Frank Apisa wrote:Implicator wrote:
Quote:
Who specifically is it that you are calling jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, murderous and barbaric? Who is it that you are targeting with your claims? After all, in order to judge a person, you must define who that person is.
- Is it a "god" that we know nothing about, even in theory?
- Is it a "god" who is described by verses that are hand-picked from an ancient book?
- Is it a "god" who is described by the Christian's interpretation of the Bible?
None of the above.
It is the god of the Bible...the god Jesus worshipped...that I assert is jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, murderous and barbaric.
I figured you would go with the "none of the above" choice that I didn't list, it only made sense. However, you aren't clarifying yourself enough here. When you say that it is "the God of the Bible", but not "the Christian's interpretation of the Bible", there are only two choices left, based on the lack of qualification in your statement.
1) You believe you have an objective understanding of what the Bible says, and it is this objective understanding you are commenting from, or
2) You are speaking from your personal opinion as to what the Bible says, and are not assuming it is objectively correct.
To make the general claim that you are speaking of the "god of the Bible" is all well and good, but the Christian makes the very same claim. In fact, I can make the same claim as well. But the description you will hear from me, or from the Christian, is not the same as what you will share, no doubt.
And so here is the problem. In order to move this discussion beyond a sharing of subjective opinions, we return to the two choices I shared earlier. Two choices you obviously don't want to pick from, as you make evident below.
********
Quote:Quote:Let's consider a comment you made in your opening post on this thread:
Quote: I have challenged every Christian (they claim the god is kind compassionate, and loving of humankind) to offer passages that show their god to be possessed of those qualities rather than the qualities I say it displays.
The god that you have problems with is not just the god you find by hand-picking verses from an ancient book, it is a god who is described by the Christian's interpretation of that book. It is a god defined by the claims Christians make about him.
Nonsense.
I am making assertions about the god of the Bible...the god Jesus worshipped.
Ok, I think it is time for an object lesson.
No Frank, you aren't speaking of the god of the Bible, it is I who is speaking of the god of the Bible.
********
Quote:Implicator...I am not describing the "Christian's interpretation" of the god of the Bible...nor am I describing anyone else's "interpretation" of the god of the Bible.
I am describing the god of the Bible...the god Jesus worshipped.
The only other option (if you aren't sharing someone's interpretation) is that you feel you have an objectively accurate understanding of the intention of the writers. Are you claiming this? Or, do you think you are able to still say you speak of the god of the Bible, without claiming an objective understanding of it?
********
Quote:Quote:What becomes a bigger issue is when you attempt to show a contradiction/internal inconsistency in the Christian's interpretation of the Bible. You aren't just talking about your opinions as to what this god is like; you are invoking the Christian's belief with the intention of showing a lack of logical coherency. It is the Christians who claim that this god is kind, compassionate, and loving of humankind, not you. And so the god that you are taking issue with in this thread (to answer my question above) is that god that the Christians believe in.
I am not doing anything of the sort.
I am describing qualities of the god of the Bible...the god Jesus worshipped.
No Frank, you aren't speaking of the god of the Bible, it is I who is speaking of the god of the Bible. (take 2)
********
Quote:Quote:Therefore, since it is the god that the Christian's believe in, you need to argue from within the constraints of what Christians believe, if you are to show that there is any incoherency in their position.
C'mon, Implicator. Of course I do not. You are grasping at straws.
Well, we will see who is grasping here for straws. Let's see how the object lesson plays out, and take it from there.
Quote:I am saying some things about the god of the Bible...the god Jesus worshipped...and I have presented passages from the Bible suggesting that my charges are correct.
No Frank, you aren't speaking of the god of the Bible, it is I who is speaking of the god of the Bible. (take 3)
********
Quote:Quote:So to answer your first question, since I am arguing as a Christian, and since you are attacking the Christian's perspective on how good or bad the god of the Bible is, you must argue from within the Christian's perspective, else your conclusions about this god have no logical relevance to the Christian's perspective.
Where on earth do you get this from? Do you make it up out of thin air?
I am not dealing with your perspective of the god of the Bible...and I am not dealing with the Christian perspective. I am dealing with the god of the Bible...the god Jesus worshipped.
No Frank, you can't possibly be dealing with the god of the Bible, because *I* am dealing with the god of the Bible, and we don't agree on what the Bible has to say about that god. (take 4)
********
Quote:Quote: That is why I have previously stated that one of your options here is to try to show internal inconsistency within the Christian framework of beliefs.
Well, I think you see that my case is made (with the possible exception of "murder" for which we have already substituted barbaric serial killer)...and your only hope is to cloud things up with supposed requirements which are little more than gratuitous, self-serving pap.
Yes, you have substituted barbaric serial killer, but I have not addressed that charge yet, as we have moved on to something else. I am addressing your specific question as to why you must assume the Bible is true in order to argue this in an intellectually honest manner, that's all.
Furthermore, it is you who is now feeling the need to interject a higher level of rhetoric into the conversation, no doubt because you see there is really no way out of this for you. You can't make objective statements about whether this god is good or bad, because you don't have an objective standard to work from. And you can't just make subjective statements about whether this god is good or bad, because such statements don't carry any weight.
BTW, are you going to go back and address my response to your concerns about my analogy, or are those going to go unanswered (notice I didn't say "not responded to") like so many other of my answers to you do?
********
Quote:Quote:Now, as to your second question, consider what it means to judge (make an assessment) against anyone at all, fictional or not. To judge is to evaluate another person's actions against a criterion of behavior. And so it is necessary to establish what the criteria of behavior is that is being used as the standard before one can evaluate the actions in question against that standard. If your goal is not after all to show an internal inconsistency in the Christian's framework of beliefs as it relates to whether the god's acts are good or bad, but is rather to make an objective claim about his actions, then you must first prove an objective standard for determining whether an act is murder (or the remainder of your charges) exists. If you establish such a standard, and show that this god falls short, then it doesn't really matter whether the Christian's position (on the whole) is logically incoherent or not, because you will have shown that this god's actions were just as you said they were objectively speaking.
Implicator...if I said Adolph Hitler was a murderous, bigotted tyrant...I would not have to do any of those things for anyone willing to be reasonable. If I were arguing against someone who simply did not want to acknowledge anything bad or evil about Adolph Hitler...that person might try what you are trying here.
Be real.
Ah, a perfect example to work with. I think you would find many today (maybe even a majority) who would simply agree with you that Hitler was as you described him, precisely because they hold the same opinion as you do about what he did. That is, since you both agree he was a murderous, bigoted tyrant then there would be no need to pursue the question of "standard", as you are in agreement.
However, if you met up with a follower of Hitler, or at least someone who admired him, then you could potentially run into the same type of argument as I am presenting you with. It is an argument that understands that each of us make judgments against others from within a framework, and as our frameworks are not identical, there is no doubt that there will come a point where we disagree on something. And so the question should be obvious - which framework should we work within? You blatantly assume that yours is the appropriate one to work within, and so I am pointing it out to you that it *may not* be. Notice I'm not even dogmatically claiming it is not, just that you need to justify it before you can use it.
********
Quote:Quote:So to answer your second question, you need to justify the standard you are using when making the assessment about this god's actions. You either need to show it is objective, or you need to use the Christian's own standard against them. If you cannot do either of these two, then what exactly do you think you are left with, that is going to have any impact on the Christian?
I do not have to do anything of the sort.
Unless you expect to influence Christians with fallacious reasoning, then you do, Frank. I don't know, maybe you
can be successful with some Christians by using such an approach, but it certainly isn't going to work with me.
********
Quote:I can make my charges...bring forth the passages which substantiate my position...and then sit back and watch the tortured logic and rationalizations begin.
You can most definitely make charges all day long, and bring forth passages which substantiate (in your mind) your position, and then sit back and watch those who know how to argue issues like this
rebut your "argument", which you then choose to perceive as tortured logic and rationalization.
Quote:That is what I have done.
You have done just what I claim you have done.
********
Quote:Quote:Now it seems as if you are interested in impacting Christian's with this thread, as you said the following in the opener of this thread:
Quote: Maybe if we discuss these passages...the light will dawn for some of our Christian brothers and sisters.
If you think that you can impact Christians with your line of argumentation, without taking one of the two approaches I have outlined above, I would really like to hear what you intend to do.
I am not setting out to impact the Christians in the way you are assuming I am.
Unless you decide to share more specifically what you are attempting to do, I will go with my instincts on this one.
********
Quote:Quote:Quote:Why do you suppose it is not logical, ethical, or appropriate on my part to treat the Bible as a rather self-serving history of the early Hebrew people...intertwined with a silly, superstition-driven mythology containing a fictional "god" that is jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, murderous and barbaric?
Why must I suppose or assume the book to true?
I think it is
very logical for you to suppose that the Bible is just what you have described it to be, if you evaluate it from within a humanistic standard. I have already stated that I believe you are being
very rational in your assessment, from within the (apparently humanistic) framework that you are using. However, if you want to impact the Christian's beliefs, in the way you have implied in this thread, then you can't expect to do so with the approach you are using.
I will be the judge of the efficacy of my methodology. I can tell you that my methods have been extremely successful in the past...and I suspect I am being much more successful here than you can see.
That's a good point, Frank - it is
you who are judging here, based on your personal, subjective standard of what constitutes a good argument, or a murderer. That is, you argue by opinion. And it surprises me not that you think your methods have been extremely successful in the past, and maybe they even have. However, your methods aren't even making a dent here, as you don't seem to understand that you are struggling with a most basic issue in debate - proving your opinion is more than just that.
********
Quote:Quote:In short, you do not *need* to assume the Bible is true, unless you are really interested in getting Christians to listen to you.
I do not "need" to do it even then. The Christians in this forum listen to most of what I have to say already. Go back and check. You will see I am correct.
I think you know the sense in which I used the term "listen" here, that is, that they hear you and think that you make a good case. I doubt you have had that level of impact. You may have frustrated some, but I doubt you have many converts on this board.
********
Quote:Quote:Or, you do not *need* to assume the Bible is true, if you can *objectively* make your case.
I have made my case.
You have shared an opinion, with much sound and fury, but haven't done much more than that.
I
