I wasn't really thinking about 'the hypocrisy and double-standards in much of mainstream religion'. My unease is deeper than that, with the content of the scriptural tradition upon which much of that religion is based. We are told that this scriptural tradition somehow reveals the one and true God. (Never mind what that means or what justifies it, let's just accept it for the sake of argument.) My concern in this thread is that the God the tradition reveals would be condemned as a moral monster if he were another human being like us. But because he is supposed to be 'God', everything's supposed to be different in his case and we are supposed to think of this God and his actions as being the essence of good regardless. That's where the cognitive dissonance arises and it's one of several reasons why I don't think that this family of traditions holds the path for me. To put it bluntly, I draw the line at worshipping a deity who I perceive to be my own moral inferior.
iceaura, In other words it's accurate because you want it to be. For an action to be deemed murder it has to be shown that one person, killed another person unlawfully. Right? If God had wiped out mankind because He wanted to kill them in the way that a murderer would kill another person, there would be no mankind. There would be no need to use a righteous human being to kick start a new progeny, either. The body, as stated previously, does not amount to the person, it merely acts as a vehicle for person to act, in a particular environment. When God made Adam, He made the body, then breathed the life force into it's nostril, enabling it to become animated (a living soul. So to summarise, murder is exclusive to human beings. Nobody said that it was. And quite under-handed of you to imply that my point implied or suggested that. God gave us His intention, I've posted it up about 3 times now. There's no need to pretend that we have to guess His motive. And that says something about these theistic people. That they are engaging in murder says more about them than the title ''theist'', which you seem to attach so much importance to. Remember. Because somebody professes to be something, by their own word, does not, that thing, they make. It has to be backed up with deed. It is the combination of their word, and deed, that make them who they are. Not so. Killing, even killing human beings, is not necessarily an act of murder. It has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Nobody has proven it, without ommittion of Biblical evidence, that God murdered anyone. Just saying it is murder, doesn't make it so. Living beings, are the spiritual realms of the world, or at least potentially they are. Maher is simply doing his bit to keep people ignorant of there essential selves. Obviously he's not the only one, but the OP thread mentioned him, so there... jan.
Thanks... i replied to that in this separate thred.!!! http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141643-God-knows-all-!!!&p=3193477&viewfull=1#post3193477
I draw the line before worship of any kind. It's a particularly ugly type of submission; not only must one live as a slave under their master's yolk, but they must then also thank him for the burden. But yeah, even if i were open to it, I certainly wouldn't worship a monster like Yaweh.
Jan Ardena:From your Post #93 I assume the above is in the context of the Flood from which only Noah’s family & animals on the Ark survived. If that is the case, it implies that you consider young & newly born children to be evil, thus making it just to apply the death penalty to them. BTW: It is known that both the Mediterranean & the Black seas completely evaporated in the far distant past. When earthquake activity (or perhaps the persistence of Atlantic Ocean water) opened the Straights of Gibralter, the rapid filling of both seas was surely a spectacular event which would make Niagra Falls look like a leaky faucet. I think that even today, rivers & rainfall do not replenish the water lost due to evaporation. A constant flow of water from the Atlantic maintains Mediterranean & Black sea levels. There is evidence that by circa 6000-8000 BC the Black Sea partially evaporated while the Bosporus & Dardanelles Straights had been closed for a long time. I think archeologists have discovered primitive human dwellings circa 200-300 feet below sea level. When those straights opened, Black Sea level was rapidly restored to its current value. It is likely that an oral tradition relating to the above event was the source of the Gilgamish & Noah flood mythology, making them more real than mythical.
And no need to pretend the people you are responding to have engaged in such pretensions. God killed entire categories and populations of people, men and women and children, on purpose and aforethought, and we call that genocide. That's our human word for such behavior. Indeed it does, and Bill Maher is once again found to be simply stating the obvious. The description in the Bible, the sum total of the evidence we have, is one of motivated, intentional, genocide - mass murder. It was planned in advance, explicitly justified in advance, and carried out deliberately against entire populations of defenseless people to suit the purposes of the perpetrator. The only doubt comes from the observation that the entire story is a myth, and that does not change the nature of the events in it. Or as you put it: Theists and Deities are identified as who they are by their words, and their deeds. And Maher's simple observations of what those words and deeds were and are, remain simply and materially accurate. If you really believe that Maher's entire audience is ignorant of the Bible or any aspect of the thought and tradition of your Church, you have a lot to learn about them. And about human nature. People who actually don't know anything about the religions and deities that Maher mocks aren't the ones laughing so hard - they don't see the point, haven't met the situations and people he is riffing off of, don't know what he's talking about or why he's making a big deal out of what looks to them like nothing much. His audience is full of apostates - and a lot of them know their Bible, their theology, their Church's teachings, very very well.
iceaura, Then you should respond to the verse in which God gives His intentions for His actions (and also take into account God's potential), instead glossing over it as though it has no consequence. From your perspective He killed them, but from His perspective he relieved them of an eternity of the lowest form of hell, due to their own foolishness. If He'd have intended to kill mankind, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation. Again, from your perspective, because you are anti-God, and will agree to anything which is seems to place God in the worst light. Murder is an unlawful act of killing other human beings (other kind of gives it away). Also, these people had transgressed the law of nature about as far as one can (taking the verse you systematically ignore into consideration). From what I can tell, God reluctantly wiped those people from the face of the earth, because of their being ''pure evil''. And what purposes would those be (before you blurt, think about the verse you systematically ignore)? Of course you don't mind painting God in lowly human picture, despite your claim to not believing in Him (because of lack of evidence Lol!! The atheist anthem). No doubt you will play your ''lack of evidence card' when you are forced to accept that you're wrong. And in this case you are definitely wrong. Yes, Maher's simple(ton) observation just happens to rule out everything that gives clarity to God's actions. ''God is a murderer'', he bleats, yet the only reason one can give for that conclusion, is that God kills extremely evil humans, and even then it is done purely because it has to be done. I have given you (Biblical/scriptural) evidence that God did not ''murder'' anybody (remember that murder is be used as it would be in a court of law), and you have given nothing but faithfulness to the accusation of a modern television icon. What ''Church''? I'm not talking about church, or religion. I'm talking about that claim, which was taken as an idea, from a book which has real words in it so one can read for themselves, but choose to follow the idiotic rantings of new atheist nonsense. Oh and by the way, they are ignorant, because they could not have stopped to think whether there is any truth in any scripture, at least before mocking it. They automatically turn off, by using humour, and pretending they have everything under control. We're not talking about religion, or dieties. We're talking about a specific idea which has been drip-fed to the masses, over a long period of time. That's how he can get away with being so popular, while spreading, and indoctrinate with, disinformation. It has nothing to do with religion. This is an attack on God. jan.
Dinosaur, That's what you'd probably like to think, as I can think of no other reason why you would sink so low as to bring that into this discussion. If you go back through my posts you will come to a point where I talk about the soul, and the body, being of different natures. The soul being ''spirit'' and the body being ''matter''. The soul being eternal, and the body being temporary. This is not something we can see, but according to the Bible (and other scriptures) God, can. So why say something like ''God is a murderer'', if this is all myth? And why be reluctant to look into ''the myth'', to show that God is not a murderer (if we look at today's standards of what ''murder'' is)? jan.
No, your whole criticism is nothing but cheap shots on a subject YOU don't really understand. Anyone who knows anything about the Bible or the reason behind the thought and tradition of the Church/churches can see that YOU are very ignorant, and therefore tragicly funny on this subject. YOU are just showing YOUR ignorance, and your audience for the most part laughs at your intentional ignorance. I don't mean to be provocative in saying this. Unlike you, I am stating a fact.
Attempting to kill all mankind is not the definition of genocide. Merely killing entire populations of people, men and women and children and babies in arms, on purpose and aforethought because you think they are evil, qualifies. You mean like this? I did. As noted, the reluctance of God to slaughter all those people for "transgressing the law of nature" does not mean he didn't do it. He had his reasons for committing genocide - so do most protagonists who commit genocide. From telling us all what God's opinions and moods (reluctance, etc) are, to informing us of the nature of the soul and consequent justification of anything done by a Deity or in the service of saving said soul, to reading our minds and telling us what our own opinions are and why we hold them, the humility of the truly Faithful has to be encountered to be believed. Can you see why some folks might worry a little bit about the fact that their neighbors seem to have no problem with killing people's bodies en masse, to save their souls? That Bill Maher does not appear to be ignorant, or wrong, about these neighbors of ours?
iceaura, Didn't say it was. If you or I killed them, it would qualify as genocide. But it's not the case if God, or, nature, kills them. Yes. How can it be genocide? The souls didn't die, only the bodies. People who commit genocide, do so with the intention of ending lives, or putting them in extreme discomfort. Not giving them the opportunity to start fresh, without sin. What now? He didn't say ''some folks'' are murderers, he said ''God is a murderer'' (as if God is a human being), and that is an ignorant statement. If for him, God doesn't exist, which is his position, then it's kind of stupid to charge God with being a ''murderer''. jan.
It's genocide to kill entire populations of people's bodies, men's bodies, women's bodies, children's bodies. That's what the word means. It's genocide if any protagonist in the event kills them on purpose, with malice aforethought, for reasons of his own. It's not genocide if "nature" kills them, because "nature" doesn't do things on purpose with malice aforethought and free will in the matter. Is your God mindless? We have several examples in history of Christian authorities claiming exactly that motive for their killings. Meanwhile, the God of the Bible intended to end the lives of all the human beings on the planet except Noah and family, and did so. He drowned them. God is a protagonist in a story, according to Maher, and in that story He commits mass murder, according to Maher's (and any reasonable) reading of it. Protagonists in stories are certainly capable of murder. Are you claiming the story is factually and historically accurate?
iceaura, genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. exterminate: to get rid of by destroying; destroy totally; extirpate: You can't exterminate that which cannot be exterminated That is simply one idea of genocide. The dictionary definition I gave does not stipulate applications such as thought, or mind. Plus the notion of nature not having a mind, is based on your world view, not any form of factual knowledge. I'm not interested in what people claim, as they can say what they like. It's what they do that counts. If they have been instructed not to kill, and they go ahead and kill, then the aren't acting according to their creed/law. It's not a ''reasonable reading of it'' because he omits sections which show that God cannot be a murderer, thereby creating a false impression. You only think it's reasonable because it suits your world view. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! jan.
1) That isn't "the dictionary definition" 2) You are the one implying that nature cannot commit genocide for some reason, and that Bible God is like nature in that way. What way is that? Your take on my world view is not based on factual knowledge, here or anywhere you have employed that mode of avoidance. I simply point out that the God of the Bible is relevantly like a person in that He has motives and kills defenseless people according to them. When he kills entire populations of people he has motive for doing so, is acting on purpose. That takes away the last possible wiggle room for avoiding the ordinary nouns we use to describe such behavior by historical protagonists as we find them in historical or dramatic accounts - murder, assassination, genocide, etc. If you are willing to ascribe motive and purpose to nature, or on the other hand willing to extend the scope of the noun "genocide" to unmotivated mass killing collateral or correlative with inanimate event, then we might be able to bring "nature" in under the genocidal tent with the Biblical God character and the human mass murderers of history. Most people - including all Westerners reliant on standard English dictionaries etc - would do neither. And yet you expect others to take you seriously when you claim knowledge of God's motives and opinions, and use them to excuse God's actions as reported in the accounts you demand we accept in evidence. And that is of course what Maher says, and the foundation of his ridiculing of Judeo-Christian religion. In that he is following the path laid down by comedians from time immemorial. As Will Rodgers put it, there's no need to tell jokes - just tell the truth, and they'll roll in the aisles laughing. Your God committed genocide, according to your Bible.
A pertinent joke to relieve the tension, perhaps? It comes from our much put upon (by God and man) friends, the Jews, who know a thing or two about genocide: Anyway here it goes: Q. Why does God live in Heaven? A. Because if He lived on Earth, people would break His windows. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
iceaura, That's exactly the dictionary defintion. Try again. All you need to concentrate on is that neither God, or nature are human beings, and the word genocide was created by humans that described a human act. Irrelevant. Avoidance of what? God cannot murder, period. You, Maher, and others who share similar world views either believe God exists, or lack the intelligence to realise God is not human. And I've pointed out that God is not a murderer, and therefore does not commit genocide, and given the reasons why. 1. It is not possible to extermine that which cannot be exterminated. 2. Murder and genocide is exclusive to no other species of life apart from humans. If you believe God commits murder and genocide, you believe He exists. If you believe God does not exist, there is no need to make such accusations. I expect others (on a forum like this) to grasp the meaning of systems. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I expect you to accept that God isn't a human being, and to take into account His Almighty status, before you equate Him to yourself. And I expect this regardless of belief status. We're discussing his accusation of murder. He's your God too (you're just too rebelious to admit it), and my Bible is pretty much the same as most Bibles, as is yours I imagine. jan.
1) There is no "the dictionary", in English. How many times do we have to tell you that? 2) That isn't "the definition" in any of the standard dictionaries. And I know you know that, because I see that you didn't quote it from a dictionary. People can be killed. Protagonists in stories can commit murder - hobbits and orcs, for example. Whether or not your insults and calumny and unstable ranting accusations are based on fact or not is completely irrelevant to you? I mean, I do believe that - I've been watching you operate here for some time - but I did not think you had self awareness in the matter. Of course I believe He exists. You have not addressed the questions above, as to His nature - it seems obvious to most non-Christian people who read the Bible that the protagonist Deity in it is committing genocide in the Flood story. Why are they wrong? And I expect you to realize that when you claim people have been equating a character in a story to themselves, the statement is either true or false based on observable fact - and when it's false, that is relevant to a bogus chain of "reasoning" based on its being true. So far, you have yet to deal with the question you raised above - you associated the Deity in the Bible with unconscious and even inanimate nature as equivalently unable to commit murder, separating said Deity from the characters in the book that are human (they talk, have motives for their actions, etc) and joining Him with rocks and viruses as an amoral entity. On what grounds? That's how I knew - I read all about it in my Bible. So did Maher.
iceaura, :shrug: I gave you some links. Did you read them? Let's hear what ''genocide'' means, by the man who coined the term... The term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group. Human rights, as laid out in the US Bill of Rights or the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, concern the rights of individuals. Again, you cannot ''destroy the existence of..'' something that never ceases to exist. The life force is the product of God, this is what it says in the same Bible where Maher accuses God of being a murderer. So in this case, the protagonist of this story cannot kill anything that has life, because all life is part and parcel of Him. If God was a murderer, then the whole of mankind (if you believe it was) would have been killed, including Noah. As the story goes, mankind was rejuvenated, and allowed to carry on living. It resemble ''corporal punishment'', if you're going to give it a theme. A punishment fit for the offence. Sure, but not in this story. You do realise you're responding to your own post. You believe God exists? I didn't see that one coming. Sorry, I must have missed the question regarding His nature. Can you ask it again? Thanks. '' They are wrong because they have not taken into account, who and what the protagonist is. They conveniently forget, or are ignorant, of the part where it states that God say's ''All souls are mine''. They conveniently forget the scene where God tells of the process of how living souls come into being. He brings them into being, by insrtucting nature, or by personally building a body, and breathing into it. It's like banishing someone from a forum. The character (name, ip address, etc...)may cease to be (within that forum), but the actual person does not cease to be. Whether you like it or not, that is the case with God. If they don't understand the story, but insist they know what it means, then they ignorant and there's not a lot one can do about that. Neither of them, God or nature, are human. I don't understand the bold section. There's so much more that you didn't read. jan.
