Author Topic: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept  (Read 4647 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #58 on: November 07, 2008, 11:46:40 AM »

Can you see how like Star Stuff, that you also are missing the point?

No. But I can see a lot of out of proportion indigent outrage. I think Star Stuff hit point very well. Can you see our (well his) argument?

Star Stuff made no argument in REPLY #32.  And in REPLY #37 he never addresses anything I said but instead engaged in a completely irrelevant red herring.  So I don't see his argument.  How can I see an argument that was never made?

So you still are missing the point.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2008, 11:52:10 AM by Fran »

Offline bahramthered

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3140
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #59 on: November 07, 2008, 12:00:07 PM »
Or maybe I didn't check post numbers and see the stream of his argument.

Online Star Stuff

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5744
  • Darwins +144/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Carbon-based life form.
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #60 on: November 07, 2008, 12:29:54 PM »
Fran, your long-winded games of twister are exhausting.  What I am saying is this: the foundation of your belief system, that there must be some form of blood sacrifice to appease an angry God is rooted in our ignorant, primitive, superstitious past.

You can go on and on and on and on and on with your hermeneutic gymnastics, it doesn't matter, you are still making a 100% baseless supernatural assertion of how the universe works, and the supernatural account of human history.  This is not a Ford vs Chevy argument, it is a baseless, supernatural claim made with vacuous evidence.

Don't you find it at least interesting that in those parts of the world where learning and science have prevailed, miracles have ceased, but those parts of the world which have remained ignorant and superstitious, miracles are still in vogue?
« Last Edit: November 07, 2008, 12:50:07 PM by Star Stuff »
God is an Imaginary Friend for Grown-ups

Offline bahramthered

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3140
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #61 on: November 07, 2008, 12:45:01 PM »
Man defend a guy for hours and when he actually shows up...

*edges closer to star stuff*

(Seems BtR is stoned on pain meds (again). Should be over soon. (I see this stuff and have to say...  something...)

Online Star Stuff

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5744
  • Darwins +144/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Carbon-based life form.
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #62 on: November 07, 2008, 12:50:55 PM »
Man defend a guy for hours and when he actually shows up...



LOL...........had a later than normal start to the day...........
God is an Imaginary Friend for Grown-ups

Offline bahramthered

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3140
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #63 on: November 07, 2008, 12:55:16 PM »
My end is way later than normal. Plus more pain/pills than normal.

Your safer ignoring me till tommorrow... Lets make that next week... No wait I want that till next month...

Stoned and Enjoying it (kinda amazed I can type). Till I try to walk...  ::) :LOL  :o :LOL 

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #64 on: November 07, 2008, 06:01:43 PM »
Quote
Star stuff wrote:
Fran, your long-winded games of twister are exhausting.  What I am saying is this: the foundation of your belief system, that there must be some form of blood sacrifice to appease an angry God is rooted in our ignorant, primitive, superstitious past.

And what I'm saying is that the "blood sacrifice" ritual as found in the OT is not rooted in our "ignorant, primitive, superstitious past"... but instead it is squarely rooted in our common historical quest for justice throughout human existence.  And I gave a modern day example as an analogy, although it is difficult to make a perfect analogy since on the one hand I am talking about "spiritual" things as described in the OT versus criminal offenses of modern day.  But the idea and quest is the same.  A quest for justice.   But in the case of the "blood sacrifice" ritual, the OT is referring to spiritual offenses, and not criminal offenses.

If in our modern day justice system, we demand a fair sentence for a crime, why would it be any different in the spiritual world?  Of Course it wouldn't be different if God was a just God.  How could it be any different?  It couldn't.

Now, I understand that you don't believe a God exists, but THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE... so please don't write back and say that my analogy doesn't work since there is no God and i'm talking about fairy tales again.  That not only begs the question, but in this particular case, it is also a red herring.

Your claim now is that the blood sacrifice is rooted in "our ignorant, primitive, superstitious past".  THAT IS YOUR CLAIM.  And my claim is that on the contrary, it is rooted in man's concept of justice.  It has always been.   And the desire for justice HAS NOT CHANGED since the "blood sacrifice" in the OT was instituted.  Man is STILL interested in Justice.  And the OT believes that God is also interested in Justice.  What has changed is OUR PERCEPTIOn of whether spiritual things like God exists or not.  That is what has changed.  BUT NOT THE DESIRE FOR JUSTICE. That has not changed.

So IF God does exist, then the desire for justice in the spiritual realm is still valid today because our sense of justice today is still as strong as it was in the past.  Now, whether God exists or not, that is AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUE which we are NOT addressing in this exchange. 

Quote
Star Stuff wrote:
You can go on and on and on and on and on with your hermeneutic gymnastics, it doesn't matter, you are still making a 100% baseless supernatural assertion of how the universe works, and the supernatural account of human history.  This is not a Ford vs Chevy argument, it is a baseless, supernatural claim made with vacuous evidence.

There you go again.  I'm NOT making any claims about whether God exists or not.. or about how the universe works.. or even if the "blood sacrifice" ritual in the OT is even necessary at all. 

So far, i've only been contending that the "blood sacrifice" ritual in the OT was not petty or tiny based on THE REASONS THAT IT WAS INSTITUTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.  TO SATISFY JUSICE ON A SPIRITUAL LEVEL.

You may be right that God does not exist, but THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU WROTE IN REPLY #32 OR REPLY #37, and which i've been responding to.

Quote
Star Stuff wrote:
Don't you find it at least interesting that in those parts of the world where learning and science have prevailed, miracles have ceased, but those parts of the world which have remained ignorant and superstitious, miracles are still in vogue?

I don't think miracles have ceased to exist anywhere.  But once again... THIS IS A RED HERRING BECAUSE THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU WROTE IN REPLY #32 and which I have been consistently responding to.

Why is this so difficult?

Offline JII

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #65 on: November 07, 2008, 06:39:50 PM »
It's time for a little blood sacrifice intervention.

Fran...

[from Why Won't God Heal Amputees? Chapter 25]

"Hello, my name is Jesus. I love you deeply. I have loved you since you were conceived in the womb and I will love you for all eternity. I died for you on the cross because I love you so much. I long to have a loving personal relationship with you. I will answer all of your prayers through my love. But if you do not get down on your knees and worship me, and if you do not EAT MY BODY and DRINK MY BLOOD, then I WILL INCINERATE YOU WITH UNIMAGINABLY TORTUOUS PAIN IN THE FIRES OF HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY BWAH HA HA HA HA HA!"

You're comfortable with that insanity?

Online Star Stuff

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5744
  • Darwins +144/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Carbon-based life form.
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #66 on: November 07, 2008, 07:55:29 PM »
Fran said:

....what I'm saying is that the "blood sacrifice" ritual as found in the OT is not rooted in our "ignorant, primitive, superstitious past"... but instead it is squarely rooted in our common historical quest for justice throughout human existence.

Clever, until one realizes that our "common historical quest for justice throughout human existence" was subject to a time period of ignorance and superstition.

Blood sacrifice is to be found in many areas of human history, such as the Mayans, Incas etc. This was not always about justice, as you claim, but rather a sacrifice to appease the feared God's.  This was based in ignorance and superstition.




....although it is difficult to make a perfect analogy since on the one hand I am talking about "spiritual" things as described in the OT versus criminal offenses of modern day.

It is impossible to make a satisfying analogy, because once again when you assert that they are "spiritual" things, your assertion is baseless and fantasy.




.....But in the case of the "blood sacrifice" ritual, the OT is referring to spiritual offenses, and not criminal offenses.

You mean like picking up sticks on the Sabbath?  Or were you referring to the obvious necessity of killing your child if they are rebellious, or slaughtering your wife on your wedding night if you discover that she is not a virgin?  Please expand on these "spiritual" things you are referring to, and see if they cannot be reduced to pettiness and superstition.




But the idea and quest is the same.  A quest for justice.

I don't concur.  These ignorant, petty, barbaric desert men, place their own ideas on a God, giving those ideas a pseudo-authority.




If in our modern day justice system, we demand a fair sentence for a crime, why would it be any different in the spiritual world?  Of Course it wouldn't be different if God was a just God.  How could it be any different?  It couldn't.

Our modern day justice system is the result of lots and lots of hard work from people through the ages who have struggled with justice within the legal system we have created.  We don't torture people for any level of crime, nor do we feel it is a good idea to have them roast in a pit of fire for all eternity.  Please explain how your imaginary god is just, for eternally torturing someone (and I'm thinking of someone who is genuinely kind, empathetic, generous etc.) simply because they have embraced reason and evidence and do not believe in your imaginary daddy figure.  In other words we are more moral than the beast you worship, the Abrahamic God.




So far, I've only been contending that the "blood sacrifice" ritual in the OT was not petty or tiny based on THE REASONS THAT IT WAS INSTITUTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.  TO SATISFY JUSICE ON A SPIRITUAL LEVEL.

Right, and I disagree with your contention.  You seem to be saying that because these people (who were indeed ignorant of many things), instituted these barbaric ideas within the context of the Bible and so-called spiritual things, suddenly they get a free pass.





I don't think miracles have ceased to exist anywhere.

Of course they haven'tceased, because they never occurred in the first place.




God is an Imaginary Friend for Grown-ups

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #67 on: November 07, 2008, 09:59:58 PM »
Quote
Fran wrote:
....what I'm saying is that the "blood sacrifice" ritual as found in the OT is not rooted in our "ignorant, primitive, superstitious past"... but instead it is squarely rooted in our common historical quest for justice throughout human existence.

Star Stuff responded with:
Clever, until one realizes that our "common historical quest for justice throughout human existence" was subject to a time period of ignorance and superstition.

Blood sacrifice is to be found in many areas of human history, such as the Mayans, Incas etc. This was not always about justice, as you claim, but rather a sacrifice to appease the feared God's. This was based in ignorance and superstition.

Fran answers:
Clever, until you read my post and realize that i'm only talking about the Hebrews in the OT... as you also did originally.  As you yourself noted in REPLY #32, we are talking about the God of the Bible.  Not the Mayans, Incas, or anyone else in the past.

The "blood sacrifice" in the OT was instituted for reasons of Justice.  Spiritual Justice.  The God of  the Bible gave the Hebrews (His people) a way to atone for their sins WITHOUT sacrificing their lives.   That is not an example of pettiness or tinyness as you claimed in REPLY #32, but instead, a great example of mercy, love and forgiveness.

Quote
Fran wrote:
....although it is difficult to make a perfect analogy since on the one hand I am talking about "spiritual" things as described in the OT versus criminal offenses of modern day.

Star Stuff responded with:
It is impossible to make a satisfying analogy, because once again when you assert that they are "spiritual" things, your assertion is baseless and fantasy.

Fran answers:
In REPLY #32 it was YOU who made a comment about the ritual of "blood sacrifice" in the OT as being petty and tiny EVEN THOUGH it was instituted for SPIRITUAL REASONS as described in the Bible.    It is for that reason, your comment did not logically follow from the teachings of the OT (which you were attacking) because you DID NOT ATTACK the ritual of "blood sacrifice" on the GROUNDS for which it was instituted, but instead you attacked on grounds that had NOTHING to do with why it was instituted in the first place as put forth in the Bible.

It is logically impossible to talk about (or even call it being petty and tiny) the "Blood sacrifice" without understanding the reasons for it's instiutions.  How on earth can you logically call something petty and tiny if you don't take into account the underlying REASONS for it's existence?  Which in this case were for spiritual reasons.   That is why your comment in REPLY #32 did not logically follow from what the Bible taught.  And that is why you keep trying so hard to put a different spin on what you said in REPLY #32.

I'm not asserting that the "blood sacrifice" in the OT was instituted for spiritual reasons to satisfy justice.  THE BIBLE IS DOING THAT.  And when in REPLY #32 you didn't take into account what the Bible said as to why it was instituted when you called it petty and tiny, you stepped into a trap of your own making.


Quote
Fran wrote:
.....But in the case of the "blood sacrifice" ritual, the OT is referring to spiritual offenses, and not criminal offenses.

Star Stuff wrote:
You mean like picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Or were you referring to the obvious necessity of killing your child if they are rebellious, or slaughtering your wife on your wedding night if you discover that she is not a virgin? Please expand on these "spiritual" things you are referring to, and see if they cannot be reduced to pettiness and superstition.

Fran answers:
There you go again.  We are talking about whether the "blood sacrifice" ritual in the OT was petty and tiny, not the incidents you are bringing up as red herrings in this response of yours.  I will say this again... I have been CONSISTENTLY referring and responding to your comments in REPLY #32. 

How many times do I need to say this without you tossing red herrings around?


Quote
Fran wrote:
But the idea and quest is the same. A quest for justice.

Star Stuff wrote:
I don't concur. These ignorant, petty, barbaric desert men, place their own ideas on a God, giving those ideas a pseudo-authority.

Fran answers:
You still don't get it.  I of course don't agree with your characterization of the Hebrews in the OT (which to me smacks of 21st century arrogance of presumed superiority), but even if I was to grant your assessement, it still makes no sense because we are talking about the REASONS why the Hebrews instituted a 'blood sacrifice" ritual in the name of God and not what kind of people they are.

In the Bible, they tell us what the reasons were.  And it was to satisfy the Justice that is required of sinners.  Now, you can call them liars, but you won't be taken seriously because you have nothing to stand on for that kind of libel.   

You could say that they were mistaken in their belief that a God exists.  And yet, if we grant that, it still doesn't take away from the fact that EVEN IF THEY WERE MISTAKEN ABOUT THEIR GOD'S EXISTENCE, they still instituted the "blood sacrifice" ritual for reasons of justice.  Justice demanded by this "mythical" God of theirs.  Their God could be mythical, and yet the reasons for instituting the 'blood sacrifice' could still have been instituted for reasons of justice, and not reasons for pettiness or tinieness as you claim in REPLY #32.

And that is the contention I keep going back to, and which you have yet responded to.

So no matter how you dice it, it still goes back to the reasons of justice that they themselves gave for the reasons that the "blood sacrifice" ritual was instituted.


Quote
Fran wrote:
If in our modern day justice system, we demand a fair sentence for a crime, why would it be any different in the spiritual world? Of Course it wouldn't be different if God was a just God. How could it be any different? It couldn't.

Star Stuff responded with:
Our modern day justice system is the result of lots and lots of hard work from people through the ages who have struggled with justice within the legal system we have created. We don't torture people for any level of crime, nor do we feel it is a good idea to have them roast in a pit of fire for all eternity.

Please explain how your imaginary god is just, for eternally torturing someone (and I'm thinking of someone who is genuinely kind, empathetic, generous etc.) simply because they have embraced reason and evidence and do not believe in your imaginary daddy figure. In other words we are more moral than the beast you worship, the Abrahamic God.

Fran answers:
There you go again.  The "blood sacrifice" ritual in the OT was not torturing anyone.  On the contrary, it FORGAVE everyone so that NO ONE would have to spend time in jail or in hell.   To me that is hardly an example of being petty or tiny as you claimed in REPLY #32.  So once again you wish to cast around red herrings. 


Quote
Fran wrote:
So far, I've only been contending that the "blood sacrifice" ritual in the OT was not petty or tiny based on THE REASONS THAT IT WAS INSTITUTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. TO SATISFY JUSICE ON A SPIRITUAL LEVEL.

Star Stuff  responded with:
Right, and I disagree with your contention. You seem to be saying that because these people (who were indeed ignorant of many things), instituted these barbaric ideas within the context of the Bible and so-called spiritual things, suddenly they get a free pass.

Fran answers:
There you go again.  I'm contending that the "blood sacrifice" ritual in the OT was instituted for reasons of justice and mercy... and not for any petty or tiny reasons or motives.  You have yet demonstrated that your claim in REPLY #32 has any merit at all.  All you do is keep trying to raise red herrings.


Quote
Fran wrote:
I don't think miracles have ceased to exist anywhere.

Star Stuff responded with:
Of course they haven'tceased, because they never occurred in the first place.

Fran answer:
And here again you raise a red herring.  Why didn't you finish the above quote of mine?  If you did, then you should have known that I would respond ONCE AGAIN that this is a red herring... it's irrelevant.   Neither your original question or my above answer to your original question are relevant to your claim in REPLY #32.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2008, 10:07:40 PM by Fran »

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #68 on: November 08, 2008, 12:54:45 AM »
It's time for a little blood sacrifice intervention.

Fran...

[from Why Won't God Heal Amputees? Chapter 25]

"Hello, my name is Jesus. I love you deeply. I have loved you since you were conceived in the womb and I will love you for all eternity. I died for you on the cross because I love you so much. I long to have a loving personal relationship with you. I will answer all of your prayers through my love. But if you do not get down on your knees and worship me, and if you do not EAT MY BODY and DRINK MY BLOOD, then I WILL INCINERATE YOU WITH UNIMAGINABLY TORTUOUS PAIN IN THE FIRES OF HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY BWAH HA HA HA HA HA!"

You're comfortable with that insanity?


It's hard to take someone like you seriously since it's obvious that you have no desire for an honest and down to earth discussion.  However you said something that inspired an interesting intellectual question I would like to ask of you.  More on that a little later.  But for right now I want to address the main thrust of your post.

First of all... what you wrote is indeed insanity... but your above characterization bears no rememblance to what the Bible teaches or what Christians believe.  In other words, you've done nothing but spout a strawman.

What you've done is what both the Republicans and the Democrats do in the United States during elections, and especially during the presidential elections.  Instead of trying to understand what the other side is truly advocating, each side instead resorts to stramman characterizations of the other side's position... and they will demonize the other side... and they will do anything and say anything to ensure that their candidate will win. 

And this is what you are doing here.  You will do and say anything about the other side to validate your own peculiar prejudice and bias.

Truth and honesty suffers in your hands.

If you find yourself in hell one day (and i sincerely hope not), it will only happen because you chose to go there by your own free will.

Do you even know what "worship" means?  All of us understands that it is insane to worship human beings... or animals... or statues... or nature... etc.  But what is irrational or illogical about worshipping God?  After all God and man are not comparable.

I mean look at how the dictionary describes worship... it uses words like homage, reverence, honor, adoration, and high regard.  How are any of these words offensive when applied to God... IF GOD EXISTED?

I understand that you don't believe God exists, but please don't get off track here.

In philosophy, we do thought experiments postulating various hypotheticals to help us reason thru our thinking.  So let's try it here.  Let's assume a God exists.  And let's further assume that this God is perfect in every sense of the word.  Perfectly Just.  Perfectly merciful. Perfectly forgiving.  Perfectly understanding of the human plight.  Perfect love.  etc.   Now.. IF such a God existed, would it be wrong to worship such a God?  Even if this God says we don't have to worship Him, would it be wrong to worship Him for His perfection and wonderfullness?  And if so, why?
« Last Edit: November 08, 2008, 01:06:08 AM by Fran »

Offline L6

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 813
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Ignostic
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #69 on: November 08, 2008, 01:15:25 AM »
Let's assume a God exists.  And let's further assume that this God is perfect in every sense of the word.  Perfectly Just.  Perfectly merciful. Perfectly forgiving.  Perfectly understanding of the human plight.  Perfect love.  etc.   Now.. IF such a God existed, would it be wrong to worship such a God?  Even if this God says we don't have to worship Him, would it be wrong to worship Him for His perfection and wonderfullness?  And if so, why?
The word "perfect", like all words that grasp at the absolute, has no meaning with regards to anything in human experience. To be perfect is to be complete in being and purpose, nothing to be added or subtracted. To name perfection is to distinguish it, but for a thing to be distinguishible is to allow for the possibility of adding to or subtracting from that thing's being or purpose, thus rendering it incomplete.

Perfection has no name and therefore can not be worshipped. Your so-called Yahweh god is an imperfect reflection of an imperfect illusion in your mind. You worship a phantom of your own memory.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2008, 01:17:40 AM by L6 »
God's existence is contingent upon the illusion that morality is dictated by religious authority.

Offline L6

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 813
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Ignostic
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #70 on: November 08, 2008, 01:36:17 AM »
Wow Fran, you saw my reply immediately and already you're been typing away for 20 minutes. You must think you actually have an idea of perfection that is compatible with your delusion. Believe me, I've been anxiously awaiting it, but I think I'll go play some video games now, instead.
God's existence is contingent upon the illusion that morality is dictated by religious authority.

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #71 on: November 08, 2008, 04:48:39 AM »
From L6
Quote
The word "perfect", like all words that grasp at the absolute, has no meaning with regards to anything in human experience. To be perfect is to be complete in being and purpose, nothing to be added or subtracted. To name perfection is to distinguish it, but for a thing to be distinguishible is to allow for the possibility of adding to or subtracting from that thing's being or purpose, thus rendering it incomplete.

Perfection has no name and therefore can not be worshipped. Your so-called Yahweh god is an imperfect reflection of an imperfect illusion in your mind. You worship a phantom of your own memory.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

When you say "To be perfect is to be complete in being and purpose, nothing to be added or subtracted", that sure is a perfect (pun intended) description of God.

And yet when you say "To name perfection is to distinguish it, but for a thing to be distinguishible is to allow for the possibility of adding to or subtracting from that thing's being or purpose, thus rendering it incomplete", I have no idea not only what you are trying to say by this, but even why I should accept it.  For example, why on earth would distinguishing something somehow magically mean that this allows the possibility of adding to or subtracting from that things' being or purpose?  You just assert something without explaining why it is logically true.   

And when you say "Perfection has no name and therefore can not be worshipped", I can't help but rejoin with "sez who"?

The same rejoinder would apply to your statement "Your so-called Yahweh god is an imperfect reflection of an imperfect illusion in your mind".  Sez who?  And how so?
« Last Edit: November 08, 2008, 08:08:13 AM by Fran »

Offline JII

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #72 on: November 08, 2008, 05:02:05 AM »
It's time for a little blood sacrifice intervention.

Fran...

[from Why Won't God Heal Amputees? Chapter 25]

"Hello, my name is Jesus. I love you deeply. I have loved you since you were conceived in the womb and I will love you for all eternity. I died for you on the cross because I love you so much. I long to have a loving personal relationship with you. I will answer all of your prayers through my love. But if you do not get down on your knees and worship me, and if you do not EAT MY BODY and DRINK MY BLOOD, then I WILL INCINERATE YOU WITH UNIMAGINABLY TORTUOUS PAIN IN THE FIRES OF HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY BWAH HA HA HA HA HA!"

You're comfortable with that insanity?

It's hard to take someone like you seriously since it's obvious that you have no desire for an honest and down to earth discussion.

It's hard for me to take anyone serious that bases their life around science fiction, so we're dead even at this point.

First of all... what you wrote is indeed insanity... but your above characterization bears no rememblance to what the Bible teaches or what Christians believe.  In other words, you've done nothing but spout a strawman.

First of all... it's not my characterization. As I state in the post, it's from the on-line book that this forum website is based on, and which, obviously, you haven't read. Most of the "nonbelievers" in here, on the other hand, have read and studied the Bible thoroughly. It is you, the "believers" that are avoiding the opponent view. Is Marshall's argument a "strawman", simply because you don't like the way Marshall paraphrased what the Bible clearly implies? Nope.

In philosophy, we do thought experiments postulating various hypotheticals to help us reason thru our thinking.  So let's try it here.  Let's assume a God exists.  And let's further assume that this God is perfect in every sense of the word.  Perfectly Just.  Perfectly merciful. Perfectly forgiving.  Perfectly understanding of the human plight.  Perfect love.  etc.   Now.. IF such a God existed, would it be wrong to worship such a God?  Even if this God says we don't have to worship Him, would it be wrong to worship Him for His perfection and wonderfullness?  And if so, why?

Well, sometimes, philosophy can be down right irrational (stupid). Modern Science has concluded that, if the Universe, the Earth, and Life on Earth, were "created", then the "designer" was either blind or stupid. And, the reason that you are unaware of this, falls once again on your unwillingness to read the opposing view. If you had read the works of Stephen Jay Gould or Richard Dawkins, you would know that your argument from perfection is, well, just plain... religulous. 

Offline Dissenter

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Quid, Me Anxius Sum?
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #73 on: November 08, 2008, 05:20:23 AM »


BM
What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around.

   -George Orwell


Been caught making shit up again? Attend the I don't know 12 step program for help.

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #74 on: November 08, 2008, 07:57:30 AM »
Quote
Quote from Fran:
It's hard to take someone like you seriously since it's obvious that you have no desire for an honest and down to earth discussion.

JisI responded with:
It's hard for me to take anyone serious that bases their life around science fiction, so we're dead even at this point.

Fran answers:
So I see then, since you didn't object, that you do agree that you have no desire for an honest and down to earth discussion.  Well then, that is where we are not equal because I'm always open to having an honest and down to earth discussion on any subject with anyone, whereas you apparantly are not.  So it appears that you are closed minded, and I am not.  And thus it seems that we are not equal after all.


Quote
Quote from Fran:
First of all... what you wrote is indeed insanity... but your above characterization bears no rememblance to what the Bible teaches or what Christians believe.  In other words, you've done nothing but spout a strawman.

JisI responded with:
First of all... it's not my characterization. As I state in the post, it's from the on-line book that this forum website is based on, and which, obviously, you haven't read. Most of the "nonbelievers" in here, on the other hand, have read and studied the Bible thoroughly. It is you, the "believers" that are avoiding the opponent view. Is Marshall's argument a "strawman", simply because you don't like the way Marshall paraphrased what the Bible clearly implies? Nope.

Fran answers:
Is your characterization different than Marshall's?  If so, then  why did you use it in your post?  If not, then what is your point in bringing up his name and using his argument as your own?

There are accurate and inaccurate ways to paraphrase something.  Surely you must know that.  But i'm talking to you and not Marshall.  And so unless YOU paraphrased Marshall incorrectly, then Marshall's paraphrase of the Bible's teaching, and your use of Marshall's characterization, suffer from an inaccurate paraphrase.




Quote
Quote from Fran:
In philosophy, we do thought experiments postulating various hypotheticals to help us reason thru our thinking.  So let's try it here.  Let's assume a God exists.  And let's further assume that this God is perfect in every sense of the word.  Perfectly Just.  Perfectly merciful. Perfectly forgiving.  Perfectly understanding of the human plight.  Perfect love.  etc.   Now.. IF such a God existed, would it be wrong to worship such a God?  Even if this God says we don't have to worship Him, would it be wrong to worship Him for His perfection and wonderfullness?  And if so, why?

JisI responded with:
Well, sometimes, philosophy can be down right irrational (stupid). Modern Science has concluded that, if the Universe, the Earth, and Life on Earth, were "created", then the "designer" was either blind or stupid. And, the reason that you are unaware of this, falls once again on your unwillingness to read the opposing view. If you had read the works of Stephen Jay Gould or Richard Dawkins, you would know that your argument from perfection is, well, just plain... religulous.


Fran answers with:
Well, it is obvious that you did not read my post at all because I never made any argument from design or from perfection.  My question was a purely philosophical question and had nothing to do with science.  And in fact, i wasn't even trying to prove that God existed or that there was a 'designer".  So your whole response is nothing more than a red herring because it has nothing to do with my question to you.

And yes, I am well acquainted with Gould and Dawkins, but as I said, my question to you is a philosophical one and not a scientific one.  However, if you know anything about science, then I'm sure you're aware that science is itself based on certain philosophical presuppositions as Dawkins will tell you and so would Gould if he was still alive.

Are you afraid of questions? Or thinking thru your arguments logically and rationally?  And remember this, science has to use logic, even though logic is not science.  So we can have philosophical and logical discussions.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2008, 08:04:59 AM by Fran »

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #75 on: November 08, 2008, 08:02:55 AM »
Brief interuption, apologies.

Fran, I refer you to the discussion occuring in this thread:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=1477.600

I think it might help you learn about biology and the origin of species.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #76 on: November 08, 2008, 08:06:12 AM »
Brief interuption, apologies.

Fran, I refer you to the discussion occuring in this thread:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=1477.600

I think it might help you learn about biology and the origin of species.

Pony, thanks for your help.  But we were not talking about biology or the origin of species.  So i'm not sure how this is relevant to the present discussion.

However it does seem like an interesting discussion, and so I will read  thru it.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2008, 08:12:40 AM by Fran »

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #77 on: November 08, 2008, 08:08:55 AM »
It isn't relevant, consider it an non-private PM.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline JII

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #78 on: November 08, 2008, 08:14:39 AM »
Well, it is obvious that you did not read my post at all because I never made any argument from design or from perfection

Really? Because earlier you said...

Let's assume a God exists.  And let's further assume that this God is perfect in every sense of the word.

That statement assumes that your invisible friend has perfect design skills. Checkmate!

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #79 on: November 08, 2008, 09:08:10 AM »
So I see then, since you didn't object, that you do agree that you have no desire for an honest and down to earth discussion.  Well then, that is where we are not equal because I'm always open to having an honest and down to earth discussion on any subject with anyone, whereas you apparantly are not.  So it appears that you are closed minded, and I am not.  And thus it seems that we are not equal after all.

I call shenanigans on this statement, given your apparent abandonment of our previous discussion, your complaints about my 'honest and down to earth' appraisal of your arguments, and your constant attempts to accuse me of double standards. Honest and open minded, you? I don't think so.

(Not that I'm particularly interested in resurrecting that discussion anymore; just making the point. Don't be so quick to judge others - it may come back to bite you.)
« Last Edit: November 08, 2008, 09:17:59 AM by Deus ex Machina »
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline L6

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 813
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Ignostic
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #80 on: November 08, 2008, 03:24:22 PM »
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Then I either failed to communicate or you're claiming that your own miscomprehension strengthens your position, which is likely given so much of what you believe is an argument from ignorance..

When you say "To be perfect is to be complete in being and purpose, nothing to be added or subtracted", that sure is a perfect (pun intended) description of God.
"God", maybe. Yahweh, specifically, no.

And yet when you say "To name perfection is to distinguish it, but for a thing to be distinguishible is to allow for the possibility of adding to or subtracting from that thing's being or purpose, thus rendering it incomplete", I have no idea not only what you are trying to say by this, but even why I should accept it.  For example, why on earth would distinguishing something somehow magically mean that this allows the possibility of adding to or subtracting from that things' being or purpose?  You just assert something without explaining why it is logically true. 
I'm not asserting anything. I'm reasoning based on the definition of perfection. To distinguish object X from Y is to say object Y has something object X doesn't, and vice versa, so there is the possibility that something could be added to X. Therefore X can not be perfect.

You, however, are not actually talking about perfection, are you? When you say "perfect", you mean "good". You are equivocating. Just admit it. Not that it matters, since either way your believe in Yahweh is nothing but a bare assertion.

And when you say "Perfection has no name and therefore can not be worshipped", I can't help but rejoin with "sez who"?
Says the definition of perfection.

The same rejoinder would apply to your statement "Your so-called Yahweh god is an imperfect reflection of an imperfect illusion in your mind".  Sez who?  And how so?
It logically follows that if that perfection has no name, and you worship Yahweh, then you are not worshipping perfection.
God's existence is contingent upon the illusion that morality is dictated by religious authority.

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #81 on: November 08, 2008, 05:44:21 PM »
Quote
Quote from Fran:
I have no idea what you are trying to say.

L6 responded with:
Then I either failed to communicate or you're claiming that your own miscomprehension strengthens your position, which is likely given so much of what you believe is an argument from ignorance..

Fran answers:
I will be the first one to admit that i am the most ignorant person on this forum.  At least we can agree on something.



Quote
Quote from Fran:
When you say "To be perfect is to be complete in being and purpose, nothing to be added or subtracted", that sure is a perfect (pun intended) description of God.

L6 responded with:
"God", maybe. Yahweh, specifically, no.


Fran answers:
Good.  We are making progress then.  So the philosophical question I asked of JiI about worship still stands since we can both agree to be talking about "God" and not Yahweh.


Quote
Quote from Fran:
And yet when you say "To name perfection is to distinguish it, but for a thing to be distinguishible is to allow for the possibility of adding to or subtracting from that thing's being or purpose, thus rendering it incomplete", I have no idea not only what you are trying to say by this, but even why I should accept it.  For example, why on earth would distinguishing something somehow magically mean that this allows the possibility of adding to or subtracting from that things' being or purpose?  You just assert something without explaining why it is logically true.

L6 responded with:
I'm not asserting anything. I'm reasoning based on the definition of perfection. To distinguish object X from Y is to say object Y has something object X doesn't, and vice versa, so there is the possibility that something could be added to X. Therefore X can not be perfect.

You, however, are not actually talking about perfection, are you?  When you say "perfect", you mean "good". You are equivocating. Just admit it. Not that it matters, since either way your believe in Yahweh is nothing but a bare assertion.

Fran answers:
Well, I hate to disapoint you, but I am not talking about "good", but "perfect".  I really am.  Honestly.   

But if this is going to be stumbling block somehow so that you can't answer the philosophical question I was proposing to JiI, then tell me how we can proceed from here.  You seem to have an issue with Yahweh, so forget Yahweh then for this philosophical question and just use "God" if this will help the discussion to go forward.

For hypothetical purposes, will you object that a "God" can be perfectly good?   Can we imagine the existence of a "being" which can be perfectly good?  Or is this beyond the human mind's ability? Will this help you?


Quote
Quote from Fran:
And when you say "Perfection has no name and therefore can not be worshipped", I can't help but rejoin with "sez who"?

L6 responded with:
Says the definition of perfection.

Fran answers:
Well then, maybe i worded the question imprecisely. After all we can both agree that I am the most ignorant on this forum.

I didn't mean to suggest that the concept or definition of "perfect" can be worshipped. That would indeed be silly.  Instead, I'm trying to see if we can imagine the existence of a "being" (like a God) which can be rightly and justly be worshipped.


Quote
Quote from Fran:
The same rejoinder would apply to your statement "Your so-called Yahweh god is an imperfect reflection of an imperfect illusion in your mind".  Sez who?  And how so?

L6 responded with:
It logically follows that if that perfection has no name, and you worship Yahweh, then you are not worshipping perfection.


Fran answers:
I still don't get it. It seems I am indeed not very bright. 

I guess I don't understand your phrase "perfection has no name".  I don't understand what that means exactly.   To me, i'm trying to use the word "perfection" as an adjective for an imagined being like a God.  Are there any "beings" that we can imagine to exist, which can be perfect?  Or are our imaginations so limited that it is impossible for the human mind to imagine a being which can be perfect for this philosophical question?
 
 
« Last Edit: November 08, 2008, 05:52:29 PM by Fran »

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #82 on: November 08, 2008, 06:02:40 PM »
Well, it is obvious that you did not read my post at all because I never made any argument from design or from perfection

Really? Because earlier you said...

Let's assume a God exists.  And let's further assume that this God is perfect in every sense of the word.

That statement assumes that your invisible friend has perfect design skills. Checkmate!

HUH? Wow, this response truly went right over my head because I have no clue how you came to such a conclusion.

The phrase which I used, "argument from design or from perfection" is an argument used by the Intelligent Design camp about THE UNIVERSE's look of design.   So I was being truthfull when I said that "I never made any argument from design or from perfection" because I was only talking about God and NOT about the universe at all.   And as I said in my post, I'm not EVEN trying to prove that a God exists for this philosophical excerise. 

The phrase argument from design or from perfection" is an argument used by the Intelligent Design camp to try and prove that God exists.  But I wasn't trying to prove that God exists.  That's why I said let's ASSUME that God exists.  If we are going to assume God exists, then there is no need for me to make any argument from design or perfection. 

So on many points, I don't understand your post here.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2008, 06:23:22 PM by Fran »

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #83 on: November 08, 2008, 06:19:31 PM »
quote from Deus ex Machina
Quote
I call shenanigans on this statement, given your apparent abandonment of our previous discussion, your complaints about my 'honest and down to earth' appraisal of your arguments, and your constant attempts to accuse me of double standards. Honest and open minded, you? I don't think so.

I'm glad to see you again.  I'm sorry about the "apparent abandonment" of our previous discussion.  A couple of days ago, I just finished with the project my Boss gave me and for which I worked a ton of overtime hours to complete.  In the end, it was apparantly worth it because my boss loved what I did.  It made him look good, which of course makes me look good in his eyes.  And in this economic period, it is good to look good in the boss' eyes.

So I now have some time by which to resume our previous discussion.  And I'm looking forward to it.

Offline JII

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #84 on: November 08, 2008, 07:23:14 PM »
So on many points, I don't understand your post here.

If I thought the rational people in here didn't understand it, then, I would be worried.

In philosophy, we do thought experiments postulating various hypotheticals to help us reason thru our thinking.  So let's try it here.  Let's assume a God exists.  And let's further assume that this God is perfect in every sense of the word.  Perfectly Just.  Perfectly merciful. Perfectly forgiving.  Perfectly understanding of the human plight.  Perfect love.  etc.   Now.. IF such a God existed, would it be wrong to worship such a God?  Even if this God says we don't have to worship Him, would it be wrong to worship Him for His perfection and wonderfullness?  And if so, why?

You were making a case for a "perfect" God character. I was simply pointing out that HIS design skills leave a lot to be desired. The scientific evidence to support this FACT, is rock solid.

Ya know Fran, if you're going to use the Bible, as your source for evidence in here, to argue your position, its credibility becomes fair game. By our illustrating that the Bible is a fictional construct, it destroys your Perfect God this, Perfect God that assertion. To make a long story short, it means...

Yes. It would be wrong to worship Him.

Offline Fran

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 698
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #85 on: November 08, 2008, 11:29:14 PM »
JiI wrote:
Quote
If I thought the rational people in here didn't understand it, then, I would be worried.

I agree.  If rational people did not understand, I would indeed be worried.

Quote
Quote from Fran:
In philosophy, we do thought experiments postulating various hypotheticals to help us reason thru our thinking.  So let's try it here.  Let's assume a God exists.  And let's further assume that this God is perfect in every sense of the word.  Perfectly Just.  Perfectly merciful. Perfectly forgiving.  Perfectly understanding of the human plight.  Perfect love.  etc.   Now.. IF such a God existed, would it be wrong to worship such a God?  Even if this God says we don't have to worship Him, would it be wrong to worship Him for His perfection and wonderfullness?  And if so, why?

JiI responded with:
You were making a case for a "perfect" God character. I was simply pointing out that HIS design skills leave a lot to be desired. The scientific evidence to support this FACT, is rock solid.

I'm only suggesting a "perfect" God character in the HYPOTHETICAL question I gave you because I assumed a person would be more likely to willingly worship a "perfect" God instead of an imperfect God.  But hey, maybe you are different than most.   

But don't you see that if you came back and answered my HYPOTHETICAL and say that you would never worship an imperfect God, then I would be forced to ask: Well then, what about a perfect God?[/i]  See?  So that would mean we would be back to the "perfect" thing once again.  So I naturally thought, why not start the HYPOTHETICAL question with a "perfect" God instead of using an imperfect God.  That makes a lot of sense to me.  Isn't that just common sense?

And... when you say, "HIS design skills leave a lot to be desired"... which God are YOU talking about?  I'm asking you that because I NEVER said which God to use in the HYPOTHETICAL.  You can choose any God you wanted. 

Indeed, if you read my post you will see that I specifically said: "Let's assume A God exists".  Notice the "A" in my assumption?  I didn't say THE God of the Bible.  I said A GOD.   

So when you said "HIS design skills leave a lot to be desired",  this statement of yours has nothing to do with me or the HYPOTHETICAL because I didn't say you needed to pick the Christian God.

And when you said "The scientific evidence to support this FACT, is rock solid", this has nothing to do with the HYPOTHETICAL question I'm asking you because I said you can pick any God you want for this HYPOTHETICAL.  So this is irrelevant.

JiI wrote:
Quote
Ya know Fran, if you're going to use the Bible, as your source for evidence in here, to argue your position, its credibility becomes fair game.


But i'm NOT using the Bible or using the Christian God in the HYPOTHETICAL.  I gave you the opportunity to choose any God you wanted IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL.  Where in my HYPOTHETICAL that I gave you do i suggest we should use the Bible or the Christian God?  I don't suggest any such thing anywhere in my HYPOTHETICAL.

JiI wrote:
Quote
By our illustrating that the Bible is a fictional construct, it destroys your Perfect God this, Perfect God that assertion.

And I told you earlier in a previous post that I was NOT TRYING prove the Christian God was perfect.  I specifically said let's assume A God exists and that He is perfect.  I suggested a perfect God only because I assumed a person would be more likely to willingly worship a perfect God rather than an imperfect God.  If that is not an obviously common sense assumption, then I don't know what is.

JiI wrote:
Quote
To make a long story short, it means...

Yes. It would be wrong to worship Him.

Yes, I understand that it might be wrong to worship the God of the Bible in your eyes, BUT THAT WASN'T THE HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION I ASKED OF YOU.

I didn't limit you to any one particular God except that it was a perfect God.  And I especially did not limit You to the God of the Bible.

So my HYPOTHETICAL question to you still stands.

BTW, it might help to see my conversation with L6 because he also has a similiar problem with Yahweh as you do.  And I gave him the same choice I originaly gave to you.

Anyway... I just find it so strange and difficult to understand why you couldn't see that I wasn't suggesting we use the Biblical God in the HYPOTHETICAL question I gave you.  To me, this is just a perfect example of what I see happening not only between non-Christians and Christians, but also between the Democrats and the Republicans in the presidential elections.   When one side says something, the other side seems to want to READ INTO what was said so as to validate their own bias and prejudices they have for the other side.

I could be wrong, but how else can a person explain why you couldn't see that in the HYPOTHETICAL question I gave you,  I was not limiting you to any one particular God to choose from except to assume that it was a perfect God rather than an imperfect God?
« Last Edit: November 08, 2008, 11:46:35 PM by Fran »

Offline JII

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Lunacy of the Judeo-Christian “Faith” Concept
« Reply #86 on: November 09, 2008, 05:25:53 AM »
I could be wrong, but how else can a person explain why you couldn't see that in the HYPOTHETICAL question I gave you,  I was not limiting you to any one particular God to choose from except to assume that it was a perfect God rather than an imperfect God?

Fran... on what evidence have you based your "Perfect God" hypothesis? Please be as detailed and long winded as possible.