Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 07-26-2004, 12:13 PM

(where christ-on-a-stick, QueenofSwords, and others had argued against the existence of the Xtian God...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

In their little testimonials that you linked to.

Then what is your opinion of their arguments? I suggest that you quote their arguments and then respond to them here.

(never any legitimate reasons for doing good other than "for God and his glory"?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

The above reason is the primary reason, there can of course be secondary reasons.

Very ingenious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Once you understand the magnitude of God's extreme moral purity, ie Holiness, you realize how eternal damnation is the natural consequence of rebelling against Him, ie doing wrong, including doing good for the wrong reason.

Seems like an awfully thin-skinned and unforgiving entity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

I said it is the natural consequence of God's extreme moral purity, it is not something God designed. IOW it is inherent in the nature of ultimate reality, ie God did not create Himself. But God did provide a way to be forgiven, thru His Son.

Does God also have a Daughter?

And why does one have to be "forgiven"?

And this is a strange argument: "God can't help it, because he's only acting according to his nature" -- implying that God is not responsible for his actions.

Ed · 07-26-2004, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed, it is now 17 days since I issued this challenge:

So here's a little exercise for you, Ed.

If you STILL wish to argue that Pharaoh initially hardened his own heart in Exodus 7:13, then you need to explain why this happened "as God had said".

This is a reference to Exodus 7:3, where he clearly said that HE would harden Pharaoh's heart.

If you still wish to pretend otherwise, then YOU must provide the Biblical verse in which God said, prior to Exodus 7:13, that PHARAOH was going to harden HIS OWN heart.

Shall I accept your surrender?

No, Ex. 7:13 just says that Pharoah's heart was hardened it does not say by whom. Ex. 7:3 is just a prediction that God will harden Pharoah's heart at some indefinite time in the future dealings with freeing His people.

Jack the Bodiless · 07-27-2004, 02:59 AM

Quote:

No, Ex. 7:13 just says that Pharoah's heart was hardened it does not say by whom.

Yes, it DOES. It says that this will happen AS GOD HAD SAID in Exodus 7:3 - which says that GOD will do the hardening.

However, I note that you are beginning to back off from your initial assertion that "the correct translation" was that PHARAOH initially hardened his own heart. You're still defying the Bible, but you're no longer reversing what the Bible actually says.

Quote:

Ex. 7:3 is just a prediction that God will harden Pharoah's heart at some indefinite time in the future dealings with freeing His people.

It is the ONLY VERSE that Exodus 7:13 could POSSIBLY be referring to.

There is NO OTHER VERSE that fits.

That was the point of my challenge.

Keep trying, Ed: keep reading that Bible. Eventually, you might understand...

Ed · 07-27-2004, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Originally Posted by Ed
An atheist converting is more of a supernatural event than the river parting. "Big miracles" were used to establish the canon. But as I said someone converting esp. an atheist is an even bigger miracle.

lp: LOL. This is FSTDT material!

And said where? And why is converting to some religion supposed to be a miracle?

Because all humans are naturally anti-Christian God and atheists especially so.

Quote:

Ed: I was initially impressed with his miracles of nature but he also has established an amazing chain of events not necessarily supernatural, that have demonstrated his powers to me. And I have experienced a supernatural relationship with Him.

lp: Whatever those "demonstrations" are. Parting a local river? Raining manna from heaven?

And what kind of a "relationship" is it? Anything like the relationship of Hillary Clinton to Eleanor Roosevelt?

Note: FSTDT is Fundies Say The Darnedest Things!
[/url]

Hardly. That relationship is non-existent, at least it is impossible she has one with Eleanor. Though she could have been communicating with another spiritual being pretending to Eleanor, ie a demon.

lpetrich · 07-28-2004, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Because all humans are naturally anti-Christian God and atheists especially so.

And how is that supposed to be the case?

(Hillary Clinton talking to Eleanor Roosevelt...)

Quote:

That relationship is non-existent, at least it is impossible she has one with Eleanor.

I wonder what makes Ed so sure of this.

Quote:

Though she could have been communicating with another spiritual being pretending to Eleanor, ie a demon.

A good one or a bad one?

Ed · 07-29-2004, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Yes, it DOES answer the question.

"Where did such an innate moral sense come from?"

Evolution and social conditioning.

No, those things just are, they are not oughts.

Quote:

Ed: "How can the moral come from the amoral?"

jtb: Evolution and social conditioning.

Again those things just are, they are not oughts.

Jack the Bodiless · 07-30-2004, 01:33 AM

Ed:

Quote:

"Where did such an innate moral sense come from?"

Evolution and social conditioning.

No, those things just are, they are not oughts.

I see that you're still having problems with reading comprehension.

"Where did such an innate moral sense come from?"

In other words: what is the SOURCE, the ORIGIN, of this innate moral sense?

Evolution and social conditioning.

"How can the moral come from the amoral?"

By evolution and social conditioning.

No amount of wittering about "oughts" will change the fact that "evolution and social conditioning" is an ANSWER to the QUESTION.

Evolution and social conditioning explain WHY we have an innate moral sense. If (for instance) we feel that child-rape is wrong and should be prevented because we have an innate sense that this is right, and we also have a known REASON why this should be so: then what's the problem? Nothing is left unexplained here!

...Of course, you're still avoiding the fact that God hardened Pharaoh's heart in Exodus 7:13.

Jack the Bodiless · 07-30-2004, 01:46 AM

I will also remind you that "God gave us morals" is NOT a satisfactory answer to the question you are NOW asking.

Quote:

"Where did such an innate moral sense come from?"

God.

No, that thing just is, it isn't an ought.

Why should we obey God?

Fear of punishment? Is that the ONLY reason that something is "bad"? Might makes right?

Then the citizens of Nazi Germany were right to betray any Jews living among them to the Gestapo, right? They would have been punished if they had not.

Similary, "you will be arrested" is a good enough reason according to your standards for why child-rape is wrong. But this has nothing to do with any "innate moral sense"!

It's simple, Ed. I have provided TWO reasons to behave morally. Fear of punishment, and an "innate moral sense" which I have EXPLAINED the origin of.

YOU have not provided any ADDITIONAL reasons that I have not.

Ed · 07-30-2004, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secular spoon

Originally Posted by Ed

Ed: The foundational flaw is that it assumes that just because the writer of the Pentateuch uses different names for God in different sections that therefore these were each written by different authors.

lp: Ed, Ed, Ed, that's only a small part of the case for JEDP.

Ed: Evidence? The very name of the theory points to the truth of my statement.

ss: Ed I know I've already said I dont know anything about the DH, but humour me here. I did some "research". Go to google, type in "documentary hypothesis" which should take you here.

From there I got this

J
Jahwist
stress on Judah
stresses leaders
anthropomorphic speech about God
God walks and talks with us
God is YHWH
uses "Sinai"

They even have 1 for each letter! (I'd add it here but the formatting doesn't copy over) So there we go. Evidence that the name isn't the only part of the DH. And all I had to do was type 2 words and click! I know its from a less than reputable source, but I'd say its a bit more reputable than "its in the NAME! I must be right!"

Oh and for the rest of you who might know something about the DH, I know its short but is that site accurate?? The whole theory seems pretty interesting.

-ss

I never said that the name is the WHOLE theory, I said that the name is the foundation of it. Of course they have built a whole structure of different assumptions on top of the foundation of the name hypothesis. But when the foundation is flawed the whole thing collapses.

Lugubert · 07-31-2004, 03:03 AM

My impression is that a theory usually is named only when it has taken some form and gained some acceptance. Can you give any quote to support your claim that the theory was founded on the name?

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

07-31-2004, 03:03 AM	#380
Lugubert Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Western Sweden Posts: 3,684	My impression is that a theory usually is named only when it has taken some form and gained some acceptance. Can you give any quote to support your claim that the theory was founded on the name?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.