Deepcrush wrote:What, my faith or that I can joke/insult about anything?
Sonic Glitch wrote:Deepcrush wrote:
Seriously. Faith, when applied properly, is a great thing to have. So is a sense of humor. If you've got both, you're good
Mikey wrote:Are you kidding? I'm the same person to not judge you for your professed atheism
, or someone else for being a Christian, or somebody else for being a Buddhist. You can continue to call it a cop-out if you like, though I at least know that this is not the case, but for this discussion we must at least take my belief in the following maxim as a given: "G-d" cannot be judged or even delineated in human terms." Therefore, I have no right to judge His actions anymore than I have the right to judge your belief system. As far as judging you for the morality of your acts, it's a different paradigm - you obviously can be judged in human terms - must be, in fact.
GrahamKennedy wrote:that you do shrug and say "well it's god doing it, who can judge?"
GrahamKennedy wrote:I do condemn his actions, as from all evidence many of them are evil in character.
Mikey wrote:GrahamKennedy wrote:"Professed"?
Indeed. I couldn't judge you, whether I wanted to or not, on your atheism if I never knew about it.
Mikey wrote:I don't know if you were raised with religion or not, but somewhere either you've gotten out of touch with it
OR I'm a relatively rare bird in the way I believe. When I see a news report about someone's death, I don't think "Oh, G-d took someone else. Was it fair? Was it right?" I believe in G-d, most certainly; However, I don't blame (or ascribe) every detail of day-to-day life to His direct intervention.
Mikey wrote:Kind of a moot point, since you don't, really; you'd have to believe in a "Him" in order to condemn His actions.
GrahamKennedy wrote:Curious, then, that you don't put that word before anything anybody else believes.
GrahamKennedy wrote:And when god decides that forty children need to be torn to pieces by a bear, on his orders, you really wonder if that's fair and right do you?
GrahamKennedy wrote:I don't really think that follows. The fact that something is fictional doesn't mean it can't be seriously discussed; the very existence of this forum proves that.
Mikey wrote:No, I don't. It's a parable with no application. Theologically, I consider it simply to be a fable regarding G-d's ire at human immorality (as judged by human standards.) Logically, I consider it a product of a time when the monolatry of Judaism was formed among, and competing with, pantheistic religion in which that sort of awful thing was common.
Mikey wrote:It just seemed a tad odd to hear you discussing what you thought of G-d's actions riding, as it were, on the fact that you don't believe G-d exists.
GrahamKennedy wrote:You choose the former, which is fine.
GrahamKennedy wrote:It does however leave you with the issue of how you separate out and decide which aspects of the bible are real and to be followed, and which are not.
GrahamKennedy wrote:I see it as no different than discussing which were Picard's worst command decisions when there's no such person as Picard.
Mikey wrote:Not really.
Here's an example; when, in Exodus, the Bible says that "G-d hardened Pharaoh's heart," I can't with a straight face believe that to mean that G-d actually purposefully turned the man against the very goal which G-d had been trying to acheive; rather, I take it as a colloquialism or vernacular of a time in which that sort of pantheistic idea of commonplace and direct divine intervention wound its way into the language. An ancient Greek might have said "Zeus is angry" when a thunderstorm occurred, but that might very easily have just become the common way of saying "There's a thunderstorm," while any conscious thought of divine intervention was long drained from the phrase. We still say "G-d bless you" when someone sneezes, but most people today don't really believe that a person who sneezes needs protection from the evil spirits that can enter the sinuses.
Mikey wrote:See above, and there is no such issue.
Further, there is no need to take the historical stories of the Bible as fact in order to follow the teachings of the Bible.
GrahamKennedy wrote:Yes, really. You can dress it up in whatever language you want, but at the end of the day that either actually happened or it did not. There are no other choices.
GrahamKennedy wrote:And again, those are simply ways of saying that the things in question didn't really happen. There is no possible equivocation about this; thunderstorms either happen because Zeus is angry, or they do not. If you choose to say "Zeus is angry is just another way of saying there's a thunderstorm, they don't literally mean it's caused by Zeus," then you are saying that thuderstorms do not happen because Zeus is angry. Just like if you want to say that the bears ripping children to bits on God's order is symbolism, then you ARE saying that that did not happen.
I'm being blunt about it because it really is a very simple thing. The bible is littered with atrocities either ordered by or directly caused by god. If you think god is good then you must either class these things as good or you must believe that they didn't happen. I'm sorry, but those are your choices and there are no others. Dress them up in whatever language you like, but you'd do well to realise that that's what it comes down to.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests