Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

Implicator wrote:

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Implicator wrote:
You have shared an opinion, with much sound and fury, but haven't done much more than that.

I repeat:

The god of the Bible is a jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, barbarian who engages in barbaric serial killing.

I have presented ample evidence for why I suggest this is so. And the evidence I have offered is quoted directly from the Bible....most often the words directly attributed to this silly god.

And yet the Christian also quotes from the Bible, and comes to a different conclusion than you. This is proof positive that both of you are simply sharing your impressions of what the Bible says, and that it is not logically possible for both of you to be sharing an accurate assessment. You ignore this most fundamental problem with your thesis, and continue to make assertions as if they are true simply by virtue of you stating them.

Quote:
Implicator...so far you have used hundreds upon hundreds of words to say something about that...to offer a self-serving assessment of what I must do in order to meet some arbitrary standards you want to place on discussion of this issue on me....

Here is the difference between my hundreds of words, and yours. I have explained (in painful detail) exactly why you cannot simply share an assessment according to your standard, and think that you are being intellectually honest. You, on the other hand, have continued to share an assessment according to your standard, without addressing my rebuttal of your ability to do so. In short, your response in our discussion is the best example of arbitrariness I have seen in a long time.

Quote:
...which could easily be summed up in one sentence. "The god can do no wrong, so you must be mistaken."

That's not at all what I have been saying. You should probably go back and read our discussion again.

Quote:
I simply reject your thesis.

Not by any logical standard only by a desire to not engage in supporting your own thesis with anything other than your opinion.

Quote:
I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being jealous...then I can logically assert that the god is a jealous god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being vindictive...then I can logically assert that the god is a vindictive god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being vengeful...then I can logically assert that the god is a vengeful god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being petty...then I can logically assert that the god is a petty god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being excessive...then I can logically assert that the god is an excessive god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive...then I can logically assert that the god is a quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being tyrannical...then I can logically assert that the god is a tyrannical god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being a serial killing barbarian...I can then logically assert that the god is a serial killing barbarian.

Yet you have done none of the above, Frank. You have not offered examples of the god being anything, because you have not justified the standard by which you judge the god to be any of the things you say he is.

Your argument is essentially: "This god is who I say he is because his actions according to my personal standard are such and such "

Quote:
If I get a certain amount of delight out of watching people try to make all that illogical...or watching people torturing logic in order to make it seem illogical to do that...what can I tell ya? I do get that delight.

I'm happy to provide you with delight, but that is (of course) completely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of your argument. It is a red herring, and nothing more. You demonstrate a great ability to generate words, yet a great inability to argue.

I

I have asserted that the god of the Bible is a jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, barbarian who engages in barbaric serial killing.

I have offered as evidence for this contention...word for word passages from the book in question.

You apparently are going to insist other things have to be done in order to make my case...and I am going to laugh at your instance...because it is a laughable contention on your part.

I am not going to jump through hoops for you, Implicator...and there is absolutely nothing wrong with me enjoying the sight of you standing there with the hoops in your hand. If that bothers you...put the hoops away.

The god of the Bible...using the WORDS of the Bible...is a jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, barbarian who engages in barbaric serial killing.

0 Replies

"The god of the Bible..." is fit only for comic books; not for humans to take seriously as some god's word. That so many fall into the trap of religious teachings that has no basis in fact is a fascinating subject on its own accord. Contradictions be damned; listen to god's love. But, if you believe in any other gods, you will be stoned to death, or will live in hell for eternity! Such love! LOL

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Implicator wrote:
You have shared an opinion, with much sound and fury, but haven't done much more than that.

I repeat:

The god of the Bible is a jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, barbarian who engages in barbaric serial killing.

I have presented ample evidence for why I suggest this is so. And the evidence I have offered is quoted directly from the Bible....most often the words directly attributed to this silly god.

And yet the Christian also quotes from the Bible, and comes to a different conclusion than you. This is proof positive that both of you are simply sharing your impressions of what the Bible says, and that it is not logically possible for both of you to be sharing an accurate assessment. You ignore this most fundamental problem with your thesis, and continue to make assertions as if they are true simply by virtue of you stating them.

Quote:
Implicator...so far you have used hundreds upon hundreds of words to say something about that...to offer a self-serving assessment of what I must do in order to meet some arbitrary standards you want to place on discussion of this issue on me....

Here is the difference between my hundreds of words, and yours. I have explained (in painful detail) exactly why you cannot simply share an assessment according to your standard, and think that you are being intellectually honest. You, on the other hand, have continued to share an assessment according to your standard, without addressing my rebuttal of your ability to do so. In short, your response in our discussion is the best example of arbitrariness I have seen in a long time.

Quote:
...which could easily be summed up in one sentence. "The god can do no wrong, so you must be mistaken."

That's not at all what I have been saying. You should probably go back and read our discussion again.

Quote:
I simply reject your thesis.

Not by any logical standard only by a desire to not engage in supporting your own thesis with anything other than your opinion.

Quote:
I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being jealous...then I can logically assert that the god is a jealous god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being vindictive...then I can logically assert that the god is a vindictive god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being vengeful...then I can logically assert that the god is a vengeful god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being petty...then I can logically assert that the god is a petty god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being excessive...then I can logically assert that the god is an excessive god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive...then I can logically assert that the god is a quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being tyrannical...then I can logically assert that the god is a tyrannical god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being a serial killing barbarian...I can then logically assert that the god is a serial killing barbarian.

Yet you have done none of the above, Frank. You have not offered examples of the god being anything, because you have not justified the standard by which you judge the god to be any of the things you say he is.

Your argument is essentially: "This god is who I say he is because his actions according to my personal standard are such and such "

Quote:
If I get a certain amount of delight out of watching people try to make all that illogical...or watching people torturing logic in order to make it seem illogical to do that...what can I tell ya? I do get that delight.

I'm happy to provide you with delight, but that is (of course) completely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of your argument. It is a red herring, and nothing more. You demonstrate a great ability to generate words, yet a great inability to argue.

I

I have asserted that the god of the Bible is a jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, barbarian who engages in barbaric serial killing.

I have offered as evidence for this contention...word for word passages from the book in question.

Yes, you have made the assertion you stated, and have offered evidence from the Bible. These are the raw material of arguments, no doubt. Your problem, as I have demonstrated both in statement and object lesson, is that you choose to give no account for the standard you use to judge this god. So here comes the question of questions for you -

What standard are you using when you judge this god of the Bible?

I await your reply.

Quote:

You apparently are going to insist other things have to be done in order to make my case...and I am going to laugh at your instance...because it is a laughable contention on your part.

Laugh all you want, and then answer my question:

What standard are you using when you judge this god of the Bible?

Quote:

I am not going to jump through hoops for you, Implicator...and there is absolutely nothing wrong with me enjoying the sight of you standing there with the hoops in your hand. If that bothers you...put the hoops away.

No need to jump at all, feel free to stay seated - just answer this question:

What standard are you using when you judge this god of the Bible?

Quote:

The god of the Bible...using the WORDS of the Bible...is a jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, barbarian who engages in barbaric serial killing.

There's that assertion again, but I really want to know ...

What standard are you using when you judge this god of the Bible?

I

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Implicator wrote:
You have shared an opinion, with much sound and fury, but haven't done much more than that.

I repeat:

The god of the Bible is a jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, barbarian who engages in barbaric serial killing.

I have presented ample evidence for why I suggest this is so. And the evidence I have offered is quoted directly from the Bible....most often the words directly attributed to this silly god.

And yet the Christian also quotes from the Bible, and comes to a different conclusion than you. This is proof positive that both of you are simply sharing your impressions of what the Bible says, and that it is not logically possible for both of you to be sharing an accurate assessment. You ignore this most fundamental problem with your thesis, and continue to make assertions as if they are true simply by virtue of you stating them.

Quote:
Implicator...so far you have used hundreds upon hundreds of words to say something about that...to offer a self-serving assessment of what I must do in order to meet some arbitrary standards you want to place on discussion of this issue on me....

Here is the difference between my hundreds of words, and yours. I have explained (in painful detail) exactly why you cannot simply share an assessment according to your standard, and think that you are being intellectually honest. You, on the other hand, have continued to share an assessment according to your standard, without addressing my rebuttal of your ability to do so. In short, your response in our discussion is the best example of arbitrariness I have seen in a long time.

Quote:
...which could easily be summed up in one sentence. "The god can do no wrong, so you must be mistaken."

That's not at all what I have been saying. You should probably go back and read our discussion again.

Quote:
I simply reject your thesis.

Not by any logical standard only by a desire to not engage in supporting your own thesis with anything other than your opinion.

Quote:
I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being jealous...then I can logically assert that the god is a jealous god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being vindictive...then I can logically assert that the god is a vindictive god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being vengeful...then I can logically assert that the god is a vengeful god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being petty...then I can logically assert that the god is a petty god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being excessive...then I can logically assert that the god is an excessive god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive...then I can logically assert that the god is a quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being tyrannical...then I can logically assert that the god is a tyrannical god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being a serial killing barbarian...I can then logically assert that the god is a serial killing barbarian.

Yet you have done none of the above, Frank. You have not offered examples of the god being anything, because you have not justified the standard by which you judge the god to be any of the things you say he is.

Your argument is essentially: "This god is who I say he is because his actions according to my personal standard are such and such "

Quote:
If I get a certain amount of delight out of watching people try to make all that illogical...or watching people torturing logic in order to make it seem illogical to do that...what can I tell ya? I do get that delight.

I'm happy to provide you with delight, but that is (of course) completely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of your argument. It is a red herring, and nothing more. You demonstrate a great ability to generate words, yet a great inability to argue.

I

I have asserted that the god of the Bible is a jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, barbarian who engages in barbaric serial killing.

I have offered as evidence for this contention...word for word passages from the book in question.

Yes, you have made the assertion you stated, and have offered evidence from the Bible. These are the raw material of arguments, no doubt. Your problem, as I have demonstrated both in statement and object lesson, is that you choose to give no account for the standard you use to judge this god. So here comes the question of questions for you -

What standard are you using when you judge this god of the Bible?

I await your reply.

Quote:
You apparently are going to insist other things have to be done in order to make my case...and I am going to laugh at your instance...because it is a laughable contention on your part.

Laugh all you want, and then answer my question:

What standard are you using when you judge this god of the Bible?

Quote:
I am not going to jump through hoops for you, Implicator...and there is absolutely nothing wrong with me enjoying the sight of you standing there with the hoops in your hand. If that bothers you...put the hoops away.

No need to jump at all, feel free to stay seated - just answer this question:

What standard are you using when you judge this god of the Bible?

Quote:
The god of the Bible...using the WORDS of the Bible...is a jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, barbarian who engages in barbaric serial killing.

There's that assertion again, but I really want to know ...

What standard are you using when you judge this god of the Bible?

I

Get someone else to jump through your hoops, Implicator. I am not going to do it.

If you do not know which god I am referring to when I speak of the god of the Bible...I doubt any hoop jumping on my part is going to help you in any case.

I am talking about the god of the Bible...the god Jesus worshipped.

Go to any Bible and open it to Genesis Chapter 1...first sentence. It reads, in words more or less like this:

"In the beginning, when God created...."

That is the god to which I make reference.

As for "standards"...I am using the same standards I use when I judge a steak, a painting, an opera, or an orgasm. My own!

Would you prefer for some reason that I use yours instead?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Implicator wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Implicator wrote:
You have shared an opinion, with much sound and fury, but haven't done much more than that.

I repeat:

The god of the Bible is a jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, barbarian who engages in barbaric serial killing.

I have presented ample evidence for why I suggest this is so. And the evidence I have offered is quoted directly from the Bible....most often the words directly attributed to this silly god.

And yet the Christian also quotes from the Bible, and comes to a different conclusion than you. This is proof positive that both of you are simply sharing your impressions of what the Bible says, and that it is not logically possible for both of you to be sharing an accurate assessment. You ignore this most fundamental problem with your thesis, and continue to make assertions as if they are true simply by virtue of you stating them.

Quote:
Implicator...so far you have used hundreds upon hundreds of words to say something about that...to offer a self-serving assessment of what I must do in order to meet some arbitrary standards you want to place on discussion of this issue on me....

Here is the difference between my hundreds of words, and yours. I have explained (in painful detail) exactly why you cannot simply share an assessment according to your standard, and think that you are being intellectually honest. You, on the other hand, have continued to share an assessment according to your standard, without addressing my rebuttal of your ability to do so. In short, your response in our discussion is the best example of arbitrariness I have seen in a long time.

Quote:
...which could easily be summed up in one sentence. "The god can do no wrong, so you must be mistaken."

That's not at all what I have been saying. You should probably go back and read our discussion again.

Quote:
I simply reject your thesis.

Not by any logical standard only by a desire to not engage in supporting your own thesis with anything other than your opinion.

Quote:
I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being jealous...then I can logically assert that the god is a jealous god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being vindictive...then I can logically assert that the god is a vindictive god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being vengeful...then I can logically assert that the god is a vengeful god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being petty...then I can logically assert that the god is a petty god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being excessive...then I can logically assert that the god is an excessive god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive...then I can logically assert that the god is a quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being tyrannical...then I can logically assert that the god is a tyrannical god.

I can look at the book...and if I can offer examples of the god being a serial killing barbarian...I can then logically assert that the god is a serial killing barbarian.

Yet you have done none of the above, Frank. You have not offered examples of the god being anything, because you have not justified the standard by which you judge the god to be any of the things you say he is.

Your argument is essentially: "This god is who I say he is because his actions according to my personal standard are such and such "

Quote:
If I get a certain amount of delight out of watching people try to make all that illogical...or watching people torturing logic in order to make it seem illogical to do that...what can I tell ya? I do get that delight.

I'm happy to provide you with delight, but that is (of course) completely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of your argument. It is a red herring, and nothing more. You demonstrate a great ability to generate words, yet a great inability to argue.

I

I have asserted that the god of the Bible is a jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, barbarian who engages in barbaric serial killing.

I have offered as evidence for this contention...word for word passages from the book in question.

Yes, you have made the assertion you stated, and have offered evidence from the Bible. These are the raw material of arguments, no doubt. Your problem, as I have demonstrated both in statement and object lesson, is that you choose to give no account for the standard you use to judge this god. So here comes the question of questions for you -

What standard are you using when you judge this god of the Bible?

I await your reply.

Quote:
You apparently are going to insist other things have to be done in order to make my case...and I am going to laugh at your instance...because it is a laughable contention on your part.

Laugh all you want, and then answer my question:

What standard are you using when you judge this god of the Bible?

Quote:
I am not going to jump through hoops for you, Implicator...and there is absolutely nothing wrong with me enjoying the sight of you standing there with the hoops in your hand. If that bothers you...put the hoops away.

No need to jump at all, feel free to stay seated - just answer this question:

What standard are you using when you judge this god of the Bible?

Quote:
The god of the Bible...using the WORDS of the Bible...is a jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, barbarian who engages in barbaric serial killing.

There's that assertion again, but I really want to know ...

What standard are you using when you judge this god of the Bible?

I

Get someone else to jump through your hoops, Implicator. I am not going to do it.

If you do not know which god I am referring to when I speak of the god of the Bible...I doubt any hoop jumping on my part is going to help you in any case.

I am talking about the god of the Bible...the god Jesus worshipped.

Go to any Bible and open it to Genesis Chapter 1...first sentence. It reads, in words more or less like this:

"In the beginning, when God created...."

That is the god to which I make reference.

My question to you was about the standard you are using, not which god you are speaking of. I already know which god you are speaking of.

Quote:

As for "standards"...I am using the same standards I use when I judge a steak, a painting, an opera, or an orgasm. My own!

Would you prefer for some reason that I use yours instead?

Ah, there it is. The answer that answers the entire thread - "your own standard."

Why should I use your standard to debate with you, Frank?

I

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

Would you prefer for some reason that I use yours instead?

Ah, there it is. The answer that answers the entire thread - "your own standard."

Why should I use your standard to debate with you, Frank?

I[/quote]

I have no idea...but you were the one who initiated this discussion.

You came into a thread dedicated to the question:

Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

I even quoted the passage that indicated the way the Christian god decrees victories ought to be handled. I'll repeat it for you here:

Quote:

"When you march up to attack a city, first offer terms of peace.
If it agrees to your terms of peace and opens its gates to you,
all the people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor.
But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead offers you
battle, lay siege to it, and when the Lord, your God, delivers it
into your hand, put every male in it to the sword, but the women
and children and livestock and all else in it that is worth
plunder you may take as your booty and you may use this plunder
of your enemies which the Lord, your God, has given you."

You ignored the question...and the ones that came after it, which I also quote here:

Quote:

How many of you think we should have acted as the god of the Bible suggests after World War II? The Germans and Japanese refused to "open their gates to us" and instead "offered battle."

When we defeated them...should we have gone in and killed every last male (of more than a child's age)...and put all the women and children into lifelong slavery?

How would you have felt if some leader of the Allies suggested such a course of action?

Instead...you decide to engage me about the first part of my initial introductory posting, which I also will quote here:

Quote:

In several different threads, during polite, civilized discussion with resident Christians...I have offered the opinion that the god described in the Bible is one of the most reprehensible gods ever offered up for consideration. The god is, I have noted, jealous, vengeful, retributive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, abusive, tyrannical, duplicitous, petty, murderous and barbaric.

It is my contention that most of what this god does and suggests...if done or suggested by a human would result in the human being confined to a hospital for the criminally insane...under restraints that would make those imposed on Hannibal Lecter look positively benign.

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. I've asked all of them to offer passages where the god is on the scene and is not threatening someone, killing someone, finding fault with someone, or asking someone to kill others.

And now...you seem to be positively amazed that we are having a discussion about our opinions.

C'mon, Implicator...let's be real.

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

What standard are you using when you judge this god of the Bible?

Can I field this one?

Implicator, you are getting ahead of yourself. At this point in the discussion, God is not being judged, but rather described. Therefore, as yet, no standard is being used to judge God.

Frank is making specific descriptive claims about God - that he is jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger, slow-to-forgive, tyrannical and serial killing. God is being described, not judged - yet. If Frank were saying God is jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, serial killing and therefore can be judged to be evil, you would be making a good point asking whose standard are being used to make such a judgement.

But he isn't being judged yet, so your point is moot. If you have issue with the words being used to describe God, you must put forward arguments to refute the evidence Frank has put forward. Alternatively, you could concede that all the descriptions are valid (as you have conceded jealous and vengeful), and we can move the discussion forward to debating whether, based on the validity of these description, God can be judged to be evil.

0 Replies

djbt wrote:

Implicator wrote:
What standard are you using when you judge this god of the Bible?

Can I field this one?

Implicator, you are getting ahead of yourself. At this point in the discussion, God is not being judged, but rather described. Therefore, as yet, no standard is being used to judge God.

Frank is making specific descriptive claims about God - that he is jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger, slow-to-forgive, tyrannical and serial killing. God is being described, not judged - yet. If Frank were saying God is jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, serial killing and therefore can be judged to be evil, you would be making a good point asking whose standard are being used to make such a judgement.

But he isn't being judged yet, so your point is moot. If you have issue with the words being used to describe God, you must put forward arguments to refute the evidence Frank has put forward. Alternatively, you could concede that all the descriptions are valid (as you have conceded jealous and vengeful), and we can move the discussion forward to debating whether, based on the validity of these description, God can be judged to be evil.

If Frank claims that the god of the Bible is a murderer, then Frank is making a judgment. He is, in fact, evaluating the actions of the god against some standard and "judging" whether this god has met the criteria of murderer. Notice I did not say "moral" standard here - Frank has indicated he wants to keep morality out of this, and that is fine. I am speaking about non-moral standards at the moment.

As to the other claims, we have only talked about Vengence, and I have already specified what I believe the Bible has to say about this. That is, I have shared my opinion on what the Bible says.

I

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

djbt wrote:
Implicator wrote:
What standard are you using when you judge this god of the Bible?

Can I field this one?

Implicator, you are getting ahead of yourself. At this point in the discussion, God is not being judged, but rather described. Therefore, as yet, no standard is being used to judge God.

Frank is making specific descriptive claims about God - that he is jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger, slow-to-forgive, tyrannical and serial killing. God is being described, not judged - yet. If Frank were saying God is jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, serial killing and therefore can be judged to be evil, you would be making a good point asking whose standard are being used to make such a judgement.

But he isn't being judged yet, so your point is moot. If you have issue with the words being used to describe God, you must put forward arguments to refute the evidence Frank has put forward. Alternatively, you could concede that all the descriptions are valid (as you have conceded jealous and vengeful), and we can move the discussion forward to debating whether, based on the validity of these description, God can be judged to be evil.

If Frank claims that the god of the Bible is a murderer, then Frank is making a judgment. He is, in fact, evaluating the actions of the god against some standard and "judging" whether this god has met the criteria of murderer. Notice I did not say "moral" standard here - Frank has indicated he wants to keep morality out of this, and that is fine. I am speaking about non-moral standards at the moment.

I agree, which is why I encouraged Frank to concede that murderer was the wrong word, and use serial killer instead. Frank has explicitly conceded this point, leaving only descriptive statements. Were I more cynical, I would think that you were deliberately trying to change the subject, by bringing up a point that has both already been conceded, and is irrelevant to the current discussion...

Implicator wrote:

As to the other claims, we have only talked about Vengence, and I have already specified what I believe the Bible has to say about this. That is, I have shared my opinion on what the Bible says.
I

Well, we have agreed that God acts in a vengeful way, and you have rightly pointed out the judgemental definitions of vengeful should be put to one side.

If you contest any of the other descriptive statements, please say which ones, and we can discuss them one at a time.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Implicator wrote:
Quote:

Would you prefer for some reason that I use yours instead?

Ah, there it is. The answer that answers the entire thread - "your own standard."

Why should I use your standard to debate with you, Frank?

I

I have no idea...but you were the one who initiated this discussion.

I am the one who challenged you to support one of your assertions made in this thread. I assumed (and maybe this was my mistake) that our debate would involve things like logic and proof, and would avoid such irrationality as arbitrariness. Apparently that is not the case. Apparently I have stumbled upon a person who is only interested in sharing their personal opinion, but not in actually backing it up.

Maybe you could save us all some time here, Frank. Are you interested in simply sharing your opinion, or did you want to back it up?

Quote:

You came into a thread dedicated to the question:

Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

I even quoted the passage that indicated the way the Christian god decrees victories ought to be handled. I'll repeat it for you here:

Quote:
"When you march up to attack a city, first offer terms of peace.
If it agrees to your terms of peace and opens its gates to you,
all the people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor.
But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead offers you
battle, lay siege to it, and when the Lord, your God, delivers it
into your hand, put every male in it to the sword, but the women
and children and livestock and all else in it that is worth
plunder you may take as your booty and you may use this plunder
of your enemies which the Lord, your God, has given you."

You ignored the question

I did not ignore it, I read it all. I did, however, choose not to reply to it. I took issue with a specific assertion that you made. Of course, forcing you to prove one of the assertions that your more general assertion is made upon essentially puts your entire conclusion in jeopardy, but we can investigate those ramifications later.

Quote:

...and the ones that came after it, which I also quote here:

Quote:
How many of you think we should have acted as the god of the Bible suggests after World War II? The Germans and Japanese refused to "open their gates to us" and instead "offered battle."

When we defeated them...should we have gone in and killed every last male (of more than a child's age)...and put all the women and children into lifelong slavery?

How would you have felt if some leader of the Allies suggested such a course of action?

As I stated, I chose to address only one of your assertions, and it seems a good idea in hindsight.

Quote:

Instead...you decide to engage me about the first part of my initial introductory posting, which I also will quote here:

Quote:
In several different threads, during polite, civilized discussion with resident Christians...I have offered the opinion that the god described in the Bible is one of the most reprehensible gods ever offered up for consideration. The god is, I have noted, jealous, vengeful, retributive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, abusive, tyrannical, duplicitous, petty, murderous and barbaric.

It is my contention that most of what this god does and suggests...if done or suggested by a human would result in the human being confined to a hospital for the criminally insane...under restraints that would make those imposed on Hannibal Lecter look positively benign.

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. I've asked all of them to offer passages where the god is on the scene and is not threatening someone, killing someone, finding fault with someone, or asking someone to kill others.

And now...you seem to be positively amazed that we are having a discussion about our opinions.

I am positively in awe that you aren't attempting to support yours. That's what boggles my mind, Frank. We can share opinions all day long, in a really loud and sarcastic voice, but what is gained? If your goal is to upset some of those who don't know how to address arguments of opinion, then maybe you have been very successful. I see that as a waste of time, as I stated earlier. I am more interested in hearing people provide rational support for what they have to say, because (quite frankly, Frank) I can get unsupported opinions on every street corner, virtual or not.

You are a complete waste of time.

Quote:

C'mon, Implicator...let's be real.

I am being genuine when I say that I am totally at a loss to see any usefulness in argument by opinion. None whatsoever.

I

0 Replies

djbt wrote:

Implicator wrote:
djbt wrote:
Implicator wrote:
What standard are you using when you judge this god of the Bible?

Can I field this one?

Implicator, you are getting ahead of yourself. At this point in the discussion, God is not being judged, but rather described. Therefore, as yet, no standard is being used to judge God.

Frank is making specific descriptive claims about God - that he is jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger, slow-to-forgive, tyrannical and serial killing. God is being described, not judged - yet. If Frank were saying God is jealous, vindictive, vengeful, petty, excessive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, tyrannical, serial killing and therefore can be judged to be evil, you would be making a good point asking whose standard are being used to make such a judgement.

But he isn't being judged yet, so your point is moot. If you have issue with the words being used to describe God, you must put forward arguments to refute the evidence Frank has put forward. Alternatively, you could concede that all the descriptions are valid (as you have conceded jealous and vengeful), and we can move the discussion forward to debating whether, based on the validity of these description, God can be judged to be evil.

If Frank claims that the god of the Bible is a murderer, then Frank is making a judgment. He is, in fact, evaluating the actions of the god against some standard and "judging" whether this god has met the criteria of murderer. Notice I did not say "moral" standard here - Frank has indicated he wants to keep morality out of this, and that is fine. I am speaking about non-moral standards at the moment.

I agree, which is why I encouraged Frank to concede that murderer was the wrong word, and use serial killer instead. Frank has explicitly conceded this point, leaving only descriptive statements. Were I more cynical, I would think that you were deliberately trying to change the subject, by bringing up a point that has both already been conceded, and is irrelevant to the current discussion...

Implicator wrote:
As to the other claims, we have only talked about Vengence, and I have already specified what I believe the Bible has to say about this. That is, I have shared my opinion on what the Bible says.
I

Well, we have agreed that God acts in a vengeful way, and you have rightly pointed out the judgemental definitions of vengeful should be put to one side.

If you contest any of the other descriptive statements, please say which ones, and we can discuss them one at a time.

I will take some time later this evening to review them and respond. I appreciate your straightforward approach with me, and hope this doesn't degrade into a style of discussion I am less interested in. Also, could you point me to the other thread you spoke of about God being amoral (I think it was you).

Thanks.

I

0 Replies

I also appreciate the carefulness and clarity of your posts (though you are, of course, totally wrong...). I look forward to a fruitful discussion.

The thread in which I suggest that God is amoral is called 'God and good'.

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

I am the one who challenged you to support one of your assertions made in this thread. I assumed (and maybe this was my mistake) that our debate would involve things like logic and proof, and would avoid such irrationality as arbitrariness. Apparently that is not the case. Apparently I have stumbled upon a person who is only interested in sharing their personal opinion, but not in actually backing it up.

Implicator...here is the assertion you challenged:

Quote:

In several different threads, during polite, civilized discussion with resident Christians...I have offered the opinion that the god described in the Bible is one of the most reprehensible gods ever offered up for consideration. The god is, I have noted, jealous, vengeful, retributive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, abusive, tyrannical, duplicitous, petty, murderous and barbaric.

I have offered support and evidence of each of those items...using direct quotes from the Bible. Word for word.

The words...which are either the words of the god...or a description of something the god is doing...that show it doing or being jealous, vengeful, retributive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, abusive, tyrannical, duplicitous, petty, murderous and barbaric.

Out of consideration for dj, I have (reluctantly) revised the term "murderous" (which incidentially is different from "murderer")...and substituted "serial killer."

You simply will not acknowledge that I have given this support to my assertion...and you apparently intend to continue the game playing pretending that some arbitrary standards (OF YOURS) are not being met in this discussion.

I have cited passages showing the god being jealous, vengeful, retributive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, abusive, tyrannical, duplicitous, petty, and barbaric (another word I am sure you will engage in your game playing)...and I have cited passages showing the god to be a serial killer...mass killer of humans.

Deal with it.

Stop with the game playing. Stop pretending there is something missing.

The god is all of the things I have mentioned...and the evidence and support for the assertions come directly from the Bible.

That part...does not involve opinion.

When I call the god a scumbag for doing some of the things and saying some of the things the Bible says the god does and says...that is opinion. Disregard that if it bothers you.

Quote:

Maybe you could save us all some time here, Frank. Are you interested in simply sharing your opinion, or did you want to back it up?

I've already backed it up...and you will not change that by continuing the pretence that I haven't.

Quote:

I am positively in awe that you aren't attempting to support yours.

I have supported them.

Quote:

That's what boggles my mind, Frank

Don't know what to tell ya, Implicator. You sure have a hard head...and maybe that is why your mind is being boggled.

Quote:

. We can share opinions all day long, in a really loud and sarcastic voice, but what is gained? If your goal is to upset some of those who don't know how to address arguments of opinion, then maybe you have been very successful. I see that as a waste of time, as I stated earlier. I am more interested in hearing people provide rational support for what they have to say, because (quite frankly, Frank) I can get unsupported opinions on every street corner, virtual or not.

You are a complete waste of time.

Hey, if you feel that way...that is your problem. I am not wasting my time.

Quote:

Quote:
C'mon, Implicator...let's be real.

I am being genuine when I say that I am totally at a loss to see any usefulness in argument by opinion. None whatsoever.

Okay...instead you should deal with the facts that I have presented in support of my assertions. You really should do that...instead of trying to sell this fiction that I have not presented them.

C'mon, Implicator...deal with 'em.

0 Replies

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God..."

0 Replies

Deut 32:35, 41,43:

35: Vengeance is Mine, and retribution, In due time their foot will slip;

For the day of their calamity is near, And the impending things are hastening upon them.'

.................

41: If I sharpen My flashing sword, And My hand takes hold on justice,

I will render vengeance on My adversaries, And I will repay those who hate Me.

.................

43: Rejoice, O nations, with His people; For He will avenge the blood of His servants,And will render vengeance on His adversaries, And will atone for His land

0 Replies

ci rules!

You da man, ci.

0 Replies

"A fire is kindled in My anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell." (Deuteronomy 32:22) "And I myself will fight against you with an outstretched hand and with a strong arm, even in anger, and in fury, and in great wrath." (Jeremiah 21:5) One time the children of Israel were complaining, and "it displeased the Lord,...and His anger was kindled, and the fire of the Lord burnt among them and consumed" some of them. (Numbers 11:1) "My wrath shall become hot, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless." (Exodus 22:24)

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Implicator wrote:
I am the one who challenged you to support one of your assertions made in this thread. I assumed (and maybe this was my mistake) that our debate would involve things like logic and proof, and would avoid such irrationality as arbitrariness. Apparently that is not the case. Apparently I have stumbled upon a person who is only interested in sharing their personal opinion, but not in actually backing it up.

Implicator...here is the assertion you challenged:

Quote:
In several different threads, during polite, civilized discussion with resident Christians...I have offered the opinion that the god described in the Bible is one of the most reprehensible gods ever offered up for consideration. The god is, I have noted, jealous, vengeful, retributive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, abusive, tyrannical, duplicitous, petty, murderous and barbaric.

I have offered support and evidence of each of those items...using direct quotes from the Bible. Word for word.

You have offered evidence, to which I already agreed. But the notion of offering "support" entails a logical argument - that, you have not done.

Quote:

The words...which are either the words of the god...or a description of something the god is doing...that show it doing or being jealous, vengeful, retributive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, abusive, tyrannical, duplicitous, petty, murderous and barbaric.

Out of consideration for dj, I have (reluctantly) revised the term "murderous" (which incidentally is different from "murderer")...and substituted "serial killer."

That's fine, if you are finally ready to move on beyond murder and my analogy, then so be it. I've only stuck around because you can't seem to get beyond it. Your introduction of the term "murderous" (which obviously has the same root as "murderer") is an indication of just how difficult it is for you to concede what you said you conceded.

Quote:

You simply will not acknowledge that I have given this support to my assertion...and you apparently intend to continue the game playing pretending that some arbitrary standards (OF YOURS) are not being met in this discussion.

Why would I acknowledge what you have not done, Frank? Maybe other people are quick to jump on your bandwagon, but I am here to stall your argument in its tracks. The next topic at hand, if I recall, is vengeance. I have already outlined my position on it. If you have problems with it, then share them.

The rest of your post is the typical posturing I have become so used to, and doesn't merit me spending my time on it.

The charge is vengeance, and I will repeat what I said earlier about this particular charge:

vengeful
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

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5

Talk about god's pettiness. He not only penalizes the "sinner," but also his children and his children's children going on for several more generations. Doesn't he scare you shetless? LOL

0 Replies

Implicator writes:

Quote:

I did not ignore it, I read it all. I did, however, choose not to reply to it.

Yeah, that's not ignoring it. Yeah.

I took issue with a specific assertion that you made.

Yadda, yadda, yadda..

. now tell us the good, not evil, parts of being vengeful, but not the malevolent part because why? You believe this God can't be evil? God can be vengeful and still be all good?

By the way, there isn't a judgement being made here, merely an observation. God seeks revenge. Make of that what you will, but Frank has merely pointed out, rather clearly in the words of Scripture, that this biblical God has some aspects that are at least anti-social if not altogether un-Christlike.

Imp, can I call you Imp?, you are free to list those passages from Scripture which show the God of Abraham in the light you see him. Post now the lists of loving, caring protective actions taken by God (but you might want to leave out the slaying of the Egyptian babies in case some right to lifers are reading this). Roll out the words showing Frank's version of God to be only half true. Go ahead, right God's resume.

Can we use that standard for ourselves and seek revenge, note that justice isn't mentioned, for some wrong or perceived wrong and still be considered righteous?

Joe(No wonder they blow up clinics.)Nation

PS I'm still not back. I have ten minutes a day to lurk.Gotta go. I am watching from on high.

0 Replies

Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know