1
   

Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 07:21 am
Ever hear of "contradictions?" Prolly not. Prolly don't understand the meaning of the word when it comes to the bible.
0 Replies
 
Implicator
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 08:28 am
Quote:
Well I can see that you are going to continue to try to play debating tricks....so I will have to deal with this in a different way.

We will take one item at a time.

I will restate my claim.

The god of the Bible is jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, murderous and barbaric.


I'm cutting you some slack here regarding your continuing claim that I am somehow employing *tricks*, because I really don't think you see the problem you face. However, realize the quality of this discussion is indirectly proportional to the amount of rhetoric it becomes laced with. The more you interject unwarranted personal attacks against Christians, or against my particular debate style, the more I will spend time pointing this out, and possibly even responding in kind. At that point, we will be spending most of our effort responding to each other's comments about the discussion we are having, rather than actually having the discussion.

Something to think about, that's all.


Quote:
Quote:
I: The problem for you is this - if the Christian god of the Bible is *real* - that is, if the god described in the very book you are relying on to "make your case" is exactly as he is described in the *entire* Bible, then you have absolutely no case whatsoever.


There is no logical reason to accept any of that...and apparently has been asserted in an attempt to unnecessarily complicate the discussion.


When you argue against a Christian, you can't expect to get away with arguing against single elements of what they believe, anymore than a Christian could argue against single elements of what *you* believe. Christianity is systematic - it is a collection of beliefs that stand or fall together as one. If you expect the Christian to consider your argument that their god is murderous, then you must either show this to be *objectively* true, or you must show it to be true from within their own set of beliefs.

Now, you can certainly do what you want. You can argue against this god from within your standard of what constitutes murder, etc - but don't expect many Christians to be impacted by your argument. What makes this god seem rational to Christians is that they feel the Bible *as a whole* presents a reasonable concept to believe in. And so if you want to get any Christian to listen to you, you can't expect to take pot shots at bits and pieces of their beliefs.

I will state it again -

1) You must objectively show that this god is a murder or …
2) You must show that this god is a murder, considering the Christians interpretation of the Bible as a whole

If you don't do either of these, then you are simply left with "it is my opinion that your god is a murderer", and I don't think too many Christians are interested in your opinion, unless there is something else behind it.

********

Quote:
If there are passages that show the god to be jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, murderous, and/or barbaric...

...the case is made.


I agree, Frank - if such passages *show* this god to be of a certain type, then the case is indeed made. But we have to talk about what it means to *show* this god to be anything at all.

I have already agreed that he wouldn't stand up to a humanistic set of standards, which is (in my opinion) exactly what you are judging him against. But I guess I would simply say "so what"?

To show that the god of the Bible is murderous according to your standard of murder simply means this god is murderous according to your standard. But when you remove that qualification and simply state that "god is murderous", you take upon yourself a whole new burden of proof. Now don't think I am changing the definition of murder or anything like that - I am using the definition I mentioned before, "unlawful killing". The question is, what laws is this god answerable to?

Additionally, what exactly do you *mean* when you claim "god is murderous"? Do you mean it is objectively demonstrable? Do you mean it is demonstrable according to your particular standard, or the Christians? Maybe if you answer this specific question we can have a more productive exchange.

********

Quote:
Pretending that the fact we are talking about a character contained in the Bible places some special requirements on the proofs in this regard is self-serving and gratuitous.

I have, on dozens upon dozens of occasions acknowledged that there are more pages in the Bible devoted to fawning and groveling before this barbaric monster...just as there are plenty of people in this forum who are terrified of it and who fawn and grovel.

The Bible is essentially 200 pages (the first five books) describing one of the most disgusting gods ever invented by the human mind. That is followed up by over 1000 pages of people falling all over themselves to tell this god how wonderful, understanding, loving, and kind it is.

It is a joke.


There is nothing special about me suggesting that you consider everything that Christians have to say about this god before drawing judgment. I would think that is something you would do out of consideration for their beliefs, and I expect it is something you would expect of them as well.

BTW, I think the last couple paragraphs above are a perfect example of the rhetoric I mentioned above to you.

********

Quote:
Quote:
Your argument depends entirely on taking certain elements of the Bible and pointing to them from within a set of opinions that are unbiblical. Your claims make perfect sense (and are very logical, mind you) from within your way of looking at things. However, you are trying to make a point about the god of the Bible, which means you must operate from within the confines of what is revealed in the Bible.

You may not agree with this, but I am willing to take this discussion further in explaining why this is so.


I not only "do not agree with this"...I most emphatically disagree with it.

If you have some arguments which you think should cause me to change my mind on this...please present them...and we can argue them before proceeding. As for now...I reject this notion out-of-hand...and consider it to be, as I said earlier, gratuitous and self-serving.


Well just so you know - I'm not so interested in changing your mind, as I am interested in telling the truth of the matter. Asserting that the god of the Bible is a murderer places the burden squarely in your lap to show that *this god* is what you say he is. It doesn't give you the right to claim *this god* is actually "a god who's attributes I will pick and choose at will in order to make my point", because that is by no means *this god*.

Let me give an example.

Let's say our discussion is about a guy who *you* claim is breaking the law by driving in excess of the speed limit. Now you make this claim to a group of people who think the world of this fella. They say to you "hang on now Frank, there is more to this guy than meets the eye!" And you say "I don't care about any other claims you make about him, other than this one claim - that he drove 95 mph in a 65 mph zone last Tuesday. He has clearly broken the law!"

You claim that since he drove 95 in a 65, and since the speed limit is 65 then it is oh so obvious (and the logical conclusion to boot) that this man is guilty of breaking the law.

It is at this point that this group of people drops the bomb. "Frank, this guy is a police officer, and he was pursuing a bank robber on the interstate last Tuesday. That is the reason he was driving as fast as he was. He was justified in doing what he did, based on his qualifications, his position of authority, and the circumstances at hand."

See the problem here? If this fella is *really who they say he is*, then your argument loses all it's punch. If he is really a cop, who was chasing the "bad guy" in the line of duty, then it should be clear to see that he was not *unlawfully* exceeding the speed limit. But if you choose to ignore *the entire* story that these people present, then you are misrepresenting what they say. You are, in fact, erecting a straw man of their beliefs about this fella. Not only are you not going to convince them that this man broke the law, you are probably going to get them upset at you for not considering the very parts of the story that makes this fella's excessive speed totally acceptable.


Quote:
I promise I will respond to all the other elements of your post after we've handled this.


Sounds good to me!

I
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 09:36 am
Implicator wrote:
Quote:
Well I can see that you are going to continue to try to play debating tricks....so I will have to deal with this in a different way.

We will take one item at a time.

I will restate my claim.

The god of the Bible is jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, murderous and barbaric.


I'm cutting you some slack here regarding your continuing claim that I am somehow employing *tricks*, because I really don't think you see the problem you face.


One...don't bother "cutting me any slack." I am more than able to handle anything you can dish out.

Two...your suggestion that I do not see the problem I face...is another of those tricks. Why don't you stop the nonsense?


Quote:
However, realize the quality of this discussion is indirectly proportional to the amount of rhetoric it becomes laced with. The more you interject unwarranted personal attacks against Christians, or against my particular debate style, the more I will spend time pointing this out, and possibly even responding in kind.


Be my guest. I have not engaged in "unwarranted personal attacks" with you...or with any Christians...and your charges that I have are themselves "unwarranted personal attacks" against me. Why don't you stop the nonsense?


Quote:
At that point, we will be spending most of our effort responding to each other's comments about the discussion we are having, rather than actually having the discussion.

Something to think about, that's all.


I've thought about it. Now...stop the nonsense.


Quote:

When you argue against a Christian, you can't expect to get away with arguing against single elements of what they believe, anymore than a Christian could argue against single elements of what *you* believe.


I do not do "believing"...so I don't have that problem.



Quote:
Christianity is systematic - it is a collection of beliefs that stand or fall together as one. If you expect the Christian to consider your argument that their god is murderous, then you must either show this to be *objectively* true, or you must show it to be true from within their own set of beliefs.


That is absolute baloney...pure self-serving pap.


Quote:
Now, you can certainly do what you want. You can argue against this god from within your standard of what constitutes murder, etc - but don't expect many Christians to be impacted by your argument. What makes this god seem rational to Christians is that they feel the Bible *as a whole* presents a reasonable concept to believe in. And so if you want to get any Christian to listen to you, you can't expect to take pot shots at bits and pieces of their beliefs.


I expect very little from Christians in the way of intelligent, reasonable, logical discussion and I seldom am disappointed.

What they attempt to do is to do what you are attempting here. They pretend there is some greater element that has to be considered...and that the descriptions of the god of the Bible has to be placed in the greater context of the frightened grovelling that constitutes the greater part of the Bible.

I ain't gonna do it...and I am going to laugh at the suggestion that it has to be done in order to be logical.



Quote:
I will state it again -

1) You must objectively show that this god is a murder or …
2) You must show that this god is a murder, considering the Christians interpretation of the Bible as a whole

If you don't do either of these, then you are simply left with "it is my opinion that your god is a murderer", and I don't think too many Christians are interested in your opinion, unless there is something else behind it.


Well...my "opinion" is that the god is a work of fiction.

It is not my opinion that the god described in the Bible is a jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, murderous and barbarian. That is something I KNOW. All you have to do is to read the book...and it becomes apparent. (Unless you hide your head in the sand of denial.)


Quote:
Quote:
If there are passages that show the god to be jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, murderous, and/or barbaric...

...the case is made.


I agree, Frank - if such passages *show* this god to be of a certain type, then the case is indeed made. But we have to talk about what it means to *show* this god to be anything at all.

I have already agreed that he wouldn't stand up to a humanistic set of standards, which is (in my opinion) exactly what you are judging him against. But I guess I would simply say "so what"?

To show that the god of the Bible is murderous according to your standard of murder simply means this god is murderous according to your standard. But when you remove that qualification and simply state that "god is murderous", you take upon yourself a whole new burden of proof. Now don't think I am changing the definition of murder or anything like that - I am using the definition I mentioned before, "unlawful killing". The question is, what laws is this god answerable to?


I will continue to judge the god against human standards.

If you want to say that the Bible tells us that the god is not subject to that kind of judgement...and therefore it is unreasonable or illogical to do so...

..that is your right.

Hey...anything for a laugh.

And all that particular argument is worth...is a bunch of laughter.



Quote:
Additionally, what exactly do you *mean* when you claim "god is murderous"? Do you mean it is objectively demonstrable? Do you mean it is demonstrable according to your particular standard, or the Christians? Maybe if you answer this specific question we can have a more productive exchange.


I think we both know what I am saying...and you are attempting to cloud things with this kind of dodge.

You know what I mean by "jealous"...by vindictive...by vengeful...by petty...by excessive...by quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive by tyrannical...and by barbaric. And you know what I mean by murderous.

But...you want to play this game...and I am enjoying how it is going...so let's continue.


Quote:

Quote:
Pretending that the fact we are talking about a character contained in the Bible places some special requirements on the proofs in this regard is self-serving and gratuitous.

I have, on dozens upon dozens of occasions acknowledged that there are more pages in the Bible devoted to fawning and groveling before this barbaric monster...just as there are plenty of people in this forum who are terrified of it and who fawn and grovel.

The Bible is essentially 200 pages (the first five books) describing one of the most disgusting gods ever invented by the human mind. That is followed up by over 1000 pages of people falling all over themselves to tell this god how wonderful, understanding, loving, and kind it is.

It is a joke.


There is nothing special about me suggesting that you consider everything that Christians have to say about this god before drawing judgment. I would think that is something you would do out of consideration for their beliefs, and I expect it is something you would expect of them as well.


Not sure of what you mean by all this...but more than likely, you will explain at some point. I can wait.


Quote:
BTW, I think the last couple paragraphs above are a perfect example of the rhetoric I mentioned above to you.


I see. In other words...if I am of the opinion that any of this is so...somehow, out of consideration for Christian sensibilities...I am supposed not to mention any of it?????/

C'mon. Gimme a break.



Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Your argument depends entirely on taking certain elements of the Bible and pointing to them from within a set of opinions that are unbiblical. Your claims make perfect sense (and are very logical, mind you) from within your way of looking at things. However, you are trying to make a point about the god of the Bible, which means you must operate from within the confines of what is revealed in the Bible.

You may not agree with this, but I am willing to take this discussion further in explaining why this is so.


I not only "do not agree with this"...I most emphatically disagree with it.

If you have some arguments which you think should cause me to change my mind on this...please present them...and we can argue them before proceeding. As for now...I reject this notion out-of-hand...and consider it to be, as I said earlier, gratuitous and self-serving.


Well just so you know - I'm not so interested in changing your mind, as I am interested in telling the truth of the matter.


Well...I hope you get about doing that soon. So far...you seem to be engaging in self-serving, illogical prating.


Quote:

Asserting that the god of the Bible is a murderer places the burden squarely in your lap to show that *this god* is what you say he is. It doesn't give you the right to claim *this god* is actually "a god who's attributes I will pick and choose at will in order to make my point", because that is by no means *this god*.

Let me give an example.

Let's say our discussion is about a guy who *you* claim is breaking the law by driving in excess of the speed limit. Now you make this claim to a group of people who think the world of this fella. They say to you "hang on now Frank, there is more to this guy than meets the eye!" And you say "I don't care about any other claims you make about him, other than this one claim - that he drove 95 mph in a 65 mph zone last Tuesday. He has clearly broken the law!"

You claim that since he drove 95 in a 65, and since the speed limit is 65 then it is oh so obvious (and the logical conclusion to boot) that this man is guilty of breaking the law.

It is at this point that this group of people drops the bomb. "Frank, this guy is a police officer, and he was pursuing a bank robber on the interstate last Tuesday. That is the reason he was driving as fast as he was. He was justified in doing what he did, based on his qualifications, his position of authority, and the circumstances at hand."

See the problem here?


Yeah. Your analogy is defective...and you are trying to pass it off as not being so.

The god is all of the things I have said...and I have offered dozens and dozens of passages that show that to be the case.

I'm not going to jump through hoops for you, Implicator.

If you cannot see the essentials here...you are blind by election.


Quote:



Quote:
I promise I will respond to all the other elements of your post after we've handled this.


Sounds good to me!


I'm here for you, Implicator. Never worry that I will leave.
0 Replies
 
djbt
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 10:54 am
Implicator,

I agree that the charge of 'murderous' against the God of the Bible is problematic. I could say God commanded 'Thou shalt not kill', but then he didn't say 'I shouldn't kill', so that only makes him a hypocrit, not a murderer.

However, the charges of vengefulness, jealousy, quick-to-anger-ness, slow-to-forgive-ness, vainity, intolerance, etc. do seem to hold, based on the passages Frank has cited.

You may say that, taking the Bible as a whole, there is nothing wrong with god being vengeful, jealous, quick-to-anger, slow-to-forgive, vain, intolerant, etc., since he's God and he can be whatever he likes, but the charges themselves still seem to hold.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 12:20 pm
dj

Let us do a bit of supposing here...just for the sake of argument.

Let us suppose that a human (A) wanted something done by another human (B)...something that (A) could easily accomplish on his own without the need for compliance or concessions from (B).

But for some reason or reasons unspecified, (A) wants (B) to do it...despite the fact that (A) could easily do it without (B's) help or aquiescence.

Let us further suppose that (A) has the power to make it very difficult for (B) to do the thing...in fact, that(A) could PREVENT (B) from doing it...and that (A) does exactly that...PREVENTS (B) from doing what ostensibly (A) wants (B) to do.

Let us suppose that (A) decides that since (B) has not done what (A) wants him to do...he feels free to kill thousands of innocent people in order to force (B) to do it. (All this despite the fact that (A) has actively prevented (B) from complying before the slaughter.)

And finally....let us suppose that (A) does exactly that...kills thousands of innocent people in order to compell (B) to comply.

Now...by any standard of the word "murder"...this would be murder. It would be a lot more than that..but for certain, it would be "murder."

Well...dj...the story contained in Exodus is essentially of the god of the Bible...a god that had just made the earth, the sun, the other 200+ billions of suns in our galaxy and the hundreds of billions of other galaxies we know of...

...doing just that.

Any god that could create a universe could easily get the Hebrews out of captivity without torturing the people of Egypt with all those plagues...and the wonton slaughter of the first born. The god bragged that it was making Pharaoh obdurate and obstinate...so that Pharaoh would not release the Hebrews. And the god, after this set up...slaughtered all the Egyptian first born.

I charge that the god is a murderer.

I am not about to allow Implicator to assert that I cannot logically charge the god of the Bible with murder because the Bible defines the god as not-able-to-be-blamed.

Implicator's argument on this issue is at best specious...and at worst, much, much more.

I appreciate the fact that you see some merit to it (by finding my position to be problematic)...but I would ask you to look it over more carefully...and to reconsider your position.
0 Replies
 
Implicator
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 01:51 pm
Quote:
Implicator wrote:
Quote:
Well I can see that you are going to continue to try to play debating tricks....so I will have to deal with this in a different way.

We will take one item at a time.

I will restate my claim.

The god of the Bible is jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, murderous and barbaric.


I'm cutting you some slack here regarding your continuing claim that I am somehow employing *tricks*, because I really don't think you see the problem you face.


One...don't bother "cutting me any slack." I am more than able to handle anything you can dish out.

Two...your suggestion that I do not see the problem I face...is another of those tricks. Why don't you stop the nonsense?


Well then, let's put away the niceties, as you obviously prefer a more direct approach.

It is clear that your complaint about "tricks" owes itself to the fact that you *do* see the problem you face. The problem is that of providing a logical proof to support your assertion. More to the point, it is about providing an *objective* proof to support your assertion. The only thing you have demonstrated up until now is that you don't like Christians, and that you definitely don't like their god. But when faced with the task of objectively showing how it is that this god is guilty of murder (in a universal, objective, and absolute manner) you retreat to whining about how terrible this god supposedly is. The reason why you take this approach is obvious - you can't defend your assertion.

The challenge remains in front of you in full force. So stop posturing and provide something more concrete than "the Biblical god is a murderer because I say so". IOW, argument by opinion is no argument at all.

********

Quote:
Quote:
However, realize the quality of this discussion is indirectly proportional to the amount of rhetoric it becomes laced with. The more you interject unwarranted personal attacks against Christians, or against my particular debate style, the more I will spend time pointing this out, and possibly even responding in kind.


Be my guest. I have not engaged in "unwarranted personal attacks" with you...or with any Christians...and your charges that I have are themselves "unwarranted personal attacks" against me. Why don't you stop the nonsense?


One person's personal attacks (insults, mischaracterization, etc) is another person's modus operandi. That's fine. Keep an eye on the size of this discussion, and the need to constantly remove relevant material in order to make room for the fluff. I'll just go ahead and say "I told you so" now, as it has already started.


Quote:
Quote:
At that point, we will be spending most of our effort responding to each other's comments about the discussion we are having, rather than actually having the discussion.

Something to think about, that's all.


I've thought about it. Now...stop the nonsense.


I was hoping that you would be willing to concentrate on proving your assertion, but it is apparent you would rather shower this discussion with abuse in order to hide your own blundering.

********

Quote:
Quote:

When you argue against a Christian, you can't expect to get away with arguing against single elements of what they believe, anymore than a Christian could argue against single elements of what *you* believe.


I do not do "believing"...so I don't have that problem.


Don't be silly. Unless you can show that you *know* everything you claim to know, or that you have an epistemology that doesn't include the concept of belief *at all*, you are in the same boat as the rest of us.

Don't try to introduce such a ridiculous red herring.

********

Quote:
Quote:
Christianity is systematic - it is a collection of beliefs that stand or fall together as one. If you expect the Christian to consider your argument that their god is murderous, then you must either show this to be *objectively* true, or you must show it to be true from within their own set of beliefs.


That is absolute baloney...pure self-serving pap.


You didn't even give me a target to shoot at with this response. There is nothing here to rebut. You share an opinion without even attempting an explanation as to *why* it is the case. You will, in fact, do this time and time again throughout the rest of this post.

********

Quote:
Quote:
Now, you can certainly do what you want. You can argue against this god from within your standard of what constitutes murder, etc - but don't expect many Christians to be impacted by your argument. What makes this god seem rational to Christians is that they feel the Bible *as a whole* presents a reasonable concept to believe in. And so if you want to get any Christian to listen to you, you can't expect to take pot shots at bits and pieces of their beliefs.


I expect very little from Christians in the way of intelligent, reasonable, logical discussion and I seldom am disappointed.

What they attempt to do is to do what you are attempting here. They pretend there is some greater element that has to be considered...and that the descriptions of the god of the Bible has to be placed in the greater context of the frightened groveling that constitutes the greater part of the Bible.

I ain't gonna do it...and I am going to laugh at the suggestion that it has to be done in order to be logical.


Ah, there are others who have come before me who have also shown you the error of your ways. The fact that others have pointed out to you the fallacious nature of your argument doesn't surprise me in the least.

The "greater element" is that of a standard to judge against. And the fact that there is more than one to pick from is the source of your inability to support your contention. So I will state it, once again.

1) You must objectively show that this god is a murderer or …
2) You must show that this god is a murderer, considering the Christian's interpretations of the Bible as a whole

Unless you do one of the two of these, you are left with opinion - nothing more, nothing less.

********

Quote:
Quote:
I will state it again -

1) You must objectively show that this god is a murder or …
2) You must show that this god is a murder, considering the Christians interpretation of the Bible as a whole

If you don't do either of these, then you are simply left with "it is my opinion that your god is a murderer", and I don't think too many Christians are interested in your opinion, unless there is something else behind it.


Well...my "opinion" is that the god is a work of fiction.

It is not my opinion that the god described in the Bible is a jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, murderous and barbarian. That is something I KNOW. All you have to do is to read the book...and it becomes apparent. (Unless you hide your head in the sand of denial.)


And here you do it again, only this time you claim to KNOW that this god is all these things, but you provide no reason as to *why* you believe he is these things.

And BTW, I am only addressing your claim that this god is a murderer. I can just as easily address the remainder of your claims, and will be happy to do so when we are done with this claim.

********

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If there are passages that show the god to be jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, murderous, and/or barbaric...

...the case is made.


I agree, Frank - if such passages *show* this god to be of a certain type, then the case is indeed made. But we have to talk about what it means to *show* this god to be anything at all.

I have already agreed that he wouldn't stand up to a humanistic set of standards, which is (in my opinion) exactly what you are judging him against. But I guess I would simply say "so what"?

To show that the god of the Bible is murderous according to your standard of murder simply means this god is murderous according to your standard. But when you remove that qualification and simply state that "god is murderous", you take upon yourself a whole new burden of proof. Now don't think I am changing the definition of murder or anything like that - I am using the definition I mentioned before, "unlawful killing". The question is, what laws is this god answerable to?


I will continue to judge the god against human standards.

If you want to say that the Bible tells us that the god is not subject to that kind of judgment...and therefore it is unreasonable or illogical to do so...

..that is your right.

Hey...anything for a laugh.

And all that particular argument is worth...is a bunch of laughter.


Judge this god all you want by humanistic standards, Frank - it is no skin off my back, or the back of Christians. Your claim against this aspect of Christianity remains vacuous, as your claim isn't against Christianity at all. And if chuckling to yourself makes it easier to ignore this fact, then so be it.

********

Quote:
Quote:
Additionally, what exactly do you *mean* when you claim "god is murderous"? Do you mean it is objectively demonstrable? Do you mean it is demonstrable according to your particular standard, or the Christians? Maybe if you answer this specific question we can have a more productive exchange.


I think we both know what I am saying...and you are attempting to cloud things with this kind of dodge.


Yet I asked you to define *specifically* what you meant, and you didn't (or couldn't) do it. I mean, you can claim that I am dodging and all that, but the more I ask you to define this, and the more you dance around providing the definition, the more obvious it will become that it is you who are clouding things.

Now answer my question.

********

Quote:
You know what I mean by "jealous"...by vindictive...by vengeful...by petty...by excessive...by quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive by tyrannical...and by barbaric. And you know what I mean by murderous.

But...you want to play this game...and I am enjoying how it is going...so let's continue.


Then get on the court and play! Right now all you are doing is yelling insults from the sideline. Besides, it really seems you should have no problem answering a question that is so central to your thesis.


Quote:
Quote:

Quote:
Pretending that the fact we are talking about a character contained in the Bible places some special requirements on the proofs in this regard is self-serving and gratuitous.

I have, on dozens upon dozens of occasions acknowledged that there are more pages in the Bible devoted to fawning and groveling before this barbaric monster...just as there are plenty of people in this forum who are terrified of it and who fawn and grovel.

The Bible is essentially 200 pages (the first five books) describing one of the most disgusting gods ever invented by the human mind. That is followed up by over 1000 pages of people falling all over themselves to tell this god how wonderful, understanding, loving, and kind it is.

It is a joke.


There is nothing special about me suggesting that you consider everything that Christians have to say about this god before drawing judgment. I would think that is something you would do out of consideration for their beliefs, and I expect it is something you would expect of them as well.


Not sure of what you mean by all this...but more than likely, you will explain at some point. I can wait.


Frank I'm just restating the same point I have been making over and over again, that your argument is logically fallacious - specifically, it employs a very large straw man.

********

Quote:
Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Your argument depends entirely on taking certain elements of the Bible and pointing to them from within a set of opinions that are unbiblical. Your claims make perfect sense (and are very logical, mind you) from within your way of looking at things. However, you are trying to make a point about the god of the Bible, which means you must operate from within the confines of what is revealed in the Bible.

You may not agree with this, but I am willing to take this discussion further in explaining why this is so.


I not only "do not agree with this"...I most emphatically disagree with it.

If you have some arguments which you think should cause me to change my mind on this...please present them...and we can argue them before proceeding. As for now...I reject this notion out-of-hand...and consider it to be, as I said earlier, gratuitous and self-serving.


Well just so you know - I'm not so interested in changing your mind, as I am interested in telling the truth of the matter.


Well...I hope you get about doing that soon. So far...you seem to be engaging in self-serving, illogical prating.


Nothing illogical about pointing out the fact that you haven't made any progress in supporting your assertion.

********

Quote:
Quote:

Asserting that the god of the Bible is a murderer places the burden squarely in your lap to show that *this god* is what you say he is. It doesn't give you the right to claim *this god* is actually "a god who's attributes I will pick and choose at will in order to make my point", because that is by no means *this god*.

Let me give an example.

Let's say our discussion is about a guy who *you* claim is breaking the law by driving in excess of the speed limit. Now you make this claim to a group of people who think the world of this fella. They say to you "hang on now Frank, there is more to this guy than meets the eye!" And you say "I don't care about any other claims you make about him, other than this one claim - that he drove 95 mph in a 65 mph zone last Tuesday. He has clearly broken the law!"

You claim that since he drove 95 in a 65, and since the speed limit is 65 then it is oh so obvious (and the logical conclusion to boot) that this man is guilty of breaking the law.

It is at this point that this group of people drops the bomb. "Frank, this guy is a police officer, and he was pursuing a bank robber on the interstate last Tuesday. That is the reason he was driving as fast as he was. He was justified in doing what he did, based on his qualifications, his position of authority, and the circumstances at hand."

See the problem here?


Yeah. Your analogy is defective...and you are trying to pass it off as not being so.


And there it is … again. No mention of *why* my analogy is defective, just a claim by you that it is. Nothing about the concept of certain people being "above the law", nothing about "circumstances", etc. Nope, you just dismiss it out of hand, and hope that you can head off any rebuttal by claiming that I am "trying to pass it off as not being so."

What a pathetic response.

WHY is the analogy flawed, Frank? Answer the question.

********

Quote:
The god is all of the things I have said...and I have offered dozens and dozens of passages that show that to be the case.


No, you have offered dozens and dozens of passages that show it to be the case by a humanistic standard of judgment. That is *vastly* different than "showing it to be the case" in general.


Quote:
I'm not going to jump through hoops for you, Implicator.


Hey, you aren't even on the court yet - I don't expect hoop tricks, just a solid game of ball.


Quote:
If you cannot see the essentials here...you are blind by election.


If you can't see that I am right, then you are plain stupid.

Wow, see how easy it is to argue by opinion? I can do it too.



Quote:
Quote:

Quote:
I promise I will respond to all the other elements of your post after we've handled this.


Sounds good to me!


I'm here for you, Implicator. Never worry that I will leave.


I never expressed any concern that you were going anywhere.

I
0 Replies
 
Implicator
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 01:58 pm
djbt wrote:
Implicator,

I agree that the charge of 'murderous' against the God of the Bible is problematic. I could say God commanded 'Thou shalt not kill', but then he didn't say 'I shouldn't kill', so that only makes him a hypocrit, not a murderer.

However, the charges of vengefulness, jealousy, quick-to-anger-ness, slow-to-forgive-ness, vainity, intolerance, etc. do seem to hold, based on the passages Frank has cited.

You may say that, taking the Bible as a whole, there is nothing wrong with god being vengeful, jealous, quick-to-anger, slow-to-forgive, vain, intolerant, etc., since he's God and he can be whatever he likes, but the charges themselves still seem to hold.


Is it hypocritical for a police offer to tell me to stop exceeding the speed limit, and then go and do it himself in the line of duty?

As to the other claims, some of them *do* stick (like jealousy, for instance, specifically because this god claims that he is jealous), I have decided to put them on hold, however. We are consuming more than enough bandwidth dealing with just murder Wink

I
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 02:56 pm
Well...such an unseemly tirade...and such a pathetic attempt to pass it off as something I have demanded. What a laugh. If you want to be rude, Implicator...have the guts to be rude because you want to be...not because bad ole Frank is making you rude.

In any case, let's go to the specifics:


Quote:
1) You must objectively show that this god is a murderer or …
2) You must show that this god is a murderer, considering the Christian's interpretations of the Bible as a whole

Unless you do one of the two of these, you are left with opinion - nothing more, nothing less.


Okay.

First, I will quote the entire of my last post:

Quote:
Let us do a bit of supposing here...just for the sake of argument.

Let us suppose that a human (A) wanted something done by another human (B)...something that (A) could easily accomplish on his own without the need for compliance or concessions from (B).

But for some reason or reasons unspecified, (A) wants (B) to do it...despite the fact that (A) could easily do it without (B's) help or aquiescence.

Let us further suppose that (A) has the power to make it very difficult for (B) to do the thing...in fact, that(A) could PREVENT (B) from doing it...and that (A) does exactly that...PREVENTS (B) from doing what ostensibly (A) wants (B) to do.

Let us suppose that (A) decides that since (B) has not done what (A) wants him to do...he feels free to kill thousands of innocent people in order to force (B) to do it. (All this despite the fact that (A) has actively prevented (B) from complying before the slaughter.)

And finally....let us suppose that (A) does exactly that...kills thousands of innocent people in order to compell (B) to comply.

Now...by any standard of the word "murder"...this would be murder. It would be a lot more than that..but for certain, it would be "murder."

Well...dj...the story contained in Exodus is essentially of the god of the Bible...a god that had just made the earth, the sun, the other 200+ billions of suns in our galaxy and the hundreds of billions of other galaxies we know of...

...doing just that.

Any god that could create a universe could easily get the Hebrews out of captivity without torturing the people of Egypt with all those plagues...and the wonton slaughter of the first born. The god bragged that it was making Pharaoh obdurate and obstinate...so that Pharaoh would not release the Hebrews. And the god, after this set up...slaughtered all the Egyptian first born.

I charge that the god is a murderer.

I am not about to allow Implicator to assert that I cannot logically charge the god of the Bible with murder because the Bible defines the god as not-able-to-be-blamed.

Implicator's argument on this issue is at best specious...and at worst, much, much more.

I appreciate the fact that you see some merit to it (by finding my position to be problematic)...but I would ask you to look it over more carefully...and to reconsider your position.


Now, I will flesh that out a bit.



In Exodus...the barbarian tells Moses and Aaron to got to Pharaoh to demand the release of the Hebrews supposedly enslaved there.

The god tells Moses and Aaron to work miracles in its name...but ASSURES them that Pharaoh will not listen or acquiesce because "...I will make him obdurate." (The several passages dealing with this in various Bibles sometimes speak of "...I will harden his heart" or "...I will make him obstinate.")

There is absolutely no doubt that the god is telling Moses and Aaron that it (the god) WILL MAKE Pharaoh refuse to comply. In fact, the god not only brags about doing this...the god acknowledges that it is doing so to show Pharaoh just how powerful it is.

At Exodus 4:21, the god speaks to Moses and says:

"On your return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have put in your power. I WILL MAKE HIM OBSTINATE, HOWEVER, SO THAT HE WILL NOT LET THE PEOPLE GO."

At Exodus 7:3, the god speaks to Moses and says:

"In turn, your brother Aaron shall tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave his land. YET I WILL MAKE PHARAOH SO OBSTINATE THAT, DESPITE THE MANY SIGNS AND WONDERS THAT I WILL WORK IN THE LAND OF EGYPT, HE WILL NOT LISTEN TO YOU."

At Exodus 11:10, it is written:

"Thus, although Moses and Aaron performed these vaious wonders in Pharaoh's presence, the Lord made Pharaoh obstinate, adn he would not let the Israelites leave his land."


And...after the set-up and preordained failure of Pharaoh to release the Hebrews...the god supposedly slaughtered every first born in the land.

It was wonton murder. The kind of thing if done by a human would end up with the human placed in an institution for the criminally insane...under restrains that would make the restrains on the fictional Hannibal Lecter look fairly loose.

So...it is obvious the god is a murderer.


Quote:
And BTW, I am only addressing your claim that this god is a murderer. I can just as easily address the remainder of your claims, and will be happy to do so when we are done with this claim.


Okay..I've shown the god is a murderer.

Start on the others.
0 Replies
 
djbt
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 05:12 pm
Implicator wrote:
djbt wrote:
Implicator,

I agree that the charge of 'murderous' against the God of the Bible is problematic. I could say God commanded 'Thou shalt not kill', but then he didn't say 'I shouldn't kill', so that only makes him a hypocrit, not a murderer.

However, the charges of vengefulness, jealousy, quick-to-anger-ness, slow-to-forgive-ness, vainity, intolerance, etc. do seem to hold, based on the passages Frank has cited.

You may say that, taking the Bible as a whole, there is nothing wrong with god being vengeful, jealous, quick-to-anger, slow-to-forgive, vain, intolerant, etc., since he's God and he can be whatever he likes, but the charges themselves still seem to hold.


Is it hypocritical for a police offer to tell me to stop exceeding the speed limit, and then go and do it himself in the line of duty?


No, because he is obeying laws that bind both me and him. If I were to become a police officer, I could exceed the limit in the line of duty as he does. If God kills, for him not to be a hypocrite, there must be a justification for the killing (as the policeman has a justification), a qualifier to 'thou shalt not kill' (like in our laws 'thou shalt not speed, expect under these circumstances...). 'Thou shalt not kill unless you are omniscient' would do.

Implicator wrote:
As to the other claims, some of them *do* stick (like jealousy, for instance, specifically because this god claims that he is jealous), I have decided to put them on hold, however. We are consuming more than enough bandwidth dealing with just murder Wink


Please, let's just move on from murder. I accept that, because of the legal aspect of the word 'murder', the use of that word is problematic. Can we agree God is a serial killer and move on? If there were a word for 'unnecessary, cruel killing' that didn't have a legal aspect, I'm sure Frank would be happy to use that instead. You've made your point on the problem with the use of the word murder, and I, at least, have conceded it, can we now move on to the charges of vengefulness, jealousy, quick-to-anger-ness, slow-to-forgive-ness, vanity, intolerance, serial killing, etc.?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 05:22 pm
That "serial killing" one should be interesting.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 08:14 pm
djbt wrote:
[Please, let's just move on from murder. I accept that, because of the legal aspect of the word 'murder', the use of that word is problematic. Can we agree God is a serial killer and move on? If there were a word for 'unnecessary, cruel killing' that didn't have a legal aspect, I'm sure Frank would be happy to use that instead. You've made your point on the problem with the use of the word murder, and I, at least, have conceded it, can we now move on to the charges of vengefulness, jealousy, quick-to-anger-ness, slow-to-forgive-ness, vanity, intolerance, serial killing, etc.?


I suspect, dj, that Implicator is not rejecting my thesis of the god being a murderer because of the "legal definition" of the word.

I may be reading him wrong...but it seems to me that he is rejecting my thesis based on something entirely different...the words of the Bible. In effect, he is saying that the god of the Bible cannot be guilty of murder (or of any other "offense" of this sort) simply because the overall context of the Bible describes the god as being above such things. Even if the god does things that for a human would be considered "murder" "barbarianism" "intolerance", etc....

..the god is immune of the face of it.

If I am correct in what Implicator asserts...I reject it out-of-hand.

If I am wrong...

...I will accept your wording of "unnecessary cruel killing."

Implicator...make the call.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 08:19 pm
...the god is immune from such designations based on its unique status as god.

Ir can do what it wants...and humans cannot judge it...or what is being done.
0 Replies
 
LionTamerX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 08:27 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
...the god is immune from such designations based on its unique status as god.

Ir can do what it wants...and humans cannot judge it...or what is being done.


Almost reminds you of certain earthly situations...

Who's Ir ?
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 08:53 pm
Implicator wrote:
1) You must objectively show that this god is a murderer or …
2) You must show that this god is a murderer, considering the Christian's interpretations of the Bible as a whole

1) If murder is defined as unlawful killing, we must first decide whose laws apply here. I would guess that anyone who kills feels justified in doing so by virtue of some personal principle, even if they recognize that such killing is contrary to the laws of society. Likewise, a group that wishes to slaughters the members of another group may proclaim their moral right to do so and pass laws to that effect or get the church to sanctify the desired war, crusade, inquisition, or extermination of indigenous peoples.

Does killing cease to be murder simply by legal redefinition, or is there an objective standard that we can use to determine whether the killing in question is acceptable? Capital punishment for certain crimes is highly controversial, and while some societies still consider religion beliefs, ethnic heritage, or fertile farmland as adequate justification for wholesale slaughter, it is (hopefully) not the majority opinion.

It is generally recognized that killing may lawfully be done in self-defense, defense of others, and justifiable war. The victim must have acted in some way so as to become a threat to you, and you may use reasonable but not excessive force. You may not kill someone just because you don't like them, don't agree with them, or want something they possess.

So was the killing reported in the Bible in any way justified? Were the people God killed a threat to him? Were they any more sinful or less deserving of life than the people who benefited from their deaths? Could he have achieved his ends without killing people, by relocating them or giving them the same laws he gave the Israelites? It was murder by any objective standards.

2) Presumably Christians interpret the Bible to mean that anything God does is lawful because God has the right to make (or disregard) any laws he chooses, and that God may have reasons we cannot know for what he does. Therefore they refuse to call it murder when God drowns millions of people, slaughters first-born children who have committed no offenses, kills babies for their parent's sins, and orders people to stone people to death for infractions of his laws, slaughter their new neighbors and steal their property. (If I ever kill anyone I want people like that on my jury!) Religions that teach their followers to blindly accept anything done in God's name are dangerous.

If a dictator commits atrocities (such as a holocaust, for instance), should the people say, "Well, it's OK because he gave himself that right and he knows more than we do, it is according to his plan…"? Or should they judge his actions objectively and stop trying to appease him?

I do not understand why anyone would call the Biblical God "good" and trust him to keep his word, even though he broke his covenant with the Jews and shows consistent disregard for life, laws and standards of ethical behavior.
0 Replies
 
Implicator
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 09:28 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Well...such an unseemly tirade...and such a pathetic attempt to pass it off as something I have demanded. What a laugh. If you want to be rude, Implicator...have the guts to be rude because you want to be...not because bad ole Frank is making you rude.


Rude? I wasn't rude, Frank - I simply made my point about the foolishness of littering a rational discussion with rhetoric. And I am glad to see that you understood that my point was made, as you have subsequently cleaned out most of the dross, and have finally attempted to deal with your burden of proof.


Quote:
In any case, let's go to the specifics:


Welcome to the ball game - it's about time.

********

Quote:
Quote:
1) You must objectively show that this god is a murderer or …
2) You must show that this god is a murderer, considering the Christian's interpretations of the Bible as a whole

Unless you do one of the two of these, you are left with opinion - nothing more, nothing less.


Okay.


Are you now agreeing with me that these are your only 2 choices, or did you mean something else?

********

Quote:
First, I will quote the entire of my last post:


OK, and I will intersperse my comments along the way.



Quote:
Let us do a bit of supposing here...just for the sake of argument.

Let us suppose that a human (A) wanted something done by another human (B)...something that (A) could easily accomplish on his own without the need for compliance or concessions from (B).

But for some reason or reasons unspecified, (A) wants (B) to do it...despite the fact that (A) could easily do it without (B's) help or acquiescence.

Let us further suppose that (A) has the power to make it very difficult for (B) to do the thing...in fact, that(A) could PREVENT (B) from doing it...and that (A) does exactly that...PREVENTS (B) from doing what ostensibly (A) wants (B) to do.

Let us suppose that (A) decides that since (B) has not done what (A) wants him to do...he feels free to kill thousands of innocent people in order to force (B) to do it. (All this despite the fact that (A) has actively prevented (B) from complying before the slaughter.)

And finally....let us suppose that (A) does exactly that...kills thousands of innocent people in order to compel (B) to comply.

Now...by any standard of the word "murder"...this would be murder. It would be a lot more than that..but for certain, it would be "murder."


It may be considered to be murder by *most* standards, but not by *any* standard. IOW, if there is even *one* standard out there that this action would be judged by to be something other than murder, than your assertion is not true. This may seem like nitpicking, but it speaks directly to the point I made above, which you appeared to agree with. IOW, you need to establish an objective standard for judging this action.

If you are attempting option #1 (an objective standard), then you must show the following:

a) an objective standard exists
b) this objective standard encompasses human beings, and …
c) given this standard, the act in question is unlawful

If you are attempting option #1, then please feel free to support the previous premises. Either that, or explain to me why you don't agree with them.

If you are attempting option #2 (the Biblical standard), then you have a winner! Since this story is about a human (as you state above), then we can see what the Bible has to say about humans killing other humans. And I think I would have to agree with you that the scenario you presented above would be, according to Biblical standards, an act of murder. [I caveat this by stating that you have not described any extenuating circumstances that would lead me to conclude this act was anything else, although such circumstances may exist.]

If you are attempting option #2, then I agree with you.

If you are attempting some option other than #1 or #2, please tell me what it is, and why you think it is feasible. I see that you have only 2 choices.

********

Quote:
Well...dj...the story contained in Exodus is essentially of the god of the Bible...a god that had just made the earth, the sun, the other 200+ billions of suns in our galaxy and the hundreds of billions of other galaxies we know of...doing just that.


Not essentially the same *at all*. The story contained in Exodus is not of a human being doing what you said; rather, it is of a god. In fact, you make it clear you understand the distinction when you state the following:

Quote:
Any god that could create a universe could easily get the Hebrews out of captivity without torturing the people of Egypt with all those plagues...and the wonton slaughter of the first born. The god bragged that it was making Pharaoh obdurate and obstinate...so that Pharaoh would not release the Hebrews. And the god, after this set up...slaughtered all the Egyptian first born.

I charge that the god is a murderer.


Certainly there is no doubt that this god *could* get the Hebrews out of captivity by using any other number of methods. But this god does not do that. And so the next logical question is *why*? I don't know, maybe the Bible even gives the answer to the question.


Quote:
I am not about to allow Implicator to assert that I cannot logically charge the god of the Bible with murder because the Bible defines the god as not-able-to-be-blamed.


You cannot logically charge the god of the Bible with murder because the Bible defines the god as not-able-to-be-blamed.



Quote:
Implicator's argument on this issue is at best specious...and at worst, much, much more.


What part of my argument is fallacious? I have charged you with a straw man fallacy, a charge which you have not answered. And now you claim that my argument is fallacious. So go ahead - point out the fallacy.



Quote:
Now, I will flesh that out a bit.

In Exodus...the barbarian tells Moses and Aaron to go to Pharaoh to demand the release of the Hebrews supposedly enslaved there.

The god tells Moses and Aaron to work miracles in its name...but ASSURES them that Pharaoh will not listen or acquiesce because "...I will make him obdurate." (The several passages dealing with this in various Bibles sometimes speak of "...I will harden his heart" or "...I will make him obstinate.")

There is absolutely no doubt that the god is telling Moses and Aaron that it (the god) WILL MAKE Pharaoh refuse to comply. In fact, the god not only brags about doing this...the god acknowledges that it is doing so to show Pharaoh just how powerful it is.


Now I think you are getting somewhere. The god also states he is doing this for another (similar) reason:

Exodus 10:1-2

1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them 2 that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD."


Quote:
At Exodus 4:21, the god speaks to Moses and says:

"On your return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have put in your power. I WILL MAKE HIM OBSTINATE, HOWEVER, SO THAT HE WILL NOT LET THE PEOPLE GO."

At Exodus 7:3, the god speaks to Moses and says:

"In turn, your brother Aaron shall tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave his land. YET I WILL MAKE PHARAOH SO OBSTINATE THAT, DESPITE THE MANY SIGNS AND WONDERS THAT I WILL WORK IN THE LAND OF EGYPT, HE WILL NOT LISTEN TO YOU."

At Exodus 11:10, it is written:

"Thus, although Moses and Aaron performed these various wonders in Pharaoh's presence, the Lord made Pharaoh obstinate, and he would not let the Israelites leave his land."

And...after the set-up and preordained failure of Pharaoh to release the Hebrews...the god supposedly slaughtered every first born in the land.


Indeed he did.


Quote:
It was wonton murder. The kind of thing if done by a human would end up with the human placed in an institution for the criminally insane...under restrains that would make the restrains on the fictional Hannibal Lecter look fairly loose.


But it wasn't done by a human, was it? It was done by a god. Specifically, it was done by a god who is not beholding to the laws that he handed out for his creation to follow. As I said before, *IF* the Bible is true, then you have nowhere to go with your argument. *IF* it is true, then your judgment is entirely irrelevant.

But I am glad you brought up the example of Pharaoh, because Paul brings up the very charge you are making, in Romans 9:14-21:

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?



Quote:
So...it is obvious the god is a murderer.


Your conclusion does not follow from your premises, Frank, especially considering what the Bible has to say about judging this god.


Quote:
Quote:
And BTW, I am only addressing your claim that this god is a murderer. I can just as easily address the remainder of your claims, and will be happy to do so when we are done with this claim.


Okay..I've shown the god is a murderer.

Start on the others.


You have shown no such thing.

Oh, and by the way, what about the questions I asked in the last post? Specifically, what was flawed about my analogy?

I'm still waiting for an answer …

I
0 Replies
 
Implicator
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 09:35 pm
djbt wrote:
Implicator wrote:
djbt wrote:
Implicator,

I agree that the charge of 'murderous' against the God of the Bible is problematic. I could say God commanded 'Thou shalt not kill', but then he didn't say 'I shouldn't kill', so that only makes him a hypocrite, not a murderer.

However, the charges of vengefulness, jealousy, quick-to-anger-ness, slow-to-forgive-ness, vanity, intolerance, etc. do seem to hold, based on the passages Frank has cited.

You may say that, taking the Bible as a whole, there is nothing wrong with god being vengeful, jealous, quick-to-anger, slow-to-forgive, vain, intolerant, etc., since he's God and he can be whatever he likes, but the charges themselves still seem to hold.


Is it hypocritical for a police offer to tell me to stop exceeding the speed limit, and then go and do it himself in the line of duty?


No, because he is obeying laws that bind both me and him. If I were to become a police officer, I could exceed the limit in the line of duty as he does. If God kills, for him not to be a hypocrite, there must be a justification for the killing (as the policeman has a justification), a qualifier to 'thou shalt not kill' (like in our laws 'thou shalt not speed, expect under these circumstances...). 'Thou shalt not kill unless you are omniscient' would do.


I would agree that this god is not a hypocrite just as long as his action is justified. I don't agree that said justification would need to be stated in the form you have suggested.


djbt wrote:
Implicator wrote:
As to the other claims, some of them *do* stick (like jealousy, for instance, specifically because this god claims that he is jealous), I have decided to put them on hold, however. We are consuming more than enough bandwidth dealing with just murder Wink


Please, let's just move on from murder. I accept that, because of the legal aspect of the word 'murder', the use of that word is problematic. Can we agree God is a serial killer and move on? If there were a word for 'unnecessary, cruel killing' that didn't have a legal aspect, I'm sure Frank would be happy to use that instead. You've made your point on the problem with the use of the word murder, and I, at least, have conceded it, can we now move on to the charges of vengefulness, jealousy, quick-to-anger-ness, slow-to-forgive-ness, vanity, intolerance, serial killing, etc.?


Why don't you pick just one for now, and we can discuss it. I am happy to address these one at a time, but I'll be happy to let you make a suggestion as to where to begin.

I
0 Replies
 
Implicator
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 09:43 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
djbt wrote:
[Please, let's just move on from murder. I accept that, because of the legal aspect of the word 'murder', the use of that word is problematic. Can we agree God is a serial killer and move on? If there were a word for 'unnecessary, cruel killing' that didn't have a legal aspect, I'm sure Frank would be happy to use that instead. You've made your point on the problem with the use of the word murder, and I, at least, have conceded it, can we now move on to the charges of vengefulness, jealousy, quick-to-anger-ness, slow-to-forgive-ness, vanity, intolerance, serial killing, etc.?


I suspect, dj, that Implicator is not rejecting my thesis of the god being a murderer because of the "legal definition" of the word.


I am happy with the legal definition that I have provided (i.e. murder is unlawful killing). My issue is whether or not this god has ever killed unlawfully.


Quote:
I may be reading him wrong...but it seems to me that he is rejecting my thesis based on something entirely different...the words of the Bible. In effect, he is saying that the god of the Bible cannot be guilty of murder (or of any other "offense" of this sort) simply because the overall context of the Bible describes the god as being above such things.


Specifically, it is because the overall context never describes god as unlawfully killing. Since all of creation belongs to this god, he is well justified in taking whatever life he deems is appropriate. Sometimes he gives reasons, and sometimes he does not. But in the end, it is an issue of potter and clay.

BTW, there are things that the Bible states this god does not do. Killing does not happen to be one of them.


Quote:
Even if the god does things that for a human would be considered "murder" "barbarianism" "intolerance", etc....

..the god is immune of the face of it.


This god is immune to the variety of standards that humans employ to judge this god - he is only beholding to the standard he holds for himself.


Quote:
If I am correct in what Implicator asserts...I reject it out-of-hand.


You are (basically) correct in what I assert. Your rejection doesn't remove your burden of proof.


Quote:
If I am wrong...

...I will accept your wording of "unnecessary cruel killing."

Implicator...make the call.


The call has been made.

I
0 Replies
 
Implicator
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 09:55 pm
Terry wrote:
Implicator wrote:
1) You must objectively show that this god is a murderer or …
2) You must show that this god is a murderer, considering the Christian's interpretations of the Bible as a whole

1) If murder is defined as unlawful killing, we must first decide whose laws apply here. I would guess that anyone who kills feels justified in doing so by virtue of some personal principle, even if they recognize that such killing is contrary to the laws of society. Likewise, a group that wishes to slaughters the members of another group may proclaim their moral right to do so and pass laws to that effect or get the church to sanctify the desired war, crusade, inquisition, or extermination of indigenous peoples.

Does killing cease to be murder simply by legal redefinition, or is there an objective standard that we can use to determine whether the killing in question is acceptable?


I'm not sure what you mean. Killing is murder if it is done unlawfully, according to the definition of "murder".


Quote:
Capital punishment for certain crimes is highly controversial, and while some societies still consider religion beliefs, ethnic heritage, or fertile farmland as adequate justification for wholesale slaughter, it is (hopefully) not the majority opinion.


It is possible that some societies consider religious beliefs as adequate justification, but not ethnic heritage or fertile farmlands, no?


Quote:
It is generally recognized that killing may lawfully be done in self-defense, defense of others, and justifiable war. The victim must have acted in some way so as to become a threat to you, and you may use reasonable but not excessive force. You may not kill someone just because you don't like them, don't agree with them, or want something they possess.


Yes, "generally recognized" - objectively true, though?


Quote:
So was the killing reported in the Bible in any way justified? Were the people God killed a threat to him? Were they any more sinful or less deserving of life than the people who benefited from their deaths? Could he have achieved his ends without killing people, by relocating them or giving them the same laws he gave the Israelites? It was murder by any objective standards.


Who ultimately would determine whether such an act as this was justified? Maybe all of the examples you gave of possible justification don't comport with this example, but does that mean the action was not justified? Furthermore, what makes you think it is murder by *any* objective standards?


Quote:
2) Presumably Christians interpret the Bible to mean that anything God does is lawful because God has the right to make (or disregard) any laws he chooses


Consider that Christians probably believe that their god has the right to disregard any laws that don't apply to him in the first place - that's probably a more accurate representation of what Christians believe.


Quote:
and that God may have reasons we cannot know for what he does. Therefore they refuse to call it murder when God drowns millions of people, slaughters first-born children who have committed no offenses, kills babies for their parent's sins, and orders people to stone people to death for infractions of his laws, slaughter their new neighbors and steal their property. (If I ever kill anyone I want people like that on my jury!) Religions that teach their followers to blindly accept anything done in God's name are dangerous.


Any belief system that teaches a person to *blindly* do anything another person says is dangerous.


Quote:
If a dictator commits atrocities (such as a holocaust, for instance), should the people say, "Well, it's OK because he gave himself that right and he knows more than we do, it is according to his plan…"? Or should they judge his actions objectively and stop trying to appease him?


I suppose that depends entirely on the "dictator" in question (assuming you are including the Christian god in this).


Quote:
I do not understand why anyone would call the Biblical God "good" and trust him to keep his word, even though he broke his covenant with the Jews and shows consistent disregard for life, laws and standards of ethical behavior.


So this god doesn't live up to *your* "objective" standard, is that what you are saying?

I
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 03:25 am
Implicator


I have shown that the god of the Bible is a murderer...and a barbaric murderer at that.

The essence of your argument, Implicator, is that because the god is god in this particular fairytale...any killing it does is justified on its face...and is above being called murder.

This is not truly an argument at all...but a cop out.

In any case...I have shown that the god of the Bible is a murderer. Apparently, you are going to stonewall against acknowledging that being so...but it is painfully obvious that it has been done....and done adequately.

Let's go on to the next item of business.
0 Replies
 
djbt
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 04:30 am
Implicator wrote:
Why don't you pick just one for now, and we can discuss it. I am happy to address these one at a time, but I'll be happy to let you make a suggestion as to where to begin.

An excellent suggestion.

The charge against the God of the Bible is vengefulness.

The prosecution will now calls its first witness - Frank Apisa...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 11/13/2024 at 08:57:21