It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Either God is not Love or Yahweh is not God.

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


...um...I'm not special pleading. I don't claim to have special knowledge that you could not access without agreeing to my position...though I do think that the knowledge I have (which is available to anyone with an internet connection, subscriptions to science journals, and a nice public library) necessitates the position I'm in.

All I'm basically saying is that the appeal to ridicule is a non-starter. It's what's used when you've got nothing better to say.




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Ok, if the fire is so big that it would burn the hair away quickly to the point that the smell would go away quickly...let me just get into a simple physics issue here without getting into the actual equations of it...there wouldn't be much meat to eat.

It would be a relatively big fire, sure, but the smell of burning hair still lingers. Granted, I guess I can't say for certain and neither can you unless you want to go visit the Samaritans who still participate in this practice.

Oh, and the Jephthah's daughter thing? Sort of a damn big problem. Human sacrifice and all.

...though I frankly don't get why you're dragging things so ridiculously off-topic...oh wait, it's because engaging in the topic would actually be able to expose that your position is riddled with holes worse than a junkie after a machine gun attack.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
So there isn't an inconsistency in King David participating in a homosexual relationship while the Bible condemns it?

King David's homosexual relationship is pure fantasy, you made it up, or others did, but I can make the same claim about you, because I have as much reason or proof!
As my brother used to jokingly say "if you're gonna lie, might as well make it a big one!"



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil
 



We were supposed to be vegetarians


We could play the "supposed to be" game all day long. We were "supposed to be" nude also.

Are you saying that since we were "supposed to be vegetarians" we should not find the smell of barbeque intoxicating?





The supposed-to game of vegetarianism originates with genesis 1:29-30.

Only later, when the demon-lord Jahveh tried to put down revolt, was that changed, and his :"See what you made me do" took the brunt of his wrath to include animals in the general eat-or-be-eaten being the new order of suffering.

Not only had animals (apart from talking snakes) nothing to do with the revolt, but obviously must the metabolism of some of them also have been changed overnight from herbivores to carnivores.

And then you can start your endless chain of non-sense creationism and divine heptagonic mathematics to 'prove' that. But usually making disappereance acts, when we get around to your lack of systematic methodology being inconvenient for you.

You don't want a chain of reasoning. You rely on propaganda.
edit on 10-6-2011 by bogomil because: addition



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil
 



Paulus was a con-man, plain and simple.



Ouch that sucks, why does Peter endorse all Paul says in all his epistles then? (2 Peter 3:15-16)


It's bad enough Paul is a charlatan as you contend, but now Jesus's right hand man is endorsing all Paul says?


EEEggaaaaadddZZoooooooKKKs!!!!!!


It's in one place, which is disputed to be Peter's own words. Besides the text isn't that conclusively positive concerning Paulus.

On the other hand Paulus repeatedly gets into conflict with the original disciples.

And his whole argument of authority rests on his own words. YOU can choose to believe him through faith, I evaluate Paulus from contemporary psychological perspectives, where he clearly manifests as a paranioa/megalomania sociopath.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   
Madness wrote to NOT.

["Yeah, I have to spend a decade or so learning what is basically conformation bias, compartmentalization, and cognitive dissonance. In fact, it's so funny that the first step would involving accepting your premises."]


This is what I've been saying for a long time now, only better expressed.

To argue with NOT (and similar theists), the first step expected of you is to start from THEIR premises. I don't know how many times I've read: "Who are you to argue with or question 'god' ?"

Meaning: "'God' is good and omni-everything, because he's 'god', so he MUST be good and omni-everything". THE circle-argument of all circle-arguments.

Unfortunately this can also 'prove' the flying spaghetti monster.

And Madness wrote: ["Granted, you (and many others) have argued against evolution, the Big Bang theory, and modern geology out of pure ignorance, and I've taken the time to give my own cursory understanding of why you're wrong on all of those topics. All without lying about your previous statements, chastising you for not studying them, or using a special-pleading fallacy."]

Extremist theists hijack or even invent most of their arguments. When pressed for a justification for the methods used to produce such arguments the result is: Endless semantics or total silence.


edit on 10-6-2011 by bogomil because: paragraphing



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



Only later, when the demon-lord Jahveh tried to put down revolt, was that changed, and his :"See what you made me do" took the brunt of his wrath to include animals in the general eat-or-be-eaten being the new order of suffering.


My God is omniscient. Perhaps your version was flying by the seat of his pants, not the Lord God of the Bible.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



It's in one place, which is disputed to be Peter's own words. Besides the text isn't that conclusively positive concerning Paulus.


No, 2 Peter is very rough Greek, it was written with the hand of Peter himself from prison a few days before his crucifixion. 1 Peter was written in very polished Greek with the hand of Peter's "Amanuensis" Silvanus. Quite a few NT books were dictated this way, it was a paid service in that day. What can you do, there wasn't a Kinkos back then.


On the other hand Paulus repeatedly gets into conflict with the original disciples.


Completely false.

Citation needed.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



I don't know how many times I've read: "Who are you to argue with or question 'god' ?"



Examples please?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil
 



Only later, when the demon-lord Jahveh tried to put down revolt, was that changed, and his :"See what you made me do" took the brunt of his wrath to include animals in the general eat-or-be-eaten being the new order of suffering.


My God is omniscient. Perhaps your version was flying by the seat of his pants, not the Lord God of the Bible.


It makes you much more sympathetic and communicable, when you say: "My God" instead of trying to enforce mankind collectively into the absolutes you beleive in.

I don't think, it will surprise you, but I don't have any 'god' (consequently 'pants' are irrelevant in this context).



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



I don't think


Well aware..


it will surprise you


not at all surprised..


but I don't have any 'god'


that was called "hyperbole"..


(consequently 'pants' are irrelevant in this context).


sounds an awful lot like an 'absolutes you beleive in'.



You have no reservations sharing all the 'absolutes you beleive in'. So I suppose special pleading is the rule of the day?

Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up.









(believe)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You wrote:

["No, 2 Peter is very rough Greek, it was written with the hand of Peter himself from prison a few days before his crucifixion."]

Without doubt you rely on some 'experts' saying this, but experience has shown me to be VERY sceptical of the 'expertice' you refer to. With risk of being unfair, my impression of you is, that you put your propaganda-aspirations higher than respect for valid sources. I've seen other 'experts' saying, that the general attitude is, that Peter didn't write Peter 2.

Whatever. The place you refer to says, that Paulus is a queer fish, but you have to listen to him on a principle of authority, because you're too dumb to understand anything yourself.

And many of the christianities having a strong point in favour of 'authority' (how else submit mankind to a meaningless mythology), it isn't so surprising, that dissention at the top-level is toned down.

Quote on Paulus' bad relationship to the other apostles *: ["Completely false. Citation needed."]

Acts and epistles. E.g. acts 15:2.

These quibblings have continued for 2.000 years as an extension of the original ones. Why else would there be a claimed justification for 'silencers of heretics' and 'soldiers in 'god's spiritual army'? That you are part of the collective group of bible-interpretators, constantly schisming, can hardly be denied. Your ilk has no definitive answers, even amongst yourself. Both concerning 'answers' and methods.

But that's only half of it. The other half is about Paulus' SELF-PROCLAIMED 'authority'.

* I may have confused 'apostles' with the 'original disciples' as mentioned in my former post.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   




I wouldn't mind 'sharing' my absolutes. The problem is, that I don't have any. I have a few, for-the-duration semi-absolutes, e.g. egalitarian, liberal, secular democrcay and the full circle inclusion of that after having been out on epistemology-ground.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil
 



I don't know how many times I've read: "Who are you to argue with or question 'god' ?"



Examples please?


Examples of 'I DON'T how many times' or examples of 'I DO know how many times etc'?

Save your breath in the fools errands and semantic acrobatics department. You disappear, when things get inconvenient for you, and I've wasted too much time on that.

It was a point in the overall consideration above on this thread of being expected to submit to theist premises. And instead of using time on finding when you wrote "who are you to question god?" (which you and others actually have done), you can just relate to the point now (if it's important to you), on the following statement from me.

"I, Bogomil, DO argue with and question the alleged 'god'-character in the bible.

It's an example of circle-argumentation, and the semicolons are of little interest.
edit on 10-6-2011 by bogomil because: addition



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


It's not pure fantasy. It's not definitive, but it's relatively easy to read into the following passages:


1 Samuel 18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
18:2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.


19:2 But Jonathan Saul's son delighted much in David: and Jonathan told David, saying, Saul my father seeketh to kill thee: now therefore, I pray thee, take heed to thyself until the morning, and abide in a secret place, and hide thyself:


But this passage is really the clincher:


1 Samuel 20:30 Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?


This was actually one of the first things I noticed when I got to 1 Samuel the first time I read the Bible.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

1 Samuel 20:30 Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?


This was actually one of the first things I noticed when I got to 1 Samuel the first time I read the Bible.

It would really help if you quoted a translation other than the KJV! The effort of parsing 17th century English is a lot to ask at nearly 2 in the morning... (But atheists love the KJV, it's so much more confusing and you can really bamboozle your buddies and the teenagers who hang on your every word.)
Here's the same passage from the NIV:
30 Saul’s anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, “You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don’t I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you?
Completely different isn't it? You can't make anything dirty out of it... Note 'sided with'...
I feel so sorry for you people, and especially you as an individual, that you can't see love and devotion as anything other than sex. It reminds me of using an analogy to a gay atheist on h2g2, as to why I hated him blaspheming and cursing using the name of Christ. I said "how would you like it if I used the name of someone you loved to swear by, maybe your mother?"
His response
"Go ahead. I hate my mother!"
Turned out the only thing the word love meant to him was 'sexual excitement'. I hate to think you're the same



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 


You wrote:

["I feel so sorry for you people, and especially you as an individual, that you can't see love and devotion as anything other than sex."]

You have made a similar claim elsewhere (on that occasion using imagined material on that thread as your source), and in that situation, as it also is here, this is a sweeping generalization needing some explanation.

Considering myself a 'buddy' (but not a disciple) of Madness, I take it, that I'm included in the group of 'you people', you mentioned above. And as such I'm entitled to post an answer to your post regarding the stereotype, I've been postulated to be a part of and the concept in general.

Considering the recent popularity amongst christians here for pop-psychological character-analyses of opponents, I find it reasonable to ask: What method makes this (almost clairvoyant) psyche-profiling possible? It's one thing to relate to subjects at hand and conclude something from attitudes on them, but to go completely outside that and as in this case make 'love and devotion' a subset of sex for atheists and other 'you people' is going to far.



I have a great love for animals and young children, and I have much compassion for any group, which is really oppressed (though not much for those who use oppression as an argument to get privileges).

I have a small group of friends, male or female, whom I love. There have been some women in my intimate life, whom I sincerely can say I loved, not just being fascinating bed-partners.

I even have a small, but personal, affinity to the japanese goddess of compassion, Kuan Yin, whom I in my metaphysical rovings for a while met slightly (please note, that 'god' and 'goddess' have a another meaning in many asian contexts). My own experience of this is not a submissive devotion, but as the recognition of some 'cosmic' benevolence principle. Very advanced symbiosis perhaps.

I hope for some comments from you on that, both on your way of achieving such insight ..... and on if or how I am included in the 'you people' category.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil
 



Only later, when the demon-lord Jahveh tried to put down revolt, was that changed, and his :"See what you made me do" took the brunt of his wrath to include animals in the general eat-or-be-eaten being the new order of suffering.


My God is omniscient. Perhaps your version was flying by the seat of his pants, not the Lord God of the Bible.


If your God is omnipresent , then He needs to do more to protect innocent children from sexual slavery, to protect woman from sexual abuse especially in the middle east. He is the creator ..no? in his infinite love he must realize that many are brainwashed from children into religions that oppose Him....why does he sit in the back ground, being "omnipresent" yet watch so much ,and I mean SO MUCH suffering , especially to the small children ,who cannot be accountable for the positions they are in.

OH yeah..right I forgot..This is the same God who wiped a mans entirely family, his cattle, and brought down terrible disease on on him, meaning Job....because of what?..some little ego game with the devil??

That's right..he's the God of love.


Seems more like the God of , adore me...and be willing to kill anything ,even your children to prove it to me.
Seems like a God who is much more concerned with His ego , than real justice , and real love.
edit on 10-6-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by gabby2011
 


Argument from evil.

"Good" to you is defined as "maximizes pleasure, minimizes pain".





posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by gabby2011
 


Argument from evil.

"Good" to you is defined as "maximizes pleasure, minimizes pain".




Argument from self-righteous faith:

Maximize imagined guilt, minimize rational reasoning.

You STILL don't get it? The sentence: "Argument from evil" is a clearcut example of the missionary insistence on arranging everything on his/her conditions/premises.

If you feel more at home in a complete graffito-slogan world, I can re-structure my posts to you, so they mainly contain sentences like: "Arguments from religious idiocy".
edit on 10-6-2011 by bogomil because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join