Johnny Skeptic

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines the word "mercy" as follows:

"1 a : compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power; also : lenient or compassionate treatment <begged for mercy> b : imprisonment rather than death imposed as penalty for first-degree murder

"2 a : a blessing that is an act of divine favor or compassion b : a fortunate circumstance <it was a mercy they found her before she froze>

"3 : compassionate treatment of those in distress <works of mercy among the poor>"

Eternal punishnment without parole is not compassionate and merciful. If hell exists, nothing could be more compassionate and merciful than God granting skeptics a parole, and helping to rehabilitate them.

Withered

bfniii, you just cant seem to get past the part where you reference the bible for evidence.

You can not seem to get past using the bible to show how merciful god is.

This conversation can only go two ways with you.

We say god is not merciful, and the bible indicates such. We then point out a passage that supports this statement.

1) You say that we are mistaken, and that we have incorrectly interpreted the bible, or have used the passage out of context. You then claim to have the TRUTH at your disposal, and claim to have refuted our assertions.

OR...

2) You claim that special rules apply to judging the character of god, and that those special rules, exemptions, and disclaimers are found within the bible.

You do not seem to be able to recognize special pleading, circular logic, or cherry picking.

To top it all off, the length of time between posts seems unusual, and while not really an issue, makes this entire thread tedious.

Are you ever going to admit that you use circular logic to claim that the bible is true? Or that you use special pleading to keep from having to admit god is a shit head?

Seems if god were so merciful, it would be the easiest thing in the world to demonstrate, but here we are, taking months to figure it out. How come?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: If God was not merciful, how would you know it?

bfniii

this might be the most reasonable response i have ever encountered at infidels. kudos to you for your honesty and rationality.



it certainly is possible. however, would that system be just or chaotic? we don't know. even so, the existence we have now can be shown to be ordered, just, equitable and parsimonious. despite any unpleasantries, god still provides ultimate redemption.



it's important to acknowledge that just because something is possible, that does not mean it is unavoidable. surely, god knew that when he put the tree there.



i don't agree. adam had the freedom to abstain. that is more important than the temptation.

what difference does it make what the form of the temptation is? adam had freewill and could have let anything cloud his judgment. god just made the dymanic more concrete.



this conclusion is built on the faulty premise that god was wrong for either tempting adam or wanting adam to give in even though he said otherwise. again, temptation itself is not as important as the freedom adam had. furthermore, the fact that god informed adam in advance of the consequences does not make god duplicitous.



i couldn't disagree more. god places adam in a utopia out of sheer kindness, gives him free reign, provides for his every need, gives adam concrete freedom to ground his existence and even provides the boundary that all living things apparently must have to make their existence acceptable. adam makes a free choice, but somehow that is god's fault. what's more, the non-christian can't even show that god is unjust for allowing adam to exist in such a paradigm.



i'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this. i feel like my position is substantiated by a reasonable explanation of the metanarrative.



you addressed my understanding of logic (not that you would know what my level of understanding is) instead of my point about applying human morality to a supernatural being. that is a quintessential example of ad hominem. you addressed the person, not the information.



hmmm. then why not address my comment about the absurdity of trying to shoehorn god into our morality box?



i apologize. i will do my best to not do that again. if i forget, just slap me on the wrist again.



i have already drawn a parallel from ethics. now i'll draw another. suppose someone from ancient times is asked to operate a modern car. they've seen metal. they understand levers and dials. they know about wheels. however, they would have no idea how to operate a car. likewise, who are we to tell god he is acting immorally? as you so eloquently stated in your opening remark, we have no idea what the cosmic rules for existence-creation are. why are we trying to tell god what he should and shouldn't be doing based on our limited understanding of morality? it's just as logically absurd as an ancient person trying to operate a car.



as i said, the ancient person recognizes some aspects of the car, but certainly has no knowledge of how to operate it or how to recreate one. there is a wise saying that goes, never judge a person until you've walked a mile in their shoes. we have a limited understanding of morality. we know what applies for a human to another human. we do not know the totality of what applies to the supernatural. the student doesn't instruct the teacher despite knowing the principles of the subject.



again, i recommend that instead of pronouncing summary judgments on people, you listen and try to reproduce the alternatives first. that is a skill that is basically non-existent at infidels. yet, infidels maintain that they are so smart and christians are so dumb. it's easy to convince yourself you're brilliant when all you do is knock down strawmen. it's one thing to criticize what you don't understand. it's another to pat yourself on the back after doing so.

bfniii

i am not totally referencing the bible as evidence. however, it is necessary to do so in part because that's what we're discussing; the god of the bible.



if you think i haven't interpreted the bible correctly, all you have to do is deconstruct my points and show how your interpretation obviates all others. it's a piece of cake, right?



i have done no such thing. please read my response to mageth.



perhaps the people who choose not to understand are letting certain emotional biases cloud their judgment.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: Eternal punishment without parole is not merciful, especially since God withholds evidence that would cause some people to accept him if they were aware of it. Even if God did not withhold evidence, what proof do you have that eternal punishment without parole is fair and just?

Jack the Bodiless

Response to post #256 (ref. post #253)

All of these sources are far better preserved than the Bible, which has been continually recopied (resulting in known scribal errors, mismatches between different editions, and so forth). Your claim that the Bible was "the most reliable ancient document" was a crock (as usual).
No, it means that YOUR beliefs are not objective fact. You still don't understand how this works.
Yes, there is. A fallacy is a fallacy. There is no "open forum rule" which exempts you from logical fallacies: you have merely "openly" perpetrated a fallacy.
...Which you have utterly failed to do. However, even if you HAD done this, it still wouldn't indicate that the Bible is especially accurate: this would require supporting evidence for the Bible's claims (which is almost entirely lacking for much of the OT, and doesn't get much better than "Pontius Pilate existed" for the NT). Given the Bible's many known historical and scientific errors (which you have never refuted)... the case for the Bible is not looking good.
Maybe part of the problem is that you think you're Jesus? YOU have no authority to decree that Christians who don't share your belief in inerrancy are "mistaken"! Why do you keep imagining that you DO have this authority?

BTW, about 2 billion people is a pretty strange usage of the word "few".
No, it is not a logical conclusion. You do not understand what the phrase "logical conclusion" actually means.

The lack of any requirement for inerrancy-belief in Romans 10:9 (YOUR definition of a "Christian") proves that this is not a requirement of Christianity. That is a logical conclusion, regardless of your inability to understand logical arguments.

bfniii

no, they are not. the bible has been copied literally thousands and thousands of times. the sources you cite have not been copied nearly as many times. the more you copy and translate through the ages, the more opportunity for error. with that in mind, the bible has an unbelievable record of reliability.

both the book of the dead and hammurabi's code are merely a fraction in length compared to the NT, much less the entire bible. more words introduces more opportunity for error.

iirc, there really isn't one book of the dead. scribes used a template to create a personalized version that was sold to the deceased. the book wasn't intended to be copied literally word for word every time. it's not analogous.

hammurabi's code is thought to have been based on earlier sumerian laws. in that sense, hammurabi's code really isn't an original. furthermore, the code doesn't record historical events like the bible and NT does. aside from the fact that a significant portion of the code is missing (66-99) from the stele in the louvre (meaning other copies can't be validated against it), we don't even know that the stele is the original.

given the above, it is not entirely accurate to say that those other works have been better preserved than the bible.



yet, we know that despite these insignificant variants, the intent of the passage has not been changed. the number of times the bible has been recopied is one of it's strengths. it's a safeguard against anyone trying to change something. any change can't possibly go unnoticed or unchallenged.



you don't seem to be aware of the incredible, painstaking attention to detail that would necessarily be required for the bible to have the record of reliability and uniformity that it does. other works from antiquity just can't compare.



i have discussed several ways in which the bible is unique. we can agree to disagree.



show me the "constitution of open forums" that states that all people who post in any forum must obey this imaginary rule.



that's just it, there is no open forum rule. that's my point. you are claiming there is so that you can exempt yourself from having to support your positions all the while getting to take potshots at everyone else's; a comfortable position to be sure.

i have challenged your understanding of how this is a fallacy. i am putting the burden of proof on you to prove your beliefs. do it any way you can, i don't care. if you wish to convince anyone that anything you say is credulous at all, then you should be able to prove it without having to resort to the imaginary "rational argument construction club". this is a skeptic website. skeptics should be all too happy to attempt to convince someone of their beliefs. instead, people keep hiding behind this imaginary rule whenever their beliefs are questioned or when their arguments meet with rebuttal. how convenient.



jack, i can cite the posts. you know i can. why are you even trying to pass off this lie? you know about my responses to the SAB. you know about my responses to farrell till. you know about my responses to the sources al fresco cited.



let me explain it to you: if you do not believe in inerrancy, then any part of the bible can be abolished. if that's the case, then romans 10:9 does not necessarily apply to you. if that's the case, you're not even a christian. see how the logic works?



again, you are criticizing something that you apparently don't understand. what's worse is that it appears that you're not even trying to understand. you are trying to convince someone of your mistaken ideas. it might help if you try to understand first before you criticize.

Withered

bfniii, your stalling tactics are simply absurd.

You claim that you have pointed out all of the answers before, but all i can see are more posts where you claim to have pointed out the answers.

This thread is about the ability of mankind to read the bible's text and take away from it something about the nature of god. There is absolutely no reason to believe, unless you are already convinced, that the bible is any kind of special text.

Again special pleading, and circular logic is pretty much all we get from you. There is no excuse for this kind of useless repetition of your stance unless you have nothing else to offer.

While your empty assertions and clearly fallacious arguments may help to keep the faithful from questioning the character of god, they have done nothing for either your credibility, or the fact that god can be percived as unmerciful by those not already seduced by the bible's idiocy.

Perhaps we should take the biblical accuaracy question to BC&H for a more thorough examination?

L.

bfniii

please keep in mind that sometimes when i respond to someone like jack or johnny, i have responded to a point they made in another thread multiple times and they are quite aware of it despite the fact that they pretend otherwise. suspiciously enough, they never seem to be able to reproduce my position. what particular question can i answer?




i disagree. first, why can't we read the bible and know things about god? if god has chosen to reveal himself and the bible was the way that revelation was recorded, wouldn't we know something about god? second, the bible is not the only way we can know things about god, right?
it should be clear now that i am not stalling.



i see you stating this but i see no support for it. specifically which posts are you referring to?




here is where you show a lack of understanding of what you criticize. i think most all christians would agree that they have questioned god's character at one time or another. it's perfectly natural.



i don't recall you showing even one passage where god was hypocritical. you seem more prone to just making these unsubstantiated generalities without bothering to support them.



been there, done that.