Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gamera · 05-14-2006, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunspark

Once again - are we surprised? - we see Gamera and Sheshbazzar trying to "defend" their god by saying the equivalent of "they had it coming", "God didn't mean it", "I don't see you doing anything about it" and "you're just pissed off with God". Is that all you got? Pu-lease.

Never said nothing of the sort. I said the God only commanded what the Hebrews like the rest of barbarous humanity wanted to do anyway, kill and maim and rape. That's the legacy of humanity and the guiding ethics of the world until the rise of Judaism and ultimately Christianity.

I assert again, that the ethics of the classic world was strangers were fair game: kill them, rape them, enslave them. It's OK by pre-Christian ethics. Now is your opportunity to prove me wrong with historical evidence, rather than making personal attacks. If you have none, say so. If you have some, put up.

Gamera · 05-14-2006, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

Gamera,

You said above that you would not want to live in a world where no one dies. Will you be refusing entry to heaven once accepted? Or do you not believe that heaven exists? Or perhaps it does exist, but people can die there?

And do people have free will in heaven? If so, why don't murders and other atrocities happen there? If you say because people completely repent and beome righteous in the face of God himself in heaven (or some similar reasoning), then why couldn't that just be done on Earth in the first place?

Again, this is quibbling. I have no idea what "heaven" will be like or the nature of our existence there. The bible is virtually silent on the matter and what is said is highly metaphorical, probably because we simply cannot comprehend what that type of existence will entail.

But I can discuss what is an existentielle for our existence now, as humans, embedded in a world of phyical limits. Heck, I don't have to, you can just read Heidegger's Being and Time, and he goes into excruciating detail. I don't think any thoughful person can conclude that human existence would be meaningful or even recognizable as human without free will and without suffering and death. As Heidegger points out, care and anxiety about the future is the hallmark of Dasein, human existence. If we didn't die and didn't suffer, we would be human but something else.

Sheshbazzar · 05-14-2006, 05:30 PM

Quote:

11. suffer - be set at a disadvantage;

spin's constrained definition of the word "suffering" is really suffering, in light of what unbiased language experts report with regards to the accepted meanings and applications of the word suffering.

"This posters position really suffers in regard to his limited appreciation of the use of, and application of the the word suffering in the English language"

lose, "suffer"
decline, worsen - grow worse;

"The integrity of his argument suffered in the light of the facts"

Quote:

suffer - get worse;

"His argument suffered"

Vicki · 05-14-2006, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I said the God only commanded what the Hebrews like the rest of barbarous humanity wanted to do anyway, kill and maim and rape.

1. God only commands what humans are going to do anyway.

2. God is supposedly all-powerful and omniscient.

3. Humans do what God wants and knows they will do.

Do I have that right?

RUmike · 05-14-2006, 05:39 PM

Thanks Gamera. Sorry if I implied you were avoiding the issue.

Vicki · 05-14-2006, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

[/COLOR]
spin's constrained definition of the word "suffering" is really suffering, in light of what unbiased language experts report with regards to the accepted meanings and applications of the word suffering.

Ah, the "argument from dictionary".

I suggest you bring your dictionary references to the drought-stricken and war-torn areas of Africa and explain to them what suffering means.

Quetzalcoatl · 05-14-2006, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I find it frightening too. The Hebrews should have said, no way God. It's wrong to kill others. But nobody believed that back then (and many if not most don't believe that now). God would have been overjoyed if they had, just as he was overjoyed when Abraham pointed out to him that he was wrong to destroy Sodom if there were any righteous people in it. Abraham directly questions the rightness of God's decision, and God agrees. That's what he wants us to do -- challenge the concept of a theology God and experience love. Indeed, I think God didn't want Abraham to attempt to sacrifice Isaac. I think the text suggests that he wanted Abraham to argue with him, just as he did about Sodom, and to tell God its dead wrong to sacrifice a child at any time for any reason, so count me out. That would have been the right answer.

You find it frightening yet you insist on defending genocide. You find your own apologetics frightening?

Will you please stop with the nonsense’s that no one believed killing was wrong back then. Again you are undermining your own position. You claim that Abraham knew that killing was wrong.

You don’t seem to be challenging anything, you are contriving every possible excuse to defend your god.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

As to heaven, please, to quibble over what will experience now versus what we will experience as transformed persons is useless. The bible is virtually silent on what heaven means, and most of what it says is pure metaphor. The fact is, we're human now and human existence is embedded in a physical universe and free will. What an existence in heaven will be like, I have no idea and don't need to figure out to address the issue before us.

You can it quibbling all you want, it does not make it so. You are asserting that you do not want to lose your humanness yet you are looking forward to a state where god will take away your humanness. Your theology is inconsistent.

It you are asserting that god cannot create a state of existence where there is no suffering and free will creatures it means that whatever heaven is, either the beings there do not have free will or they suffer.

This is exactly the issue at hand. You argument is this is the best god can do yet you believe one day he will set up a state of existence that is better.

EthnAlln · 05-14-2006, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Check the manuscript dates on these and get back with me. All post Christian.

The Vedas and Buddha are many centuries pre-Christian. I know a bit about the Vedas because of the Sulva Sutras, which contain some geometric and numerical information about altar construction. They date from about 900 BCE to about 400 BCE. The Buddha was certainly (approximately) contemporary with Confucius and Pythagoras, 5 centuries before Christ.

Along these lines, I recently saw a documentary on the Ten Commandments, which also covered some other parts of Jewish law. In particular "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" was said to be not a barbaric law of revenge, but a limiting law, which forbade the exaction of an even more severe penalty. Well, maybe it was, but it certainly didn't originate in the Torah. Both commandments are found in the Code of Hammurabi, written at least 500 years before Moses lived.

Sheshbazzar · 05-14-2006, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicki

Ah, the "argument from dictionary".

I suggest you bring your dictionary references to the drought-stricken and war-torn areas of Africa and explain to them what suffering means.

I first used the word "suffer" in post #35 in this thread;

Quote:

All of us alike, believer and unbeliever suffer the same things, and if we are allowed to survive long enough to become adults, the things that we have seen, and the things that we have heard, and the things that we have experienced, should have sufficed to teach us the harsh lesson of life.

It is not difficult to understand what the intent of the word was in that context, That we all "go through" and "experience" certain similar, and emotionally painful events, of course there are greater degrees of suffering that the majority of us can be thankful that we are not the direct recipients of.

My "argument from the dictionary" is not directed at those poor suffering peoples, but at the disingenuous arrogance of one who stated here that any efforts to relieve their extreme suffering was futile, and "pissing in the wind".
So much for the "compassion" and the care for his fellow man as expressed by one such "humanitarian" atheist.

However, I have an acquaintance, who will again soon departing for Papua New Guniea to assist in the building of schools, and infrastructure (wells and electricity- eventually), and the delivering badly needed sanitation supplies (soap, bleach, and disinfectants) to a people who are trapped in a poor and geologically isolated country, where such simple everyday items are unavailable to the majority of the population.
If any of the "compassionate", "humanitarian atheists", here would like to actually DO something constructive to help the welfare of their fellow man, just send me a PM, and I'll gladly forward his contact information (No, he is NOT a member of my "religion", faith, or denomination, but a good work is worthy of the support of caring peoples)

Vicki · 05-14-2006, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Should babies alone receive some form of special isolation from everything that comes down upon the heads of all the rest of mankind?
And that only adults should be able to get cancer, or be crushed in earthquakes, or incinerated in volcanoes, and swept away in tsunamis?
Perhaps gawd should seal all the babies in the path of volcanic eruptions into little climate controlled bubbles, and float them around in the air until the lava cools, and all the burned bodies of their parents have decomposed, before he kindly releases them to play in the ashes?

All of us alike, believer and unbeliever suffer the same things, and if we are allowed to survive long enough to become adults, the things that we have seen, and the things that we have heard, and the things that we have experienced, should have sufficed to teach us the harsh lesson of life.

Suffering nothing we learn nothing, I had not known sorrow, except I had suffered loss, nor known joy, except that I had first experienced sorrow.
Therefore I give thanks to Him that brings upon me suffering and sorrow.

Hey Gawd, life's not fair!

Can't hear what He's saying? Listen closely,.....say you still can't hear Him?
OK then, let me clue you in;
Tough titty, you better get used to it, because that's the way it IS and that's the way its going to stay until the work is finished.

Let's remind everyone of the entirety of your post.

I especially want to remind everyone following this thread of the "tough titty" section.

You will die in agony of malnutrition, dehydration, malaria, etc... "tough titty"

You will be massacred by other religious/political factions..."tough titty"

"Tough titty, you better get used to it..." How can someone who is dead get used to it?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-14-2006, 05:39 PM	#145
RUmike Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 491	Thanks Gamera. Sorry if I implied you were avoiding the issue.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.