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

Does creating a sentient being give you the right to mistreat it?

#61Julian_CaesarPosted 2/4/2013 5:08:03 PM
From: bratt100 | #056
Cool, so all I need to do is get a couple of people to back me up and I'll have more proof then the entire crucifixion/resurrection. And hey atleast I can prove I exist


Thousands of people saw Jesus die. Several hundred saw Him alive and well, three days later. And twelve men who knew Him personally, risked their lives to spread His message. Paul challenged his readers to go to Jerusalem and ask around, and talk to people who remembered all the miracles that happened.

So again...if you got a couple people to die painful deaths for the sake of telling other people that you rose from the dead, then I'd be more inclined to believe you.

From: OrangeWizard | #060
Is that what I do?

I'm so sorry.

I'll take that into consideration and work on my problem.


Not all the time.

But it is one of your tactics, yes :D

From: hunter_gohan | #057
It's completely relevant. Following your logic you must assume I'm perfectly benevolent and loving to be able to say anything about the latter sentence. Btw I'm also never wrong, so now you must accept that before addressing anything else I've posted.


You can present your scenario if you like, it just has no applicability to Scripture.

I said nothing about being any sort of manifestation of anything or anything about any powers I do or do not hold, so I have no clue where this is coming from.


Because that is what the Bible says about Jesus and God. Which is what you're trying to parallel with your situation. Therefore, if you're not making those claims, then your parody bears no actual resemblance to what the Bible says.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#62Julian_CaesarPosted 2/4/2013 5:34:35 PM
From: hunter_gohan | #057
I could specifically use Mein Kampf to say what Hitler wanted for the Jews was immoral regardless of if he claimed to be loving or that it was the correct course of action in said book. You seem to be unable to grasp that beings that exist can lie or simply be mistaken. I don't have to accept that Stalin was the Gardener of Human Happiness to judge his actions.


And you seem to be unable to grasp that God's existence is not the same as Stalin's, or Hitler's, or any such thing. There are many things about His hypothetical existence that are different from all theirs, just because He is a Supreme Creator. If you're going to claim that He's a big fat liar or mistaken, then you're talking about a completely different individual altogether...one which bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible. You're putting your "faith" in a worldview that is completely different from the one I'm talking about. Which means that you're perfectly within your rights to believe it, but it has no ability to judge God of the Bible's actions within the Bible. Neither Stalin nor Hitler claimed to be Supreme Creator of the universe, as far as I know.

Well of course. Palpatine never actually existed or did anything it said he did in Star Wars. That doesn't prevent me from recognizing that he is evil though. If you believe in a god separate from the Biblical one whose actions are not accurately represented in their, then I'm not addressing that god. Just like I'm not addressing Aphrodite. Basically I'm doing, If W was responsible for actions X, Y, Z as detailed in A, then W is evil. Of course if he is real and never did those actions that judgement would not apply to him. In fact that is what I actually believe.(err that the actions outlined in the Bible had nothing to do with any god if they even happened in the first place) That those things were either completely made up(Like the Exodus) or were simply a savage barbaric people who claimed they had a god backing up their barbarism. Just like modern day suicide bombers claim to have a god on their side.


And if you believe in a God separate from the Biblical one whose attributes are not accurately represented in the Bible (i.e. God who is actually evil), then I'm not addressing that God either.

If W was responsible for actions X, Y, Z as detailed in A, and if W is described in A as being perfectly good, then actions X, Y, Z cannot be used as references for calling W evil because that would contradict A's claim that W is perfectly good...thus making A an unreliable source. Thus making actions X, Y, Z unreliable accounts.

From: hunter_gohan | #058
I choose to believe the stories of Stalin's commands to take lives because it makes him look immoral in my eyes, but I refuse to believe the stories of him being the Gardener of Human Happiness because that means all his actions were those which maximized human happiness.


We have many sources besides Stalin himself concerning his actions. Your only source of knowledge concerning God's actions is the same document which clearly states that He is a Perfect Being. So unless you're claiming to have observed an immoral act that God did (separate from the ones recounted in the Bible), your analogy doesn't work.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#63Julian_CaesarPosted 2/4/2013 5:52:03 PM
From: hunter_gohan | #059
I use it because it accurately describes many of his actions. It actually fits the definition here, unlike a fertilized egg being a child. If you take offence at the actions of your god being called what they are, then stop worshiping a god who has no problem resorting to genocide and torture.


A fertilized egg is a unique biological entity, with a completely different genetic code from either parent. Calling it a "child" is no less dishonest than you using the word "torture" to describe the actions of God...actions that, I'll remind you yet again, are completely unknown to you outside of the document which states that He is perfectly Good.

From: hunter_gohan | #058
Special pleading. Also you're assuming Stalin wasn't motivated by purely good reasons to maximize human happiness. Motivation is not the end all be all when your actions wind up being evil. If someone's motivation was to save the world, then can we just forget about his actions when he comes to the conclusion that the best way to do that would be to wipe out all humans so we can't trash it anymore? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


No human can be motivated by purely good reasons, unless you want to claim that humans can be morally perfect. Which is a dubious thing to claim. And if you want to disagree about motivation being the source of morality, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Unfortunately, you can't use that belief about morality to criticize God's actions in the Bible, because the Bible also says that good and evil come from within...not the actions themselves.

And no, it's not special pleading. It's understanding the definitions. You can't equate God of the Bible to a human being in order to judge or parallel His actions, because God of the Bible is not a human being.

So long are you accept that calling Stalin "evil" has no more basis than someone who calls him "good". Again you seem completely unable to grasp the concept that just because a being is real and exists doesn't prevent it from lying its ass off. I'm judging the rotten fruit. You're saying the rotten fruit must actually be fine because you assume the tree could only give non-rotten fruit; eventhough, the fruit is identical to fruit you would call rotten from another tree.


Actually, I have quite a bit of evidence to call Stalin "evil." All those people he killed for the sake of his government, that's a start. Intentionally targeting Christians, I don't particularly like that one either. As I said above, you lack such external accounts of God's actions...your only source is the Bible. Unless you've received a personal revelation that God is evil, which is logically equivalent to my own personal revelations that He is good. Thus, the fruits are not equivalent.

Might does not make right. No matter how far you crank that might up. The Ori could do this as well.


Because they were intentionally constructed as a fictional representation of evil God, yes. Meaning that such a viewpoint is no less dependent on "faith" than that which says God is good. If you really think someone can get away with claiming to be God and performing fake "miracles" like the Ori, in the modern age, you're either high or incredibly delusional. The "sufficiently advanced technology" mantra is a modern myth, and always has been, because no one is so advanced that they can outsmart everyone for very long. At that point you're appealing to evil aliens, which is about as scientifically meaningful as appealing to a Supreme Deity.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#64Julian_CaesarPosted 2/4/2013 5:52:52 PM
From: hunter_gohan | #059
I was there with a crowd that numbered in the hundreds. It's true he rose from the dead. We all saw it. I exist; I can't possibly be lying or mistaken!


When the government tells you to admit your lie or die the most painful, slow death imaginable, I'll be curious to hear your answer.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#65hunter_gohanPosted 2/4/2013 7:39:31 PM(edited)
Julian_Caesar posted...
You can present your scenario if you like, it just has no applicability to Scripture.


Of course not. I never said it did. It uses the exact same logic you guys keep trying to get away with though. Why are you arguing against stuff that is specifically in my posts? The same posts which quite clearly state that I'm never wrong. If you're talking about something that is wrong then you're obviously talking about a completely different person. One which bears no resemblance to the hunter_gohan of these posts. Funny how you're clearly able to see the folly of this logic when it's used for something you don't already agree with.

Because that is what the Bible says about Jesus and God. Which is what you're trying to parallel with your situation. Therefore, if you're not making those claims, then your parody bears no actual resemblance to what the Bible says.


Might does not make right no matter how many times you repeat it. Someone can easily be benevolent and loving without being a freaking god.

And you seem to be unable to grasp that God's existence is not the same as Stalin's, or Hitler's, or any such thing. There are many things about His hypothetical existence that are different from all theirs, just because He is a Supreme Creator.


No I get it. You think he's special. You think might makes right. You think the Ori were perfectly justified burning alive their creations that messed up a prayer ritual. I think any morality which leads there is a horribly depraved one.

Which means that you're perfectly within your rights to believe it, but it has no ability to judge God of the Bible's actions within the Bible.


Why? Because he's more powerful? Because he supposedly created us? Neither of those exempt someone from being judged.

And if you believe in a God separate from the Biblical one whose attributes are not accurately represented in the Bible (i.e. God who is actually evil), then I'm not addressing that God either.


And if you believe in a Stalin separate from the one whose attributes are not accurately represented in his titles (i.e. a Stalin who was actually evil and not the Gardener of Human Happiness), then I'm not addressing that Stalin either. (replace Stalin, evil, and Gardener of Human Happiness with me, wrong, and never being wrong if it makes you feel better)

Attributes come from the actions. We say someone is kind because that is how they act. We don't arbitrarily pick someone and say they're kind even if they send political enemies to Siberian gulags at the drop of a hat. That's not how they work.

YHWH can no more claim(and have it be true) to be perfectly moral then go off and condone slavery and commit and order genocide then I can claim(and have it be true) to be benevolent and loving and go off to torture and kill a baby. It is the actions which tell us what attributes someone holds.

If W was responsible for actions X, Y, Z as detailed in A, and if W is described in A as being perfectly good, then actions X, Y, Z cannot be used as references for calling W evil because that would contradict A's claim that W is perfectly good...thus making A an unreliable source. Thus making actions X, Y, Z unreliable accounts.

Ok now I'm a bit confused. If you don't think the bible is reliable and that it doesn't accurately reflect his actions just say so and the argument is over. That is all I'm addressing. If you are doing this then you recognize those actions contradict a perfectly moral being and I"m not really sure where our disagreement is coming from then.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#66hunter_gohanPosted 2/4/2013 7:31:43 PM
Your only source of knowledge concerning God's actions is the same document which clearly states that He is a Perfect Being. So unless you're claiming to have observed an immoral act that God did (separate from the ones recounted in the Bible), your analogy doesn't work


Your only source of knowledge concerning these points you're arguing against come from the same posts which clearly state that I'm never wrong. So unless you're claiming to have observed me being wrong (separate from the posts recounted in the GameFAQs message boards)....It's so easy to see how just plain wrong this logic is when it's used for something you don't already agree with. You guys are doing yourself no favors clinging to it desperately. All it shows it that you recognize that you have no other way to show he is actually good.

A fertilized egg is a unique biological entity, with a completely different genetic code from either parent. Calling it a "child" is no less dishonest than you using the word "torture" to describe the actions of God...actions that, I'll remind you yet again, are completely unknown to you outside of the document which states that He is perfectly Good.


Sure, so long as you ignore what those words actually mean. (Though I see apparently some dictionaries do have "a human fetus" as a definition for child now, so depends on when they're saying it).

No human can be motivated by purely good reasons, unless you want to claim that humans can be morally perfect.


Special pleading. "He's not human; he's special!"

Unfortunately, you can't use that belief about morality to criticize God's actions in the Bible, because the Bible also says that good and evil come from within...not the actions themselves.


And this is the kind of absolutely depraved morality that can justify things like the holocaust. The Nazis truly thought the Jews were a scourge and that to save the world they needed to be eliminated; therefore, the Holocaust was morally good because all that matters is intent. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. An alternative form of that is "hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works" It originally came from a Saint apparently who said: "L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs" (hell is full of good wishes and desires).

And no, it's not special pleading. It's understanding the definitions. You can't equate God of the Bible to a human being in order to judge or parallel His actions, because God of the Bible is not a human being.


IoW he's not human; he's special!

Actually, I have quite a bit of evidence to call Stalin "evil." All those people he killed for the sake of his government, that's a start. Intentionally targeting Christians, I don't particularly like that one either.

And yet those were the actions required to maximize human happiness.

As I said above, you lack such external accounts of God's actions...your only source is the Bible.

As I said above, you lack such external accounts of my arguments...your only source are my posts.

Unless you've received a personal revelation that God is evil, which is logically equivalent to my own personal revelations that He is good.

I did. The ghost that never lies revealed this truth to me.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#67hunter_gohanPosted 2/4/2013 7:38:22 PM
Thus, the fruits are not equivalent.


People don't obey him, so he kills them or sends them off to a very torturous place.

Who was I just talking about there, Stalin or YHWH?

Because they were intentionally constructed as a fictional representation of evil God, yes.


So again special pleading. "Even though I just said you had to rise from the dead for me to be more inclined to accept what you're saying; those people who could do that aren't special enough for me to arbitrarily call all their actions good no matter what those actions are."

Meaning that such a viewpoint is no less dependent on "faith" than that which says God is good.


Thinking that the Ori are good despite their actions? Yes I agree.

If you really think someone can get away with claiming to be God and performing fake "miracles" like the Ori, in the modern age, you're either high or incredibly delusional. The "sufficiently advanced technology" mantra is a modern myth, and always has been, because no one is so advanced that they can outsmart everyone for very long. At that point you're appealing to evil aliens, which is about as scientifically meaningful as appealing to a Supreme Deity.


lol umm the Ori could do everything that YHWH supposedly did in the Bible. Even more. No iron chariots would've stopped them. Genocide against towns that went against their wishes? Pfft they wiped out entire planets. Plagues sent to punish people? Again, across entire planets. No technology needs to be used at all. Hell Daniel Jackson died and was reborn twice. That was the Goa'uld who used advanced technology(Altaran technology) to play as gods. The Ori and Ancients actually truly qualify as deities. Their power is very real and has nothing to do with technology. The only reason they used technology in their attempt to conquer the Milky Way was because the Ancients would've stopped them sparking a(nother) war otherwise.

When the government tells you to admit your lie or die the most painful, slow death imaginable, I'll be curious to hear your answer.


Because, as we all know, when someone is willing to die for something that must mean that something is the truth. How many pagans died because they wouldn't convert to Christianity btw?
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#68bratt100Posted 2/4/2013 10:21:11 PM
OW-
"Thousands of people saw Jesus die. Several hundred saw Him alive and well, three days later. And twelve men who knew Him personally, risked their lives to spread His message. Paul challenged his readers to go to Jerusalem and ask around, and talk to people who remembered all the miracles that happened.

So again...if you got a couple people to die painful deaths for the sake of telling other people that you rose from the dead, then I'd be more inclined to believe you."

Correction, it's one account saying hundreds of people saw these things. You would think that a person rising from the dead would make a bigger impact on people then just having one person write it down. The modern day is a great example of this, where you simply won't get only one account but dozens if not hundreds.

Also that account of things is from a person who is already deeply dedicated to the cause. It's in his best interest to get others believing...interestingly enough the early Christians resembled many of the cult followers today and yet you would accuse them of being brainwashed or misled.

Almost all of your evidence comes from that book of yours and that simply isn't enough. There are more sources to support Alexander the great then there are to support Jesus even existing and Alexander was born some 356 years before jesus. So a man who pre dates christ by hundreds of years is better supported then the savior of all mankind.

Also death and resurrection where very common themes in the cults that pre-date christianity. It's almost a pre-requisite for a deity die and come back to prove he was indeed divine. All of these cults had there "witnesses" too. Miracles where also common amongst the cultists of the time.

These claims where made well before jesus left his fathers holy sack and yet they are disregarded as silly and impossible...but oh that jesus he must be the real deal.
---
If you believe in the flying Spaghetti Monster and are 100% proud of it copy this to your sig.
#69fudrickPosted 2/4/2013 10:37:35 PM
bratt100 posted...
Almost all of your evidence comes from that book of yours and that simply isn't enough. There are more sources to support Alexander the great then there are to support Jesus even existing and Alexander was born some 356 years before jesus. So a man who pre dates christ by hundreds of years is better supported then the savior of all mankind.


Well, wouldn't that be expected?
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#70OrangeWizardPosted 2/4/2013 10:45:17 PM
From: bratt100 | #068
OW-


What? I hardly said anything in this thread
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face