Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Here be my problem with "God"
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 91 of 106 (87630)
02-19-2004 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Smitty500
02-19-2004 9:57 PM


Therefore the German society says its ok to hate Jews.
Well, what do you think the German Jews thought about that? You can hardly say that "German Society says it was ok" because a bunch of the society thought it wasn't ok.
That's where your argument fails. The Holocaust doesn't refute moral relativism because it wasn't a society determining it's own morals. It was a madman imposing morals on them.
I detest the holocaust but am just trying to point out that relative morality is so hard to determine it's pointless.)
Actually the Holocaust is a great argument for moral relativism - it shows what happens when morals are imposed from outside instead of by an inclusive agreement among all members of the society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Smitty500, posted 02-19-2004 9:57 PM Smitty500 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by NosyNed, posted 02-20-2004 12:38 AM crashfrog has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 92 of 106 (87646)
02-20-2004 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by crashfrog
02-19-2004 10:07 PM


Actually the Holocaust is a great argument for moral relativism - it shows what happens when morals are imposed from outside instead of by an inclusive agreement among all members of the society.
But there isn't ever likely to be a time when all members of society agree. It is, rather, a consensus that is developed. The consensus must be broad enough that the number who disagree are small and not disruptive.
I don't think that you can excuse the holocaust by suggesting that the circumstances were imposed. However, the recognized need to keep it secret does suggest that it was not part of the consensus view even if there was a significant background of anti semitism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by crashfrog, posted 02-19-2004 10:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2004 10:56 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 93 of 106 (87704)
02-20-2004 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by NosyNed
02-20-2004 12:38 AM


However, the recognized need to keep it secret does suggest that it was not part of the consensus view even if there was a significant background of anti semitism.
Yeah, I mean it's not like Hitler put the Final Solution to a referendum or something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by NosyNed, posted 02-20-2004 12:38 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Phat, posted 02-20-2004 6:52 PM crashfrog has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 94 of 106 (87800)
02-20-2004 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Smitty500
02-19-2004 9:57 PM


Re: Free of Doctrine
Smitty500 writes:
This is obviously true in some respects.
Not some, all.
Smitty500 writes:
Obviously it was status quo to hate Jews, or at least this can be inferred from the circumstances. Therefore the German society says its ok to hate Jews.
Assuming for the moment that the majority of Germans did think like this and that I was there. The thing is, I don't have to agree with the morals of the society in which I live, however, if I cross the line where society no longer finds my actions acceptable, society will punish me. My choices, either conform to their morals, move to a place that share my morals, try to change their morals, or go against the grain and get punished.
Smitty500 writes:
Yet after the war was won, we put this guard on trial for inhuman acts of genocide in the Nuremburg trials. Which society's moral code should be observed here?
There is no 'should', or rather what 'should' be done according to your or I is irrelevant. Those in control will enforce the law that they subscibe too. In a democracy or a republic, they people (society) is able to influence what those laws are and so the laws tend to reflect to morals of the citizens in general. Sometimes, as in a dictatorship, those in control get to make the laws as they please, at least until society has had enough and gets rid of them.
Smitty500 writes:
It's kinda shady isn't it.
Shady or not, it is the way things are.
Smitty500 writes:
You could say that sure the world moral code should have been observed but then it just says that the guy with the biggest stick should impose moral order.
Again, 'should' is irrelevant. Society imposes its own morals, those in control enforce the law. If the law and morals are in agreement then most people are happy, if not... well unhappy people eventually lash out at those that are making them unhappy.

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Smitty500, posted 02-19-2004 9:57 PM Smitty500 has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 95 of 106 (87803)
02-20-2004 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by crashfrog
02-20-2004 10:56 AM


Moral Relativism and God
crashfrog writes:
The Holocaust doesn't refute moral relativism because it wasn't a society determining it's own morals. It was a madman imposing morals on them.
So you suggest that society determine its own destiny by way of popular vote. Right?
crashfrog writes:
Actually the Holocaust is a great argument for moral relativism - it shows what happens when morals are imposed from outside instead of by an inclusive agreement among all members of the society.
OK..we agree that Hitler was a "bad" outside source. Perhaps you argue that even a "good" outside force such as God (If he exists) still should butt out. Am I right?
Nosy Ned writes:
But there isn't ever likely to be a time when all members of society agree. It is, rather, a consensus that is developed. The consensus must be broad enough that the number who disagree are small and not disruptive.
Sounds like a democracy to me.
democracy \di-"m-kr-s\ n, pl people + kratos strength, power 1 : government by the people; esp : rule of the majority 2 : a government in which the supreme power is held by the people 3 : a political unit that has a democratic government 4 cap : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S. 5 : the common people esp. when constituting the source of political authority 6 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
OK..lets go to our big "fable" book..
Gen 11:1-7= And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.KJV
OK. we see that a group of people were in a common agreement to build something that would "make a name for them" Perhaps it was a ziggurat. Perhaps it was a tall building. In todays world, it could be a space shuttle. Or an abstract thing like a peace treaty. The point is, God does not like democracy when He is not included in the process. God wants two basic things from humanity, according to Jesus. They are:Matt 22:34-40
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Even IF the Bible was a giant fable, why is the basic idea of trusting God as a source rather than mere popular opinion SO wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2004 10:56 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2004 7:29 PM Phat has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 96 of 106 (87810)
02-20-2004 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Phat
02-20-2004 6:52 PM


So you suggest that society determine its own destiny by way of popular vote. Right?
Not exactly by popular vote, no. If a soceity tries to adopt morals that don't work for enough people in that society, the society either falls apart or changes its morals. It's more like a self-correcting process.
Perhaps you argue that even a "good" outside force such as God (If he exists) still should butt out. Am I right?
God doesn't exist. If God existed, then by definition he would be the source of morals. the existence of a source of moral absolutes refutes moral relativism, which is the position that there's no source of moral absolutes.
The point is, God does not like democracy when He is not included in the process.
Yeah, apparently he hates the competition.
Even IF the Bible was a giant fable, why is the basic idea of trusting God as a source rather than mere popular opinion SO wrong?
Because God doesn't exist? And therefore when you try to look inside you to find out what he wants, you're likely to find nothing but your own preconcieved predjudices?
I don't want to be ruled by your God, because your God doesn't exist - and therefore what we have is just you telling me what I can and can't do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Phat, posted 02-20-2004 6:52 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Phat, posted 02-20-2004 11:41 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 97 of 106 (87846)
02-20-2004 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by crashfrog
02-20-2004 7:29 PM


I am my own Boss!
Gen 3:1-5= Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'" "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Some fable, eh crashfrog? A serpent who lies. This snake goes against God. Did God really say...=Does God really exist?
crashfrog writes:
I don't want to be ruled by your God, because your God doesn't exist - and therefore what we have is just you telling me what I can and can't do.
Hey...it must just be me because what we can see and know is all that is real, right crashfrog?
But if my God does not exist, then your statement becomes this: "I don't want to be ruled by you because you don't exist." Its like a little kid who holds his hands over his ears and thinks that if he can hear nothing, nothing can get to him. Wake up and smell the coffee, crashfrog old chap! Denial is more than a river in Egypt!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2004 7:29 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2004 1:41 AM Phat has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 98 of 106 (87941)
02-22-2004 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Phat
02-20-2004 11:41 PM


Hey...it must just be me because what we can see and know is all that is real, right crashfrog?
Well, it is all that we can know that we know. And the Bush administration has shown the danger of basing action on things you only think you know.
And whether or not what we can see and know is all that is real or not, you're still asking me to change my behavior simply because you have this intuition that there's a God who wants me to do that - and in spite of my intuition that no such God exists.
Why should your intuition trump mine?
But if my God does not exist, then your statement becomes this: "I don't want to be ruled by you because you don't exist."
Why should I obey something that doesn't exist?
Now, if God exists, and he's who you say he is, you would have a point. But that's something you have to establish to my satisfaction if you expect me to give a damn.
Denial is more than a river in Egypt!
Yeah. Apparently it's an important part of religious faith.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-22-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Phat, posted 02-20-2004 11:41 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by ThingsChange, posted 02-22-2004 2:16 AM crashfrog has replied

  
ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 99 of 106 (87943)
02-22-2004 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by crashfrog
02-22-2004 1:41 AM


Do we know what we know?
crashfrog writes:
Well, it is all that we can know that we know. And the Bush administration has shown the danger of basing action on things you only think you know.
All this talk about "knowing", and you claim to know more that you do: Maybe you don't know what the Bush administration knew. I'm not talking about WMD, either. I'm talking about a big picture of thwarting terrorists, protecting America from future attacks, etc. But that would be another thread and not related to EvC, which I really want to devote time to. I just have to balance the anti-Bush rhetoric every now and then.
On the other hand, you are doing quite well in debating Phatboy.
Personally, my intuition tells me the Earth and Heavens are all on the back of great big turtle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2004 1:41 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2004 2:35 AM ThingsChange has not replied
 Message 104 by nator, posted 02-26-2004 10:26 AM ThingsChange has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 100 of 106 (87944)
02-22-2004 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by ThingsChange
02-22-2004 2:16 AM


I just have to balance the anti-Bush rhetoric every now and then.
Would it surprise you to know that I voted for him?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by ThingsChange, posted 02-22-2004 2:16 AM ThingsChange has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Phat, posted 02-22-2004 6:35 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 101 of 106 (87946)
02-22-2004 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by crashfrog
02-22-2004 2:35 AM


On the backs of Giant Turtles...
You know, ThingsChange, I respect Crashfrog more for disagreeing with me than I would if he became a lackey without a brain who fell at my feet and agreed with me.
crashfrog writes:
Why should your intuition trump mine?
You are right,frogman. There is no reason why it should. This goes the other way too, though. No amount of intellect can ever trump a mans faith. Faith is more than telling of giant turtles. Faith is having ridden on the back of one and convincing people that the turtle is real. As for Dubya, I can only say this much: I may generalize a bit, but by and large Republicans have a power base concentrated in wealth and material whereas Democrats have a power base concentrated in popularity and ideology. The fact remains that 5% of the people control 90% of everything and the WMD's, whether real or imagined in Iraq, are in fact a reality in general. The Republicans astutely see the big picture that if the Mega Industrial power base that they own becomes torpedoed, America will lose its grip on the power within the world. We literally are fighting for our cushy way of life. The Democrats already have planned for this demise, and are looking ahead to becoming world statesmen. The more people suffer, the stronger the Democratic power base becomes. Thus, politics as usual!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 02-22-2004 2:35 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by ThingsChange, posted 02-22-2004 12:23 PM Phat has replied

  
ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5926 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 102 of 106 (87975)
02-22-2004 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Phat
02-22-2004 6:35 AM


Re: On the backs of Giant Turtles...
Phatboy writes:
I respect Crashfrog more for disagreeing with me than I would if he became a lackey without a brain who fell at my feet and agreed with me
Maybe that's because you can't get anyone to buy your ideas and fall at your feet, because you don't have a convincing argument to persuade people.
Your cafeteria religious approach to faith has a weak foundation. Face it. You insist on some underlying truth in the Bible and not the literal words where they can be "proven" false (i.e. convincing evidence and logic, like science).
My point about the turtles, which obviously upsets you because it hits home, is that intuition does not have to turn towards God and the Bible.
Phatboy writes:
Republicans have a power base concentrated in wealth and material whereas Democrats have a power base concentrated in popularity and ideology
Many people think the Republicans' power base is the religious right!
You ought to check out who the power brokers are behind the Democrats. Those shark lawyers who love more laws to enrich themselves and drive up the costs of medical care. You also should check the bank accounts of your politicians. The "rich" argument cuts both ways. The democratic politians feed off of lackeys who vote with shallow thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Phat, posted 02-22-2004 6:35 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Phat, posted 02-22-2004 2:25 PM ThingsChange has not replied
 Message 105 by nator, posted 02-26-2004 10:31 AM ThingsChange has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 103 of 106 (87986)
02-22-2004 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by ThingsChange
02-22-2004 12:23 PM


Re: On the backs of Giant Turtles...
OK, lets get ready to rumble,homie!
ThingsChange writes:
Maybe that's because you can't get anyone to buy your ideas and fall at your feet, because you don't have a convincing argument to persuade people.
My "giant turtle" is the absolute truth of the Word Of God. I am no mere illiterate who believes in the Bible cuz my Pappy made me go to church. As I have said before in framing the paradigm of our discussion, you see human wisdom as your source of proof and truth. You may be a moral relativist. Truth is relative to you. I am an absolute truth monotheist.
ThingsChange writes:
Your cafeteria religious approach to faith has a weak foundation.
so you say. In science, things change. New facts are introduced which disprove the old facts. In the Bible, note how God is described:
1 Sam 15:28-29"The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbors-to one better than you. He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
Note that in this context, (read the story) God foreknew that the kingdom would change hands. He did not change His mind, for He saw the future.He is the future. He is the present. He is the past.
Mal 3:6 "I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.
In an absolute truth belief paradigm, God is the source and not man. Man changes, God does not. Still, you will argue that man wrote this fable, and I cannot prove to you otherwise. In short, however,by your definition both of us base our source upon human reasoning. My source is biblical authors. Your source is the latest science and/or cosmology/psychology journals.
Many people think the Republicans' power base is the religious right!
It is true that Republicans behave rather similar to European absolutist Monarchs, whereas Democrats in that era would have identfied with Greek philosophers,perhaps. Again, ideas change. Progress by definition is based on human reason. This is your source.
Jude 18-19="In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires." These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.
I do not mean to imply that human wisdom=evil,but I will say that scripture is right when it says:
Prov 14:12 There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.
There are two ways to think, as I see it. Listen to God, or listen to human wisdom. Ideally, God will confirm some decisions that I initially used human reasoning to arrive at.
[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-22-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by ThingsChange, posted 02-22-2004 12:23 PM ThingsChange has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 104 of 106 (88802)
02-26-2004 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by ThingsChange
02-22-2004 2:16 AM


Re: Do we know what we know?
quote:
But that would be another thread and not related to EvC, which I really want to devote time to. I just have to balance the anti-Bush rhetoric every now and then.
Wow, you run and hide from having to back up your claims even before Crash had the chance to respond! Are you saying that Kay is a big liar?
Unfortunately, all you seem to have is pro-Bush rhetoric without the facts to back up what you claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by ThingsChange, posted 02-22-2004 2:16 AM ThingsChange has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 105 of 106 (88804)
02-26-2004 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by ThingsChange
02-22-2004 12:23 PM


Re: On the backs of Giant Turtles...
quote:
The democratic politians feed off of lackeys who vote with shallow thinking.
Yeah, well f**k you too, buddy.
OK, now that I've sunk to your level of discourse for a moment, perhaps you would like to start another thread in the Coffee House forum to debate this claim of yours?
Oh, wait, I forgot. You just like to spout this bullshit every chance you get, but talking about politics is "not really why you're here."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by ThingsChange, posted 02-22-2004 12:23 PM ThingsChange 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