Sniperguy, if you believe the Bible was written by men and you think much of the morality of the book is disgusting, why are you defending it? It seems like we're in agreement here.
The problem with this essay is that it assumes from the outset that not only does God exist but a specific God exists—Yahweh—and this God has revealed himself through the Bible. If you read the Bible with this assumption then it's a bit like watching Star Wars with the assumption that they're flawless god-inspired movies and any problem you have reconciling aspects of them is your fault, not the moviemaker's.
Yes but in this case George Lucas=!God. A man is not a God. There are some people who look for "God's Plan,†but these people are human. So they WILL mess it up. Does that mean that we should not look for a plan? Well that depends, to some Christians they think looking for "God's Plan" is futile since being human you will make a mistake. Other look for a plan when forming their own beliefs (which will be flawed) about God. Still others "look for God's plan" in order to have a dialog with people like you Qingu. It is their hope that one of their flawed lines of logic will convince you become a Christian. This research into "God's plan" is seen as a act of love, since they believe that if you continue down the road you are presently on (rebelling against God) that you will eventually have you wish and be eternally separated from God.
But then what does he do? He sycophantically attempts to mitigate Yahweh's assholery by claiming that God was actually being nice because an ANE king would be showing favor to grant an audience to a subject! Who fucking cares? So you're admitting that your God is essentially as moral as a despotic, capricious ANE king? Only someone who assumes that their God was the font of morality would even attempt to make such a pathetic excuse for his behavior. Pardon me for not feeling "honored" on Job's part that Yahweh grants audience to the man he is torturing to win a bet with Satan.
You love to put things into historically reference when it fits your agreement, but you hate when people use the "different cultures" line against you position. The author is putting the story of Job into the historically context of middle eastern kingship. A concept wholly unfamiliar to us, but would have been clearly known by a man living in the early B.C. time period.
As for his overall point, that God is really looking for man as much as we're looking for him: I just don't see this anywhere in the Bible. He skips over, for example, the ritual purity laws—God is so disgusted with our presence that we have to basically bathe in sacrificial blood before we can even be in the presence of his tabernacle.
Christians see Jesus at the perfect sacrifice. Jesus is the Christian sacrificial blood, so we can be in presence of God. So we can talk (read:pray) to God directly, so we can have a father/son/daughter relationship with him. It is true that God can not look on SIN. Jesus covers that sin for the Christian thus making a relationship with God possible.
I believe a far more insightful way to read this book is by evaluating each story in terms of its own cultural mileu.
Some Christians do look at read book in the above fashion, however some feel a need to "look for God's plan" throughout the Bible for the reasons I have listed above.
And I'm still not sure why you showed it to me. Are you trying to convince me that your God is actually not a giant asshole? Anyways, thanks for posting it.
I showed you the article to express where my current theology stands, so we could discuss it like we are doing right now. The author does a pretty good job in explaining a complex matter. I had a need to express where I stood and why I stand there, however I do not have the time to assemble it myself, so I linked it.
Your welcome Qingu, it is always a pleasure to discuss with you. It is better to speak with atheists and see their lines of reason for yourself, instead of just listening to random person demonizing them.
P.S.- I am in a hurry please forgive all the spell and grammer errors. I am drowning in projects.
Edit: to be less flippant, the analogy you're trying to draw simply doesn't work. It's not that grass dying is a bad thing for the grass, and that it's merely insignificant to us because grass is insignificant to us. It simply isn't bad for grass to die, not even to the grass itself. It's no different from a river drying up. Is the 'death' of the river a bad thing? No, because rivers aren't sentient.
If you want to carry this train through to the end you need to prove that pople dying is a bad thing.
Well, this certainly got laughable fast.
Edit: while I'm at it, should I prove that we're not in the matrix?
How is that laughable?
Personally, I care about humans dying because I am a human. If I was something other than a human, and human death did not affect me negatively, I can't be sure that I'd care.
Right now you're trying to argue AGAINST religion by saying that humans are some how special and distinct from everything else that exists. But show me anything outside of religion that agrees with that argument.
No, but the death of non-sentient life is irrelevant.
if you make the assumption that to a sentient being, the death of non-sentient life is irrelevant, then doesn't that suggest the possibility that, if there is some higher plane of consiousness than sentienece, that to a being on that plane, the death of mere sentient bings would also be irrelevant?
No. In the OT, god forms covenants with these mere sentient beings. You don't enter into a contract with your pet. This means he considered humans intelligent and worthy enough to give a shit about. He would just kill them. Many people consider killing animals immoral unless done for a reason. What reason might an all powerful being have?
You want a reason that we apply to animals?
how about over population?
Yeah, God enters into covenants with people, but do any of those covenants say that there will be absolutely no death or evil in the world?
I'm sorry, but existance of bad things in the world doesn't disprove the existance of God. Personally, I find the idea of God, should he exist, being a force of good to be laughable, but the possibility of a neutral God existing is still intact.
and YHWH isn't accurate for a variety of reasons, least of which is the fact that the "W" part of the word is the letter "vav" which makes a V sound.
And yet I believe I've seen you call Jesus "Jesus" instead of "Yeshua." (Jesus being an anglicanization of the Greek of the Hebrew)
The deity's name has been variously anglicanized as Jehovah, Yudhehvuvheh, or Yahweh. I guess you could say Yahveh to be really accurate but I like the way Yahweh sounds the best.
I say Jesus because Christians say Jesus. If that's the name they choose for their god, then who am I to argue with them?
Wanna go that route with Jews? There's only one god who is reffered to as Ha'Shem.
Qingu, like I said, you are attempting to discredit Judaism by reinterpretting its source material different from Judaisms own interpretations, then attacking the interpretations that you yourself have made. All you are doing is proving your own interpretations to be false, while sayign nothing at all about the source material or Judaism itself.
How did you come to the conclusion that I'm saying nothing about the source material, Evander? I think I'm the only one to cite and discuss specific Biblical verses in this entire thread.
Context is key, of course you haven't used context at all yet in this thread, o I'm not suprised you missed it here.
In context, what I am saying is that you arguments disprove your personal interpretations, but do nothing to disprove either Judaism itself, or the actual source material. what "saying nothing" means in the above context.
If you'd like to discuss or defend the Bible, feel free to jump in at any point.
I have been, actually. You even agreed with some of what I said. Do try to keep up.
As to "discrediting Judaism," as Judaism is ultimately based on the authority of the Bible, any attack on the Bible is generally an attack on Judaism, as well as Christianity. I'm certainly not singling out Judaism here though, and it's funny that a self-proclaimed Jew who doesn't even believe in God is trying to take me to task for it. I'm still confused as to why you haven't traced your ancestry and culture back to the Mesopotamian myths on which the Biblical stories are based.
Judaism is NOT ultimately based on the authority of the bible. If you read more of the Talmud, you'd recognize that. Judaism, in its modern form, is ultimately based on open interpretation of the bible by educated people. That is to say, not any Yossi Six-pack can point to a random sentance, and declare it to mean something else, but those who have devoted time to the study of the Tanakh and the Talmud seek within it a deeper meaning, and that is where it is found.
There are even stories in the Talmud about disagreements between God and the ancient Rabbis, where the Rabbis are declared to be right, because God had already handed down the power over the religion to man. Judaism recognizes a debt to God, and a reverance towards God, but God is not seen as in absolute control of everything. The Rabbi of the synagouge my family belongs to is actually of a semi-popular school of faith within Judaism that God step away from creation to pursue other endeavors, at some point after biblical times, and man is currently on his own, with the laws that God gave him to follow to be used as a guide.
Militant Atheists like yourself are no better than militant proslytizing Christians, who seek to force everyone to believe what they believe. There is no logical argument in constructing a false version of the religion of another, just so that you can rip it apart. The nature of Judaism is one of flexibility, which is what has kept it around for so long. There is no simple central tenant of Judaism that can be disproven inorder to tumble the entire house of cards, in fact. The Jewish Bible itself does not once require one to believe in God, only to follow its commandments, so even disproving God would not invalidate the Jewish religion.
Personally, I care about humans dying because I am a human. If I was something other than a human, and human death did not affect me negatively, I can't be sure that I'd care.
Why wouldn't you care? I'd care if other sentient beings were dying.
Personally, I care about humans dying because I am a human. If I was something other than a human, and human death did not affect me negatively, I can't be sure that I'd care.
Why wouldn't you care? I'd care if other sentient beings were dying.
What if you were some how above sentience, though?
I mean, I don't care about killing plant life now, how do I know that if I were in some higher form I'd give a shit about sentient beings?
What if you were some how above sentience, though?
I mean, I don't care about killing plant life now, how do I know that if I were in some higher form I'd give a shit about sentient beings?
Sentience isn't a level, it's binary. You are or you aren't. There's no "higher level".
How do you know?
I'm not saying that there is, I'm not eve saying that I think there might be. My point is simply that, should such a thing exist, would you expect such a being to care about individual human lives?
When you've played some kind of PC God sim in he past, did you protect every single life every single time?
Hell, at the risk of turning this into a political tangent (which really, I'd like to avoid) the government of this country is sending men and women off to die right now without showing too much concern about it. That one group of humans doing it to another group of humans. If humans can do it so easily to each other, it stands to reason that a higher being would have just as easy a time with it, if not easier.
When you've played some kind of PC God sim in he past, did you protect every single life every single time?
They're not fucking alive! But if I was playing Populous and I knew every one of my little people was a sentient being, you can be damn sure I'd do my utmost to keep them both alive and happy.
It's not about 'levels'. It is wrong to kill a sentient being. That is true no matter what you are.
Why is that an absolute?
And what about when a natural disaster kills a person, is THAT wrong? When non-sentience kills a sentient being?
I don't want to get bogged down in morals and relativity, but basically you're saying that it's okay to kill something that's sentient. I disagree and think that any decent person would too.
And of course not to your last question. It's regrettable and every effort should be made to stop it, but you can't blame a natural force.
[T]he government of this country is sending men and women off to die right now without showing too much concern about it. That one group of humans doing it to another group of humans. If humans can do it so easily to each other, it stands to reason that a higher being would have just as easy a time with it, if not easier.
You aren't suggesting that the people at the head of our government are somehow at a "higher level" are you?
[T]he government of this country is sending men and women off to die right now without showing too much concern about it. That one group of humans doing it to another group of humans. If humans can do it so easily to each other, it stands to reason that a higher being would have just as easy a time with it, if not easier.
You aren't suggesting that the people at the head of our government are somehow at a "higher level" are you?
Also, arguing that God has an easy time of sending humans to die doesn't say anything about whether it's right for him to do so, only that he can and does.
[T]he government of this country is sending men and women off to die right now without showing too much concern about it. That one group of humans doing it to another group of humans. If humans can do it so easily to each other, it stands to reason that a higher being would have just as easy a time with it, if not easier.
You aren't suggesting that the people at the head of our government are somehow at a "higher level" are you?
Also, arguing that God has an easy time of sending humans to die doesn't say anything about whether it's right for him to do so, only that he can and does.
I have made ZERO attempt to argue that it's okay for God to do those things. All I've said is the fact that if God exsts he allows people to die is NOT an arguement against the existance of God.
Please stop assuming that I believe in some kind of benevolent God that I am trying to justify. As I've said before, I am an agnostic, and I actually, personally, find the idea of a benevolent God to be quite laughable.
[T]he government of this country is sending men and women off to die right now without showing too much concern about it. That one group of humans doing it to another group of humans. If humans can do it so easily to each other, it stands to reason that a higher being would have just as easy a time with it, if not easier.
You aren't suggesting that the people at the head of our government are somehow at a "higher level" are you?
Also, arguing that God has an easy time of sending humans to die doesn't say anything about whether it's right for him to do so, only that he can and does.
I have made ZERO attempt to argue that it's okay for God to do those things. All I've said is the fact that if God exsts he allows people to die is NOT an arguement against the existance of God.
Please stop assuming that I believe in some kind of benevolent God that I am trying to justify. As I've said before, I am an agnostic, and I actually, personally, find the idea of a benevolent God to be quite laughable.
Sorry; old habit. So your point is instead that.. 'levels' of sentience exist and that a being can be so far up the 'chain' that sentient beings lower down seem worthless to him? I don't see what that has to do with.. anything, frankly. I could see it happening, but it'd just mean that being was arrogant, self-centred and without empathy. An intelligent person is quite capable of caring for a stupid person.
[T]he government of this country is sending men and women off to die right now without showing too much concern about it. That one group of humans doing it to another group of humans. If humans can do it so easily to each other, it stands to reason that a higher being would have just as easy a time with it, if not easier.
You aren't suggesting that the people at the head of our government are somehow at a "higher level" are you?
Also, arguing that God has an easy time of sending humans to die doesn't say anything about whether it's right for him to do so, only that he can and does.
I have made ZERO attempt to argue that it's okay for God to do those things. All I've said is the fact that if God exsts he allows people to die is NOT an arguement against the existance of God.
Please stop assuming that I believe in some kind of benevolent God that I am trying to justify. As I've said before, I am an agnostic, and I actually, personally, find the idea of a benevolent God to be quite laughable.
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Yes but in this case George Lucas=!God. A man is not a God.
Exactly.
Now why should anyone accept that the Author of the Bible = God?
Seeing no evidence to the contrary, I think it's absolutely reasonable to assume that the Author of the Bible, just like the Author of the Mahabharata or the Author of the Quran or the Author of the Code of Hammurabi, also =! God.
There are some people who look for "God's Plan,†but these people are human. So they WILL mess it up. Does that mean that we should not look for a plan? Well that depends, to some Christians they think looking for "God's Plan" is futile since being human you will make a mistake. Other look for a plan when forming their own beliefs (which will be flawed) about God. Still others "look for God's plan" in order to have a dialog with people like you Qingu. It is their hope that one of their flawed lines of logic will convince you become a Christian. This research into "God's plan" is seen as a act of love, since they believe that if you continue down the road you are presently on (rebelling against God) that you will eventually have you wish and be eternally separated from God.
For the record I fit into the second catagory.
Can we back up?
I understand why you're trying to convince me to become a Christian. You believe I'm destined for hell, and that's very nice of you to try to save me.
But the argument that you presented to me—an interpretation of the Bible—is operating with the assumption that the Bible is the word of God.
My point in bringing up Star Wars was to show that, as someone who does not believe the Bible is the word of God, I'm not going to be impressed with an interpretation of the Bible that assumes this from the outset. Just like you and me are not going to be impressed with some kid interpreting Star Wars if that kid is operating under the assumption that Star Wars is a perfect and flawless series of movies and any problems we have with it are due to our not paying close enough attention. Likely, you would think this Star Wars kid was just wasting his time and laugh at him.
Read: Messiah=Jesus
But when I read the Old Testament, I do not have the New Testament in mind when I interpret it. Why on earth would I? They were written hundreds of years apart by completely different people and have nothing to do with each other.
Do you read the New Testament with the Quran in mind? The Quran also portrays itself as progressive revelation, like the New Testament does. Does this mean we should be thinking of Muhammad when we read about prophets in the New Testament?
You love to put things into historically reference when it fits your agreement, but you hate when people use the "different cultures" line against you position.
This isn't the case at all. You bring up two different issues:
1. The extent to which ANE culture has influenced the Bible, its conception of reality, and its morality, and
2. The extent to which we, as modern people, should believe the Bible is a good source of morality.
My answer to #1 is quite a bit. I think I've made it clear that I think the Bible is very much a product of its time.
My answer to #2 is "not one fucking bit." And my point was that, just because the Bible is a product of its times does not excuse its utter paucity of moral guidance today. The author of your essay is arguing, essentially, that "God is not really that big of an asshole." His excuse for God's atrocious behavior in Job? "He was acting like an ANE king! So he wasn't an asshole by the standards of his time." My point was that this line of reasoning is absurd, as God's morality is not a "product of his time." A Pharoah driving a bunch of slaves to build a tomb for his immortal soul wouldn't have been an asshole by the standards of ancient Egypt but if anyone tried to enslave a bunch of people to build himself a tomb today, you wouldn't hesitate to call him an asshole.
The author is putting the story of Job into the historically context of middle eastern kingship. A concept wholly unfamiliar to us, but would have been clearly known by a man living in the early B.C. time period.
I have no problem with pointing out the context.
WHat I have a problem with is the idea that the historical context of this verse excuses its portrayal of God as an immoral despot.
Christians see Jesus at the perfect sacrifice. Jesus is the Christian sacrificial blood, so we can be in presence of God. So we can talk (read:pray) to God directly, so we can have a father/son/daughter relationship with him. It is true that God can not look on SIN. Jesus covers that sin for the Christian thus making a relationship with God possible.
My point was that to call this God a loving companion to human beings is like calling someone who is physically disgusted with the presence of spiders a loving companion to tarantulas. God cannot stand our presence. In order to even be with us (in heaven) he requires that we bathe in "sacrificial blood" of Jesus to make us pure. You have to understand—I can't think of a single other deity, except maybe Allah, who is so utterly disgusted with the mere presence of human beings. All the polytheist gods were perfectly happy chilling with us and some of them even risked their lives to help us out (Prometheus, Ea Enki).
Your God is only loving towards humans by some absurd standard or definition of "loving" that applies to absolutely nothing else in the universe except your God. It's like calling God "purple" but "purple in a way that only God is."
Some Christians do look at read book in the above fashion, however some feel a need to "look for God's plan" throughout the Bible for the reasons I have listed above.
Why do you even believe the Bible is inspired by God in the first place?
How could you possibly have arrived at this belief?
I showed you the article to express where my current theology stands, so we could discuss it like we are doing right now. The author does a pretty good job in explaining a complex matter. I had a need to express where I stood and why I stand there, however I do not have the time to assemble it myself, so I linked it.
Well, I stand by my "you sound like a battered wife" comment.
The article just made a bunch of excuses for God's hateful behavior towards humans. And they weren't even good excuses. "He acts like an ANE king" confirms that he is, like ANE kings, a barbaric despot.
I compared such theology earlier to a Star Wars nerd apologizing Star Wars flaws, but I think your theology is much more depressing, and distressing. Because the Star Wars kid doesn't have this imaginary relationship with George Lucas where he believes that George Lucas will torture and kill him if he doesn't blindly follow his will—but at the same time has convinced himself that George Lucas loves him unconditionally and lovingly defends his brutal behavior.
But, Evander, I don't understand why Qingu's interpretations are wrong. "Lots of Rabbis say so" isn't helping. I think we all recognize that modern Judaism doesn't follow Old Testament law or think that God is a despot--but if modern Judaism (ah, Christianity too) needs a wacky view of the text to believe what it does...?
[T]he government of this country is sending men and women off to die right now without showing too much concern about it. That one group of humans doing it to another group of humans. If humans can do it so easily to each other, it stands to reason that a higher being would have just as easy a time with it, if not easier.
You aren't suggesting that the people at the head of our government are somehow at a "higher level" are you?
Also, arguing that God has an easy time of sending humans to die doesn't say anything about whether it's right for him to do so, only that he can and does.
I have made ZERO attempt to argue that it's okay for God to do those things. All I've said is the fact that if God exsts he allows people to die is NOT an arguement against the existance of God.
Please stop assuming that I believe in some kind of benevolent God that I am trying to justify. As I've said before, I am an agnostic, and I actually, personally, find the idea of a benevolent God to be quite laughable.
Sorry; old habit. So your point is instead that.. 'levels' of sentience exist and that a being can be so far up the 'chain' that sentient beings lower down seem worthless to him? I don't see what that has to do with.. anything, frankly. I could see it happening, but it'd just mean that being was arrogant, self-centred and without empathy. An intelligent person is quite capable of caring for a stupid person.
I think I got off track trying to use sentience as a metaphore.
Basically, all I am saying is that, in the Judeo-Christian concept of a God-being, humans are little nothings compared to whatever God is. God, in theory, has the ability to create people at a whim. If that is the case, then why would God be concerned over the deaths of individual humans?
Very rarely, in the Jewish religion, does God have a direct relationship with an individual. Even when he does, most of the time it is only for that individual to serve as a conduit to the rest of humanity. If God views humans as a collective, rather than six billion individuals, then the deaths of even a few million humans wouldn't be quite as significant as we might expect the death of a single individual to be.
[T]he government of this country is sending men and women off to die right now without showing too much concern about it. That one group of humans doing it to another group of humans. If humans can do it so easily to each other, it stands to reason that a higher being would have just as easy a time with it, if not easier.
You aren't suggesting that the people at the head of our government are somehow at a "higher level" are you?
Also, arguing that God has an easy time of sending humans to die doesn't say anything about whether it's right for him to do so, only that he can and does.
I have made ZERO attempt to argue that it's okay for God to do those things. All I've said is the fact that if God exsts he allows people to die is NOT an arguement against the existance of God.
Please stop assuming that I believe in some kind of benevolent God that I am trying to justify. As I've said before, I am an agnostic, and I actually, personally, find the idea of a benevolent God to be quite laughable.
Context is key, of course you haven't used context at all yet in this thread,
Let's see, I discussed the Code of Hammurabi, the Enuma Elish, compared Yahweh's behavior to other Mesopotamian gods, I believe I brought up Atrahasis and Gilgamesh and pointed out that Biblical cosmology is similar to most cultures in the ANE ...
is there some specific "context" other than these ones you'd care to discuss?
In context, what I am saying is that you arguments disprove your personal interpretations, but do nothing to disprove either Judaism itself, or the actual source material. what "saying nothing" means in the above context.
This statement is either nonsense or a tautology.
"Donkeys have seven eyes."
I interpret this to mean that the animal called "donkeys" in general have seven sight-seeing organs. That is my interpretation of the statement. I can prove it wrong by comparing it to reality.
Pointing out that "I'm only disproving my interpretation of the Bible" is a meaningless statement, because obviously if I've misinterpreted the Bible than I wouldn't be "disproving" anything. So the question is, do you agree or disagree with my interpretation of the Bible? I've supported it plenty, Evander, and no, I have absolutely not seen you interact with anything I've said on this thread. You've just made meta-arguments like these, made completely unsupported and contradictory claims like "Abraham was punished for trying to kill Isaac," and pointed out that the Talmud has a different interpretation.
Judaism is NOT ultimately based on the authority of the bible. If you read more of the Talmud, you'd recognize that. Judaism, in its modern form, is ultimately based on open interpretation of the bible by educated people. That is to say, not any Yossi Six-pack can point to a random sentance, and declare it to mean something else, but those who have devoted time to the study of the Tanakh and the Talmud seek within it a deeper meaning, and that is where it is found.
So the question becomes "which educated person's interpretation of the Bible do we believe?"
Why the hell do you believe the Talmud over my interpretation, Evander? Presumaby you've read the Talmud so you know how much bullshit it brings to the table of Biblical interpretation. Have you considered that not a single secular Biblical scholar (at least none that I've heard of) uses anything from the Talmud when interpreting the Bible?
There are even stories in the Talmud about disagreements between God and the ancient Rabbis, where the Rabbis are declared to be right, because God had already handed down the power over the religion to man.
That has NOTHING TO DO with the Bible! That's an additional story!
Judaism recognizes a debt to God, and a reverance towards God, but God is not seen as in absolute control of everything.
I agree that the God of the OT is not omnipotent in the way that the Christian God is (I don't think the Jews were familiar with the Platonic/Aristotelian philosophy underlying the rather complex notion of "omnipotence.")
What does this have to do with our discussion? What does this have to do with my interpretation of the Bible and of God's character? Again, you're not interacting with anything I've said by pointing this out.
The Rabbi of the synagouge my family belongs to is actually of a semi-popular school of faith within Judaism that God step away from creation to pursue other endeavors, at some point after biblical times, and man is currently on his own, with the laws that God gave him to follow to be used as a guide.
That's a wonderful belief (I guess) but what on earth does it have to do with the Bible? It seems to completely contradict the Bible! It's certainly not an interpretation of anything in the Bible—it's an addendum, a rather unceremonious one.
Militant Atheists like yourself are no better than militant proslytizing Christians, who seek to force everyone to believe what they believe. There is no logical argument in constructing a false version of the religion of another, just so that you can rip it apart. The nature of Judaism is one of flexibility, which is what has kept it around for so long. There is no simple central tenant of Judaism that can be disproven inorder to tumble the entire house of cards, in fact. The Jewish Bible itself does not once require one to believe in God, only to follow its commandments, so even disproving God would not invalidate the Jewish religion.[/QUOTE]
Basically, all I am saying is that, in the Judeo-Christian concept of a God-being, humans are little nothings compared to whatever God is. God, in theory, has the ability to create people at a whim. If that is the case, then why would God be concerned over the deaths of individual humans?
Because any kind, compassionate, remotely humane person would be..?
Very rarely, in the Jewish religion, does God have a direct relationship with an individual. Even when he does, most of the time it is only for that individual to serve as a conduit to the rest of humanity. If God views humans as a collective, rather than six billion individuals, then the deaths of even a few million humans wouldn't be quite as significant as we might expect the death of a single individual to be.
If you were making the argument "a certain number of people must die in order for a greater good to occur" then I'd agree; but all you seem to be saying is that it's harder to remember that people are people if you're far away from them. That's something all rulers fall into the trap of. And it's not exactly endearing.
Basically, all I am saying is that, in the Judeo-Christian concept of a God-being, humans are little nothings compared to whatever God is. God, in theory, has the ability to create people at a whim. If that is the case, then why would God be concerned over the deaths of individual humans?
Because any kind, compassionate, remotely humane person would be..?
Very rarely, in the Jewish religion, does God have a direct relationship with an individual. Even when he does, most of the time it is only for that individual to serve as a conduit to the rest of humanity. If God views humans as a collective, rather than six billion individuals, then the deaths of even a few million humans wouldn't be quite as significant as we might expect the death of a single individual to be.
If you were making the argument "a certain number of people must die in order for a greater good to occur" then I'd agree; but all you seem to be saying is that it's harder to remember that people are people if you're far away from them. That's something all rulers fall into the trap of. And it's not exactly endearing.
I'm not sure what you're arguing against anymore. I've never implied that God, should he/She/It exist is some great force for good.
However, i you are viewing the human race as a singular entity, then the deaths of a few million people, while not being good, is far from being extinction.
I was arguing against your cruel and self-centred morality of "I don't care if non-human sentient beings die." That's abhorant to me and I can't see how you can justify it.
Militant Atheists like yourself are no better than militant proslytizing Christians, who seek to force everyone to believe what they believe.
When have I ever used force or advocated using force?
You think "rational discussion" = "force"?
There is no logical argument in constructing a false version of the religion of another, just so that you can rip it apart.
You keep on asserting my interpretation of the Bible is "false."
SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION.
The nature of Judaism is one of flexibility, which is what has kept it around for so long.
Right, 15 million Jews and counting, most non-practicing or completely secularized.
There is no simple central tenant of Judaism that can be disproven inorder to tumble the entire house of cards, in fact. The Jewish Bible itself does not once require one to believe in God, only to follow its commandments, so even disproving God would not invalidate the Jewish religion.
Okay, let me get this straight.
Let's accept the possibility that I might be right about the Bible—that is to say, that the Bible might be just another Mesopotamian mythology written by barbaric nomads that has absolutely nothing to do with any supernatural power or authority, a vestige of an ignorant bronze-age civilization both in a scientific and a moral sense, and is in no way a useful guidebook for any aspect of our modern life.
If this were true, would you still be able to be a Jew?
Now. You said that being a Jew entails only "following its (the Bible's) commandments." You plainly do not follow the Bible's commandments, as you are not on your way to stone me to death per Dt. 13:6. You don't even seem to want to follow most of the Bible's commandments. So how on earth can you even call yourself a Jew?
Militant Atheists like yourself are no better than militant proslytizing Christians, who seek to force everyone to believe what they believe.
When have I ever used force or advocated using force?
You think "rational discussion" = "force"?
There is no logical argument in constructing a false version of the religion of another, just so that you can rip it apart.
You keep on asserting my interpretation of the Bible is "false."
SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION.
The nature of Judaism is one of flexibility, which is what has kept it around for so long.
Right, 15 million Jews and counting, most non-practicing or completely secularized.
There is no simple central tenant of Judaism that can be disproven inorder to tumble the entire house of cards, in fact. The Jewish Bible itself does not once require one to believe in God, only to follow its commandments, so even disproving God would not invalidate the Jewish religion.
Okay, let me get this straight.
Let's accept the possibility that I might be right about the Bible—that is to say, that the Bible might be just another Mesopotamian mythology written by barbaric nomads that has absolutely nothing to do with any supernatural power or authority, a vestige of an ignorant bronze-age civilization both in a scientific and a moral sense, and is in no way a useful guidebook for any aspect of our modern life.
If this were true, would you still be able to be a Jew?
Now. You said that being a Jew entails only "following its (the Bible's) commandments." You plainly do not follow the Bible's commandments, as you are not on your way to stone me to death per Dt. 13:6. You don't even seem to want to follow most of the Bible's commandments. So how on earth can you even call yourself a Jew?
As per my personal interpretations, I focus solely on the commandments that are considered "between man and his compatriots" and ignore the commandments centered on "between man and God", because I do not know for a fact that God exists, and if he does, I figure he can take care of himself, so I'm not interested in wasting my time worrying about him.
Being Jew entails being a Jew, either by birth or by conversion. I could smear shit on a Torah scroll, and tattoo "HAMAN RULES AND I LOVE JESUS" across my chest, and I'd still be a Jew. (No offense meant to Christians)
My main point about you still stands, though, that you are trying to argue against the entirety of the Jewish religion based SOLELY on the stories within the Jewish bible, even though many Jews view those stories to be parables, rather than literal accounts, and while you are ignoring ALL OTHER Judaic sources.
You keep throwing out the Talmud, but the most religious of Jews believe the Talmud to have been given at Mount Sinai allongside the Torah, just in Oral form, and only written down a millenium later. In that sense, the Mishna, at least, really deserves you attention if you're going to pretend to look at the source of the religion.
Militant Atheists like yourself are no better than militant proslytizing Christians, who seek to force everyone to believe what they believe.
Hey, I missed that too.
Fuck you, Evander, you lying fuck.
How are you any better than a Christian on a street corner yelling at bpeople that they are going to hell?
What is wrong with letting people believe whatever they like?
As far as I can tell, Loren and Qingu aren't out in society trying to convert people. This is a debate forum. I'm sure the pair don't accost their Christian friends about their beliefs; if discussion is invited then it becomes another matter however.
I was arguing against your cruel and self-centred morality of "I don't care if non-human sentient beings die." That's abhorant to me and I can't see how you can justify it.
I'm not justifying anything. I was playing a bit of devil's advocate. PERSONALLY, I care deeply about suffering in the world, and do my part to do what little I can to help with it, including donating to charity, helping to run charity drives, physically getting out there and improving things, sending messages to people in power, and even just talking to others to raise awareness. I try to stay very involved in the issues that I believe are truely hurting humanity.
The fact that I care doesn't mean that a theoretical God would, though. That's all I was getting at.
Evander on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Militant Atheists like yourself are no better than militant proslytizing Christians, who seek to force everyone to believe what they believe.
Hey, I missed that too.
Fuck you, Evander, you lying fuck.
How are you any better than a Christian on a street corner yelling at bpeople that they are going to hell?
What is wrong with letting people believe whatever they like?
As far as I can tell, Loren and Qingu aren't out in society trying to convert people. This is a debate forum. I'm sure the pair don't accost their Christian friends about their beliefs; if discussion is invited then it becomes another matter however.
I don't know about Loren, but I've seen Qingu systematically do this before, and by "this" I mean turn a thread even tangentally touching religion into an attempt to disprove religion, while ignoring any points that don't agree with his vision.
If he's offended, he can stop ignoring the Talmud.
Posts
I would hope so, or else this discussion would be in vain.
Yes but in this case George Lucas=!God. A man is not a God. There are some people who look for "God's Plan,†but these people are human. So they WILL mess it up. Does that mean that we should not look for a plan? Well that depends, to some Christians they think looking for "God's Plan" is futile since being human you will make a mistake. Other look for a plan when forming their own beliefs (which will be flawed) about God. Still others "look for God's plan" in order to have a dialog with people like you Qingu. It is their hope that one of their flawed lines of logic will convince you become a Christian. This research into "God's plan" is seen as a act of love, since they believe that if you continue down the road you are presently on (rebelling against God) that you will eventually have you wish and be eternally separated from God.
For the record I fit into the second catagory.
Read: Messiah=Jesus
You love to put things into historically reference when it fits your agreement, but you hate when people use the "different cultures" line against you position. The author is putting the story of Job into the historically context of middle eastern kingship. A concept wholly unfamiliar to us, but would have been clearly known by a man living in the early B.C. time period.
Christians see Jesus at the perfect sacrifice. Jesus is the Christian sacrificial blood, so we can be in presence of God. So we can talk (read:pray) to God directly, so we can have a father/son/daughter relationship with him. It is true that God can not look on SIN. Jesus covers that sin for the Christian thus making a relationship with God possible.
Some Christians do look at read book in the above fashion, however some feel a need to "look for God's plan" throughout the Bible for the reasons I have listed above.
I showed you the article to express where my current theology stands, so we could discuss it like we are doing right now. The author does a pretty good job in explaining a complex matter. I had a need to express where I stood and why I stand there, however I do not have the time to assemble it myself, so I linked it.
Your welcome Qingu, it is always a pleasure to discuss with you. It is better to speak with atheists and see their lines of reason for yourself, instead of just listening to random person demonizing them.
P.S.- I am in a hurry please forgive all the spell and grammer errors. I am drowning in projects.
How is that laughable?
Personally, I care about humans dying because I am a human. If I was something other than a human, and human death did not affect me negatively, I can't be sure that I'd care.
Right now you're trying to argue AGAINST religion by saying that humans are some how special and distinct from everything else that exists. But show me anything outside of religion that agrees with that argument.
There's no quantities specified in the covenants.
I say Jesus because Christians say Jesus. If that's the name they choose for their god, then who am I to argue with them?
Wanna go that route with Jews? There's only one god who is reffered to as Ha'Shem.
Context is key, of course you haven't used context at all yet in this thread, o I'm not suprised you missed it here.
In context, what I am saying is that you arguments disprove your personal interpretations, but do nothing to disprove either Judaism itself, or the actual source material. what "saying nothing" means in the above context.
I have been, actually. You even agreed with some of what I said. Do try to keep up.
Judaism is NOT ultimately based on the authority of the bible. If you read more of the Talmud, you'd recognize that. Judaism, in its modern form, is ultimately based on open interpretation of the bible by educated people. That is to say, not any Yossi Six-pack can point to a random sentance, and declare it to mean something else, but those who have devoted time to the study of the Tanakh and the Talmud seek within it a deeper meaning, and that is where it is found.
There are even stories in the Talmud about disagreements between God and the ancient Rabbis, where the Rabbis are declared to be right, because God had already handed down the power over the religion to man. Judaism recognizes a debt to God, and a reverance towards God, but God is not seen as in absolute control of everything. The Rabbi of the synagouge my family belongs to is actually of a semi-popular school of faith within Judaism that God step away from creation to pursue other endeavors, at some point after biblical times, and man is currently on his own, with the laws that God gave him to follow to be used as a guide.
Militant Atheists like yourself are no better than militant proslytizing Christians, who seek to force everyone to believe what they believe. There is no logical argument in constructing a false version of the religion of another, just so that you can rip it apart. The nature of Judaism is one of flexibility, which is what has kept it around for so long. There is no simple central tenant of Judaism that can be disproven inorder to tumble the entire house of cards, in fact. The Jewish Bible itself does not once require one to believe in God, only to follow its commandments, so even disproving God would not invalidate the Jewish religion.
Why wouldn't you care?
What if you were some how above sentience, though?
I mean, I don't care about killing plant life now, how do I know that if I were in some higher form I'd give a shit about sentient beings?
Sentience isn't a level, it's binary. You are or you aren't. There's no "higher level".
How do you know?
I'm not saying that there is, I'm not eve saying that I think there might be. My point is simply that, should such a thing exist, would you expect such a being to care about individual human lives?
When you've played some kind of PC God sim in he past, did you protect every single life every single time?
Hell, at the risk of turning this into a political tangent (which really, I'd like to avoid) the government of this country is sending men and women off to die right now without showing too much concern about it. That one group of humans doing it to another group of humans. If humans can do it so easily to each other, it stands to reason that a higher being would have just as easy a time with it, if not easier.
Why is that an absolute?
And what about when a natural disaster kills a person, is THAT wrong? When non-sentience kills a sentient being?
It's like suggesting that there's a higher level than "on" or "off". There isn't. It's an either/or quality.
They're not fucking alive! But if I was playing Populous and I knew every one of my little people was a sentient being, you can be damn sure I'd do my utmost to keep them both alive and happy.
I don't want to get bogged down in morals and relativity, but basically you're saying that it's okay to kill something that's sentient. I disagree and think that any decent person would too.
And of course not to your last question. It's regrettable and every effort should be made to stop it, but you can't blame a natural force.
You aren't suggesting that the people at the head of our government are somehow at a "higher level" are you?
Also, arguing that God has an easy time of sending humans to die doesn't say anything about whether it's right for him to do so, only that he can and does.
I have made ZERO attempt to argue that it's okay for God to do those things. All I've said is the fact that if God exsts he allows people to die is NOT an arguement against the existance of God.
Please stop assuming that I believe in some kind of benevolent God that I am trying to justify. As I've said before, I am an agnostic, and I actually, personally, find the idea of a benevolent God to be quite laughable.
Sorry; old habit. So your point is instead that.. 'levels' of sentience exist and that a being can be so far up the 'chain' that sentient beings lower down seem worthless to him? I don't see what that has to do with.. anything, frankly. I could see it happening, but it'd just mean that being was arrogant, self-centred and without empathy. An intelligent person is quite capable of caring for a stupid person.
God loves you!:P
Now why should anyone accept that the Author of the Bible = God?
Seeing no evidence to the contrary, I think it's absolutely reasonable to assume that the Author of the Bible, just like the Author of the Mahabharata or the Author of the Quran or the Author of the Code of Hammurabi, also =! God.
Can we back up?
I understand why you're trying to convince me to become a Christian. You believe I'm destined for hell, and that's very nice of you to try to save me.
But the argument that you presented to me—an interpretation of the Bible—is operating with the assumption that the Bible is the word of God.
My point in bringing up Star Wars was to show that, as someone who does not believe the Bible is the word of God, I'm not going to be impressed with an interpretation of the Bible that assumes this from the outset. Just like you and me are not going to be impressed with some kid interpreting Star Wars if that kid is operating under the assumption that Star Wars is a perfect and flawless series of movies and any problems we have with it are due to our not paying close enough attention. Likely, you would think this Star Wars kid was just wasting his time and laugh at him.
But when I read the Old Testament, I do not have the New Testament in mind when I interpret it. Why on earth would I? They were written hundreds of years apart by completely different people and have nothing to do with each other.
Do you read the New Testament with the Quran in mind? The Quran also portrays itself as progressive revelation, like the New Testament does. Does this mean we should be thinking of Muhammad when we read about prophets in the New Testament?
This isn't the case at all. You bring up two different issues:
1. The extent to which ANE culture has influenced the Bible, its conception of reality, and its morality, and
2. The extent to which we, as modern people, should believe the Bible is a good source of morality.
My answer to #1 is quite a bit. I think I've made it clear that I think the Bible is very much a product of its time.
My answer to #2 is "not one fucking bit." And my point was that, just because the Bible is a product of its times does not excuse its utter paucity of moral guidance today. The author of your essay is arguing, essentially, that "God is not really that big of an asshole." His excuse for God's atrocious behavior in Job? "He was acting like an ANE king! So he wasn't an asshole by the standards of his time." My point was that this line of reasoning is absurd, as God's morality is not a "product of his time." A Pharoah driving a bunch of slaves to build a tomb for his immortal soul wouldn't have been an asshole by the standards of ancient Egypt but if anyone tried to enslave a bunch of people to build himself a tomb today, you wouldn't hesitate to call him an asshole.
I have no problem with pointing out the context.
WHat I have a problem with is the idea that the historical context of this verse excuses its portrayal of God as an immoral despot.
My point was that to call this God a loving companion to human beings is like calling someone who is physically disgusted with the presence of spiders a loving companion to tarantulas. God cannot stand our presence. In order to even be with us (in heaven) he requires that we bathe in "sacrificial blood" of Jesus to make us pure. You have to understand—I can't think of a single other deity, except maybe Allah, who is so utterly disgusted with the mere presence of human beings. All the polytheist gods were perfectly happy chilling with us and some of them even risked their lives to help us out (Prometheus, Ea Enki).
Your God is only loving towards humans by some absurd standard or definition of "loving" that applies to absolutely nothing else in the universe except your God. It's like calling God "purple" but "purple in a way that only God is."
Why do you even believe the Bible is inspired by God in the first place?
How could you possibly have arrived at this belief?
Well, I stand by my "you sound like a battered wife" comment.
The article just made a bunch of excuses for God's hateful behavior towards humans. And they weren't even good excuses. "He acts like an ANE king" confirms that he is, like ANE kings, a barbaric despot.
I compared such theology earlier to a Star Wars nerd apologizing Star Wars flaws, but I think your theology is much more depressing, and distressing. Because the Star Wars kid doesn't have this imaginary relationship with George Lucas where he believes that George Lucas will torture and kill him if he doesn't blindly follow his will—but at the same time has convinced himself that George Lucas loves him unconditionally and lovingly defends his brutal behavior.
But, Evander, I don't understand why Qingu's interpretations are wrong. "Lots of Rabbis say so" isn't helping. I think we all recognize that modern Judaism doesn't follow Old Testament law or think that God is a despot--but if modern Judaism (ah, Christianity too) needs a wacky view of the text to believe what it does...?
I think I got off track trying to use sentience as a metaphore.
Basically, all I am saying is that, in the Judeo-Christian concept of a God-being, humans are little nothings compared to whatever God is. God, in theory, has the ability to create people at a whim. If that is the case, then why would God be concerned over the deaths of individual humans?
Very rarely, in the Jewish religion, does God have a direct relationship with an individual. Even when he does, most of the time it is only for that individual to serve as a conduit to the rest of humanity. If God views humans as a collective, rather than six billion individuals, then the deaths of even a few million humans wouldn't be quite as significant as we might expect the death of a single individual to be.
Tell God that no means no!
is there some specific "context" other than these ones you'd care to discuss?
This statement is either nonsense or a tautology.
"Donkeys have seven eyes."
I interpret this to mean that the animal called "donkeys" in general have seven sight-seeing organs. That is my interpretation of the statement. I can prove it wrong by comparing it to reality.
Pointing out that "I'm only disproving my interpretation of the Bible" is a meaningless statement, because obviously if I've misinterpreted the Bible than I wouldn't be "disproving" anything. So the question is, do you agree or disagree with my interpretation of the Bible? I've supported it plenty, Evander, and no, I have absolutely not seen you interact with anything I've said on this thread. You've just made meta-arguments like these, made completely unsupported and contradictory claims like "Abraham was punished for trying to kill Isaac," and pointed out that the Talmud has a different interpretation.
So the question becomes "which educated person's interpretation of the Bible do we believe?"
Why the hell do you believe the Talmud over my interpretation, Evander? Presumaby you've read the Talmud so you know how much bullshit it brings to the table of Biblical interpretation. Have you considered that not a single secular Biblical scholar (at least none that I've heard of) uses anything from the Talmud when interpreting the Bible?
That has NOTHING TO DO with the Bible! That's an additional story!
I agree that the God of the OT is not omnipotent in the way that the Christian God is (I don't think the Jews were familiar with the Platonic/Aristotelian philosophy underlying the rather complex notion of "omnipotence.")
What does this have to do with our discussion? What does this have to do with my interpretation of the Bible and of God's character? Again, you're not interacting with anything I've said by pointing this out.
That's a wonderful belief (I guess) but what on earth does it have to do with the Bible? It seems to completely contradict the Bible! It's certainly not an interpretation of anything in the Bible—it's an addendum, a rather unceremonious one.
Militant Atheists like yourself are no better than militant proslytizing Christians, who seek to force everyone to believe what they believe. There is no logical argument in constructing a false version of the religion of another, just so that you can rip it apart. The nature of Judaism is one of flexibility, which is what has kept it around for so long. There is no simple central tenant of Judaism that can be disproven inorder to tumble the entire house of cards, in fact. The Jewish Bible itself does not once require one to believe in God, only to follow its commandments, so even disproving God would not invalidate the Jewish religion.[/QUOTE]
When you refuse to accept the Talmud in a discussion on Judaism, you are only fit to argue with the Karaites.
Because any kind, compassionate, remotely humane person would be..?
If you were making the argument "a certain number of people must die in order for a greater good to occur" then I'd agree; but all you seem to be saying is that it's harder to remember that people are people if you're far away from them. That's something all rulers fall into the trap of. And it's not exactly endearing.
I'm not sure what you're arguing against anymore. I've never implied that God, should he/She/It exist is some great force for good.
However, i you are viewing the human race as a singular entity, then the deaths of a few million people, while not being good, is far from being extinction.
When have I ever used force or advocated using force?
You think "rational discussion" = "force"?
You keep on asserting my interpretation of the Bible is "false."
SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION.
Right, 15 million Jews and counting, most non-practicing or completely secularized.
Okay, let me get this straight.
Let's accept the possibility that I might be right about the Bible—that is to say, that the Bible might be just another Mesopotamian mythology written by barbaric nomads that has absolutely nothing to do with any supernatural power or authority, a vestige of an ignorant bronze-age civilization both in a scientific and a moral sense, and is in no way a useful guidebook for any aspect of our modern life.
If this were true, would you still be able to be a Jew?
Now. You said that being a Jew entails only "following its (the Bible's) commandments." You plainly do not follow the Bible's commandments, as you are not on your way to stone me to death per Dt. 13:6. You don't even seem to want to follow most of the Bible's commandments. So how on earth can you even call yourself a Jew?
Hey, I missed that too.
Fuck you, Evander, you lying fuck.
As per my personal interpretations, I focus solely on the commandments that are considered "between man and his compatriots" and ignore the commandments centered on "between man and God", because I do not know for a fact that God exists, and if he does, I figure he can take care of himself, so I'm not interested in wasting my time worrying about him.
Being Jew entails being a Jew, either by birth or by conversion. I could smear shit on a Torah scroll, and tattoo "HAMAN RULES AND I LOVE JESUS" across my chest, and I'd still be a Jew. (No offense meant to Christians)
My main point about you still stands, though, that you are trying to argue against the entirety of the Jewish religion based SOLELY on the stories within the Jewish bible, even though many Jews view those stories to be parables, rather than literal accounts, and while you are ignoring ALL OTHER Judaic sources.
You keep throwing out the Talmud, but the most religious of Jews believe the Talmud to have been given at Mount Sinai allongside the Torah, just in Oral form, and only written down a millenium later. In that sense, the Mishna, at least, really deserves you attention if you're going to pretend to look at the source of the religion.
How are you any better than a Christian on a street corner yelling at bpeople that they are going to hell?
What is wrong with letting people believe whatever they like?
As far as I can tell, Loren and Qingu aren't out in society trying to convert people. This is a debate forum. I'm sure the pair don't accost their Christian friends about their beliefs; if discussion is invited then it becomes another matter however.
I'm not justifying anything. I was playing a bit of devil's advocate. PERSONALLY, I care deeply about suffering in the world, and do my part to do what little I can to help with it, including donating to charity, helping to run charity drives, physically getting out there and improving things, sending messages to people in power, and even just talking to others to raise awareness. I try to stay very involved in the issues that I believe are truely hurting humanity.
The fact that I care doesn't mean that a theoretical God would, though. That's all I was getting at.
I thought I was the only religion thread debater for you!
I don't know about Loren, but I've seen Qingu systematically do this before, and by "this" I mean turn a thread even tangentally touching religion into an attempt to disprove religion, while ignoring any points that don't agree with his vision.
If he's offended, he can stop ignoring the Talmud.
Am I going to Hell?