Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 05-15-2006, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

There is a reason for your political alienation, Sheshbazzar. You live in a society which makes sure you feel politically alienated and so you don't put any support in the political system because you believe there is little to achieve in doing so. This is very convenient for the military industrial complex: the fewer participants in the political the easier it is for them to do things. This is also very convenient for other policy interested groups, because they don't seriously have to consider issues such as health care, work place protection, child support, and internal poverty. They don't have to waste money on you because you don't expect them to, because you are politically alienated. This is how the hand-out system comes up. The government doesn't look after its population, unless you consider food stamps, so there have developed tangential means through the few caring in the society. This is merely a surrogate for non-existent governmental action.

Worse of course than the wilful disregard for the internal population this system has an even lower regard for people in other countries. This again is because of your political alienation.

As I've said for every person helped by Peter and friends, George and his cadres kill a score. Doesn't your political alienation kill them?

spin

It would mistaken to think that because of my "political alienation" that I'm not politically active.
Following both the teachings and example of the elders of my faith, I both vote on issues, and give my votes to those political candidates whose platforms are not overly offensive to my conscience. (I do not expect perfection - the lesser of two evils must oft suffice)
I also encourage my family, friends, and neighbors to be involved in the Democratic process by registering and voting.
Knowing full-well that whatever politician achieves office, (even my own "choice"), is going to exploit the opportunity to stick his hands deeply into the pockets of taxpayers to finance his programs, having made my forced "donations" to his vision, and to the "charity's" of his choice,
I am not so naive as to think it will result in any immediate appreciable benefit to anyone other than his wealthy cronies, so out of that portion which remains out of their grasp, we who care, and are compassionate, provide some small measure of help for those suffer1ing poor, that the wise and powerful politicians just never seem to be able to effectively get around to actually helping. (they always having "bigger irons in the fire" and "more pressing matters on the agenda")
So my "political alienation" is simply an aversion to the corruption, and to the compromised principals inherent in the political process of compromise.
The making of political compromises and alliances with the Bin-Laden's and Hussain's of this world are the source of most of our International problems.

Gamera · 05-15-2006, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by striderlives

This would seem morally equivalent to the following:

You have a son who is a child molester. As a loving father - for whom not a sparrow could fall without your anxious concern - you want to 'slowly transform' his ethics......so you 'let him do what he would do anyway', by letting him rape...oh....3, maybe 4 more children over the next few months while you 'move' him toward empathy and love.....

Do I have the right of that?
:devil:

No, a poor analogy.

How about this. You run a prison and all the inmates are murderers. You want to teach them to love others. But they don't wanna listen. So you hatch a plan to separate out a few of the bad guys, teach them what you know, and let them then teach others. To do that, you play the tough guy, playing up how if they stick with you, they'll be king of the hill, cock of the roost, badest of the bad, getting the most cigarettes and conjugal visits. So you let 'em fight when they want to, because they're going to fight anyway, but you use this appalling aggression to separate their gang from the rest of them. Once you've done that, you start teaching them that maybe fighting isn't such a good way to live, and it isn't really about being king of the hill. And then we're on our way to the New Testament.

spin · 05-15-2006, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

It would mistaken to think that because of my "political alienation" that I'm not politically active.
Following both the teachings and example of the elders of my faith, I both vote on issues, and give my votes to those political candidates whose platforms are not overly offensive to my conscience. (I do not expect perfection - the lesser of two evils must oft suffice)
I also encourage my family, friends, and neighbors to be involved in the Democratic process by registering and voting.
Knowing full-well that whatever politician achieves office, (even my own "choice"), is going to exploit the opportunity to stick his hands deeply into the pockets of taxpayers to finance his programs, having made my forced "donations" to his vision, and to the "charity's" of his choice,
I am not so naive as to think it will result in any immediate appreciable benefit to anyone other than his wealthy cronies, so out of that portion which remains out of their grasp, we who care, and are compassionate, provide some small measure of help for those suffer1ing poor, that the wise and powerful politicians just never seem to be able to effectively get around to actually helping. (they always having "bigger irons in the fire" and "more pressing matters on the agenda")
So my "political alienation" is simply an aversion to the corruption, and to the compromised principals inherent in the political process of compromise.
The making of political compromises and alliances with the Bin-Laden's and Hussain's of this world are the source of most of our International problems.

This is all pretty much political-alienation-speak.

It is not sufficient to simply vote. To get forces out of Vietnam there was not a vote. There was mass activity, the sort of activity which should have been behind movements such as the one Cindy Sheehan was involved in. But then, that's just the tip of the iceberg. The first most charitable thing to do is stop the killing. I guess band-aids make you feel like you've done something.

spin

spin · 05-15-2006, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

No, a poor analogy.

How about this. You run a prison and all the inmates are murderers. You want to teach them to love others. But they don't wanna listen. So you hatch a plan to separate out a few of the bad guys, teach them what you know, and let them then teach others. To do that, you play the tough guy, playing up how if they stick with you, they'll be king of the hill, cock of the roost, badest of the bad, getting the most cigarettes and conjugal visits. So you let 'em fight when they want to, because they're going to fight anyway, but you use this appalling aggression to separate their gang from the rest of them. Once you've done that, you start teaching them that maybe fighting isn't such a good way to live, and it isn't really about being king of the hill. And then we're on our way to the New Testament.

This is another stunning analogy. You create the murderers and then you want to teach them to love others. Bit late there, Gamera. Besides, you normally lock up such sadists as those who torture people. You normally have no truck with liars. And why do some arbitrarily get separated for special treatment when you are responsible for everyone?

spin

Amaleq13 · 05-15-2006, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

The reasoning isn't circular.

Of course it is. You cannot offer any rational argument that requires the conclusion so you have to assume it in your definition.

Quote:

The distinguishing quality of human existence is the state of having free will.

Here, you are retreating from asserting your circular redefinition of our species to a subjective assertion that free will is "the distinguishing quality of human existence". There is no similar flaw in this expressed belief.

Quote:

For instance, we could make a clone but tamper with its brain so it only did what it was told. Human or nohuman? Seems to me obvious, but be my guest and disagree.

A clone from a species continues to be a member of that species so it is, by any rational definition of that species, obviously human.

But, as Toto pointed out, this takes us far from BC&H material.

Amaleq13 · 05-15-2006, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Moses doesn't even say God commanded this scorched earth policy. He just gives what he thinks is the rationale for it. He personally orders them to kill kill kill. He clearly enjoyed it.

Here's what we're told God actually commanded:

Numbers 25:17 - "Harass the Mid'ianites, and smite them;

According to Blue Letter Bible:

"smite" = nakah = 1) to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill

God told Moses to kill them.

Toto · 05-15-2006, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Quote:

Originally Posted by striderlives

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Yeah, unpleasant though it is, they were barbaric people who wouldn't believe in a God that didn't give them barbaric victories in war. So God played the game, let them do what they would do anyway, until he had separated them from the rest of the world, and slowly transformed their ethics to empathy and love. Like I say, an ugly trip. Glad I didn't have to make it, but instead got the end product -- the gospel of Jesus, which requires us not only to love our neighbors, but our enemies. Don't you find it interesting that this ethic exists in Christianity (and nowhere else) and purports to derive from the OT

This would seem morally equivalent to the following:

You have a son who is a child molester. As a loving father - for whom not a sparrow could fall without your anxious concern - you want to 'slowly transform' his ethics......so you 'let him do what he would do anyway', by letting him rape...oh....3, maybe 4 more children over the next few months while you 'move' him toward empathy and love.....

Do I have the right of that?

No, a poor analogy.

How about this. You run a prison and all the inmates are murderers. You want to teach them to love others. But they don't wanna listen. So you hatch a plan to separate out a few of the bad guys, teach them what you know, and let them then teach others. To do that, you play the tough guy, playing up how if they stick with you, they'll be king of the hill, cock of the roost, badest of the bad, getting the most cigarettes and conjugal visits. So you let 'em fight when they want to, because they're going to fight anyway, but you use this appalling aggression to separate their gang from the rest of them. Once you've done that, you start teaching them that maybe fighting isn't such a good way to live, and it isn't really about being king of the hill. And then we're on our way to the New Testament.

I've been trying to make sense of this, but I can't, nor can I make sense of this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

In Genesis 18 (one of the great scenes of the Hebrew Scripture), God parenthetically tells Abraham that he's had enough of Sodom and going to destroy the whole city, lock stock and barrel (we later learn in Ezekiel that the reason is the greed and selfishness of the Sodomites, not their sexual practices, but that's another story).

Abraham knows that's wrong. He argues with God explicitly aserting that God is making a moral mistake."

Wilt thou indeed destroy the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt thou then destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? 25 Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" 26

Does God strike him down? Nope, he listens, and agrees with him. There can be only one conclusion to this: God wanted Abraham to argue with him and point out the moral flaw of killing the good Sodomites with the bad.

Genesis 18 is a set up for Genesis 22, perhaps the most important event in the Hebrew Scriptures, the binding of Isaac. It has a similar structure as Gen 18. God informs Abraham of an immoral plan: the sacrifice of Isaac. Worse yet, he commands Abraham to do it. Unlike the Sodomites, this doesn't involve strangers, but his own son. So the right thing for Abraham to do is to do what he did in Gen 18. But he doesn't. Putting faith above love (or more precisely putting his hope of becoming great above his own son), Abraham doesn't say a word and complies. It's appalling. God give him every opportunity to speak up and protest. He points out that Abraham loves his son. He sends him a three-day trip to Moriah to make the sacrifice, so he can mull it over. He has Isaac make poignant comments about, "Hey, dad, where's the lamb you plan on sacrificing." But Abraham fails, too caught up in the notion of faith and the concept of being the father of nations to do the right thing and say "no."

So God, disappointed, stops him and makes one of the oddest speeches in the bible:

. "By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, 18 and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice." 19

This speech makes no sense on its face since God has already promised to multiply Abraham's descendents in Genesis 17. So the "because" can't be right if it means he was a success. It only makes sense if Abraham was a failure and so God is making a concession, like this:

. ". . . because you have done this [failed the test by not protesting], and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will indeed bless you [because you need it, and if you need it, being a righteous man, the best man I could find and a person I'm communicating with directly, so does everybody else],. . .because you have obeyed my voice [rather than doing the right thing and disagreeing with me like you did when I said I was going to destroy Sodom]

What Abraham has set in motion here, by failing the test, is the need for an historical Israel and the law, as a way to ultimately teach the preeminence of God's love, which Abraham, despite being in direct communication with God and being led to the drinking trough, didn't get. Like Moses, Solomon, David, and all the other OT patriarch, Abraham was an utter failure.

This presents God as a wily psychotherapist who works from a position of weakness, and is forced to pretend to go along with his wacko patients' delusions until he can gain their trust and slowly turn them around. But the patients (or inmates?) retain the early stories that God told when he was just pretending to go along with their delusions, and cherish them, and become upset and irritable when someone from outside points out that the stories are not very nice.

Is that the argument? would it make sense to split this off and discuss it in some other forum?

TomboyMom · 05-15-2006, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

[1] Yes, you have misunderstood. The incident was in one specific time, those particular babies were, because of what was coming, removed from experiencing a lifetime of degradation and misery.

Actually it was lots and lots of specific times, separated by hundreds of years. It's not an incident. It's many incidents.

[2]No, "this logic" that you are trying to force is faulty, and not applicable, And "the same is not true for me, being in a different time, and in different circumstances, and under a different, and a better Covenant. [/quote] Putting logic in quotes doesn't keep it from being logic. It was moral for the Israelites to obey Yahweh's commandments to slaughter innocent babies, but not moral for you, because...? Why?

Quote:

However, ALL babies, (and some adults) become "better off in heaven than on earth", which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone with the least bit of acquaintance with the Bible

. And that's why it was O.K. for the Israelites to kill them? If not, why did you bring it up?

Quote:

Just a repetition of the fact that you have misunderstood my standards. You use the word "justified" a lot, What causes to be, is always fully justified, and requires no excuses nor justifications by mortals.

sorry, you lost me here.

Quote:

Again trying to force your misunderstanding unto me, YHWH never "acts wrongly", justice and the right of ultimate judicial decision is His, no mortal may overturn His will.
In the Courts of this land, appointed judges issue decisions on sometimes hard issues, being called before one of these mortal judges, men may at times be displeased and find fault with his decision, and being grieved that the decision was not "justified", appeal it to a Higher Court, and if the Higher Court finds the decision "justified", it stands.
But because the use of "justice" among men is notoriously abused, the Highest Courts in the land may render decisions that are not just, and that are not justified, but yet become the Law, binding upon all.
For this, there has always been the concept of a Higher Judge, whose decisions are always final, and always right, and always justified.
Whatever YHWH decides, (who is not a man, that He should error as a mortal judges do), is justified

If I understand you here, whatever Yahweh does is moral, because Yahweh does it? No matter how immoral it may otherwise be by our standards? So if Yahweh commits acts that would be stunningly immoral if I did them, they are moral, just because Yahweh does them?

Quote:

YHWH is not a man, and your "morals" are not His, your perceptions and reasoning powers are too limited to impose your tiny little limited ideas of what constitutes moral behavior upon a Power that apprehends the extents of time, the breadth of the universe, and the thoughts and the intents of every heart among mankind.
He makes the choices and the decisions that HE alone has weighed and decided as being in the best interest of all mankind.
Whatever YHWH does, (who is not a man, that He should make moral errors as mortal men do) is moral.
There is none among the children of men more moral than their Judge, Maker, and Sustainer.
You are not YHWH, so yes, it would be wrong for you to do what He did, or what He ordered those under His command that day to do;
Again, you are not Him, this is not that day, He has not given to you any such order or commandment, but the good commandment that He has given to you, you have despised.

What I got from this: Might makes right.

[QUOTE]

Although I disagree with your conclusion about The Bible, the rest is true

Quote:

Not a matter of "Which is it?", that was THEN, and this is NOW.
The Israelites were right and justified in obeying a direct order from The Commander of all of The Army of Israel, in submitting to the ultimate decision and authority of Their Supreme Commander, and final Judge.

But it would not be justified for you to do the same? Why? Is Yahweh any less in command now? Any less mighty or righteous? If Yahweh commanded you to kill my heathen children, would you be justified in doing so? (Please don't say he wouldn't issue such a command, as obviously he frequently does.

Quote:

I answered this above, following of the order was both "right", and "moral" on the basis that The Commander of the Hosts of Israel is The Ultimate Authority and Judge.
Any soldier that does not obey the express orders of his Supreme Commander, and of his Government is guilty of committing treason

. Are you one of Yahweh's soldiers?

Quote:

Interesting how DO you define "quite common", about how many does it take to make it "quite common"?

It may depend on whether you are one of the killers, or one of the victims. As a Jew, my impression is that the Christians spent most of European history oppressing, murdering, raping, burning and harassing innocent Jews who were not bothering them in any way. I give the crusades as an egregious example.
"ONE of them ..on a rampage in Africa right now"?
Wow! your supporting statistics are just staggering!

Quote:

No comment on all of those people of Yahweh, scattered throughout the world, who have lived out their lifetimes peaceably with their neighbors leading quiet and productive lives, guilty only of loving and helping their fellow man?

What is your point: that only some Christians today practice murder as commanded by Yahweh, so therefore it's not a big deal?

Quote:

Other than the part about your being "pretty sure he's only a fictional character" (As I am absolutely convinced that He is as real as reality) is, and your traditional miscount on the number of animals spared,
I agree that He holds the ultimate record for genocide and ecocide.
So what? He creates, and He destroys what He has created, He builds up, and He also tears down that which He has built.
It is all His, to do with as he will, He has no obligation to you, unless He chooses to obligate Himself to you by making a Covenant with you.

(emphasis added.) We agree then, that Yahweh is the most genocidal maniac in history. Where we differ is in whether we condemn that (me) or glorify it (you.)
I didn't make a covenant with you, either, but I don't think that gives me the right to slaughter your children.

Your arguments amount to exactly what I first said about those who defend these actions:
Might makes right, and Yahweh has the right to do what he wants with his creation.

TomboyMom · 05-15-2006, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

No, I'm saying check the mss dates. They're very young. Post-Christian. So while there is no doubt that Vedas originate sometime before the CE, we have no idea what exact form they took, and they were susceptible to the inclusion of all kinds of historical influences, especially the influence of successful movements, like Christianity.

Nobody's claiming there's a conspiracy (unlike the critics of the NT texts often do), just your ordinary run-of-the-mill inclusion of influences.

Check the dates of the mss and get back with me. You'll see. As I recollect all the major texts you mention (there are some earlier fragments of bhuddist texts, as I recall) are post 800 CE - 1500 CE, allowing for all kinds of interpolations.

Wow, Gamera, I can't believe you're sticking to this. What you're saying is that hundreds of scholars who have made their life's work out of studying 3 different traditions in two different countries are mistaken about what Buddha, Lao Tzu and the Vedas said in their original form, and that you, Gamera, know better, that actually these statements were interpolated hundreds of years after their traditional dates? What is your background or expertise in ancient documents? I myself have none, and rely on what the experts in this field tell me. Why do you think they have all made this error? Are you familiar with their work? What works do you cite to refute them?

TomboyMom · 05-15-2006, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Well, it's not a fallacy to disagree about a definition. Apparently we define what it means to be a Christian differently. I base mine on the texts and historical Christianity and stand by my defintion as a rationale way to talk about this body of religious ideas. That's subject to evidence (you can actually confirm what the texts say and what positions historical Christianity took).

You define it to mean "people who practice as I do", which is to say, very few people. I define it to mean, "people who worship Jesus Christ and follow his teachings, and who therefore identify themselves as Christians." Under your definition, what percentage of people who call themselves Christian would you accept? My point is that my definition is the common one, which is what makes your usage fallacious.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.