Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

Terry, Thank you for your well thought out thesis on murder. It is all-encompassing, and provides the reader with what human-ethics should be, and not what some two thousand year old book tells us it should be. You lay out the contradictions taught in the bible while the supposed author, god, can't even live up to us lowly, human standards for murder.

I often wonder how intelligent people can trust in a book that is so flawed - including all my siblings. That will remain one of life's mysterys till the day I die.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

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.

So that's the best you can do? Suggest that we move on? How pathetic.

Frank, you have demonstrated that you are not up to the task on this one. You have shown a great ability to state and restate your opinion, without providing any support for it. I have asked question after question that you choose to ignore. I have made assertion after assertion that you choose to simply dismiss. And now you want to go on to the next item?

Forget it.

I am not nearly done with you on this one. I have unanswered questions still on the table - really simply questions, actually. In fact, as I think about it, I'm not sure you have answered *any* of my questions to you.

That demonstrates that you are not really interested in having a discussion at all, at least not with someone who can so easily back you into a corner.

So stop the masquerade, and start answering my questions - questions which are meant to show the frailty of your position. Either that, or cry "uncle".

So here it is again ...

What was flawed about my analogy?

I

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

What was flawed about my analogy?

c.i. wrote:
EVERYTHING!

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

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.

c.i. wrote:
Read Terry's most recent post.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Implicator wrote:

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.

c.i. wrote:
Read Terry's most recent post.

I did, and I responded to it.

I

0 Replies

All your responses to Terry just skirted the import of her thesis. It was no reply by any standard of honest debate.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

All your responses to Terry just skirted the import of her thesis. It was no reply by any standard of honest debate.

Terry made the following comment:

"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."

And I responded with the following:

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?

I simply dropped it back in her lap, ci. She asserted that the actions of this god would be murder if they were not justified. She then asked the operative question - "was it justified?", which was no doubt the logical question to ask. She then gave some possible jusifications that were not relevant to this particular example, and then she LEPT to the conclusion that since none of the justifications she happened to give were relevant, then there was therefore no justification, and therefore it was "murder by any objective standard".

Terry's conclusion was a non-sequitur, plain and simple.

I

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
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.

So that's the best you can do? Suggest that we move on? How pathetic.

Nope. I've done much, much better than that. I have shown that the god of the Bible is a barbaric murderer.

Quote:

Frank, you have demonstrated that you are not up to the task on this one.

If you mean I am not up to the task of getting through your hard-headedness...we can agree on this one. I doubt anyone can.

Quote:

You have shown a great ability to state and restate your opinion, without providing any support for it.

I have provided abundant support. You, in your stone-headedness, are simply refusing to acknowledge it. I must say it provides lots of amusement to watch you do this stone-walling...so I don't mind at all.

Quote:

I have asked question after question that you choose to ignore.

This is not an interrogation. It is a discussion. And when you ask a question and someone answers it...the ethical thing to do is to acknowledge it. I have provided responses...you have not acknowledged.

Quote:

I have made assertion after assertion that you choose to simply dismiss. And now you want to go on to the next item? Forget it.

Oh, I cannot forget it, Implicator. That wouldn't be right.

Quote:

I am not nearly done with you on this one.

I surely hope not. You are much, much too amusing to lose. Please....please stay with me here.

Quote:

I have unanswered questions still on the table - really simply questions, actually.

Aha...another thing on which we can agree. Most of the stuff you are providing is very, very simple.

Quote:

In fact, as I think about it, I'm not sure you have answered *any* of my questions to you.

Well...I suspect the operative word there is "think." You don't seem to be doing much of that, Implicator.

Quote:

That demonstrates that you are not really interested in having a discussion at all, at least not with someone who can so easily back you into a corner.

You couldn't back me into a corner with a handgun. But if all this bravado makes you feel good about yourself...go for it. I'm enjoying it myself.

Quote:

So stop the masquerade, and start answering my questions - questions which are meant to show the frailty of your position. Either that, or cry "uncle".

So here it is again ...

What was flawed about my analogy?

Right after you acknowledge that I have indeed shown the pathetic cartoon god of the Bible to be a barbaric murderer...we will get on to your analogy.

But first...make the acknowledgement...or take your own advice to cry "uncle"...or whatever else you want to cry when someone blows your doors off in a discussion.

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

And I responded with the following:

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?

You are arguing in circles. Your question, "Who ultimately would determine whether such an act as this was justified?" assumes your god is the ultimate judge and jury. You completely ignore human standards of ethics and laws.

You live blindly.

0 Replies

ci

Implicators entire argument can be summed up in one simple (!) sentence:

You cannot charge the god of the Bible with any of the things you are charging...because Christians "believe" the god of the Bible is GOD...and they also "believe" that anything the god does, is by definition, good.

It is the kind of notion that one might smile at benignly if uttered by a backwoods Christian fundamentalist...but when offered in as many words as Implicator used...and offered as an erudite, logical presentation...

...it is almost too sad a message to laugh at.

(I did have a bellylaugh out of it when I realized what was happening, though...and I hope you did also.)

I have offered evidence of the god being a murderer...a barbaric murderer. Terry, in her presentation, offered another bit of evidence of the god committing barbaric murder.

Implicator simply dismisses all that...and wastes perfectly good words pretending that somehow we are being deficient.

Hey...ci...as you know: Whatever floats your boat! Let his think whatever he wants to think. If he ever gets around to being reasonable and logical...it might be fun to debate him.

0 Replies

Guy, seriously, this is getting silly.

Frank accused God of murder.

Implicator pointed out that murder means unlawful killing. He also pointed out that we have no legal framework to decide whether or not God has acted unlawfully or not.

On this small point, Implicator is right. We have no such objective legal standard. We should concede the point, and adjust our wording.

Instead of the charge of murderer, we can charge God with being a serial killer, thus Implicator's objection is sidesteped.

I see no reason not to concede this point to Implicator, and move on. It does not affect any of the other charges, since none of them imply an unlawful action.

I recommend that the first charge we look at is vengefulence, and take it from there.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Implicator wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
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.

So that's the best you can do? Suggest that we move on? How pathetic.

Nope. I've done much, much better than that. I have shown that the god of the Bible is a barbaric murderer.

You have done nothing of the sort. You have left the ball court again, and are shouting insults from the sideline. You aren't even attempting to deal with what I am presenting to you. You are retreating to comfortable territory, which is to respond to everything I say with sarcasm, and to indicate you are enjoying yourself. You are so puffed up with yourself that you are willing to leave any intellectual honesty behind, so long as you think you can save face. And so you have moved from trying to prove your assertion, to trying to frustrate me out of the discussion.

It is a common enough debate trick, but not one that fazes me in the least. It is painfully clear that you can't answer even the most simple of questions I put to you. Instead, you twist my words around in a childish manner as if that really constitutes debate. Let's look at some examples below

Quote:

Quote:
Frank, you have demonstrated that you are not up to the task on this one.

If you mean I am not up to the task of getting through your hard-headedness...we can agree on this one. I doubt anyone can.

Exhibit 1: No Frank, you know what I meant - you are not up to the task of meeting the burden of proof that you bear because of the initial assertion you made. That's the task you are not up to, and claiming that the task is something other than that is to erect a straw man.

Quote:

Quote:
You have shown a great ability to state and restate your opinion, without providing any support for it.

I have provided abundant support. You, in your stone-headedness, are simply refusing to acknowledge it. I must say it provides lots of amusement to watch you do this stone-walling...so I don't mind at all.

You obviously don't know what "support" means. Support doesn't mean providing examples from the Bible that convince you that this god is a murderer. Providing support means you have to construct a logical argument (even if it is informally structured) where the conclusion is "therefore, god is a murderer."

The entirety of your argument to date can be summed up as "this god does things that I personally feel makes him a murderer, therefore he is a murderer." That is, of course, argument by opinion, and does not constitute "supporting" anything at all.

Quote:

Quote:
I have asked question after question that you choose to ignore.

This is not an interrogation. It is a discussion. And when you ask a question and someone answers it...the ethical thing to do is to acknowledge it. I have provided responses...you have not acknowledged.

Dodging a question is not the same as answering a question. No doubt you have "responded" to everything I have said, but you have not "answered" my questions to you, at least not the ones that show that your position is flawed. And you are right, it is not an interrogation, although I am sure you feel as if it is. Questions may be asked by both sides, and questions should be answered by both sides. So answer my question - what was wrong with my analogy?

Quote:

Quote:
I have made assertion after assertion that you choose to simply dismiss. And now you want to go on to the next item? Forget it.

Oh, I cannot forget it, Implicator. That wouldn't be right.

Exhibit 2: My use of the phrase "forget it" was colloquial, and not to be taken as literal. Your response to me is "non-responsive" - that is, it doesn't address the point I was making.

Quote:

Quote:
I am not nearly done with you on this one.

I surely hope not. You are much, much too amusing to lose. Please....please stay with me here.

I'm still here Frank - answer the question.

Quote:

Quote:
I have unanswered questions still on the table - really simply questions, actually.

Aha...another thing on which we can agree. Most of the stuff you are providing is very, very simple.

Exhibit 3: I stated that there are unanswered questions, and that these questions are simple. I did not state (or even imply) that "most of the stuff" that I have provided is "simple". You misrepresent my statement to you because it indicts you. Continue to do this, and I will continue to point out your shortcomings.

Quote:

Quote:
In fact, as I think about it, I'm not sure you have answered *any* of my questions to you.

Well...I suspect the operative word there is "think." You don't seem to be doing much of that, Implicator.

Notice what I said - that you haven't "answered" my questions. I'm not claiming you haven't responded, just that you have no answered them.

Quote:

Quote:
That demonstrates that you are not really interested in having a discussion at all, at least not with someone who can so easily back you into a corner.

You couldn't back me into a corner with a handgun. But if all this bravado makes you feel good about yourself...go for it. I'm enjoying it myself.

You are in the corner, no doubt about it. The fact that you have resorted to the very debate tricks you accused me of early on is evidence of that. Combine that with a failure to answer the most simple questions, and it becomes clear just how poorly you have fared in this discussion.

Quote:

Quote:
So stop the masquerade, and start answering my questions - questions which are meant to show the frailty of your position. Either that, or cry "uncle".

So here it is again ...

What was flawed about my analogy?

Right after you acknowledge that I have indeed shown the pathetic cartoon god of the Bible to be a barbaric murderer...we will get on to your analogy.

But first...make the acknowledgement...or take your own advice to cry "uncle"...or whatever else you want to cry when someone blows your doors off in a discussion.

Wow, that's definitely a keeper! You want me to admit that I am wrong, and then you will answer my question about an analogy that I believe shows that *you* are wrong. Geesh, Frank - wouldn't admitting that I was wrong sort of defeat the whole purpose of looking at the analogy? Classic suggestion on your part just classic.

And by the way, your suggestion to "get to" my analogy is about the clearest admission to date that you have not previously dealt with it, even though I continue to ask you to do so.

Your turn, and I told you so.

I

0 Replies

Frank, concede the God-damn point!

The whole coffufal about the word 'murder' and Implicator's analogy is a smokescreen. S/he is right on this small point, and by continuing to insist that s/he isn't you are allowing him/her to grab the high-ground and legitematly hold up the debate.

Concede the point over the word murderer - call God a serial killer instead, and let's move on - either to proving God is a serial killer, or that he is vengeful, or any of the other charges.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Implicator wrote:

And I responded with the following:

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?

You are arguing in circles. Your question, "Who ultimately would determine whether such an act as this was justified?" assumes your god is the ultimate judge and jury. You completely ignore human standards of ethics and laws.

You live blindly.

Not at all. My initial contention is that there are 2 ways for Frank to prove his point.

1) Show this god to be a murderer according to some objective standard, or ...
2) Show this god to be a murderer by his own standard

Since Frank is making the assertion that this god is a murderer, then it is up to Frank to prove it. And since Frank made (and continues to make) this assertion in an unqualified manner, he implies that it is objectively true. Therefore, it is up to Frank to not only establish that there is such a thing as an objective standard, and that it even applies to this god, but that this god's actions are considered as murder according to that standard. We have only begun to scratch the surface as to what Frank must provide in order to prove his point. And believe me, I am prepared to take Frank all the way through this, step by step, if he will just dispense with the foolishness and get back on the ball court.

As to your charge of circularity, it is irrelevant. If I happened to believe that the god of the Bible is the standard of justice, then so what? If it happens to be true (in theory), then I am right - the god of the Bible is, in fact, no murderer. And so I asked the question, without actually assuming anything. I was trying to make the point that it was Frank who was assuming that *he* was the standard.

The bigger problem for Frank is this. He is trying to show that the god of the Bible is a murderer. If he intends on being successful in this, then he has to take the whole deal, he has to consider the entire Bible, or else he isn't dealing with the god of the Bible at all.

I

0 Replies

djbt wrote:

Guy, seriously, this is getting silly.

Frank accused God of murder.

Implicator pointed out that murder means unlawful killing. He also pointed out that we have no legal framework to decide whether or not God has acted unlawfully or not.

On this small point, Implicator is right. We have no such objective legal standard. We should concede the point, and adjust our wording.

Instead of the charge of murderer, we can charge God with being a serial killer, thus Implicator's objection is sidesteped.

I see no reason not to concede this point to Implicator, and move on. It does not affect any of the other charges, since none of them imply an unlawful action.

I recommend that the first charge we look at is vengefulence, and take it from there.

dj

As you can see from Implicator's response...there is more to this than a problem with definition.

I am perfectly willing to use the words you used earlier...or my own words...in place of "murderer."

The god in this particular fairytale, in a barbaric rage, slaughtered every man, woman, and child on the planet (along with all of the animals) except Noah, his family, and the animals Noah brought to the ark.

After causing Pharaoh to be obdurate...the god committed a savage, barbaric slaughter of the first born of the Egyptians.

Both were examples of savage, barbaric slaughter..and although I think it could be called murder...out of deference to the dictionary definition which I have, in fact, invoked often in my discussions in the abortion threads...I will no longer refer to it as murder.

I will contend that the god is a savage, barbaric slaughterer of humans.

Let's see where this leaves us with Implicator before we move on.

Let's see if Implicator is willing to concede this...or if he will continue to play his game.

Of note...if we allow Implicator to invoke the "the god cannot be judged to do any of these things because the god is GOD" defense...we are not going anywhere on any of these things...except the "jealousy" one. So it really doesn't make much sense to move on before getting this one nailed down.

0 Replies

djbt wrote:

Frank, concede the God-damn point!

The whole coffufal about the word 'murder' and Implicator's analogy is a smokescreen. S/he is right on this small point, and by continuing to insist that s/he isn't you are allowing him/her to grab the high-ground and legitematly hold up the debate.

Concede the point over the word murderer - call God a serial killer instead, and let's move on - either to proving God is a serial killer, or that he is vengeful, or any of the other charges.

Didn't see this until after I posted that last message.

I HAVE NOW CONCEDED...FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS THREAD...that it is not murder. It is savagery, barbarity, and serial killing.

Let's see where this gets us.

Let's see if Implicator concedes this also.

0 Replies

Frank, Don't forget the "innocent people" part.

0 Replies

As for "vengeful...

...I submit the first of the so-called 10 commandments:

"I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments
for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate
me, down to the third and fourth generation." Deuteronomy 5:9

I further submit:

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." [Deuteronomy 13:13-19]

I submit:

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' [Exodus 31:12-15]

I've got plenty more...but I'll save 'em.

0 Replies

djbt wrote:

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...

Frank Apisa wrote:

As for "vengeful...

...I submit the first of the so-called 10 commandments:

"I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments
for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate
me, down to the third and fourth generation." Deuteronomy 5:9

I further submit:

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." [Deuteronomy 13:13-19]

I submit:

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' [Exodus 31:12-15]

I've got plenty more...but I'll save 'em.

venge·ful
adj.
1. Desiring vengeance; vindictive.
2. Indicating or proceeding from a desire for revenge.
3. Serving to exact vengeance.

vengefulness
n
1. a malevolent desire for revenge

I admit without reservation that the god of the Bible is, according to my understanding of the definition of the terms in question, both vengeful and given to vengefulness, with the following clarifications/exceptions:

1) That my admission is contingent upon the definitions given above, found at dictionary.com.

2) That the definitions above are based upon the following definition of "vengeance", also found at dictionary.com:

"Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution."

2) That the use of "vindictive" in definition 1 (adj) above does not apply to the god of the Bible, as it carries the connotation of "evil".

3) That the use of "malevolent" in definition 4 (n) above does not apply to the god of the Bible, as it carries the connotation of "evil".

I

0 Replies

Evil fits.

0 Replies

Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know