This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The atheistic explanation for the origin of the universe

#221hunter_gohanPosted 11/26/2012 4:20:43 PM
C_Mat posted...
Alright, I apologize for confusing my meaning. What I meant was, you're coming across as so desperate to trip me up on technicalities that you're ignoring the entire meaning behind my posts. That's why I said you're not really responding to me, because it feels like you're taking individual words and sentences and splitting them apart rather than looking at the ideas behind my posts as a whole.


How am I supposed to get the ideas behind your posts if your word and sentences within the post don't outline them? I'm not an internet mind reader. What you type is literally all I have to go on.

Do you see the difference? It doesn't matter if you responded to both halves of the sentence, when you split them up it totally loses the context.


No I don't. What is this huge change in meaning between:

C_Mat:"I also don't know why you responded to a post that wasn't even addressed to you, and didn't respond to everything I asked you."

*response*

and

C_Mat:"I also don't know why you responded to a post that wasn't even addressed to you,..."

*response*

"...and didn't respond to everything I asked you.[plus another sentence that seemed to have more to do with it then what came previous to the comma]"

*response*

For example, you threw in the question earlier "Should we punish jaywalkers with the exact same punishment we give murderers?" Well duh, of course not. How is that relevant to the hell discussion? I just don't see the connection, so I ignored it.


Because that is god's entire sentencing. Any crime is given the exact same punishment. Why would that be moral for god to do, but not for us to do? If it's objectively moral, shouldn't it be objectively moral for our courts as well as god's?

And then it seemed you agreed with my example and said, "I can easily see someone who murders the President getting a harsher punishment than someone who just murdered a random person since you're at that point also a threat to national security."


I thought I made it clear this isn't worthy of greater punishment just because the President is more powerful or higher up the totem pole then me. It's because people are actually a threat to national security at that point. What threat do I as a finite being pose an omnipotent god by taking his name in vain?

But then the very next sentence says, "But do you think the people going around calling Obama, Nobama, Obummer or whatever stupid iteration they come up with lately should receive the same punishment they would've had they actually murdered him?" How does the second sentence logically follow the first? You went in a totally different direction with that and it made no sense to me, so I'm not going to respond to such a silly question.


You were trying to justify infinite punishment for taking god's name in vain. I'm pointing out how even you see how that is completely ridiculous when put into literally any other comparable position. Taking Obama's name in vain doesn't arbitrarily warrant a greater punishment then taking random Joe's name in vain and neither would it for taking a god's name in vain.
---
Fundamentalism in a nut shell: Raphael: It's God's will. Castiel: How can you say that?! Raphael: Because it's what I want!
#222hunter_gohanPosted 11/26/2012 4:24:20 PM
C_Mat posted...
Does that make sense to you? That's the mindset behind Christian faith. That's how a lot of people came to faith in Jesus being the Son of God, like Lee Strobel, who was an atheist trying to disprove Christianity but came to find out there was too much evidence for it. Anyway, the point is not about Lee Strobel or virgin births, I'm just trying to present why I trust the Bible. I can't offer an argument in favor of hell other than that I trust the Bible.


It makes sense in the sense that I can follow it; it doesn't make sense in the sense that you nor I would use this method for anything else.

Spiderman comics take place in Manhattan and even had President Obama featured in at least one of em. If those are real, does that mean I should believe their is a web slinging superhero living in Queens? Or does the truth value of one part of a book have absolutely nothing to do with the truth value of another and each claim must stand on it's own?

Isn't the reason behind those what makes all the difference?


We've been trying to find this reason. All we've basically gotten is (not a direct quote) "I trust that there's a good enough reason.". Why is that excuse not equally applicable to the rank and file Nazi's who operated the death camps?

Hitler's reasons for destroying the Jews was motivated by racism. Is that God's reason for sending people go to hell? If not, please demonstrate that you know God's reason for sending people to hell


Hitler thought he was actually saving the world by going against this Jewish menace, and the people that followed him trusted him.

Hitler choose by race, YHWH chooses by belief(let's be honest, you can semantically argue it's because everyone's breaking the "Thou shalt not" list, but when your list is made so as every single human will fail and you allow a way out for belief it's only belief that you're testing for). I don't see much of a difference save for the latter giving a chance to switch sides. You trust YHWH is doing it for the right reasons because he has a book that has some historically correct information(while ignoring all the historically incorrect (not a direct quote) "Oh that's just a metaphor" stories). Hitler had a book too.

I understand here that you're making a reference to an earlier comment you made, implying that if your actions pose no threat to God, He doesn't have the right to punish you for your sins. Is that your perspective? If so, I can respond to that, but I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.


Not in reference to anything that will demonstrably harm another of course. I would see no problem in any judge sentencing someone for bringing harm to another's life/rights even if that particular act would not be able to harm the judge. It's when you get to these things that have nothing demonstrably wrong with them besides (not direct quotes)"It hurts my feelings" or "Because I say it's wrong".

Do you understand or not that the reason behind punishment is NOT because of hurt feelings.


I understand that you wish to blame the act being done in the first place while having nothing but trust to back up why that act should be punishable in the first place. Because it hurt my feelings is literally the only reason I can think of for infinite punishment for taking god's name in vain. It's like someone gave a bratty 13 year old girl omnipotence.
---
Fundamentalism in a nut shell: Raphael: It's God's will. Castiel: How can you say that?! Raphael: Because it's what I want!
#223hunter_gohanPosted 11/26/2012 4:25:07 PM
As I've said before (but probably not to you), God created all life and has the supreme right to take away whatever life He chooses. Remember my example about soldiers killing terrorists? The reason behind taking someone's life determines whether the action was moral or not.


Parents create their children. Do parents have the right to brutally murder their children whenever they feel like it? Why would you think YHWH's method of creation grants that right, but not the method of creation parents use?

If you can give me a situation where God killed someone and the reason was unfair or didn't serve some greater good, you might have a good point.


How am I ever supposed to do this when you don't even look for a reason, but simply trust that there is a good one?!? I can point to just about every kill of his in the bible and you'd just respond saying you trust it's fair or that it served a greater good.
---
Fundamentalism in a nut shell: Raphael: It's God's will. Castiel: How can you say that?! Raphael: Because it's what I want!
#224C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 11/26/2012 8:02:33 PM
Thuggernautz posted...
...a lot of us don't find that a satisfactory or even remotely provable answer...


Again, (1) on the Biblical point of view of God, He has supreme rights over every life that's ever lived. You can compare Him to a Stalin if you want, but He has so much more authority than Stalin or any human ever could. It's not even comparable to equate God's control to that of any human. (2) With that in mind, God cannot be held accountable when He takes any human life. I'll try to come up with a comparison: if you build yourself a LEGO tower and then take it apart, you're not held accountable to the LEGO people, right? Assuming that you paid for them, you have rights over your own LEGOs. (3) I also pointed out the Biblical reasons God wanted the Canaanites destroyed, because they were wicked people and he gave them centuries to repent.

...shellfish, clothes of two fibers etc is the code...irrelevant now? If not, why not?


I don't know that God didn't speak out about that incest, and if He did or didn't, I honestly don't know why that wasn't recorded in the Bible. As for what we consider lesser or greater crimes, remember that God's decision about what He tolerates and views as a greater sin will greatly differ from what we view them. I don't know why God punishes some sins greater than others, but remember that God is continuously throughout the Bible more interested in the heart itself than anything else, so at times He might judge someone less harshly because He knows that person is actually trying to do right, even if them mess up now and then.

As for Israel's legal code about shellfish, fibers and incest...if a commandment from God only shows up in the "old covenant," then yes, that law is irrelevant (by the way, since we're not Jewish, those laws would be irrelevant to us anyway). However, if a commandment from the old covenant/testament is repeated in the new covenant/testament, then it does still apply. So shellfish and fibers are just old covenant, but incest is both. Jesus spoke of sexual immorality in the new testament, which at that time (and still does) included adultery, incest, bestiality and homosexuality.

...Just because there's an "If" in the passage does not make it any more excusable....


When I look at the surrounding verses in the chapter, it makes perfect sense to me that it's not talking about beating your slave senseless, as it says just a couple verses later "When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth." To me, it's clearly referring to what happens when you get into a fight with your slave, and you're just not responsible for paying for his missed wages because he doesn't have any. If that's not clear to you as well, I don't know what to tell you.

...different, much harsher and more brutal set of rules for non-Hebrews...


How are slave rules for non-Hebrews harsher or brutal? Just because they don't get time off for the Jews religious ceremonies? Yes, it's permitted to buy slaves from surrounding nations. But only slaves that voluntarily sold themselves into indentured servitude to pay off a debt or because they were poor, not people kidnapped. In fact, if you forced someone into slavery or even bought someone who was forced into slavery, you could be punished with death (Exodus 21:16). That was God's rule, and regardless of what actually happened in recorded history, it's not God's fault if they didn't follow it.

I understand if you hear "slavery" and immediately think dark thoughts because of the modern view. But slavery in Israel was very different from what we've heard about in the past few centuries or so.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#225Heineken14Posted 11/26/2012 8:23:22 PM
From: C_Mat | #224
To me, it's clearly referring to what happens when you get into a fight with your slave,


Oh well that's MUCH better, that rather than beating the s*** out of your SLAVE you just merely slap him around a bit....
---
Rage is a hell of an anesthetic.
#226C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 11/26/2012 8:48:00 PM
hunter_gohan posted...
Because that is god's entire sentencing. Any crime is given the exact same punishment. Why would that be moral for god to do, but not for us to do? If it's objectively moral, shouldn't it be objectively moral for our courts as well as god's?


No, God sends people to hell for rejecting His Son, not for specific sins. The seriousness of your individual sins is what determines the severity of your punishment. That's why Jesus would speak of one person getting a "greater condemnation" than another. If all someone did wrong was reject God and jaywalk, that person's torment in hell would be less than someone else who rejected God and killed someone. However, they would still both go to hell for rejecting God. Your example is based on false assumptions, which is exactly why I ignored it before. Any crime is NOT given the exact same punishment.

I thought I made it clear this isn't worthy of greater punishment just because the President is more powerful or higher up the totem pole then me. It's because people are actually a threat to national security at that point. What threat do I as a finite being pose an omnipotent god by taking his name in vain?


Well, in that case you missed the point. The point was, a sin against God is worse than your sins against another man, hence why the punishment is also worse. You pose no threat to God, but that's not why you'd be punished for taking His name in vain.

You were trying to justify infinite punishment for taking god's name in vain. I'm pointing out how even you see how that is completely ridiculous when put into literally any other comparable position. Taking Obama's name in vain doesn't arbitrarily warrant a greater punishment then taking random Joe's name in vain and neither would it for taking a god's name in vain.


Well, taking God's name in vain is mentioned in the 10 Commandments, taking anybody else's name in vain is not. If you're still talking about the Biblical God, then yes, taking His name in vain warrants a greater punishment.

It makes sense in the sense that I can follow it; it doesn't make sense in the sense that you nor I would use this method for anything else. Spiderman comics take place in Manhattan and even had President Obama featured in at least one of em. If those are real, does that mean I should believe their is a web slinging superhero living in Queens? Or does the truth value of one part of a book have absolutely nothing to do with the truth value of another and each claim must stand on it's own?


I wouldn't trust a comic book because it can be proven false. Take Meriwether Lewis' journal of his travels with Sacajawea and Clark. Sure, we can prove some parts of it via supplementary historical documents, but we can't prove every entry. Does that mean we disregard everything Lewis said that can't be backed up with additional evidence? I don't care to go down this rabbit trail anyway, the point is, I trust the Bible precisely because the truth values are amazingly precise and ahead of their time.

We've been trying to find this reason. All we've basically gotten is (not a direct quote) "I trust that there's a good enough reason.". Why is that excuse not equally applicable to the rank and file Nazi's who operated the death camps?


See, you keep dodging the questions I ask, so I'll repeat it: Isn't the reason behind those what makes all the difference? Yes or no. Not "we've been trying to find the reason." Name a situation in the Bible where God's reasoning is ambiguous to you, and I'll try to help you with that. I do trust that there's a good enough reason, but I can't speak to a specific reason unless you name a specific situation.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#227C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 11/26/2012 8:56:57 PM
Parents create their children. Do parents have the right to brutally murder their children whenever they feel like it? Why would you think YHWH's method of creation grants that right, but not the method of creation parents use?


Oh, that's easy. Because God creates each individual child before the parents even thought about having kids, he knows each person inside and out and decided what every square inch of their body would look like (Jeremiah 1:5). The parents do not have as much ownership over that child as God does, so no, they don't have the right to decide when that child dies.

How am I ever supposed to do this when you don't even look for a reason, but simply trust that there is a good one?!? I can point to just about every kill of his in the bible and you'd just respond saying you trust it's fair or that it served a greater good.


I have no idea what you're talking about that I don't look for a reason. There may be the occasional place in the Bible where I can't give an answer for why a death was fair. I haven't counted each case or anything like that, but for the majority, I'm sure there is a reason given. Name a few and I'll show you.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#228C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 11/26/2012 8:58:42 PM
Hitler thought he was actually saving the world by going against this Jewish menace, and the people that followed him trusted him. Hitler choose by race, YHWH chooses by belief(let's be honest, you can semantically argue it's because everyone's breaking the "Thou shalt not" list, but when your list is made so as every single human will fail and you allow a way out for belief it's only belief that you're testing for). I don't see much of a difference save for the latter giving a chance to switch sides. You trust YHWH is doing it for the right reasons because he has a book that has some historically correct information(while ignoring all the historically incorrect (not a direct quote) "Oh that's just a metaphor" stories). Hitler had a book too.


Yes, God decides who goes to hell or not is based on belief, and Hitler was racist, as you just said. So your original question comparing God to Hitler is a false equivocation and a waste of time (see now why I don't respond to every single one of your questions?)

Not in reference to anything that will demonstrably harm another of course. I would see no problem in any judge sentencing someone for bringing harm to another's life/rights even if that particular act would not be able to harm the judge. It's when you get to these things that have nothing demonstrably wrong with them besides (not direct quotes)"It hurts my feelings" or "Because I say it's wrong".


If you either don't like God's reasoning or don't understand it, it's not ultimately relevant (to God) the reason you disobeyed. If God- the Creator of the universe- says something is wrong, it's wrong. You really don't need any further information than that when making moral choices.* He also gives you the freedom to ignore the Bible, but you're making that decision with the faith that the Bible is wrong, just like I make my decision with the faith that the Bible is right. You and I are ultimately responsible for our own actions whether we're right nor not.

*When I was a kid, I hated my parents reasoning: "Because I said so." But now that I'm older, I understand that kids should just listen regardless of whether they understand the reasoning. If God stops to explain why each of His rules are wrong, you're no longer obeying when you follow them, you're just agreeing with Him. I could probably give you sufficient reasons why each of the 10 Commandments is a good idea to follow, but the reasons are not ultimately the point because God isn't looking for people who only follow Him when they see a good reason to.

I understand that you wish to blame the act being done in the first place while having nothing but trust to back up why that act should be punishable in the first place. Because it hurt my feelings is literally the only reason I can think of for infinite punishment for taking god's name in vain. It's like someone gave a bratty 13 year old girl omnipotence.


I've taken God's name in vain before and- assuming that you have as well- that's not ultimately going to be the deciding factor for where either of us spends eternity. It will come down to whether each of us repents of our sins and believes in what Jesus did. You can keep believing that taking God's name in vain or jaywalking is all it takes to send you to hell, but that's not what the Bible says so I'm not arguing that point with you anymore.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#229AuraBlaze1Posted 11/27/2012 2:24:42 AM
C_Mat posted...
When I was a kid, I hated my parents reasoning: "Because I said so." But now that I'm older, I understand that kids should just listen regardless of whether they understand the reasoning.


Arguing with your kid actually gives them skills in the future that let's them assert their position and disagree. As long as they are calm and persuasive while doing it, it's a great skill to have.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/03/144495483/why-a-teen-who-talks-back-may-have-a-bright-future?ps=cprs

It was the parents who said wanted to talk who were on the right track, says Allen. "We found that what a teen learned in handling these kinds of disagreements with their parents was exactly what they took into their peer world," with all its pressures to conform to risky behavior like drugs and alcohol.

Allen interviewed the teens again at ages 15 and 16. "The teens who learned to be calm and confident and persuasive with their parents acted the same way when they were with their peers," he says. They were able to confidently disagree, saying 'no' when offered alcohol or drugs. In fact, they were 40 percent more likely to say 'no' than kids who didn't argue with their parents.

---
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b21/AuraBlaze/Untitled-2.png
You don't understand because there is nothing to understand. It's nonsense. -Bahamut
#230ThuggernautzPosted 11/27/2012 7:31:57 AM
C_Mat posted...

Again, (1) on the Biblical point of view of God, He has supreme rights over every life that's ever lived. You can compare Him to a Stalin if you want, but He has so much more authority than Stalin or any human ever could. It's not even comparable to equate God's control to that of any human.


No, that's not acceptable. I will repeat my question. If your God's acts are completely indistinguishable and frequently worse than some of the most heinous, atrocious acts of humanity and you can't provide a good reason for why he did it that way, how can you then possibly conclude that they must have been good acts? Simply because the book says so? His actions belie his words.


I don't know why God punishes some sins greater than others, but remember that God is continuously throughout the Bible more interested in the heart itself than anything else, so at times He might judge someone less harshly because He knows that person is actually trying to do right, even if them mess up now and then.


Do you think killing David's son for the sins of his father (2 Samuel 12:14) is a morally good and just action? Even though Deuteronomy 24:16 says "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." Do you think burning a bunch of people alive for low morale (Numbers 11) is? Are those sins greater than those of incest?


To me, it's clearly referring to what happens when you get into a fight with your slave, and you're just not responsible for paying for his missed wages because he doesn't have any. If that's not clear to you as well, I don't know what to tell you.


I am not arguing that the Bible commands you to beat your slave. I am arguing that the Bible permits slavery in the first place AND explicitly lists that there is no punishment for nearly killing your slave, should it happen. Please don't try and twist my words. The inclusion of slavery and the two different rules for Hebrews and non-Hebrews is bad enough. We don't consider people as property, despite what Exodus 21:21 says, and the lack of punishment for nearly killing your 'property' is deplorable.


How are slave rules for non-Hebrews harsher or brutal? Just because they don't get time off for the Jews religious ceremonies?

I understand if you hear "slavery" and immediately think dark thoughts because of the modern view. But slavery in Israel was very different from what we've heard about in the past few centuries or so.


I'm not sure if I can spell it out any more clearly. Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 specifically says 'Hebrew servants' or 'Israelite slaves' when outlining the nice rules to treat them by. Why does it not say 'all slaves'? Why the special exemption for Hebrews over any other slaves obtained from the various nations and tribes around them? Why does the right of slavery redemption only apply to Israelites? This is not an example of equality and love for all.

And lastly, I understand that you want to believe that slavery was all lovey-dovey and hugging your master, but the reality of the situation tells a very different story. The historical and archaeological record show that the Jews obtained the majority of their slaves through conquest, and they weren't treated as nicely as you want to believe. Go read Deuteronomy 21:10-12 for how the Jews dealt with and obtained slaves, and read these for actual research and study into the real history and not the strange love-fest slavery image you've got in your mind:

Hezser, Catherine, Jewish slavery in antiquity, Oxford University Press, 2005.

Lewis, Bernard. Race and slavery in the Middle East: an historical enquiry, Oxford University Press US, 1992.