Printable View
Thanks for the warning, but the cut and paste reply IS my argument. The point is, exactly what is considered moralistic to people here and now, is overlooked and rationalized by a wide varity of theists concerning many objectional acts by God in the bible. The original post that I was replying to stated that the bible contains a "biblical principle of morality".Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
The question is "what do atheists believe"? Your opinion based on what you have found in the bible doesn't apply here, now be a good boy and run down to 7-11 and get me some smokes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiobe
Quoting the Bible and stating that it is your argument is nothing more than you begging-the-question; you assume that the Bible proves your point without comment because you assume the incident recorded is clearly immoral - but that's your interpretation. You make assumptions about an ancient culture and a God you do not understand in order to make the evaluation of a recorded incident as "moral" or not. To what standard of morality, by the way, are you appealing? Not everything in the Bible is a lesson on morality - it is a narrative dealing with the character of God and His relationship with His people. You quoted one of those incidents. As well, you make the assumption that there is clearly something wrong with the episode quoted. To do so would be your way of saying "I have evaluated the facts at hand and decided that this act - approved by God - is immoral." What's your standard? Do you have all your facts? Do you know what God knows (since it was His decision and no mortal's)?
All-seeing, all-knowing, omnipotent and omnipresent may be terms used to describe the Christianic God. But labeling him egotistic or villainous are false insinuations. Although you have excerpted parts of the bible where God portrays wrath in a way that may be hardly conceived as rational to us simple mortals, these passages of anger are eclipsed in the profound love and reasoning He shows throughout the first and second testaments. Although my knowledge of the bible is comparatively little next to yours (or so it seems) and Redzepellin’s, I earnestly believe that when God crafted the sun, earth, moon and stars, He did so for a reason. Here is where science and theology clash in an effort to derive materialistic and fundamental evidence explaining our physical creation, henceforth our existence.
If you read it as a story God appears to have a plan however unfathomed and indefinite for all events whichsoever way they occur: Adam and Eve were subject to the penalties of labor and pain for their misdemeanors...Sodom and Gomorrah were the cities of homosexuality and vice thus the world was wholly deluged Yet the existence of mankind prevailed for He possessed a maudlin sense... Jesus was falsely implicated for having an ulterior motive to crown himself king and was severely persecuted... God depicts his furor through harsh climatic shifts...
For every evil that occurs in our world and isn't repented.. God creates a phenomena that will ultimately omit that evil, be it in the course of a few hours or a century.
Redzeppelin: "you assume that the Bible proves your point without comment because you assume the incident recorded is clearly immoral - but that's your interpretation. "
I'm sure that Kiobe can speak for himself, but as I read him he was responding directly to your statement "God does not "inspire" murder, kidnapping and rape - period." He quoted a passage from the Bible which shows, if the quoted statements are to be believed, that God inspired and commanded murder, kidnapping and rape, as well as robbery and slavery.
Personally, I would argue that the passage says something about ancient Hebrews (and modern man) but nothing about God.
If you think that the attitudes attributed to God in that passage are truly His, and are to be excused just because "God knows best," then, all I can say is "God help you!"
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Except that animals do not possess a rational self-consciousness; they do not have the ability to accept or reject God; the Bible says that knowledge of God is implanted in the human heart. Nothing is said of animals (who have no need to abstract about their existence like we do).
animals dont have the ability to accept or reject god because they know that their is nothing outside of god. adding an acceptance or rejection to their intuitive knowing would be like putting legs on a snake---pointless.
knowledge of god is implanted via tradition, not god. your explanation rivals with using the word being defined to define the word.
To all the members who have subscribed to the atheist thread or threads: Will any member (or guest) who has not been conditioned by religious people or environments please raise thier pen. After that poll, will all the people who believe that re-evaluation is an integral part of consciousness please raise their pen. That is all. quasimodo1
Killing and murder are not synonyms; I saw no instance of rape; who was kidnapped? Who was robbed? Are you forgetting that there was a war? Did you not read the part about "avenge" early in the passage?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
They acted under God's direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
Thanks for the blessing - I return it to you as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
I do not need to "excuse" God - He can speak for Himself; I simply contend that - (for the hunderedth time, I'm sure) if God is who the Bible describes Him to be - here, specifically, a being of perfect moral judgment - then I must (by faith) assume that God's sentence on the Midianites was just. I am not in possession of the knowlegde God possessed that allowed Him to lay such a judgment upon this people; it appears shocking, and - based on the lack of knowledge we have - inexcusable. But, to render a verdict for that of which you are in possession of incomplete evidence seems highly presumptuous.
QED.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
.
RE: QEDQuote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
LOL
Redzeppelin: "I am not in possession of the knowlegde God possessed that allowed Him to lay such a judgment upon this people; it appears shocking, and - based on the lack of knowledge we have - inexcusable."
The behaviour of the Israelites to the Midianites was shocking and, by any standard of morality worth living to, inexcusable. Any claim that God could inspire or justify the behaviour described in the passage is pure blasphemy, as far as I am concerned. The passage that makes that claim is simply Israelitish propaganda, and certainly not the word of God.
The midinites were slaughtered by Moses and his collected armys as directed by God to avenge the Israelites because the Israelites, as God puts it, are the chosen people. When God told moses the tell his people to "take for yourselfs all the women that have not layed with a man in bed" it clearly means virgins. Or is it something about beds? Take the virgins for yourself. God's unimaginable reasoning aside, when they took all the young women from thier families, that were just slaughtered, I can't imagine that any of the young women were thrilled about it. What would you call it if some stranger took your little sister, against her will, for himself? Wouldn't you call that kidnapping? And if that person that took your little sister used her for propagation, I think in any civilized mind, that would be considered rape. To say that God has His reason for all that He does, even if what He does seems unbelieveably cruel is to absolutly shut down the part of your God given brain that tells a person how to live in harmony with his fellow man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
The verb "take" is a rather vague one; you've decided it means "sexually violate." It could just as easily mean "impress as servants" or even "marry" (though that was generally a no-no). You cannot assume rape off of that rather general verb. Once again, you are ignoring the fact that every frame omits certain pieces of information. I can take a picture that may appear to tell one story, but would reveal a far different story if the entire scene were shown. Example: I show you a picture of a man being burned to death by another man; you are outraged; but then I show you another picture of the same scene with a wider angle lense, and you now see a man in a director's chair, some cameras and the fire department standing at the ready - a film. So, your first picture appeared to be something that it in reality was not. That's what I'm trying to explain to you and Whiff both: we don't have all the facts - so your judgment is based on incomplete knowledge of the situation. I only ask that you admit that.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiobe
Cf. response to kiobe above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
What does an atheist believe? It would take sometime to answer that, but not because the answer is complicated. What doesn’t an atheist believe in? That’s easier. An atheist doesn’t believe in deities or a deity. If it’s not related to that, an atheist is free to believe it. An atheist can even believe in the Ten Commandments. How? They can believe it is an ethically strong theory that would sustain order, without believing in the deity attached to it. I believe atheists have the potential to be morally stronger than anybody who subscribes to a deity religion, because their morals are upheld without future incentives, i.e. paradise. It’s funny when a atheist is said to be confused for exclaiming, “Oh my God!” which is a phrase that has worked its way into the vocabulary of the common man, by a Christian who backslides yet still considers themselves a Christian.
No, I assume "take" to mean kidnaping. The scriptures say "take for yourselves" as wifes. Not slaves, not workers, not golf caddys. Wifes. Why bother taking 32,000 virgin women as wifes if not to start a family? Also see Judges 21:10-24. Using your analagy of the photo sugests that the person that is showing only part of the picture isn't being forthright because that person, having full knowlage of the entire photo is purposly keeping the most important information from the viewer, and thus manipulating the viewer into believing something that isn't there........Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin