Freethought & Rationalism Archive

NOGO · 12-06-2002, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Ed
The only God that I have experienced is the God of the bible therefore if some being appeared in front of me and did not have the same teachings or characteristics of the God I know then yes, I would not believe him, because he would most likely not be God.

Ed, whenever you get trapped you fish around into something you can answer in order to avoid the conclusion. This is another typical example.

Ed, if you want to continue this discussion you will have to answer my previous post otherwise you can talk to yourself.

Volestrangler · 12-06-2002, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed:


The only God that I have experienced is the God of the bible therefore if some being appeared in front of me and did not have the same teachings or characteristics of the God I know then yes, I would not believe him, because he would most likely not be God.

So if your god appeared before you and ordered you to slaughter your neighbour's children because four hundred years previously their ancestors had persecuted protestants in France, you would do it? That's certainly consistant with the teachings and characteristics of your god.

Ed · 12-09-2002, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO:

Ed
It is a rational assumption given knowledge of human nature. But no I am not saying that this is the primary reason, the primary is the one stated in the verse. But the other reasons come about from studying the scriptures as a whole and in context. The bible tells us the reasons why people die. The overarching reason people die and why death exists for humans in this universe is that we are all in rebellion against the king of the universe, even babies. This can be seen in that even little babies are very selfish, do you have any children? If you do or even if you have nephews and nieces I think you have seen that little kids can be very selfish and even pretty mean.

nogo: Ed, maybe you should rewrite the Bible and add in all these wonderful explanations.

Humans are selfish from birth and we are also responsible for being selfish even before we learn to walk, right? If we are selfish from birth then it is written in our genes and is not an act of the will. Even according to the Bible children up to the age of 13 cannot be held accountable for anything that they do because they do not understand. This is our nature as created by your God according to your way of thinking. So God created us selfish and then punishes us for being selfish. You are making a lot of sense, Ed.

No, God did not create us selfish, we became inclined toward selfishness when our representative, Adam rebelled against God and that nature was inherited from him but yet we also have free will to not act on that inclination. Children are born with an inclination toward selfishness but until they reach the age of accountability God sends them to heaven when they die.

Quote:

nogo: Back to the Amalekite.
You talk about primary and secondary reasons. All I see is stated and not stated reasons. The stated reason is contrary to the idea that people should not be punished for crimes which they have not commited.

This is a fundamental principle, people should not be punished for other's sins. Can you please state whether you agree or not ?????

Where did you obtain this fundamental principle? The only way that they were punished for others sins is the timing of their death, they all deserved death at birth for the overarching reason that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", and the "wages of sin is death". So actually they were shown mercy by letting their society last for 400 years and to be born for periods of time.

Quote:

nogo: After you have answered that one please state whether you acknowledge that the Bible gives a reason and only one which is contrary to the principle above?
If any other reason was relevant then the Bible would have said so, unless your God is trying to embarrass you, Ed. Since as it stands it looks like the Bible is condoning the killing of people for a crime which they have not committed then I would say that any other reason which did come in consideration should have been stated explicitly. The fact that the Bible does not explicitly state any other reason means that there isn't any.

Even if, as you admit, the stated reason is the most important reason you still have a huge problem. The Bible is saying that a crime which people have not committed is the primary reason for their execution. What kind of morality is that?

From Genesis to Revelation the reason for any death in this world is the reason I stated above. But the reason for the timing for their death is the reason mentioned in the specific passage you quoted.

Quote:

NOGO: In fact as I keep point out to you Yahweh promised their destruction immediately after the attack which would nullify your new found reason.

Ed: How does that nullify the reason given that God knows what they are going to do in the future? But anyway see above about the primary and secondary reasons.

nogo: What they are going to do in the future is irrelevant because the stated reaon for the massacre is the attack which took place 400 years before. And you have admitted that this is the primary reason for the massacre.

Yes, but given what we know about God we can rationally assume that he had the future in mind also, because everything he does has the future in mind given that he knows the future.

Quote:

nogo: 1) Right after the attack Yahweh says that the Amalekites are going to be wiped out because of the attack.

2) When the massacre takes place Yahweh says that the reason for it is the attack which took place 400 years before.

It is all quite clear and I do not see any reason to bring in other elements which are not stated. And you still have the problem that the stated and primary reason for the massacre is a crime which the people in question have not committed.

See above.

Quote:

NOGO: Also it should be obvious from the description of the attack that this was not a major battle. The Israelites were just passing through. This is nothing to remember for 400 years.
This is another attempt at whitewashing the issue.

Ed: Hardly, they are the only nation that attacked Isreal at the time that did not immediately get attacked and destroyed. So that is why they probably felt like they got away with attacking Yahweh's people unlike all the other nations that Isreal defeated in the area at the time. That would be considered quite an achievement given Israel's record at the time. And even more so if they had heard about all the amazing things that happened in Egypt.

nogo: This is all fantasy. The war with the Amalekite happened because the Israelites went through the Amalekite's territory. The other wars that you are referring to are something quite different. In those battles the Israelites were at war for the purpose of conquering territory. They needed land to live on.

See above.

Quote:

NOGO:
"Would you consider a judge sentencing the murderer of your wife taking revenge on him?"
You are asking the wrong question, Ed.
I will modify it for you so as to reflect the situation that we are discussing.
"Would you consider a judge sentencing the children of the murderer of your wife taking revenge on them?"
The answer is YES
What is your answer, Ed?

Ed: If the children were accomplices then no I wouldn't and according to the overarching biblical understanding of human nature they were accomplices if only indirectly by their innate rebellion against Yahweh. I am sure among the older kids they approved of the attack on Israel.

My question was "Would you consider a judge sentencing the children of the murderer of your wife taking revenge on them?"

You gave two answers

1. A definite NO
Because everybody is in rebellion against Yahweh.
What this implies is that if a man kills another a judge can sentence anyone at all since everybody is in rebellion against Yahweh. Great morality that you have Ed.

No, no human judge has the authority to make judgement. Only God can make judgement on those who have not committed a crime as to when they will die.

Quote:

nogo: 2. A conditional no
if the children approved of the murder. Again your morality stinks. No judge today would sentence a man to death simply because he approves of a murder. The other thing is that you do not have any evidence for this "approval".

That is right, no human judge has a right to make that judgement of who approved of the murder. See above regarding your last sentence.

Quote:

nogo: You are implying that the descendents of the Amalekites who attacked the Israelites were accomplices to the attack. That is of course impossible because they were not born yet. So how can they be accomplices?
You are just dodging the question. Your innate rebellion against Yahweh is nonsense. If we are to accept this then I am an accomplice to all the crimes which have taken place since the begining of the world. Please Ed, try to make sense for a change.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

They are accomplices in the rebellion against God not necessarily in the specific attack on Israel though Israel was God's chosen representative on earth. Actually you are correct we are all accomplices in the rebellion against God from the fall of Man onward. Only Jesus Christ can take away that guilt from us.

Jack the Bodiless · 12-10-2002, 02:18 AM

Quote:

No, God did not create us selfish, we became inclined toward selfishness when our representative, Adam rebelled against God and that nature was inherited from him...

...Huh???

Inherited HOW?

Three problems:

1. If Adam and Eve were not "created selfish", then HOW did these unselfish people choose to rebel?

2. WHY did God then make the "selfishness gene" which allowed A&E's descendants to inherit? Or did A&E re-engineer their own genome to create this gene? Did they eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good, Evil and Advanced Genetic Engineering Technology?

3. WHY did God let this gene continue to operate, condemning millions to misery on Earth followed by eternal torment in Hell?

Quote:

This is a fundamental principle, people should not be punished for other's sins. Can you please state whether you agree or not ?????

Where did you obtain this fundamental principle?

Well, it IS specifically mentioned in the Bible. Though, of course, the Bible contradicts itself bigtime on this issue.

Quote:

The only way that they were punished for others sins is the timing of their death, they all deserved death at birth for the overarching reason that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", and the "wages of sin is death".

Therefore leaving you with no moral compass. OK, we've already established that.

Quote:

From Genesis to Revelation the reason for any death in this world is the reason I stated above. But the reason for the timing for their death is the reason mentioned in the specific passage you quoted.

So you've finally admitted that NOGO was right? Hallelujah!

Quote:

They are accomplices in the rebellion against God not necessarily in the specific attack on Israel though Israel was God's chosen representative on earth. Actually you are correct we are all accomplices in the rebellion against God from the fall of Man onward. Only Jesus Christ can take away that guilt from us.

...Nope, this brief flash of common sense was shortlived. Even if I inherited the "Original Sin gene" created by Adam and Eve's genetic enginnering in Eden (which must have had excellent lab facilities not mentioned in Genesis), that doesn't make me an accomplice. I have no guilt for Jesus to "take away": only a genetic defect to be fixed.

Try harder, Ed.

NOGO · 12-10-2002, 07:42 AM

Quote:

NOGO:
The stated reason is contrary to the idea that people should not be punished for crimes which they have not commited.
This is a fundamental principle, people should not be punished for other's sins. Can you please state whether you agree or not ?????

Ed:
Where did you obtain this fundamental principle?

Where did I get it?
It is quite obvious to me. Why should anybody be punished for what someone else did? Please give me a clear reason.

But if you don't trust your owm mind on this one, Behold ...

Deuteronomy 24:16
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Jeremiah 31:30
But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Ed, I will not answer the rest of your post until we settle this issue.

people should not be punished for other's sins. Do you agree?

Quote:

The only way that they were punished for others sins is the timing of their death, they all deserved death at birth for the overarching reason that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", and the "wages of sin is death".

Timing is everything since we are all going to die no matter what.

The Bible states that they were killed for what happened 400 years before.

Even if they deserved death anyway for another reason their lives were stopped short for the reason mentioned, that is the battle that happened 400 years before.

The original sin ...
Your arguement, Ed, is that man must die because Adam and Eve sinned against God and through this sin death entered the world. Therefore everybody is a sinner and must die.

But wait a minute, Ed ...

Isn't this another example of being guilty for somebody else's sins. Why are you guilty for what Adam and Eve did?

Deuteronomy 24:16
... neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Great principle. I agree 100%.

This is fundamental to the discussion and we must settle it before we go on.

Ed · 12-10-2002, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:
By GOD, Ed. By GOD.

This is the LORD coming to punish SINNERS! The actual rapists may be human enemies of Israel, but this form of punishment was ordained by God.

God will punish these men by having their children dashed to pieces and their wives raped.

Therefore God is a babykiller and a rapist, or leader of rapists. Even if it isn't involved (though the text doesn't rule that out, especially as other Biblical verses indicate that God has humanoid body parts).

It was part of God's plan BUT ALLOWING something bad to happen for a greater good is NOT equivalent to directly committing an evil deed. And in fact it is the exact opposite. And that is what God did.

Jack the Bodiless · 12-11-2002, 01:59 AM

Quote:

It was part of God's plan BUT ALLOWING something bad to happen for a greater good is NOT equivalent to directly committing an evil deed.

Allowing something bad to happen IS exactly equivalent to directly committing an evil deed, especially for an "omnipotent" being (for whom action is as effortless as inaction).

This was "Holy Rape": rape ordained by God.

Ed · 12-11-2002, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:

Ed: No, the foundation of Christian morality is the existence of the Christian God which can be demonstrated using basic laws of logic as I have done on other threads.

jtb: Correction: you failed to do on other threads. Mostly you just invented your own rules as you went along, such as "only persons can produce the personal".

Huh? Invented my own rules? That is an absurd statement. That principle has been validated empirically throughout all of human history.

Quote:

Ed: And as far as biblical contradictions most of them can be easily resolved utilizing the grammatico-historical hermeneutic. How has Genesis been falsified given the broad meanings of many of its words in the original Hebrew?

jtb: The "days" are in the wrong order. And there was no global Flood in historical times. People would have noticed...

What wrong order? Not if understood from the viewpoint of a hypothetical human observer on the earth. People DID notice, a multitude of ancient religions in both the old world and the new have ancient traditions and myths about a worldwide flood. And often myths have kernels of truth in them.

Quote:

jtb: You are being disingenuous when you claimed that your morals are the Ten Commandments supplemented by Christ's moral teachings. If this were so, then you would not use rape as an example of immoral behavior, because Christianity does not teach this.
Ed: Christianity plainly does teach that rape is immoral. How is that disingenuous? You have failed to answer that question, Steve.

jtb: Christianity plainly does NOT teach that rape is immoral. Jesus himself said nothing about it. And in the Old Testament: well, we've covered that.
(..."Steve"?)

No, I demonstrated that even in the OT rape was considered immoral. And in the NT it is covered under the Golden Rule, Christ's teachings against fornication, and Paul's teaching that your wife should be treated like you treat your own body.
Sorry about calling you Steve. I get you and Stephen T-B confused.

Quote:

Ed: Actually metaphysical naturalism is fatally flawed, it cannot even give a reason why objective evidence exists.

jtb: Christian theism cannot give a reason why GOD exists. Strange that you don't consider this to be a "fatal flaw".

Fraid so, the reason is the existence of the universe. The universe is an effect and every effect requires a cause.

Quote:

Ed: The subject-object correlation is unexplainable by naturalism, as I demonstrated in another thread.

jtb: Evolution.

No, evolution, if correct, would only explain the existence of subjects. It does not explain how, or even if, subjects are observing and experiencing what is really there.

Quote:

Ed: Therefore it should be rejected by anyone desiring a more rational worldview. Again how am I being disingenuous, Steve? Utilizing the law of causality and sufficient cause ARE what scientists do everyday.

jtb: Genesis is false, metaphysical naturalism is not (as far as anyone can tell). It is disingenuous to pretend that your decision is scientific, Boris.

You have yet to demonstrate Genesis is false and that MN is not. See above about subject-object correlation.

Ed · 12-12-2002, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO:

Ed
No, the foundation of Christian morality is the existence of the Christian God which can be demonstrated using basic laws of logic as I have done on other threads.

nogo: Ed always did it in another thread. Funny he can't answer anything in this thread.

Christian morality has nothing to do with the Bible and logic is that last thing that you can possibly use to show that.

The existence of God was demonstrated using the Law of Causality. The universe is an effect and therefore requires a Cause. So once His existence is demonstrated then we can see that the Christian God best fits that cause. And the Christian God has a written communication to us, the Bible and in that communication he tells us his rules by which we can live the most fulfilled life.

Quote:

nogo: And as far as biblical contradictions most of them can be easily resolved utilizing the grammatico-historical hermeneutic. How has Genesis been falsified given the broad meanings of many of its words in the original Hebrew?

nogo: I challenge you to resolve even one.
Take for example Matthew's genealogy of Jesus. There are four names missing and I suppose that Matthew removed them because he needed the 14-14-14 combination. That is, 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 generations from David to the exile and 14 generations from the exile to Jesus. In Chronicles there are 18 generations from David to the exile.

Explain away!

Ed you failed to answer me on Deut 21

Ancient genealogies were not exhaustive as we would tend to do today. They primarily dealt with just noteworthy ancestors. So it is possible that he left out ancestors he did not consider of major importance to also come up with 14 which is a 2 times 7, and 7 was the number of completeness to the Jews.

Jack the Bodiless · 12-13-2002, 01:22 AM

So this is how you react to total, complete and utter defeat!

A mental "reset" facility.

Abandon the issues that are currently giving you a hard time, dig up old arguments where you were ALSO defeated, pretend that none of those defeats ever happened, and plod onward.

When you are defeated AGAIN on these issues (if anybody bothers to do so), you'll just dig up another lost argument and carry on. Maybe next time you'll "reset" to NOGO's argument and pretend that the Amalekites were NOT killed as revenge for what their ancestors did 400 years earlier!

I don't see why I should waste too much time rehashing your defeats on the arguments you've just regurgitated. A quick summary will suffice.

Quote:

jtb: Correction: you failed to do on other threads. Mostly you just invented your own rules as you went along, such as "only persons can produce the personal".

Huh? Invented my own rules? That is an absurd statement. That principle has been validated empirically throughout all of human history.

If I am walking in a forest and I find a stick that makes a good walking stick, it will become my personal walking stick. But I did not produce it.

Saddam Hussein's personal bodyguards are his personal bodyguards. But he did not produce them.

Evolution can, and has, produced human beings from non-sentient precursors.

Status of argument "Only persons can produce the personal": DEFEATED.

Quote:

jtb: The "days" are in the wrong order. And there was no global Flood in historical times. People would have noticed...

What wrong order? Not if understood from the viewpoint of a hypothetical human observer on the earth. People DID notice, a multitude of ancient religions in both the old world and the new have ancient traditions and myths about a worldwide flood. And often myths have kernels of truth in them.

Grass did NOT appear before land animals. Birds did NOT appear after grass, or before land animals. The Flood can be DATED from the Bible, and people living at that time did NOT mention it (and did not drown either).

Status of Genesis: DEFEATED.

Quote:

jtb: Christianity plainly does NOT teach that rape is immoral. Jesus himself said nothing about it. And in the Old Testament: well, we've covered that.

No, I demonstrated that even in the OT rape was considered immoral. And in the NT it is covered under the Golden Rule, Christ's teachings against fornication, and Paul's teaching that your wife should be treated like you treat your own body.

We have proved that raping their wives was an acceptable way of punishing MEN, and that single women had no defense against being raped (they were "fair game"), and that it was customary to rape captured virgins. Also, that the Golden Rule cannot be applied to rape.

Ststus of Biblical rape denial: DEFEATED.

Quote:

Ed: Actually metaphysical naturalism is fatally flawed, it cannot even give a reason why objective evidence exists.

jtb: Christian theism cannot give a reason why GOD exists. Strange that you don't consider this to be a "fatal flaw".

Fraid so, the reason is the existence of the universe. The universe is an effect and every effect requires a cause.

You utterly failed to give any reason why the Universe AND God exist. By your own argument, this is a "fatal flaw".

Status of argument for necessity of God's existence: DEFEATED.

Quote:

Ed: The subject-object correlation is unexplainable by naturalism, as I demonstrated in another thread.

jtb: Evolution.

No, evolution, if correct, would only explain the existence of subjects. It does not explain how, or even if, subjects are observing and experiencing what is really there.

Yes, it does. Natural selection of an essential survival trait: accurate sensory apparatus.

Status of subject-object correlation argument: DEFEATED.

Quote:

You have yet to demonstrate Genesis is false and that MN is not. See above about subject-object correlation.

See above about defeat of Genesis and subject-object correlation.

Quote:

The existence of God was demonstrated using the Law of Causality. The universe is an effect and therefore requires a Cause. So once His existence is demonstrated then we can see that the Christian God best fits that cause. And the Christian God has a written communication to us, the Bible and in that communication he tells us his rules by which we can live the most fulfilled life.

The Christian God does NOT fit the cause. God is unnecessary and the Bible is riddled with contradictions: it was written entirely by men.

Status of First Cause argument: DEFEATED.

Quote:

nogo: I challenge you to resolve even one.
Take for example Matthew's genealogy of Jesus. There are four names missing and I suppose that Matthew removed them because he needed the 14-14-14 combination. That is, 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 generations from David to the exile and 14 generations from the exile to Jesus. In Chronicles there are 18 generations from David to the exile.

Explain away!

Ancient genealogies were not exhaustive as we would tend to do today. They primarily dealt with just noteworthy ancestors. So it is possible that he left out ancestors he did not consider of major importance to also come up with 14 which is a 2 times 7, and 7 was the number of completeness to the Jews.

In other words: the genealogies are wrong. You are admitting defeat on this one.

Status of NOGO's challenge: VINDICATED.

I will also add:

Status of your defense of the Amalekite massacre: DEFEATED.

It's all over, Ed.

You have lost everything.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.