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

Why is god a monarch rather than a president?

#61DarkContractorPosted 9/5/2013 7:31:46 PM
CorporateKnight posted...
DarkContractor posted...
CorporateKnight posted...
hunter_gohan posted...
Biblical God


Oh you certainly mean the schizophrenic Protestant God because I can assure you that Catholics, nor Orthodox, nor Monophysites, nor Nestorians, nor some Anglicans believe in Sola Scriptura.
If you want to analyze God "correctly" you must do it with both the Tradition, Hagiography, Liturgics, Patristic Writings and the Bible.


What's one man's declaration of God vs anothers?


The problem is that this guy wants to judge the "Abrahimic" God by purely Protestant standards.


and what's the problem here? Here's how this will work, we judge the Abrahamic God based on trying to figure out the ethics and ideas that the original authors of the original OT documents had in their minds and what they were trying to express with the words they choose, and you tell us why the documents you listed would be relevant to us in pursual of the objective.
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.
#62hunter_gohanPosted 9/6/2013 1:40:42 PM
CorporateKnight posted...
The problem is that this guy wants to judge the "Abrahimic" God by purely Protestant standards.


Are you stating that your god did not do any of the heinous acts or give any of the barbaric orders contained within the Bible? If so, then I'm not commenting on your god here. My personal view is that no god was involved with this book at all. It was merely a barbaric iron age people doing what barbaric iron age people did and claiming they had god on their side like just about every single other tribe/nation/empire did back then(and many still do to this very day).
---
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.
#63CorporateKnightPosted 9/6/2013 1:46:22 PM
DarkContractor posted...
and whats the problenm here? Here's how this will work, we judge the Abrahamic God based on trying to figure out the ethics and ideas that the original authors of the original OT documents had in their minds and what they were trying to express with the words they choose, and you tell us why the documents you listed would be relevant to us in pursual of the objective.


Original OT with original authors and their mind.
ROFL, there you are only addressing the Jews, not Christians nor Mahometans. And even then no all Jews, but only a group among them because not all Jews regard just the OT as everything, some use other writings and oral tradition.
#64hunter_gohanPosted 9/6/2013 4:08:56 PM
CorporateKnight posted...
Original OT with original authors and their mind.
ROFL, there you are only addressing the Jews, not Christians nor Mahometans. And even then no all Jews, but only a group among them because not all Jews regard just the OT as everything, some use other writings and oral tradition.


I noticed how you've completely ignored these questions.

"Does knowing that Hitler loved dogs and took great care of them sway your opinion of him at all? I'm not as familiar with real life serial killers, but (from Dexter) does knowing Trinity volunteers to build houses for poor and homeless people across the country negate the fact that he's a serial killer and breaks his son's fingers as a punishment?"

"Are you stating that your god did not do any of the heinous acts or give any of the barbaric orders contained within the Bible?"

Additions are nice and all, but they do little to nothing to mask the genocide and slavery. Unless you're going to dismiss these accounts it matters little what additions you want to throw in. Toss in all the roses you want into an outhouse or septic tank. It's still a bunch of roses on top of a big ol pile of excrement.
---
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.
#65CorporateKnightPosted 9/6/2013 6:23:52 PM
hunter_gohan posted...
heinous acts or give any of the barbaric


I ignored it because it's to relative.
#66hunter_gohanPosted 9/7/2013 8:27:06 AM
CorporateKnight posted...
I ignored it because it's to relative.


I'm referring to genocide and slavery. And yeah relative to all the various and sundry other options a supposedly omnipotent being would have had, it very clearly demonstrates the bloodthirstiness of said being and how little value he places in the most basic of all freedoms. This also was not at all present in the first post you ignored since that dealt specifically with completely different people in an attempt to show what horse**** "but there are more sources I draw from then the one where he engages in or orders genocide and slavery while not at all even attempting to argue he didn't do those things" is.

If you still hold the same objection, then really all that does is show that no matter how horrible the actions taken by a supposedly "ideal autocrat" there will always be the die hard supporters ready to justify or hand wave away the atrocities committed by him since they of course have to be good actions because they've already assumed the tyrant can only do that which is good, benevolent, or maximizes human happiness.
---
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.
#67CorporateKnightPosted 9/7/2013 11:48:08 AM
hunter_gohan posted...
genocide and slavery


Not intrinsically wrong. Stop reading Kant.

hunter_gohan posted...
If you still hold the same objection, then really all that does is show that no matter how horrible the actions taken by a supposedly "ideal autocrat" there will always be the die hard supporters ready to justify or hand wave away the atrocities committed by him since they of course have to be good actions because they've already assumed the tyrant can only do that which is good, benevolent, or maximizes human happiness.


Are you guiding me to Euthyphro's dilemma?
#68hunter_gohanPosted 9/7/2013 4:25:12 PM
CorporateKnight posted...
Not intrinsically wrong. Stop reading Kant.


The killing or enslavement of any sapient being is intrinsically wrong. I don't

Are you guiding me to Euthyphro's dilemma?


Really just pointing out the futility of the concept of an ideal autocrat. For you, an ideal autocrat would have genocide and slavery as things he's allowed to do. For me, that's absolutely abhorrent and would never even be thought of by my ideal autocrat.
---
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.
#69Al-UzzaPosted 9/7/2013 7:03:26 PM
genocide and slavery

Not intrinsically wrong. Stop reading Kant.


So genocide is okay if God orders it?
#70CorporateKnightPosted 9/7/2013 9:04:52 PM
Al-Uzza posted...
genocide and slavery

Not intrinsically wrong. Stop reading Kant.


So genocide is okay if God orders it?


Not really, why? God is the maker and he can dispose of us; anyways, that isn't bad because there's an afterlife. The people killed in the OT will be forgiven at the Last Judgment.

"But I tell you that it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you."