Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is God Self-Evident
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 155 (523103)
09-08-2009 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Dawn Bertot
09-08-2009 11:55 AM


Re: Absolutism versus relativism
I suppose the type that sees a discussion as a pissing contest, you know one looking for contradiction where ther is none
Oh, but there is. No one has been able to explain it away.
Ezekiel was not speaking primarily about physical death, you notice he said the Soul that sins, that s the part of the thinking rational man, the body is something else.
I'm not talking about physical death. I'm talking about the clear difference between Ezekiel and Exodus. One says we don't pay for the sins of the father, the other one does. And it's very clear on what it means. It has nothing to do with physical death or spiritual death.
What does, however, is Adam's sin, which God initially stated that in the day that anyone eats of the fruit, they will die. Then he goes on to live for half an eternity.
I get the whole sin is separation from God. That's not what we're talking about here, as if I don't know what the bible says about it already.
I'm talking about the plainly clear contradiction for the sins of the father. God says in Exodus that HE will PUNISH them, for several generations. It doesn't say or remotely insinuate that our fathers negative actions have negative consequences.
Read them both again.
I am not sure what your concept of debating is, but it is usually customary to actually deal with the material presented to you instead of crying contradiction, where it has clearly been shown not to exists. You seen to skip from one point to another, bring new accusations and never seem to deal with the specific arguments that relate to the so-called contradictions.
How much time do you need to answer a question directly? Thus far you've made excuses that don't excuse what I've presented as clear contradictions. You bring up irrelevant things like spiritual death or try and turn the question around on me, as if somehow I did the same thing I'd be a hypocrite.
Well, guess what? I haven't done any thing even remotely as tragic as what you apparently condone, as long as God does it.
I'm not the one in the hot seat here. The bible is. Your answers are insufficient, not just for me, but to any logical debater. It's all hand-waiving and distraction from the topic at hand, which is that the bible has numerous contradictions.
Got to get to the rest later.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2009 11:55 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2009 1:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 122 of 155 (523105)
09-08-2009 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Hyroglyphx
09-07-2009 4:09 PM


Re: Absolutism versus relativism
HG writes:
That doesn't much matter since Exodus is very clear that they were specifically punished for being related, not a victim of someone else's bad choices.
No they were punished because God holds disobedience and sin in such a high regard. Besides all of this you ignoring that he had previously warned them against such PERSISTENT actions. Most of the punishment by God was only usually as a result of years and years and years of disobedience and after repeated warnings and patience on Gods part. Bad choices does not describe in this instance usually what the circunstances were. It does matter and makes perfect sense.
Well, you're getting warmer. See theoretically what you say is true. So if I show you were the bible is fallible, then you can't call it infallible. If I show you where the bible says one things and then contradicts somewhere else, then what does that say about God?
So then what you are saying is that if I can demonstrate you are immoral in your actions, you really have no way to condemn God correct?
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-07-2009 4:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 123 of 155 (523107)
09-08-2009 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns
08-30-2009 6:28 PM


I think God is self-evident through design, but you have to look into it. I've heard severeal creationi scientist-lectures that go into the details of specific organisms, and it is easily proven that the level of design far exceeds human design.
I think deductive logic can show easily that if poor design requires a designer, very brilliant design requires a designer.
The thing is, even if you can only find one amazing design, that in itself becomes a complete anomoly, but every organism, in it's function, is excellent. It simply shouldn't be. There should only be at best, one very poor design for "flight", for example, otherwise all those other designs are not explained, just explained away as coincidence. But it is not logical to handwave awat the clearly incredible. We're talking about animated matter here. That in itself is fu##ing incredible beyond all words. Even atheists express a kind of awe at nature, as it is wonderfully brilliant.
But it depends on which God. If it's Theism, or Deism, not biblical Tri-une Theism, then you have the problem of evil to deal with.
But I think designs are inherently brilliant, even the nasty ones are still brilliant designs despite being grotesque because they do their job excellently.
So it gets complicated. The two major philosophical problems are death and suffering and design.
Designists have to answer for the former, evolutionists have to answer for the latter.
The bible answers the problem of evil and suffering, theologically. Evolution doesn't deal with design, it just states that designs come about on their own somehow. When I state, on there own somehow, it's not that I don't understand the mechanisms behind the ToE, it's that the problem of design just doesn't go away and will always be more powerful as an explanation of amazing design because design is factual, you can actually point at it, rather than argue it.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 08-30-2009 6:28 PM Teapots&unicorns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by iano, posted 09-08-2009 6:31 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 124 of 155 (523108)
09-08-2009 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Hyroglyphx
09-08-2009 1:14 PM


Re: Absolutism versus relativism
HG writes:
I'm not talking about physical death. I'm talking about the clear difference between Ezekiel and Exodus. One says we don't pay for the sins of the father, the other one does. And it's very clear on what it means. It has nothing to do with physical death or spiritual death.
This is not rocket science HG, for if the two authors are talking about two different concepts then it would follow that they are not in contradiction. Ignoring on your part that there is a physical death or punisment and a spiritual or eternal one demonstrates that you refuse to deal with the issue.
Again to demonstrate and to which you will probably ignore the fact is this, no matter how the scriptures represents death or punishment for sin, it does not always involve immediate death or punishment, not always. So it is the readers responsiblity to look at the context and totality to see what is being implied.
Already you have demonstrated that Adam did not die immediately once sinning, so, common sense would tell us that God did not have in mind here death in an instant but was refering to something else. So was GOD or the writer lying, no the writer or God was reffering to something else, that is not death in an instant The writers of these two passages had something different in mind, the distinction clearly removes it from any contradiction. I know you are to smart of a person not to see the points I am making Here.
What does, however, is Adam's sin, which God initially stated that in the day that anyone eats of the fruit, they will die. Then he goes on to live for half an eternity.
You being silly and I have already answered this numerous times. Besides this when a criminal is sentenced to death and the actual punishment takes place 15 years later, was the judge lying or contradictory
EAM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-08-2009 1:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-08-2009 2:16 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 155 (523115)
09-08-2009 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Dawn Bertot
09-08-2009 1:56 PM


Re: Absolutism versus relativism
This is not rocket science HG, for if the two authors are talking about two different concepts then it would follow that they are not in contradiction. Ignoring on your part that there is a physical death or punisment and a spiritual or eternal one demonstrates that you refuse to deal with the issue.
quote:
"I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me" - Exodus 20:5
quote:
"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. - Ezekiel 18:20
Clearly you aren't understanding or you are intentionally obscuring it because you know well that this is a clear contradiction. Either way, there is some deficiency on your part.
In BOTH instances God is talking about "sin," right? It says NOTHING or even insinuates anything about physical or spiritual death, not that it matters anyhow because those are the wages of sin! It doesn't matter at all.
The ISSUE is that in one instance, only the person who sins is punished for the sin in Ezekiel, yet in Exodus a whole family can be punished for the sins of the father.
THAT is the contradiction. Whether it's spiritual, or physical, or whatever is irrelevant since all you are doing is describing what sin does to a person. All that matters is that the SIN in one instance is on your own head, but in the other infects a whole family.
Again to demonstrate and to which you will probably ignore the fact is this, no matter how the scriptures represents death or punishment for sin, it does not always involve immediate death or punishment, not always.
I'm aware of that, otherwise no one would be alive. I'm trying to understand why you keep bringing this up, though. What difference does any of this make?
Already you have demonstrated that Adam did not die immediately once sinning, so, common sense would tell us that God did not have in mind here death in an instant but was refering to something else.
"In the day that you eat of it, you shall surely day," is about something else? Can you explain what mystery God is talking about, since plain language doesn't suffice here?
I know you are to smart of a person not to see the points I am making Here.
Actually, no, I'm genuinely having a hell of a time trying to understand how you are piecing things together. If that makes me dumb then, okay.
You being silly and I have already answered this numerous times. Besides this when a criminal is sentenced to death and the actual punishment takes place 15 years later, was the judge lying or contradictory
Yes, if the judge says, "Today as the result of your crime, you will die." The tense, as in past tense, present tense, or future tense makes the case.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2009 1:56 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2009 2:26 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 126 of 155 (523118)
09-08-2009 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Hyroglyphx
09-08-2009 2:16 PM


Re: Absolutism versus relativism
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me" - Exodus 20:5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. - Ezekiel 18:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HG writes:
Clearly you aren't understanding or you are intentionally obscuring it because you know well that this is a clear contradiction. Either way, there is some deficiency on your part.
In BOTH instances God is talking about "sin," right? It says NOTHING or even insinuates anything about physical or spiritual death, not that it matters anyhow because those are the wages of sin! It doesn't matter at all.
Ok before this thing gets to far out of hand and you seem to be caught up on being very specific, please answer me this. Where in the Exodus passage does it mention the SOUL. So clearly Ezekiel is talking about something different than Moses or God in Exodus. The Soul that sins will die. So it does talk about spiritual death. Jesus said, "What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and losess his own SOUL", Jesus clearly has something under consideration than physical body or death, correct?
Yes, if the judge says, "Today as the result of your crime, you will die." The tense, as in past tense, present tense, or future tense makes the case.
LOL Stop man you killing me man. Ofcourse I dont mean literally, or am I in contradiction, do mean something else besides killing literally?
In BOTH instances God is talking about "sin," right? It says NOTHING or even insinuates anything about physical or spiritual death, not that it matters anyhow because those are the wages of sin! It doesn't matter at all.
The difference is degree of sin and the punisment involved. Ezekiel is saying he will not hold you responsible for the ULTIMATE unrepented sin of the individual, exodus is saying he will punish presently the sins of the fathers due to the nature of sin and Gods character, there is a clear distinction in scriptrure.
The iorny of this situation is that he is actually saying he WILL PUNISH SIN IN both instances, in Ezekiel and Exodus. Think about it, He will not hold children responsible for the ultimate and eternal punishment of an individuals sin (Ezekiel), but he will still (Exodus), punish sin to a DEGREE for the sins of the fathers or parents presently. Its not a contradiction it simply demonstrating sin comes in degrees in Gods omniscience. One type deserves ultimate or eternal punishment the other involves the immediate response in his estimation.
Again in both passages Sin will be punished, the how, when, where and why are the main issues of those texts
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-08-2009 2:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-08-2009 5:17 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 155 (523160)
09-08-2009 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Dawn Bertot
09-08-2009 2:26 PM


Re: Absolutism versus relativism
Where in the Exodus passage does it mention the SOUL. So clearly Ezekiel is talking about something different than Moses or God in Exodus. The Soul that sins will die. So it does talk about spiritual death.
Yes, but what I am saying is that it is a redundancy since we already know what sin is. Again, the greater issue here really is that Exodus passage, where it states that up to the 3rd and 4th generation that the families would be punished for their father's sin.
Let's say for the sake of the argument that Ezekiel and Exodus don't contradict. Fine, whatever. There is still the issue of what it plainly says in Exodus. How do you reconcile that?
Jesus said, "What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and losess his own SOUL", Jesus clearly has something under consideration than physical body or death, correct?
EMA, there is no issue with that at all. I'm not disputing that the bible talks about souls. I obviously know that.
The difference is degree of sin and the punisment involved. Ezekiel is saying he will not hold you responsible for the ULTIMATE unrepented sin of the individual, exodus is saying he will punish presently the sins of the fathers due to the nature of sin and Gods character, there is a clear distinction in scriptrure
Clear distinction?!?! There is no distinction whatsoever that anyone could reasonably gather from juxtaposing the two. You're making this up because you can see that there is a contradiction and understand the implication.
Please explain how from what you can read that it is somehow clear. Not that it matters, it says in plain text that God punishes innocent people for other people's sin.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2009 2:26 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by purpledawn, posted 09-08-2009 7:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 131 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2009 4:59 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 128 of 155 (523179)
09-08-2009 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by mike the wiz
09-08-2009 1:53 PM


God calling.
MtW writes:
I think God is self-evident through design, but you have to look into it. I've heard severeal creationi scientist-lectures that go into the details of specific organisms, and it is easily proven that the level of design far exceeds human design.
Biblical jurisprudence would appear to state otherwise - Gods' self-evidency being as plain as day.
Romans 1 writes:
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
The kind of self-evidency required in this thread is a different matter however and would appear to fall into the category; "this is God" written in large letters across the sky.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2009 1:53 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by PaulK, posted 09-09-2009 7:56 AM iano has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 129 of 155 (523195)
09-08-2009 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Hyroglyphx
09-08-2009 5:17 PM


Target
IMO, EMA thinks you need to be saved from yourself. You're the target of EMA's responses and the responses aren't dealing with the topic of the thread.
It is a shame since this is an interesting topic, but it ran off into another discussion on morals and contradictions. I've tried three times to engage EMA and get back to the topic of the discussion, but apparently EMA thinks you have a weakness that can be exploited to bring you "back to the fold."
Hopefully you can get EMA back to the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-08-2009 5:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-08-2009 8:13 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 155 (523203)
09-08-2009 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by purpledawn
09-08-2009 7:12 PM


Re: Target
IMO, EMA thinks you need to be saved from yourself. You're the target of EMA's responses and the responses aren't dealing with the topic of the thread.
Yes, I get that feeling too.
It is a shame since this is an interesting topic
I can understand their position. This is very disconcerting information. Surely I'm getting through and it's problematic. Several people have stopped talking to me altogether. Hopefully we'll be back on track.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by purpledawn, posted 09-08-2009 7:12 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 131 of 155 (523241)
09-09-2009 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Hyroglyphx
09-08-2009 5:17 PM


Re: Absolutism versus relativism
HG writes
I can understand their position. This is very disconcerting information. Surely I'm getting through and it's problematic. Several people have stopped talking to me altogether. Hopefully we'll be back on track.
Not a chance Ill give up or stop talking to you in this regard. Its neither problematic or disconcerting,this is one of the more simpler issues WE have to deal with in the Christian ethics, no problems here mate. You are rather simplistic compared to Modulous or PaulK, Id put you on a par with Devils Advocate.
Besides this I thought we were on track when discussing morals and principles until you started crying Contradiction, Contradiction, I thought it was necessary to take you down that road to show there was no such contradiction. thus far I can see nothing that even implies contradiction and youve done nothing to touch any of the arguments advanced to you.
Yes, but what I am saying is that it is a redundancy since we already know what sin is. Again, the greater issue here really is that Exodus passage, where it states that up to the 3rd and 4th generation that the families would be punished for their father's sin.
Ill take it slow for you so you can understand what is involved here HG. We actually have two separate issues here. One is wehther these two verses contradict eachother and whether or not a God has the right to punish someone else for someone elses sins. The only way to determine the previous is to delve into what the rest of the scriptures have to say with regards to mans make up, Gods character, sin the soul and such like. In other words this is strickly a Biblical issue whether they contradict. For, now, pay attention HG, for, if you employ only human understanding to the to verses they will appear to contradict eachother. if however you look at it from a Biblical perspective and understanding they appear to make perfect sense
The second issue is pretty much a philosohical issue with Biblical overtones, depending on which God you are talking about. Now I assume we are talking about the God of the Bible that you alledge smashes babies on rocks, correct? So which issue do you wish to discuss, the issue of whether these two verse contradict eachother or whether God or any god has a right to inflict punishment on others for others sins. Your confusion is coming in due to the fact that you are running two different issues smack dap together crying foul about a biblical issue without looking at the SAME souces explanations and information is nonsensical
Since you refuse to deal with the arguments and scriptures to support those issues presented to you lets do it in question form so you cant avoid the issues.
Is it possible that the two writers are addressing two different issues? Yes or No
If they are, then it it is possible that they dont contradict eachother, to which you have admitted the possibilty, Yes or No?
If Ezekiel is not addressing the issue of punishment of others for others sins EXCLUSIVELY,then it follows that God can do this because he never said anywhere else that he would not, even in Ezekiel, correct, Yes or No?
Since Moses or God in Exodus is not dealing with what Ezekiel is speaking about, it follows that atleast from this context that God can and does have a right to punish others for others sins, since he never anywhere else said he would not in a physical or earthly context, correct? Yes or No?
Since the verses clearly do not contradict eachother (in a Biblical perspective)why is God prevented from punishing others for others sins?
If there are two different types of punishment (Rev and the second death, etc)one eternal and final and one earthly and temporal, then why would God not be able to administer punishment as he sees fit in
each instance?
If you are unable to show contradiction in these two verses, which you clearly have not, then it would follow logically that you cannot show error on the Bibles part about the Justice or Punishment of God, correct, Yes or NO?
Since as you have admitted the verse may not contradict and cannot from a biblical perspective demonstrate this point, it would follow that your contentions in this connection are null and void, correct, or ATLEAST not applicable, Yes or No?
If I can show a clear distinction between the two things discussed, two different types of punishment involved, two different sets of circumstances in the passages, it would follow that you are not warrented in being as specfic as you are trying to be in this circustancem, correct, Yes or No?
If you know anything about debate I think you can see the extreme logical blunder in asserting that the verses may not contradict eachother then saying, "what about what it says in Exodus, how do you reconcile that". If they dont contradict eachother, then why do I need to reconcile it with anything and what does it matter what Exodus says? Now you are only left with the philosophical issue of whether a God has the right to punish others for others sins.
Let's say for the sake of the argument that Ezekiel and Exodus don't contradict. Fine, whatever. There is still the issue of what it plainly says in Exodus. How do you reconcile that?
If they dont contradict eachother, how do I reconcile it with WHAT?
HG writes:
Clear distinction?!?! There is no distinction whatsoever that anyone could reasonably gather from juxtaposing the two. You're making this up because you can see that there is a contradiction and understand the implication.
Your confusion is that you are trying to make the writes speak about the same thing, they are not. you would need to show that there ARE NOT two distinct types of punishment spoken of in the Bible and specifically in these two verses. In this connection your task is impossible and you argument falls to the Ground. I cant MAKE UP what someone else wrote down A LONG TIME AGO. Your avoidance of the
SPECIFICS about what the scriptures has to say overall in this connection is nothing short of misrepresentation
Again the iorny that you are missing is that he is saying he will do BOTH, he will punish ( in Ezekiel) the individual for his sins eternally and that he will punish the children (in Exodus) for the sins of the fathers. But the children of the fathers are not mentioned Ezekiel because that is not what he is talking about and
indicates in exodus that he will do that. ABSOLUTELY no contradiction and if there is no contradiction I dont need to compare it to anything, correct?
Your tactic is unwarrented and unreasonable simply because you are taking clear advantage of the fact that Ezekiel is being very specific about a specific issue of punishment, you run with that and cry contradiction. you know full well he is not addressing the entire issue of punishment
Dont try and put words in Ezekiels mouth, dont make him say something he is not. again, if I can show even the slightest distinction in what the writers are discussing, then you are not justified in drawing an absolute conclusion on what constitues punishment in a given situation
Please explain how from what you can read that it is somehow clear. Not that it matters, it says in plain text that God punishes innocent people for other people's sin.
Now since we have cleared that up with both logic and scripture, perhaps you would like to discuss why an Ominpotent and Omniscient God does not have a right to do this in the first place. Now be very clear on what we are doing here, are we going to bandy scriptures and try and show contradiction or are we going to dis cuss a philosophical issue or are we going to run them together to discuss the God of the Bible.
However, you need to be specific, for, while I am clear on what you are doing and your confusion, I think you are confusing some of the readers. Dont jump around from one thing to another, or if you do dont complain when someone tries to respond to your accusations and alledged contradictions, OK?
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-08-2009 5:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by anglagard, posted 09-09-2009 5:59 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 134 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-09-2009 7:10 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 135 by purpledawn, posted 09-09-2009 7:38 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 132 of 155 (523242)
09-09-2009 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Dawn Bertot
09-09-2009 4:59 AM


Re: Absolutism versus relativism
Since you are so interested in asking questions of others, I was wondering if you could answer a few of mine that so many are so reluctant to answer. It would definitely help to move not just this discussion, but indeed all discussions here to move forward.
Which version of the Bible is the one true word of God? See Message 1
Of the over 30,000 Christian sects, which one using the exact 'word of god,' is the correct one according to this supposedly 'universal' Christian doctrine?
Personally, I don't think any batch of quotations from any version used to back any assertion are worth squat in any discussion until these questions are answered.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2009 4:59 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 133 of 155 (523245)
09-09-2009 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Hyroglyphx
09-08-2009 12:53 PM


Re: Regarding baby smashin' ...
Thanks for the exchange hyro.
Hope things are well with you.
hyro writes:
weary writes:
I just thought it good to point out that the text doesn't seem to support your contention, that is, unless you worship bitter Yisraeli nationalist authors.
Regardless of whom the human author is, the text clearly states that God commanded genocide.
lol - no it doesn't. I'll wind up saying this redundantly I guess - the Psalms are songs, not commandments. They are sung to God, but not by God.
Also, the text never mentions God speaking to the author or as the author, and more over, the author is singing to their God. It's a song hyro.
Psalms (Wikipedia, 2009)Psalms (Hebrew: Tehilim‎, תהילים, or "praises") is a book of the Hebrew Bible (the Christian Old Testament), included in the collected works known as the "Writings" or Ketuvim. In Islam, it is called the Zabur of Dāwud, or the Psalms of David.
The word psalms is derived from the Greek ψαλμοί (psalmoi), originally meaning "songs sung to a harp", from psallein "play on a stringed instrument".
The Book of Psalms consists of 150 psalms, each of which constitutes a religious song, though one or two are atypically long and may constitute a set of related chants. When the Bible was divided into chapters, each Psalm was assigned its own chapter. Psalms are sometimes referenced as chapters, despite chapter assignments postdating the initial composition of the "canonical" Psalms by at least 1,500 years.
Many modern scholars see them as the product of several authors or groups of authors, many unknown. Most Psalms are prefixed with introductory words"superscriptions"(which are frequently different in the Masoretic and Septuagint traditions, or missing in one while present in the other) ascribing them to a particular author or saying something, often in fairly cryptic language, about the circumstances of their composition or use; only 73 of these introductions claim David as author. Modern scholars often attribute the works to various authors from different time periods in Israel's history-ranging from the time of David (approx. 1100-900 BCE) to the intertestimental period (300-50 BCE).
[some emphasis mine]
Please stop regurgitating poisonous nationalist ideologies, it's bad for your health - lol
You therefore can't minimize it by saying that the author was an upset Israelite.
Obviously, anyone who doesn't worship angry Yisraeli's or poems as a 'god' can do that. Your argument seems to be failing this time around ol' boy.
You don't get to cherry pick back and forth between infallible Word of God to pissed off author to suit a personal agenda.
There is no need to cherry pick anything in this instance. The idea that you present - that Psalms are commandments from 'god', is your unique idea.
Even if I wanted to cherry pick 'em, which isn't the case here, there's no need in this instance. Again, it's a religious chant to the author's god.
Btw, I'm not a proponent of the christian/catholic sola scriptura, otherwise known as the doctrine of the 'infallible Word of God'.
Again, I feel this can't be stressed enough - they are poems hyro, not commandments.
hyro writes:
weary writes:
Now, would you ever, perhaps, condone laying waste to entire Aphgan, Taliban or Iraqi villages with their correlating infants snuggled into the population?
No I wouldn't, not that it matters.
Good deal. I'm really glad to hear that.
We're not talking about hypothetical situations, we're talking about GOD and what HE did supposedly in actuality.
No. Were trying to get you to realize that a Psalm is not a commandment and that 'god' didn't author them. They are sung to God, not by God.
Talking about me or an angry author is just distraction taking away from God's role in it.
God's role in the Tehillim is as a listener. Again, they are an offering to God, not from God. Are you unable or unwilling to concede to that notion?
If so that's fine, I guess, as there are always going to be people who disagree with you regardless of your personal stance regarding scripture.
Some may even try to kill you over it, but others will likely take solace in your shadow.
hyro writes:
weary writes:
However, it appears to me that it's the parents of the Edomite infants who are are charged with a recklessness of sorts in the preceding verse ...
Immaterial to the point at hand, which is the slaughtering of infants, elderly, women, and in general, non-combatants.
It is as relevant as it may possibly get if someone is contending the song's were written to God, by God. That contention has very little support.
hyro writes:
weary writes:
And so, it seems the dangerously overwhelming bitterness and resentment displayed by the author of this specific Psalm ...
Which is irrelevant to the point that God commanded it and delighted in the massacre.
No offense meant to you or Peg in this instance, as I'm about as bright as a stump, with only the faith of a mustard seed - yet, nonetheless ...
While I would guess that Peg has more faith than you, I would have wagered you as the brighter one. Perhaps I wasn't spot on with that assessment.
Please show me - specifically, where God commanded and delighted in this so called massacre. All I see is a threat of sorts on behalf of a harp player.
hyro writes:
weary writes:
... is the motivating impulse within the last stance of this sick ass poem, and so, not really 'god' at all - as you would have us think.
It is God, Bailey! Read it again.
You read it again bud - I've been reading the Tehillim for 17 yrs. It is not 'god' speaking, but rather 'god' being chanted or sung to.
If you'd rather live in your fantasy world, that's fine too. Every one is entitled, agnostics, atheists, deists and theists alike.
He said how happy they [Israelites] would be if they smashed their enemies infants on the rocks.
I doubt that by you continuing to repeat yourself with that allegation, that it's, somehow, going to make it any more true. Again, the one singin' the song to God is dreamin' of baby smashin' and as far as I can reason, God tuned 'em as soon as they started bein' a jackass. Consider, in context, God is the one who allegedly facilitated the Yisraeli captivity, as well as, the destruction of Zion - due to idolatrous behavior.
The author of the poem is then, basically, putting out a hit of sorts, as you reasoned before. They are fuckin' pissed bro. Apparently this specific author learned nothing by captivity and defeat, except how to be more idolatrous and miserable. Perhaps this crew was unwilling to catch on to reality ...
A bitter heart only returns bitterness.
That is not the only instance I have of God commanding genocide, God commanding rape, and God commanding some of the most heinous things imaginable. This is really the tip of the iceberg.
Again ...
If you worship bitter nationalists, then, perhaps, I can understand your perspective. However, I do not worship bitter nationalists. After reading the bible a few times, as far as I can tell, God wrote on a couple of tablets which he gave to Moses, the Prophets spoke out on God's behalf regarding social injustice and then Joshua the Anointed One spoke on the Father's behalf. So then, bitter priests just made attempts to stuff the rest of this shit in God's mouth.
If you want to convince me, show me where a Prophet condoned these behaviors.
Otherwise save your energies for someone more worthy.
hyro writes:
weary writes:
Perhaps the author felt that no more Edomite babies somehow equivocates to no more 9-11's in Zion. I'd reckon that's some faulty reasoning at its best.
I already know what the author thought.
Sure doesn't seem that way. From where I stand, it seems like ...
* you've been persuaded to worship bitter nationalists and wicked priests as some sort of 'god'
* you've been persuaded to worship wicked priests and bitter nationalists as some sort of 'god'
or
* you've been persuaded to worship bitter nationalists and wicked priests as some sort of 'god'
If you are trying to persuade me to worship that 'god', again, I'd suggest you save your energy - lol
The traditions of the Nevi'im became locked within my heart and mind awhile ago.
The issue is whether or not this actually came from God.
That's not an issue for most of the people I know who pass the time with Psalms.
It is well known that they are a form of song, designed as an offering of sorts to God. They are not a form of song, designed by God to mankind.
According to the story, it did.... directly...
That's sounds like your story.
I'm interested to hear who agrees. I'd be surprised if even the proponent's of sola scriptura at EvC - or elsewhere, would concede to that though.
Again, there's no actual commandment's found in the Tehillim. They're employed, more simply, throughout the traditional facets of Jewish worship such as funerals or morning services, and such. According to the Talmud, they were originally recited by the Levites within the confines of the Yerusalem Temple.
Their reading is viewed as a vehicle of sorts for gaining God's favor, and so, it wouldn't be uncommon to hear their recitation, in part or in whole, during times of trouble, such as disease, famine or at a time of imminent danger, perhaps, to promote an added security of sorts towards modern Yisrael.
I'm not sure how interested you are with the subject of Yisraeli tradition on the whole, but this is a pretty good read entitled 'Israel: the sword and the harp: the mystique of violence and the mystique of redemption'. I recommend chapter 8, 'Religionality' - the Nationalization of Religious Culture, even if you only browse.
That in turn brings us to he deeper issue which is whether or not the bible is actually the infallible Word of God.
Ah, different question altogether. Everyone has their own view, but I'd quicker agree that the roman bible provides an infallible Witness of God.
Perhaps two separate testimonies, as in a plaintiff and a defendant.
If it is, then God certainly called for genocide.
Well, since my conscience does not provide for that option, I'll maintain a certain consistency in my veiw that sola scriptura is a priestly scam of sorts.
At least, according to the criteria that you've provided.
If it isn't infallible, then the scriptures have no power or authority ...
Perhaps that's only if you can be convinced that the prophet's were friendly with the priestly traditions. Judging by their condemnation, I'd say they weren't.
So then, you may have a few choices, as far as I can reason ...
* priests and prophets are in accord with one another and the scriptures are a sham.
* priests and prophets are in accord with one another and the scriptures are are authoritative.
* priests and prophets are not in accord with one another and the priestly writings are authoritative.
* priests and prophets are not in accord with one another and the prophetic writings are authoritative.
Since, after many hours of study, the priests and prophets do not seem to align well within my conscience, I must ultimately adhere to the last option.
as how would we be able to tell what comes from God and what comes from man's own thoughts.
Consider - what do the priests speak about; what do the Prophet's speak about? Ask yourself, do they align with one another honestly?
If it is true, as is written, that a double minded man is unstable in all his ways, reasonably the same must hold true to God who is above our ways. Perhaps one may need to take a definitive stance regarding how they feel the heart of God can be defined and what they feel characterizes the heart of mankind.
At that point, as one becomes better able to distinguish the two, then perhaps one is in a better position to begin making informed decisions.
It will, no doubt, be challenging to not get caught up in the distractions of others.
See the dilemma?
Actually, yea - I suppose I can perceive how that may become a dilemma for someone. It's been quite a long time since I considered that dynamic. As far as the Psalms go though, there's not likely to be a dilemma for the one who understands they're just simple songs to God, albeit poorly written at times.
No matter which you choose you have to concede at least one of them is true.
I agree. I just can't agree with someone who present's a false dichotomy of sorts or doctrine, as is often done.
Once I submitted my conscience and intellect to God, it took a certain precedence over the word of ambiguity.
Peace to you bud.
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-08-2009 12:53 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-09-2009 9:54 AM Bailey has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 155 (523247)
09-09-2009 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Dawn Bertot
09-09-2009 4:59 AM


Re: Absolutism versus relativism
I thought we were on track when discussing morals and principles until you started crying Contradiction, Contradiction
Morals and principals are subjective. The only way to shift beyond that is to prove it or refute it biblically is through examining the text. You are advancing theoretical morality based on an abstract philosophical argument.
So I decided to put that to the test.
Biblical contradictions to a literalist who believes the bible is infallible, not simply inspired by God.
I thought it was necessary to take you down that road to show there was no such contradiction. thus far I can see nothing that even implies contradiction
You haven't been able to answer these questions. You're no different than any one else I've encountered. They all dodge the questions and make up excuses for God.
and youve done nothing to touch any of the arguments advanced to you.
I've answered all of your theoretical questions to the very best of my ability. You're just advancing very weak theological arguments that you assume is a one-size-fits-all argument.
You think somehow that if I'm morally allowed to kill an ant, then that is justification for God to kill people.
1. That does nothing to prove God's existence.
2. Supposing God does exist, just because it is in a book does not mean that it accurately describes God or his attributes.
If God is infallible and the scriptures are incorruptable, however, then you my friend are bound by the contradictions. You claim that there are no contradictions, but you really have not answered any of the questions directly. You keep dodging the questions.
which issue do you wish to discuss, the issue of whether these two verse contradict eachother or whether God or any god has a right to inflict punishment on others for others sins.
We can discuss both if you'd like.
Is it possible that the two writers are addressing two different issues? Yes or No
No, its not. If there was some ambiguity as to what they were talking about and in relation what, I would say yes. This, however, does not qualify for it is very specific as to what the writers are talking about.
But more importantly, it is God talking, remember? Forget Ezekiel and Moses momentarily, and try and remember that it is God speaking through them.
If they are, then it it is possible that they dont contradict eachother, to which you have admitted the possibilty, Yes or No?
If they weren't specifically talking about sin and its entailments, I would say yes. But there is no looming question of uncertainty here.
What you are doing is factoring in wild, and I do mean wild, speculations... You are coming up with these wild interpretations and essentially reading what you want to read rather than actually reading the two side by side.
If Ezekiel is not addressing the issue of punishment of others for others sins EXCLUSIVELY,then it follows that God can do this because he never said anywhere else that he would not, even in Ezekiel, correct, Yes or No?
Yes, God may very well punish other people for the sins that other people have done as it says in the Exodus passage.
Since Moses or God in Exodus is not dealing with what Ezekiel is speaking about, it follows that atleast from this context that God can and does have a right to punish others for others sins, since he never anywhere else said he would not in a physical or earthly context, correct? Yes or No?
Yes, it certainly seems that way.
Since the verses clearly do not contradict eachother (in a Biblical perspective)why is God prevented from punishing others for others sins?
Ah, but they DO contradict. Ezekiel SPECIFICALLY says that only the sinner pays for their sins, whereas Exodus SPECIFICALLY says that other people pay for the sins of the father.
Even if it is righteous for God to be an asshole and punish you for things your great-grandfather did, that is still a contradiction. We know the passages are talking about sin. We know the passages are talking about how God chooses to punish sin in relation to family. Each one has a different answer.
If there are two different types of punishment (Rev and the second death, etc)one eternal and final and one earthly and temporal, then why would God not be able to administer punishment as he sees fit in each instance?
Well, according to you God can do whatever he wants. Anything he does is by the nature of itself righteous, so that no matter what God does he can do no wrong.
Sure, God can punish people for the things other people have done. Yet my own conscience screams out at the utter hypocrisy.
If you are unable to show contradiction in these two verses, which you clearly have not, then it would follow logically that you cannot show error on the Bibles part about the Justice or Punishment of God, correct, Yes or NO?
Every time you talk, you shift the goal posts a little more every time to make it look like you're going along with it. Put nobody here is stupid, and we all see how you slowly shift to another position.
Just like I've demonstrably proven with these two verses that they transparently contradict one another, there are a multitude of others that point to the blood-thirsty nature, the hypocrisy, and the contradictions found in the bible.
If it makes you feel better to pretend that there is no glaringly obvious contradiction, then by all means continue living in a fantasy world. Along with it you can have the baby smashing and the punishing the innocent on behalf of the guilty. Have your fill.
If I can show a clear distinction between the two things discussed, two different types of punishment involved, two different sets of circumstances in the passages, it would follow that you are not warrented in being as specfic as you are trying to be in this circustancem, correct, Yes or No?
It would have, had you been able to clearly distinguish that different punishments and circumstances exist, which they didn't, in which case it's trying to swim up stream for you. This is why you continue riding a wave of complete speculation to attempt to reconcile the two.
If you know anything about debate I think you can see the extreme logical blunder in asserting that the verses may not contradict eachother then saying, "what about what it says in Exodus, how do you reconcile that". If they dont contradict eachother, then why do I need to reconcile it with anything and what does it matter what Exodus says? Now you are only left with the philosophical issue of whether a God has the right to punish others for others sins.
First of all, it DOES contradict. What I was saying, and still say, is that even SUPPOSING it didn't, YOU my friend still have to deal with the Exodus verse that speaks about God's tyranny.
If they dont contradict eachother, how do I reconcile it with WHAT?
Well, lets say your father committed murder before you were born. Years later the police arrest you because your his son.
Does that sound reasonable to you? Maybe that's something you would have to RECONCILE, no???
I cant MAKE UP what someone else wrote down A LONG TIME AGO. Your avoidance of the SPECIFICS about what the scriptures has to say overall in this connection is nothing short of misrepresentation
Then SUBSTANTIATE your argument!!! You have no proof of ANYTHING, as it is evident you're just making excuses for the bible as you go along. Here is your argument:
1. There's no contradiction because there are different kinds of punishment.
ANSWER: That's called speculation, first of all, secondly, what difference does it make? In Ezekiel you are punished for the sins YOU commit, in Exodus you pay for the sins OTHERS commit.
Does that sound righteous, especially in light of that being in direct distinction from what Ezekiel said, which is you pay for the things you've done.
Again the iorny that you are missing is that he is saying he will do BOTH, he will punish ( in Ezekiel) the individual for his sins eternally and that he will punish the children (in Exodus) for the sins of the fathers. But the children of the fathers are not mentioned Ezekiel because that is not what he is talking about and
indicates in exodus that he will do that.
LOL! You are completely making things up, inventing motives for the authors that you could not possibly know. You have to stick with what we know, and what we know is what is written.
Piece it together. You can't just rely on your conjecture, EMA. That's ALL you have is conjecture, while I have let the scriptures speak for themselves and condemns your vagaries.
perhaps you would like to discuss why an Ominpotent and Omniscient God does not have a right to do this in the first place.
Because it is hypocritical. An omnipotent and omniscient God wouldn't do those things. So when you here the author claiming that God did, what you are actually reading is someone inventing his own God right before your eyes based on the author's own sinful heart.
Now be very clear on what we are doing here, are we going to bandy scriptures and try and show contradiction or are we going to dis cuss a philosophical issue or are we going to run them together to discuss the God of the Bible. However, you need to be specific, for, while I am clear on what you are doing and your confusion, I think you are confusing some of the readers. Dont jump around from one thing to another, or if you do dont complain when someone tries to respond to your accusations and alledged contradictions, OK?
Look I roll with whatever topic we are on. If we are talking philosophy or theology, at any time to make a point beyond speculation and conjecture, we all should be allowed to introduce various things that support what we're referring to.
You don't get to sit here and say, "Well, he's God and therefore philosophically can do whatever he wants." You have to then prove that God exists and in the manner you describe, otherwise we aren't really arguing anything other than hypotheticals.
And why is that not conducive to good debate? Because your god is set up beforehand to be perfect, so that no matter if he contradicts himself, acts hypocrtically, or whatever, in your mind he is justified or we're all just crazy.
That's not how it works. That's how you want it to work, but that's not the case. You are going to substantiate your claims. At any time in order to substantiate mine, I bring up something specific, that should be allowed.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2009 4:59 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2009 12:01 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 135 of 155 (523256)
09-09-2009 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Dawn Bertot
09-09-2009 4:59 AM


Not the Topic
quote:
Besides this I thought we were on track when discussing morals and principles
Except that morals and principles are not the topic of the thread. What is your point concerning the topic of the thread. Do you feel that God is self-evident or not?
Even though you won't respond to me, the following information may benefit Hyroglyphx.
quote:
We actually have two separate issues here. One is wehther these two verses contradict eachother and whether or not a God has the right to punish someone else for someone elses sins.
God is not self-evident so God doesn't actually punish anyone. Man's actions or acts of nature are attributed to God as punishment.
As far as Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20. Exodus 20:5, according to the Documentary Hypothesis, is a Priestly writing probably written between 722-587 BCE. So the writer may have been a contemporary of Isaiah, Jeremiah, or even Ezekiel. Concepts of the resurrection of the dead and afterlife are a later development in Judaism. These two writers were not talking about the afterlife or spiritual death. Don't abuse creative writing. The word Hebrew word nephesh refers to a living being.
quote:
Is it possible that the two writers are addressing two different issues? Yes or No
If they are, then it it is possible that they dont contradict each other, to which you have admitted the possibilty, Yes or No?
Ah the possibility game. You yourself would have to actually show proof that the actual writers were not referring to the same thing. If we read more than just the one verse, we see that they are referring to the same thing. Ezekiel is countering the proverb: "The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?" (Ezekiel 18:2)
It is logically inconsistent to say that God can punish generations for the sins of one ancestor, but each person dies for their own sin. Even trying to make one of these about the afterlife is inconsistent since the afterlife was a later development.
Even the disciples of Jesus associated physical afflictions with sin of the individual or their ancestors.
John 9:1-41
His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
In this case it was neither. God was just flexing his muscles.
You're projecting backwards the beliefs of a later group.
quote:
If there are two different types of punishment (Rev and the second death, etc)one eternal and final and one earthly and temporal, then why would God not be able to administer punishment as he sees fit in
each instance?
The if game also. Followers of a self-evident God would not need to say if. Followers of a god who is not self-evident have no bird in the hand.
quote:
If I can show a clear distinction between the two things discussed, two different types of punishment involved, two different sets of circumstances in the passages, it would follow that you are not warrented in being as specfic as you are trying to be in this circustancem, correct, Yes or No?
Show it, don't just ask. You're trying to get agreement before you present anything.
quote:
Now since we have cleared that up with both logic and scripture, perhaps you would like to discuss why an Ominpotent and Omniscient God does not have a right to do this in the first place.
No, because the god is not self-evident, omnipotent, or omniscient. Even we know it is immoral for a master to abuse a slave. How much worse is it then for a father to abuse his own children.
Christians should use the same concept presented in Ezekiel 18. Instead of trying to present a god who is right no matter what he does, present a god who has stopped wrong behavior and is now righteous. Of course that puts a crack in absolutism.
IOW, the god reflects the changing morals of civilization.
quote:
However, you need to be specific, for, while I am clear on what you are doing and your confusion, I think you are confusing some of the readers.
Actually, you are confusing the readers. Why aren't you addressing the topic of the thread? What does absolutism versus relativism have to do with whether God is self-evident?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2009 4:59 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024