Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
You can buy slaves from foreign nations! They will become your property! You can will them to your children! You can make them slaves for life!
290 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 290 of 290(cont.)
Why would the ability to give and take life be available to anyone but Yahweh?
Uh, I dunno, isn't that more of a problem for you than for me? People take life all the time without asking Yahweh's permission.
Give me evidence that any human-made gods are physically capable of doing anything, let alone create and take life.
You first, you're the one claiming that your particular god does stuff.
Life belongs to Yahweh b/c He created it.
Why? I don't see why that follows. Why does he get to take life simply because he created it?
Why do you believe God arbitrarily ends life? You imply he has human parameters again.
I just call it like I see it. The bible has its' god commanding all manner of brutality that strikes me as pointless.
Why is the burden of proof on me when you're the one doing the claiming that it's in your yard?
That's the point.
You want me prove why your claims that Yahweh doesn't exist are wrong when you're the one making the claims.
You just gave me whiplash! It seems that you understand burden of proof one moment, and then completely fail to understand it in the very next sentence.
"Yahweh exists" is the claim being made here, by you. The burden is on you to substantiate it, not on me to justify my skepticism.
1) What if your perception on this subject is incorrect?
It's not. Here's a dedicated Christian apologetics ministry claiming that slavery, to use one example, was just fine and dandy in a different cultural context;
http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/you-may-buy-slaves
2) What if some professing Christians have an incorrect view of God's parameters?
That's your team's problem, I'd say.
How do we answer these two questions?
I just answered the first one. If the second one could be answered, I'd imagine it would have been by now, and yet new Christian sects continue to proliferate.
Study why the "mass murders" happened before you jump to conclusions.
This isn't my first rodeo, and the supposed reasons aren't exactly a secret. They are not satisfactory to me, especially since they are claimed to be representative of a morally perfect being.
~~continued~~
«"Genocide. Look, I agree with you that murder on any level is awful. All of the deaths could have been avoided if humans would have just loved Yahweh and loved each other instead of being so prideful."»
Where does it say that they hated each other? Another false accusation.
And could you explain how a young child can be "prideful"? And why a young child being "prideful" deserves to have his throat cut or his head bashed in? Or in the case of virgin females, enslaved?
«"Children and babies shouldn't die -- or any moms or dads."»
Right. So the fact that Yahweh said kill the boys and non-virgin women, and enslave the girls, proves that he does not have an absolute standard of morality.
«" However, at least we can know that it won't be this way forever. "»
That's just your opinion.
«"One day sin, sickness and death will be eliminated. Nobody will cry or be hurt or be alone."»
That's just your opinion.
«"At least if you're on Yahweh's team, you have that promise."»
And the hell with everyone else, right? And it's still just your skewed opinion.
«"He will make all the wrongs right."»
Still just your skewed opinion.
«"All those innocent lives will be avenged."»
How will Yahweh avenge the innocent lives he destroyed himself? And that's still just your skewed opinion.
«"Whatever you lose on this earth, Owlmirror, it can be returned to you in eternity."»
Still just your skewed opinion.
«"Atheism makes no similar claims."»
Of course not. Atheists try not to lie about an afterlife for which we have no evidence.
«"If Yahweh was so evil, then why would He make the promises to right these wrongs and eventually eliminate death?"»
Because Yahweh didn't make those promises. All of the bible was written by human beings. Parts were written by Judaen and Israelite priests who wanted to collect various myths and make it look like God was on their side. Parts were written by Judaean priests who wanted justification for war and conquest. Parts were written by priests who wanted laws -- some laws being for all, and other laws favoring priests.
And the later parts -- the ones your skewed opinon interprets as that "promise" -- were written by Greeks and Jews who were trying to construct a new myth that was a rather bad fit with the earlier parts about mass killings, war and conquest.
Blue,
I believe you are correct. Keep up the good work!
Savedbygrace gets in a big flap and says...."This whole discussion started concerning the Bible not speaking out against slavery. Slavery is a CULTURAL issue, not a moral issue. Our culture defines it as immoral, therefor we want the Bible to condemn it also. And because the Bible does not, apparently shows the Bible is somehow bogus or itself immoral."
Saved yes it is a cultural issue,its all relative to culture.Yes some cultures did condone slavery at one time,until it changed relative to how people began thinking about it.That could still even be changing in some places as people start feeling different about it.
But what you are turning a faithful blind eye to is that the bible is supposedly that of a absolute god.A god supposedly the same yesterday today and tomorrow. And if slavery is to be morally different depending on the year,then maybe adultery could be just as ok now too seeing its now many years later?.
So the point is we most likely see scriptures change between the first and second testament etc due to the relativity of culture and year and what man thinks about it all,not so likely because the god/s supposedly changed their minds and morals
Bluemongoose says "Your slavery comparison. In a relativistic world, why should your definition matter? The individual does what works for the individual. And slavery worked for the slave owners in this context. So what if it didn't work for some of the slaves? The more powerful people financially and politically were the owners. But if there were absolutes and relativism was bunk..."
No blue relativistic worlds are governed by groups of people, not individuals at all.
Once again i ask you where do you live? ....Show me evidence of countries run by individuals only?.While you rant on so much about relativist worlds being only connected to government by the individual,surely if you were not full of so much bull you would be able to come up with some decent evidence by now?
No and dont show me dictatorships because they are much more like the absolutist kind,like the worlds supposedly governed by absolute god/s.
Ohhh i see you cant find any proof?.Having big problems are we?...Thought so! otherwise you would have already long ago before now.
You say..."That's your opinion and in your relativistic society, you have no right to tell me I'm wrong. Just playing by your rules."
No fool its not just playing by the "your" as in his rules as in the singular person, if (many more people than one happen to tend to start agree) now is it!.Cant you get that through your head at all.Why should the agreeable thoughts of (many more than one person) still be only considered as that of only the individual?.Did you go to a school for the intellectually impaired or something?.
Hell blue i think even a school kid would understand the big difference here,that you seem to have so much trouble understanding at all.
Blue you say...."Logical conclusions. No follow-ups necessary or you've tuck tail and run b/c you can't prove I'm wrong? I call you out. Prove me wrong."
Well bluey about time you put up or shut up about the old tuck your tail and run bit isnt it?
Because you go on so much here on DC about the laws of relativity being connect to that of only the individual etc blah blah blah,but yet still have not been able to prove it at all.Ive asked you time and time again for proof of these unfounded claims you make.
Bluemongoose on this thread here https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21219785&postID=1573343329563590768 "What Is The Difference Between A Perception And Knowledge?" thread your suggested claims of what = "Things of great importance left up to the individual" is laughable.A feeble attempt! at best.
How could you actually think these things you listed in any modern world are actually still left entirely up to that of totally individual decisions?.
What kinda dream world do you live in?....Bedtime story land?...mummy said so land?
John,
How do you know for sure SavedByGrace was DenCol? And if he/she was, then what did DenCol do that was so bad that you banned him/her in the first place?
Owlmirror:
Your accusation that I brought my opinion solely. I've shown you biblical scriptures to back up what I've said. Have I ever prefaced my statements w/ "I think", etc.? I give you explanations and clarifications for the info. I bring. You only have your declarative statements repeated several times.
Choice. Again you assume God's foreknowledge of events automatically means we have no free will. We've seen how this is not an either/or scenario.
God's knowledge and power = responsibility for our actions is His. Just a way for you to try to make yourself feel better about your personal decision to chuck your responsibility out the door.
Capital punishment. Again, you forget that the option exists to have your slate wiped clean. It violates nothing. In fact, it is the greatest show of love in that it's about God ultimately giving His life for ours.
Christians dying. So the only way for this to be verified is through the parameters you set down? Your way or the highway, right? Wow, that's pretty close-minded. Are you saying this is the one absolute way to prove this issue?
My parents' opinion. Again, you imply that they used their own human reasoning to arrive at these conclusions. Not so. You are still stuck arguing from this vantage point.
Physical death is when our earthly bodies die in this world. Spiritual death is eternal separation from God in the eternal torment of hell.
Forcing beliefs. You can't within your mere human perception tell me I'm wrong. After all, foundations for right and wrong are not based on fickle humans. So who died and made you the standard in which we are to base these things?
Absolute rules of real-world logic. Really? On what standards do you base your real-world logic? From where do your foundations come? Society, culture, environment, history, individuals?
Evidence. Again, I did give you evidence. But, showing your relativistic colors, you think just b/c you don't like something, then it doesn't apply to you.
Theology. So b/c God knows all, that means automatically that He didn't sacrifice Jesus? You're blending lines again and not very well.
"Jesus, who knows all, knew that He would not die forever." Now we're getting somewhere. Just b/c He knew He would not be dead forever doesn't mean He didn't die. It just proves Yahweh is more powerful than death.
Sure the Bible doesn't give specific examples of dialogue between God/Adam and Eve after the fall, but it gies us implications that they still had a relationship. For ex.: The manner in which Eve references God when talking about her children. Also, dialogue between God and Cain shows that there was a continued relationship. After all, if God talks to the children, why not to the parents? No human is better than any other. Why completely chuck your masterpiece?
Your dialogue with God. The way you phrased this indicates you feel as though you've upheld your end of some spiritual bargain with God but He has failed to uphold His end. There are interconnected elements in play here -- namely, that obeying a system of divine law makes God indebted to you. Also, perhaps you just don't recognize His voice when He answers you.
Omniscience vs. free will. Allow me to give you an illustration. A police officer is not taking your free will when he says you must do field sobriety tests or he will arrest you. You still have the free will to choose. So this proves that discipline for bad choices does not equate depravation of free will.
God' protection. You blend lines again. Just b/c there is sickness doesn't mean God doesn't protect you. How do you know what He's protected you from? An everlasting curse. How do you, a finite individual who only uses human opinion to arrive at decisions, know this is so? The Bible specifically says the curse has already been defeated.
Heaven. I'm so sorry you've limited your thinking in that way. Don't you want to go to heaven?
«"Your accusation that I brought my opinion solely. I've shown you biblical scriptures to back up what I've said."»
The interpretation and validity of the interpretation of those scriptures is just your skewed opinion.
«"I give you explanations and clarifications for the info."»
Which are only your opinion.
«"You only have your declarative statements repeated several times."»
I have argued from logic. You have made declarative statements that are nothing but your own skewed opinion.
«"Choice. Again you assume God's foreknowledge of events automatically means we have no free will. We've seen how this is not an either/or scenario."»
We have seen no such thing. You keep repeating that, but you have nothing. A contradiction in terms is a always a contradiction. Omniscience contradicts free will, and you have no answer to that.
«"God's knowledge and power = responsibility for our actions is His. Just a way for you to try to make yourself feel better about your personal decision to chuck your responsibility out the door."»
No. It's simple, basic logic.
1) Knowledge and power confer responsibility.
2) God has all knowledge and all power
3) Therefore, if (1) and (2) are both true, then God has all responsibility.
You simply deny and reject logic itself.
«"Christians dying. So the only way for this to be verified is through the parameters you set down? Your way or the highway, right? Wow, that's pretty close-minded. Are you saying this is the one absolute way to prove this issue?"»
It's not close minded. It's logical. If being a Christian caused a real-world change in someone; something that could be seen and tested, that would verify that something about being Christian meant something in the real world.
Since it doesn't, it is infinitely more likely that any change in Christians is imaginary.
«"My parents' opinion. Again, you imply that they used their own human reasoning to arrive at these conclusions. Not so."»
And that, too, is only your skewed opinion, in addition to their skewed opinion. You have nothing.
«"You are still stuck arguing from this vantage point."»
Yes. I am stuck arguing from logic, reason, and evidence. You have no such restriction, so are free to use illogic, unreason, and no real-world evidence at all in support of your skewed opinion.
«"Physical death is when our earthly bodies die in this world. Spiritual death is eternal separation from God in the eternal torment of hell."»
Which is necessarily unjust. Justice; morality; and ethics, as I have pointed out, rely on treating others as you wish to be treated. Would God wish to experience eternal torment? If yes, then he should join the damned in hell for an eternity of torment. If not, then he is unjust to condemn anyone to eternal torment.
«"You can't within your mere human perception tell me I'm wrong."»
Sure I can. Human perception is all I have -- and it's all you have, too.
«"After all, foundations for right and wrong are not based on fickle humans."»
I would agree. Foundations for right and wrong are not based on fickle humans with no absolute standards of right and wrong, like you. They are based on agreement between reasoned and thoughtful humans.
«"So who died and made you the standard in which we are to base these things?"»
It isn't myself alone, of course. But since God doesn't give us any hints, we humans are the ones who have to figure things out on our own anyway.
(...continues...)
~~~continued~~~
«"Absolute rules of real-world logic. Really? On what standards do you base your real-world logic?"»
Logic itself has basic rules that are followed. Premises are stated, and can be joined or intersected or negated. Inferences follow from these rules. Premises may be specific or universal -- but if they are universal, you stick to them universally, or explain why they should not be considered universal.
"Knowledge and power confer responsibility" is a universal premise. To accept it for humans but reject it for God is a fallacy: the fallacy of special pleading. You cannot justify rejecting it for God. You just wave your hands and place the blame on me. No. The blame is on you, for rejecting logic itself.
«""Jesus, who knows all, knew that He would not die forever." Now we're getting somewhere. Just b/c He knew He would not be dead forever doesn't mean He didn't die. It just proves Yahweh is more powerful than death."»
Right. Which means that according to your own theology, Jesus did not die forever, which means he did not die the real death. That's logic again: For humans, real death is permanent. If Jesus did not die permanently, it was not real death.
«"After all, if God talks to the children, why not to the parents? No human is better than any other."»
Then by your own reasoning, God should talk to everyone all the time, exactly as he spoke to Adam and Eve. He doesn't. Therefore, your God does not exist.
«"The way you phrased this indicates you feel as though you've upheld your end of some spiritual bargain with God but He has failed to uphold His end. There are interconnected elements in play here -- namely, that obeying a system of divine law makes God indebted to you."»
If God has absolute rules, then God has to follow them as well.
Anything else is just special pleading, which is a fallacy.
«"Also, perhaps you just don't recognize His voice when He answers you."»
Nonsense. If I heard a voice that spoke and proved that it knew more than any human could know, I would acknowledge it. There's nothing.
«"Omniscience vs. free will. Allow me to give you an illustration. A police officer is not taking your free will when he says you must do field sobriety tests or he will arrest you. You still have the free will to choose. So this proves that discipline for bad choices does not equate depravation of free will."»
Your analogy fails because the police officer is not omniscient (and did not create you knowing what you would do).
«"Just b/c there is sickness doesn't mean God doesn't protect you."»
Since there's nothing that indicates that God protects anyone, I can be pretty sure that God does not protect me. Death takes all with no mercy, young and old, wealthy and poor, righteous and evil.
«"How do you know what He's protected you from? An everlasting curse. The Bible specifically says the curse has already been defeated."»
God's own everlasting curse, you mean. Saying that God protects me from that is like saying that Superman "protects" me from a bullet that he shot at me himself. Gee, Supes, I wouldn't have been in danger if you hadn't pulled the trigger in the first place.
«"I'm so sorry you've limited your thinking in that way. Don't you want to go to heaven?"»
Yes, I'm limited by logic, reason, and evidence. What does what I want have to do with anything? IF heaven does not exist, then I cannot possibly go there.
Owlmirror:
Continuing on.
What God told Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were God's original human design for how the family unit was supposed to look. Adam, the husband and father was to be the intermediary between God and Adam's household. Now, this doesn't mean he was better than Eve, it just meant his role in the family was different. So naturally God's messages would have been communicated to Adam first and then it was Adam's responsibility to relay the info. How do we know this was God's design for the family? B/c it is the reflection of the relationship between God and Jesus and Jesus' bride, the church (body of believers).
Your second example The way you phrased this means you leave yourself at the mercy of what "clear" is. Just b/c you personally don't understand the communication doesn't mean it was a failure on God's part to communicate clearly. What if it was a failure on your part to correctly process the communication?
Studying on your part. Owlmirror, when you were in school and you came across a math problem that didn't make sense to you at the outset, did the confusion on your part automatically mean the algorithm was incorrect? All I'm saying is before you jump to conclusions about the Bible's authenticity, perhaps you should at least afford it the same time and consideration that you gave to your studies in school.
Definitions of clear. So are you saying just b/c an issue is clear for one individual that that means it will automatically be clear for the next person?
Eviction and death. Again, just b/c this issue isn't clear to you doesn't automatically invalidate it.
Answering my question about your presence. I agree neither of us was there, yet I bring written testimony of those who were there. So are you saying just b/c the Bible is an old text, it is automatically invalid? Also, are you implying that if Yahweh exists within the parameters described by the Bible, that He wouldn't be able to protect His written word from humans? Only one direction to go on this now...
1=2. Again, just b/c you don't understand a concept or refuse to acknowledge its validity doesn't affect its truth. Recall my gravity illustration: My personal choice to say gravity doesn't exist has no affect on its validity.
Time. It's true I don't get to redo last Tuesday, but that doesn't mean there isn't a renewal of my time. Money. You're blending lines again. It's true I probably will never see the $5 bill I spend yesterday, but I can receive another five dollars tomorrow. Two different subjects.
Brain-damaged. My, my. I can't believe a "reasonable" anti-theist would insinuate such a thing. But those not in control of their emotions frequently resort to name calling. Ask any parent what would automatically make his/her parental role a success and he/she will tell you that it would be the act of giving their life for their kids.
Owlmirror:
Limitations. Why do you say I put human limitations on God?
Inocnvenience. So just b/c the suffering and death were temporary, that automatically means it never happened? "Since God could completely undo it, and did completely undo it, it wasn't much of a sacrifice." Ah, now we're getting somewhere. That's different than what you were saying initially. Why do you believe that just b/c God had the ability to right a wrong, it somehow lessened the importance of the sacrifice?
Analogy. I'm not talking about personal dynamics here. You blend lines on issues again. The subject was: does the ability to rebuild something negate the loss of that something. Temporary inconvenience. You are saying that because you perceive a topic one way, then that automatically means God must see it that way as well.
Basic logic. You are again at the mercy of what basic logic is. What is basic logic to you may not be basic logic to another. This shows again you argue solely from your human opinion. And if all human opinions are equal (b/c in your world there is no God), then your opinion is just as valid as mine and you can't say I'm wrong b/c there is no right or wrong.
God's power over death. You blend lines again. Because Jesus' death wasn't permanent doesn't negate that He died or the seriousness and brutality of His death.
Old books. Then I fully expect you to never quote Nietzsche or Plato, etc. b/c their writings are no longer valid as they are contained in old books.
God's use of new technology. Again, the key here is you iwll get hung up on the definitions of verification and clear communication. Always leaving a trap door for yourself...
Literature. So secular history books written by fallible humans are valid, but you then say the Bible is invalid b/c it was written by humans. Double standards.
Bull****. Temper, temper. By your own admission you haven't put much effort into studying biblical claims. So how do you know? If I don't know you personally, how can I accurately define your parameters?
Holiness. This is a true testament to how much you haven't studied the Bible and are just parroting out the popular atheist rhetoric. A&E were original masterpieces and were able to conversate directly at one time with God b/c they had not been marred by sin (until the fall). The holiness of God's presence only affects those incumbered by sin. Recall that God uses angels to verbalize His messages to humans. Why don't you read up on the dynamics of holiness.
1 Kings 19:12. If you look at 19:5, you'll see it was an angel directly speaking to Elijah as an intercessory for God.
Owlmirror:
Human understanding. So are you saying humans don't understand the written word as well as verbalizations? What if God could communicate to us in a form of telepathy? I mean, you understand your own thoughts, right? So why couldn't God communicate to you that way, through your mind? Or through music, stories, etc.?
Written communication = the Bible. But again, we come back to what your definition of clear communication is.
Convincing demonstration. Now, remember, what's convincing for you may not be convincing to another. What if other individuals didn't want to hear you or didn't care? Would you ask God to trample their free will and force them to listen? But even if they listen, will they accept? They might say you are hallucinating.
What has God done lately? Would you listen to personal accounts?
How do you know no dead person has come back? Would you believe the individual who says it happened? On the contrary, what if the dead weren't allowed to talk to the living?
Evidence. So that's the key, is it: Since I don't bring evidence that convinces you personally, then that automatically means God doesn't exist?
I could give you personal accounts of how God has spoken to me. But would you believe it?
Mind your temper. Cussing means you willingly hand me more credibility, and I want this to be a fair debate. I'd prefer to have points that I myself earned.
Silence. Are you sure you just haven't been able to recognize Yahweh's voice?
I have nothing, or you just don't like what I've presented?
Basic logic. Again, depends on what your definitino is her and if others agree with you (relatively speaking). So what tips the scales if human opinions are all we have? Hmm...
«"What God told Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were God's original human design for how the family unit was supposed to look. Adam, the husband and father was to be the intermediary between God and Adam's household."»
That's just your skewed opinion.
And it's also irrelevant. God did not clearly communicate what would happen if they ate the fruit. God did not speak up when the serpent talked to Eve. God did not speak up when Eve spoke to Adam. Those are failures of communication.
«"Just b/c you personally don't understand the communication doesn't mean it was a failure on God's part to communicate clearly."»
Yes, it does. That's what "failure to communicate clearly" means.
«"All I'm saying is before you jump to conclusions about the Bible's authenticity, perhaps you should at least afford it the same time and consideration that you gave to your studies in school."»
Who is jumping to conclusions? I have studied the bible and analyzed it in light of everything I know about the way the world works.
You, in contrast, obviously have not.
«"So are you saying just b/c an issue is clear for one individual that that means it will automatically be clear for the next person?"»
No -- it's quite obvious, for example, that basic logic is not clear to you at all.
«"Eviction and death. Again, just b/c this issue isn't clear to you doesn't automatically invalidate it."»
Yes, it does. If there is an absolute standard of morality based on not doing to others what you would not have done unto you, then under that standard, God is guilty and evil.
God may have a reason or excuse, but without offering that reason or excuse in his own defense, God remains judged evil by that basic standard.
«"Answering my question about your presence. I agree neither of us was there, yet I bring written testimony of those who were there."»
No, you don't. None of the apostles were at the alleged trial; none of them were there at the alleged crucifixion; none of them were there at the alleged resurrection.
And you have no proof that the stories were written down by witnesses, anyway. The earliest fragment known is from almost than a century after the alleged events.
And written testimony is not a good enough standard for miracles. You don't accept the written testimony about Krishna or Rama.
If your God is real, then he could demonstrate his own existence here and now to everyone so that they could understand. God does not do any such thing, therefore your God does not exist.
«"So are you saying just b/c the Bible is an old text, it is automatically invalid?"»
No, it is automatically invalid because it contradicts itself and reality.
(...continues...)
~~continued~~
«"1=2. Again, just b/c you don't understand a concept or refuse to acknowledge its validity doesn't affect its truth. Recall my gravity illustration: My personal choice to say gravity doesn't exist has no affect on its validity."»
You offer yet another false analogy. Gravity is not contradicted by reality. 1=2 contradicts the reality of what "one" means, what "equals" means, and what "two" means.
You still have nothing.
«"It's true I don't get to redo last Tuesday, but that doesn't mean there isn't a renewal of my time. "»
I'm not blending lines; you're just not comprehending basic logic. Time past is gone permanently. Last Tuesday is gone forever.
«"Money. You're blending lines again. It's true I probably will never see the $5 bill I spend yesterday, but I can receive another five dollars tomorrow."»
Oh really? If you think that money spent is exactly the same as money that you get, then just cash one of your paychecks and send me the money. After all, you'll just get another one.
But I know that you won't, because money spent is gone permanently.
«"Brain-damaged. My, my. I can't believe a "reasonable" anti-theist would insinuate such a thing."»
It's a pity, but I'm pretty sure that you are in some way brain damaged.
«"But those not in control of their emotions frequently resort to name calling."»
Those not in control of their reason frequently fail to understand basic logic.
«"Ask any parent what would automatically make his/her parental role a success and he/she will tell you that it would be the act of giving their life for their kids."»
Nonsense. I am certain that most parents would agree that what would make their parental role a success would be living to see their children grow up and have children of their own, and even those grandchildren have children of their own, for as many generations as possible.
Are you own parents still alive? You could even ask them the question: Do you consider it a greater success to see me alive now, or do you think it would have been better for you to have given your lives for me?
If it is the latter, I am sorry that you have suicidal parents.
Do you have children? Do you really think that it would be better for you to die for them than to see them grow up?
If it is the former, I am sorry that your children have a suicidal parent.
«"Limitations. Why do you say I put human limitations on God?"»
Because by your own theology, God transcends time and is eternal, omnipotent and omniscient. Therefore, God cannot lose anything permanently. Therefore, human standards and limitations do not apply.
«" So just b/c the suffering and death were temporary, that automatically means it never happened? "»
No, it just means that it was not significant. On the scale of infinity and eternity, no finite event has any significance.
«"Why do you believe that just b/c God had the ability to right a wrong, it somehow lessened the importance of the sacrifice?"»
Because if it was completely undone, it was not a sacrifice.
If you dropped a fragile vase, which shattered in a thousand fragments, then snapped your fingers and all the fragments reassembled so that the vase became exactly as it was before it broke, the fact that it did shatter is not really significant. You have the vase back.
«"The subject was: does the ability to rebuild something negate the loss of that something."»
Not just rebuild, but rebuild exactly as it was before it broke. Yes, it does negate the loss.
«"Temporary inconvenience. You are saying that because you perceive a topic one way, then that automatically means God must see it that way as well."»
No, it means that from the perspective of the eternal, the finite is always meaninglessly insignificant.
«"You are again at the mercy of what basic logic is. What is basic logic to you may not be basic logic to another."»
Right, because you neither accept or understand basic logic.
«"This shows again you argue solely from your human opinion."»
No, I argue from logic, you do not.
«"And if all human opinions are equal"»
They aren't.
«"then your opinion is just as valid as mine and you can't say I'm wrong b/c there is no right or wrong."»
No, you are wrong because you do not accept or understand basic logic. If logic has any meaning at all, there is indeed right (which is that which does not contradict itself or reality), and wrong (which is that which does contradict itself and/or reality, like you do).
«"Because Jesus' death wasn't permanent doesn't negate that He died or the seriousness and brutality of His death."»
Again, you fail to understand the basic logic. If the death was negated by God, then the seriousness and brutality was negated as well.
«"Then I fully expect you to never quote Nietzsche or Plato, etc. b/c their writings are no longer valid as they are contained in old books."»
You still fail at reading what I wrote.
(...continues...)
~~continued~~
«"Again, the key here is you iwll get hung up on the definitions of verification and clear communication."»
If God really communicated, he could communicate clearly in such a way that I would indeed accept it -- because he would know what standards of verification and clear communication I would accept.
«"So secular history books written by fallible humans are valid, but you then say the Bible is invalid b/c it was written by humans. Double standards."»
Nope. Single standard. Fallible humans are corrected by reality. The fallible humans who wrote the bible are also corrected by reality -- it's just that the corrections are not entered in the bible itself.
«"Temper, temper."»
If you want me to keep my temper, don't offer me bullshit.
«"By your own admission you haven't put much effort into studying biblical claims."»
Since I have made no such admission, you are simply offering bullshit, again.
«"A&E were original masterpieces and were able to conversate directly at one time with God b/c they had not been marred by sin (until the fall)."»
And your own claim was that God spoke to them after they had been evicted, so you contradict yourself. You also fail to take into account God speaking directly to Cain, the murderer, and all the others in the list which you simply ignored.
In other words, you are offering more bullshit.
«"The holiness of God's presence only affects those incumbered by sin."»
Which, according to your own theology, is everyone from Adam and Eve on down to the present.
«"Recall that God uses angels to verbalize His messages to humans."»
Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. There isn't much consistency in it.
«"Why don't you read up on the dynamics of holiness."»
Why don't you stop offering bullshit?
«"1 Kings 19:12. If you look at 19:5, you'll see it was an angel directly speaking to Elijah as an intercessory for God."»
If you look at 19:9 and 19:11 and 19:15, you'll see that Yahweh himself is speaking. You can't even read your own bible, and instead offer more bullshit.
«"So are you saying humans don't understand the written word as well as verbalizations?"»
Some humans have not yet learned to read -- they are illiterate. Some humans don't understand what they read, like you failed to understand that I wrote that we are not communicating using old books. We are writing words here and now -- I am not throwing a volume of Plato at you. You also failed to read all of 1 Kings 19 -- you stopped at the word "angel", and failed to read on to where it said that the Lord himself spoke.
So for the most part, most humans do indeed understand verbalizations better than the written word.
«"What if God could communicate to us in a form of telepathy? I mean, you understand your own thoughts, right? So why couldn't God communicate to you that way, through your mind? "»
Sure, that could count as clear communication -- if God made it clear that he was not just a crazy voice in my head by giving me evidence that I could verify in the real world; something that I did not already know and could not know without supernatural information.
«"Or through music, stories, etc.?"»
No, music is not really clear communication. A story might help make something clearer, but it is not sufficient in and of itself.
«"Now, remember, what's convincing for you may not be convincing to another."»
If God knows how to convince me, he knows what would convince others.
«"What if other individuals didn't want to hear you or didn't care?"»
If God can talk to me and convince me, he can talk to them and convince them. He doesn't need me as a mouthpiece.
«"Would you ask God to trample their free will and force them to listen?"»
If God convinces them that he is real and is God, and they don't care, and ask God to leave them alone, that's fair.
Of course, if they change their minds, I would expect God to respond when they try and talk to him.
«"But even if they listen, will they accept? They might say you are hallucinating."»
Not if God tells me what would convince them, or tells them what would convince them.
(...continues...)
~~~continued~~~
«"What has God done lately? Would you listen to personal accounts?"»
Not unless they are based on real-world evidence that it was God acting, and no other explanation is possible.
«"How do you know no dead person has come back? Would you believe the individual who says it happened? "»
It depends. If they managed to convince me that no other explanation was possible, maybe.
«"On the contrary, what if the dead weren't allowed to talk to the living?"»
Is God so evil that he not only does not talk himself, but does not allow the dead to speak to their loved ones among the living?
«"Evidence. So that's the key, is it: Since I don't bring evidence that convinces you personally, then that automatically means God doesn't exist?"»
Yes. If God was was real, then God could talk to me and tell me something that would convince me.
And even if God was not willing to talk to me but was willing to talk to you, God could tell you what to say or write that would convince me.
Instead, you have only convinced me that you have no idea what truth is, and don't particularly care, either.
«"I could give you personal accounts of how God has spoken to me. But would you believe it?"»
No. If it was actually God that spoke to you at that time, God could speak to you now and tell you what to write to convince me. It's infinitely more likely that you hallucinated a voice.
«"Cussing means you willingly hand me more credibility, and I want this to be a fair debate."»
No, cussing means that your unfair bullshit and lack of credibility has disgusted and outraged me -- and I'm pretty patient.
«"I'd prefer to have points that I myself earned."»
You have not earned any "points". You have failed to convince me that you know basic logic or care about truth.
«"Silence. Are you sure you just haven't been able to recognize Yahweh's voice?"»
Yes. Recognition would require real-world verification.
«"I have nothing, or you just don't like what I've presented?"»
You have nothing but your own skewed opinion.
Owlmirror:
Deuteronomy scriptures. Just look up Chemosh or Molech on the net and you'll find out how their followers were instructed to worship. You jump to conclusions too quickly and prematurely claim ignorance b/c if you were to actually do homewrok, you'd find answers. But you keep requesting I do the work for you b/c you're scared to find out the truth. This is also the reason for your "Don't ask me" comment. It's a way for you to avoid actually doing any work. It shows I have you cornered.
All you can say... Exactly. All you have is what you say. That is not the equivalent of evidence.
Midianites. I gave you evidence and b/c you didn't like it and didn't do any of your own research, you just threw out smoke screens to detract attention. Well, Oz, what are you going to do now that people are peeking behind the curtain?
Ropes and hanging. I gave a metaphorical phrase. You, on the other hand, made a personal attack.
Present for past occurences. Just b/c the text instructs the Israelites to kill doesn't mean the soldiers enjoyed doing it. This was war. What would have been worse, killing the women and children during a period of time when they couldn't support themselves w/o the help of men or to let them suffer and starve?
Interpretation. Since when do you care about interpretations that don't match your own know-it-all perception?
Your ultimate argument. Show me why I'm wrong. Again, you continue to forget to provide follow-ups and reasons why you believe what you believe.
Howdy, Cromm!
Babies in utero. So how do you know when a baby is "clearly" involved? Your interpretatin may be different than the next individual's. This illustrates the need for an absolute standard. How do you know that an embryo doesn't feel pain or think, etc.? What if b/c their systems are so underdeveloped that they feel more pain than an individual with a fully developed system? So are you saying that b/c the human in utero is smaller than the human mother, it automatically means it's not entitled to the right to live? So size is the fulcrum on which this argument tilts? In that case, I dare you to got to a little people convention and shout that at the top of your lungs.
Sentient being. Again, how dow you know embryos aren't sentient beings?
I don't have to adopt your definition. That is what we call relativism. So what about killing a retarded or underdeveloped adult? Or an unresponsive adult Alzheimer's patient? When do you close the lid on this Pandora's box once it is opened?
So are you saying b/c an embryo is dependent, they aren't human? What of newborns or small children? Don't they depend on their parents to survive? I mean, you couldn't turn them out on their own in the world and expect them to survive.
Verbal jujutsu. I had a good laugh over that one. I'm going to enjoy our continued debates.
Relativistic stance. Yes, you did claim it. See the above reference. You imply animal life = human life b/c you said not being a vegatarian means I don't value life in general.
Definition of life. "An organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli and reproduction." Looks like zygotes, embryos and fetuses are covered under that definition. But look, this is one of those things that gets a culturally popular definition, albeit a confusing one, because people, in general, don't bother to look up the word in a dictionary. Sperm and eggs. Well, if they weren't alive, then why are they not considered dead cells like the top layer of your skin?
«"Deuteronomy scriptures. Just look up Chemosh or Molech on the net and you'll find out how their followers were instructed to worship."»
Just like the Israelites were instructed to kill the male children for Yahweh.
«"But you keep requesting I do the work for you"»
I have not asked you do to any work. You made the false accusation -- you can always retract it instead of digging yourself in deeper and deeper.
«"This is also the reason for your "Don't ask me" comment. It's a way for you to avoid actually doing any work. It shows I have you cornered."»
Only in your brain-damaged and deluded mind.
«"All you have is what you say. That is not the equivalent of evidence."»
All you offer is your own skewed opinion. That is indeed not the equivalent of evidence to support your false accusation.
«"Midianites. I gave you evidence and b/c you didn't like it and didn't do any of your own research, you just threw out smoke screens to detract attention"»
You didn't give evidence. You made a false accusation, and threw out smoke screens to detract attention from the fact that your research failed, making you a liar.
«"I gave a metaphorical phrase. You, on the other hand, made a personal attack."»
The metaphorical phrase was a personal attack of the same type -- and you made it first.
«"Present for past occurences. Just b/c the text instructs the Israelites to kill doesn't mean the soldiers enjoyed doing it. This was war."»
It was not war. The battle itself was over. The male children and non-virgin women were unarmed prisoners.
By any absolute standard of morality based on not doing unto others what you would not want done to yourself, it was a war crime; a massacre.
«"What would have been worse, killing the women and children during a period of time when they couldn't support themselves w/o the help of men or to let them suffer and starve?"»
Either way, the soldiers would be responsible for their deaths -- since they stole all of their food; every last crumb. At least if they were left alive, they could have made the attempt to find food somewhere.
You really bend over backwards to support war crimes. It's pretty disgusting.
«"Since when do you care about interpretations that don't match your own know-it-all perception?"»
Well, I agree that your interpretation is a skewed opinion that throws up smoke screens so as to defend genocidal war crimes.
«"Your ultimate argument. Show me why I'm wrong."»
You're wrong because you're a moral hypocrite who offers false accusations, and supports war crimes and genocide.
Cromm:
Continuing on.
Yahweh. Why do you assume that just b/c I ask a question that I, myself, am struggling with its implications? Does the fact that people take life without permission make it right?
Human-made gods. Ah, ah, ah. I asked you first. Proper conversation etiquette requires you to answer first. Unless you were just coming up with a slick way to avoid doing any homework on your end... You can't engage in these types of debates if you're not willing to go that extra mile.
Life belongs to Yahweh. Think back to when you were a kid, Cromm. When you made a science project, did any other kid have the authority to mess with your project? Not unless you were involved or gave permission.
You call it like you see it. So it's a perception issue then, is it? What if you don't understand what you see? Strikes you as pointless, huh? Evidence you should do more homework on the why factor. Ever wonder why there was brutality in the Bible?
Whiplash. Again, you argue from a skewed perception point. Tell me why "it seems" I understand burden of proof one moment then don't in the next. Merely making a declarative statement proves nothing. You must explain the why factor.
Why do you believe the burden isn't on you to prove your skepticism? Again, you must do your follow-ups. Merely stating something doesn't make it so.
Web address. This just reiterates what I wrote earlier about the divine sanction vs. divine permission dynamic. If you had actually read the referencing scriptures on this subject, you would have seen that God ultimately didn't want people to participate in slavery and encourages slaves to gain their emancipation. But since His sanctions were frequently ignored, He gave guidelines to operate within if the practice was engaged in. Recall my teenager illustration: We tell teenagers not to have sex before marriage, but we give them guidelines to operate within if they engage in that practice. Certainly sex within marriage is God's best plan, but because that sanction is frequently ignored, there are guidelines for operating outside of those parameters.
"Your team's problem, I'd say." Your opinion. What if this was one of the ways to prove God's validity? Same with the sects comment.
Not satisfactory to you. Again, your relativism rearing its ugly head.
Representatives of a morally perfect being. Cromm, can I jduge you by the actions of your sister, neighbor or your child who is fully capable of making his own moral decisions? If not, then why do you use this standard for God? Why should we judge a morally perfect being by the actions of immoral, non-perfect finite humans?
Owlmirror:
Hate. See John 14:21 and 14:23. One only has to have a child to know they can be prideful. The whole "mine" stage is a testament to this. Pride is a sin just like any other. And since God does not use sliding scales, all sin warrants death. Just b/c you don't like it doesn't mean it's an invalid concept. None of the awful things you described would have happened if sin wasn't present in the world and people loved God and one another before they loved themselves.
Yahweh's orders. This just proves that sin causes devastation. The nations Israel went to war with picked the fights first, and the Hebrews only went to war after all other options were exhausted.
I'm sorry you feel that pain, sickness and suffering will last forever. That's an awful perspective to be burdened with.
"the hell with everyone else..." I've told you b/4 that God sacrificed Himself so everyone could have their slates wiped clean. It all boils down to: they have the free will to accept the gift or not.
Yahweh didn't destroy the lives. It was a direct result of sin.
Prove your comments about the scriptures' origins are correct. Also, when you write a letter, does the pen write it or do you? If the Bible was just written by humans, then why keep all the confusing stuff in there? Why not edit all that out to make the Bible appear in a better light?
«"Hate. See John 14:21 and 14:23. "»
You throw up another smokescreen of irrelevant verses to avoid addressing the point. So you're still making a false accusation.
«"One only has to have a child to know they can be prideful. The whole "mine" stage is a testament to this."»
That's selfishness, which is not exactly the same as "pride".
Children can be taught that selfishness is wrong. Killing them teaches them nothing.
«"Pride is a sin just like any other. And since God does not use sliding scales, all sin warrants death."»
Make up your mind, will you? Either God does not want for children to be slaughtered, or God wants all children, and everyone on earth, to be slaughtered. You can't have it both ways.
«"None of the awful things you described would have happened if sin wasn't present in the world and people loved God and one another before they loved themselves."»
You are completely insane, and a complete moral hypocrite. The male children -- including infants -- were slaughtered because no one taught them to love God and each other. But of course, that just shows that God and the Israelites were full of hate, too, because slaughtering children -- instead of teaching them -- is an act of hate, not an act of love. So God and the Israelites deserved to be slaughtered too, because they too did not love the children and the non-virgin women before themselves.
«"Yahweh's orders. This just proves that sin causes devastation. The nations Israel went to war with picked the fights first, and the Hebrews only went to war after all other options were exhausted."»
No, they didn't. The bible is quite clear: Israel picked the fights and killed whoever they wanted, without mercy. The "other options" were for the nations to just submit and be slaves -- as the result of Israel picking the fight in the first place.
«"I'm sorry you feel that pain, sickness and suffering will last forever. That's an awful perspective to be burdened with."»
I'm sorry you feel that God, the creator of the universe, wants us to feel pain, sickness and suffering. That's a disgusting perspective to be burdened with.
«""the hell with everyone else..." I've told you b/4 that God sacrificed Himself so everyone could have their slates wiped clean. It all boils down to: they have the free will to accept the gift or not."»
God did not wipe the slate clean if we still feel pain, sickness, and suffering, and go to hell, so what you told me before was a lie.
«"Yahweh didn't destroy the lives. It was a direct result of sin."»
No, it was a direct result of Yahweh KILLING or ordering the Israelites to KILL. Yahweh is therefore directly responsible for the destruction of lives.
And since knowledge and power confer responsibility, Yahweh is also responsible for sin, and therefore indirectly responsible for all lives destroyed because of sin.
«"Prove your comments about the scriptures' origins are correct. "»
I could direct you to several books' worth of biblical archaeology and historical analysis, but I'm not sure what the point would be. You can't even read verses in your own damn bible when they are right in front of you, and keep straight what they say, so I'm sure that you wouldn't bother reading the scholarly sources, and couldn't keep them straight if you did.
«"If the Bible was just written by humans, then why keep all the confusing stuff in there? Why not edit all that out to make the Bible appear in a better light?"»
Probably because they didn't know or didn't care about the contradictions within the bible, and with reality -- kind of like you.
Ack. Preview is my friend.
Hey there Blue;
Babies in utero. So how do you know when a baby is "clearly" involved? Your interpretatin may be different than the next individual's. This illustrates the need for an absolute standard.
I told you what the standard is: sentience.
How do you know that an embryo doesn't feel pain or think, etc.
They don't have brains, or even nervous systems, until they've developed to a certain point. At that point, I would start to consider their interests.
So are you saying that b/c the human in utero is smaller than the human mother, it automatically means it's not entitled to the right to live?
No. Quit making shit up.
Sentient being. Again, how dow you know embryos aren't sentient beings?
See above.
I don't have to adopt your definition. That is what we call relativism.
Excuse me? My definition isn't "relativism.
So what about killing a retarded or underdeveloped adult? Or an unresponsive adult Alzheimer's patient?
Those are sentient beings.
When do you close the lid on this Pandora's box once it is opened?
When sentience is involved. Like I keep saying. I can't state it any more clearly. When a being suffers, and is aware that it suffers, it's entitled to have its' interests considered.
(continues)
So are you saying b/c an embryo is dependent, they aren't human?
No. Quite making shit up.
Verbal jujutsu. I had a good laugh over that one. I'm going to enjoy our continued debates.
I'll enjoy them more if you respond to what I actually say.
Relativistic stance. Yes, you did claim it. See the above reference. You imply animal life = human life b/c you said not being a vegatarian means I don't value life in general.
For fuck's sake, man. If you're not a vegetarian, then you don't value "life in general", as evidenced by your willingness to destroy it. That's true by definition, it's not my opinion and it's not "relativism". That's why I asked you to define "life". The word "life" could refer to anything living.
Definition of life. "An organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli and reproduction." Looks like zygotes, embryos and fetuses are covered under that definition.
Sure are. So are cows, chickens, pigs, bacteria and slime molds, and yet we kill them all the time with little or no objection from most Christians. Since you've put this extremely broad definition out there, I must ask; do you object to killing anything and everything that lives?
Sperm and eggs. Well, if they weren't alive, then why are they not considered dead cells like the top layer of your skin?
Eh? I said that sperm and eggs are alive.
Yahweh. Why do you assume that just b/c I ask a question that I, myself, am struggling with its implications? Does the fact that people take life without permission make it right?
I don't believe in Yahweh, but you do. So, if you ask the question why would the ability to give and take life be available to anyone but Yahweh, there's no burden on me to answer it for you, especially given the fact that the ability to take life is available to virtually everyone. You're essentially asking me to answer a question that's contradicted, on its' face, by reality, and that I have no pressing interest in having answered anyway. To me, it's really no different than a rabid Star Trek fan trying to resolve the internal contradictions of their fictional universe; interesting academically, perhaps, but not really my cup of tea.
Human-made gods. Ah, ah, ah. I asked you first. Proper conversation etiquette requires you to answer first.
My apologies, but I don't know what you're talking about here, and I don't really want to comb back through the comment thread. What do you want answered?
Life belongs to Yahweh. Think back to when you were a kid, Cromm. When you made a science project, did any other kid have the authority to mess with your project? Not unless you were involved or gave permission.
I don't recall making sentient life (which, I should really have clarified, is what I'm discussing here. If Yahweh wanted to create and destroy life that doesn't experience anything at all, I wouldn't really object). So that would be a false analogy. It's also a poor one for another reason, namely the fact that no one had
You call it like you see it. So it's a perception issue then, is it? What if you don't understand what you see? Strikes you as pointless, huh? Evidence you should do more homework on the why factor.
What if, indeed. But talk is cheap. You can claim I don't understand things all day long if it pleases you, but it will impress me not one jot. If you think I haven't understood something, explain how.
Tell me why "it seems" I understand burden of proof one moment then don't in the next. Merely making a declarative statement proves nothing. You must explain the why factor.
Your wish is my command.
Basic logic entails that whenever a claim is made, the burden of proof always lies on the person making the positive version of that claim. It is never lies with the skeptic. Skeptics are never required to prove the negative version of the claim.
You understood this instinctively when you protested at having to prove the negative version of my positive claim (that I have an invisible unicorn).
You failed to understand this when you demanded that I prove the negative version of your positive claim (that Yahweh exists).
Why do you believe the burden isn't on you to prove your skepticism? Again, you must do your follow-ups. Merely stating something doesn't make it so.
Like I say, that's how basic logic works. Look it up if you wish, it's not my personal opinion. It's structured this way to avoid absurdities, deception and practical difficulties. If it weren't, I would be free to demand, in all seriousness, that you prove that I DON'T have an invisible unicorn, which is absurd and indeed impossible for you to do.
If you had actually read the referencing scriptures on this subject, you would have seen that God ultimately didn't want people to participate in slavery and encourages slaves to gain their emancipation.
That doesn't rebut my point. I claimed that some Christians feel that slavery can be rendered acceptable under some cultural conditions. And lo and behold, the Christian apologetic link I gave you shows Christians saying God thought slavery was OK under some cultural conditions, therefore it must have been (so they say). If you wish to dispute that interpretation, take it up with them.
"Your team's problem, I'd say." Your opinion. What if this was one of the ways to prove God's validity? Same with the sects comment.
Talk is cheap, buddy. What are you going to do to back this up?
Not satisfactory to you. Again, your relativism rearing its ugly head.
I apply my standards universally. On what basis are you labelling me a relativist?
Cromm, can I jduge you by the actions of your sister, neighbor or your child who is fully capable of making his own moral decisions?
No, you can't. I don't make their decisions for them.
Also, my child is not "fully" capable of making their own moral decisions. That's why we have separate standards of jurisprudence for trying children who commit crimes.
Why should we judge a morally perfect being by the actions of immoral, non-perfect finite humans?
Because they are sometimes claimed to have acted on its' orders.
I just noticed I didn't finish this sentence:
It's also a poor one for another reason, namely the fact that no one had
That should read;
It's also a poor one for another reason, namely the fact that no one had the authority to mess with my science project, including the people who assigned it to me. If this is supposed to be analogous to Yahweh, then he wouldn't have the authority to mess with his own creations.
It also occurs to me that you haven't explained why it's acceptable for Yahweh to take sentient life at his discretion. So far, you've said "because he made it", but that doesn't answer the question. Why, according to you, would Yahweh having made sentient life confer on him the right to destroy it at will?
Hey Cromm,
(pity we can't do nested blockquotes; oh well)
«"Relativistic stance. Yes, you did claim it. See the above reference. You imply animal life = human life b/c you said not being a vegatarian means I don't value life in general.
For fuck's sake, man. If you're not a vegetarian, then you don't value "life in general", as evidenced by your willingness to destroy it. That's true by definition, it's not my opinion and it's not "relativism". That's why I asked you to define "life". The word "life" could refer to anything living."»
In fact, it's exactly the opposite of a "relativistic stance". Valuing all life equally is an absolutist stance. Valuing human life above animal life is a relativistic stance.
Of course, taking the question to some extreme cases, a cancerous tumor is life, and can even be human life (that is, its genetic code is mostly that of the human it develops in), which raises the question of how far an absolutist stance will actually go...
Owlmirror:
Show me why you believe what I've brought to the table regarding the original design for the family dynamic is just my skewed opinion. Merely stating something doesn't make it so.
How do you know God didn't clearly communicate to Adam and Eve about the penalities for eating the fruit? You have to remember, they were on a different cognitive level than you are now. What if God communicated to them on a level they understood at that time?
Does this mean just b/c you personally don't understand this concept, it's invalid? Recall the math illustration.
"I have studied the Bible and analyzed it in light of everything I know about the way the world works." Again, we run into a perception issue. What if what you "know" is really just what you "perceive"? Also, you imply here that you have infinite knowledge of how the world works.
"Clear" issues. Again you use your basic logic argument. But in a relativistic society, how can you say your definition of basic logic is absolute? What if another human disagrees with you? Where do you turn then, to another human with similar views for validation?
Absolute standards of morality. So are you saying that when a parent diciplines his child, he automatically is being evil? But then I'm sure from here you'll launch into a discussion about how unfair and evil it is to equate one solitary sin w/death. To which I will answer: How do you know what's fair? You imply there's a system of sliding scales regarding punishment of wrongdoing. But then we must ask, whose sliding scale do we use and how can we really know if a punishment fits any crime? What human or group of humans can say they are so far above reproach as to dictate such a thing?
Reason and excuse. You say God hasn't offered any reasons or excuses for why He does what He does. Don't you mean He hasn't given you a reason that you like?
Presence. You admit you weren't present for Christ's crucifixion. So how do you know who was there and who wasn't? Are you sure none of them were there for the trial, death and resurrection? Better check again. Just b/c they weren't next to Jesus' side doesn't mean they weren't on the periphery.
Proof from witnesses. Again, your statements here assume God doesn't have the power to make His holy Word whole and protect it from human fallibility. But if He puts so much effort into stressing the Bible's importance, then why wouldn't He protect it?
Krishna or Rama. Do you mean Ramakrishna? And why are you still asking for my personal perception? Depending on where you're going with this, we may have to break down the Hindu parameters on what a god is.
God has demonstrated He is real, but He won't force you to acknowledge anything. Therein lies your dichotomy. Just b/c He clearly reveals doesn't mean people will accept. Be careful not to venture over the line into forcing people to see what they don't want to see.
Contradictions and reality. So are you saying that anything with perceived contradictions is automatically invalidated? If you are, then you are essentially saying that what you bring is invalid b/c you have contradicted yourself in the past. Unless you mean you are the only one in which that standard does not apply...
Owlmirror:
False analogy. You're misunderstanding what point I was arguing -- But wait! That couldn't be. Owlmirror never misunderstands anything, right? I wasn't saying gravity is contradicted by reality. I was coming at this from the human perception angle. Does a human really believing w/all their might that gravity does not exist have any effect at all on its existence?
Last Tuesday. Tell me why you're not blending lines. I was speaking of the renewal of time in general. You are speaking of specific dates. Again, do you see how one can be tripped up by perception?
Money. Again, it's a perception issue. We are debating two different topics here.
Brain damaged. Notice how you said, "I'm pretty sure", still indicating you are limited by your perception. You keep making my arguments for me.
Reason and basic logic. Why should I have to understand your version of basic logic? You sound more and more like a despot. You seek to strip away others' free will so they will be a carbon copy of you and agree with you b/c you're the one with all the answers.
Nonsense. You are certain most parents would agree. How do you know that? So that's all that's required to make something valid, a majority vote? If that is correct, then what of California's Prop. 8? What if seeing your children grow meant seeing them grow into drug addicts? Does that mean the parent was successful?
Why do you equate the desire of a parent to sacrifice his/her life for their children w/being suicidal? Again, you sure do like to blend lines.
Whether or not I have children. What makes you think that after an individual dies, he/she won't be able to see their children grow up?
Again, you blend lines on sacrifice and suicide. The issues are separate and apart.
Owlmirror:
Why do you say God can't lose anything permanently? If hell is eternal separation from God, wouldn't He "lose" a person if they end up in hell? You're also implying here that just b/c God's suffering and loss when Jesus was brutally killed wasn't permanent, that means the suffering and loss wasn't real -- or at the very least wasn't valid. Why do you assume suffering and loss is just something humans go through? Why do you equate it with a human limitation? What if a limitation was a good thing?
The finite have no significance to the infinite. Again, evidence you don't know Yahweh's personality. But the dynamics you set up would be true of a despot. However, when you actually study who Yahweh is, you see this does not encompass Him.
Importance of sacrifice. So that's what you believe: Just b/c one knows sacrifice and suffering will not be permanent, it makes what that individual went through less significant? Right. Tell that to the man who just lost his job. But what if the effects of God's sacrifice are not only permanent but also retroactive?
Rebuilding. Now we are getting somewhere. What if Jesus' resurrection meant a whole new dynamic in our relationship with God? What if when what was broken was put back together, it was better than before?
The Eternal's prospective. If you were to have understood the Bible, then you would have known that each person is significant to Yahweh. He even has the hairs on our heads numbered. Again, evidence you do not know His personality.
Basic logic. I do not accept your version of what "basic logic" means. I do, however, understand it, as you have already explained it to me. Blending lines.
Why do you believe all humans aren't equal? Are you saying there's a scast system or advocating for a superior race or the owning of slaves? You are also arguing for coherence. But why should there be coherence in this venue or anywhere at all?
Permanency of Jesus' death. You're blending lines on two issues that are separate and apart.
I fail at reading what you wrote, or I don't agree with you? There's that old despot in you rearing his ugly head...
Owlmirror:
Getting hung up on clear definitions. What you are advocating for is God usurping human free will. If this is the only thing that will convince you, then you'll never be convinced. That's just not how Yahweh operates.
"Fallible humans are corrected by reality". Again, you imply there is a standard by which we measure these things that is based on human reasoning. But are you sure about that since all humans are fallible and subject to outside influences of all kinds?
Your temper. Oh, so that's the standard. As long as what I bring to the table is palatable to you personally, then that's okay. Everything else is B.S. Wow, how high and mighty of you.
Your own admissions. Have you ever sat in on a high school English Lit. class? If you have, then you know it's possible for individuals to "read" something and not get anything out of it -- or just plain have no idea what the story was about. By your incorrect assumptions about the Bible, you de facto admit you don't know what you've read.
Adam and Eve. I already gave you scriptures for verification. But here we are again at the perception argument. "You can lead a horse to water..."
God's different methods of communication. What if this wasn't a consistency issue; but, rather, it was a testament to God knowing an individual so well that He knew which method of communication they would best respond to?
Offering B.S. You keep giving me credibility when you froth at the mouth. This is the best kind of status quo. Please, continue on...
1 Kings. Again, this is evidence you don't know Yahweh or His parameters. He was speaking through the angel. Recall the pen illustration: When you write a letter does the pen write it or do you?
Owlmirror:
Communication methods. Again, you make my arguments for me. Are you implying that it's "inconsistent" to communicate to some people one way and communicate another way to a separate group of people? You assume I failed to read all of 1 Kings 19. But you know what happens when you assume...
"For the most part..." Are you saying just b/c a majority understand verbal communication that it's the best way to communicate?
How do you know music is not a clear communication? Wouldn't it be a good way to communicate to those who are musically inclined? Or what if one puts scriptures to song? Wouldn't that be a helpful way of memorizing?
Convincing to you and others. Again, you blend lines. Would God communicate to a deaf mute the same way He would communicate to you? What of those in the Amazon jungle who have never seen a sheep before? How would they understand the sheep/shepherd metaphore?
Fair. Think of the parent/child dynamic. If a parent knows a particular action is going to harm the child, doesn't the parent have a duty to at least warn the child of the impending danger? Also, if a parent loves her wayward child deeply, wouldn't she at least every now and again try to steer that child back to the straight and narrow?
God's response. Here we come back to you think your calls to Yahweh have gone unanswered. But what if you just don't recognize the sound of His voice? Next, in Jermiah 29:13, we hear God say to us: "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." So you can tell God knows our inner motives and can see into our hearts. And when we mockingly call to God and treat Him as some superficial genie, then we actually push Him further away. It is only when we are sincere in asking for God to reveal Himself that He will do so.
Listening. You underestimate the power of human denial. It's just like our conversations, Owlmirror. I can give you all the evidence for the existence of Yahweh and His parameters as outlined in the Bible. But I can't make you accept them. Those in our illustration would give you the same excuses you give to me now.
Owlmirror:
Presonal accounts. Again, you make my arguments for me. Real-world evidence. I told you that you'd leave a trap door for yourself. But what happens if your definition of "real-word evidence" was different than somebody else's?
Dead people. Again, you leave yourself a trap door. Typical. Why do you think God doesn't talk to Jesus? Speaking with the dead opens living people up to communication lines with individuals who are not loved ones. See Isaiah 8:19, "When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?"
Evidence for God's existence. Again, you underestimate the power of human denial. You ask for God to violate your free will. But that's not how He operates.
Truth. I have no idea what truth is, or you just don't like what I've presented?
Halluncinations. You keep making my arguments for me. I told you individuals who don't want God to exist will use the halluncinations escape hatch. "Infinitely more likely..." This in and of itself is a contradiction. Using the word "infinitely" implies you have infinite knowledge of something. But then you use "more likely", indicating you're not sure. And going with your parameters on contradictions, anything that seems to contradcit itself is de facto invalid. So you by your own admission cancelled yourself out.
Cussing and unfair B.S. Now we're getting somewhere. The jelly center of this proverbial donut is this: You run from Yahweh b/c you don't think it's fair that He possesses the right to ultimately judge our actions and has said one wrong doing is enough to send someone to eternal separation. Ultimately you don't want to be responsible for where you spend eternity, and it's easier for you to blame God b/c you think that if you just don't believe something is real, then its ramifications won't apply to you. But I've got news for you, OstrichMirror -- or Owlmirror -- When you stick your head in the sand, we can still see the rest of you. Merely saying something isn't there doesn't make it go away.
Your slate has been wiped clean if you would jsut accept that free gift from Christ. You can get off the crazy karma train b/c it's not about the works you do; it's about what Yahweh has done for you. He loves you. You don't have to be scared anymore. I'm glad you're outraged -- You're supposed to be. The whole purpose of this message is to upset your applecart. How else will you look at this from a different angle? So now I dare you to prove me wrong. I dare you tonight to say to God: "I am seeking you with all my heart, Yahweh. I want to know the truth. Please show me what that is. If you really are who you say you are, then please reveal yourself to me." You don't even have to admit to anyone at this blog that you did it. But do it -- in the privacy of your own home where there is no one but you and Yahweh.
Owlmirror:
Israelites instructed to kill male children. You blend lines again. You imply the children were sacrifices for Yahweh. I've shown you that the Hebrews were instructed to kill the inhabitants of a nation. Since the children were included, we see how this illustrates that innocent people can be affected by our bad actions.
False accusations. Again, you only make declarative statements and conveniently leave out the why factor. Merely making a comment doesn't mean its implications are correct.
"Don't ask me", brain-damaged and deluded. Again, just b/c you state something dosn't make it so. You keep making my arguments for me. You do no follow-up even after I've repeatedly reminded you. This will leave the silent readers of our debates wondering about the validity of your arguments...
Opinions. I came with back-up. You just didn't like any of it.
Liar. Uh-oh. Now you're doing the name calling thing again. Watch that temper. You might develop some ulcers. But if what I bring doesn't exist and right and wrong all hang on the reasoning of fallible humans, then who cares? That means there is no ultimate right or wrong, and you can't call me a liar b/c there is not truth to deviate from.
Metaphorical phrase. See what I mean about perceptions? Boy, you completely walked right into that one. Where I lead, you will follow.
War. You mean it was not war as you would define it, or how our culture would define it. But it was how this past culture or past societies did things back then.
Responsibility for the deaths. I thought you said God was responsible for the deaths? Now it's the soldiers? How do you know every last crumb was taken, Dr. Seuss?
War crimes. How can there be war crimes if this was no war, according to your definition of war? But again, who are you to judge what another culture does during another period of time?
«"Show me why you believe what I've brought to the table regarding the original design for the family dynamic is just my skewed opinion. Merely stating something doesn't make it so."»
It's just your own skewed opinion precisely because you merely stated it. You just stating it doesn't make it so.
«"How do you know God didn't clearly communicate to Adam and Eve about the penalities for eating the fruit?"»
Because I read the text.
«"You have to remember, they were on a different cognitive level than you are now."»
That's just your skewed opinion. Merely stating something doesn't make it so.
«"What if God communicated to them on a level they understood at that time?"»
What if that's just your skewed opinion? Merely supposing something doesn't make it so.
If God "communicated to them on a level they understood", then the story should have recorded their understanding. It doesn't.
«"Does this mean just b/c you personally don't understand this concept, it's invalid? Recall the math illustration."»
It's invalid because it's invalid. Not even God can make 1=2.
«"Also, you imply here that you have infinite knowledge of how the world works."»
I imply no such thing.
«"But in a relativistic society, how can you say your definition of basic logic is absolute?"»
Because logic transcends relativistic society.
«"What if another human disagrees with you?"»
You disagree with me because you don't understand basic logic and refuse to accept its implications, not because logic is wrong.
«"Where do you turn then, to another human with similar views for validation?"»
No, I am continually pointing out that you are hypocritical -- you would accept basic logic in any situation where you and your own skewed opinion would be validated. You just refuse to accept it now, when basic logic contradicts your skewed opinion. That's hypocrisy.
«"Absolute standards of morality. So are you saying that when a parent diciplines his child, he automatically is being evil?"»
Not necessarily. The whole point of discipline is to teach, not to torture nor evict. How harsh is the discipline?
«"But then I'm sure from here you'll launch into a discussion about how unfair and evil it is to equate one solitary sin w/death."»
It is indeed unfair and evil, and you only disagree because of your skewed opinion.
«"To which I will answer: How do you know what's fair? You imply there's a system of sliding scales regarding punishment of wrongdoing."»
Because it follows from basic logic: We recognize that some wrongdoing results in greater damage than others.
If you ran a red light and were caught by a policeman, would it be right for him to blow your brains out on the spot? Especially if he ran the red light himself to catch you? If you say no, then you too want a sliding scale of punishment, and your insistence that God's justice works differently is just hypocritical nonsense. If you say yes, well, I applaud your consistency, but note that you are completely insane.
«"But then we must ask, whose sliding scale do we use and how can we really know if a punishment fits any crime? What human or group of humans can say they are so far above reproach as to dictate such a thing?"»
It's precisely because no human is above reproach that we need a sliding scale. Laws are man-made things, as are the punishments.
(...continues...)
~~~continued~~~
«"Reason and excuse. You say God hasn't offered any reasons or excuses for why He does what He does. Don't you mean He hasn't given you a reason that you like?"»
Well, the reason he gives in the bible is that he's afraid that humans will eat of the tree of life. A frightened God is obviously not omnipotent, nor omniscient, nor omnibenevolent.
Do you like the reason given in the bible? Do you like thinking that God can be afraid?
«"Presence. You admit you weren't present for Christ's crucifixion. So how do you know who was there and who wasn't?"»
Do you believe the bible?
Mark 14:50 Then everyone deserted him and fled.
Matthew 26:56 Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.
«"Proof from witnesses. Again, your statements here assume God doesn't have the power to make His holy Word whole and protect it from human fallibility. But if He puts so much effort into stressing the Bible's importance, then why wouldn't He protect it?"»
This is meaningless special pleading. You would not accept it for any scripture of any other religion.
Also, it's just your own skewed opinion. Merely stating something doesn't make it so.
Besides, the very fact that the bible contradicts itself and reality proves that it is not protected from fallibility.
«"And why are you still asking for my personal perception?"»
Because I'm trying to point out that you are committing the fallacy of special pleading. It's just your personal perception that God exists in the first place.
«"Depending on where you're going with this, we may have to break down the Hindu parameters on what a god is."»
Why don't we break down your parameters on what God is?
Hello, Cromm!
I know how the preview thing goes.
Sentience. But then there could be many different personal definitions of sentience. Certainly Dr. Tiller had a different view of sentience.
Underdevelopment of embryos. Notice how you said, "At that point, I would start to consider their interests." You again run into the relativism monster. What works for you may not work for someone else. And who are you to impose your definition on anyone else?
Making sh** up. My, my. Did I hit a nerve? If I played poker, I'd end up with all your money. You give too much away to your opponents. You'll have to do better than that at this debate level. Anyway, why do you assume I'm making anything up?
"See above." Cop out. You are still stuck in your relatvism.
So why isn't your defintition "relativism"? You must do your follow-ups. Merely stating something doesn't make it so.
Pandora's box. But what do you do when your view on this issue bumps up against an opposing view? Can two complete opposites both be true at the same time?
You just cancelled your argument out by calling the embryo a being. Go ahead and ask me why.
But when can you determine when a "being" suffers? Then we have to dissect further levels of suffering, as Owlmirror likes to do. He/she says if there's only so much suffering, then the suffering isn't valid. And he/she doesn't even give us the benefit of a definitive measurement of suffering in this instance -- just leaves it as a relative term. Oh, but there's that relativism again!
«"God has demonstrated He is real"»
No he hasn't. That's just your skewed opinion. Merely stating something doesn't make it so.
«"but He won't force you to acknowledge anything."»
Since he has not demonstrated his reality, I am indeed not forced to acknowledge it.
«"Contradictions and reality. So are you saying that anything with perceived contradictions is automatically invalidated?"»
No, anything with actual contradiction is automatically invalidated.
«"If you are, then you are essentially saying that what you bring is invalid b/c you have contradicted yourself in the past."»
Where? When? You have no followup. Merely stating something doesn't make it so.
«"Unless you mean you are the only one in which that standard does not apply..."»
If I said that I killed myself forever and brought myself back to life again, the standard of contradiction would apply to me as well. Fortunately, I have never said anything so insane.
«"False analogy. You're misunderstanding what point I was arguing"»
No, you were misunderstanding the point you were arguing. It's not my fault that you are confused and dishonest.
«"Last Tuesday. Tell me why you're not blending lines. I was speaking of the renewal of time in general. You are speaking of specific dates."»
Yes, but the original point was about time -- those specific minutes, hours, and days -- being gone forever when spent. So what you were speaking of was meaningless and irrelevant to the point.
«"Money. Again, it's a perception issue. We are debating two different topics here."»
Yes, because you bring up additional topics when you don't understand the topic under discussion.
«"Brain damaged. Notice how you said, "I'm pretty sure", still indicating you are limited by your perception. You keep making my arguments for me."»
And you keep arguing like someone who is brain damaged, so you keep making my arguments for me.
«" Reason and basic logic. Why should I have to understand your version of basic logic?"»
Because it's the same basic logic that you yourself use every day, in all areas not related to religion. Your denial of basic logic is not simply insanity, it is also hypocrisy.
«"You seek to strip away others' free will so they will be a carbon copy of you and agree with you b/c you're the one with all the answers."»
All I would ask is that you not be a hypocrite, but I suppose that's too much to ask for.
«"Nonsense. You are certain most parents would agree. How do you know that? "»
Because most parents -- most humans -- are not suicidal, and like their children enough to want to see them grow up. If they weren't, the human race would have gone extinct long ago.
«"So that's all that's required to make something valid, a majority vote? If that is correct, then what of California's Prop. 8? "»
What are you talking about? You're completely off into the weeds here.
«"What if seeing your children grow meant seeing them grow into drug addicts? Does that mean the parent was successful?"»
Well, it's more of a success than dying for their children and having them grow into drug addicts anyway. At least if the parent lives, the parent can try to help their children kick off their addiction.
«"Why do you equate the desire of a parent to sacrifice his/her life for their children w/being suicidal?"»
The desire of a parent to sacrifice his/her life for their children over the desire to live and see them grow is suicidal.
«"What makes you think that after an individual dies, he/she won't be able to see their children grow up?"»
Because dead parents do not speak to orphans, nor do they protect them from the dangers of life -- such as drug addiction.
Cromm:
Continuing on.
Making sh** up. Again, you've got to learn to do your follow-ups.
Verbal jujutsu. I did respond. You just weren't expecting the kind of response you got. It threw you off balance and made you feel uncomfortable.
Dropping the F-bomb. Keep frothing at the mouth. You make my argumetns look fantastic!
Vegetarian. That's just your interpretation. If an animal is killed humanely, then oh, well. If it's not, then eventually code enforcement will catch up to the "evil-doers". 2nd, animal life does not equal human life. Don't believe me? Then you should not expect to be saved in the event of a shark attack. Because after all, why is your right to live more important than the shark's right to eat, and thus live?
So we see the definition of life is not what's at issue here. It's the definition of human life.
Killing anyting and everything. Again, animal and plant life does not equal human life. I can't wait to see where you take this!
Living cells. Sperm and egg cells are living cells, right?
"I don't believe in Yahweh, but you do." So you de facto argue for relativism. Your burden. Ah, right then. If you don't know about this subject, then you can't profess to know absolutely that God does not exist.
What I'm asking you to do. Just proves you didn't know what I was doing. Again, you make my points for me. In one breath you say, How can I answer your questions about God, but then in the next you imply belief in God is full of contradictions and thereby false. You can't have it both ways. Either you don't know about God or you do.
"To me, it's no different..." Notice how you prefaced your statement with "to me", indicating you argue from your human perception and are using yourself as some sort of moral compass by which others must adhere to. But in your relativistic society where "I don't believe in God, but you do" is a valid argument, how can you absolutely tell me I'm wrong when there is no absolute wrong or right in this context? It's all left up to individual interpretation.
Cromm:
I responded to you this way: "Give me evidence that any human-made gods are physically capable of doing anything let alone create and take life." You passed the buck to me after that. Now, I can't continue to do your work for you. You get one freebie. After this, you must maintain your credibility on your own.
Science projects. You're blending lines on issues here. We were talking about who has permission to add or subtract from the "science project" here. Creating and destroying. So it's about sliding scales, is it? As long as the life that is created doesn't experience anything, then God can do whatever He wants with it? But if He creates beings w/high intellectual capabilities and self-awareness, then all bets are off?
Explaining the misunderstood. That's what I'm doing right now in the context of all our conversations.
Wishes and commands. Basic logic can be a relative term. What you deem to be basic logic may not be another's definition. So what kind of human opinion tips the scales?
Positive versions. Where did you hear this description? I hope you don't work in the legal system. Tell me why skeptics are never required to prove the "negative" version of the claim. Is this just an elaborate way for you to dodge my questions?
Who says you have the positive claim? Who says I have the negative? Gee, there's that relativism again.
Basic logic. Again, that's just your interpretation.
So why are you free to demand anything?
Cromm:
Rebutting your point. So why do you still judge the infinite by the actions of the finite? Can we judge you by the actions of your siblings even if they falsely claim to be acting on your behalf?
"God thought slavery was OK." Your interpretation. Again, divine permission doesn't mean God was OK with slavery. Recall the teenage illustration. We are not OK with children having physical intimacy out of wedlock, but we give parameters for how to operate should the original sanction be constantly ignored.
Interpretations. Again, here is the relativism you so vehemently denied previously. So is it selective relativism for you then? You use it only against others, when it benefits you?
Talk is cheap. My, how they grow. I'm glad you're asking the why questions now. Good for you. What if the fact that God lets people come to their own conclusions (in essence, doesn't trample their free will), was a testament to the kind of individual Yahweh is? B/c He doesn't have a choke-hold on our minds is telling of His personality, that He loves us and is not a despot bent on total domination.
Labelling you a relativist. I've already pointed out previous instances that show your true colors.
Your child. I wasn't speaking of your child specifically. It was in a metaphorical sense, to help with illustration.
Judging a morally perfect being. I loved your comment here. Now we're really getting somewhere. So how do you decipher if something is from God? How do we really know if there is an authentic from which these individuals depart?
Science project (again). You're not understanding the illustration. I explained it above.
So why is it acceptable for Yahweh to take sentient life at His discretion? Ah, ye olde, "What's good for the human is not good for God" argument. Recall the Susie Atheist illustration. If God is the Alpha and Omega (first and last), and He created humans and the materials with which they were made, why wouldn't they belong to Him? You assume your science project is yours even if you did not make the materials you used to construct it. For ex., if you made a volcano, did you actually create the molding clay or the paint or the "lava"?
«"Why do you say God can't lose anything permanently? If hell is eternal separation from God, wouldn't He "lose" a person if they end up in hell?"»
If God is eternal, he can't lose part of himself eternally. And he only "loses" the person if he wants to torture them in hell eternally. It would be God's own evil whim to do so, when God supposedly has the power to remove them from hell.
«"You're also implying here that just b/c God's suffering and loss when Jesus was brutally killed wasn't permanent, that means the suffering and loss wasn't real -- or at the very least wasn't valid."»
I did not imply that. I repeat what I wrote: On the scale of infinity and eternity, no finite event has any significance.
«"Why do you assume suffering and loss is just something humans go through?"»
Because humans are weak, finite beings. Your theology claims that God is powerful and eternal.
«"Why do you equate it with a human limitation?"»
It's obviously a human limitation. Suffering and loss is meaningful to limited, finite beings because if you subtract something finite from a finite amount, the result is something less than it was.
If you subtract something finite from infinity, the result is still infinity.
«"What if a limitation was a good thing?"»
Why would that be relevant? Your theology claims that God is omnipotent and eternal -- which is just another way of saying unlimited.
«"The finite have no significance to the infinite. Again, evidence you don't know Yahweh's personality."»
So? Neither do you. You have nothing but your own skewed opinion.
«"But the dynamics you set up would be true of a despot."»
No, that's your dynamics that would be true of a despot. I am just pointing out that your theology means that your God is a despot.
«"However, when you actually study who Yahweh is, you see this does not encompass Him."»
No, when you actually study the bible, you see that God is a despot.
«"Importance of sacrifice. So that's what you believe: Just b/c one knows sacrifice and suffering will not be permanent, it makes what that individual went through less significant?"»
It's not just what I believe; it's what you yourself would acknowledge if you were honest.
«"Tell that to the man who just lost his job."»
And if two days later he gets his job back with retroactive pay, and he knew all along that he would get his job back -- did he really "lose" his job? Was the loss actually significant?
«"But what if the effects of God's sacrifice are not only permanent but also retroactive?"»
Well, in that case, it would be as if God never existed. Which is what I, as an atheist, believe to be true anyway.
Are you saying that God destroyed himself, and made it look as if he never existed in the first place? Fine... but in that case, what exactly are you worshipping?
If that's not what you're saying, you need to communicate more clearly.
«"Rebuilding. Now we are getting somewhere. What if Jesus' resurrection meant a whole new dynamic in our relationship with God?"»
A meaningless phrase that just demonstrates the confusion in your skewed opinion.
«"What if when what was broken was put back together, it was better than before?"»
If God is omnipotent, then God did not need to "break" anything in order to improve it.
And besides, God "broke" it in the first place.
(...continues...)
Owlmirror:
Why do you believe valuing all life equally is an absolutist stance and likewise valuing human life above animal life is a relativistic stance?
Your final paragraph contradicts your "relativisitic stance" paragraph. But that brings us back to which kind of life has more value? Also, we are left up to relative definitions as to what constitutes the act of valuing life. When do we close this Pandora's box?
~~~continued~~~
«"The Eternal's prospective. If you were to have understood the Bible, then you would have known that each person is significant to Yahweh."»
Obviously not, if he kills people en masse and orders them killed en masse.
And the word is "perspective", not "prospective".
«"He even has the hairs on our heads numbered."»
Knowing things does not mean they are significant to him.
«"I do not accept your version of what "basic logic" means."»
Of course not. Because you're confused and a hypocrite.
«"I do, however, understand it, as you have already explained it to me. "»
No, you obviously don't understand it. It works the same as the logic you yourself use every day, just applied to your own religion.
«"Why do you believe all humans aren't equal?"»
Once again, you demonstrate your confused failure to understand -- or perhaps your willful dishonesty?
I wrote, in response to your own damn premise of "And if all human opinions are equal" that "they aren't".
Human opinions are indeed not all equal. The opinions of humans who are ignorant, mistaken, confused, deluded and/or insane are indeed not equal to those of humans who are knowledgeable, correct, logical, expert, analytical, and sane.
And you yourself do not think that all human opinions are equal -- otherwise, you would not be trying to convince me that my opinions were wrong, you confused hypocrite.
«"You are also arguing for coherence. But why should there be coherence in this venue or anywhere at all?"»
I agree that you are indeed incoherent, and do not care about being coherent. As for why there should be coherence, well, the rest of the world is coherent; that is, it follows basic rules of logic. Why should I accept the incoherent?
«"I fail at reading what you wrote, or I don't agree with you?"»
You fail at reading what I wrote, multiple times. Heck, you fail at reading what you yourself wrote.
«"There's that old despot in you rearing his ugly head..."»
No, that's the old despot in you rearing its ugly head. You are just seeing it reflected back at you.
Owlmiror:
Again, I brought back-up. You just didn't like what you read.
You read the text. Recall my English Lit. illustration.
Cognitive level. Proved it. Brought back-up. Just b/c you didn't understand it, doesn't invalidate it. Recall the algorithm illustration.
1=2. Again, it's a perception issue. Sure 1 does not equal 2, but that issue is separate and apart from you just not liking the evidence I brought.
Your implication. You wrote it, not me. Prove me wrong.
Transcendant logic. But then we're stuck w/relativistic definitions of logic. You assume I don't understand basic logic. But you use your personal definition as the foundation here.
Hypocritical. Boy, that's the pot calling the kettle black. Do you even know what hypocrisy is? Sounds like you just picked the first big word that came into your mind and flung it. Of course your version of basic logic and reality contradicts what I bring. So in that sense, I would wear the contradiction badge proudly. I'm glad what I bring contradicts your personal perceptions.
Discipline. You blend lines here again. You automatically assume God's purpose is to inflict total domination. Again, who are you to judge what punishment fits what crime? Who died and made you the moral authority?
Punishment for one solitary sin. Why is it unfair and evil?
Following basic logic. Again, you mean following your version of basic logic. Who are you to impress your standards on anyone else by telling them they are wrong? Why should we recognize that any wrong doing results in any damage? Isn't that all relative? Why should we recognize anything at all?
Police illustration. Now you're getting somewhere! I'm so well-pleased. Does the officer have the authority to blow your brains out for running a red light? Weren't expecting that response, were you?
Sliding scale. So b/c no human is above reproach is why we need sliding scales? Again, you are blending lines. If no human is above reproach, then who's to say any human can mete out judgment and punishment at all? If laws are man-made, then they are just as fallible and relative as the humans who created them. Thus, we cannot expect to universally apply them.
Owlmirror:
God's reason. Where did it say God was afraid that humans would eat of the tree of life? Your use of the word "afraid" implies God wasn't sure of the result, since one only fears when an element is unknown.
Deserted and fled. It doesn't say they weren't on the periphery, does it? See Matt 26:58. Peter (disciple) stayed on the periphery. Also, see John 19:26. Here, we find that Jesus sees his disciple John standing nearby and speaks to him.
Meaningless special pleading. What, like your special pleadings? But in the world where you live, why should there be meaning if God doesn't exist -- big bang and all, reason from non-reason, etc.
Bible contradictions or your misunderstandings?
Personal perception. I could flip it around on you. It's just your personal perception that God doesn't exist. But in your relativistic world, you don't have the footing to definitively say I'm absolutely wrong.
Hindu parameters. Ah, ah, ah. You're avoiding and dodging again. Stick with the subject you started, please. Then we'll proceed.
«"Getting hung up on clear definitions. What you are advocating for is God usurping human free will."»
I am advocating no such thing.
«"If this is the only thing that will convince you, then you'll never be convinced. That's just not how Yahweh operates."»
I agree -- because Yahweh does not exist, and does not operate in any way at all, outside of your own imagination.
«""Fallible humans are corrected by reality". Again, you imply there is a standard by which we measure these things that is based on human reasoning. "»
Yes, it's the standard of what is called the "real world". It's the only standard we have that works.
«"But are you sure about that since all humans are fallible and subject to outside influences of all kinds?"»
It's pretty obvious that it works, because otherwise you would not be typing on a machine and using an Internet that was created using that real world standard.
«" If you have, then you know it's possible for individuals to "read" something and not get anything out of it -- or just plain have no idea what the story was about."»
Kind of like you do.
«"By your incorrect assumptions about the Bible, you de facto admit you don't know what you've read."»
No, that's your own ignorance reflected back at you again.
«"Adam and Eve. I already gave you scriptures for verification."»
You gave me nothing but contradiction.
«"God's different methods of communication. What if this wasn't a consistency issue; but, rather, it was a testament to God knowing an individual so well that He knew which method of communication they would best respond to?"»
Obviously, God would know that I respond to direct and clear communication.
«"You keep giving me credibility when you froth at the mouth."»
You have no credibility.
«"Again, this is evidence you don't know Yahweh or His parameters."»
You don't know Yahweh and his parameters, because Yahweh and his parameters are nothing more than your skewed opinion.
«"He was speaking through the angel."»
Again, this is evidence that you don't read.
1 Kings 9: The And the word of the Lord came to him
1 Kings 11: The Lord said
1 Kings 15: The Lord said to him
«"Communication methods. Again, you make my arguments for me. Are you implying that it's "inconsistent" to communicate to some people one way and communicate another way to a separate group of people?"»
It's inconsistent to not communicate clearly at all.
«"You assume I failed to read all of 1 Kings 19."»
You did fail to read and understand.
«""For the most part..." Are you saying just b/c a majority understand verbal communication that it's the best way to communicate?"»
It obviously follows logically, but of course, you don't understand or accept basic logic.
«"How do you know music is not a clear communication?"»
Because people have different tastes in music, and because people use words more than they use music.
«"Or what if one puts scriptures to song? Wouldn't that be a helpful way of memorizing?"»
That's adding music to what is already verbalized. And it is irrelevant in this case. Scripture is not clear communication.
(...continues...)
~~~continued~~~
«"Convincing to you and others. Again, you blend lines. Would God communicate to a deaf mute the same way He would communicate to you?"»
Obviously not. That's where telepathy or written words or other visual communication would be useful, which is why I qualified my statements. But God would still need to provide a way for the deaf-mute to convince me that the deaf-mute was not just hearing a crazy voice. Or God could just communicate to me and convince me that he is not just a crazy voice in my head.
«"What of those in the Amazon jungle who have never seen a sheep before? How would they understand the sheep/shepherd metaphore?"»
I agree that communicating in metaphors is not clear communication, so you make my argument for me.
«"Fair. Think of the parent/child dynamic. If a parent knows a particular action is going to harm the child, doesn't the parent have a duty to at least warn the child of the impending danger? "»
Yes, which again makes my argument for me: God fails in his duty.
«"lso, if a parent loves her wayward child deeply, wouldn't she at least every now and again try to steer that child back to the straight and narrow?"»
Of course. And again you make my argument for me: God does not demonstrate the love that a parent would for a child.
«"God's response. Here we come back to you think your calls to Yahweh have gone unanswered. But what if you just don't recognize the sound of His voice?"»
There is no sound and there is no voice.
«" So you can tell God knows our inner motives and can see into our hearts."»
If that were true, then God would know that my inner motives are dedication to truth and logic.
«"And when we mockingly call to God and treat Him as some superficial genie, then we actually push Him further away."»
If God is repelled by a dedication to truth and logic, he cannot be trusted.
«"It is only when we are sincere in asking for God to reveal Himself that He will do so."»
Who are you to judge my sincerity, hypocrite that you are?
«"Listening. You underestimate the power of human denial. It's just like our conversations, Owlmirror."»
Why do we need conversations at all, if God can speak for himself? It is you who are in denial.
«"I can give you all the evidence for the existence of Yahweh and His parameters as outlined in the Bible."»
Why do you need to give evidence, rather than Yahweh demonstrating his own existence?
«"But I can't make you accept them. "»
Of course not. You are not Yahweh, and you are a hypocrite who rejects logic whenever it is inconvenient.
Howdy Blue;
Sentience. But then there could be many different personal definitions of sentience.
There "could be", just as there "could be" many different "personal" definitions of electricity. Unless they're based on real-world phenomena, I don't give two spits.
Certainly Dr. Tiller had a different view of sentience.
Give primary references, or I must assume you're talking out your butt again.
Underdevelopment of embryos. Notice how you said, "At that point, I would start to consider their interests." You again run into the relativism monster.
Everyone runs into the relativism monster, as you put it. The difference between you and me is that I can appeal to real-world phenomena, in this case, the fact that embryos do not have experiences of any kind prior to a certain point, as a starting point from which to argue.
What works for you may not work for someone else.
Indeed, I know it doesn't.
And who are you to impose your definition on anyone else?
A pressing question for anyone who advocates forcing women to give birth against their will.
For my part, since I am leaving the choice to terminate a pregnancy up to the person who is actually pregnant, I have no need to impose anything on anyone.
My, my. Did I hit a nerve?
Nope. I strongly prefer debate opponents respond to what I actually say, in order to prevent conversation from breaking down. You've not actually agitated me, although it is vaguely amusing that you seem to think you have.
Anyway, why do you assume I'm making anything up?
You responded to something I didn't say. You were, in essence, having a conversation with yourself.
(continues)
So why isn't your defintition "relativism"?
My definition of sentience is based on observable, real-world phenomena, that holds true regardless of one's standpoint. It applies universally.
But what do you do when your view on this issue bumps up against an opposing view?
I win arguments, like I'm doing right now.
You just cancelled your argument out by calling the embryo a being. Go ahead and ask me why.
Semantic games? That is some seriously grade-school level stuff right there, homie. My argument with respect to an embryo's non-sentience would not in any way be cancelled out by referring to an embryo as a "being"...which, incidentally, is not something I've actually done.
But when can you determine when a "being" suffers?
When it has a brain capable of processing pain. That's an absolute standard.
You just weren't expecting the kind of response you got. It threw you off balance and made you feel uncomfortable.
Actually, I'm about as comfortable as can be, in every sense of the term. If something you say surprises me, I'll let you know, since I'll be sure to want to expand on it. In the unlikely event that you can surprise me, I'm sure I'd enjoy it.
Dropping the F-bomb. Keep frothing at the mouth. You make my argumetns look fantastic!
LOL buddy, you're a cutie!
Just for the record, swearing is how I like to add emphasis, just like humans do in meatspace in everyday conversation. I'm not the least bit angry at you personally, or in general. My use of the F-bomb under these circumstances would be exactly analogous to my saying "for fuck's sake man, if you spend your rent money on beer and cookies, you're going to get evicted". It's meant to convey extreme bemusement.
Also, your arguments suck just as hard as they ever have, with or without my help.
Vegetarian. That's just your interpretation.
It's not my interpretation. I honestly don't know why this is proving so hard for you to grasp. Under the definition of "life" that you yourself provided, non-vegetarians do not value "life". They destroy life all the time, when it is not strictly necessary to do so. It's a matter of what the words "life" and "value" mean, not my interpretation.
So we see the definition of life is not what's at issue here. It's the definition of human life.
OK? So why didn't you say so? I asked you, way upthread, what kind of life was under discussion.
Again, animal and plant life does not equal human life. I can't wait to see where you take this!
I don't know what you mean by "equal". Especially since you provided a definition of "life" that encompasses plants and animals every bit as much as it encompasses humans. Do you mean equally living? Equally valuable?
Living cells. Sperm and egg cells are living cells, right?
Yes, like I said. That's why it makes no sense to speak of life "beginning" at conception. Prior to conception, the entities that will comprise the zygote are alive.
"I don't believe in Yahweh, but you do." So you de facto argue for relativism.
Give unto me a break. I'm not arguing for a relative account of truth, I'm simply trying to point out where the burden of proof lies.
If you don't know about this subject, then you can't profess to know absolutely that God does not exist.
Indeed, I don't profess any such thing. I merely express my skepticism, as is appropriate for each and every positive claim anyone ever has or ever could make.
In one breath you say, How can I answer your questions about God, but then in the next you imply belief in God is full of contradictions and thereby false.
Sigh.
You seem congenitally incapable of reading for comprehension. One more time; your question was why would the power to take life be available to anyone but Yahweh? My response; I have no clue. It's your god, you work it out. In fact, you must work it out, since the power to take life is available to almost everyone. One more time for those in the cheap seats; the power to take life is available to almost everyone. The power to take life is not reserved to Yahweh.
Your question has, as its starting premise, an assumption about the way the world works that is observably false. I have no interest in resolving the philosophical problems of your imaginary deity.
"To me, it's no different..." Notice how you prefaced your statement with "to me", indicating you argue from your human perception and are using yourself as some sort of moral compass by which others must adhere to.
The statement that "to me" prefaced was not a moral statement, it was a statement of fact, so no, I'm not arguing that others must use my person as their moral compass.
But in your relativistic society where "I don't believe in God, but you do" is a valid argument
Stop right there. My statement is a statement of fact, not an argument. I know it's hard for you, but do try to keep up.
As long as the life that is created doesn't experience anything, then God can do whatever He wants with it? But if He creates beings w/high intellectual capabilities and self-awareness, then all bets are off?
Yep. That's the standard you use in your everday life, is it not?
Picking a tomato is just fine, since it experiences nothing, correct?
Putting your puppy in the microwave, on the other hand, would be a big no-no, since they suffer, correct?
Basic logic can be a relative term.
It cannot be. It is a matter of what kind of statements are definitionally true in the universe we happen to live in, and what kind of statements are misleading, self-contradicting or absurd. It doesn't come down to individual opinion. If you're going to insist that basic logic is purely subjective, then I can't discuss much of anything with you any further.
You'll be free to insist that black is white, or 1 = 2, or that I disprove the existence of the fairies that live in your garden. I have no interest in playing a game of Calvinball with you.
Positive versions. Where did you hear this description? I hope you don't work in the legal system.
Why do you hope I don't work in the legal system? Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? Exact same principle. Defendants don't have to prove that they did nothing, as that is the default assumption. Prosecutors must have prove that they did something. They must prove the positive version of the claim, beyond any reaonsable doubt. The burden isn't on the defendant to prove the negative.
Tell me why skeptics are never required to prove the "negative" version of the claim. Is this just an elaborate way for you to dodge my questions?
I did tell you why, and no. It's structured this way to avoid deception, practical difficulties and absurdities. You understood this perfectly when you objected to having to disprove the existence of my unicorn.
The burden isn't on you to disprove my pet claims, it's on me to substantiate them. If it didn't work this way, we be constantly busy trying to prove negatives, including ones that are obviously made up, like my unicorn. There's only so many hours in the day, know what I mean?
Who says you have the positive claim? Who says I have the negative? Gee, there's that relativism again.
Nobody said that. You have the positive claim here, that Yahweh exists. Nothing relative about it, it's true by virtue of what it means to make a claim.
So why are you free to demand anything?
I'm not, and neither is anyone else. That's the whole point. Everyone is held to the same standards of logic and evidence.
So why do you still judge the infinite by the actions of the finite?
The actions of the finite were (supposedly) commanded by the infinite.
Can we judge you by the actions of your siblings even if they falsely claim to be acting on your behalf?
I answered that already.
"God thought slavery was OK." Your interpretation.
Their interpretation. Write it out on the chalkboard a hundred times, or until this penetratres your skull, whichever comes first. I am criticizing the interpretation of some Christians, because it's repulsive. If you agree, take it up with them.
What if the fact that bla bla bla
Back. This. Up. You're still just tossing out hypotheticals.
Labelling you a relativist. I've already pointed out previous instances that show your true colors.
And failed thoroughly. Yawn.
So how do you decipher if something is from God? How do we really know if there is an authentic from which these individuals depart?
I don't know. Wake me up when you find out.
Ah, ye olde, "What's good for the human is not good for God" argument.
You really need to start reading for comprehension. God and humans are being held to the same standard in all of my arguments. I am arguing that ending a sentient life is objectionable regardless of who does it.
If God is the Alpha and Omega (first and last), and He created humans and the materials with which they were made, why wouldn't they belong to Him?
Those humans are sentient. They have their own interests, their own experiences, their own hopes and fears and dreams. I am arguing that stamping on those things is objectionable in any and all circumstances, regardless of the status of the stamper, owing to the value those things create for the humans that possess them.
And you still haven't done me the courtesy of answering my question. I am about to conclude that you cannot. You've simply turned it around and demanded that I answer the negative version of my own question. Well, now that I've done so, how about it? What is it about your god's status with respect to his creations that makes it all right for him to crush them at will?
You assume your science project is yours even if you did not make the materials you used to construct it.
That's totally irrelevant, since I never made sentient life. This example of yours has no bearing on the question of a god's right to crush sentient life.
«"Presonal accounts. Again, you make my arguments for me. Real-world evidence. I told you that you'd leave a trap door for yourself."»
You demonstrate your hypocrisy, again. It's the same "trap door" that you would use for a personal account that you didn't like.
«"But what happens if your definition of "real-word evidence" was different than somebody else's?"»
It's the same definition of "real-word evidence" that you would use for a personal account that you didn't like, you hypocrite.
«"Dead people. Again, you leave yourself a trap door."»
It's the same trap door you would use, hypocrite.
«"Why do you think God doesn't talk to Jesus?"»
According to your own theology, Jesus is not dead, and Jesus is part of the living God. You demonstrate your confusion again.
«"Speaking with the dead opens living people up to communication lines with individuals who are not loved ones."»
Is God so weak that he cannot restrict those "communication lines" to individuals who are indeed loved ones?
«"See Isaiah 8:19, "When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?""»
As it stands, neither God nor the dead reply to requests for clear communication, nor do they offer it on their own. So you have nothing.
«"You ask for God to violate your free will."»
I ask for nothing but clear communication.
«"But that's not how He operates."»
Again, I agree, because God does not exist.
«"Truth. I have no idea what truth is, or you just don't like what I've presented?"»
You obviously have no idea what truth is.
«"Halluncinations. You keep making my arguments for me. I told you individuals who don't want God to exist will use the halluncinations escape hatch."»
Are you saying that God is so weak and so stupid that he doesn't know how to make it clear that he is not just a hallucination?
After all, despite the fact that you are a confused hypocrite, I am nearly certain that you are not just a hallucination. I certainly would not be communicating with you if I thought you were just a hallucination.
Just out of curiosity, how would you distinguish a hallucination from a communication from God? Or do you think there is no such thing as a hallucination?
«""Infinitely more likely..." This in and of itself is a contradiction."»
No, it's not.
«"Using the word "infinitely" implies you have infinite knowledge of something. But then you use "more likely", indicating you're not sure."»
Nah. It just means that the probability of an infinite God talking to you and telling you something that has no verification in the real world is infinitely small.
«"And going with your parameters on contradictions, anything that seems to contradcit itself is de facto invalid."»
Since it doesn't contradict itself, it is not invalid.
(...continues...)
~~~continued~~~
«"You run from Yahweh b/c you don't think it's fair that He possesses the right to ultimately judge our actions and has said one wrong doing is enough to send someone to eternal separation."»
No, since Yahweh offers no evidence of his reality, I reject that Yahweh is real.
Your own bullshit is just an additional something else that I reject.
«"Ultimately you don't want to be responsible for where you spend eternity"»
Nah. God would be responsible no matter what I do. You have no response to the simple, logical fact that since knowledge and power confer responsibility, and God has all knowledge and all power, God has all responsibility.
«"and it's easier for you to blame God b/c you think that if you just don't believe something is real, then its ramifications won't apply to you"»
Nah. Since God isn't real, there are no ramifications of God being real.
«"But I've got news for you, OstrichMirror"»
Your frothing at the mouth just gives me more credibility.
«"When you stick your head in the sand, we can still see the rest of you."»
I can certainly see that you have nothing.
«"Merely saying something isn't there doesn't make it go away."»
And merely saying that the logical contradictions in your theology aren't there doesn't make them go away.
«"Your slate has been wiped clean if you would jsut accept that free gift from Christ."»
Nah. There is no slate.
«"You can get off the crazy karma train"»
What karma?
«"b/c it's not about the works you do; it's about what Yahweh has done for you. "»
Contradicting your own bible again.
«"He loves you."»
If God loves me, he can talk to me clearly, like my own parents do, and not cut me off and torture me forever (which my parents have not done).
«"You don't have to be scared anymore."»
Scared of what? Of a hell that doesn't exist? Of an infinitely unjust and/or insane God?
«"I'm glad you're outraged -- You're supposed to be."»
I agree that I am supposed to be outraged by your illogical bullshit. Why aren't you outraged by your own illogical bullshit?
«"How else will you look at this from a different angle?"»
You haven't given me a different angle -- just your own skewed opinion.
«"So now I dare you to prove me wrong. I dare you tonight to say to God"»
Why tonight? Why not right here and now?
«" "I am seeking you with all my heart, Yahweh. I want to know the truth. Please show me what that is. If you really are who you say you are, then please reveal yourself to me." "»
I'm going to modify this a little.
I am seeking you with all my mind, Yahweh. I want to know the truth. Please show me what that is. If you really are who you say you are, then please reveal to Bluemongoose the 1024-digit random number that I have stored on my hard drive in file randnum2, so that Bluemongoose can then reveal that number to me. This would demonstrate a tiny fraction of your infinite knowledge, and your infinite power, and your infinite benevolence. Amen.
«"You don't even have to admit to anyone at this blog that you did it. But do it -- in the privacy of your own home where there is no one but you and Yahweh."»
Actually, I think it's better to put the above petition on this blog, so that all can see.
«"You imply the children were sacrifices for Yahweh."»
Sure. Since they were killed because of Yahweh, they were tantamount to sacrifices to Yahweh.
«"I've shown you that the Hebrews were instructed to kill the inhabitants of a nation. "»
You make my argument for me: I have been pointing out all along that they were instructed to commit genocide.
«"Since the children were included, we see how this illustrates that innocent people can be affected by our bad actions."»
I'm glad that you agree, now, that the children were innocent (in contradiction to your earlier claims), and that massacring them demonstrates Yahweh's and the Israelite's bad actions.
«"False accusations. Again, you only make declarative statements and conveniently leave out the why factor. Merely making a comment doesn't mean its implications are correct."»
Right. You just made the accusation, and your attempt to back it up failed, which is why your accusation was false and incorrect.
«"Again, just b/c you state something dosn't make it so."»
Right. Just because you state something doesn't make it so, but that's all you do.
«"You keep making my arguments for me. "»
Right. You keep making my arguments for me.
«" You do no follow-up even after I've repeatedly reminded you."»
Right. You do not follow-up, or fail in your follow-up, even after I've repeatedly reminded you.
«"This will leave the silent readers of our debates wondering about the validity of your arguments..."»
I am pretty sure that any silent readers would think that your arguments are invalid -- unless they hate logic as much as you do.
«"I came with back-up. You just didn't like any of it."»
No, your back-up failed to meet the standards of basic logic, just like all of your arguments.
«"Liar. Uh-oh. Now you're doing the name calling thing again."»
Making a false accusation that you don't retract does make you a liar.
«"But if what I bring doesn't exist and right and wrong all hang on the reasoning of fallible humans, then who cares? That means there is no ultimate right or wrong, and you can't call me a liar b/c there is not truth to deviate from."»
It's pretty obvious that you don't care about right and wrong. That doesn't mean that there is no truth to deviate from, though. It just means that you are insane and don't care what it is. Your apathy regarding truth does not make truth false and false true -- no matter how much you want it to be. And it still makes you a hypocrite and a liar.
«"Metaphorical phrase. See what I mean about perceptions? Boy, you completely walked right into that one. Where I lead, you will follow."»
I sure hope that I will never become an insane sociopath such as yourself.
«"War. You mean it was not war as you would define it, or how our culture would define it. But it was how this past culture or past societies did things back then."»
See? You demonstrate your moral relativism here. You completely walked into that one.
«"Responsibility for the deaths. I thought you said God was responsible for the deaths? Now it's the soldiers?"»
If God exists and ordered the killings, then God is responsible, just like any commanding officer is responsible for those under his command. If God does not exist, then the soldiers murdered them for nothing, and the soldiers are responsible, all on their own.
«"War crimes. How can there be war crimes if this was no war, according to your definition of war? "»
If it wasn't war, then it was still a massacre; a mass murder.
«"But again, who are you to judge what another culture does during another period of time?"»
I'm not a moral relativist, like you are.
«"But when can you determine when a "being" suffers? Then we have to dissect further levels of suffering, as Owlmirror likes to do. He/she says if there's only so much suffering, then the suffering isn't valid."»
Nah, you just failed to understand that the finite is insignificant to the eternal.
«"And he/she doesn't even give us the benefit of a definitive measurement of suffering in this instance -- just leaves it as a relative term."»
I don't see you offering a definitive measurement of suffering either. So you still have nothing.
-------
«"Why do you believe valuing all life equally is an absolutist stance and likewise valuing human life above animal life is a relativistic stance?
"»
What do you think "absolute" and "relative" mean? Open a dictionary.
Absolute: "free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way"
Relative: "considered in relation to something else".
Valuing all life equally is free from the restriction or limitation of that life being human.
Valuing human life above animal life is considering that human life in relation to animal life.
«"Your final paragraph contradicts your "relativisitic stance" paragraph. "»
No, it doesn't. You have no follow-up.
«"But that brings us back to which kind of life has more value? "»
Which is a relativistic question.
«"Again, I brought back-up. You just didn't like what you read."»
You brought nothing but your skewed opinion.
«"You read the text. Recall my English Lit. illustration."»
Your illustration demonstrates that you want to force me to accept your skewed opinion that is nothing but your own narrative added to what the text says.
«"Cognitive level. Proved it. Brought back-up. "»
You proved nothing and brought nothing but your skewed opinion.
«"1=2. Again, it's a perception issue. Sure 1 does not equal 2, but that issue is separate and apart from you just not liking the evidence I brought."»
It's not just a perception issue because you brought no evidence -- just your skewed and contradictory opinion.
«"Transcendant logic. But then we're stuck w/relativistic definitions of logic."»
No, we are not.
«"You assume I don't understand basic logic. But you use your personal definition as the foundation here."»
No, it's not. But hey, why don't you offer your own personal definition? Let's see what you've got.
«" Do you even know what hypocrisy is? "»
I know that you are a hypocrite who demonstrates hypocrisy. That's a good start.
«"Of course your version of basic logic and reality contradicts what I bring. So in that sense, I would wear the contradiction badge proudly. I'm glad what I bring contradicts your personal perceptions."»
So we agree: You have nothing but self-contradiction.
«"Discipline. You blend lines here again. You automatically assume God's purpose is to inflict total domination."»
You yourself claim that God's purpose is to inflict total domination.
«"Again, who are you to judge what punishment fits what crime? Who died and made you the moral authority?"»
Who is God to judge what punishment fits what crime? Who died and made God the moral authority?
«"Punishment for one solitary sin. Why is it unfair and evil?"»
Because God was not harmed by the "sin". No-one was. It was God's choice to punish, and given that no-one was harmed by the "sin", death as punishment is unjust. Being unjust is evil.
«"Following basic logic. Again, you mean following your version of basic logic. Who are you to impress your standards on anyone else by telling them they are wrong? Why should we recognize that any wrong doing results in any damage? Isn't that all relative? Why should we recognize anything at all?"»
Because most of humanity are not crazy people like you -- if we were, we would have died out long ago.
«"Police illustration. Now you're getting somewhere! I'm so well-pleased. Does the officer have the authority to blow your brains out for running a red light?"»
Of course not.
And by the same argument, God does not have the authority to punish sin (that harms no-one) with death.
«"Weren't expecting that response, were you?"»
I wasn't expecting you to make your argument for me, no. But I'm glad you did -- that much less work for me!
«"Sliding scale. So b/c no human is above reproach is why we need sliding scales? Again, you are blending lines. If no human is above reproach, then who's to say any human can mete out judgment and punishment at all?"»
No human is above reproach, but some humans deserve more reproach than others.
«"If laws are man-made, then they are just as fallible and relative as the humans who created them. Thus, we cannot expect to universally apply them."»
We can at least try. But we can also change the laws, if there is something wrong with the laws.
«"Where did it say God was afraid that humans would eat of the tree of life? Your use of the word "afraid" implies God wasn't sure of the result, since one only fears when an element is unknown."»
You're quite right. God was indeed not sure of the result.
Gen 3:22 -- Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”
Gen 3:23 -- therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken
Gen 3:24 -- So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.
God says "he might stretch out his had". Obviously, God was not sure.
God also stations the cherub to guard the way -- again, he was not sure what Adam and Eve would do if there was not a cherub there.
«"Deserted and fled. It doesn't say they weren't on the periphery, does it? See Matt 26:58. Peter (disciple) stayed on the periphery."»
So? None of the four gospels is by Peter. You're just adding your own narrative.
«"Also, see John 19:26. Here, we find that Jesus sees his disciple John standing nearby and speaks to him."»
It does not say "John". It says "the disciple whom Jesus loved". If the disciple was the same one who wrote the gospel, he should have used the first person.
«"Meaningless special pleading. What, like your special pleadings?"»
What special pleading? You have no follow up.
You are the one making special pleading about scripture and God.
«"But in the world where you live, why should there be meaning if God doesn't exist -- big bang and all, reason from non-reason, etc."»
Reason arises from there being a universe which is internally consistent.
Since you proudly agreed that you have nothing but self-contradiction, it is your universe that has no meaning.
«"Bible contradictions or your misunderstandings?"»
Bible contradictions, of course.
«"Personal perception. I could flip it around on you. It's just your personal perception that God doesn't exist."»
Your personal perception is self-contradictory, so your personal perception must be wrong.
«"But in your relativistic world, you don't have the footing to definitively say I'm absolutely wrong."»
Since I don't rely on a "relativistic" world but on absolute logic, I can indeed definitively say that you are absolutely wrong.
«"Hindu parameters. Ah, ah, ah. You're avoiding and dodging again. Stick with the subject you started, please. Then we'll proceed."»
The subject was your special pleading regarding scripture and God, so I am indeed sticking to it. Demonstrate why you reject the Vedas, and why Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu could not have protected the Vedas from human fallibility.
Cromm:
«"I have no interest in playing a game of Calvinball with you."»
Too late, I am afraid.
Bluemongoose is playing Calvinball for Keeps, special heads-I-win-tails-you-lose edition.
I think the score is 13.7 billion to Eggplant.
(Funny: My word verification just now is copulati.)
The score is Q to 12 for those keeping track.
Oh well, at least Blue's cognitive dissonance seems to be getting worse. I thought it was telling when he or she asked why I thought he or she was struggling with the implications of their beliefs.
The word "struggle" has not appeared in any of my posts.
Q to 12 ??
Bah. Such mundane Latin characters and ordinary whole numbers, are for those without access to the full Unicode code set, which goes far, far beyond zebra.
(Ꮚ๏๏Ꭴ٣) to (ↂ௲ᎹᏯ)
«"The word "struggle" has not appeared in any of my posts."»
Bluemongoose pays far less attention to what you actually write than to the vivid and colourful hallucinations of what you write that dance inside Bluemongoose's head.
I mean, I never wrote the word karma, and I get accused of being on a "crazy karma train". Not to mention the accusations of "relativism" (I don't think that word means what Bluemongoose thinks it means) that every interlocutor gets slammed with every single damned comment.
Howdy, Owlmirror!
God's demonstration of His existence. You ride the coat tails of my arguments so you can try to use them against me. Why? B/c you don't have any effective arguments of your own. Yours are weak and ineffective. But we keep coming up against the same roadblock: You "feel" the proof hasn't convinced you personally. Still not the same as not having been provided proof. You continue to blend lines.
"Since He has not demonstrated His reality, I am indeed not forced to acknowledge it." Still blending lines. Again, what you mean is you "feel" God hasn't provided proof to convince you personally. You use that to say God doesn't exist. But that's a relativism issue. What you perceive personally has nothing to do with the issue of validity.
Actual contradictions. That phrase must be defined by you, right? Can't you do better than that? You keep making yourself out to be some sort of moral compass for everyone to adhere to.
Your contradictions. Are you telling me you are perfect, that you never lied before, stolen, cheated? If you have done these things, then how can you tell others not to do them? That would make you a hypocrite. Oh, but we wouldn't want anyone to think that way, would we?
Insane. Yes, you making such a claim would be insane b/c you don't possess the ability to bring yourself back from death.
Original post about time. Again, you state your perception of what you thought the original post was about. And you make my arguments for me.
Meaningless and irrelevant. Without an anchored belief system, like, oh, I don't know, the Bible, why should we expect there to be meaning in anything? Why should anything be relevant, since there are no absolutes? I can't wait for your argument that there are absolutes which find their foundations in fallible, fickle humans...
Money. I bring up additional topics w/out understandng the topic under discussion? I could flip that around on ya, Owlmirror.
Brain damaged. Again, you must not think too highly of your belief system. If you did, then why resort to such an ignoble method of defending what you believe, as to call names?
Making your arguments. Again, characteristic of the fact that you can't come up w/good arguments on your own, so you steal mine and resort to your circular methods. Tsk, tsk. I thought you atheists frowned on that sort of thing.
Basic logic. Why do you assume your definition of basic logic applies to anyone but you?
Hypocrite. Please... You ought to know by now that trite dog and pony show won't work at this level. Are you resorting to name calling b/c your arguments keep falling flat?
Suicidal. There you go again adding strange things to word definitions.
Prop 8. I'm glad you're asking questions. Good for you. Many people still think Prop. 8 is morally incorrect even though it passed w/a majority vote in California. So, like I said before, does a majority vote make something morally correct?
Parental success. You are still giving your opinion, which only applies to you. So can a parent force their child to kick a drug habit if the child doesn't want to?
Parental sacrifice v. suicide. Again, our definition. Applicable only to you.
Dead parents and orphans. Go look at how I phrased my question and how you responded. We originally were talking about the dead parent "seeing" the child grow up. I asked why you thought a dead parent couldn't "see" the child after death. Your answer went completely out to left field, talking about speaking to and protecting. So who can't stick to a topic or understand it?
Thank you! Thank you! Try the veal!
Owlmirror:
Eternal God. Nobody said God lost part of Himself eternally. You blend lines again in an effort to confuse. Notice how I was talking about God losing humans permanently. You brought in a separate issue. Torture. Your perception. Removing people from hell would mean He contradicts Himself. Go ahead and ask me why.
Suffering and loss. You implied exactly what I said. B/c Jesus' death (the finite) wasn't permanent, then you say it had no significance to the infinite (God).
"Obvious" human limitations. You use a relative definition for the word "obvious". You're saying suffering and loss is strictly an issue for the finite. But what if God's ability to feel emotions proves that He's not the despot atheists paint Him to be? What if God's emotions have nothing to do with His power and infinity? You were blending lines again. Emotions don't subtract from anything. Is a man less of a man if he cries?
Limitation = a good thing? God is limited by our free will. That is a good thing. It means He trully loves us.
Skewed opinions. Prove that I don't know Yahweh's personality. Atheists amaze me. Not only do they claim to have no belief in God, but then they automatically push that belief onto others, stating, "B/c I don't believe it's true, then you can't believe it either." Then when they tout misconceptions about biblical doctrine, they don't want to examine what the Bible says about things like God's parameters. Where else are you going to find out about the God of the Bible?
Despot. Your opinion. You claim God doesn't exist b/c he won't trample your free will and force you to believe in Him (which would make Him a despot); but you still call Him a despot when He leaves your free will alone. That's atheist circular reasoning for ya.
Importance of sacrifice. Oh, so honesty is the issue? I can only be honest when I agree with you? Who's the despot?
Job loss. Yes, the job was really gone for a period of time. You never get that time back, right?
Retroactive. You blend lines again. 1 does not equal 2, remember? The issue of the implications of Christ's death and God's existence are 2 different things. God did not destroy Himself. Remember, Jesus (one part of the Trinity) willingly died at the hands of humans. Also, He did not make it look as if He never existed. He elminated sin and death's grasp on us. He wiped our slates clean.
Confusion. Again, you try to use my arguments and terminology against me when you don't have a leg to stand on. Then you still don't give any follow-up for why you believe what you believe.
God's omnipotence. Again, you blend lines on issues. God's parameters have nothing to do with our need to have Christ's body broken for us. God didn't break it, humans did. You just don't want to be responsible for where you end up in eternity.
Owlmirror:
En masse. So just b/c He was a good parent and gave the nation its just punishment after many warnings, you think that's bad?
Spelling corrections. Doesn't it just tear you apart that a Christian whose posts are littered with spelling errors is consistently giving your arguments the beat down? But don't be hypocritical. You've made spelling errors too before.
Knowing. Why would He bother Himself with the knowledge of something if it wasn't significant?
Accepting your version. I could flip that around on you, Owlmirror. Hmm...
Understanding. Only if I use your understanding, right? You value yourself a moral compass again. Are you sure you believe you're the sane one?
Equality. I merely asked a question. I can't believe an atheist would be so unsportsmanlike. So who's to say who is knowledgeable and who is not? On what do we build the foundations for deciphering between the choices? Go ahead and say human reasoning.
Humans are equal in their humanity. But we must stop short of saying humans are responsible for morality.
Calling names again. What's the matter, Owly, run out of spunky come-backs? Have to resort to mudslinging to prop up your arguments? Keep doing it. I love how you de facto admit that your debates can't stand on their own merit.
Coherence. You blend lines again. I was talking about coherence in general and you go out to left field again. But, anyway, your explanation is still bound by whose definition of "basic logic" are we going to use.
Reading. I fail to read what's written, or you fail to comprehend?
Despot. I look forward to the time when you graduate from the 7th grade. Can't you do better than the "I'm rubber, you're glue" banter? But I really expected more from you.
Owlmirror:
Clear definitions. Prove me wrong then.
Your claim that Yahweh does not exist. Again, how can a finite being claim there is no inifinte? Are you suggesting that you have infinite knowledge?
"Real world". How do you know your definition of this term applies to anyone but you? What you perceive to be a "real world" standard or even "real" may not match up with the next person's definition. This shows you are a slave to your relativism. How do you know the "standard" you mentioned is the only one that works? What if other standards work for other individuals?
Typing and using the internet. Why do you assume that your personal reality standards are what make it possible for others to type and use the internet? That's pretty arrogant.
Reading and comprehending. I could flip your statement around on you.
Incorrect assumptions. Your 7th grade rubber and glue cop out isn't working very well.
"You gave me nothing but contradiction." Ultimately, the Bible and Christianity is a contradiction to your life.
Clear communication. You're right that God does know what you will respond to. But He stops short of forcing you to believe. He gives you all the info. and evidence. You just respond negatively to it (reject it).
Credibility. Of course, I would have no credibility to you personally, by your standards. But you can't absolutely say I have no credibility. Your relativism forbids you.
Yahweh's parameters. You're funny. You state that I "don't know Yahweh and His parameters, because Yahweh and His parameters are nothing more than [my] skewed opinion." So aren't you de facto saying in that statement that Yahweh is a figment of my imagination? If so, then how can you say in that context that the parameters aren't correct? And if He actually exists, then how can you say ultimately from your own finite human perception that He absolutely does not exist?
1 Kings 9. Recall the pen illustration. This is evidence you don't comprehend.
"It's inconsistent to not communicate clearly at all." Ah, that's completely different than what you said before. Now, you're blending lines on subjects. Inconsistency has nothing to do with whether or not something was communicated clearly/the receiver of the communication comprehended the message.
Failing. You falsely assume. I can tell you I did read it. But there you go again trying to act like you can see others' actions. This is proof that laws/punishment cannot be rooted in humans and their reasoning b/c their perceptions are so limited.
Verbal communication. "It obviously follows logically..." You didn't answer my question. I understand your personal definition of "basic logic", and that is what I do not accept.
Music. Blending lines again. People having different tastes in music has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not music is a good form of communication. Are you saying that just b/c it's not the most widely used form or the way you'd choose to communicate, it's not a valid form of communication?
"That's adding music to what is already verbalized." Doesn't mean it's not a form of communication. You obviously aren't a musician, so you wouldn't understand how music itself can communicate to an individual. But this is why there are so many ways of communication, so that all kinds of individuals can be reached.
"Scripture is not clear communication." You mean, not clear to you. You can't speak for everybody.
Owlmirror:
Convincing. Again, you make my arguments for me. You've turned this into a perception issue once more. You're still saying God has to jump through hoops to provide convincing comunication to you within your definition of convincing and communication. Still leaves you a trap door. B/c if you personally deem it to not meet your burden of proof, then you say it's invalid absolutely for everyone.
Sheep/shepherd metaphore. You, again, are not understanding what I'm communicating here. Imagine that! But if you believe metaphors are not valid forms of communication, then I fully expect you to never make a comparison again. You can never say something like, "Her eyes were as blue as the sky". I was merely trying to show that a different metaphore would be needed for the Amazon jungle people to help them visualize the message being relayed.
Parent and wayward child. You blend lines again and are using my phrases b/c you can't come up with any effective ones on your own. You say the parent/child illustration does not reflect God's relationship with us. But, again, you do no follow-up. Your why factor is conveniently missing. Which proves you are propping your statements up with your perception, soley.
No sound and voice. How do you know that if you don't recognize it? Repelling God. You blend lines again. He is not repelled by truth and logic; but, rather, He is repelled by pride, arrogance and mockery. What say you of these quotes: "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver"; "It is important to note that reason and logic are components of a worldview, not a total synoptic view of reality."
Sincerity. Who said I was judging you? Wow, you're overly sensitive. Jumping to conclusions again and calling names. Proving once more that humans cannot be where laws are rooted. Their perceptions are just too easily manipulated by things like emotions.
Conversations. How do you know God is not using me to speak to you? Recall the pen illustration.
Denial. Prove I'm the one in denial. Remember your follow-ups.
Acceptance. I never said I was Yahweh. There you go jumping to conclusions again with your implications. I reject your personal brand of logic all the time, not just whenever inconvenient.
'Sup, Cromm!
Personal definitions. Then we'd have to make sure whose definition of "real-word phenomena" needs to be used. But that might hinder what we're trying to do since very person brings with them their own personal perception. Hmm...
Dr. Tiller. Oh, come on. You know what I'm talking about here. Dr. Tiller was the infamous late-term abortion doctor. His version of sentience was after the baby passed throught the few inches of the birth canal and survived.
"Everyone runs into the relativism monster, as you put it." Why do you assume I "put it" like that? I don't subscribe to relativism. I know many others who don't either. Relativism is the slogan of those who don't accept absolutes.
Real-world phenomena. Are we using your definition of that term? Certainly the embryo's "real world" would be different than yours. How do you know "experiences" are only available on such a limited basis? What definition of "certain point" do we use? Also, certain point is a very vague term. You leave the door open wide for personal interpretation.
You know that what works for you may not work for others. Oh, so you do advocate for relativism.
Forcing women to give birth against their will. What about the babies who lose their lives against their wills? Which human is more important, Cromm? Are you saying the smaller human is less important and less entitled to rights b/c he or she is small? Right. I bet you'd be a very popular speaker at a little people convention. Or maybe you mean a human that isn't fully formed physically or cognitively is not a real human. Wow. You should be a speaker at the Special Olympics.
Giving the ability to choose to the person who is pregnant. Why not give the choice to the person who is inside the womb?
Responding. I did respond to you, just not in the way you expected me to. And that does not negate the validity of my statements. It just means you were thrown off-balance. You, too, like to blend those lines.
Something you didn't say. Ahem, you said I was, "making sh** up". I merely asked you why you wrote that. Go ahead and scroll back. I'll wait. Unless you don't want to verify...
Cromm:
Relativism. You didn't answer my question. Dodge and avoid.
Sentience. Notice how you prefaced your statement with "My definition". Since you subscribe to relativism, why should your definition be valid to anyone but you? "It applies universally." You contradict yourself. Either it's 'your' definition, or it's not. Also, you cancel your previous arguments out by declaring this one area is absolute or "universal". Either you subscribe to relativism or you don't. Can't have it both ways.
"I win arguments". Seriously, your schizophrenic arguments are quite dizzying. But what you wrote would require you to admit that relativism does not exist and that there are definite parameters on what's right and what's wrong. By you definitively stating you "win arguments", you are stating that what you brought to the table is correct absolutely.
Grade-school stuff. Tell me why you thought what I posted about your cancelled-out statement was invalid. You need to do your follow-ups. Merely stating something doesn't make it so. Your response about non-sentience is an issue that's separate and apart. So are you saying you don't value life in general b/c you give the green light to embryos being destroyed? I mean, they do consist of living cells, right?
Suffering. So how do you know that b/c an embryo's brain isn't fully formed that they don't feel more pain than if they were fully formed? An absolute standard? To who? And doesn't that fly in the face of your relativism? Or are you now advocating for selective relativism? In which case, when do we know when the term "contradiction" applies?
Swearing is how you like to add emphasis. Pleeeease. Let's be pragmatic here. You were being offensive by using offensive language. But if you really believe what you say you do, then go into any classroom and start throwing out those "sentence enhancers" to the professor while class is in session. Hey, just go to your local grocery store and start yelling them out. See how long it takes before you get thrown out.
My arguments suck? Seriously, is that the best you can do? I hope you didn't write any of your term papers in school with that kind of effort and language. What would one of your professors/teachers have done if you handed them a paper that said, "This sucks"?
How-do, Blue;
Personal definitions. Then we'd have to make sure whose definition of "real-word phenomena" needs to be used.
You make it sound like there's no way to do this. I don't know how to break this to you, but rational people have been testing their hypotheses against reality, in groups, in ways designed to systemically eliminate bias, for centuries. We're conversing on an extremely sophisticated series of tools called "computers" and "the internet" designed and built using just this method.
His version of sentience was after the baby passed throught the few inches of the birth canal and survived.
Nothing but your personal say so, I see. Talking out your butt it is.
Why do you assume I "put it" like that?
You used the term "relativism monster" to refer to the diversity of opinions held by people. Everyone runs into that, as I said.
Real-world phenomena. Are we using your definition of that term? Certainly the embryo's "real world" would be different than yours. How do you know "experiences" are only available on such a limited basis?
We can use Philik K. Dick's definition; real-world phenomena are the ones that don't go away when you stop paying attention to them. Embryos do not have any experience of the real world, prior to the point at which they develop brains capable of processing sensation. I know this thanks to the insights offered by neuroscience.
Also, certain point is a very vague term. You leave the door open wide for personal interpretation.
Determining when the point I'm talking about has been reached is obviously non-trivial, but it's not totally open to personal interpretation. It cannot be reached within a matter of hours, and will have clearly been reached in the final months of the pregnancy.
You know that what works for you may not work for others. Oh, so you do advocate for relativism.
You don't know what relativism means, clearly, or even what the word "advocate" means. My pointing out that people possess a diversity of opinion is not an endorsement of relativism, any more than your pointing out Dr. Tiller's supposed views constitutes an endorsement of them.
Forcing women to give birth against their will. What about the babies bla bla bla
Once again, you're responding to things you seem to wish I'd said, rather than what I did say. For anyone following along who can read; I privilege the rights of sentient beings. Beings who can suffer, and are aware that they suffer. Women pregnant against their will fall in that category, people competing in the Special Olympics fall in that category, early-term embryos do not. Therefore, I privilege the will and the personal autonomy of the woman.
Why not give the choice to the person who is inside the womb?
Until the fetus is sentient, there is not a person inside the womb. Early term embryos are not sentient, they cannot think or feel. At all. Asking them anything whatsoever would be no more helpful than asking a bowl of lime Jell-O.
Go ahead and scroll back. I'll wait. Unless you don't want to verify...
Don't waste my time any worse than you already are, thanks. If you want me to answer a question that you think I didn't adequately respond to, then state it plainly. Our comment thread is so huge, there is no way I'm gonna scroll back.
Speaking of which, you haven't answered my question; what is it about Yahweh's having made sentient life that makes it alright for him to crush it at will?
Cromm:
Vegetarian. So, Cromm, buddy, are you saying that vegetarians also don't value "life" b/c they kill plants by consuming them?
Definition of life. If I hadn't backed it up to the "what is life in general" discussion, then discussion would have gotten snagged on the "well, we can't argue that an embryo is life b/c we don't know what life is exactly" angle. Not my first time at the rodeo.
You don't know what equal means? Come on, you were just saying that non-vegetarians don't value life in general b/c they eat meat. Now, can you make that kind of statement if you don't know what equal means?
Life encompassing. Now, wait a minute. You're about to blend some lines again. You're about to lead into a discussion that states b/c life encompasses plants and animals every bit as much as it does humans, then that makes them the same in their value. But for our purposes here, we will have to talk about both "equally living" and "equal in value" terms. However, please keep them separate and apart.
Life at conception. Ah, ah, ah. You blend lines on the "equally living" and "equal value" terms. Human life begins at conception.
Giving you a break. This is a big-league debate forum where experienced debaters argue their points. You're expected to be ready to field all kinds of angles. It's not my fault you didn't check your own post and analyze its implications.
Professing. That's what happens when you make declarative statements on one thing or another. You communicate to others your position on an issue. If you didn't want to communicate you had a definitive position on an issue, then you should have phrased your comments in a different manner.
«"You ride the coat tails of my arguments so you can try to use them against me. "»
Nah. Your arguments fail on their own.
«"B/c you don't have any effective arguments of your own. Yours are weak and ineffective."»
I agree that your arguments are weak and ineffective.
«"Again, what you mean is you "feel" God hasn't provided proof to convince you personally. "»
Since God has not provided any proof, of course I am not convinced. You have nothing at all.
«"What you perceive personally has nothing to do with the issue of validity."»
Right. Your personal perception that God exists has nothing to to with the issue that your perception is invalid.
«"You keep making yourself out to be some sort of moral compass for everyone to adhere to."»
My compass is pointing towards logic. Too bad you have no compass, so you spin like mad in circles.
«"Are you telling me you are perfect"»
Nope. I am asking you to back up your accusation. You have no follow-up.
«"Original post about time. Again, you state your perception of what you thought the original post was about."»
Since I made the original post, of course my perception is the only valid one, and yours is wrong.
«"Meaningless and irrelevant. Without an anchored belief system, like, oh, I don't know, the Bible, why should we expect there to be meaning in anything?"»
The Bible is not an anchored belief system, because it contradicts itself.
«"Why should anything be relevant, since there are no absolutes?"»
Who says there are no absolutes? You? Basic logic is absolutely consistent. If it were not, we could not know anything at all. Our bodies and minds would not work.
«"Again, characteristic of the fact that you can't come up w/good arguments on your own, so you steal mine"»
I don't steal them, I reflect them back at you.
«"Why do you assume your definition of basic logic applies to anyone but you?"»
Because they are what everyone uses, including you. You just add your own skewed opinion on top, and ignore where it contradicts basic logic.
«"Suicidal. There you go again adding strange things to word definitions."»
You're just saying that because you know I'm right and you have no follow-up.
«"does a majority vote make something morally correct?"»
Obviously not. Morals begins with treating others as you wish to be treated.
«"Parental success. You are still giving your opinion, which only applies to you. So can a parent force their child to kick a drug habit if the child doesn't want to?"»
I said that a live parent could help while a dead one cannot. Do you disagree?
And, technically, a parent could sign a legally minor child into drug rehabilitation. So, yes.
«"Parental sacrifice v. suicide. Again, our definition. Applicable only to you."»
You never did answer my questions. So I'm pretty sure that your definition isn't even applicable to you. You just hate me so much that you refuse to agree when you know I'm right, which makes my argument for me. Thanks!
«"Dead parents and orphans. Go look at how I phrased my question and how you responded. We originally were talking about the dead parent "seeing" the child grow up. I asked why you thought a dead parent couldn't "see" the child after death."»
Because the dead see nothing. They are dead.
«"Your answer went completely out to left field, talking about speaking to and protecting. So who can't stick to a topic or understand it?"»
You can't. You are so hate-filled and angry that you refuse to acknowledge that a parent "seeing" their child, while they are both alive, obviously does not just mean one-way static vision with no contact or interaction. The dead see nothing, and they do nothing.
«"Nobody said God lost part of Himself eternally."»
You were, if you were saying that God sacrificed himself. That was the original topic, remember?
«"Notice how I was talking about God losing humans permanently."»
I was writing about God losing part of himself eternally; you brought up God losing humans permanently, which was irrelevant. Jesus was not a human -- and even if he was, God did not lose him permanently.
It's not my fault if you lose track of the conversation and get confused. Pay better attention, or give up.
«"Removing people from hell would mean He contradicts Himself."»
Given that original sin and salvation are examples of God contradicting himself, why would that matter?
«"But what if God's ability to feel emotions proves that He's not the despot atheists paint Him to be?"»
That would prove nothing. I am certain that all human despots feel emotions; it does nothing to make them not be despots.
«"What if God's emotions have nothing to do with His power and infinity?"»
This makes no sense.
«"Emotions don't subtract from anything. Is a man less of a man if he cries?"»
And now you're contradicting the nonsense above. Is a despot less of a despot if he cries? Is a God, in all his power and infinity, less of a God if he cries?
Make up your mind -- if you can.
«"God is limited by our free will"»
So you're saying that God is not infinite; not omnipotent nor omniscient? Or that God does not have free will?
Make up your mind -- if you can.
«"It means He trully loves us."»
No, it doesn't. Even if it were true, it would mean that God is apathetic, or malevolent.
«"Prove that I don't know Yahweh's personality."»
Easy. You contradict yourself on what that personality.
«"stating, "B/c I don't believe it's true, then you can't believe it either.""»
You can believe it all right. But you can't convince me that what you believe has any truth at all, since you contradict yourself and reality.
«"Then when they tout misconceptions about biblical doctrine, they don't want to examine what the Bible says about things like God's parameters. Where else are you going to find out about the God of the Bible?"»
LOL. If God were real, you could find out about God from God.
The reason you have to go to the bible is because God is nothing but a character in the Bible.
«"You claim God doesn't exist b/c he won't trample your free will and force you to believe in Him (which would make Him a despot) but you still call Him a despot when He leaves your free will alone."»
No, I call God a despot because in the bible, he murders and tortures massive numbers of people, which definitely tramples on their free will.
«"Oh, so honesty is the issue? I can only be honest when I agree with you?"»
You can only be honest when you agree with basic logic, and avoid contradicting yourself and reality.
«"God did not destroy Himself. Remember, Jesus willingly died at the hands of humans."»
No. If God brought him back exactly as he was, the death was not real death.
«"He elminated sin and death's grasp on us."»
No. Death is still here, 2000 years later. So too is sin -- at least, according to you.
«"He wiped our slates clean."»
Since he dirtied them, wiping them clean was his responsibility anyway.
«"God's parameters have nothing to do with our need to have Christ's body broken for us. God didn't break it, humans did."»
God made humans and put Jesus among them, knowing what they all would do. God was responsible.
«"You just don't want to be responsible for where you end up in eternity."»
You just don't want to admit that God would be responsible for where you end up in eternity.
«"So just b/c He was a good parent and gave the nation its just punishment after many warnings, you think that's bad?"»
You add your own narrative to the text again.
What "many warnings"? There are no warnings before God tramples on people's free will by murdering them or having them murdered, like any evil despot. And since when is butchering innocent children "just punishment"?
«"Doesn't it just tear you apart that a Christian whose posts are littered with spelling errors is consistently giving your arguments the beat down?"»
You're the one being beaten. You just refuse to admit it.
«"But don't be hypocritical. You've made spelling errors too before."»
I made it clear what the spelling is; what is hypocritical about that?
«"Why would He bother Himself with the knowledge of something if it wasn't significant?"»
Omniscience would mean that God knows everything, whether it bothers him or not.
«"So who's to say who is knowledgeable and who is not? On what do we build the foundations for deciphering between the choices?"»
Reality and logic.
«"Coherence. You blend lines again. I was talking about coherence in general and you go out to left field again."»
I was talking about coherence in general as well. Don't blame me because you're confused and incoherent.
«"I fail to read what's written, or you fail to comprehend?"»
You fail to read what's written, and you fail to comprehend, multiple times, and come up with your own narrative that is nothing but your own skewed opinion.
«"Can't you do better than the "I'm rubber, you're glue" banter?"»
Of course I can. Why should I bother?
«"But I really expected more from you."»
You don't deserve more.
How-de-do again, Blue;
Relativism. You didn't answer my question. Dodge and avoid.
I've taken care to respond to all your questions to the degree I thought appropriate, but hey, I'm game for expanding on the point. What, specifically, do you want answered this time?
Sentience. Notice how you prefaced your statement with "My definition". Since you subscribe to relativism, why should your definition be valid to anyone but you?
I'm not a relativist with respect to truth. When I prefaced my statement with "my", it simply meant that I judge that definition to be the most apt, when considering the things that are objectively true about the real world. It ought to be valid to everyone, given that everyone can, in principle, have access to the reasons I used to judge the aptness of the definition.
"It applies universally." You contradict yourself. Either it's 'your' definition, or it's not.
It's not "my" definition, in that I did not make it up on the spot. It's "my" definition in that I was the one to bring it up in this conversation. You're getting hung up on the use of a possessive. If I point to my spouse and say they're "my" spouse, does that mean I literally possess them, or does it simply mean we're associated?
Just so there's no possibility you can misunderstand this analogy as badly as usual, let me answer that for you; it means we're associated.
Also, you cancel your previous arguments out by declaring this one area is absolute or "universal". Either you subscribe to relativism or you don't.
I don't. Nothing's been cancelled out. Glad I could clear that up for you.
By you definitively stating you "win arguments", you are stating that what you brought to the table is correct absolutely.
It is absolutely correct. I'm glad you're catching on.
Tell me why you thought what I posted about your cancelled-out statement was invalid.
Because you were about to "spring" some semantic bullshit on me that you no-doubt thought I couldn't see coming, and would dazzle the shit out of me. It was laughable for a couple of reasons; one, I haven't anywhere referred to embryos specifically as "beings", as you said I had. So congratulations, your semantic bullshit fails right out of the gate.
Secondly, I have always and everywhere, throughout my posts, insisted that the criteria for evaulating something's interests is whether or not it's sentient, not whether or not it's a being. Like I said, bacteria and slime molds aren't sentient (but are arguably "beings") but we don't consider their interests. That's because they have none, owing to their non-sentience.
So are you saying you don't value life in general b/c you give the green light to embryos being destroyed? I mean, they do consist of living cells, right?
That's exactly right. I don't value life in general. I am perfectly willing to destroy certain kinds of life, just like you are, if you're not a vegetarian.
Suffering. So how do you know that b/c an embryo's brain isn't fully formed that they don't feel more pain than if they were fully formed?
All cognitive abilities are dependant on brain structures. If an embryo doesn't have the neural structures in place to feel pain, as is the case until relatively late in the pregnancy, then they can't feel pain.
An absolute standard? To who?
Everyone. Duh.
Swearing is how you like to add emphasis. Pleeeease.
Um, you're welcome? Would you like some more? I can oblige.
But if you really believe what you say you do, then go into any classroom and start throwing out those "sentence enhancers" to the professor while class is in session.
I didn't use the phrase "sentence enhancers". You made that up, as you are prone to doing. However, I did use the phrase "everyday conversation". A lecture is not an "everyday conversation". Once again you fail. Aren't you getting tired of failing?
Hey, just go to your local grocery store and start yelling them out. See how long it takes before you get thrown out.
Swearing and yelling are not synonyms. Aren't you getting tired of failing?
My arguments suck? Seriously, is that the best you can do?
It was the only response your statement warranted. You said "you're making my arguments look fantastic". Well, hey, I can toss out throwaway taunts, just like you. Would you like some more?
Vegetarian. So, Cromm, buddy, are you saying that vegetarians also don't value "life" b/c they kill plants by consuming them?
That's right, and what's more, it's right according to the definition of life that you yourself provided. You're finally catching on, albeit a bit late.
Not my first time at the rodeo.
Not that anyone would be able to tell.
Come on, you were just saying that non-vegetarians don't value life in general b/c they eat meat. Now, can you make that kind of statement if you don't know what equal means?
Indeed so, I can make that statement without having a clue what you meant by "equal" in the context you used it in. I still don't have a clue what you meant by it, since you are apparently unable to explain it.
Human life begins at conception.
That is false. The entities that will fuse to become the zygote are also genetically human, and are also alive.
The rest of your post gave me a good laugh. But seriously, how about my question? I've done you the courteousy of responding to all your questions, perhaps you could tackle mine?
What is it about Yahweh's having made sentient life that would make it alright for him to crush it at will?
What is it about Yahweh's having made sentient life that would make it alright for him to crush it at will?
What is it about Yahweh's having made sentient life that would make it alright for him to crush it at will?
«"Your claim that Yahweh does not exist. Again, how can a finite being claim there is no inifinte? Are you suggesting that you have infinite knowledge?"»
I didn't claim there is no infinite. I just said that Yahweh, defined as a God who is a person that has infinite knowledge, infinite power, and infinite goodness, does not exist. I don't need infinite knowledge to know that.
«""Real world". How do you know your definition of this term applies to anyone but you? What you perceive to be a "real world" standard or even "real" may not match up with the next person's definition."»
The real world is that which everyone accepts as real -- even you.
«"This shows you are a slave to your relativism."»
No, that's your own confusion and relativist hypocrisy reflected back at you.
«"Typing and using the internet. Why do you assume that your personal reality standards are what make it possible for others to type and use the internet? That's pretty arrogant."»
Obviously, it's not "my personal" reality standard. It's pretty arrogant, and confused, of you to say that the real world has nothing to do with the real world.
«"Ultimately, the Bible and Christianity is a contradiction"»
I agree.
«"Clear communication. You're right that God does know what you will respond to. But He stops short of forcing you to believe. He gives you all the info. and evidence."»
No, God gives me nothing at all.
«"You just respond negatively to it (reject it)."»
No, I reject what isn't there.
«"But you can't absolutely say I have no credibility. Your relativism forbids you."»
What relativism? I keep saying that I am going by the absolute standard of logic. By that standard, you absolutely have no credibility.
«"So aren't you de facto saying in that statement that Yahweh is a figment of my imagination?"»
Of course.
«"If so, then how can you say in that context that the parameters aren't correct?"»
Because you contradict yourself, and reality.
«"And if He actually exists, then how can you say ultimately from your own finite human perception that He absolutely does not exist?"»
Because a God who had the qualities that God is supposed to have would not hide himself from my finite human perception.
(...continues...)
«"1 Kings 9. Recall the pen illustration. This is evidence you don't comprehend."»
No, it's evidence you don't comprehend, and make up your own narrative.
«"Inconsistency has nothing to do with whether or not something was communicated clearly/the receiver of the communication comprehended the message."»
That sentence is inconsistent, and so is not a clear communication.
«"I can tell you I did read it."»
Maybe you did, and maybe you're lying. But you made up your own narrative, which is pretty much the same as not reading it.
«"But there you go again trying to act like you can see others' actions."»
I can see a failure of others' actions. You failed.
«"This is proof that laws/punishment cannot be rooted in humans and their reasoning b/c their perceptions are so limited."»
No, it's proof that you failed, are confused and incoherent, and are in denial.
«"Verbal communication. "It obviously follows logically..." You didn't answer my question."»
Pardon me for expecting you to follow basic logic.
1) The best way to communicate is in a way that most people -- the majority -- will understand.
2) Most people -- the majority -- can speak and understand their own spoken language, which they learned from their parents and the community they live in.
3) Therefore, the best way to communicate is in the spoken language that people can comprehend. Which is another way of saying "verbal communication".
«" I understand your personal definition of "basic logic", and that is what I do not accept."»
Oh, really? Just out of curiosity, since you think you understand it, what do you think "basic logic" means? And what part of the above do you disagree with, exactly? You never have any followup when I offer basic logic; you just say you disagree with it, out of sheer perversity and spite.
«"People having different tastes in music has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not music is a good form of communication."»
Actually, it does. Some people may not like hearing music at all. Others might be tone-deaf.
«"Are you saying that just b/c it's not the most widely used form or the way you'd choose to communicate, it's not a valid form of communication?"»
No, just that it does not have any clear objective meaning.
«""That's adding music to what is already verbalized." Doesn't mean it's not a form of communication."»
I didn't say that music was not a form of communication.
«"You obviously aren't a musician, so you wouldn't understand how music itself can communicate to an individual."»
You're obviously a hypocrite, because you're using words rather then music to communicate right now.
«""Scripture is not clear communication." You mean, not clear to you."»
It's not clear to you, either, since you contradict yourself about what it says and make up your own narrative about what it says.
«"You're still saying God has to jump through hoops to provide convincing comunication to you within your definition of convincing and communication."»
No more than any human being has to "jump through hoops" in communicating. Are you jumping through hoops right now?
«"Sheep/shepherd metaphore. You, again, are not understanding what I'm communicating here."»
Obviously, you were not being clear. Don't blame me because your confusion caused you to fail. You make my argument for me.
«"But if you believe metaphors are not valid forms of communication"»
I didn't write "not valid", I wrote "not clear". Once again, you fail to understand.
«"You say the parent/child illustration does not reflect God's relationship with us. But, again, you do no follow-up."»
The follow-up would be obvious to anyone who was not a confused hypocrite:
Good parents talk to their children; they don't remain silent when their children talk to them.
Good parents don't slaughter their children in droves.
Good parents don't order one group of children to slaughter another group of their children in droves.
Good parents don't threaten their children with death and torture for minor disobedience.
Good parents don't pretend to kill themselves and bring themselves back to life, then tell their children that they have to believe that the parents died and came back to life in order not to be tortured forever.
«"No sound and voice. How do you know that if you don't recognize it?"»
Since there is no sound and no voice, there's nothing to recognize.
«"Repelling God. You blend lines again. He is not repelled by truth and logic; but, rather, He is repelled by pride, arrogance and mockery."»
Heh. I am repelled by your pride, arrogance, and mockery, but I still converse with you.
So God is not even as strong as I am? Your God is just a weaksauce pathetic little nothing.
«"What say you of these quotes: "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver"; "It is important to note that reason and logic are components of a worldview, not a total synoptic view of reality.""»
I say: If God exists, God can speak for himself. If God is not reasonable, there's no reason for me to accept that God exists.
«"Sincerity. Who said I was judging you?"»
I assure you, you have been offering arrogant judgment since we started.
«"Conversations. How do you know God is not using me to speak to you?"»
Because if God is using you, God is as incoherent and confused as you are. This does not speak well of God.
«"Denial. Prove I'm the one in denial."»
Easy: You agreed that you deny basic logic. Denial, right there.
«"I never said I was Yahweh."»
You just implied that God was speaking through you. Make up your mind -- if you can.
«"I reject your personal brand of logic all the time, not just whenever inconvenient."»
Now you're just lying. If you rejected basic logic all the time, you would not be trying to convince me of anything.
Post a Comment