Philosophy Now Forum

Greatest I am wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:"but the one thing that remains consistent throughout is the 10 commandments. "

There is also other things that are consistent.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

If God followed his own commandments, you might have a point.

Regards
DL

Dude. I know he is one of the only voices right now. But ya don't bring Dawkins into an earnest debate about God. He has the understanding of a pissed off teenager on the internet. We want intellectuals, not pseudo-intellectuals.

Also, there is a reason why God is allowed to murder: because "to the pure all things are pure"—just as many say capital punishment is justified, and most say that time-travelers would be more than justified, but obligated, to kill Hitler.

So any atrocity, even the torture of King David's baby for 6 days before finally killing it, because of God's anger towards David is justified to you without any other reason other than you think God is pure.

Wow.

Satan loves those like you who will not follow scriptures.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Keep posting though as when people see what your beliefs have done to your morality, they end on my side.

Your God is pure for sure. Pure shit. just like your morals.

Regards
DL

You must understand that when you say the word "pure" you are saying EVERYTHING. If you like, "pure" means "having a good reason." Consider waterboarding, and the way America treated terrorists in Zero Dark Thirty (that was based on reality right?) Personally, I disagree with waterboarding, but those who did it felt they were justified, and some agree. All I am saying is that it is possible they were justified. If nothing else, it is scripturally consistant. To the pure all things are pure.

Well, sense we are getting personal, I will break proverbs 26:4, while calling myself on it, demonstrating the caliber of person I am, and join you. You, sir, have made the egregious mistake of arguing according your preconceived notions of my theology and morality. You even demonstrate a circular logic by assuming God's treatment of David is unjustified and then concluding that it is unjustified. Your prejudice has compromised your judgement. You have asked me one question and mistakenly assumed you have seen the whole picture. To anyone with understanding, that is a pathetic embarassment. Whenever your type of thinking is shown to be what it is, people walk away from it, as has been done by intelligencia for generations.

But let's continue, friend. Apologies for the harshness.

Walker wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:

Walker wrote:I say that man is the measure, and God is the supposition. Man can accurately measure man, but not God, since by most definitions God has access to what man does not know, and man can’t measure what he doesn’t know.

That's an interesting way to look at it. It is impossible to know what God knows?

Within the paradigm of God that separates man from God, man can know some of what God knows, but not all that God knows.

Man is bound to his own limitations and not the limitations of the other when the other is person or beast or God or thing or thought, though there are human limitations common to all men. Man can infer that he knows some of what the other knows, but not all of what the other knows.

I suppose that ends when the paradigm ends. Isn't communion oneness with God? I took a class on mysticism where they made a distinction between unison and unity, I think it was, where unison is a togetherness and unity is a oneness. I suppose non-mystical communion is unison and mystical communion is unity. In that situation I suppose omniscience is possible, or at least a supre-lucidity (by the prefix supre, as opposed to supra, I mean supreme).

Jaded Sage wrote:[

Dude. I know he is one of the only voices right now. But ya don't bring Dawkins into an earnest debate about God. He has the understanding of a pissed off teenager on the internet. We want intellectuals, not pseudo-intellectuals.

Also, there is a reason why God is allowed to murder: because "to the pure all things are pure"—just as many say capital punishment is justified, and most say that time-travelers would be more than justified, but obligated, to kill Hitler.

So any atrocity, even the torture of King David's baby for 6 days before finally killing it, because of God's anger towards David is justified to you without any other reason other than you think God is pure.

Wow.

Satan loves those like you who will not follow scriptures.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Keep posting though as when people see what your beliefs have done to your morality, they end on my side.

Your God is pure for sure. Pure shit. just like your morals.

Regards
DL[/quote]

You must understand that when you say the word "pure" you are saying EVERYTHING. If you like, "pure" means "having a good reason." Consider waterboarding, and the way America treated terrorists in Zero Dark Thirty (that was based on reality right?) Personally, I disagree with waterboarding, but those who did it felt they were justified, and some agree. All I am saying is that it is possible they were justified. If nothing else, it is scripturally consistant. To the pure all things are pure.

Well, sense we are getting personal, I will break proverbs 26:4, while calling myself on it, demonstrating the caliber of person I am, and join you. You, sir, have made the egregious mistake of arguing according your preconceived notions of my theology and morality. You even demonstrate a circular logic by assuming God's treatment of David is unjustified and then concluding that it is unjustified. Your prejudice has compromised your judgement. You have asked me one question and mistakenly assumed you have seen the whole picture. To anyone with understanding, that is a pathetic embarassment. Whenever your type of thinking is shown to be what it is, people walk away from it, as has been done by intelligencia for generations.

But let's continue, friend. Apologies for the harshness.[/quote]

Thanks for indicating that torturing a baby for 6 days before finally killing it is somehow justified.

I will just leave that there for all to see.

You may continue all you like but I have nothing to learn from one with satanic morals.

Regards
DL

I can't tell if this comes from dishonesty or foolishness. I didn't say it IS justified but that it is possible that it COULD BE justified. The way you portray it is inaccuate, as if I think every instance of such a thing is acceptable. Talking to you is counter-productive, if you don't shape up.

Jaded Sage wrote:I can't tell if this comes from dishonesty or foolishness. I didn't say it IS justified but that it is possible that it COULD BE justified. The way you portray it is inaccuate, as if I think every instance of such a thing is acceptable. Talking to you is counter-productive, if you don't shape up.

I see it the opposite way. Talking to you is counter-productive if you will not be honest.

Only an immoral satanic mind will ever say that there is justice in the torture of a baby for 6 days before finally killing it.

That is what you are saying as you are not agreeing that it is completely and always immoral for God to do so.

If you can justify it, then have at it, or tuck your immoral tail and join your God in hell.

Regards
DL

You are a simpleminded dogmatist.

Harming in the name of goodness can also be called self-defense. This does not equate terrorism to self-defense, and it does not equate goodness of intent to action.

There is no such thing as harming in the name of goodness. Harming is not good. Self defense is not good. Self defense is merely an instinct. It is our warped thinking that causes one to say, ' hell yeah...I got to defend myself today...it was a good day!' Who says that? It's much better to not have to defend onesself!

Resorting to self defense may be necessary but I would hardly call it goodness. It is a last resort. We have just been brainwashed to believe its good by movies and the media.

Just like going back in time a killing the baby Hitler. That is not goodness, as jade pointed out. About baby Hitler ....We have no way of knowing our actions would prevent the Holocaust and what's worse...we have no way of knowing if Hitler would grow up to be the same Hitler we know today. So...we might just be killing a baby. In that case, who was the evil one?

This blaming God thing is bizarre, if you ask me. First, there is no evidence of a God and even if we knew for sure he existed, then we could not know what he knows...making impossible to say if he is morally right or wrong.

My point is...no matter what it says in the bible, God is first and foremost said to be good. And if people want to quote the bible the they have to take the entire book into consideration and not just pick and choose a few passages. That is, if they are inclined to believe such things.

It's funny, I don't know if there is a God, but as far as the bible goes, it's a pretty good book regarding good vs. Bad.

I agree with whoever in this thread equated goodness with purity. Goodness is purity. And I think it's impossible to be pure. And therefore it's impossible to be good.

That doesn't mean I don't think we should at least give it the old college try.

Greatest I am wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:I can't tell if this comes from dishonesty or foolishness. I didn't say it IS justified but that it is possible that it COULD BE justified. The way you portray it is inaccuate, as if I think every instance of such a thing is acceptable. Talking to you is counter-productive, if you don't shape up.

I see it the opposite way. Talking to you is counter-productive if you will not be honest.

Only an immoral satanic mind will ever say that there is justice in the torture of a baby for 6 days before finally killing it.

That is what you are saying as you are not agreeing that it is completely and always immoral for God to do so.

If you can justify it, then have at it, or tuck your immoral tail and join your God in hell.

Regards
DL

I don't think jade was think in these terms. So you really can't call innocence, immorality.

I agree that it is immoral to kill a baby, even if it is hitler, but I think what she was getting at is that if we knew what was going to happen for sure , then we'd be saving lives. But the point is...we could never know that...unless we were God.

Now God, what his deal is, I will never know. But if I don't think of him as good, then where do I look for goodness? If the idea of good exists...where do I turn to find it?

In my mind, it's easier to just imagine a being who would be the epitome of good. And I would not be able to understand it/him/her. But show me a tangible thing that is Good, and I will consider it.

Really? What I'm arguing for is non-closed-mindedness. It is presumptuous, is it not, to assume that any given act, without a context, is unjustifiable. In fact, I remember specifically learning in university that there is an entire school of thought that argues that—can't remember the name. It argues that no act, by itself, is either moral or immoral, but devoid of any ethical value.

Why wouldn't you be able to understand a being that is the epitome of good? Is that the same as saying you can't understand the idea of goodness itself.

artisticsolution wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:I can't tell if this comes from dishonesty or foolishness. I didn't say it IS justified but that it is possible that it COULD BE justified. The way you portray it is inaccuate, as if I think every instance of such a thing is acceptable. Talking to you is counter-productive, if you don't shape up.

I see it the opposite way. Talking to you is counter-productive if you will not be honest.

Only an immoral satanic mind will ever say that there is justice in the torture of a baby for 6 days before finally killing it.

That is what you are saying as you are not agreeing that it is completely and always immoral for God to do so.

If you can justify it, then have at it, or tuck your immoral tail and join your God in hell.

Regards
DL

I don't think jade was think in these terms. So you really can't call innocence, immorality.

I agree that it is immoral to kill a baby, even if it is hitler, but I think what she was getting at is that if we knew what was going to happen for sure , then we'd be saving lives. But the point is...we could never know that...unless we were God.

Now God, what his deal is, I will never know. But if I don't think of him as good, then where do I look for goodness? If the idea of good exists...where do I turn to find it?

In my mind, it's easier to just imagine a being who would be the epitome of good. And I would not be able to understand it/him/her. But show me a tangible thing that is Good, and I will consider it.

Really? What I'm arguing for is non-closed-mindedness. It is presumptuous, is it not, to assume that any given act, without a context, is unjustifiable. In fact, I remember specifically learning in university that there is an entire school of thought that argues that—can't remember the name. It argues that no act, by itself, is either moral or immoral, but devoid of any ethical value.

Why wouldn't you be able to understand a being that is the epitome of good? Is that the same as saying you can't understand the idea of goodness itself?

Jaded Sage wrote:Really? What I'm arguing for is non-closed-mindedness. It is presumptuous, is it not, to assume that any given act, without a context, is unjustifiable. In fact, I remember specifically learning in university that there is an entire school of thought that argues that—can't remember the name. It argues that no act, by itself, is either moral or immoral, but devoid of any ethical value.

Why wouldn't you be able to understand a being that is the epitome of good? Is that the same as saying you can't understand the idea of goodness itself.

I think you are confusing justice with goodness. I don't believe they are the same thing, and certainly not justice doled out by unknowing humans.

Would I kill someone who was trying to kill me or the people I love....of course. But I don't consider that goodness. I consider it unfortunate circumstances. What is good about being forced, by fate, to take another's life? Where is the purity of heart in that?

artisticsolution wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:Really? What I'm arguing for is non-closed-mindedness. It is presumptuous, is it not, to assume that any given act, without a context, is unjustifiable. In fact, I remember specifically learning in university that there is an entire school of thought that argues that—can't remember the name. It argues that no act, by itself, is either moral or immoral, but devoid of any ethical value.

Why wouldn't you be able to understand a being that is the epitome of good? Is that the same as saying you can't understand the idea of goodness itself.

I think you are confusing justice with goodness. I don't believe they are the same thing, and certainly not justice doled out by unknowing humans.

Would I kill someone who was trying to kill me or the people I love....of course. But I don't consider that goodness. I consider it unfortunate circumstances. What is good about being forced, by fate, to take another's life? Where is the purity of heart in that?

I'm not talking about justice. Purity here means being justified and being justified here means doing the right thing. I mean to suggest that it is possible that God's action in this instance was either morally permissible or morally obligatory.

Jaded Sage wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:Really? What I'm arguing for is non-closed-mindedness. It is presumptuous, is it not, to assume that any given act, without a context, is unjustifiable. In fact, I remember specifically learning in university that there is an entire school of thought that argues that—can't remember the name. It argues that no act, by itself, is either moral or immoral, but devoid of any ethical value.

Why wouldn't you be able to understand a being that is the epitome of good? Is that the same as saying you can't understand the idea of goodness itself.

I think you are confusing justice with goodness. I don't believe they are the same thing, and certainly not justice doled out by unknowing humans.

Would I kill someone who was trying to kill me or the people I love....of course. But I don't consider that goodness. I consider it unfortunate circumstances. What is good about being forced, by fate, to take another's life? Where is the purity of heart in that?

I'm not talking about justice. Purity here means being justified and being justified here means doing the right thing. I mean to suggest that it is possible that God's action in this instance was either morally permissible or morally obligatory.

how is being justified the same as doing' the right thing'?

The whole meaning of being justified is doing something that is not right usually but circumstances have made it impossible to do the 'right' thing...so one has to say....' I did the wrong thing but I was justified because of such and such.'

Ifor it was the right thing in the first place we wouldn't even have the need for a word such as 'justified'.

Are you not getting what I am saying or have I misunderstood what you are getting at?

Walker wrote:Good day to you, Gustav.

Hello there. Wanted to acknowledge your post. I understand, I think, 'where you are coming from' (as they say). A tremendous amount, perhaps all, hinges on if one understands Universals as existing or as not existing. You offer arguments from a 'contingent' platform, yet your ideas have a certain remove, a loftiness of analytical position, which is exactly the position that identifies Universals. Yet your discourse, if I read correctly, denies Universals and defends a 'local interpretation of ethics and morals'.

In any case, this is the area I tend to devote energy to: understanding the predicates that drive and determine our conclusions. I am rather busy these days and it is hard for me to write much now. But there you have something.

artisticsolution wrote:Harming in the name of goodness can also be called self-defense. This does not equate terrorism to self-defense, and it does not equate goodness of intent to action.

There is no such thing as harming in the name of goodness.

They all say that. US when it went into Iraq and Afghanistan; Libya; in it's attempted regime change in Syria.

And guess who in Paris on Friday?? Yep ISIL Daesh.

Everyone is killing for the greater good.

All of it equates to terrorism.