Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why The Judaeo-Christian God Makes No Sense to Me

Page 6 of 10 [ 154 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

19 Sep 2017, 10:40 am

cathylynn wrote:
kitesandtrainsandcats wrote:
why would a loving and all-powerful god allow one, let alone thousands, of children to starve in africa? surely someone with infinite power could do better.


Yahweh is a hands off type of God, unless killing us of course. The bible has him doing a lot of that.

How dare the clay pot ask why Yahweh the potter created it with a hole that leaks and then destroys it for leaking.

Regards
DL



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

19 Sep 2017, 11:09 am

GnosticBishop wrote:
Christians or other religious that do not recognize that and the fact that their laws are man made are showing how stupid they are.


Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer.

Someone who does not have the will or intellectual capacity to even begin to understand this concept, should not be calling other people stupid.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

19 Sep 2017, 11:20 am

Mikah wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Christians or other religious that do not recognize that and the fact that their laws are man made are showing how stupid they are.


Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer.

Someone who does not have the will or intellectual capacity to even begin to understand this concept, should not be calling other people stupid.


I agree on both counts.

Not for a supernatural God though. That would be quite stupid. Right?

I do like the Gnostic Christian and Karaite Jew ideas of God though. One who is subservient to man and what the ancients called a Divine Council.

This view goes well with the Buddhist adage that if you meet God, kill him.

Regards
DL



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

19 Sep 2017, 5:45 pm

Lintar wrote:
What you "expect" from God, or God to be, will not always correlate with what God actually is. It is only extreme hubris that would compel a person to say, "According to my line of reasoning and expectations, God should have done this and that, and be like this, and shouldn't be so wasteful, and should value efficiency, and be tolerant of gays, and be progressive, and value what I personally value. Since He (or She or It, if you prefer) doesn't meet my expectations and requirements, I will choose to ridicule and dismiss Him/Her/It".

Have I summed up your attitude accurately?

It appears you don't understand the concept of a hypothetical argument. He is referring to God as he/she/it is described in the Abrahamic religious texts he is familiar with. THAT particular god does not make a whole lot of logical sense. If that god exists and is the creator of the universe, then why is the creation so messy and cruel.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

20 Sep 2017, 3:23 am

Lintar wrote:
Of course. Let's not "bother" looking into anything at all we either don't agree with or do not understand. That would actually require a bit of work on our part, and we're just too damned lazy for that. Why are atheists so consistently anti-intellectual? Why are they so afraid to have their nihilistic bubble burst? Why are they so afraid of the truth?

Modern-day atheists, with their lame arguments, make me want to do this - :wall:

Regards!

Ummm. Why do you assume anyone who doesn't accept organized religion is a nihilist? Also, why when you supposedly "rejected atheism", did you automatically jump to Christianity? If are truly interested in "truth", why do they always go for the religion they just happen to be born into. Why not investigate EVERY religion equally? Why not just say "screw it" and come our own religion?



cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

20 Sep 2017, 9:51 am

Mikah wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
You say I argue like a child, while not showing what you are referring to, and while ignoring the simple request I made for you to show what exactly you were claiming in terms of objective morals, and you answer by trying to link Gnostic Christians and myself, I guess, to Nazis.

Who be the child here, child?

Regards
DL


There is no point continuing. You do not even want to understand Christians, Christianity or the history of Christendom.
My final comment on this: There is a link between Gnosticism and the Nazis, there was a revival around the time and it is said to have influenced Hitler's thoughts as much as Nietzsche. While it was partly because the Cathars hated Jews about as much as they did, it was mainly because Gnosticism puts man above God. When man is the being who decides what is moral and righteous, man can and will twist it to his liking, just as they did. That is why it is inferior to any belief system that takes morality out of reach of men's hands.


morality is ALWAYS in men's hands. just because someone says they get their morals from god doesn't mean the man didn't give his own moral code to his god. i can't quite remember the female author's name, but the quote goes something like, " i'm always wary of someone saying they know the will of god as it often turns out to be just what the believer wants."



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

20 Sep 2017, 4:18 pm

cathylynn wrote:
morality is ALWAYS in men's hands.


In the reductivist sense, yes. But it's the difference between writing rules on mile-high tablets of stone and giving each man a piece of paper and a pen to write his own rules. One system will be much more susceptible to corruption by the whims of the moment (which is not to say the other is immune).
Here we are living in a fairly secular society that says that not only that killing babies is not wrong, but it's a moral good because we don't want more poor people around. To add icing to the cake, having justified such heinous acts, the moralists will often scoff at the idea of anyone needing a commandment not to commit murder. Welcome to the land of pen and paper.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

20 Sep 2017, 10:42 pm

Mikah wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
morality is ALWAYS in men's hands.


In the reductivist sense, yes. But it's the difference between writing rules on mile-high tablets of stone and giving each man a piece of paper and a pen to write his own rules. One system will be much more susceptible to corruption by the whims of the moment (which is not to say the other is immune).
Here we are living in a fairly secular society that says that not only that killing babies is not wrong, but it's a moral good because we don't want more poor people around. To add icing to the cake, having justified such heinous acts, the moralists will often scoff at the idea of anyone needing a commandment not to commit murder. Welcome to the land of pen and paper.


fetuses are NOT babies.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

21 Sep 2017, 12:15 am

cathylynn wrote:
fetuses are NOT babies.


How convenient. Murderers always dehumanise their victims.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

21 Sep 2017, 7:50 am

I'm opposed to late term abortions in most cases, and the reason has nothing to do with religion as I have no religion. On the other hand, nowhere in the bible is there any mention of abortion being murder. It isn't even a religious issue.

Anyways, even if secular moralists get it wrong once in a while on certain issues, I'd much rather live in a society guided by their morals than one guided by religious fanatics. I'm much more afraid of moral systems that supposedly come from a "higher source" when they prescribe killing of homosexuals, adulterers, people who leave the faith, etc...

I know Christians no longer believe in following those types of rules, but such rules supposedly came from a divine source at some point in history (according to the Bible). It's ridiculous to assume Islam has absolutely nothing in common with ancient Judaism. I mean, even the Romans regarded the Jews in Jesus' time as obnoxious backwards religious fanatics.



cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

21 Sep 2017, 6:54 pm

Mikah wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
fetuses are NOT babies.


How convenient. Murderers always dehumanise their victims.


you sorely need a developmental biology course.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

21 Sep 2017, 10:30 pm

cathylynn wrote:
you sorely need a developmental biology course.


We had this argument two years ago.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=215207&start=120#p6853018

When I pointed out serious flaws with viability, you never did use your superior biology knowledge to rebut me, instead retreating to the emotional pen-and-paper-morality side of the debate.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=215207&start=120#p6853217


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

21 Sep 2017, 10:53 pm

Mikah wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
you sorely need a developmental biology course.


We had this argument two years ago.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=215207&start=120#p6853018

When I pointed out serious flaws with viability, you never did use your superior biology knowledge to rebut me, instead retreating to the emotional pen-and-paper-morality side of the debate.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=215207&start=120#p6853217


there are no serious flaws with viability.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

21 Sep 2017, 10:59 pm

cathylynn wrote:
there are no serious flaws with viability.


Brilliant rebuttal. Are you a professional debater?

Edit: for those who want the cliff notes

Mikah wrote:
You have some options if you actually wish to debate the point and I will listen and comment diligently:

1) Provide an alternative starting point for human life.
2) Accept that human life does start at fertilisation and argue that human life in itself is not worthy of protection alone, and other criteria need to met.
3) Basically accept my premise and argue about the circumstances in which a human life can be morally ended due to the circumstances of the mother.


cathylynn wrote:
i already posited viability as a starting point. before that it's a potential life, but not a life on its own merit. it's more of a parasite. possibly a wanted parasite, but a parasite, nonetheless.


Mikah wrote:
I will ignore for now the strict definition of parasite. Being bodily dependent on your mother is a part of the human life cycle, usually extending beyond birth in the form of breastfeeding. Prematurely severing that dependence and seeing if the baby can survive is not a satisfactory definition of the beginning of human life. It's saying "if I do this and you survive you were alive all along, if I do this and you die, you were never really alive." If you never did this thing in the first place, it wouldn't even be an issue and from there how would you go about defining the beginning of life?

As an aside, are parasites really alive? If you remove one, and it cannot live independently of you and it dies, was it never really alive? Being able to survive independently of the body of another life form, same species or not, doesn't seem to be a rigid or sensible starting point for defining life in general, let alone where it begins.


cathylynn wrote:
seems like this is just an intellectual exercise for you, micah. having a degree in biology, i can say that parasites are alive, just one of the many problems, some factual, some philosophical i have with your position. the decision to abort or not has flesh and bones and consequences and is far from a thought experiment.


cathylynn wrote:
i was pro-life until i came across actual people who needed abortions, a high school senior with a college scholarship on the line who had sex once on prom night and a black woman raped by a white man and whose boyfriend would have killed her if she had a light baby. i don't fault these folks for not throwing their lives out the window.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

22 Sep 2017, 1:09 pm

Mikah wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
there are no serious flaws with viability.


Brilliant rebuttal. Are you a professional debater?

Edit: for those who want the cliff notes

Mikah wrote:
You have some options if you actually wish to debate the point and I will listen and comment diligently:

1) Provide an alternative starting point for human life.
2) Accept that human life does start at fertilisation and argue that human life in itself is not worthy of protection alone, and other criteria need to met.
3) Basically accept my premise and argue about the circumstances in which a human life can be morally ended due to the circumstances of the mother.


cathylynn wrote:
i already posited viability as a starting point. before that it's a potential life, but not a life on its own merit. it's more of a parasite. possibly a wanted parasite, but a parasite, nonetheless.


Mikah wrote:
I will ignore for now the strict definition of parasite. Being bodily dependent on your mother is a part of the human life cycle, usually extending beyond birth in the form of breastfeeding. Prematurely severing that dependence and seeing if the baby can survive is not a satisfactory definition of the beginning of human life. It's saying "if I do this and you survive you were alive all along, if I do this and you die, you were never really alive." If you never did this thing in the first place, it wouldn't even be an issue and from there how would you go about defining the beginning of life?

As an aside, are parasites really alive? If you remove one, and it cannot live independently of you and it dies, was it never really alive? Being able to survive independently of the body of another life form, same species or not, doesn't seem to be a rigid or sensible starting point for defining life in general, let alone where it begins.


cathylynn wrote:
seems like this is just an intellectual exercise for you, micah. having a degree in biology, i can say that parasites are alive, just one of the many problems, some factual, some philosophical i have with your position. the decision to abort or not has flesh and bones and consequences and is far from a thought experiment.


cathylynn wrote:
i was pro-life until i came across actual people who needed abortions, a high school senior with a college scholarship on the line who had sex once on prom night and a black woman raped by a white man and whose boyfriend would have killed her if she had a light baby. i don't fault these folks for not throwing their lives out the window.


parasites are alive as are fetuses.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

22 Sep 2017, 2:06 pm

cathylynn wrote:
parasites are alive as are fetuses.


Yes, as you already conceded two years ago. Still waiting for your scientific explanation as to how or why viability should decide the morality of an abortion.

Edit: I don't know why I am playing this game again. There is nothing in biology of that sort. As I explained in the other threads the viability excuse does not have any roots in scientific understanding. Its roots are an emotional revulsion to late term abortions, where the safest medical procedure (unlike scramble and vacuum) is to pull out the baby whole and sever its spinal cord with a scalpel. Quite rightly, people were concerned that what was actually going on was induced birth and subsequent child murder... Rather than question our desire to terminate pregnancies at all, our pen and paper morality allowed us to construct the ridiculous pseudoscientific idea of viability.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!