|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Confession of a former christian | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
?seY
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iano responds to me:
quote: I most certainly do. Choice is the process of considering the consequences of my actions and then making a determination as to which one would best achieve the goals I am seeking. If I have no ability to consider consequences, then I am not making a choice. I am simply guessing.
quote: What is this "balance" you're talking about. There is never "balance." The only reason you can possibly make a choice is because things are out of balance. If everything were perfectly equal, then there would be no way to make a choice. Instead, you'd have to guess and guessing is not choosing.
quote: I've shown you at least one way in which it can be done. Since it can be done, why didn't god do it? Why did god choose a method that you admit necessarily requires evil? How is that good?
quote: I never said it did. The problem is not that evil is a possibility. It's that evil is a result. Since there are ways to generate the universe such that evil will never be a result even though it is a possibility, why would god choose a system such that evil is necessarily a result? How can that be good?
quote: So if god can manage to have choice but never choose evil, then why can't we? Why would god create a system that necessarily results in evil? How can that be good? And more importantly, how is that not a very contradiction of what was just established? If god cannot choose evil, how can he choose to create a system that necessarily results in evil? Does god not have a choice?
quote: But such a scenario doesn't result in a choice but rather a guess. If I cannot weigh the consequences and determine that one path is more favorable than another, then I am incapable of making a choice. Any path I follow is not the result of choosing but rather of guessing. A guess is not a choice.
quote: All choices are skewed. That's what makes them choices.
quote: Huh? Sin isn't about morality? And you still haven't answered the question: How were they supposed to choose between the lie of god and the truth of the serpent when they were constitutionally incapable of making a choice, being innocent and not having eaten from the tree of knowledge? Remember, you were the one who defined evil as "any action/thought that is against Gods will." Since sin is defined as "doing evil," then the act of eating from the tree of knowledge was necessarily a "moral choice." But they couldn't make a moral choice. They were innocent as they hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge yet. Remember, they were sinning up a storm before they ate from the tree and nobody seemed to mind. Remember, the very first thing they do once they eat from the tree is not panic over having eaten from the tree. After all, that is the only thing they have ever been told about god's will (that we know of): "Don't eat from the tree." So why is it they immediately panic over something else?
quote: Adam and Eve were always going to die. That's what the tree of life was for.
quote: Yes, she did. The only way to understand a prohibition is to understand good and evil. Since she hadn't eaten from the tree, she didn't understand good and evil. Thus, she was constitutionally incapable of understanding god's prohibition. How on earth is someone who does not know what good is supposed to know that god is good and should be followed? You're assuming what you're trying to prove. How were Adam and Eve supposed to know that they should follow god's lie rather than the serpent's truth?
quote: Incorrect. It's a moral one. "Or else what"? By your definition, evil is "any action/thought that is against Gods will." Since sin is "doing evil" and necessarily an act of morality, then when god tells you, "Don't do that," that's a moral prohibition, not a consequential one. Besides, god's answer to "Or else what?" was a lie.
quote: Now I'm confused. When those consequences are "good" and "evil," that makes it a moral choice. But you said moral choices aren't consequential choices. I'm confused. At any rate, Adam and Eve were incapable of making such choices. They were innocent. They hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge and thus were constitutionally incapable of choosing between good and evil, not knowing what good and evil were.
quote: Indeed, but the consequences they got were the ones the serpent told them. God lied to them. But that doesn't answer the question: How were they supposed to distinguish between god's lie and the serpent's truth when they were constitutionally incapable of understanding good and evil having not eaten from the tree?
quote: That's not a choice. That's a guess.
quote: Incorrect. It is the very essence of choosing. Once cannot make a choice without weighing consequences. If you don't, you're not choosing. You're guessing.
quote: If you can, then they are clearly not balanced. Something shifted you. If they were truly balanced, then there would be no reason to choose one over the other. Instead, you just guess. When Monty Hall presents you with the three doors, there is no reason to choose the one you did. And that's because you didn't choose. You guessed.
quote: But how was Eve supposed to weigh the consequences when that requires knowing good and evil and she didn't know what good and evil were?
quote: That "act of will" is called "guessing." And the exact same thing is true with the serpent's statement. Why one and not the other? That's because it isn't choosing. It's guessing. God and the serpent are saying contradictory things. They can't both be true. Eve has no way to choose because she doesn't know what good and evil are as she hasn't yet eaten from the tree. We're back to one of my questions that never gets answered: Beetaratagang or clerendipity, iano? One is good, one is evil. Make your choice. If you respond to nothing else, this is the question I want you to answer: Beetaratagang or clerendipity? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
quote: You're forgetting about the Iliad and the Odyssey. Greek used the alphabet for numbers, too. Congratulations, IamJoseph. You've just declared your loyalty to Zeus. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
quote: Incorrect. The very first amendment to the Constitution is a direct violation of the OT law: Freedom of religion. In fact, the very first words of the Constitution are a direct violation of the OT law: We the People. In fact, the Constitution directly contradicts the Bible: Article VI: ...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. The only mentions of religion made in the Constitution are to expressly deny it. Where did you get this idea that the Constitution is based upon OT law?
quote: Incorrect. In fact, the OT directly commands human sacrifice. Have you forgotten Isaac? Have you forgotten Jephthah who entreats god to help him smite the Ammonites and in return, he will sacrifice the first person who comes out of his doors:
Judges 11:31: Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. God, of course, takes him up on the offer and delivers the Ammonites unto Jephthah. And who should greet him when he comes home? His daughter. Whom he sacrificed to god. Have you forgotten Josiah?
1 Kings 13:1 And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the LORD unto Bethel: and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense. 13:2 And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee. Have you forgotten the direct commands of god?
Joshua 7:15 And it shall be, that he that is taken with the accursed thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he hath: because he hath transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he hath wrought folly in Israel. Deuteronomy 13:12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, 13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; 13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; 13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. 13:16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: There is no violation, only seperation of state and religion, and this comes from the OT. The King and the prophet of the day had equal rights: King David had to seccumb to the prophet Nathan's verdict on a charge of adultry - a process unknown any place else, even till today. The prophet reps the people. There are no laws in the NT - all laws come from the OT, world-wide, and exclusively: amazing but true.
quote: It says 'offer', not sacrifice, and this was stopped.
quote: Human sacrifice is forbidden in the OT. That King made an error by swearing to God, when sacrifice was forbidden. A king cannot swear by God and break his word [No to take the name in vain'] - he could not be stopped, and paid a big price. quote: This relates to spoils of war, not human sacrifice. In fact, even animal sacrifice was forbidden as an anullment of sins and crimes. Animal sacrifice was only permitted when a crime's perpertrator could not be determined and for a thangsgiving sacrifice; these too were limited to the temple, and this ceased when the temple fell, ending humanity's tradition of this act.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Iliad and the Odyssey are not alphabetical books, nor are these vested in history - they are stageplays, and their datings unconfirmable. The greek begat alpha beta's in 300 BCE, from the Hebrew alef bet, when they became the first to translate the OT [Josephus Docs]. There is no greek alphabeticals before that date.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The greek begat alpha beta's in 300 BCE, from the Hebrew alef bet, when they became the first to translate the OT [Josephus Docs]. There is no greek alphabeticals before that date. oh for fucks sake, how can one man beget so much shit??? There was no Greek alphabet before 300BCE??? Greek is derived from Hebrew??? Dear God, you are stupid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Gutter ball! An array of facts about Homer ready for you to nail, and you missed every single one.
I sincerely hope you were joking. Or a troll. Or smoking funny mushrooms. I'd hate to think that was the product of the way anyone's brain normally operates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Dear God, it goes on...
Iliad and the Odyssey are not alphabetical books, nor are these vested in history - they are stageplays No they're not retard, they are epic poems. Do you ever check a single thing you say? My advice to you is to switch off your computer, pack it away in the box it came in and send it back to the manufacturer. Tell them you're too fucking stupid to own a computer. Never speak again. You're just a bandwidth thief. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Iliad and the Odyssey are not alphabetical books What the Hell does that mean? Are you saying they were written in hand signals? Are they tonal books, with each word represented by a sound? They were written down, using letters corresponding to sounds to form words that represent real ideas or things. What about them makes them not alphabetical?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
IamJoseph is the biggest one I know. I'm pretty sure his IQ is below this stellar example of genius:
I have never witnessed as much concentrated stupidity as I have in the past week of IaJ's posting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Bu that's the thing. Many laws in the Bible are not followed, not made laws, and in my opinion, very wrong. One of the laws of the OT is not to eat shellfish. I love shrimp, very tasty.
"Feed one's animal before themselves." Anyone who knows anything about dog training knows that's a bad idea. You eat before you feed your dog, that shows the dog that you are the alpha, the pack leader if you will. "not to destroy a food bearing tree." So, if I want to build a home in a spot, but an apple tree happens to be growing there, it is illegal to chop down that tree (thereby destroying it) and build my house? The Bible has some good laws, but the good laws of the Bible are the same laws every culture has grappled with. Far more laws from the Bible are things we don't follow, are not outlawed in America, or are expressely protected in the Constitution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Rahvin writes: I have never witnessed as much concentrated stupidity as I have in the past week of IaJ's posting. I think he's dereistic, which would explain both the apparent stupidity and the bizarre language problems. Language is genuinely difficult for him, which was why I was teasing on this thread, and got my result. Look at my post with the three laughing heads, and the two phrases that he manages to perceive as meaning the same thing. Weird, eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
People, review message 1 or something.
If this topic were not in the "Free For All", I would now be closing it down. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Rrhain writes: I most certainly do. Choice is the process of considering the consequences of my actions and then making a determination as to which one would best achieve the goals I am seeking. If we were talking about a computer programme "choosing" then that would be the case. Establish the goals / input the consequences / out pops the result. The closer the options balance out, the longer the programme takes to 'consider' perhaps - but it's forgone conclusion all the way down the line. But we're not talking about a computer programme here. We're talking about people. People choose, computers don't. Not unless your personal philosophy happens to see people only as elaborate computers. -
What is this "balance" you're talking about. There is never "balance." If everything were perfectly equal, then there would be no way to make a choice. Instead, you'd have to guess and guessing is not choosing. Balance arises from the options. There could be infinite misery offered on the one hand and infinite joy on the other. That's balance in the options offered. Then there is us. You say that the only thing we can do in the face of balance is to guess. But you also say that choice involves consideration of consequences w.r.t. our goals. Yet our goals are a moveable feast. In which case we alter "a thing" so as to introduce the sort of imbalance that permits choice (according to the mechanism you propose). The options balanced. Us doing the goal-altering. -
Or which simply assert a free will can be created that can choose evil but never will.
I've shown you at least one way in which it can be done. "Shown me how to give a person a freewill to choose evil - yet never choose it"? If I recall correctly, it involved this:
quote: The "perfect understanding" you speak of would presumably involve showing a person the full extent of the negative outcome which is sure to follow a choice for route A. An understanding so perfect that it would wipe out each and every positive-sounding falsehood hithertoe supposed of a choice for route A. For that would be the only way to ensure no choice for route A that I can see. And you call this freewill? You'll understand if I remain ignoring those parts of your post that presume of such a freewill as this until such time as we have reached agreement. -
So if god can manage to have choice but never choose evil, then why can't we? Why would god create a system that necessarily results in evil? How can that be good? And more importantly, how is that not a very contradiction of what was just established? If god cannot choose evil, how can he choose to create a system that necessarily results in evil? Does god not have a choice? 1) See definition of evil. 2) See note on our different view on freewill. Your proposal for a freewill that won't choose against Gods will (although remaining able to) relies (as far as I can tell) on infinitely skewing "choices" so as to ensure they will "chose" for Gods will. 3) See defintion of good. 4)/5) It can be Gods will to create beings who can freely act against his will. But we're stuck on the issue of free will. -
Theirs wasn't a moral choice. It was a consequential one.
Huh? Sin isn't about morality? In us (post-Adamic creatures) it is. We know good and evil in our choices. They didn't before they made it. Which is why, perhaps, theirs is called Original Sin - whereas ours isn't. There is little point in mixing up the general with the specific. -
And you still haven't answered the question: How were they supposed to choose between the lie of god and the truth of the serpent when they were constitutionally incapable of making a choice, being innocent and not having eaten from the tree of knowledge? Remember, you were the one who defined evil as "any action/thought that is against Gods will." Their action was against God's will. Thus evil according to definition. They didn't need to be able to make moral choices in order to choose against his will it thus appears. Given that they acted consequentially only. -
Since sin is defined as "doing evil," then the act of eating from the tree of knowledge was necessarily a "moral choice." But they couldn't make a moral choice. They were innocent as they hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge yet. Evil is doing what God wills not. They did as God willed not - meaning they did evil. But they weren't moral beings. Which tells us that you don't need to be a moral being to do what God doesn't want you to do. Repeating the above point, I am. -
Remember, they were sinning up a storm before they ate from the tree and nobody seemed to mind. Remember, the very first thing they do once they eat from the tree is not panic over having eaten from the tree. After all, that is the only thing they have ever been told about god's will (that we know of): "Don't eat from the tree." So why is it they immediately panic over something else? Remember (1): How sinning? Remember (2) A knowledge of good and evil is something that seeps in gradually? God introduces the beginnings of law? -
Adam and Eve were always going to die. That's what the tree of life was for I don't agree. They had temporal life - which, going on one second at a time forever is not eternal life. The tree of life could be seen as offering eternal life. -
Yes, she did. The only way to understand a prohibition is to understand good and evil. If God stamped hard on her toe and said: "feel that pain? Well, if that pain equates to this single grain of dust in my hand, then this "death" I am describing equates to all the grains of dust for as far as your eye can see. And for as far as you care to walk in any direction - for as long as you care to walk it. And for as deep as you care to dig. And then some. Get the picture?" Care to point out the morality in her understanding of this prohibition? Seeing as it was God's will to provide it to her. The rest of your post covers same ground more or less. I'll leave out repeating the same points
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024