Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[3sigma]

The Bible is talking about the Christian God, isn’t it?

Yes, but you are not.

There is the actual meaning of the term "slaughter", and then there is the meaning you are trying to cause it to mean.

Let me get this straight. You agree that all those instances I gave you of your God killing great numbers of human beings qualify as slaughter. You agree that the Bible is speaking about the Christian God in those cases. However, you claim that I am not talking about the Christian God, even though you just agreed that I was. That’s just bizarre.

I’m using the term slaughter to mean the killing of great numbers of human beings. I’m curious to hear what you think is the “actual” meaning?

Would you kill people if your God told you to do it?

No.

Finally. Why couldn’t you have just said that the first time I asked instead of evading the question for several pages? Are you just so used to evading questions that it is now your first impulse? So there are cases where you would disobey your God’s commands. I’m interested to explore that, but I’ll start a thread in E&M for that.

This "contradicting" god you are referring to is the imaginary god I told you about earlier, the one you are creating in your own head.

No, it’s the God in the Bible. The Old Testament claims that your God deliberately slaughtered millions of people. You claim that your God is one of justice and mercy using quotes from the New Testament to try to support your claim. However, the New Testament also claims that your God will slaughter half the human population at some point in the future. So it goes from being murderous, petty and vengeful in the OT to supposedly kind and loving in the NT, only to become murderous, petty and vengeful again, but you don’t see that as contradictory. Again, that’s just bizarre.

 

[Tzaousios]

I’m sick and tired of asking you questions only to have you evade nearly every single one. The rest of your reply was just more evasion of questions and I see that you evade the questions of others with similar consistency. It is pointless continuing any conversation with someone who behaves so evasively.

How was it a "conversation"? You come into it with your crystallized presuppositions that God does not exist, the Bible is a book of fairytales, and Christians are a bunch of stupid country bumpkins. If anyone changes their position, it must be Christians by default, and they must stop at nothing short of a total recantation of their faith.

If you do happen to glean anything out of Christians with your contrived, artificial Socratic method (firing off a bewildering barrage of rhetorical questions), you use their answers as fodder to continue your denigration game of their faith.

How do you expect Christians to react to this treatment?

 

[Archer93]

How was it a "conversation"? You come into it with your crystallized presuppositions that God does not exist, the Bible is a book of fairytales, and Christians are a bunch of stupid country bumpkins. If anyone changes their position, it must be Christians by default, and they must stop at nothing short of a total recantation of their faith.

If you do happen to glean anything out of Christians with your contrived, artificial Socratic method (firing off a bewildering barrage of rhetorical questions), you use their answers as fodder to continue your denigration game of their faith.

How do you expect Christians to react to this treatment?

By turning the other cheek?

 

[Tzaousios]

By turning the other cheek?

It is a good idea, to be sure. Somehow I do not think that 3sigma expects this nor would care if anyone did this.

 

[Doveaman]

Let me get this straight.

Is that what you are really trying to get.

You agree that all those instances I gave you of your God killing great numbers of human beings qualify as slaughter.

Yes.

You agree that the Bible is speaking about the Christian God in those cases.

Yes.

However, you claim that I am not talking about the Christian God,

Yes.

even though you just agreed that I was.

No.

That’s just bizarre.

Bizarre is when the term “slaughter” is used to mean “murderous, petty and vengeful” when applied to God (the way you use it), when all it means is that He killed a great number of people.

Bizarre is when you refer to God as being a murderer or inconsiderate or unforgiving.

I’m using the term slaughter to mean the killing of great numbers of human beings. I’m curious to hear what you think is the “actual” meaning?

It actually means the killing of great numbers of human beings. But you are using it to mean “murderous, petty and vengeful”.

Finally. Why couldn’t you have just said that the first time I asked instead of evading the question for several pages?

The question wasn’t being evaded, it was being ignored, because it doesn’t apply to Christians. But for some reason you think it does. It doesn’t.

Are you just so used to evading questions that it is now your first impulse?

Ignore is what I did, not evade, because the question made no sense, only to you.

So there are cases where you would disobey your God’s commands.

NO.

And this is the kind of response I expected from you to my answer, another reason why such questions should be ignored. But sense you were so insistent on getting an answer, I gave you one so you won't think I was evading it.

You probably would have preferred a “Yes” answer to your question. That way you would have more fodder for accusing Christians of being willing to “slaughter” people in the name of their God.

But I consider a “No” to be quite fitting, since, like I said before, for God to ask Christians to do such a thing would be to contradict Himself, and a god who contradicts himself should not be trusted, so “No” would be my answer to such a contradictory god.

I’m interested to explore that, but I’ll start a thread in E&M for that.

And what is your reason for starting such a thread? Is it to know, or to accuse?

No, it’s the God in the Bible.

It’s the god in your head, the god you would like the God of the Bible to be. But the God of the Bible is not the god in your head. Sorry.

The Old Testament claims that your God deliberately slaughtered millions of people.

Yes. The Old Testament also claims it was done out of necessity. Did you read that part?

You claim that your God is one of justice and mercy using quotes from the New Testament to try to support your claim.

I did not “try”. I did.

However, the New Testament also claims that your God will slaughter half the human population at some point in the future.

He will. Even though I’m not sure if it’s exactly “half”. Let’s just say more or less.

So it goes from being murderous, petty and vengeful in the OT to supposedly kind and loving in the NT, only to become murderous, petty and vengeful again, but you don’t see that as contradictory.

Of course. This is because you are describing the imaginary god in your head, and not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible isn’t “murderous, petty and vengeful”. It’s all in your head.

Again, that’s just bizarre.

All in your head.

“The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they (the things of God) are spiritually discerned” – 1 Cor 2:14.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Bizarre is when the term “slaughter” is used to mean “murderous, petty and vengeful” when applied to God (the way you use it), when all it means is that He killed a great number of people.

So -- killing a great number of people is murderous, petty, and vengeful when anyone but God does it?

Bizarre is when you refer to God as being a murderer or inconsiderate or unforgiving.
It actually means the killing of great numbers of human beings. But you are using it to mean “murderous, petty and vengeful”.

Well, then we can agree that God did, in fact, slaughter -- that is to say, He killed great numbers of human beings.

NO.

And this is the kind of response I expected from you to my answer, another reason why such questions should be ignored. But sense you were so insistent on getting an answer, I gave you one so you won't think I was evading it.

You probably would have preferred a “Yes” answer to your question. That way you would have more fodder for accusing Christians of being willing to “slaughter” people in the name of their God.

But I consider a “No” to be quite fitting, since, like I said before, for God to ask Christians to do such a thing would be to contradict Himself, and a god who contradicts himself should not be trusted, so “No” would be my answer to such a contradictory god.

God has condoned, commanded, and committed slaughters in the past, has he not?

God will do this again in the future -- if the book of Revelation is to be believed -- will He not?

So, where's the contradiction?

Yes. The Old Testament also claims it was done out of necessity. Did you read that part?

Most slaughterers attempt to justify their slaughters by claiming necessity, do they not?

 

[CoderHead]

Yes. The Old Testament also claims it was done out of necessity. Did you read that part?

"Necessity?" The only reason it would be "necessary" for God to command the slaughter of numerous people or to do it Himself would be to account for incompetence.

For instance: God creates humans with free will and the propensity for sin and rebellion and then purposely places a tree in their midst, which will be their downfall. Well, I guess He couldn't have seen that coming...unless He were omniscient. So I suppose the loving and caring thing to do would be to flood the entire Earth and destroy every single living organism on the planet except for one family and breeding pairs of animals.

Another example: God promises a land to His chosen people. But, oh wait, it appears that other people have moved in to this land...probably because it's habitable and is currently unoccupied. Well, I guess there's nothing to do but send His people in to murder them all - men, women, and children!

Yes, necessity is a wonderful argument, isn't it?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes, necessity is a wonderful argument, isn't it?

Indeed -- they demand we praise and worship Him on one hand, and portray Him as a hapless victim of circumstance on the other. Funny, isn't it?

 

[CoderHead]

Indeed -- they demand we praise and worship Him on one hand, and portray Him as a hapless victim of circumstance on the other. Funny, isn't it?

Not even a little bit. It scares me.

 

[sandwiches]

Not even a little bit. It scares me.

The idea amuses me. The believers of said idea do scare me though.

 

[sk8Joyful]

Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

depends on the "context", as meaning is Contexturally-dependent. What's your context?

It doesn't matter if it's an untestable one, but does it count as an explanation?

depends on the "context", as meaning is Contexturally-dependent. Again, what's your context?
For example,
most christians, live un-aware of the means whereby
chronic dis-eases such as anxiety, cancer, depression, diabetes, heart dis-ease, etc. can be, in fact healed.
mainly because
most atheists, also live un-aware of the means whereby
chronic dis-eases such as anxiety, cancer, depression, diabetes, heart dis-ease, etc. can be, in fact healed.

When a person does allow healing, most christians say "God did it",
ie Divine-intervention; even when that was not the case.

When a person does allow healing, most atheists say "We know that's not possible, so it must've been a mis-diagnosis;
for we can only manage & control such symptoms"; even when the Individuals healed, had MRI's & other tests proving otherwise.

So yes, allowing oneself to be guided into healing... is "testable".

In that respect, is it a scientific hypothesis, albeit a woefully poor one?

any paradigm, or pre-suppositional beliefs, that only empoverish individuals,
further fall under "woefully poor".

Let's talk about Functionally-empowering people with greater (including healing & further developmental) choices, ok

 

[Cabal]

depends on the "context", as meaning is Contexturally-dependent. What's your context?


depends on the "context", as meaning is Contexturally-dependent. Again, what's your context?
For example,
most christians, live un-aware of the means whereby
chronic dis-eases such as anxiety, cancer, depression, diabetes, heart dis-ease, etc. can be, in fact healed.
mainly because
most atheists, also live un-aware of the means whereby
chronic dis-eases such as anxiety, cancer, depression, diabetes, heart dis-ease, etc. can be, in fact healed.

When a person does allow healing, most christians say "God did it",
ie Divine-intervention; even when that was not the case.

When a person does allow healing, most atheists say "We know that's not possible, so it must've been a mis-diagnosis;
for we can only manage & control such symptoms"; even when the Individuals healed, had MRI's & other tests proving otherwise.

So yes, allowing oneself to be guided into healing... is "testable".


any paradigm, or pre-suppositional beliefs, that only empoverish individuals,
further fall under "woefully poor".

Let's talk about Functionally-empowering people with greater (including healing & further developmental) choices, ok

Can we say "God did it" when people are found to have cancer too? Some people seem to conveniently neglect that reason when it's about bad things happening and not good things.

 

[sk8Joyful]

Can we say "God did it" when people are found to have cancer too?

When people, from variations of cancering strategies, allow self-healing: this evidence, does not support your belief.

 

[Cabal]

When people, from variations of cancering strategies, allow self-healing: this evidence, does not support your belief.

Evidence of being cured is irrelevant to determining what the agent of causation was.

Try again.

 

[SithDoughnut]

When people, from variations of cancering strategies, allow self-healing: this evidence, does not support your belief.

So therefore God gave me cancer and then cured it. A bit odd, really...

 

[BananaSlug]

So therefore God gave me cancer and then cured it. A bit odd, really...

Even odder, if they die of cancer, God "took them home".

 

[Doveaman]

So therefore God gave me cancer

Evidence, please.

 

[Doveaman]

Evidence of being cured is irrelevant to determining what the agent of causation was.

Try again.

Pizza

 

[Cabal]

Pizza

An equivalently terrible answer, thank you

 

[Doveaman]

An equivalently terrible answer, thank you

You don't think pizza causes cancer?

Then guns don't cause death.