Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Heddle

Double wank and shit chips
Søren Lilholt
.
.
Posts: 1025
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:41 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#61

Post by Søren Lilholt »

heddle wrote:
Søren Lilholt wrote:
heddle wrote:
"Give us one reason why we should seriously consider.."

Who is this us and this we for whom you have been appointed spokesperson?

I do not have any reason to give you to believe. Not one. This thread was set up by someone else to have a theological discussion with me (it failed, miserably). I did not set it up to proselytize. And if I did want to proselytize it would be to give to the gospel, not to give you any reason to believe. I don't know of any reasons to believe. It's a message, not a reason. You hear the gospel and you either respond positively or negatively.

So take your demand that I give you (and the people for whom you speak, whoever they are) a reason and shove 'it.
I wasn't asking you to proselytise, i was asking you to provide a single reason to believe there is a God. You admit you haven't got one. Which means there can be no basis for the "decent discussion" you claim to want.

Sorta my original point.
Yeah, sure, no basis. None. Whatsoever. That is if you neglect virtually all famous intellectual atheists who were willing to make "for the sake of argument" debates. Bertrand Russell, for example, was willing to accept the premise that there was a god and the bible was his word, and then argue (formidably) why the Christian still faced a world of textual and theological problems. But you don't see how that's possible. You don't grasp the concept of a "for the sake of argument" discussion. It is one level of abstraction too deep.

They don't make atheists like they used to.

I'll admit I'm bummed about Tingzy. At first I thought he was looking for a real discussion--the only commenter on this thread I had hope for in terms of interesting sparring. But you? I knew from the start that you got nothing.
Wtf? I just asked you . That's all it takes? Wow, some serious

Søren Lilholt
.
.
Posts: 1025
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:41 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#62

Post by Søren Lilholt »

Erm ignore that

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#63

Post by heddle »

Søren Lilholt wrote: You were asked to define what your 'God' is and you gave the forum nothing but a selection of word salads which got nobody anywhere. At a least a creationist knows what the God they believe in is.
You are full of crap. My definition of God was not word salad, it was:

"My definition of God is the transcendent being described in the bible"

That is not only not word salad--it provides the documentation. I have no wiggle room.
Søren Lilholt wrote:In some ways I respect you for admitting you haven't got any grounds to believe the drivel that you do, but it does make you look a little foolish.
That will keep me awake tonight.
Søren Lilholt wrote:OK, for the sake of argument, then, why do people think God is all-loving when he is demonstrably a total cunt?
That's kind of a dumb question. Why don't you ask the people who think God is "all loving". The only attribute of god given in the superlative in the bible is that he is "holy, holy, holy." It gives love as an attribute but never in the superlative. On the contrary, my definition of god (from the bible) includes god's saying of Rebekah's twins: Jacob I loved but Esau I hated. (Rom 9:13). If you'd paid attention when I gave my definition (the person described in the bible) instead of calling it "word salad" as a cheap, baseless attack (but it sounds good to the troops) then you wouldn't have asked me to defend why god is all loving.

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#64

Post by another lurker »

Who needs Heddle when we have 'wlad' to make the case for God over on Patheos:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexami ... 1196927837
Exactly the same logic that tells you the arch was intelligently designed is what tells you that the flagellum was intelligently designed. If the Mars Rover found your arch on Mars, the world would explode with the joyous knowledge that some intelligent being created it--not knowing if it was a human, an intelligent alien, or whatever. What the world would know that an intelligent agent built it, and that arch did not come from natural causes.

The only reality outside of time is simply "eternal" being.
We use eternal only in reference to the created universe. Without the created universe, there is only a being that simply is. The uncaused designer is.

Believers can point to the Bible to share their explanation of this reality. When Jesus was asked "WHO are you? He simply said, "I am." The Jews knew what that meant--He was claiming to be God, and took up stones to cast at Him.
:lol:

Søren Lilholt
.
.
Posts: 1025
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:41 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#65

Post by Søren Lilholt »

heddle wrote: You are full of crap. My definition of God was not word salad, it was:

"My definition of God is the transcendent being described in the bible"

That is not only not word salad--it provides the documentation. I have no wiggle room.
So basically your definition is: everything the Bible describes about Yahweh, in both Testaments?!

Erm, care to parse that a little bit?

That's kind of a dumb question. Why don't you ask the people who think God is "all loving". The only attribute of god given in the superlative in the bible is that he is "holy, holy, holy." It gives love as an attribute but never in the superlative. On the contrary, my definition of god (from the bible) includes god's saying of Rebekah's twins: Jacob I loved but Esau I hated. (Rom 9:13). If you'd paid attention when I gave my definition (the person described in the bible) instead of calling it "word salad" as a cheap, baseless attack (but it sounds good to the troops) then you wouldn't have asked me to defend why god is all loving.
What sort of a twat God would wilfully bring someone into existence, only to then declare he hates what they are, even though he intended them to be that way?

It's like painting your house blue, deciding you don't like the colour blue and then blaming the house for being blue.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#66

Post by Tigzy »

heddle wrote: That's kind of a dumb question. Why don't you ask the people who think God is "all loving". The only attribute of god given in the superlative in the bible is that he is "holy, holy, holy." It gives love as an attribute but never in the superlative. On the contrary, my definition of god (from the bible) includes god's saying of Rebekah's twins: Jacob I loved but Esau I hated. (Rom 9:13). If you'd paid attention when I gave my definition (the person described in the bible) instead of calling it "word salad" as a cheap, baseless attack (but it sounds good to the troops) then you wouldn't have asked me to defend why god is all loving.
So how does this square with 1John 4:8 : 'He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.' (NIV)? I think saying that god is love is about as all-loving as you can get.

So come, Heddle - dance.

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#67

Post by heddle »

Tigzy wrote:
heddle wrote: That's kind of a dumb question. Why don't you ask the people who think God is "all loving". The only attribute of god given in the superlative in the bible is that he is "holy, holy, holy." It gives love as an attribute but never in the superlative. On the contrary, my definition of god (from the bible) includes god's saying of Rebekah's twins: Jacob I loved but Esau I hated. (Rom 9:13). If you'd paid attention when I gave my definition (the person described in the bible) instead of calling it "word salad" as a cheap, baseless attack (but it sounds good to the troops) then you wouldn't have asked me to defend why god is all loving.
So how does this square with 1John 4:8 : 'He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.' (NIV)? I think saying that god is love is about as all-loving as you can get.

So come, Heddle - dance.
(Really, you have to add the dance?. What-ever.)

I do not deny that God has the attribute love. Even to such an extent that it is a defining attribute. But he is clearly not all loving. As I mentioned the Hebrew form of emphasis is to repeat an attribute--with three times indicating the superlative. God is never described as "love, love, love" or omnibenevolent, etc. The bible explicitly mentions Esau as someone God hated, but gives no indication that Esau was especially wicked--i.e. we can assume that if God hated Esau then he hated others. In fact it is reasonable to assume that God would never send anyone he loved to eternal torment (hell.) I'm afraid the only god that can be all-loving is the god of the universalists.

Seen another way, god's love is in some tension with another attribute of god--his justice. He gives a (good) form of non-justice (mercy) to those he loves and justice to those he doesn't.

"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" is not different from saying "Whoever does not do good does not know God, because God is good" or "Whoever is not just does not know God, because God is just." It is telling you that you have an appreciation for God's attributes then you will/should emulate them. It is not a treatise on omnibenevolence.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#68

Post by Tigzy »

heddle wrote: I do not deny that God has the attribute love. Even to such an extent that it is a defining attribute. But he is clearly not all loving. As I mentioned the Hebrew form of emphasis is to repeat an attribute--with three times indicating the superlative. God is never described as "love, love, love" or omnibenevolent, etc.
So god is love, but apparently he can't be, because that would require two extra 'loves'. Which makes the initial statement - God is Love - utterly redundant. Bear in mind that it's not written as 'god is loving', but that god is love...and yet he can't be, because that would actually have required, 'God is love, love, love -'

- daddy-O'

So why should the Bible say 'God is love' when he isn't?

Cos all Hebrew emphases aside, I'd take 'God is love' as a pretty definitive statement of God being all loving.

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#69

Post by heddle »

Tigzy wrote:
heddle wrote: I do not deny that God has the attribute love. Even to such an extent that it is a defining attribute. But he is clearly not all loving. As I mentioned the Hebrew form of emphasis is to repeat an attribute--with three times indicating the superlative. God is never described as "love, love, love" or omnibenevolent, etc.
So god is love, but apparently he can't be, because that would require two extra 'loves'. Which makes the initial statement - God is Love - utterly redundant. Bear in mind that it's not written as 'god is loving', but that god is love...and yet he can't be, because that would actually have required, 'God is love, love, love -'

- daddy-O'

So why should the Bible say 'God is love' when he isn't?

Cos all Hebrew emphases aside, I'd take 'God is love' as a pretty definitive statement of God being all loving.
You can defend that if you like, and some people do. But surely you know that these arguments are never (or rarely) proofs, but plausibility arguments. That is, would an objective person say: "I may or may not agree, but I can see the argument."

The option, which so many take, and which you appear to take, is use the interpretation that is most advantageous to your position and dismiss all others with sarcasm and snarkiness (i.e. the Hebrew superlative is a well established construct.)

I stand by this claim: In light of all other scripture which shows God being very unloving-- he hates Esau, he sends people to hell, he instructed Joshua to commit ethnic cleansing and genocide, etc. In light of all that it is a reasonable view that the entire passage in 1 John, in context
7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
is telling us (believers) to love one another as God loves us, and it is not a theological exposition on God's posited omni-loving attribute. It is an application passage (live this way) not a hardcore theological passage.

The bible is meant to be read intelligently.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#70

Post by Tigzy »

Heddle -

- even in the given context, the statement 'god is love' stands. There's no equivocation about this.
The bible is meant to be read intelligently.
Try it sometime. You might even end up an atheist. :lol:

Søren Lilholt
.
.
Posts: 1025
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:41 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#71

Post by Søren Lilholt »

heddle wrote: is telling us (believers) to love one another as God loves us, and it is not a theological exposition on God's posited omni-loving attribute. It is an application passage (live this way) not a hardcore theological passage.
Do you want some ranch dressing with that? Or are you more of a vinaigrette kind of guy?

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#72

Post by heddle »

Tigzy wrote:Heddle -

- even in the given context, the statement 'god is love' stands. There's no equivocation about this.
The bible is meant to be read intelligently.
Try it sometime. You might even end up an atheist. :lol:
Sorry but just like any other big book you have to interpret in context and in light of the rest of the book. You don't just take a single verse (or line) in isolation. And even if you do, your argument is not bullet proof because (regardless of the fact that you snuck in "no equivocation") "god is love" is not, irrefutably "god is all loving". And, again, while I have tried to address the gist of your argument (by showing in context the verse is arguably (strongly so) telling us an application of Christian life: to love one another) you have not even mentioned the passages that are problematic for your interpretation: Esau, hell, and the conquest of Canaan--and other examples I could provide that point out that overall, without any ambiguity, the bible does not teach that god is all-loving. If you want to make it simply a question of verse wars, I'll win hands down. Just ask the "ites" that Joshua encountered if god is all loving.
Søren Lilholt wrote:
heddle wrote: is telling us (believers) to love one another as God loves us, and it is not a theological exposition on God's posited omni-loving attribute. It is an application passage (live this way) not a hardcore theological passage.
Do you want some ranch dressing with that? Or are you more of a vinaigrette kind of guy?
You're an idiot.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#73

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Søren Lilholt wrote:Give us one reason why we should seriously consider your conjecture that the Biblical God exists in this universe. If you can provide us with a reason, then we may be able to have a good discussion.

No waffle, obscurantism, casuistry, or word salad, please.

Just one reason.
heddle wrote:
patches.jpg
(33.36 KiB) Downloaded 125 times

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#74

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

heddle wrote:It's a message, not a reason. You hear the gospel and you either respond positively or negatively.
Gospel_of_Sam.jpg
(926.79 KiB) Downloaded 121 times

Søren Lilholt
.
.
Posts: 1025
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:41 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#75

Post by Søren Lilholt »

heddle wrote: You're an idiot.
:mrgreen:
I don't where to start, mate.

You believe in God even though you accept you don't have a reason to, and you cannot articulate what that God even is. When asked to clarfy what you mean, you double-down and repeat your non-answer, and when this is pointed out you simply ignore it.

Further, when you are asked to put away the word salad, you deny that you have ever concocted one, then go on to bring out the shaker and lettuce (and are too dense to even realise that you have done so).

Mr Heddle, you aren't an idiot. You ASPIRE to idiocy.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#76

Post by Tigzy »

heddle wrote: Sorry but just like any other big book you have to interpret in context and in light of the rest of the book. You don't just take a single verse (or line) in isolation. And even if you do, your argument is not bullet proof because (regardless of the fact that you snuck in "no equivocation") "god is love" is not, irrefutably "god is all loving". And, again, while I have tried to address the gist of your argument (by showing in context the verse is arguably (strongly so) telling us an application of Christian life: to love one another) you have not even mentioned the passages that are problematic for your interpretation: Esau, hell, and the conquest of Canaan--and other examples I could provide that point out that overall, without any ambiguity, the bible does not teach that god is all-loving. If you want to make it simply a question of verse wars, I'll win hands down. Just ask the "ites" that Joshua encountered if god is all loving.
LOL - you seriously think I'm arguing to make a case that the entire bible is unequivocal about your god being all-loving? :lol: Fucking hell, Heddle, get with the program. I'm more than aware of the numerous passages in 'the good book' where it's made quite clear that God can indeed be an evil shit. However, you made the point that the bible never says god is all loving - and I pointed you to yet another biblical contradiction: god is love. Aside from the fact that the statement itself is fallacious, in ascribing physicality (God being a physical being an all, according to the OT at least) to a concept, it stands as a statement about a being who is all-loving - frankly, I do not see how an entity proposed as a personifation of love can include room for hatred in that personification; it's completely contradictory. Anyways, you may quibble that it's not a superlative statement, because that would have required the Hebrew three-times-in-a-row thing; but the Gospel of John wasn't originally written in Hebrew, but Koine Greek. The statement is unequivocal, even in the context. God is love, so the bible proclaims - a concept (such as it is) thoroughly contradicted by other events in the Bible which show that God is anything but.

I mean, it's quite simple - if the bible maintains that god is not all-loving, then why should the bible also say 'god is love'? It's just stupid.

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#77

Post by heddle »

Tigzy wrote:
heddle wrote: Sorry but just like any other big book you have to interpret in context and in light of the rest of the book. You don't just take a single verse (or line) in isolation. And even if you do, your argument is not bullet proof because (regardless of the fact that you snuck in "no equivocation") "god is love" is not, irrefutably "god is all loving". And, again, while I have tried to address the gist of your argument (by showing in context the verse is arguably (strongly so) telling us an application of Christian life: to love one another) you have not even mentioned the passages that are problematic for your interpretation: Esau, hell, and the conquest of Canaan--and other examples I could provide that point out that overall, without any ambiguity, the bible does not teach that god is all-loving. If you want to make it simply a question of verse wars, I'll win hands down. Just ask the "ites" that Joshua encountered if god is all loving.
LOL - you seriously think I'm arguing to make a case that the entire bible is unequivocal about your god being all-loving? :lol: Fucking hell, Heddle, get with the program. I'm more than aware of the numerous passages in 'the good book' where it's made quite clear that God can indeed be an evil shit. However, you made the point that the bible never says god is all loving - and I pointed you to yet another biblical contradiction: god is love. Aside from the fact that the statement itself is fallacious, in ascribing physicality (God being a physical being an all, according to the OT at least) to a concept, it stands as a statement about a being who is all-loving - frankly, I do not see how an entity proposed as a personifation of love can include room for hatred in that personification; it's completely contradictory. Anyways, you may quibble that it's not a superlative statement, because that would have required the Hebrew three-times-in-a-row thing; but the Gospel of John wasn't originally written in Hebrew, but Koine Greek. The statement is unequivocal, even in the context. God is love, so the bible proclaims - a concept (such as it is) thoroughly contradicted by other events in the Bible which show that God is anything but.

I mean, it's quite simple - if the bible maintains that god is not all-loving, then why should the bible also say 'god is love'? It's just stupid.
"I mean, it's quite simple - if the bible maintains that god is not all-loving, then why should the bible also say 'god is love'? It's just stupid."

That's a form of begging the question. The only reason the bible should not give reasons where god is unloving and then say "god is love" is if we assume that which you are trying to prove, that "god is love" in the context where it appears was intended as a definitive statement that god is all loving. If it doesn't mean that, for example if it means in context what I suggested (it is an application passage telling us to be like god and love one another), or if it means anything else other than what you claim, then there is no inconsistency.

The only way you can avoid question begging (at least so far) is to give the old "the bible is inconsistent." That can be a legitimate argument. However if it used every time (so far 1 out of 1) then there is no point to debate because you can use it whenever text that counters your position is given. There is a counter explanation? It is consistent with other text (as mine is, but not yours)? No biggie--"the babble is full of inconsistencies" is my ever-present "get out of a losing argument free" card!

I won't try to dissuade you of the bible's alleged inconsistencies, but if that isn't used sparingly then it is just an argument stopper and there is no point debating.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#78

Post by Tigzy »

Heddle -

- but I am reading it in context. Let's look over the passage again:
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
Because God is love. The context of the passage only reinforces this idea: god stands as the personification of love. It doesn't say god is mostly love (which would actually make more sense in the wider Biblical context), but is unequivocal. God is love. I'm the one being consistent with the text here, not you :lol:

I guess it comes down to what is meant, exactly, by 'god is love'. If he stands as the personification of love, then he surely has to be all loving, right? But then again, maybe not - but if such a concept can somehow include room for hate, then what are we to make of this: 'Whoever does not love does not know God'? If hate comes from God also, then surely those who do not love can know God too. But the text makes it clear that this is not the case. The context itself demands that the idea 'god is love' requires god to be all-loving. Really, this is simple shit, though I'm not that amazed that I have to spell it out to you.

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#79

Post by heddle »

Tigzy wrote:Heddle -

- but I am reading it in context. Let's look over the passage again:
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
Because God is love. The context of the passage only reinforces this idea: god stands as the personification of love. It doesn't say god is mostly love (which would actually make more sense in the wider Biblical context), but is unequivocal. God is love. I'm the one being consistent with the text here, not you :lol:

I guess it comes down to what is meant, exactly, by 'god is love'. If he stands as the personification of love, then he surely has to be all loving, right? But then again, maybe not - but if such a concept can somehow include room for hate, then what are we to make of this: 'Whoever does not love does not know God'? If hate comes from God also, then surely those who do not love can know God too. But the text makes it clear that this is not the case. The context itself demands that the idea 'god is love' requires god to be all-loving. Really, this is simple shit, though I'm not that amazed that I have to spell it out to you.
The bible says "God is [blank]" many times. The ones that come to mind (in addition to "God is love") is that: God is just, God is merciful, God is jealous. Does that mean he is "all-just", "all-merciful", "all-jealous"? I don't think it is possible to be "all just" and "all merciful."

You have neglected to look at the verse in context as I did and say why my interpretation is not even plausible. Even though you call it "simple shit" you have failed to demonstrate why "God is love" (especially in context) must mean "God is all loving." (Which, by the way, I don't even know what that would mean, to be "all loving").

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#80

Post by Tigzy »

heddle wrote: The bible says "God is [blank]" many times. The ones that come to mind (in addition to "God is love") is that: God is just, God is merciful, God is jealous. Does that mean he is "all-just", "all-merciful", "all-jealous"? I don't think it is possible to be "all just" and "all merciful."
Are you being...serious? You do know the difference between an adjective and a noun, right?
You have neglected to look at the verse in context as I did and say why my interpretation is not even plausible. Even though you call it "simple shit" you have failed to demonstrate why "God is love" (especially in context) must mean "God is all loving." (Which, by the way, I don't even know what that would mean, to be "all loving").
To be honest, I'm tired of going through this with you (amusing though it is to see you dance). 'God is love' is an unequivocal statement, one bolstered by the context - where is it said that one who does not love cannot know god. If god has the capacity to hate (as is indeed made clear in other parts of the bible), then why can someone who does not know love (in being either hateful or indifferent) not know god? The statement 'that one who does not love cannot know god' demands a god with no inclination towards hatefulness or indifference toward love - otherwise, again, one who does not know love could indeed know god.

The verse supports a concept of a god who is all-loving. The fact that this contradicts many other parts of the bible where it is made clear that god is not all-loving - well, that's your problem, not mine. You responded to Soren's question about god being all-loving by screeching that nowhere in the bible is it stated that god is all-loving - I pointed you to a verse in it which supports the concept of an all-loving god. At which you let loose with your supreme theology skillz by quibbling about Hebrew emphases (which wouldn't apply to this verse anyways) and confusing your adjectives with your nouns.

I mean, shit, you complain about the quality of the theological discussion you're getting here - but maybe you're a wee bit culpable in that respect too, Heddle old chum.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#81

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Tigzy wrote:LOL - you seriously think I'm arguing to make a case that the entire bible is unequivocal about your god being all-loving? :lol: Fucking hell, Heddle, get with the program. I'm more than aware of the numerous passages in 'the good book' where it's made quite clear that God can indeed be an evil shit. However, you made the point that the bible never says god is all loving - and I pointed you to yet another biblical contradiction: god is love. ...[the Gospel of John] ... is unequivocal, even in the context. God is love, so the bible proclaims - a concept (such as it is) thoroughly contradicted by other events in the Bible which show that God is anything but.

I mean, it's quite simple - if the bible maintains that god is not all-loving, then why should the bible also say 'god is love'? It's just stupid.
The elephant in the room that no christian wants to address: The god of the OT is not the same entity as the god of the NT.

John's deity, of course, is gnostic, with Jesus as its demi-urge, a mortal man temporarily imbued with/possessed by a spirit, which enters him at the River Jordan, then skedaddles back to Heaven at the last minute, leaving mortal Jesus to die on the cross (My God, My God! Why have you left me?)

John's timeless, formless Logos has nothing in common with that nasty, little, micromanaging local god, Yahweh: temporal & corporeal, "jealous" of rival gods, prone to hissy fits and borderline behavior whenever his chosen tribe of goat-herders worship the nasty, little local gods of neighboring goat-herders.

That these are two entirely different characters is so stunningly, painfully obvious, it's truly a marvel how common christians can ignore it via a willful shutting down of their cognitive functions, while theologians contort themselves into strained & obscurantist mental gymnastics attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable. Given the massive amount of dissociation & auto-coprophagy going on here, I am justifiably wary of believers' ability to make sound judgments on any subject.

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#82

Post by heddle »

Tigzy wrote:
heddle wrote: The bible says "God is [blank]" many times. The ones that come to mind (in addition to "God is love") is that: God is just, God is merciful, God is jealous. Does that mean he is "all-just", "all-merciful", "all-jealous"? I don't think it is possible to be "all just" and "all merciful."
Are you being...serious? You do know the difference between an adjective and a noun, right?
You have neglected to look at the verse in context as I did and say why my interpretation is not even plausible. Even though you call it "simple shit" you have failed to demonstrate why "God is love" (especially in context) must mean "God is all loving." (Which, by the way, I don't even know what that would mean, to be "all loving").
To be honest, I'm tired of going through this with you (amusing though it is to see you dance). 'God is love' is an unequivocal statement, one bolstered by the context - where is it said that one who does not love cannot know god. If god has the capacity to hate (as is indeed made clear in other parts of the bible), then why can someone who does not know love (in being either hateful or indifferent) not know god? The statement 'that one who does not love cannot know god' demands a god with no inclination towards hatefulness or indifference toward love - otherwise, again, one who does not know love could indeed know god.

The verse supports a concept of a god who is all-loving. The fact that this contradicts many other parts of the bible where it is made clear that god is not all-loving - well, that's your problem, not mine. You responded to Soren's question about god being all-loving by screeching that nowhere in the bible is it stated that god is all-loving - I pointed you to a verse in it which supports the concept of an all-loving god. At which you let loose with your supreme theology skillz by quibbling about Hebrew emphases (which wouldn't apply to this verse anyways) and confusing your adjectives with your nouns.

I mean, shit, you complain about the quality of the theological discussion you're getting here - but maybe you're a wee bit culpable in that respect too, Heddle old chum.
You pointed to a verse which in isolation might support that God is all loving but which in context does not. (Certainly it is at the very least plausible that it does not.) Yet you just continue to assert that your interpretation is the only one that is possible (declaring it as "unequivocal, game-over-man" is not a valid proof). It is, in fact, equivocal.

You are right, there is no point to continue.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#83

Post by Tigzy »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:it's truly a marvel how common christians can ignore it via a willful shutting down of their cognitive functions, while theologians contort themselves into strained & obscurantist mental gymnastics attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable.
Theology = Marvel no-prizes for god.
A No-Prize is a faux award given out by Marvel Comics to readers. Originally for those who spotted continuity errors in the comics, the current "No-Prizes" are given out for charitable works or other types of "meritorious service to the cause of Marveldom". As the No-Prize evolved, it was distinguished by its role in explaining away potential continuity errors. Rather than rewarding fans for simply identifying such errors, a No-Prize was only awarded when a reader successfully explained why the continuity error was not an error at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-Prize

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#84

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

heddle wrote:I won't try to dissuade you of the bible's alleged inconsistencies, but if that isn't used sparingly then it is just an argument stopper and there is no point debating.
'Waah! I claimed the bible was self-consistent, but impertinent Tigzy gave an example of its internal inconsistencies. That's not fair! Waah!'

That is debating, numbnuts, and you just lost the debate.

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#85

Post by heddle »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
heddle wrote:I won't try to dissuade you of the bible's alleged inconsistencies, but if that isn't used sparingly then it is just an argument stopper and there is no point debating.
'Waah! I claimed the bible was self-consistent, but impertinent Tigzy gave an example of its internal inconsistencies. That's not fair! Waah!'

That is debating, numbnuts, and you just lost the debate.
Ooh, you are so clever, it makes my head spin! Silly me not wanting to bother debating if the tactic is just to claim "the bible is inconsistent". I'm just afraid. That argumentation is used by sooper-geniuses like you who know all bout debating and rhetoric and probably captained the Harvard or Princeton debate team. How could I possibly compete? What was I thinking?

I mean, people like Bertrand Russell and other intellectual atheists of the past didn't argue that way--but they are not of your caliber. They lacked the intellect and the gravitas to pull of the "your argument just shows the bible is full of inconsistencies" gambit. But you--it's no problem for the likes of you! I stand in awe of your prowess.

Uncle!

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#86

Post by Tigzy »

heddle wrote: You pointed to a verse which in isolation might support that God is all loving but which in context does not. (Certainly it is at the very least plausible that it does not.) Yet you just continue to assert that your interpretation is the only one that is possible (declaring it as "unequivocal, game-over-man" is not a valid proof). It is, in fact, equivocal.

You are right, there is no point to continue.
As you wish. All I'll say is that the verse appears fine tuned to support my conclusion. :lol:

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#87

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Ad hom -- the last gasp of the loser of a debate. Can't say I didn't see it coming.

This must be a novel & unpleasant experience for heddle -- he usually gets banned from a site long before the bankruptcy of his arguments are exposed.

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#88

Post by heddle »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Ad hom -- the last gasp of the loser of a debate. Can't say I didn't see it coming.

This must be a novel & unpleasant experience for heddle -- he usually gets banned from a site long before the bankruptcy of his arguments are exposed.
yeah--declaring someone "lost a debate" on a site where you are among friends is a very risky move isn't it? It's always good for a few virtual backslaps. I can almost feel the achievement.

What site? I usually get banned?? I was never banned at Pharyngula. I was banned at Uncommon Descent. Is that the site you mean? No? So what sites are you talking about?

Oh, I see, this is another topic about which you are an "expert."

windy
.
.
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Tom of Finland-land

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#89

Post by windy »

heddle wrote: I stand by this claim: In light of all other scripture which shows God being very unloving-- he hates Esau, he sends people to hell, he instructed Joshua to commit ethnic cleansing and genocide, etc. In light of all that it is a reasonable view that the entire passage in 1 John, in context
7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
is telling us (believers) to love one another as God loves us, and it is not a theological exposition on God's posited omni-loving attribute. It is an application passage (live this way) not a hardcore theological passage.
If love is just one of God's attributes and not a defining one(?), why should believers imitate this aspect in particular?

Badger3k
.
.
Posts: 3466
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#90

Post by Badger3k »

windy wrote:
heddle wrote: I stand by this claim: In light of all other scripture which shows God being very unloving-- he hates Esau, he sends people to hell, he instructed Joshua to commit ethnic cleansing and genocide, etc. In light of all that it is a reasonable view that the entire passage in 1 John, in context
7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
is telling us (believers) to love one another as God loves us, and it is not a theological exposition on God's posited omni-loving attribute. It is an application passage (live this way) not a hardcore theological passage.
If love is just one of God's attributes and not a defining one(?), why should believers imitate this aspect in particular?
Come on - what greater love is there but to kill your own kid? Unfortunately, there are laws against that sort of thing! Damn anti-Christian laws, preventing us from loving out children as much as god!

I haven't been reading this thread, just saw this in my feed, but has Heddle been defending genocide again?

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#91

Post by heddle »

Badger3k wrote:
I haven't been reading this thread, just saw this in my feed, but has Heddle been defending genocide again?
Please point out where I have ever defended genocide so that I can retract it.

Or admit that you are mistaken.

<<crickets>>

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#92

Post by heddle »

windy wrote:
heddle wrote: I stand by this claim: In light of all other scripture which shows God being very unloving-- he hates Esau, he sends people to hell, he instructed Joshua to commit ethnic cleansing and genocide, etc. In light of all that it is a reasonable view that the entire passage in 1 John, in context
7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
is telling us (believers) to love one another as God loves us, and it is not a theological exposition on God's posited omni-loving attribute. It is an application passage (live this way) not a hardcore theological passage.
If love is just one of God's attributes and not a defining one(?), why should believers imitate this aspect in particular?
Hi Windy,

There is a tendency (prevalent among Christians) do view god's attributes, including love, as "infinite," I don't actually know what that means. But the bible is clear that:

God is just but not infinitely just, in the sense that he allows some to escape justice. (The receive mercy.)
Or turning it around, God is merciful but not infinitely merciful (otherwise everyone would be saved.)
God is patient but not infinitely so.
God is loving yet sometimes he hates.
God is slow to anger but not infinitely so.
etc.

These things that God "is" cannot be infinite for they are at times in tension--which may be why they can't be infinite. God's attributes of just, love, mercy, and patience were in tension when David, whom he loved, committed adultery and murder.

In some ways it's the classic "can god make a rock to heavy for him to lift" conundrum.

So, to answer your question, God demands of us to try to be (as he is) merciful, loving, patient, slow to anger, etc, even though he does not display these attributes "infinitely." Because these attributes, to the extent that we can exhibit them, are good.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#93

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

"We must abandon the idea that science is distinct from the rest of human rationality. When you are adhering to the highest standards of logic and evidence, you are thinking scientifically. And when you’re not, you’re not." -- Sam Harris

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#94

Post by heddle »

Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

http://blog.gaiam.com/quotes/authors/sam-harris/56133

(I don't know how to do embedded links on here.)

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#95

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

heddle wrote:
Badger3k wrote:
I haven't been reading this thread, just saw this in my feed, but has Heddle been defending genocide again?
Please point out where I have ever defended genocide so that I can retract it.

Or admit that you are mistaken.

<<crickets>>
heddle wrote:... without any ambiguity, the bible does not teach that god is all-loving. If you want to make it simply a question of verse wars, I'll win hands down. Just ask the "ites" that Joshua encountered if god is all loving.
So, defend these:
Genesis 19:24 - 28 wrote:Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens....  Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land.... [Abraham] looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.
-- Right or wrong?

Exodus 11:4 -6 wrote:“This is what the Lord says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again.
-- Right or wrong?

1 Samuel 15.3-17 wrote:"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” ....The Lord ...sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’
-- Right or wrong?

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#96

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

what Sam Harris actually wrote:"Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reasons for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. The roiling mystery of the world can be analyzed with concepts (this is science), or it can be experienced free of concepts (this is myticism). Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time. It is the denial--at once full of hope and full of fear--of the vastitude of human ignorance."
I'm curious -- when you quote-mine like that, are you conscious of your mendacity, or does part of your brain just shut off when you get to the inconvenient part of the passage?

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#97

Post by heddle »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
what Sam Harris actually wrote:"Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reasons for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. The roiling mystery of the world can be analyzed with concepts (this is science), or it can be experienced free of concepts (this is myticism). Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time. It is the denial--at once full of hope and full of fear--of the vastitude of human ignorance."
I'm curious -- when you quote-mine like that, are you conscious of your mendacity, or does part of your brain just shut off when you get to the inconvenient part of the passage?
Like some other of your colleagues the only arrows you have in your quiver are to namedrop fallacies and the like. I didn't quote-mine Harris because I presented his quote with no value judgment. If I had taken his quote and said that it meant he had a good view of religion then you'd have a point.

You really don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, do you?

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#98

Post by heddle »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
heddle wrote:
Badger3k wrote:
I haven't been reading this thread, just saw this in my feed, but has Heddle been defending genocide again?
Please point out where I have ever defended genocide so that I can retract it.

Or admit that you are mistaken.

<<crickets>>
heddle wrote:... without any ambiguity, the bible does not teach that god is all-loving. If you want to make it simply a question of verse wars, I'll win hands down. Just ask the "ites" that Joshua encountered if god is all loving.
So, defend these:
Genesis 19:24 - 28 wrote:Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens....  Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land.... [Abraham] looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.
-- Right or wrong?

Exodus 11:4 -6 wrote:“This is what the Lord says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again.
-- Right or wrong?

1 Samuel 15.3-17 wrote:"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” ....The Lord ...sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’
-- Right or wrong?
Perhaps you could not understand Badger3K's comment. He (incorrectly) implied that I defended genocide. He didn't say that I defended that the bible has examples of genocide. See the difference? I would never deny the god commanded Joshua to commit genocide. But I won't defend it.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#99

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

So you're saying it was wrong of God to command/perform genocide in those three cases? Which makes God fallible, Got it.

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#100

Post by heddle »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:So you're saying it was wrong of God to command/perform genocide in those three cases? Which makes God fallible, Got it.
Why don't you just create a heddle sockpuppet? You can make him say whatever you like, and you can win every argument with a supposed "gotcha" topped off with a "Got it" sarcastic quip. That will make everything so much easier, and it's just about your speed.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#101

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Stubbornly refusing to answer simple questions does not equal mad debating skillz.

Q: Was God wrong to command & to commit genocide?
a) Yes.
b) No.

windy
.
.
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Tom of Finland-land

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#102

Post by windy »

heddle wrote: Hi Windy,

There is a tendency (prevalent among Christians) do view god's attributes, including love, as "infinite," I don't actually know what that means. But the bible is clear that:

God is just but not infinitely just, in the sense that he allows some to escape justice. (The receive mercy.)
Or turning it around, God is merciful but not infinitely merciful (otherwise everyone would be saved.)
God is patient but not infinitely so.
God is loving yet sometimes he hates.
God is slow to anger but not infinitely so.
etc.

These things that God "is" cannot be infinite for they are at times in tension--which may be why they can't be infinite. God's attributes of just, love, mercy, and patience were in tension when David, whom he loved, committed adultery and murder.

In some ways it's the classic "can god make a rock to heavy for him to lift" conundrum.

So, to answer your question, God demands of us to try to be (as he is) merciful, loving, patient, slow to anger, etc, even though he does not display these attributes "infinitely." Because these attributes, to the extent that we can exhibit them, are good.
Or is he? I mean, is the God of scripture "merciful, loving, patient, slow to anger..." even by imperfect human standards? :think:

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#103

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

I'm reminded of a soliloquy in God On Trial, a tele-play based on a true story of jewish death camp prisoners who tried Yahweh ( in abstentia) for breach of contract.

A rabbi in their barracks is asked to testify for the defendant -- to explain how a good, loving god could allow such bad things happen to his chosen people. After listing examples of many ways in which The Lord savagely crushed the enemies of the Hebrews, the rabbi noted how the enemies of the Third Reich were now being similarly crushed. The slogan on the belt buckle of German soldiers, "Gott Mit Uns", indicated The Lord had a new chosen people. "God was never good," the rabbi concludes, "He was just on our side!"

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#104

Post by heddle »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Stubbornly refusing to answer simple questions does not equal mad debating skillz.

Q: Was God wrong to command & to commit genocide?
a) Yes.
b) No.
Somehow you are incapable of not being a jackass.

The original discussion was about whether I could defend (or rather have defended--but the answer to that is a definitive no, so let's extrapolate) God's commanding of genocide. Now you have asked a different question. "Was it wrong for God to command it?" Those are two different questions. Plus your question "was it wrong" should really be "do you think it was right or wrong given what information you have?"

This arises all the time. You may have definite cut and dry opinions, but it would not be hard to find a reasonable person who said: "I can't defend Obama ordering drone attack assassinations, but I have faith in the man and in my admiration for him I am willing to bet the that if I knew all that he knows then I might agree with his decision. Or at least see why. But given that I don't, I certainly can't defend it."

The answer to the original question is: no, I can't defend it.

The "is it right or wrong" question is "gotcha" formed (no surprise, it came from you). It should be more complete. It really has to be, at a minimum "Do you believe or think it was right or wrong?" And probably even with the caveat mentioned: based on what you know.

But that's assuming you actually want an adult discussion. About which the evidence suggests you either do not or are incapable.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#105

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

You are incapable of giving a straight answer to a simple question.

This one should be easy --

Q: Was Hitler wrong to command & to commit genocide?
a) Yes.
b) No.

The key word is not "God / Hitler" but "genocide." Either you believe genocide is always wrong, no matter the circumstance or the perpetrator, or you believe genocide is sometimes justifiable depending on who does it and why. If the latter, then you defend genocide. So, here's another easy question:

Genocide is:
a) Always wrong, no matter the circumstance or the perpetrator;
b) Sometimes justifiable, depending on circumstances or the perpetrator.

Answer "a" or "b", please.


As for obama's drone attacks:
1. obama's use of drones violates several articles of the Geneva and Hague Conventions;
2. Extralegal killings violate both US and international law;
3. The US is a signatory to the respective treaties governing these acts;
4. Ergo, obama's drone attacks and assassinations are war crimes and violations of federal & international law, hence wrong.


Now, that's how a non-bullshitter answers questions like that, which can then lead to an intellectual debate on the several points. Here how a heddle answers (sic) them:
patches.jpg
(33.36 KiB) Downloaded 158 times

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#106

Post by heddle »

As I said, you may have definite opinions (and espouse a trivial yes/no absolute morality) on the use of drones, but some people will give the answer I indicated.

And just because you demand to frame it as a "have you stopped beating your wife" question doesn't mean I have to bite. Because you I can swim up to the bait and decide it is uninteresting. Nor does your going Godwin carry any weight.

I answered: Can I defend it? with a no.

I'll answer the question: Do I believe it is right or wrong, based on the information available?

I won't answer your overly simple yes/no because it is a trap question and the actual question should be more nuanced. Maybe you can't grasp nuance. Maybe the fact the some reasonable, honest people find Harry Truman's decision difficult to boil down to a simple yes/no question offends your simplistic absolute morality. It does seem that you have difficulty with higher level concepts.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#107

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

I'd say views on genocide have to be black/white "simplistic morality".

Søren Lilholt
.
.
Posts: 1025
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:41 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#108

Post by Søren Lilholt »

heddle wrote: It has been strengthened by my science.
What science has strengthened your faith and why?

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#109

Post by free thoughtpolice »

What's the difference between a Calvinist and a Satanist?
Both of them worship an evil being that is responsible for all the misery in existence.
Satanists are open about it, while Calvinists try to dance around the issue and baffle the questioner (and apparently themselves) with bullshit.

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#110

Post by heddle »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I'd say views on genocide have to be black/white "simplistic morality".
Phil,

You might think the same thing about two bombs that killed a quarter of a million. But as I said, I think (you may disagree) that there are reasonable people who are not amoral who would struggle mightily with simple yes/no question on whether Truman was right.

And in terms of the biblical genocide it is a difficult and troubling question for theists because we (unless we want to be cafeteria christians) have to assume that there is a god and he really commanded it. While it is black/white (I agree) as to whether a person is ever right to command genocide, it becomes trickier for theists when you convolute it with theological issues like god's supposed sovereignty, holiness, omniscience, etc.

The simple yes/no form of the question sweeps all that under the rug.

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#111

Post by heddle »

free thoughtpolice wrote:What's the difference between a Calvinist and a Satanist?
Both of them worship an evil being that is responsible for all the misery in existence.
Satanists are open about it, while Calvinists try to dance around the issue and baffle the questioner (and apparently themselves) with bullshit.
None. After centuries of hiding you have found us out! Go to Pharyngula and collect your OM.

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#112

Post by another lurker »

There was no genocide in the bible because the people who were murdered didn't leave town in time. I mean, if you know that an army is on it's way, slowly, to wipe out your entire people, it's your fault if you don't pack up and leave in time!! Seriously, if any baybeez had their heads bashed against rocks, it's because the parents were negligent. (a theist actually defended genocide this way, on Reasonable Doubts)

And yeah, God commanded it, because it was part of his overall plan to make the world a better place, therefore, it's ok.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#113

Post by free thoughtpolice »

heddle wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:What's the difference between a Calvinist and a Satanist?
Both of them worship an evil being that is responsible for all the misery in existence.
Satanists are open about it, while Calvinists try to dance around the issue and baffle the questioner (and apparently themselves) with bullshit.
None. After centuries of hiding you have found us out! Go to Pharyngula and collect your OM.
Damn! I've been Pit- Godwinned by Heddle! :x

windy
.
.
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Tom of Finland-land

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#114

Post by windy »

This discussion is moot anyway. Oliver Burkeman informs us that we've all been arguing about the wrong God.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/oliver- ... hould-read
My modest New Year's wish for 2014, then, is that atheists who care about honest argument – and about maybe actually getting somewhere in these otherwise mind-numbingly circular debates – might consider reading just one book by a theologian, David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God, published recently by Yale University Press.
The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" – the technical term is "demiurge" – whose defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite clear what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes to the universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this God is pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't need to postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.
The real God is so much more sophisticated than that, according to Hart:
… according to the classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can’t even say that God "exists" in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all.
God surrounds us and penetrates us. God binds the galaxy together.

There you have it, God doesn't actually "do" anything, he just "sustains" things. (Including genocide.)

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#115

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

heddle wrote:As I said, you may have definite opinions (and espouse a trivial yes/no absolute morality) on the use of drones, but some people will give the answer I indicated.
I don't consider the US Constitution, the Geneva Convention, the Rule of Law, trivial. Do you? For your answer boils down to: obama gets to break the law, because: reasons.

Nor does your going Godwin carry any weight.
1) Oddly enough, Hitler is somewhat germane to the topic of genocide;
2) I did not compare you to Hitler;
3) Are you appealing to Godwin as an authority? Tsk, Tsk!;
4) Anyways, Godwin can go fuck himself. I'll talk about Hitler when I see fit.

OK, maybe I did compare God to Hitler. Which is unfair. Because, whereas Hitler exterminated 11 million people, God wiped out the entire human race, save 8 people on a lifeboat. God totally rules as genocide champ.

And just because you demand to frame it as a "have you stopped beating your wife" question doesn't mean I have to bite.
Wrong. The wife-beating question is a false dichotomy, omitting a third answer: I never beat my wife in the first place. My question --

Genocide is:
a) Never justifiable;
b) Sometimes justifiable.

-- formulates a true dichotomy (excluding perhaps "c) genocide is always justifiable.")

because it is a trap question and the actual question should be more nuanced.
The "actual question" was the question I actually asked. It's a concise, clear, logically formed query. One that, as Phil says, every person should have a ready and simple answer to. Any prevarication in responding, in fact, indicates one believes "b" is true.

If it's a trap, then it's of your own devise, as you're the one who went on record asserting both that genocide is an indefensible act, and that (your admittedly genocidal) God can do no wrong.

I won't answer your overly simple yes/no
No worries -- you just did:
heddle wrote:And in terms of the biblical genocide it is a difficult and troubling question .... While it is black/white (I agree) as to whether a person is ever right to command genocide, it becomes trickier for theists when you convolute it with theological issues like god's supposed sovereignty, holiness, omniscience, etc.
tl;dr -- it's always wrong for people to commit genocide; it's sometimes OK for God to commit genocide. Thank you.

heddle
.
.
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#116

Post by heddle »

Why do stupid people think it clever just to put the answer they want to hear into someone's mouth? I never understood the satisfaction of the "Oh I see [insert words] that clears it up. Thank you. Got it." response. Why go through the trouble? Wouldn't an imaginary slam-dunk conversation in your own head do just as well?

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#117

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

windy wrote:God surrounds us and penetrates us.
Ha! That explains why my ass was so sore this morning.

Hart describes an highly attenuated deism. Which is no solace to biblical literalists like heddle, who believe God actually had a power breakfast with Moses, lived inside a magic box for a while, knocked up an Earth woman, and sent his angels chasing after Virginia Madsen onto a Navaho reservation.

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#118

Post by another lurker »

heddle wrote:Why do stupid people think it clever just to put the answer they want to hear into someone's mouth? I never understood the satisfaction of the "Oh I see [insert words] that clears it up. Thank you. Got it." response. Why go through the trouble? Wouldn't an imaginary slam-dunk conversation in your own head do just as well?

I am glad to have been exposed to this point of view, and appreciate the time you took to express it.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#119

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

heddle wrote:Wouldn't an imaginary slam-dunk conversation in your own head do just as well?
Oh, I'd say you're the expert on those.

Fine -- here's another simple question. I won't answer it for you: you answer it yourself.

It is ...
a) Never justifiable
b) Sometimes justifiable
c) Always justifiable

... for God to commit genocide.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Hed

#120

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

another lurker wrote:
heddle wrote:Why do stupid people think it clever just to put the answer they want to hear into someone's mouth? I never understood the satisfaction of the "Oh I see [insert words] that clears it up. Thank you. Got it." response. Why go through the trouble? Wouldn't an imaginary slam-dunk conversation in your own head do just as well?

I am glad to have been exposed to this point of view, and appreciate the time you took to express it.
Hard to believe it, but I'm beginning to miss The Prussian!

Locked