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.

 

Why do you follow a genocidal God?

page: 10
3
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["Making a comparison between prophets that died some gruesome deaths for their beliefs with Donald Duck scriptwriters is a very poor argument."]

I can only agree. Fortunately I didn't make such a comparison. I referred to the amount of bible-authors, not to the amount of assumed martyrs. Please show me the courtesy of relating to my posts instead of inventing words on my behalf.





You are guilty of cherry picking one sentence out of my paragraph without the full context in the first place.




posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Good night once again.

Midnight here



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["I am not good, neither are you."]

How can you possibly make such evaluations of other people, you hardly know? And why do you think, that your involved premises will be accepted?

Quote: ["This is not about good vs bad,...."]

No, it was about calling other people 'fools'.

Quote: ["it is about the mercy that all of us need from God our creator."]

Which is the assumption, you use as a personal guideline, but which isn't accepted by "all of us".

Quote: ["If two witnesses testify in court against the accused, the Judge will not rule out their testimony as irrelevant without hearing it first."]

I'm not against pragmatism, far from it. I'm against bad semantics and bad logics.

Quote: ["We have had many prophets witness to us about God...."]

That's your claim, yes.

Quote continued: ["...... and you rule them out based on a phony idea that it is a circular argument."]

I take it, that the 'phony' isn't the concept of circular arguments per se, but my application of the concept in the specifics on 'theism'. As you may know from standard logic, one of the criteria for truth/reality-seeking is uniform and predictable answers.

Your 'prophets' don't qualify (just on that point), so you maybe will be so forthcoming, that you present YOUR 'logics' (rational procedure ...etc), from where you make your 'prophets' housebroken.

Quote: ["The bible was not written by one person but many."]

To my knowledge the Donald Duck comics had local scriptwriters in every country....so this demonstrates what?

Quote: ["There were five hundred witnesses of the resurrected Jesus, many of which died for their belief at the hands of the Romans."]

So you have circled back to the starting-point......that the assumptions from your mythology form a validation of your mythology.



edit on 4-9-2011 by bogomil because: addition




Making a comparison between prophets that died some gruesome deaths for their beliefs with Donald Duck scriptwriters is a very poor argument.

On that note, I must bid thee farewell for now. It is very late here in the land downunder.


I related to the one statement made in this post. So I cherry-picked one option out of one option?

But I would appreciate a return to thread topic instead of these tactical blind alleys. So where do we pick up the lost thread?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Yes...

Back on topic.

I admire the work of C.S. Lewis. He is one of the reasons why I explored christianity at much a deeper level.

Here is a quote that the OP may be able to relate to:


"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"


Another quote from C.S. Lewis after he had struggled with Jesus' divinity:


"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."


His book called 'The Screwtape letters' really spoke to me due to my own personal experiences as a teenager. C.S. Lewis was someone that struggled with understanding how so much death and destruction could exist in a world created by a loving God. Through his struggle he came to know his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.



Another favourite quote of mine from C.S.Lewis:

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ."


Was C.S.Lewis a modern day prophet? Possibly.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote (quote from C.S.Lewis):

[""My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"]

Niiiice, now we're getting somewhere, even if we have to bring the very bad theologian C.S.Lewis in (he was a brilliant writer though). When the semantics are done with, this is an interesting direction.

Ofcourse it's all a question of reference-points, when speculating beyond cosmic existence.

Quote: ["I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say."]

So now we have C.S.Lewis subjective opinion on that.

Quote: ["A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell."]

More opinion from Lewis.

Quote: ["You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse."]

Meaning: "Answer 'yes' or 'no' to my orchestrated double-bind question".

It's propagandistic, LOUSY logic, and such a low standard reflects back on its origin.

Quote: ["But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher."]

Or even better: Let's have no patronizing nonsense on alleged patronizing in opposition.

Quote: [" C.S. Lewis was someone that struggled with understanding how so much death and destruction could exist in a world created by a loving God."]

Pity he didn't find a rational answer. But that's his choice.

Quote: ["Through his struggle he came to know his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."]

Having a personal faith is legitimate and everybody's right. It does however not give a "License to preach" (just a small allegorical pun).

Quote: [""Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ." ]

Geeeeez. &%¤7w2### has no meaning, and everybody can see that at a glance.

As usual: Starting from the predetermined answer and working backwards inventing 'facts' to fit it. Nothing new here.



edit on 5-9-2011 by bogomil because: typo



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Why do you follow a genocidal God?

Bible God, the un-knowable one, has been described in scriptures by someone claiming to know much of the un-knowable God. How the un-knowable can be know has yet to shown. On reading scriptures, some have concluded that Bible God is quite immoral.
www.youtube.com...

I tend to agree based on moral reasons and would like to keep the discussion on morality without going into whether God is real or not. Something that we cannot prove. We can prove though whether we think Bible God acted morally or not.

The first followers of Bible God, the Jews, also seem to agree with Dawkins and myself.

www.youtube.com...

Genocide, or attempted genocide is considered by most to be a low moral position.

Followers of a Hitler or Stalin, who would try to justify their genocidal actions, would not be well received by most of us.

Why then do you think that we should join you in following a God who takes the moral low ground of genocide instead of doing the right moral thing and curing instead of killing those he thinks defective?

As a religionist myself, I can understand seeking God but why would we want to seek, or follow a genocidal one?

What attracts you to a genocidal God?
Is it just that might makes right?

We are to emulate God.
Does that mean that you too would use genocide as a form of what most believers think of as good justice?

Regards
DL


Based purely on your assumption that the bible,
a) Describes one god
b) ...that 'some have concluded' that this god, you describe, 'is quite immoral'
c) jump from 'immoral' to 'genocidal' with amazing alacrity
And then d) mount a thread purely on these flimsy assumptions...based on, what seems to be, a distinctly snide position

...If only it were so easy to discredit a book you so blatantly dismiss, and with 'eyes of a doe', ask the most innocent sounding questions...

Akushla



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote (quote from C.S.Lewis):

[""My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"]

Niiiice, now we're getting somewhere, even if we have to bring the very bad theologian C.S.Lewis in (he was a brilliant writer though). When the semantics are done with, this is an interesting direction.

Ofcourse it's all a question of reference-points, when speculating beyond cosmic existence.

Quote: ["I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say."]

So now we have C.S.Lewis subjective opinion on that.

Quote: ["A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell."]

More opinion from Lewis.

Quote: ["You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse."]

Meaning: "Answer 'yes' or 'no' to my orchestrated double-bind question".

It's propagandistic, LOUSY logic, and such a low standard reflects back on its origin.

Quote: ["But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher."]

Or even better: Let's have no patronizing nonsense on alleged patronizing in opposition.

Quote: [" C.S. Lewis was someone that struggled with understanding how so much death and destruction could exist in a world created by a loving God."]

Pity he didn't find a rational answer. But that's his choice.

Quote: ["Through his struggle he came to know his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."]

Having a personal faith is legitimate and everybody's right. It does however not give a "License to preach" (just a small allegorical pun).

Quote: [""Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ." ]

Geeeeez. &%¤7w2### has no meaning, and everybody can see that at a glance.

As usual: Starting from the predetermined answer and working backwards inventing 'facts' to fit it. Nothing new here.



edit on 5-9-2011 by bogomil because: typo




It is not a double bind question, so we might as well stop there before I analyse your full response.

Jesus claimed to be God:


JN 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

JN 10:25 Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

JN 10:31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"



Upon each of these claims made by Jesus the Jews wanted to stone him for blasphemy.

C.S.Lewis is calling it as it is.

If you believe that the Jesus of the new testament existed in real life (was not just a legend) then he is either God, a liar or a lunatic.

A great moral teacher without divinity is not an option, how can he be moral if he is lying about his divinity?

It is not a trap, just an accurate representation of the choices.


edit on 5-9-2011 by XplanetX because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["It is not a double bind question, so we might as well stop there before I analyse your full response."]

Ofcourse it's a double-bind question. It's constructed on the questioners premises, so only those answers benefitting him are possible. If you want to analyze this further is up to you; but it's probably not a smart move to getting involved in endless semanticism as a christian missionary.

It just accentuates the lack of rational arguments.

Quote (concluding citations from your mythological manual): ["Upon each of these claims made by Jesus the Jews wanted to stone him for blasphemy."]

My interest doesn't lie with doctrinal quibblings between two mythologies. It lies in an overall academic and social perspective.

Quote: ["C.S.Lewis is calling it as it is."]

And so.....? Many people are 'calling' something they have blind faith in. Is this supposed to be an argument or just a reference to authority.

Quote: ["If you believe that the Jesus of the new testament existed in real life (was not just a legend) then he is either God, a liar or a lunatic."]

Only on your (and Lewis') premises.

Quote: ["A great moral teacher without divinity is not an option, how can he be moral if he is lying about his divinity?"]

That you can't be a great moral teacher without divinity, is just one the the usual circle-argumentated assumptions you regularly present. An irrelevant and irrational claim.

So somebody is probably lying on his behalf.

Quote: ["It is not a trap, just an accurate representation of the choices."]

The choices YOU can see. And arranging them neatly this way turns it into a double-bind.



edit on 5-9-2011 by bogomil because: addition on moral teacher/divinity and a missing word



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["It is not a double bind question, so we might as well stop there before I analyse your full response."]

Ofcourse it's a double-bind question. It's constructed on the questioners premises, so only those answers benefitting him are possible. If you want to analyze this further is up to you; but it's probably not a smart move to getting involved in endless semanticism as a christian missionary.

It just accentuates the lack of rational arguments.

Quote (concluding citations from your mythological manual): ["Upon each of these claims made by Jesus the Jews wanted to stone him for blasphemy."]

My interest doesn't lie with doctrinal quibblings between two mythologies. It lies in an overall academic and social perspective.

Quote: ["C.S.Lewis is calling it as it is."]

And so.....? Many people are 'calling' something they have blind faith in. Is this supposed to an argument or just a reference to authority.

Quote: ["If you believe that the Jesus of the new testament existed in real life (was not just a legend) then he is either God, a liar or a lunatic."]

Only on your (and Lewis') premises.

Quote: ["A great moral teacher without divinity is not an option, how can he be moral if he is lying about his divinity?"]

Somebody is probably lying on his behalf.

Quote: ["It is not a trap, just an accurate representation of the choices."]

The choices YOU can see. And arranging them neatly this way turns it into a double-bind.






The premises being that Jesus is either:

A legend, a liar, a lunatic, or Lord.

Exactly what possibility is not covered here?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


First: I added a bit to my recent post. Nothing relevant for now.

You wrote:

["The premises being that Jesus is either: A legend, a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. Exactly what possibility is not covered here?"]

That he was a gifted human being. And the problem with your double-bind is, that you both start and end with the answer, you want to 'prove'.

Basically you are saying: BECAUSE.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


First: I added a bit to my recent post. Nothing relevant for now.

You wrote:

["The premises being that Jesus is either: A legend, a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. Exactly what possibility is not covered here?"]

That he was a gifted human being. And the problem with your double-bind is, that you both start and end with the answer, you want to 'prove'.

Basically you are saying: BECAUSE.





Jesus being just a gifted human being would mean that you believe the Jesus of the bible to be a 'legend'.

The stories about him have been twisted and/or embellished, they are not an accurate representation of what he said and/or did.

A little bit like a 'Robin Hood' or 'King Arthur'.

It seems odd that they would describe the Son of God as somebody who did not fight back with his mighty powers. Instead he allows the Roman authorities along with the Jews approval to beat him senseless and crucify him. It is a strange way to embellish a story, having the main character in the story claim he is God and yet not lift a finger to save himself from harm. I guess they were not quite up to the Hollywood standard in this regard. Many of these people that wrote about him also died for their belief, maybe they were just 'lunatics' while Jesus was just the 'legend'.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["Jesus being just a gifted human being would mean that you believe the Jesus of the bible to be a 'legend'"]

I hope, you with "you" in the quote above, don't mean me (trying to put words in my mouth). Personally I don't 'believe' anything, except that the option of Jesus existing as a human being is reasonable.

But what does that matter, it's the message being important (being delievered just as well from Buddha or the flying spaghetti monster), not the endless pseudo-rational ornamentations surrounding the quibblings.

Furthermore "legend" is your choice of word, not mine.

Quote: ["The stories about him have been twisted and/or embellished, they are not an accurate representation of what he said and/or did. A little bit like a 'Robin Hood' or 'King Arthur'."]

Agreed.

Again: The message counts, and even as a non-theist I can relate to that.

Quote: ["It seems odd that they would describe the Son of God as somebody who did not fight back with his mighty powers."]

Buddha was allegedly said to have died from excessive politeness (on his own part). This doesn't add or take away anything from his core-message(s); (except that politeness apparently is 'good').

Quote: ["Many of these people that wrote about him also died for their belief, maybe they were just 'lunatics' while Jesus was just the 'legend'."]

I have worked professionally with mentally ill people. The amount of religious psychoses is significant (and being logical I'm ofcourse not inverting the argument and generalizing from the exceptions. I'm only saying the option is there).

What about returning to topic from the relevant and useful perspective of alleged cosmic and 'divine' ethics. This perspective is to some extent quantifiable, and can give us some safe rational ground under our feet.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



So you have your own version of Jesus?

What parts of the bible are fictitious?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by XplanetX
reply to post by bogomil
 



So you have your own version of Jesus?

What parts of the bible are fictitious?


My version of a reasonably possible Jesus is the one saying: Be nice to your neighbours.

I'm completely indifferent to bible-cherrypickings, interpretations from hermeneutic scholars, gurus, christian elitists, the elect, secret codes, prophets, signs and wonders and whatever christian missionaries dish out.

I have acceptable reading skills, a decent intellect and don't find the message of: 'Be nice to your neighbours' so complex, that there's much to talk about. (That is, this message in the UNCONDITIONAL version).

This said, I'm still not a theist.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


The parts of the bible being not only fictious, but complete non-sense, start with gen 1, 2 and 3.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by XplanetX
reply to post by bogomil
 



So you have your own version of Jesus?

What parts of the bible are fictitious?


My version of a reasonably possible Jesus is the one saying: Be nice to your neighbours.

I'm completely indifferent to bible-cherrypickings, interpretations from hermeneutic scholars, gurus, christian elitists, the elect, secret codes, prophets, signs and wonders and whatever christian missionaries dish out.

I have acceptable reading skills, a decent intellect and don't find the message of: 'Be nice to your neighbours' so complex, that there's much to talk about. (That is, this message in the UNCONDITIONAL version).

This said, I'm still not a theist.



Is not the command to love your neighbour conditional in itself?

Or do you also dilute this command into merely another option to be selected from the buffet if it is appealing?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["Is not the command to love your neighbour conditional in itself?"]

Depends on if you offer it or push it; and on hidden pricetags in it.

Quote: ["Or do you also dilute this command into merely another option to be selected from the buffet if it is appealing?"]

Ofcourse, it's my personal opinion of a system, which only have peripheral importance in my life (when it e.g. inteferes with academesia or society).

Can you NOW return more directly to topic?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["Is not the command to love your neighbour conditional in itself?"]

Depends on if you offer it or push it; and on hidden pricetags in it.

Quote: ["Or do you also dilute this command into merely another option to be selected from the buffet if it is appealing?"]

Ofcourse, it's my personal opinion of a system, which only have peripheral importance in my life (when it e.g. inteferes with academesia or society).

Can you NOW return more directly to topic?






Sure, I do enjoy asking questions to find out what people believe and how they come to their conclusions.

Apologies for taking a detour.

I think I am done in here. I have expressed why I follow the 'genocidal' God of the bible. When I say 'genocidal' I obviously say it from the perspective of the author of this thread and not my perspective.

It's late here, goodnight Bogomil.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


The parts of the bible being not only fictious, but complete non-sense, start with gen 1, 2 and 3.



There might be some meaning to those chapters but not necessarily physical in nature.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevin32

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


The parts of the bible being not only fictious, but complete non-sense, start with gen 1, 2 and 3.



There might be some meaning to those chapters but not necessarily physical in nature.


I'm listening, if you have any suggestions.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join