ISIS and God

[Archaeopteryx]

.... the story.

You can't claim that the story imparts some sort of lesson if you cannot even articulate what that lesson is.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, the bottom line is that we just don't know. We only have a limited amount of knowledge while God does not. Obviously the Creator of the universe knows alot more than we do so he can make a correct decision regarding the choice to destroy the entire planet. We can't. I think you're forgetting that you're talking about the Creator of the universe here, not a human being.

So you are suggesting that God drowning infants and children was justified because...?

Just a small point: there's a difference between "reading" and "studying." Have you ever studied the Flood narrative, in detail?

In sufficient detail to write an essay defending one interpretation of it (a number of years ago).

That's a great theological question which I've started threads on before. Just FYI, God also repents he made Saul king over Israel in 1 Sam. 15. I think the reason is because God won't reward someone in the present for the way he knows they're going to be in the future. In other words, God will act toward someone in the present the way they are in the present. He doesn't punish people for future evils in the present.

He also doesn't prevent them, even though he could.

If that's the case (and I believe it is), then an omniscient God could be sorry he ever made man, since he acts toward people in the present like they are in the present, not like how they'll be in the future. I think that answers the question.

That's not genuine regret though, is it?

God uses water both because of its purging powers and because it represents him and hence his judgment.

What a cruel creature.

 

[variant]

You can't claim that the story imparts some sort of lesson if you cannot even articulate what that lesson is.

Well you CAN it just makes you look silly.

 

[ebia]

You can't claim that the story imparts some sort of lesson if you cannot even articulate what that lesson is.

Yes you can.
Unless you think teaching is about transmission of data.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes you can.
Unless you think teaching is about transmission of data.

What's the lesson?

 

[ebia]

What's the lesson?

Your question assumes that the lesson can be articulated as a propositional statement. If that were the case, story would likely not be the best way to teach it.

A famous dance once said "if it could be explained in words, I wouldn't need to dance it".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Your question assumes that the lesson can be articulated as a propositional statement. If that were the case, story would likely not be the best way to teach it.

That's not necessarily the case. We tell stories to impart lessons that could be expressed in other ways all the time. You are positing a story with a lesson but won't give us any idea of what the supposed lesson is in relation to the OP's question.

A famous dance once said "if it could be explained in words, I wouldn't need to dance it".

The main themes and manoeuvres can still be described. You won't even do that much.

 

[ebia]

That's not necessarily the case. We tell stories to impart lessons that could be expressed in other ways all the time.

Places where story isn't the only or optimal choice.

You are positing a story with a lesson but won't give us any idea of what the supposed lesson is in relation to the OP's question.

Because then whole point is to learn the lesson from the story, not from an attempted abstraction.

The main themes and manoeuvres can still be described. You won't even do that much.

Obviously the dancer disagreed.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Places where story isn't the only or optimal choice.


Because then whole point is to learn the lesson from the story, not from an attempted abstraction.



Obviously the dancer disagreed.

Learn what from the story?

 

[ebia]

Learn what from the story?

See the dance analogy. The whole point is that the only proper way of expressing it is in story. Well, maybe you could use dance - but I'm not a dance person.

Not everything worth learning can be expressed as an abstract statement.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

See the dance analogy. The whole point is that the only proper way of expressing it is in story.

What is it?

Not everything worth learning can be expressed as an abstract statement.

What is being learned?

 

[ebia]

What is it?



What is being learned?

You'll have to learn it from the story to find out, just as you'd have to watch the dancers dance to find out what that's about.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You'll have to learn it from the story to find out,

I've given you my idea of what the lesson is already. You didn't agree, so obviously you think the lesson is something else.

just as you'd have to watch the dancers dance to find out what that's about.

We can describe a dance in various ways: "graceful," "delicate," "rigid," "stirring," etc. We can talk about it, exchange ideas, offer points for improvement, and so on. Thus far, you have done nothing like that for this story. You insist it contains some sort of lesson, but the lesson is apparently so obscure that it evades characterisation altogether. As such, your supposed lesson is indistinguishable from no lesson at all.

 

[ebia]

I've given you my idea of what the lesson is already. You didn't agree, so obviously you think the lesson is something else.



We can describe a dance in various ways: "graceful," "delicate," "rigid," "stirring," etc. We can talk about it, exchange ideas, offer points for improvement, and so on. Thus far, you have done nothing like that for this story. You insist it contains some sort of lesson, but the lesson is apparently so obscure that it evades characterisation altogether. As such, your supposed lesson is indistinguishable from no lesson at all.

You can discuss all sorts of things about her dance.
But to find out what it means you have to get that from the dance.

We could talk about all sorts of things about the Noah story - say it's curious parallel sections, or note the points where it's similar to other stories. Even discuss the question it's addressing But to find out its answer - you'll have to get that from the story itself. And, like the meaning of the dance, if you can put it adequately into a propositional form you haven't yet got it. And maybe you won't ever get it - some lessons we never do.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You can discuss all sorts of things about her dance.
But to find out what it means you have to get that from the dance.

We could talk about all sorts of things about the Noah story - say it's curious parallel sections, or note the points where it's similar to other stories. Even discuss the question it's addressing But to find out its answer - you'll have to get that from the story itself. And, like the meaning of the dance, if you can put it adequately into a propositional form you haven't yet got it. And maybe you won't ever get it - some lessons we never do.

Great. So I've got the lesson from the Noah story - it's the lesson I earlier articulated.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, no more than any other weird political group. Which is what ISIS is. It's not religious, it's political.

To deny that these guys get their political motivations/inspiration from their religion is a serious case of head-in-sand.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you always take a group's claims at face value? What about actual analysis? It's simplistic to say that ISIS does what they do because they are Muslims. Most Muslims around the world don't approve of ISIS' behavior. Are you saying they are less Muslim for not approving of ISIS?

A thumb is a finger, but not all fingers are thumbs.

However, a thumb wouldn't be a thumb if it wasn't a finger!!

Your reasoning implies that if these guys would stop being muslim, they'ld still be doing the exact same thing.

Obviously, that is not true.
ISIS: Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Remove the religion from that group, and the entire group evaporates.
Their inspiration and motivation clearly comes from their religion. It's a version that's not held by the majority of muslims, that is true. But it's islamic based nonetheless.

In the exact same way as the Spanish Inquisition found its motivation and inspiration in fundamentalist Christianity.

Is it the root cause? Obviously not, because then a majority of muslims would be like that. But to deny the obvious important part it plays is, again, a serious case of head-in-sand.

Clearly they do what they do because they believe that it is what they are supposed to do. And the reason they believe that, is because of the religious doctrine they hold on to.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To deny that these guys get their political motivations/inspiration from their religion is a serious case of head-in-sand.

Some people seem to be under the impression that to acknowledge the religious aspects of ISIS is to claim that, as a matter of necessity, all Muslims subscribe to ISIS' radical ideology. I would think that it goes without saying that the brand of Islam practiced by ISIS is not the same as that practiced by the majority of the world's Muslims. We can discuss ISIS' religious motivations without implying that the entire world's Muslim population is somehow complicit in its despicable activities.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

A thumb is a finger, but not all fingers are thumbs.

However, a thumb wouldn't be a thumb if it wasn't a finger!!

Your reasoning implies that if these guys would stop being muslim, they'ld still be doing the exact same thing.

Obviously, that is not true.
ISIS: Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Remove the religion from that group, and the entire group evaporates.
Their inspiration and motivation clearly comes from their religion. It's a version that's not held by the majority of muslims, that is true. But it's islamic based nonetheless.

In the exact same way as the Spanish Inquisition found its motivation and inspiration in fundamentalist Christianity.

Is it the root cause? Obviously not, because then a majority of muslims would be like that. But to deny the obvious important part it plays is, again, a serious case of head-in-sand.

Clearly they do what they do because they believe that it is what they are supposed to do. And the reason they believe that, is because of the religious doctrine they hold on to.

It seems to be a game of let's pretend. Let's pretend that there are no bad religious people anywhere. Let's pretend that, whenever a religious organisation does something bad, it's because they weren't religious. Let's pretend that religion does only good and has no role in anything bad.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That the story is an answer to the question.

This thread reads like a very annoying circle.

For several pages now, you have been claiming that the Flood story answers the OP question.

For an equal amount of pages, people have been asking you to explain HOW this story answers that question.

Why is it so hard for you to simply explain how the story addresses the question? Simply saying "as a story" is not a sensible answer.

That's like saying "I can answer your question with words coming from my mouth". And when asked "how?" I say "with my mouth". Then asked "yeah, but what is your answer then" I say "well, the answer are the words produced by my mouth".

I think it's time to put your cards on the table and stop this juvenile circular play you are engaged in.