Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lee_merrill · 06-25-2005, 07:43 PM

Hi everyone,

Quote:

Badger3K: How do you tell the difference between your own feelings and those imposed upon you by your Lord?

If I can't produce an attitude on my own, that indicates it came from God, if I prayed for that.

Quote:

And would that make genocide or murder OK?

No, it would indicate that the command did not involve putting people to death without cause.

Quote:

How can you prove that, as in the cases of Moses and Joshua, that the attitude they had was NOT caused by God?

I would hold that they did have an attitude that had no ill will in it, a supernatural attitude they could not have come by, themselves. One indication of this is in letting Rahab and her family live, when she came over to the Israelites, thus they were not against these people, per se.

Quote:

If it comes from God, who are you to tell Him what an "ill-intent" is?

I do believe God's character and his commands must fit what he has told us, and what we (now) understand from this, of goodness, and of right conduct and right motives.

Quote:

It sounds like he is saying that we use descriptive terms all the time and do not raise objections normally.

Yes, that is what I meant.

Quote:

... when someone tries to say that an ancient myth is not literal, they have to prove that since the alternative (literal) is the standard, unlike today when most people know the "sun rises" is not literal.

But can we ask if people then would have considered this aspect essential? I don't think they would have, given that people have made this adjustment quite well, today.

Quote:

John: So he's saying that when the ancient myth states that the sun stood still, it does not mean that it literally stood still. It just means that the myth makers perceived it as standing still.

Yes, I would agree with this statement, and I would say they would not have a problem with being told that the sun really didn't rise.

Quote:

John: Moses did kill babies, of course, but he was only doing what god commanded, so technically--like Eichman--he was really not guilty of killing babies.

"I was only following orders," he would have said, if he'd been tried as a war criminal.

And again, Hitler certainly did not have a right intent, nor did he even have that prerogative, and to accuse God here, is to hold him accountable in every death, and to imply, it would seem, that infinite life here on earth would be best.

Quote:

John: Actually, I think the question deserves some modification--like how much did Moses enjoy killing those babies? Or, better yet, how much did god enjoy watching those babies being killed?

That is what I meant about a motive that involved no ill intent, though.

Regards,
Lee

badger3k · 06-26-2005, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Hi everyone,
If I can't produce an attitude on my own, that indicates it came from God, if I prayed for that.

How can you differentiate whether you are capable of producing an attitude on your own or not? Where do you draw the line? Are you saying that you are incapable of experiencing some emotions?

Quote:

No, it would indicate that the command did not involve putting people to death without cause.

So, then you would agree with the statement that "Moses and Joshua had cause to commit genocide"?

Quote:

I would hold that they did have an attitude that had no ill will in it, a supernatural attitude they could not have come by, themselves. One indication of this is in letting Rahab and her family live, when she came over to the Israelites, thus they were not against these people, per se.

So, we have one family out of thousands. I guess one family being allowed to live is evidence of the benevalent nature of the murderers. After all, one family makes up for the deaths of thousands of men, women, children, babies and fetuses. So if I go on a killing spree, believing that I am saving them from evil, then I have no ill will and that makes it ok? Or do I have to spare somebody before I continue my orgy of death to make my actions good?

Quote:

I do believe God's character and his commands must fit what he has told us, and what we (now) understand from this, of goodness, and of right conduct and right motives.

Well, I showed you that there are commands from God to kill and murder, and they are in both the Old and New Testaments. Right Conduct would therefore have to include murder (indeed, it seems Right Conduct can be summed up as "Obey God in Whatever Way He Wants").

Quote:

Yes, that is what I meant.

OK, thought so.

Quote:

But can we ask if people then would have considered this aspect essential? I don't think they would have, given that people have made this adjustment quite well, today.

But the people of that time did not think like we do today. In order to show that they did not believe in this account literally, we need textural proof. You would need to show that the people of that time clearly regarded this as allegorical, or metaphorical, or whatever. The best way would be a text from the same time that indicates another way of reading the story (a scholarly/rabbinical analysis perhaps), or else other texts that use the same phrasing in a way that is clearly not literal (literary conventions).

For example, from what I understand, we have Greek texts that have some philosopher discussing the metaphorical nature of their myths, so we have evidence that at the time the criticism was written, at least some Greeks did not see the Illiad (to use one example pulled out of my head) as literal. As far as I know, there is nothing from the time it was written (700+ BCE) that would indicate it was not written or understood as literal. Similarly, is there anything from the time that the events in the Bible were written that could indicate they believed the stories were not literally true?

Quote:

Yes, I would agree with this statement, and I would say they would not have a problem with being told that the sun really didn't rise.

Good, now, can you back that up with textural sources?

Bob K · 06-26-2005, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

If I can't produce an attitude on my own, that indicates it came from God, if I prayed for that.

Herein we all slip into the necessity for determining what is psychology.

See http://www.bobkwebsite.com/#Operational_Psychology for specifics inre Operational Psychology.

I developed OpPsych after years of research into systems of psychology, psychology theories, etc., while working at a state mental hospital. I therefore have seen individuals with mental problems, and I have seen some of them make progress and thereby develop mental health.

You are your mind and your body.

Your body is your physiology, the chemistry, physics and biology which is the material, physical, you.

Your mind is your complex, your system, of desires, fears and priorities.

Desire = Wanting a person, object or event.

Object = That which is comprised of matter/energy and which has a longer duration in time than a relevant event.

Examples: Jane, a ball, Dick.

Event = Causal relationship between/among objects.

Example: Jane throws the ball to Dick.

Fear = Not-wanting a person/object/event.

Priority = The importance of each desire or fear compared to all other desires and fears.

You are motivated by your desires/fears/priorities, you move because you have desires to move, fears of not moving, and priorities among your desires and fears.

Your mind is physically located internally, within you, in your nervous system; your mind is not located externally, outside you, to your nervous system: your mind is not independent of your body; instead, your mind is dependent upon your body.

Feelings are reactions to realizations of desires/fears/priorities.

Feelings develop in a sequence:

1. Desire: _____ (?) [For a person/object/event]
2. Realization: _____ (?) [Who/What is gotten of who/what is desired]
3. Feeling: _____ (?) [The Reaction to the Realization of the Desire].

Your concept of attitude is meaningless unless converted to a desire/fear/priority or a feeling.

If your attitude is a desire/fear/priority, then, because your mind = desires/fears/priorities and is located entirely within you, your attitude is within you and therefore your responsibility. If you have an attitude which is, or produces, a desire to kill babies, that attitude does not come from some being outside of you, but, instead, comes from within you.

We are not aware of the existence of proof, physical evidence, which proves conclusively that gods exist.

You were asked to provide physical evidence of the existence of gods, but you, like everyone else before you, failed to do so, and, therefore, appealing to gods as the source of any phenomena, including attitudes, is rejected totally.

If your attitude is a feeling, that feeling results from first having desires/fears/priorities and then a realization of those desires/fears/priorities, so, we are back to the existence within you of the desires/fears/priorities which motivate you, which are your own, which are not those of some god, which you have not proven exists.

Thus, if you have an attitude, it consists of/results from your desires/fears/priorities, for which you, and you alone, are responsible.

Believing that you are a conduit for the attitudes of a god which you have not proven to exist is (A) neurotic thinking, bizarre, unproductive thoughts while yet in touch with reality, being aware of WIGO [what is going on], at best, and (B) psychotic thinking, bizarre, unproductive thoughts while out of touch with reality, not being aware of WIGO.

John A. Broussard · 06-26-2005, 02:03 PM

John: So he's saying that when the ancient myth states that the sun stood still, it does not mean that it literally stood still. It just means that the myth makers perceived it as standing still.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Yes, I would agree with this statement, and I would say they would not have a problem with being told that the sun really didn't rise.

Thanks for your answer. Then the sun didn't really stand still, even though the bible specifically said that it did.

Now, how do you reconcile the fact that the bible is saying something that just isn't so with the literal interpretation of that document?

lee_merrill · 06-27-2005, 07:27 PM

Hi everyone,

Quote:

Badger3k: How can you differentiate whether you are capable of producing an attitude on your own or not?

If I make the attempt (again and again, even), and I fail, and ask for it, and then subsequently, it is there, without me exerting myself, that is the primary indication, for me.

Quote:

Lee: No, it would indicate that the command did not involve putting people to death without cause.

Badger3k: So, then you would agree with the statement that "Moses and Joshua had cause to commit genocide"?

Not if there is life after death! Genocidaires kill people to eliminate them forever.

I would hold that Moses and Joshua had cause to put them to death.

Quote:

Lee: I would hold that they did have an attitude that had no ill will in it ... One indication of this is in letting Rahab and her family live ... thus they were not against these people, per se.

Badger3k: I guess one family being allowed to live is evidence of the benevalent nature of the murderers.

It does show that they were not against these people per se, though. I am not trying to prove all of my position, in this one example.

Quote:

Lee: I do believe God's character and his commands must fit what he has told us, and what we (now) understand from this, of goodness, and of right conduct and right motives.

Badger3k: Well, I showed you that there are commands from God to kill and murder, and they are in both the Old and New Testaments.

Which command commands murder, though? I do not remember this quote, but now putting people to death is commanded, in some instances, so if that is what you meant by "killing," then there are commands like that.

Quote:

Lee: But can we ask if people then would have considered this aspect essential?

Badger3k: You would need to show that the people of that time clearly regarded this as allegorical, or metaphorical, or whatever.

But I meant that they would be willing to incorporate the knowledge that the earth orbits the sun, seeing that it did not inherently conflict in some essential way with what they believed, seeing, as we do, that apparent language may be used.

Quote:

Badger3k: Similarly, is there anything from the time that the events in the Bible were written that could indicate they believed the stories were not literally true?

I would hold that the sun stopping its motion in the sky was literally true, and expect they would hold to that as well. As far as appearances being deceiving, well, doesn't everyone recognize that that is possible?

Like when you drink too much:

Proverbs 23:33 Your eyes will see strange sights and your mind imagine confusing things.

So seeing is not believing, in every case.

Quote:

Bob: If you have an attitude which is, or produces, a desire to kill babies, that attitude does not come from some being outside of you, but, instead, comes from within you.

Well, I was saying an attitude would be necessary that did not actually desire this. I agree that such an attitude, with such a desire, would not come from God.

Quote:

We are not aware of the existence of proof, physical evidence, which proves conclusively that gods exist.

Do speak for yourself! I have been healed, I do believe, several times, as the result of my own and other's prayers.

Quote:

... so, we are back to the existence within you of the desires/fears/priorities which motivate you, which are your own, which are not those of some god, which you have not proven exists.

And you haven't proven that you exist! Or that your doctor exists, why do you believe in your doctor? And I have some similar evidence, of God.

Quote:

John: Thanks for your answer. Then the sun didn't really stand still, even though the bible specifically said that it did.

Now, how do you reconcile the fact that the bible is saying something that just isn't so with the literal interpretation of that document?

Just as when the wind stopped, I believe the effect was meant, and not that there was an objective, distinct wind (or that people necessarily believed in such, even back then), that was moving through the air, and then slowed down, and stopped...

Speaking of stopping, it's late, and tomorrow morning will be early...

Regards,
Lee

badger3k · 06-27-2005, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

If I make the attempt (again and again, even), and I fail, and ask for it, and then subsequently, it is there, without me exerting myself, that is the primary indication, for me.

You have to exert yourself to feel sympathy for someone? You have to exert yourself to feel that it is wrong to kill someone? The more you talk, the more concerned I am for you. Seek professional help. You haven't been diagnosed with any sociopathic tendencies, have you?

Quote:

Not if there is life after death! Genocidaires kill people to eliminate them forever.

You don't understand what "genocide" is, do you?
From the Oxford American Dictionary:

Quote:

genocide |ˈjenəˌsīd| noun the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation. DERIVATIVES genocidal |ˌjenəˈsīdl| adjective ORIGIN 1940s: from Greek genos ‘race’ + -cide .

Nothing about life after death, which is not a concept that everyone believes in, everyone agrees with, or has been proven in even the slightest way. Genocide is murder writ large - the deliberate killing of a population. It has nothing to do with the "extinction of the soul" (my words). Do you believe that people can kill off this thing you call a soul?

Quote:

I would hold that Moses and Joshua had cause to put them to death.

Ok, so you agree that god telling them to commit genoide is sufficient cause for you.

Quote:

It does show that they were not against these people per se, though. I am not trying to prove all of my position, in this one example.

No, but you are supposedly trying to defend your position. If this is an example of how you know that the Israelites had no ill will in their heart, and you can't even support that, then what kind of example is it?

Quote:

Which command commands murder, though? I do not remember this quote, but now putting people to death is commanded, in some instances, so if that is what you meant by "killing," then there are commands like that.

That's exactly what I mean by killing. No need to use quotes. Killing people is killing people. When Jesus told the Jews that they should be killing disobedient children, that is not killing to you? They were not killed? They did not die if they were put to death?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oxford American Dictionary

killing |ˈkili ng | noun an act of causing death, esp. deliberately. adjective causing death : [in combination ] weed-killing.
• informal exhausting; unbearable : the suspense will be killing.
• dated overwhelmingly funny. PHRASES make a killing have a great financial success : they're a safe investment, you can make a killing overnight.

DERIVATIVES killingly adverb kill 1 |kil| verb [ trans. ] 1 cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing) : her father was killed in a car crash | [ intrans. ] a robber armed with a shotgun who kills in cold blood.
• put an end to or cause the failure or defeat of (something) : the committee voted to kill the project.
• stop (a computer program or process).
• informal switch off (a light or engine).
• informal delete (a line, paragraph, or file) from a document or computer. • (in soccer or other ball games) make (the ball) stop.
• (in tennis and similar games) hit (the ball) so forcefully that it cannot be returned.
• neutralize or subdue (an effect or quality) : the sauce would kill the taste of the herbs.
• informal consume the entire contents of (a bottle containing an alcoholic drink).

2 informal overwhelm (someone) with an emotion : the suspense is killing me.
• ( kill oneself) overexert oneself : I killed myself carrying those things home.
• used hyperbolically to indicate that someone is extremely angry with another person : my parents will kill me if they catch me out here.
• cause pain or anguish to : my feet are killing me.

3 pass (time, or a specified amount of it), typically while waiting for a particular event : when he reached the station, he found he actually had an hour to kill.

noun [usu. in sing. ] an act of killing, esp. of one animal by another : a lion has made a kill.
• an animal or animals killed, either by a hunter or by another animal : the vulture is able to survey the land and locate a fresh kill.
• informal an act of destroying or disabling an enemy aircraft, submarine, tank, etc.
• (in tennis and similar games) a very forceful shot that cannot be returned.

PHRASES be in at the kill be present at or benefit from the successful conclusion of an enterprise. go (or move in or close in) for the kill take decisive action, often ruthlessly, to turn a situation to one's advantage. if it kills one informal whatever the problems or difficulties involved : we are going to smile and be pleasant if it kills us. kill oneself laughing informal be overcome with laughter. kill two birds with one stone proverb achieve two aims at once. kill with (or by) kindness spoil with overindulgence.

PHRASAL VERBS kill someone/something off get rid of or destroy completely, esp. in large numbers : there is every possibility all river life would be killed off for generations.
• (of a writer) bring about the “death�? of a fictional character. ORIGIN Middle English (in the sense [strike, beat,] also [put to death] ): probably of Germanic origin and related to quell . The noun originally denoted a stroke or blow.

THE RIGHT WORD When it comes to depriving someone or something of life, the options are seemingly endless. To kill is the most general term, meaning to cause the death of a person, animal, or plant, with no automatic implication of a method or cause (: killed in a car accident). Even inanimate things may be killed ( | Congress killed the project when they vetoed the bill). To slay is to kill deliberately and violently; it is used more often in written than in spoken English (: a novel about a presidential candidate who is slain by his opponent). Murder implies a malicious and premeditated killing of one person by another (: a gruesome murder carried out by the son-in-law), while assassinate implies that a politically important person has been murdered, often by someone hired to do the job ( | assassinate the head of the guerrilla forces). Someone who is put to death by a legal or military process is said to be executed (: execute by lethal injection), but if someone is killed primarily to get rid or him or her, the appropriate verb is dispatch, which also suggests speed or promptness ( | after delivering the secret documents, the informer was dispatched). While slaughter is usually associated with the killing of animals for food, it can also apply to a mass killing of humans (: the slaughter of innocent civilians provoked a worldwide outcry). Massacre also refers to the brutal murder of large numbers of people, but it is used more specifically to indicate the wholesale destruction of a relatively defenseless group of people (: the massacre of Bethlehem's male children by King Herod).

Thesaurus
killing noun a brutal killing murder, assassination, homicide, manslaughter, elimination, putting to death, execution; slaughter, massacre, butchery, carnage, bloodshed, extermination, annihilation; literary slaying. adjective 1 a killing blow deadly, lethal, fatal, mortal, death-dealing; murderous, homicidal; literary deathly. 2 informal : a killing schedule exhausting, grueling, punishing, taxing, draining, wearing, prostrating, crushing, tiring, fatiguing, debilitating, enervating, arduous, tough, demanding, onerous, strenuous, rigorous; informal murderous.PHRASES make a killing informal Tess made a killing in real estate make a large profit, make a/one's fortune, make money, rake it in, clean up, cash in, make a pretty penny, make big bucks.

What part of that is not understandable. You can split hairs all you want, but let's be honest. Killing is killing is killing. I don't give a rat's posterior whether you think there is some justification that does not make it an act of putting someone to death. How can you honestly say that putting a baby to the sword (ie - chopping it in half so that it dies a brutal, agonizing death) is not killing. How can you say that to stone someone (ie - throw rocks at someone to break their bones), for example, is not to kill someone?

Quote:

But I meant that they would be willing to incorporate the knowledge that the earth orbits the sun, seeing that it did not inherently conflict in some essential way with what they believed, seeing, as we do, that apparent language may be used.

You've said that's what you believe. Reading your other threads, I can tell you have very little practical experience, so I have no reason to believe you. Prove it to me. Give me examples.

Quote:

I would hold that the sun stopping its motion in the sky was literally true, and expect they would hold to that as well. As far as appearances being deceiving, well, doesn't everyone recognize that that is possible?

Like when you drink too much:

Proverbs 23:33 Your eyes will see strange sights and your mind imagine confusing things.

So seeing is not believing, in every case.

You have the strangest "logic" and thought patterns. You say you believe the sun literally stood still in the sky, but then you say that you can't believe everything you see. So, which is it? Did the sun stand still (or the earth stop, or...what?), or were people hallucinating? How does one back up the other? Or are you suggesting that miracles are collective hallucinations?

John A. Broussard · 06-28-2005, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Hi

Just as when the wind stopped, I believe the effect was meant, and not that there was an objective, distinct wind (or that people necessarily believed in such, even back then), that was moving through the air, and then slowed down, and stopped...

Do you have any idea what you are talking about here?

"the effect was meant." What effect? What was it supposed to mean? What does this have to do with the wind?

Want to try again? Did the sun stand still in the heavens? If it didn't, why does the bible lie about it?

Bob K · 06-28-2005, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob K

If you have an attitude which is, or produces, a desire to kill babies, that attitude does not come from some being outside of you, but, instead, comes from within you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

Well, I was saying an attitude would be necessary that did not actually desire this. I agree that such an attitude, with such a desire, would not come from God.

Moses said God said that the Jws should kill babies.

If Moses' statement is true, that God said to him, Moses, that the Jws should kill babies, then God is a baby-killer, a monstrosity unto itself, and Moses, like Nazi koncentration kamp killers, was "only following orders."

If Moses' statement is not true, and, therefore, God did not tell him the Jws should kill babies, then the attitude, the desire, that Jws should kill babies came only from within Moses, from Moses, himself, and, therefore, Moses is a baby-killer.

Either way, you lose.

But then there's the possibility that, according to Jwsh archaeologists, because there is no physical evidence of the existence for forty years in the Mideast deserts of 600,000 warriors and 2, 500,000 family members and support staff, the stories of the Pentateuch are fables, fictions and not facts, and, therefore, Moses was a myth, etc.

But then you have the problem of explaining how it is that the Bable, and your god, lied inre Moses.

Godless Dave · 06-28-2005, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallener

Although clearly a mythical story, the moral issues raised are still real. Yes, Moshe is a baby killer. Moshe also knows full well that if he loses, he and his buds and their kids will likewise be slaughtered. From a modern perspective, the lesson is clearly Machievellian: if you're going to fight, know why you're fighting, and do the job thoroughly so you don't have to do it twice.

War is Hell.

Not in anyway trying to rationalize away the implications. This is an extremely difficult passage for Judaism, and will (I hope) continue to remain so for a long long time. I hope I never get so calloused that I can read that without cringing.

What strikes me is that if you read it as a product of human literature from that time and place it makes perfect sense. Most societies of that time, as you noted, waged war in the same way. Most of them asked their culture's god or gods for victory in war and thanked them if they won. The difficulty only comes when you read it as the product of a just and righteous God who loves all people on earth.

John A. Broussard · 06-28-2005, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

What strikes me is that if you read it as a product of human literature from that time and place it makes perfect sense. Most societies of that time, as you noted, waged war in the same way. Most of them asked their culture's god or gods for victory in war and thanked them if they won. The difficulty only comes when you read it as the product of a just and righteous God who loves all people on earth.

That is cutting to the chase.

It's just the way those people were. To be critical of them is taking them out of their own era, which is ridiculous.

However, for some theist to insist that killing babies is fine--should god order the butchery--simply indicates the theist's lack of any moral sensitivity.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.