TomboyMom

This is a very educational discussion, about topics about which I know very little (and I'll guess not many of us know very much) and perhaps deserving of a split?

I think what we need here is a professor of religion.

EthnAlln

Gamera, I'm afraid, is in a very untenable position in his attempt to claim that only Christianity ever thought of loving one's neighbor. To maintain that he needs special ad hoc hypotheses to account for Chinese and Hindu documents, and also for the works of Seneca, who lived in Rome and died about the same year as Saint Paul. Seneca was a member of the Roman elite and a Stoic. To ascribe his positions to Christian influence would be very implausible, especially since we know that he was inspired by the great humanitarian Greek tragedians Sophocles and Euripides. (I already mentioned "The Trojan Women" in another post, but I can't resist pointing out that Euripides' humanity and sympathy for non-Greeks is at odds with Gamera's claim that the world was just a bunch of violent yahoos until Christianity came along.) Well, see for yourself. Here's a start:

http://www.theatrehistory.com/ancient/seneca001.html

striderlives

Looks like this has derailed for the most part. But lots of good info anyway, which I appreciate very much. If I can recap in my laymans terms:

Apparently, it's clear that Yahweh is cruel, and that the only apologies that theists have is -

- the rat bastards deserved it cuz they disobeyed Yahweh.
- these are just cases of 'tough love'...quit being such pussies.
- Yahweh has had a celestial lobotomy and is not cruel 'anymore'.
- Yahweh commanding the slaughter of pregnant women and babies is part of his master plan to 'wean' them off of atrocities and onto compassion.
- Uh...Yahweh isn't cruel...let's talk about how Jesus's love is older than Hindu love...

Did I miss any?
:devil:

Amaleq13

Yes.

-The Bible just didn't include all the times Yahweh admonished humans for taking his commands to extremes.

TomboyMom

Good summary.
You missed moral presuppositionalism: Without Yahweh's absolute moral guidance, you have no basis on which to question the morality of his actions or anything else.
Also the most common response I get: What old testament atrocities?

Sven

By looking at animals. Since most animals don't have sef-awareness, but nevertheless show clear signs of feelings, this is crystally clear.

And may I remind you that you made the original claim that one does need to have self-awareness to have feelings? So why do I have to demonstrate that this is wrong? Theists are really obsessed with shifting the burden of proof!

post tenebras lux

Have we had the 'But they lived in a bad neighbourhood' excuse yet?

That Yahweh had to tell them to kill the babies to stop the babies growing up and using iron chariots against them.

TomboyMom

I've heard some pretty creative arguments and some pretty outlandish claims in response to the problem of the many gruesome OT atrocities commanded or perpetrated by Yahweh. I think the poor Jew/Christian has a few bad choices:
1. Yahweh is mythical. Can't accept that.
2. Yahweh is a blood-thirsty mass-murderer. (Sheshbazaar) (can't accept that.)
a. But I worship him anyway. (can't accept this easily.)
b. I better worship him, or I'm in big trouble on judgment day.
c. But without Yahweh you can't even condemn him, since you have no basis for your morality. (segue argument re: presuppostionalism.)
d. etc.

but a-d are all under admitting 2., which is a big drag.

3. Some weird rationale for why Yahweh is justified in murdering innocent babies. Gamera's is one of these. These theists will make some strange arguments to hold on to 3., because they can't accept 1. or 2. I don't really see any alternative. That's why Gamera is willing to argue, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that only Christianity preaches loving your enemy (although all major religions in fact espouse this), or that Jesus thought of it first (despite all the evidence that Buddha, Hinduism, Jainism, etc. said it first). Otherwise her own original argument as to why it's O.K. to murder innocent Amalakite babies falls apart, and she is left with a God who is either nonexistent or evil.

Personally, I pick door number 1.

EthnAlln

Hmm, you and I use different pronouns to refer to Gamera. I suppose you are being guided by the fact that the name ends in "a". I wasn't sure at first, so I looked a his/her profile and discovered that the information wasn't there. Judging from the writing style, I seemed to discern a male personality. Obviously Gamera doesn't care which pronoun is used, so I suppose it doesn't matter.

sunspark

Oh this is annoying, I keep missing these threads that have new replies, then have to play catch up.

There's a problem with that analogy: every cell in our body contains all our DNA, that determines everything about how our body looks and functions. To find DNA that is different means you've got the DNA of another person.

Famine is an "act of God"; truly corrupt governments (Africa anyone?) maintain it, in spite of good policy choices. Are some people not doing as much as they could/should? Yes, definitely. What's your point, exactly?

Kurt Cobain suffered and that was the cause of his suicide, not from reaching some supposed "plateau".

It's not a personal attack to call you on what you posted. What is amusing is that you still maintain I have to prove your assertions right or wrong.

"you're just pissed off with God"

Thank you, you summarised your post and attitude in making it very well.

"they had it coming"

"God didn't mean it"

"I don't see you doing anything about it"

Even after I pointed it out:

What difference does one person make? Not much. That's not an advocacy for doing nothing, the accusation you both keep whipping out, that's reality. There are a world of evils you and I can do nothing about. Does that mean we do nothing? Of course not. Individuals helping individuals, yes, that's better than nothing. But it's silly, downright silly to think if we all just tried a little harder the world would be anywhere near what it should. It doesn't, it won't.

If I had the power to wipe out world hunger, I would do it. If I had the power to wipe out disease, I would do it. The point trying to be made here is that out of all the things you say God could do, he doesn't and all you can say is that it has to be so?

You asked spin, "What wouldn't you get rid of". There would be many wonderful, amazing and fantastic things to keep. None of them includes mindless, pointless suffering as most (yes, I agree, not all, you seem to forget just how many people are on this globe, and what life is like for most of them: short and empty) suffering in the world is. Out the window they would go. How come I care more about real suffering, the people that suffer, than your God seems to?

Is the God of Paul and Gamera and Sheshbazzar (if you guys think you both share the same one) not the God of Abraham and Moses? Explain that to me, that's makes no sense whatsoever, that God just "went along" with everyone, let himself be lead along like a dog on a chain. Just what does he want right now? How do we know he won't change his mind again?

People are not made better people by suffering, they simply learn how to survive or die trying. Becoming a better person is a choice, but you keep advocating that only choice inspired by the coercion of suffering is beneficial or even possible. That's incorrect and sick.

"do as He says - at the moment - not as I do"

"shutup, He's God!"

By the way, you tend to make this argument regardless of the topic, so my question for you is: if it makes no difference, exactly what are you arguing for here? or restated, for what reason(s) do you engage in the discussion?

Of course it does.