care about as much about a clump of fetal cells in a womb as much as I do about a cockroach - that is, not at all.
Look, you're trying to "catch" me in some ethical inconsistency with abortion. It's not going to work.
Let's be really super-simple here.
Grand Moff Tarkin ordered the Death Star to fire on planet Alderaan, killing billions of sentient beings. For this, we consider him to be a "bad guy." In fact, even if he opened a charity that saved a million lives, that wouldn't make up for the monstrous act of killing off an entire planetary population.
This is almost exactly analogous to the god of the Bible in the Flood myth: god is Grand Moff Tarkin, and the Flood is the Death Star.
If god is not considered evil for this act, but Moff Tarkin is considered evil for a nearly identical act, then you are logically inconsistent.
Would you prefer a more real-world example?
Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were both responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. For this we call them "evil." Hitler did some good things in his life, I'm sure - but it doesn't matter, because anyone who commits genocide is evil.
The Biblical god doesn;t just kill off a single race - he depopulates every species on Earth, including human beings, down to just a handful of individuals. By any estimation this act is worse than the holocaust. If we can call Hiutler evil, and if we can call Stalin evil, then we must also call the Biblical god evil because the Biblical god performs a similar act of mass-murder on a significantly larger scale. To do otherwise requires special pleading.
It doesn't matter if the Biblical god healed some sick people, or if he says he loves you, or if he offers eternal life to some people - he committed genocide, and is therefore evil.
One of those is the God is the Giver of all life. God then has the authority to take a life away.
Bullshit. Just as my mother does not have the right to kill me now that I'm an adult despite having given me life, there is no reason that some deity should have that same right. The right to life is inherent in self-aware beings - it's not "given" by a deity, it's a matter of consistently applying moral weight. If we value self-aware life, then self-aware life has the same value whether it's taken by a human murderer or a divine murderer. It's the same thing, the result is identical - a self-aware being's life has been involuntarily ended. Saying "but it's okay if god does it" is simply more special pleading; saying "god can take away what he gives" requires that sentient life not actually have value.
Of course if our moral sense is just the result of chemicals in motion in the grey matter of our "evolved" brains, then there is really no grounds to believe a ultimate standard of morality really exists.
Indeed - there is no ultimate standard of morality.
Morality is a social invention. It only exists in social animals, like human beings.
Your Authoritarian morality is straight out of the Bronze age - which is unsurprising, since that's when your book of moral guidelines came from.
Humanistic ethics objectively result in a better standard of living and more stable societies than your outdated nonsense...in large part because humanism establishes consistent rules and values, while you, as an Authoritarian, also have no ultimate standard of morality, since your deity can make exceptions or completely change the rules on a moment's notice.
It's laughable that you argue for an "ultimate moral standard," while in the same post argue that your god is exempt from the moral laws of the rest of us. Is there an ultimate moral standard, or isn't there? If there is, then your god is unquestionably evil, as he has performed unquestionably evil acts, similar to the acts of Grand Moff Tarkin, Hitler, or Stalin.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by jaywill, posted 11-29-2012 11:26 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Faith, posted 11-30-2012 8:06 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 109 by kofh2u, posted 11-30-2012 11:50 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 110 by kofh2u, posted 11-30-2012 11:59 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 111 by jaywill, posted 12-01-2012 1:35 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 107 of 722 (682278)
11-30-2012 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Rahvin
11-30-2012 1:26 PM


Re: Really? "Genocide" and abortion
So I saw the nomination for your post and of course came and read it and of course disagreed with everything in it although you do succeed in representing your point of view very effectively, which I guess deserves the recognition maybe, and I wasn't going to respond at first but then it kept coming back to me so here I am responding after all.
I have two remarks, the first to your claim that God's committing what you call "genocide" is exactly the same as Hitler's etc., and there's only one thing to say to that which is that God does not act out of blind selfish hatred as human murderers do but in justice He judges evil. And He's going to judge Hitler and all those who joined with him the same way when they appear before Him. Which makes ME very happy. The prospect of evil people getting their due punishment in the end ought to make anyone happy it seems to me.
The other remark is to your absurd rationalization of abortion:
A fetus is not self-aware. I care about as much about a clump of fetal cells in a womb as much as I do about a cockroach - that is, not at all.
Except that if you weren't suffering from some sort of moral dementia on this point you would recognize that the "clump of fetal cells" would soon become a sentient human being if you left it alone, which cannot be said for the cockroach. The fact that people can rationalize abortion because the human being at that stage of life isn't yet fully sentient strikes me as just a way to justify the unjustifiable. So you get knocked on the head and are unconscious for a while, you are not self-aware, you are not sentient for that period, but you wouldn't be in favor of someone bashing your brains out for that reason, yet it's OK with you to kill the new human being that hasn't yet developed sentience but inevitably would assuming a normal development, just as when you recover from your temporary unconsciousness you would resume your sentient life. It's so obvious that a "fetus" is merely a stage of human growth that the twisted ways we give ourselves permission to murder it must be doing violence to the conscience at some level.
I can't believe I used to think the same way, but I did. How deluded I was.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Rahvin, posted 11-30-2012 1:26 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Rahvin, posted 12-03-2012 3:01 PM Faith has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 108 of 722 (682294)
11-30-2012 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Stile
11-30-2012 11:19 AM


Re: Why Didn't Jesus Condemn OT God?
Did Jesus give me my brain?
Assuming yes, then I would say that Jesus has made me "more equipped to pass judgement on these biblical events." I would even go on to say that Jesus wants me to pass my own judgement. If not... why would He have given me a brain?
That seems logical to me.
But what Christ actually did say was that he represented the concept of Truth, the personification of that ideal.
"I am the Truth, and the Way, and the Life."
So what Jesus wants is for you to use your brain to see the Truth and accept it.
This makes sense since thinking is man's only cope-ing skill and his survival even as a species depends upon "Thinking Straight."
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Stile, posted 11-30-2012 11:19 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 109 of 722 (682298)
11-30-2012 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Rahvin
11-30-2012 1:26 PM


Re: Really?
I don't much care about insects and squirrels and so on from an ethical standpoint. I care even less about a fetus (until later in the pregnancy, when brain activity indicative of self-awareness is detectable
Less especially for a fetus that is mothered by an unwed pagan acting democratic voting Welfare candidate.
What the Fed is trying to do with Planned Parenthood is to reduce the $1 Trillion dollar Welfare cost in 2011 that is growing by leaps and bounds without changing the Culture of adolescent sexual activity for 14 years before marriage occurring around age 26.
They have attempted to prevent pregnancies by Sex Education since Roe Vs Wade in 1972.
But it has not dented the consistent 1.2 million annual and necessary abortions nor the ever increasing 1.5 million illegitimacies NOT aborted.
No one is really "pro-Abortion," not the girl, nor her mother, nor the democrats.
They are all anti-baby without a supporting father.
But as long asthe Homosexual, Hollywood, the Feminists, the TV, and mom and dad raise up unashamed sexually active, unsupervised, and irresponsible teenagers taught to use sex for fun, we MUST try to kill the 3 million pregnancies that the USA just can not afford any longer.
The sin of course, is protecting and defending sexual promiscuity.
Te sinners are us adults who raise the next generation explicitly teaching them to be sexual asap.
Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Rahvin, posted 11-30-2012 1:26 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 110 of 722 (682300)
11-30-2012 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Rahvin
11-30-2012 1:26 PM


Re: Really?
there is no ultimate standard of morality.
Morality is a social invention.
Morality is based upon the concept Moses preached, "What comes around, goes around."
The idea is that one must be certain his/her behavior hurts no one else, not even himself.
Soin a nut shell, morality becomes a set of imposed rules on behavior that restrict action or failures to act which ultimately or directly hurt others.
The reasoning is that, without this rule, probably you or I would be the ones getting hurt by the bigger guys.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Rahvin, posted 11-30-2012 1:26 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 111 of 722 (682348)
12-01-2012 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Rahvin
11-30-2012 1:26 PM


Re: Really?
Close. I'm vehemently pro-sentient life. I don't much care about insects and squirrels and so on from an ethical standpoint.
I think your accusation was that God is not good because there is a record of Him having some children killed in the Bible. So I was not asking about squirrels and insects.
I care even less about a fetus (until later in the pregnancy, when brain activity indicative of self-awareness is detectable).
It is perculiar to me that you would "care less" about the initial stage of human life than you would about insects. A human being in the fetal stage ranks less to you then an insect?
So you would feel less remorse from swating a mosquito then you would in destroying a human in the fetal stage ? I think you should reconsider this devaluation of a human fetus.
If not then you must believe that some instances of taking a child's life might justified by you. Are you decidedly anti-abortion in your social ethics?
I am not a political activist. But from what I have heard from a man, his conscience definitely convicted him when he provided for a woman's abortion in the early stages. He suffered repeated nightmares about the event.
I think we are given a conscience from God. And some things it knows that it knows. You simply cannot argue with what your conscience knows intuitively is wrong or knows intuitively is right.
I do believe that people can suppress the inner conviction from their God given human conscience. We can hold it down and seek to shut it up. We can even posture ourselves before the world as though we have sifficient rationals to explain our wrong actions.
If there were no forgiveness possible to obtain from God, I think it would be very bad. We would go to our grave never at peace with ourselves about some wrongdoings. Our conscience simply would never let us go.
But there IS forgiveness for any sinner who comes to Christ. And the conscience can be fully set at rest. We can have peace with God and within ourselves when we come to Jesus Christ.
I am PRO Redemption through Jesus. As a social policy we should work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies since ideologically the two heated sides are not going ever to agree on the abortion matter.
A fetus is not self-aware.
I don't know that, #1.
That may be an opinion today which will be revized with further study.
And #2 that could be a slippery slope indeed. A one year old is not as self aware as a five year old. And a ten your old is not as self aware as a fifteen year old. It is hard to draw a clear line on where self awareness starts.
Some people with mental illness are not self aware. Your rational might reason that such are less valuable than insects.
I am not saying that a perfect utopian policy I can come up with. I am showing that we should heed the Bible that all have sinned and all are in need of salvation through Christ.
Perfect Goodness has provided a way that we stumbling fallen worldlings can be reconciled to the Righteous God who knows everything.
I care about as much about a clump of fetal cells in a womb as much as I do about a cockroach - that is, not at all.
I hear your posturing. Sorry though. I think this is your facade before the world. If you destroyed a human being in the fetal stage for mere convenience, I believe your God created conscience would say you have committed a wrong act.
I do not believe you that to you a human fetus means less than a cockroach. I don't believe deep within you really feel that way.
Look, you're trying to "catch" me in some ethical inconsistency with abortion. It's not going to work.
But of course you're not trying to "catch" a Christian like me by protesting that the God of the Bible is morally deficient.
I admit that these can be tough issues. But you should expect to taste a little of your own medicine. You set yourself up in a position to negatively judge God. In accusing God expect that your own morality will be examined.
Let's be really super-simple here.
Grand Moff Tarkin ordered the Death Star to fire on planet Alderaan, killing billions of sentient beings.
Do you think jumping into Science Fiction simplifies things?
For this, we consider him to be a "bad guy." In fact, even if he opened a charity that saved a million lives, that wouldn't make up for the monstrous act of killing off an entire planetary population.
I think you have a somewhat more effective argument by discussing the record of the Bible.
My eyes glaze over trying to recall Star Wars entertainment stuff.
I think I'll deal with your really tougher points which are based on something written in the Bible.
This is almost exactly analogous to the god of the Bible in the Flood myth: god is Grand Moff Tarkin, and the Flood is the Death Star.
Excuse me. I'll give my attention to your biblical discussion here.
If god is not considered evil for this act, but Moff Tarkin is considered evil for a nearly identical act, then you are logically inconsistent.
Would you prefer a more real-world example?
Yes.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Rahvin, posted 11-30-2012 1:26 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Rahvin, posted 12-03-2012 2:23 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 118 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 7:57 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


(1)
Message 112 of 722 (682351)
12-01-2012 1:55 PM


cont. from above.
Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were both responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.
For this we call them "evil." Hitler did some good things in his life, I'm sure - but it doesn't matter, because anyone who commits genocide is evil.
I took my kids to the doctor. He took a wooden stick and put it in the little girl's mouth and told her to say "Ahhh."
Sometime afterwards I noticed my two children playing. The older one had something inside the younger's mouth. Obviously she was playing doctor. I had to strictly warn her NOT to put anything into her little brother's mouth.
What was appropriate for the medical doctor in his healing activity was not appropriate in the case of the children's activities.
God judged some societies in His omniscience and wisdom. All similar wars of mankind do not make the two actions the same. And this we could read in the bible itself. God rebukes some nations concerning their methods of warfare and murders.
This is like the experienced mature medical doctor compared to the playing child.
The message of the Gospel is that ALL have sinned, ALL have fallen short of the glory of God. All are in need of salvation in Christ with its justification before a God whom the Son called His "Righteous Father".
Now there are some actions in the Bible which cause us to QUESTION whether or not this "Righteous Father" that Jesus refered to is really good. This is the argument as I see it.
Let me take the flood of Noah as an example. Does the drowning of a whole world society except eight people constitute God's evilness?
Here are some of the factors which I also have to consider in this:
1.) The moral downslide from the fall of Adam must have hit total rock bottom at that time. It says that the imagination of men's hearts were only evil continually. The earth was filled with violence.
This seems a danger to the human race as a whole. I think the flood was like the amputation of a gangrened limb of the body as a drastic measure to save the human race from total degradation.
2.) From the record of Enoch calling his son "When he dies it will come" - the meaning of the name "Methuselah" (Gen. 5:22-25) indicates a WARNING to the society. At the end of this partriarch's life span, "it" (probably refering to the judgment of God) will come.
We know Noah was "a preacher of righteousness" (2 Pet. 2:5). We are pretty certain that Enoch was a prophet. Both preached sufficiently that the people would be warned to repent.
3.) The fact of Methuselah living longer than any other recorded human being - 969 years (Gen. 5:27) is significant. If the flood was to come when he dies, as his name suggests, the longevity of Methusaleh's life means God held off the judgement for as LONG as He possibly could.
In the mean time the earth is " filled with violence" (Gen. 6:11) and "corrupt ... " the judging was a remedy to end the victimization.
At least for 969 years the Spirit of God strove with men's consciences. God made an example for all future generations. He would not strive against man's conscience forever -
"And Jehovah said, My Spirit will not strive with man forever ..." (Gen. 6:3)
It may allude our sensibilities that things could actually get that corrupt in the world. For this reason we may mistakenly charge God with wrong doing. I believe the word which says "Righteous and true are Your ways, O King of the nations! ... For You alone are holy ... for Your righteous judgments have been manifested." (Rev. 15:4,5)
The account of the Nephilim also in connection to the Flood may suggest some very serious occultic activity so badly associating humans with the demonic and Satanic powers that the threat to mankind was too great for God not to act.
3.) The typology of the Noah Flood is definitely a pointer to Jesus Christ as the greater antitype reality of Noah's ark. So in this unfortunate judgment God leaves an instructive example of His plan to save people and the environment from eternal judgment in Christ.
"For just as the days of Noah were, so will the coming of the Son of Man be." (Matt. 24:36)
I think as the people of Noah's day had something come upon them which none of them had evey seen before, so in the last days things come upon the world which mankind has not seen before. And this lesson and warning of the Noah flood reveals God's goodness to furnish us with an example of how we may enter into His "ark" of the Son of God to be saved eternally.
For space's sake I will conclude here. Your comments below will have to be addressed in another post.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(6)
Message 113 of 722 (682544)
12-03-2012 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by jaywill
12-01-2012 1:35 PM


Re: Really?
I think your accusation was that God is not good because there is a record of Him having some children killed in the Bible. So I was not asking about squirrels and insects.
Reread. My accusation is that the Biblical god is evil because he committed acts of mass murder, which are indisputably evil. The fact that one of those incidents of mass-murder targeted specifically first-born children is basically incidental.
It is perculiar to me that you would "care less" about the initial stage of human life than you would about insects. A human being in the fetal stage ranks less to you then an insect?
So you would feel less remorse from swating a mosquito then you would in destroying a human in the fetal stage ? I think you should reconsider this devaluation of a human fetus.
I see no reason to. I attach virtually no moral value to any entity that is not remotely self-aware. The amount of moral weight increases as sentience is approached, and when a brain exhibits activity indicative of being self-aware, I attach the full moral weight of a human being.
This means that, in the first stages of pregnancy, when a fetus does not even yet have a brain, I couldn't care less if it lives or dies from a moral perspective. If I were trying to have a child with my partner and the fetus died within the first few weeks, I might express disappointment that the fetus didn't survive, but that's not the same as believing my child has died - I wouldn't hold a funeral, for example.
So no, I do not value a fetus any more than I value a mosquito. Most fertilized eggs never actually attach to the uterine wall and are discharged in the menstrual cycle - I don't hold a funeral for my girlfriend's tampons, she throws them in the garbage Ind I throw them in a dumpster, just as I would a paper towel containing a smashed mosquito.
If a woman decides she does not desire a baby or pregnancy, and the fetus does not yet have a brain exhibiting activity indicative of self-awareness, an abortion carries no greater moral significance than swatting a fly.
I am not a political activist. But from what I have heard from a man, his conscience definitely convicted him when he provided for a woman's abortion in the early stages. He suffered repeated nightmares about the event.
This man is not me. My ex-wife had two abortions. I didn't care, it was her body, and what was terminated were not actual human children.
I think we are given a conscience from God. And some things it knows that it knows. You simply cannot argue with what your conscience knows intuitively is wrong or knows intuitively is right.
I think that the fact that my conscience and moral values work entirely differently from yours indicates that you are utterly wrong in this belief, and that our "conscience" is an internal function of our own moral codes as shaped by personal experience, personal judgment, and social influences.
I do believe that people can suppress the inner conviction from their God given human conscience. We can hold it down and seek to shut it up. We can even posture ourselves before the world as though we have sifficient rationals to explain our wrong actions.
If there were no forgiveness possible to obtain from God, I think it would be very bad. We would go to our grave never at peace with ourselves about some wrongdoings. Our conscience simply would never let us go.
But there IS forgiveness for any sinner who comes to Christ. And the conscience can be fully set at rest. We can have peace with God and within ourselves when we come to Jesus Christ.
I am PRO Redemption through Jesus.
Blah blah blah. You aren't going to win an abortion argument with me by referring to "forgiveness" or "redemption" that I don't believe I require from characters I'm convinced are fictional.
As a social policy we should work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies since ideologically the two heated sides are not going ever to agree on the abortion matter.
I can agree with that 100%.
I don't know that, #1.
That may be an opinion today which will be revized with further study.
I'm convinced by the conclusions of neurologists who have performed fetal brain scans.
And the fact that, you know...until a certain point, the fetus does not have a brain at all, and therefore is not capable of any form of thought or awareness.
But you know...the abortion debate, while an interesting aside, is not actually the topic here.
The topic is whether the biblical deity is evil. I'm going to skip down to where you actually start to say something relevant.
Do you think jumping into Science Fiction simplifies things?
It can be used to illustrate a point. Besides, from my perspective, this entire thread is about the ethical worthiness of a fictional character - your deity. I see no great distinction, in real terms, between your god and Grand Moff Tarkin. Neither one actually existed, and both committed fictional atrocities that never happened in the real world. There is no Death Star, there was no Flood. This thread is not about whether the events were real, it's about determining the moral significance in terms of good and evil of specific characters as portrayed in the relevant fiction.
I think you have a somewhat more effective argument by discussing the record of the Bible.
My eyes glaze over trying to recall Star Wars entertainment stuff.
I think I'll deal with your really tougher points which are based on something written in the Bible.
It's very simple, Jaywil. You don't have to re-watch the movies (though now I kinda want to...)
Warning, Spoiler Alert for the three people in the Western world who have not seen Star Wars.
The EVIL GALACTIC EMPIRE builds a moon-sized battle station called the DEATH STAR, capable of blowing up entire planets. Grand Moff Tarkin is in charge, with Darth Vader acting as his underling. In an attempt to get Princess Leia to reveal the location of the hidden rebel base, Tarkin "tests" the destructive power of the DEATH STAR on Leia's home planet, Alderaan. The planet explodes, and everyone on it is instantly killed. Grand Moff Tarkin is now guilty of murdering an entire planetary population.
In your Bible, god sends a massive Flood that kills "all which hath breath" except for Noah, his family, and the animals on the Ark. Your god is now guilty of murdering nearly an entire planetary population.
(Apparently, the power to Flood a planet is insignificant next to the power of this battle station, and you find my lack of faith disturbing. Sorry, hard to talk about Star Wars and not work in the required pop culture references)
These two fictional characters have committed crimes of nearly identical nature and magnitude. Tarkin is labelled as "evil," he's one of the "bad guys" in the movie. Your god should also be labelled as evil, because to do otherwise either requires the moral acceptance of murder, or simple special pleading.
You, of course, take the "special pleading" route.
I took my kids to the doctor. He took a wooden stick and put it in the little girl's mouth and told her to say "Ahhh."
Sometime afterwards I noticed my two children playing. The older one had something inside the younger's mouth. Obviously she was playing doctor. I had to strictly warn her NOT to put anything into her little brother's mouth.
What was appropriate for the medical doctor in his healing activity was not appropriate in the case of the children's activities.
God judged some societies in His omniscience and wisdom. All similar wars of mankind do not make the two actions the same. And this we could read in the bible itself. God rebukes some nations concerning their methods of warfare and murders.
This is like the experienced mature medical doctor compared to the playing child.
The message of the Gospel is that ALL have sinned, ALL have fallen short of the glory of God. All are in need of salvation in Christ with its justification before a God whom the Son called His "Righteous Father".
Now there are some actions in the Bible which cause us to QUESTION whether or not this "Righteous Father" that Jesus refered to is really good. This is the argument as I see it.
Let me take the flood of Noah as an example. Does the drowning of a whole world society except eight people constitute God's evilness?
Here are some of the factors which I also have to consider in this:
1.) The moral downslide from the fall of Adam must have hit total rock bottom at that time. It says that the imagination of men's hearts were only evil continually. The earth was filled with violence.
This seems a danger to the human race as a whole. I think the flood was like the amputation of a gangrened limb of the body as a drastic measure to save the human race from total degradation.
2.) From the record of Enoch calling his son "When he dies it will come" - the meaning of the name "Methuselah" (Gen. 5:22-25) indicates a WARNING to the society. At the end of this partriarch's life span, "it" (probably refering to the judgment of God) will come.
We know Noah was "a preacher of righteousness" (2 Pet. 2:5). We are pretty certain that Enoch was a prophet. Both preached sufficiently that the people would be warned to repent.
3.) The fact of Methuselah living longer than any other recorded human being - 969 years (Gen. 5:27) is significant. If the flood was to come when he dies, as his name suggests, the longevity of Methusaleh's life means God held off the judgement for as LONG as He possibly could.
In the mean time the earth is " filled with violence" (Gen. 6:11) and "corrupt ... " the judging was a remedy to end the victimization.
At least for 969 years the Spirit of God strove with men's consciences. God made an example for all future generations. He would not strive against man's conscience forever -
"And Jehovah said, My Spirit will not strive with man forever ..." (Gen. 6:3)
It may allude our sensibilities that things could actually get that corrupt in the world. For this reason we may mistakenly charge God with wrong doing. I believe the word which says "Righteous and true are Your ways, O King of the nations! ... For You alone are holy ... for Your righteous judgments have been manifested." (Rev. 15:4,5)
The account of the Nephilim also in connection to the Flood may suggest some very serious occultic activity so badly associanting humans with the demonic and Satanic powers that the threat to mankind was too great for God not to act.
3.) The typology of the Noah Flood is definitely a pointer to Jesus Christ as the greater antitype reality of Noah's ark. So in this unfortunate judgment God leaves an instructive example of His plan to save people and the environment from eternal judgment in Christ.
"For just as the days of Noah were, so will the coming of the Son of Man be." (Matt. 24:36)
I think as the people of Noah's day had something come upon them which none of them had evey seen before, so in the last days things come upon the world which mankind has not seen before. And this lesson and warning of the Noah flood reveals God's goodness to furnish us with an example of how we may enter into His "ark" of the Son of God to be saved eternally.
In other words:
Blame the victim.
It's okay for god to have killed everyone in the world, because they totally deserved it. You know, they were faithless and evil and wicked and they had homosexual sex and violent.
jaywill...there is no morally justifiable reason to involuntarily end the life of a sentient being outside of defending another life from immanent harm. It's okay to shoot a guy who's trying to shoot you, even though it's still sad, but no matter how much you want to play the "blame the victim" game, what your god does is not morally different from what Tarkin does. Your god was under no threat, and you can't defend lives by killing everybody.
Sorry, jaywill. Your god is an evil genocidal monster.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by jaywill, posted 12-01-2012 1:35 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by jaywill, posted 12-03-2012 7:40 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 182 by jaywill, posted 12-06-2012 9:28 AM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(4)
Message 114 of 722 (682546)
12-03-2012 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Faith
11-30-2012 8:06 PM


Re: Really? "Genocide" and abortion
I have two remarks, the first to your claim that God's committing what you call "genocide" is exactly the same as Hitler's etc., and there's only one thing to say to that which is that God does not act out of blind selfish hatred as human murderers do but in justice He judges evil. And He's going to judge Hitler and all those who joined with him the same way when they appear before Him. Which makes ME very happy. The prospect of evil people getting their due punishment in the end ought to make anyone happy it seems to me.
1) The motivation of a murderer is irrelevant. A person is still dead whether the murderer was angry or "judging" the victim. You might also note that I'm staunchly anti-death penalty and consider it to be absolutely no different from state-sanctioned murder.
2) This is all just "blame the victim" nonsense. It's okay for your god to commit mass murder because they were all bad, really, and so they totally deserved to be drowned to death. Even the children who couldn't have done anything wrong yet.
I simply don't for a moment accept your Bronze-Age Authoritarian morality, Faith. Murder doesn't suddenly become not-murder when your god does it. Involuntarily taking a person's life is evil no matter who does it.
Except that if you weren't suffering from some sort of moral dementia on this point you would recognize that the "clump of fetal cells" would soon become a sentient human being if you left it alone, which cannot be said for the cockroach.
You presume that I care about eventualities. I don;t. I care about actuality. A fetus might develop to the point it is self-aware. When it does, I care and attach moral significance to it as a full person.
But before that happens...it's not a person. It's missing the defining trait that makes a person a person. My finger is not me; I am my thoughts, I am, in effect, my brain. When a fetus has no brain, it is not a person. When a fetus has a brain but the brain is not yet self-aware, it is not a person.
I care as much about a newly fertilized egg as I do for masturbatory ejaculate.
This isn't "moral dementia," though your ad hominem is duly noted. It's simply a consistent application of my moral values, and under my ethical code, a "person" is any self-aware being. That encompasses late-term fetuses (though I still place less significance on them than the mother - if her life is in danger, I'm okay with a late-term abortion, but otherwise I support full abortion rights prior to the point on the second trimester where the brain is sufficiently developed) and adult people.
As I said to jaywill - most fertilized eggs never even implant on the uterine wall. They're flushed out with your menstrual cycle. I don;t feel any desire to hold a funeral for my girlfriend's tampons, and I feel no twinge of regret or remorse or loss when I throw the garbage into a dumpster. At the moment of conception, you would say that the fertilized egg will "inevitably" progress to person-hood...but most of the "children" you've had this way were thrown into a trashcan, and you cared not one bit.
The fact that people can rationalize abortion because the human being at that stage of life isn't yet fully sentient strikes me as just a way to justify the unjustifiable. So you get knocked on the head and are unconscious for a while, you are not self-aware, you are not sentient for that period, but you wouldn't be in favor of someone bashing your brains out for that reason, yet it's OK with you to kill the new human being that hasn't yet developed sentience but inevitably would assuming a normal development, just as when you recover from your temporary unconsciousness you would resume your sentient life. It's so obvious that a "fetus" is merely a stage of human growth that the twisted ways we give ourselves permission to murder it must be doing violence to the conscience at some level.
This is, at least, a more cogent argument. But I can be awoken when I am unconscious and become conscious at any moment, and the "unconsciousness" of sleep is not the same as the "unconsciousness" of an undeveloped (or even nonexistent) brain. Try to revive a fetus the way you would try to revive an unconscious or sleeping person, and you'll see the difference.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Faith, posted 11-30-2012 8:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Faith, posted 12-07-2012 6:23 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 115 of 722 (682571)
12-03-2012 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Rahvin
12-03-2012 2:23 PM


Re: Really?
Reread. My accusation is that the Biblical god is evil because he committed acts of mass murder, which are indisputably evil. The fact that one of those incidents of mass-murder targeted specifically first-born children is basically incidental.
I don't God has commited an evil act ever. I would rather believe in some instances He did something which is difficult for me to understand.
The Jewish kings had a reputation of being merciful among even thier enemies:
"And his servants [Ben-hadad king of the Syrians] Look now, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings. We beg you, let us put sackcloth on our loins and ropes upon hour hearss, and go out to the king of ISrael. Perhaps he will preserve your life." 1 Kings 20:31)
People closer to the events you complain about held Israel in reputation be being merciful.
1.) Infants killed by God's command in the OT are disturbing to me. However, I don't think God held them to be wrong. And I know the eternal Judge can compensate such humans in the scheme of the next world. This is not something any human being could promise to do.
2.) It is an important lesson that younger innocents MAY indeed be effected by the sins of the parents. This is something we indeed need to see. It is not just YOU or I who suffer consequences of our
rebellion. Innocents in our family may suffer for our pig headedness.
3.) In God's ongoing relationship to Israel these were unrepeated commands for a specific purpose. They clearly were not universalized. I see unrepeated special situations which merited the harshest instructions to Israel in their warfare. Each case has to be examined.
4.) Life belongs to God. Any harm due to specific purposes in special contexts can be overshadowed by God in the resurrection. Only He has authority to raise the dead as only He has authority to take created life away.
When David's child died because of David's sin with Bethsheba, there is reason to believe that it went into God's presence. For David said that the child would not return to him [David] but that he must go to the child:
"But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not come back to me." (2 Samuel 12:23)
God can bring back the dead. God has eternity to work out His ultimate justice.
And God may have places of which we do not know, where that child is more in the presence of God now.
God can give back physcial life and grant eternal life. So I do not judge God in the way you do in those instances.
I see no reason to. I attach virtually no moral value to any entity that is not remotely self-aware.
As sharp as your criticism is, I think it greatly loses power because of this very opinion.
The amount of moral weight increases as sentience is approached, and when a brain exhibits activity indicative of being self-aware,
Apparently, to the murder of the child, the murderer is held accountable for an offense not only against the child but against God Himself.
God condemns the Ammonites for child killing to enlarge their borders -

"Thus says Jehovah, Because of ... transgressions of the children of Ammon ... I will not turn away the punishment; Because they ripped up the pregnant women of Gilead in order to enlarge their border." (Amos 1:13)
The killing of the babies in the wombs of the Gileadite mothers was seen as a trespass against God Himself and not just the children. The moral accountability of the murderers here is against the God regardless of the sentient self awareness or lack thereof.
As a Bible reader it is more likely to me that God could do somethings which outwardly look the same but are not exactly the same on a higher and more eternal standpoint.
Otherwise I would have to assume His creatures have within them a keener moral sense than their Creator was able to give. The effect would be greater than the cause.
Once again, Jesus Christ had plenty of ground to fault the Old Testament actions of His Father. He did not at all.
I don't think any poster here exceeds Jesus of Nazareth in discerning right verses wrong doing.
I attach the full moral weight of a human being.
This means that, in the first stages of pregnancy, when a fetus does not even yet have a brain, I couldn't care less if it lives or dies from a moral perspective.
Its a perculiar stance to me. But I could see how this rationale would have to be developed to at one time accuse God of killing children some non-repeatable special non-universal circumstance in the OT and yet turning the head away as millions of unborn children are slain for convenience of their parents. I think you're not consistent.
If I were trying to have a child with my partner and the fetus died within the first few weeks, I might express disappointment that the fetus didn't survive, but that's not the same as believing my child has died - I wouldn't hold a funeral, for example.
I think you have to admit that drawing a clear cut line as to when this human qualifies to be called human occurs. I think conception is a good place to bestow "humanity" on that person.
Anyway on the last judgment we will surely learn if the "fetus" was or was not a human. As for me, I choose to err on the side of caution. The united sperm and egg in conception is a human being.
I'd rather err on that side.
So no, I do not value a fetus any more than I value a mosquito. Most fertilized eggs never actually attach to the uterine wall and are discharged in the menstrual cycle - I don't hold a funeral for my girlfriend's tampons, she throws them in the garbage Ind I throw them in a dumpster, just as I would a paper towel containing a smashed mosquito.
That's your style. God saw YOU when you were being wrought in the depths of the earth according to the Psalmist -
"Even the darkness is not dark to You ... For it was You who formed my inward parts; You wove me together in my mother's womb ... My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in secret, Skillfully fashioned in the depths of trhe earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; and in You book all of them were written ..." (See Psalm 139:12-16)
Jesus said even the hairs on our head were numbered (Matthew 10:30) . So if you pluck out a single hair from your head God would know precisely what numbered hair it was.
I am only pointing out that your appreciation of human life may be far short of God's. From the standpoint of the creature your view may be far short of His transcendent view.
I am not suggesting that God will hold me responsible for harming someone because I kicked a clod of dirt around. I am saying that you and I are limited in our knowledge whereas God is not.
I am saying that I prefer that if I err, it would be on the side of caution.
The Ammonites who ripped open the pregnant women were accountable not just to the mother and child. They were accountable for a trespass against God. We may easily excuse ourselves when we one day realize we sinned. This not only applies to wrongs done TO others but also those done TO us as well.
Someone may have excused themself for some trespass against you saying "He was not concious. He was not aware. There was no harm." God may say, "But I saw it. And it offended My government, my righteous law."
If a woman decides she does not desire a baby or pregnancy, and the fetus does not yet have a brain exhibiting activity indicative of self-awareness, an abortion carries no greater moral significance than swatting a fly.
I have to consider not only the human's self awareness but God's awareness. We may justify ourselves before men. But the last judgment is carried out by the Creator.
And we could be badly self deceived -
"The heart is deceitful above all things, And it is incurabe; Who can know it? I, Jehovah, search the heart and test the inward parts, Even to give to each one according to his ways, According to the fruit of his deeds." (Jeremiah 17:9)
Some of His actions are difficult for me to understand. But I have no confidence to call God a "monster" as you have in this post. I would prefer to give thanks for the millions of benefits that I enjoy from His care which I might not stop to consider. Unthankfulness accompanies false accusation towards God.
I think it is monsterous to have nothing for which one could thank God for on any given day of life. God has afforded you many days of happiness in spite of the troubles common to the world.
You have been provided with many things for which you could conceivably stop for a moment and just say "God, I just want to pause for a moment and thank you for this or that."
So I think unthankfulness degenerates further into accusations that our heavenly Father is evil.
This man is not me. My ex-wife had two abortions. I didn't care, it was her body, and what was terminated were not actual human children.
I question how far "her body" can be taken. After all, the child more often has a different blood type than from the mother.
If the child's blood type is different from the mother how can one press too far that the child is only the mother's own body?
The DNA is different from the mothers. And as the child matures its existence more and more decides for the mother's body.
That is why the desire for its birth becomes more pronounced. That is that the separation of the independent individual would commence.
I'm convinced by the conclusions of neurologists who have performed fetal brain scans.
That is what may be said today. The instruments of a coming year may make today's instruments seem crude. This is the usual progression of science.
We don't know what Phd. will come fresh out of grad school with the next ground breaking discovery that the brain is more active then previously thought.
I am pretty sure that the child's brain is responsible for the heart beat of the child. It is aware to that extent.
And the fact that, you know...until a certain point, the fetus does not have a brain at all, and therefore is not capable of any form of thought or awareness.
But you know...the abortion debate, while an interesting aside, is not actually the topic here.
My discussion here is not really on the abortion issue per se. It is more that God's knowledge is extensive, all-incompassing, and higher than man's.
Some actions of God in the Old Testament, therefore, we may not adaquately understand.
I think some day God may say to us "In many things you were wrong but I was right. But on some matters I was right. But you were right also. "
I do not believe in any matter God was wrong. That makes no sense to me - a faulty God whose creatures exceed Him in ethics. I probably will know and understand better when I have been fully conformed to the image of Christ in every way.
About the Star Wars analogy.
It can be used to illustrate a point. Besides, from my perspective, this entire thread is about the ethical worthiness of a fictional character - your deity.
I see no great distinction, in real termsyour god and Grand Moff Tarkin.
That is an oft repeated tendency I see with Internet skeptics. Often they are so over entertained with movies, games, entertainment that they are an unsober appreciation for Bible's record. I don't think mankind would invent a character like Jesus Christ even if they were able to do so. Any reason you would submit for anyone concocting a fictional person like Jesus and putting words in His mouth could be shown to be unrealistic. And who Jesus was is totally based on the existence of His Father.
The Bible is not a "Once Upon a Time in a Far Off Galaxy" kind of story. Thousands of locations are mentioned and many people whom history knows as having lived. Consider the detective journalism displayed by the writer Luke -

"Now in the the fifteenth year of the government of Tiberius Ceasar, while Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrach of Abilene, During the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphass, the word of God came to John the son of Zachariah in the wilderness." (Luke 3:1-2)
That is a long way from your "Once upon a time in a far off galaxy" intertainment for kids. Christ is history hard to ignore. And He refered to His Father, the God of the Bible as "Righteous Father".
There is no problem with His worthiness. I think we're limited in understanding some of His righteous acts.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Rahvin, posted 12-03-2012 2:23 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Rahvin, posted 12-03-2012 7:50 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 124 by Larni, posted 12-04-2012 7:05 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 116 of 722 (682576)
12-03-2012 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by jaywill
12-03-2012 7:40 PM


Re: Really?
The Bible is not a "Once Upon a Time in a Far Off Galaxy" kind of story. Thousands of locations are mentioned and many people whom history knows as having lived. Consider the detective journalism displayed by the writer Luke -
I'll respond to the rest of your lengthy post later...but I had to bite on this now.
The Harry Potter books specifically mention London and many other real locations. Does that mean that the Harry Potter books are nonfiction? Should I start looking for the Wizarding World?
The fact that the Bible mentions real-world locations and people has no bearing on whether the remainder is factual...just as the mention of London in Harry Potter has no bearing on the actual existence of magic wands and dark lords.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by jaywill, posted 12-03-2012 7:40 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by jaywill, posted 12-03-2012 7:56 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 119 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 8:01 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 117 of 722 (682578)
12-03-2012 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Rahvin
12-03-2012 7:50 PM


Re: Really?
The Harry Potter books specifically mention London and many other real locations. Does that mean that the Harry Potter books are nonfiction? Should I start looking for the Wizarding World?
The fact that the Bible mentions real-world locations and people has no bearing on whether the remainder is factual...just as the mention of London in Harry Potter has no bearing on the actual existence of magic wands and dark lords.
If you think the New Testament is roughly the same as a Harry Potter Novel or the Wizard of Oz I count you as not sober minded.
And you don't spend one 100th of the time disputing anything in either of those two children stories as effort you amass to stave off the teaching of the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Rahvin, posted 12-03-2012 7:50 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Rahvin, posted 12-03-2012 8:11 PM jaywill has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 118 of 722 (682579)
12-03-2012 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by jaywill
12-01-2012 1:35 PM


Re: Really?
I think your accusation was that God is not good because there is a record of Him having some children killed in the Bible. So I was not asking about squirrels and insects.
The Reality is that we are all trapped with a Reality that kills us all, sooner of later.
Why would the qeustion even arise whether this reflects on whether reality is good or bad therefore?
The facts-of-life are that reality both Nurtures us and Kills us, eventually.
Another Fact-of-Life is that evolution is a series of Natural Laws which are intended to totally eliminate a species like Neanderthal man unless they bow down and adapt the this almighty force behind this inescapable Reality that you question.
Isa 45:7
I, (almighty Reality), form the light, and create darkness:
I,
(both Friend and Foe of the living), make peace, and create (the environment for possible great misfortune), evil:
I, (both Friend and Foe to life and man), the LORD, (of the living), do all these things, (naturally, through the environmental forces).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by jaywill, posted 12-01-2012 1:35 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by jaywill, posted 12-03-2012 8:53 PM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 119 of 722 (682580)
12-03-2012 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Rahvin
12-03-2012 7:50 PM


Re: Really?
The fact that the Bible mentions real-world locations and people has no bearing on whether the remainder is factual...
True.
But scientifically incorrect statements in the Potter book will not be found in th Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Rahvin, posted 12-03-2012 7:50 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 120 of 722 (682582)
12-03-2012 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by jaywill
12-03-2012 7:56 PM


Re: Really?
And you don't spend one 100th of the time disputing anything in either of those two children stories as effort you amass to stave off the teaching of the Bible.
Well, nobody claims the Harry Potter books to be true. If a large percentage of the population were to do so, I'd be arguing against them, as well.
There's no need to dispute something that's not claimed.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by jaywill, posted 12-03-2012 7:56 PM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by kofh2u, posted 12-03-2012 8:41 PM Rahvin 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