A Christmas Story

[thomas_t]

I don't know the Jim Crow case. But if people want their freedom to be cut, then it's permissible for it to be cut. Turkey wants their dictator... so they get it.

That's more post hoc rationalization,

I see nothing wrong with that.
Even if people believed differently for centuries... this aspect is of so little importance that it didn't matter for their faith to begin with.
A bat classified as a bird. Even if it's not correct from a purely biologic point of view... then it means that God classified the animals differently.
Rabbits?... see
Why do rabbits eat their own faeces?

Why should biological ancestry even be a concept at this time as distinct from some true heritage in Jesus being supposedly God incarnate?

look that's a good question.
Biological ancestry is not nothing, I believe. Maybe they knew that brothers are somewhat similar even if they never met?
Or that a son looks somewhat similar to his parents even if they never met.

 

[FireDragon76]

I will follow your rules.....
- Does God command something because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?
They are not mutually exclusive.

Just saying that doesn't make it so.

 

[cvanwey]

- Does God command something because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?

I can't answer, since I'm no philosopher.

Well, the question is posed for a reason You don't have to be a philosopher.

Look how some 'self-professed intellectuals' attempt to 'solve' the question. But all he does is smuggle in the same answer, as the later of the two set forth propositions:

Here's my take @InterestedAtheist

If the defined God exists, God can do whatever He wants. Which would kinda conclude the later of the two in this presented 'false dilemma'. God calls Himself good, hence, anything He does is good. 'Might makes right' in a sense...

We humans are then left to still wrestle with the topics listed in the Bible, in which many genuinely don't agree with. Which is ironic, because the theist in the video states we inherently know right from wrong. Topics of potential conflict may include, but not be limited to (i.e.):

- women < man
- homosexuality < heterosexuality
- indifference to slavery
- faith revered over hard evidence

 

[FireDragon76]

Thank you for your contributions to this forum and your genuine concern for clear, rational thinking. I hope you have a peaceful holiday with friends and family and a prosperous new year.

This is how Christians should respond. Clearly you have gotten the message.

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't know the Jim Crow case. But if people want their freedom to be cut, then it's permissible for it to be cut. Turkey wants their dictator... so they get it.

I see nothing wrong with that.
Even if people believed differently for centuries... this aspect is of so little importance that it didn't matter for their faith to begin with.

No, a rule by mob is not just rule, it's purely majority tyranny at that point. Of course you'd see nothing wrong with it if your standard for law is obedience to it rather than having the prudence to see when it's in conflict with basic principles. Perhaps a better comparison is Nazi Germany, since you're from that country in the present. Laws that would've, I imagined, been functionally similar in treatment of Jews were done in the U.S. to black people, saying they were "separate but equal"

A bat classified as a bird. Even if it's not correct from a purely biologic point of view... then it means that God classified the animals differently.
Rabbits?... see
Why do rabbits eat their own faeces?

God's classification is moot if you can't demonstrate the bible is referring to a real entity.

Rabbits eating their own feces for particular digestive purposes is not the same as a cow chewing the cud, it's functionally separate

look that's a good question.
Biological ancestry is not nothing, I believe. Maybe they knew that brothers are somewhat similar even if they never met?
Or that a son looks somewhat similar to his parents even if they never met

The problem of the ancestry is that one adds several people into it, altering the generational count, Matthew at 27, Luke at 42

 

[thomas_t]

No, a rule by mob is not just rule, it's purely majority tyranny at that point.

As I'm not calling the Turkish people a mob ... I just acknowledge the fact that it is part of your freedom to give up part of your freedom. If the majority wants the dictator, it would be sort of "tyranny" of the minority if they would have their will done and get the democracy.
It's like Germany... they wanted Hitler... they got it... and know they've learned a lesson. Nobody, except a few (say some 20%) wants that one back. And this is how Germany works as of today. I praise God that we're happy with our democracy today.
But I agree, if the majority wants the dictator... all you get is tyranny always.
So I'm not saying that it wasn't a tyranny.
Note that Bible is against tyrannies see Judges 9:7-15.

Rabbits eating their own feces for particular digestive purposes is not the same as a cow chewing the cud, it's functionally separate

from all I know about Hebrew language... it's a small economy for words. They just didn't have words enough to describe the details. So they lumped together similar functions. I see nothing wrong with that. God certainly didn't want to give a lesson in biology. He just wanted to bring his points accross.

The problem of the ancestry is that one adds several people into it, altering the generational count, Matthew at 27, Luke at 42

For me this would not be a porblem. I'd say that there were two fathers from within in the same generation at times.

 

[muichimotsu]

As I'm not calling the Turkish people a mob ... I just acknowledge the fact that it is part of your freedom to give up part of your freedom. If the majority wants the dictator, it would be sort of "tyranny" of the minority if they would have their will done and get the democracy.
It's like Germany... they wanted Hitler... they got it... and know they've learned a lesson. Nobody, except a few (say some 20%) wants that one back. And this is how Germany works as of today. I praise God that we're happy with our democracy today.
But I agree, if the majority wants the dictator... all you get is tyranny always.
So I'm not saying that it wasn't a tyranny.
Note that Bible is against tyrannies see Judges 9:7-15.

If the majority wants something that is not democracy in the truest sense of its usage, nor is it a republic, the rights of the minority are also protected, so you're going for ochlocracy as some natural outcome rather than a corruption of the moderate good: tyranny of majority or minority are both problematic in violating the balance of powers intended. The Bible being against something is irrelevant when we can demonstrate its bad nature without reference to it in the same way we can deduce the Golden Rule without JEsus' use of it in the gospels.

from all I know about Hebrew language... it's a small economy for words. They just didn't have words enough to describe the details. So they lumped together similar functions. I see nothing wrong with that. God certainly didn't want to give a lesson in biology. He just wanted to bring his points accross.

Again, you seem to just rationalize away the contradictions by making God some standard that we don't understand, which is practically ignotum per ignotius, solving one mystery with another, leaving it unsolved on purpose

For me this would not be a porblem. I'd say that there were two fathers from within in the same generation at times.

They weren't giving his family tree, it was his lineage, but honestly, it's hardly that important either way, honestly, because it doesn't lend more credence to the claims of Jesus' divinity in the first place

 

[thomas_t]

Again, you seem to just rationalize away the contradictions by making God some standard that we don't understand,

Why can't we understand that in Hebrew there is a lack of vocabulary? Vocabulary needed to differenciate between too similar biological functions?
Do you want me to back this up?

it's hardly that important either way,

ok. So I won't debate unimportant topics for you.

 

[muichimotsu]

Why can't we understand that in Hebrew there is a lack of vocabulary? Vocabulary needed to differenciate between too similar biological functions?
Do you want me to back this up?

The lack of vocabulary means there's lack of precision, meaning we cannot reasonably regard the book as anything lacking in errors based in that lack of precision that we understand now.

 

[thomas_t]

The lack of vocabulary means there's lack of precision, meaning we cannot reasonably regard the book as anything lacking in errors based in that lack of precision that we understand now.

or it's a sign of God opening up categories for spiritually unimportant matters... that are easier to handle. For his purposes it suffices to count bats as birds.
Thomas

 

[muichimotsu]

or it's a sign of God opening up categories for spiritually unimportant matters... that are easier to handle. For his purposes it suffices to count bats as birds.
Thomas

So...it's easier to just rationalize the book as right even when it's demonstrably not rather than just admit the bible would be better regarded as infallible, not misleading on spiritual matters, rather than insist, contrary to every evidence we have, that the Bible has to be true (or even literally interpreted) in EVERY aspect, which is logically unsound and heuristically disastrous.

 

[thomas_t]

nsist, contrary to every evidence we have, that the Bible has to be true (or even literally interpreted) in EVERY aspect, which is logically unsound and heuristically disastrous.

I don't think this would be logically unsound and disastrous. I continue to believe it's true in every aspect.

But I gave it a second thought.
What we can do is admit that the Hebrew word that formerly used to be translated as "bird" is different from today's bird. It is this word that can be found here: Hebrew Concordance: ‘ō·wp̄ -- 25 Occurrences. It comprises birds, on the one hand, and other flying animals on the other. That's what the former Israelites meant when they said Hebrew Concordance: ‘ō·wp̄ -- 25 Occurrences.
So if you want to have it scientifically right... just translate this Hebrew word as "bird or other" and then your Bible get's longer but stays right.
Is that aok for you?
Thomas

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't think this would be logically unsound and disastrous. I continue to believe it's true in every aspect.

But I gave it a second thought.
What we can do is admit that the Hebrew word that formerly used to be translated as "bird" is different from today's bird. It is this word that can be found here: Hebrew Concordance: ‘ō·wp̄ -- 25 Occurrences. It comprises birds, on the one hand, and other flying animals on the other. That's what the former Israelites meant when they said Hebrew Concordance: ‘ō·wp̄ -- 25 Occurrences.
So if you want to have it scientifically right... just translate this Hebrew word as "bird or other" and then your Bible get's longer but stays right.
Is that aok for you?
Thomas

I'm not saying the Hebrews had an idea of taxonomy that was remotely as thorough or sophisticated as ours, but that would reasonably suggest we shouldn't rely on them for anything in that regard, same as how they aren't really grasping heliocentric astronomy or even reproductive facts that would say a woman contributes to the child rather than just carrying the man's seed.

You can try to weasel in the idea that it's factual, but I'm not sure you understand my accusation that it's post hoc rationalization rather than acknowledging the fault in the book you refuse to reduce in scope because that would seemingly entail you've lost faith in it

 

[thomas_t]

You can try to weasel in the idea that it's factual, but I'm not sure you understand my accusation that it's post hoc rationalization rather than acknowledging the fault in the book you refuse to reduce in scope because that would seemingly entail you've lost faith in it

Hi Muichi,
I don't know why you think it is somewhat evil to do this post hoc rationalisation, as you call it, meaning explaining the Bible after it was written down. I think, there is nothing wrong with it. When discussing with atheists I often do that. When you disallow me to do that, there would be hardly anything left for me to say, unfortunately.

but that would reasonably suggest we shouldn't rely on them for anything in that regard, same as how they aren't really grasping heliocentric astronomy or even reproductive facts that would say a woman contributes to the child rather than just carrying the man's seed.

I don't rely on them... I rely on God.
Woman as a carrier. By using this model, God reduced complexity. Why not.
Thomas

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't know why you think it is somewhat evil to do this post hoc rationalisation, as you call it, meaning explaining the Bible after it was written down. I think, there is nothing wrong with it. When discussing with atheists I often do that. When you disallow me to do that, there would be hardly anything left for me to say, unfortunately.

No, you're explaining things in a way that doesn't acknowledge the problems in the text, but just assuming it's true, and I never said it was evil. If you can't even see how your reasoning is flawed and just think it's valid because it makes sense to you, who already are convinced of the Bible being inspired and such, then the problem is as much with not understanding how logic works

I don't rely on them... I rely on God.
Woman as a carrier. By using this model, God reduced complexity. Why not.

Reducing complexity is not necessarily the answer unless you want people unquestioningly believing something and not using critical thought

 

[thomas_t]

Good morning Muichu,
thank you for your explanation.

you're [...] just assuming it's true,

yeah, that's the way I approach the text.
But that's not flawed thinking, in my opinion. I just believe the Bible.

Reducing complexity is not necessarily the answer unless you want people unquestioningly believing something and not using critical thought

Assuming reduced complexity in the Bible doesn't imply I don't allow for the Bible to be questioned.
I for one just don't do it.
Regards,
Thomas

 

[thomas_t]

Well, the question is posed for a reason You don't have to be a philosopher.

Look how some 'self-professed intellectuals' attempt to 'solve' the question. But all he does is smuggle in the same answer, as the later of the two set forth propositions:

Hi c,
thank you for your reply. I'm a bit late for replying....
I'm not gifted enough to reply to this sort of question. It's not an easy one and in order for me to understand it I would have to invest too much time+energy... so I don't. I believe God is somehow good, and for me that's enough to know.
You posted a video featuring a colleague from the Christian side. Since I'm not gifted enough to solve the question... I permitted myself to not even watch it, if you allow.
But I don't exclude the possibility that the guy of your video is wrong in his answer. Maybe that one made a mistake indeed.
In general, I don't put my signature blindly on everything that is brought forward from my colleagues from the Christian side.
You know, I made the experience that many Christians go as far as to think it's a good idea to insult atheists and later call the insulting "discernment" or "a sign of strenghth".
Since then I take Christian statements in public with a grain of salt.
However, I don't say the guy of your video is bound to be wrong, either.

In my opinion, Jesus is perfect, Christians are not.

Thomas

 

[cvanwey]

Hi c,
thank you for your reply. I'm a bit late for replying....
I'm not gifted enough to reply to this sort of question. It's not an easy one and in order for me to understand it I would have to invest too much time+energy... so I don't. I believe God is somehow good, and for me that's enough to know.
You posted a video featuring a colleague from the Christian side. Since I'm not gifted enough to solve the question... I permitted myself to not even watch it, if you allow.
But I don't exclude the possibility that the guy of your video is wrong in his answer. Maybe that one made a mistake indeed.
In general, I don't put my signature blindly on everything that is brought forward from my colleagues from the Christian side.
You know, I made the experience that many Christians go as far as to think it's a good idea to insult atheists and later call the insulting "discernment" or "a sign of strenghth".
Since then I take Christian statements in public with a grain of salt.
However, I don't say the guy of your video is bound to be wrong, either.

In my opinion, Jesus is perfect, Christians are not.

Thomas

Hey Thomas, thanks for the response. I chose this video for a reason You do not need to possess a degree in philosophy. Heck, even if you did, you still cannot 'solve' it

The reason for this video, was to provide something brief enough, and straight-forward enough, to demonstrate the 'dilemma' presented. There appears an either/or proposition.

1. Whatever God does is considered 'good'. He can do no 'wrong'. The justification is because He is the one doing it. (i.e.) Because He says so... He set the stage, made the rules, and calls all His own actions 'good.' (i.e.) Maybe 'might makes right.'????

(or)

2. If God does it because it is already considered 'good', then God is already following some existing 'universal' standard.

What the man in the video states, is that if it IS an either/or proposition, then God is arbitrary. Why? God either dictates what is good, and humans either choose to follow the commands or not. Or, God follows some other standard, rendering God useless in His commands, as the standard exists outside of God's say-so. Quite the little pickle...

So what does this 'Dr.' in the video do? He 'horn-swaggles' his own 'third' option... Which is to say, he basically 're-purposes' option one, and 're-brands' / 're-words' it.

What the 'dilemma' suggests, is that God is arbitrary, when it comes to 'moral' standards.

I now have a follow up question, to your response.

How do you know Jesus is perfect?

And before you answer the question, please kindly watch the 3 minute video, look over this response, and then tell me how you were able to discern He IS perfect?

I think a possible point @InterestedAtheist is trying to make, is that theists (you in general), cannot solve the 'riddle' either - ('educated' or not).

I already planted my flag... If Such a God exists, He can do whatever He wants. And if I don't agree with an action He performs, too stink'n bad

And if Jesus is perfect, this must mean you agree that, as I stated in my prior response:

women < men
homosexuality < heterosexuality
evidence < faith
slavery = freedom

Right???

 

[thomas_t]

Hi c,
very interesting the way you write. Even if there are intellectual problems I can't solve, God can, that's my impression. Option 1, just like option 2, are too complex for me to consider. I think this is venturing into the business of "seeing" God's character... when we don't even see him physically. For me: impossible.

How do you know Jesus is perfect?

That's just my belief. Bible states he is a perfect sacrifice for my sins (see Hebrews 7:26). I needed this.
Actually, the whole biblical doctrine wouldn't make sense without Jesus's declared perfection, as I see it. If he had had sins, then he would merely have died for the sake of his own sins... but not for mine. The speakers of my computer are currently not working as they should so again I didn't listen to you video... I hope it's ok.

And if Jesus is perfect, this must mean you agree that, as I stated in my prior response:

1) women < men
2) homosexuality < heterosexuality
3) evidence < faith
4) slavery = freedom

Right???

no .
1) Bible openly says there is no difference in importance between man and woman, if they belong to the kingdom of God. It even says "there is no male and female" in Galatians 3:28.

2) I stay neutral on homosexuality... you know Christianity right now is having some problems with it, in my opinion. They often go as far as to insult gays and lesbians (speaking from own experience). Also, they are discriminated against within the Christian community, which is also wrong as I see it. So I stay neutral towards any aspects such as "is homosexuality a sin?"... and I solely focus on questions such as what can be said in this regard and what should not.

3) I agree. In faith Christians get saved. Faith is worth more, in my opinion.

4) no. Freedom is better.

Thomas

 

[Rodan6]

No, my personal experience is not holding nearly that much weight in terms of the absolute reliability of it, because optical and auditory illusions are a thing, you don't have to be mentally ill to experience that, our senses can trick us

If you reduce the standards of evidence to personal credulity, you'll believe anything based on the fact that you personally experienced it and NOT on critical thought applied to it. I never reduced the scale of evidence to purely physical evidence, that's just the most reliable standard, establishing consistency of a predictive model based on what we understand in regards to physics, etc. But there's also reasoning out things, the problem becomes how far you want to take the abstract concepts we consider.

God is generally described as being outside the universe, so it's effectively already beyond our capacity to explore except in a speculative sense, which lends itself to being a way to explain anything presently unknown rather than accepting that we may not understand it, but don't need a placeholder explanation like God when we may find out that there is an understanding we can gain, even if it's necessarily limited in terms of scientific methods for falsifiability.

I don't drink. I have never done drugs of any kind. I TRUST IN MY OWN ABILITY to think and reason. Your conclusion that one's own experiences do not use "critical thought", while unreasonable, becomes possible because you already reject the possibilities involving the question. You state that the concept of God is outside the universe and therefore beyond our capacity to explore. My point is that the pursuit of truth requires a willingness to search alone--without the protection of others who can verify your findings. It is a choice to limit your search to only questions that can be physically verified.

As for me, I truly don't care what others think about my quest. I trust in my own ability to seek the truth and critically evaluate whatever I'm able to find. The Master taught, "Seek and ye shall find". I possess a powerful desire to learn the truth of things, and I fully recognize that with some matters, it might not be possible to show my findings to others so they can see. But I'm not going to stop moving ahead. My individual journey can't be shared with others, but I have already learned far more than I originally thought was possible.