Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

Implicator wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Haven't we argued before, Implicator.

I know your posts have been showing you as a Newbie (now an "enthusiast in training")...but I am almost certain that I have gone through this kind of thing with you previously.


The pig-headedness, the pretend, tortured logic, and the need to disagree with everything...even a gesundheit after a sneeze...is much too familiar to be merely coincidence.

Were you here before...or was it over at Abuzz before that forum went under?

We have crossed paths once before, on this board. You thought I was someone else for some reason - maybe because they pointed out the same flaws in your reasoning process that I have.

You haven't pointed out any flaws in my reasoning process here, Implicator...so I doubt that's it.

My guess is it is the pig-headedness...or the tortured logic you use...but I will acknowledge that I do not know for sure. I just knew we had done battle before.

I would love to see the post where I mentioned I thought you were someone else. That might help me. And I cannot help but wonder who I thought you might be.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Haven't we argued before, Implicator.

I know your posts have been showing you as a Newbie (now an "enthusiast in training")...but I am almost certain that I have gone through this kind of thing with you previously.


The pig-headedness, the pretend, tortured logic, and the need to disagree with everything...even a gesundheit after a sneeze...is much too familiar to be merely coincidence.

Were you here before...or was it over at Abuzz before that forum went under?

We have crossed paths once before, on this board. You thought I was someone else for some reason - maybe because they pointed out the same flaws in your reasoning process that I have.

You haven't pointed out any flaws in my reasoning process here, Implicator...so I doubt that's it.

I've done nothing but point out flaws in your "reasoning" process, Frank. You know it, I know it, and your friends here know it too - no doubt about it!

Quote:

My guess is it is the pig-headedness...or the tortured logic you use...but I will acknowledge that I do not know for sure. I just knew we had done battle before.

Actually, it is me pointing out your fallacies that has kept you running to and fro, looking for a fresh angle to attack with. Unfortunately (for you), you haven't come up with anything new yet.

Quote:

I would love to see the post where I mentioned I thought you were someone else. That might help me. And I cannot help but wonder who I thought you might be.

Well, if you click on my name to the left of this post, you can always go back through and look at all the posts I have been involved in.

Frank, You expecting a straight answer? LOL

Implicator wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Haven't we argued before, Implicator.

I know your posts have been showing you as a Newbie (now an "enthusiast in training")...but I am almost certain that I have gone through this kind of thing with you previously.


The pig-headedness, the pretend, tortured logic, and the need to disagree with everything...even a gesundheit after a sneeze...is much too familiar to be merely coincidence.

Were you here before...or was it over at Abuzz before that forum went under?

We have crossed paths once before, on this board. You thought I was someone else for some reason - maybe because they pointed out the same flaws in your reasoning process that I have.

You haven't pointed out any flaws in my reasoning process here, Implicator...so I doubt that's it.

I've done nothing but point out flaws in your "reasoning" process, Frank. You know it, I know it, and your friends here know it too - no doubt about it!

Nah...you're dreaming.

I made some assertions about the pathetic, cartoon god of the Bible...and I showed the basis for the assertions.

You asked for arguments.

That is like me pointing out that Snow White had an encounter with seven dwarves by quoting the parts of that fairytale...and being asked to argue the point.

You have not pointed out anything about my faulty reasoning...because my reasoning has not been faulty. But I understand why you feel as you do...because your reasoning is really bizarre.

Likeable...but bizarre.

Quote:

Quote:

My guess is it is the pig-headedness...or the tortured logic you use...but I will acknowledge that I do not know for sure. I just knew we had done battle before.

Actually, it is me pointing out your fallacies that has kept you running to and fro, looking for a fresh angle to attack with. Unfortunately (for you), you haven't come up with anything new yet.

Once again...dreaming on your part.

Hey, if it makes you feel better about yourself...go for it.

Quote:

Quote:

I would love to see the post where I mentioned I thought you were someone else. That might help me. And I cannot help but wonder who I thought you might be.

Well, if you click on my name to the left of this post, you can always go back through and look at all the posts I have been involved in.

Yeah, I guess I could. But I've got much more enjoyable things to do with my time on A2K.

Hey...I've enjoyed our little chat. Hope you are having a great day. I started my day with a refreshing round of golf (not a great round...but I did manage to keep under 90)...and had a heck of an exciting afternoon stacking wood for the woodburning stove...and coming back in here to read all the exciting postings on A2K.

Life is good. Very, very good.

By the way...a question if I may:

Are you a Christian? You've never actually said that you are.

It is obvious you confuse proof and persuasion.

Terry wrote:

Implicator wrote:

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

I

This god is not doing evil because he should not (cannot) be judged as doing evil by the same standard you would judge Hitler or Saddam. IOW, what makes his act "evil" would be an evaluation of his act against a standard of good vs. evil. Since the Bible is that standard (if it is true), for both man and God, then what is revealed in the Bible is what ultimately tells us whether god does evil or not.

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.

Quote:

Quote:

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

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

Objective vs subjective truth has been discussed on other threads. If you do not agree that these are some (but not all) of the situations in which killing may be objectively determined to be lawful, feel free to post your own criteria.

Quote:

Quote:

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

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

Anyone who reads the reports of these acts should be able to determine whether they were justified. If God chose to leave out information which would justify his behavior, how can he expect us to take it on faith that such information exists? I left out my reasoning process to save space and time, believing that any unbiased reader of the Bible would logically come to the same conclusion.

Quote:

Quote:

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

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

Why wouldn't the commandment against killing apply to God? Is God to be held to a lower standard of ethical behavior than we are?

Quote:

Quote:

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

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

Yes, Judeo-Christian religions are some of the more dangerous ones since so many blindly followed the Bible's teachings when it came to killing and enslaving their fellow human beings. What we need is for more people to look at their beliefs objectively instead of accepting what they are told without questioning the basic premises.

Quote:

Quote:

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

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

Yes, it was pointedly directed at the Judeo-Christian God as depicted in the Bible. So do you think we can or should judge God's actions?

Quote:

Quote:

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

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

I

Yes. Does he live up to yours?

Quote:

This god is not doing evil because he should not (cannot) be judged as doing evil by the same standard you would judge Hitler or Saddam. IOW, what makes his act "evil" would be an evaluation of his act against a standard of good vs. evil. Since the Bible is that standard (if it is true), for both man and God, then what is revealed in the Bible is what ultimately tells us whether god does evil or not.

What part of the Bible would you use as a "standard," the commandments and laws given to Moses, the unwritten rules which can be inferred from the tribulations rained on people who angered God (or were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time), the teachings of Jesus or the writings of Paul?

Implicator wrote:

It is obvious you confuse proof and persuasion.

It is???

Where did I speak about "proof?"

Frank Apisa wrote:

Implicator wrote:

It is obvious you confuse proof and persuasion.

It is???

Where did I speak about "proof?"

Anytime you used the words "show" or "demonstrate", you implied it.

Now, if you are stating that you aren't trying to prove that your opinion is true (but only that it is your opinion), then I can accept that. That's what I have been saying all along, actually.

I