Knowing the mind of God

[cjd]

If I gave you two examples of Russians who thought child abuse was ok then would it be ok to say that in general Russian people condone child abuse? Or would I be accused of being a bigot?

If you gave me a quote from the head of the Russian Orthodox Church saying that child abuse was ok, I would assume that he was supported by his followers and institution and that there are many child abusers in that organisation - otherwise he would be fired pronto.

Additionally, I would assume that the society he lived in thought that there was nothing wrong with child abuse either or he would be banged up pronto too.

Cormac Murphy-O'Connor also defended Michael Hill who was a child abuser.......are you going to claim that he did this with the backing of all his church? Are all Catholics child abusers?

Try this.
Cormac Murphy-O'Connor says that handicapped people are less than human
Cormac Murphy-O'Connor says that black people are less than human
Cormac Murphy-O'Connor says that Muslims are less than human

Now try
Cormac Murphy-O'Connor says that atheists are less than human

Now tell me what the difference is between the first three imaginary statements and the fourth real one, and why there hasn't been a tweet from his church or the police.

(For clarity, of course Cormac Murphy-O'Connor did not say the first three things.)

 

[FreeBusiness]

Your God said absolutely 'thou shalt not kill' (I tend to agree with him).

So if god breaks his own rule, what does that tell us? That he is a lessor god? That he makes it up as he goes along? Or just maybe we made it all up?

I understand that is a reasonable objection from an aethiest, it is another meaningless question for a Christian.
Does a parent follow the same rules he or she gives their children?

God is God. How could He possibly follow the rules humans are to follow?
Robert

 

[FreeBusiness]

Your God said absolutely 'thou shalt not kill' (I tend to agree with him).

So if god breaks his own rule, what does that tell us? That he is a lessor god? That he makes it up as he goes along? Or just maybe we made it all up?

Another point which I made already is that I for one am not a Jew, the Old Testament is the Jewish faith. I follow Jesus who said he who lives by rules will die by them. In case you haven't noticed no one is capable of abiding by any code of conduct. Christians live by faith alone.

Robert

 

[FreeBusiness]

If you gave me a quote from the head of the Russian Orthodox Church saying that child abuse was ok, I would assume that he was supported by his followers and institution and that there are many child abusers in that organisation - otherwise he would be fired pronto.

Additionally, I would assume that the society he lived in thought that there was nothing wrong with child abuse either or he would be banged up pronto too.



Try this.
Cormac Murphy-O'Connor says that handicapped people are less than human
Cormac Murphy-O'Connor says that black people are less than human
Cormac Murphy-O'Connor says that Muslims are less than human

Now try
Cormac Murphy-O'Connor says that atheists are less than human

Now tell me what the difference is between the first three imaginary statements and the fourth real one, and why there hasn't been a tweet from his church or the police.

(For clarity, of course Cormac Murphy-O'Connor did not say the first three things.)

A friend of mine is fond of saying he who assumes makes an ASS of U and ME.

Some Christians may think aetheists are less than human byt you must know Protestantism is a contentious group of people, they span the gamaut of all possibilities regarding their faith. Some even deny Jesus, some worship human being leaders. We of all people should not be lumped under the same rubric.

I go to Church and I listen to preachers but my sole authority is the Bible and my only leader is Jesus.

Robert

 

[cjd]

God is God. How could He possibly follow the rules humans are to follow?
Robert

Because he is God - all seeing all loving; perfect. I think that by killing his lambs in anger he proves that he's a pretty poor shepherd and not a good model to follow let alone worship.

(I'm being disingenuous of course. I actually think that it just proves that the
stories in the bible are made up by an iron age culture where this kind of violence would be commonplace.)

 

[cjd]

Another point which I made already is that I for one am not a Jew, the Old Testament is the Jewish faith. I follow Jesus who said he who lives by rules will die by them. In case you haven't noticed no one is capable of abiding by any code of conduct. Christians live by faith alone.

Robert

So when you say you believe every word of the bible you actually mean just the New Testament?

Presumably then you don't believe in the creation stories or the flood? Or the Fall?

 

[marchog]

This man

1. Matthew
2. Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21
3. Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21
4. Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36
5. Jesus warns us not to love our parents or children too much. We have to make sure that we always love him (who we don't even know existed) more than our family. 10:37
6. When Jesus' mother and brothers want to see him, Jesus asks, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" So much for Jesus' family values. 12:47-49
7. Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7
8. In the parable of the unforgiving servant, the king threatens to enslave a man and his entire family to pay for a debt. This practice, which was common at the time, seems not to have bothered Jesus very much. 18:25
9. Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he'll give you a big reward. 19:29
10. Jesus tells us to "call no man your father upon the earth." Not even dear old dad? How can we "honor our father" if we refuse to call him our father? 23:9
11. "Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days." Why? Does God especially hate pregnant and nursing women? 24:19
12. Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to ten virgins who went to meet their bridegroom. 25:1 Mark
13. Jesus shows disrespect for his mother and family by asking, "Who is my mother, or my brethren?" when he is told that his family wants to speak with him. 3:31-34
14. Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. 7:9-10
15. Jesus will reward men who abandon their wives and families. 10:29-30
16. In the last days God will make things especially rough on pregnant women. 13:17 Luke
17. When Jesus' parents begin the long trip back to Nazareth, the twelve year old Jesus stays behind, without even asking for their permission. Mary and Joseph search for him for three days and when they finally find him, Jesus doesn't apologize. Rather, he blames them for not knowing that he was doing his real father's business. 2:43-49
18. Peter and his partners (James and John) abandon their wives and children to follow Jesus. 5:11
19. Jesus, when told that his mother and brothers want to see him, ignores and insults them by saying that his mother and brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it. 8:20-21
20. Jesus won't even let his followers bury their dead parents or say farewell to their families before abandoning them. 9:59-62
21. Jesus prophesies that families will be divided because of him and his teachings. Sadly, this is one prophecy that has been fulfilled. 12:52-53
22. Jesus says that his disciples must hate their families (mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, children) and themselves. 14:26
23. If you want to be a disciple of Jesus, you must abandon everything, including your family. 14:33
24. Abandon your wife and family for Jesus and he'll give you a big reward. 18:29-30
25. Jesus says that everyone in heaven is single. Does that mean that married people can't go there, that they must get a divorce once they arrive, or what? 20:35
26. "Ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks."
    Families and friendships will be torn apart because of Jesus. 21:16 John
27. As an example to parents everywhere and to save the world (from himself), God had his own son tortured and killed. 3:16
28. Jesus tells his family that he wasn't going to the feast, but later goes "in secret." 7:8-10 Acts
29. Peter and God scare Ananias and his wife to death for not forking over all of the money that they made when selling their land. 5:1-10
30. If you "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ," then you and your whole family will be saved; otherwise, God will send you all to hell. 16:30-31

 

[stockdam]

Additionally, I would assume ........

Of course you assume whatever you want and that leads to the ridiculously crass statement that "It's a general belief held by people of faith that atheists are less human and less moral."

From assumption to bigotry in one easy step.

Where do you get the evidence that it's a general belief? Did you read it somewhere, survey lots of people or it is just the belief of somebody who wants to throw mud around?

 

[FreeBusiness]

So when you say you believe every word of the bible you actually mean just the New Testament?

Presumably then you don't believe in the creation stories or the flood? Or the Fall?

The Creation stories is a description of an historic event.
The flood is an historic event
'Thous shalt not kill' is a commandment written by God to the Jews for the Jews. It is also an historic event.

(Do some research into the veracity of the Bible compared to other historical writings, for example Aristotle or Plutarch and see which historians consider the more reliable).

Robert

 

[FreeBusiness]

Because he is God - all seeing all loving; perfect. I think that by killing his lambs in anger he proves that he's a pretty poor shepherd and not a good model to follow let alone worship.

(I'm being disingenuous of course. I actually think that it just proves that the
stories in the bible are made up by an iron age culture where this kind of violence would be commonplace.)

I understand. Probably a General that sends soldiers into battle to be killed is a poor shepherd also and not a good model to follow but a General is not a soldier and so is obeyed with the hope and expectation that his perspective is of a higher order than the common soldier.

You are partially right. The events in the Old Testament were stone age, basically, and so do not depict the morality of a wealthy western culture - but then why would we think it would.

PS I do have a question for you: Why would someone making up stories about god have him kill a bunch of children? I can't think of anyone telling a story like that, except a human writing the truth because he was terrified of doing anything else.

Robert

 

[cjd]

PS I do have a question for you: Why would someone making up stories about god have him kill a bunch of children? I can't think of anyone telling a story like that, except a human writing the truth because he was terrified of doing anything else.

Robert

Because that culture believed in a strong, vengeful god that quick to anger and that you should be very scared of. We've air brushed that out over the centuries.

 

[stugster]

I believe in ignoring the origins of the New Testament completely and taking its word as the only true meaning of God. All the information publicised prior to the New Testament is completely made up and not true. The New Testament is the only one that is correct.

I wonder just how many religious people actually really believe. I wonder how many people who defend the Bible and its scriptures actually really know the history they're supposed to be guided by? Is it just an easy answer to life's questions? A good way to live by?

Pope Gregory IX anybody?

 

[cjd]

"It's a general belief held by people of faith that atheists are less human and less moral."

It's a very common accusation and an even commoner assumption. You may not think so, that may be because you are not an atheist perhaps?

How else do you explain the head of the UK Catholic Church saying it and there being no outcry? Why is it ok for him to say that I am less than human but not ok for him to say the same of a Muslim or a black?

 

[cjd]

I understand. Probably a General that sends soldiers into battle to be killed is a poor shepherd also and not a good model to follow but a General is not a soldier and so is obeyed with the hope and expectation that his perspective is of a higher order than the common soldier.

You are forgetting that God is, well God. Perfect, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, etc etc.

The Christian God should not be exhibiting the poorest of our human traits - that was the Greek and Roman Gods job. The fact that he does, proves that this is not god - just a story made up by ancient peoples to control their tribes.

 

[marchog]

my sole authority is the Bible and my only leader is Jesus.

Robert

If we pretend both are real, they're still both rubbish. What impresses you about either? I trust you've left your family.

 

[Top Hat]

The purpose of life is to propergate genes.

Any other purpose is secondary.

What do you think the purpose of life is?

Then why arent you out all night bonking every femaile you see?

Proves you dont believe your own statement.
Then why arent you out all night bonking every femaile you see?

Proves you dont believe your own statement.

Well obviously, its all about having the resources to successfully raise offspring so they themselves can successfully raise children and so on down the generations. There is also a mix of cultural influence (I didn't mention that before because I thought you'd want to hide god in there)

Why do birds only lay a few eggs in the nest, because they can only successfully raise a few chicks, laying more eggs would be a waste of resources

 

[Top Hat]

The Creation stories is a description of an historic event.
The flood is an historic event

We love bible believing literalists in this thread.

Most sadly cant stand the relentless questioning of their faith and leave (the evidence scares them)

Would you like start by justifying god drowning everything on earth.

 

Well obviously, its all about having the resources to successfully raise offspring so they themselves can successfully raise children and so on down the generations. There is also a mix of cultural influence (I didn't mention that before because I thought you'd want to hide god in there)

Why do birds only lay a few eggs in the nest, because they can only successfully raise a few chicks, laying more eggs would be a waste of resources

Nothing obvious about it.

Works well enough for bulls and rams and a lot of the animal kingdom to drop the nut on any males that get in your way, bonk every female you see, and leave the mothers the problems you create.

So Arent you up to it? Or dont you believe in your own dogma that life is just about spreading your genes?

You clearly should try more bonking, because of your philosophy.

 

[creospace]

Robert

I go to Church and I listen to preachers but my sole authority is the Bible and my only leader is Jesus.

Can you tell me where in your bible (not sure of your 'stream' so not sure of translation) it says that the document of scriptures known as the bible is the sole authority? If you believe that the bible has authority then surely it must say that about itself?

Ta.

 

[marchog]

Nothing obvious about it.

Works well enough for bulls and rams and a lot of the animal kingdom to drop the nut on any males that get in your way, bonk every female you see, and leave the mothers the problems you create.

So Arent you up to it? Or dont you believe in your own dogma that life is just about spreading your genes?

You clearly should try more bonking, because of your philosophy.

Perhaps Top Hat should reproduce asexually by parthenogenesis, or maybe just divide himself in two repeatedly. You're not being silly are you ad? The ESS is different for different species. Another strategy he ignores is producing thousands of genetically identical daughters, sort of haplodiploid kinda thing.

But do remember selection takes place at the level of the gene. Top Hat's genes are not only in himself! He can reproduce 'his' genes without bonking at all.

 

[cjd]

Works well enough for bulls and rams and a lot of the animal kingdom to drop the nut on any males that get in your way, bonk every female you see, and leave the mothers the problems you create.

There are hundreds of different ways that semen and ovum meet - most of them extremely wasteful (? why would god be wasteful ?) - female salmon lay thousands of eggs, males squirt them with millions of sperm, most die.

Organisms evolve to do what works best for them in the conditions they find themselves.

So Arent you up to it? Or dont you believe in your own dogma that life is just about spreading your genes?

You clearly should try more bonking, because of your philosophy.

I don't think you are as daft as this question makes you out to be but I'll treat it seriously just in case.

You will see that activity in many if not most organisms.

In ancient cultures powerful men ran huge harems, some cultures still allow a limited form of it - muslim, mormon, africal tribes.

I'm willing to bet that have had the urge to 'try more bonking' yourself.

A few things prevented you though didn't they? Like girls restricting their availability and society not allowing rape. Perhaps there might be a bit more to it then - do you think? Maybe something to do with having a brain?

 

Perhaps Top Hat should reproduce asexually by parthenogenesis, or maybe just divide himself in two repeatedly. You're not being silly are you ad? The ESS is different for different species. Another strategy he ignores is producing thousands of genetically identical daughters, sort of haplodiploid kinda thing.

But do remember selection takes place at the level of the gene. Top Hat's genes are not only in himself! He can reproduce 'his' genes without bonking at all.

The point is - if he believes what he says which I doubt, what stops top hat making a lifes work out of bonking?

Genghis Khan did, and a huge number of males are traceable back to gene node at that time and place

Does he have an evolutionists book that says
"things evolutionists must not do to spread their genes, to make sure only the right genes spread...., it will work , honest" or should he follow his biochemical urges.

BTW The book was written called "mein campf" bloke that wrote it, tried it, came to a bit of a sticky end in berlin.

 

A few things prevented you though didn't they? Like girls restricting their availability and society not allowing rape. Perhaps there might be a bit more to it then - do you think? Maybe something to do with having a brain?

Ah right.

So as an atheist who thinks gene spreading is his primary function, I presume you are wholly against - and campaigning agains t the laws on rape CJD

Must be annoying for you.

 

[Top Hat]

Ah right.

So as an atheist who thinks gene spreading is his primary function, I presume you are wholly against - and campaigning agains t the laws on rape CJD

Must be annoying for you.

Don't be such an arse

 

[cjd]

Ah right.

So as an atheist who thinks gene spreading is his primary function, I presume you are wholly against - and campaigning agains t the laws on rape CJD

Must be annoying for you.

It's hard not to be rude at this point.

 

It's hard not to be rude at this point.

Dont be so facile CJD

I simply highlight a logical inconsistency of Top Hats statement.

Since despite his claims he clearly doesnt devote his life to spreading his genes.

And the brain you mention which according to evolutionary dogma should be assisting in his endeavour to plant his seed widely, is actually holding him back.

As is yours and Top Hats (correct,) revulsion at rape.

Methinks top hat needs to redefine his philosophical belief in the purpose of his existence, in order to bring back rationality and consistency into his world.

 

[Top Hat]

Since despite his claims he clearly doesnt devote his life to spreading his genes.

But I do devote my life to spreading my genes, succesfully raising my children IS the most important thing in my life

 

But I do devote my life to spreading my genes, succesfully raising my children IS the most important thing in my life

You are genetic and evolutionary failure top hat.

Otherwise, why did you spend the last half hour, arguing with me instead of spreading your genes?

Clearly not the purpose of that half hour.

 

[Top Hat]

You are genetic and evolutionary failure top hat.

Otherwise, why did you spend the last half hour, arguing with me instead of spreading your genes?

Clearly not the purpose of that half hour.

I refer to my post #6824

 

I refer to my post #6824

Only someone who finds a shallow philosophy shaken by logical inconsistency resorts to calling opponents such a name.

I win.

You SHOULD be questioning why you do what you do, in order to answer the question of purpose. You clearly dont.

 

[stockdam]

It's a very common accusation and an even commoner assumption. You may not think so, that may be because you are not an atheist perhaps?

How else do you explain the head of the UK Catholic Church saying it and there being no outcry? Why is it ok for him to say that I am less than human but not ok for him to say the same of a Muslim or a black?

I listened to the clip and it depends on your attitude as to what you take out of it.


Firstly he said it was HIS opinion and he also defined what he meant by the word human. He said that part of being human (physically, mentally and spiritually) was to have a relationship with god and then said that atheists were missing the relationship thereby not making them "fully human". That doesn't mean inferior......you've decided to try to make out that he was saying it to offend. His words were poorly chosen but he did define his definition of being "human" (not just physically) so your problem is with his definition and not with the next part.

Obviously if you aren't religious then you don't agree with his definition but then why get offended when he says that you are missing a part of "being human".

He wasn't saying that being an atheist was being inferior.......you've decided to add you own Sun newspaper headline. Yes I see that his words were poorly chosen but I understand what he was trying to say.....he attempted to say that atheists were missing out on the religiously spiritual aspect of being human (animals as far as I would be aware wouldn't have that opportunity).

And remember he did say it was his opinion.

So he didn't say that atheists were inferior but implied that there were things that they were missing out on........but as an atheist you would obviously disagree as your definition of humanity would be different.

It may sound like I'm defending him - I really couldn't care less what his views are but at least I took the time to listen and try to understand rather than coming out with pure BS.

Firstly you misreported his view (a la Sun newspaper does) - made a strawman - then used your view to hang him - then used a sweeping statement that the view was a general view amongst people of faith.

Your agenda is not to understand but to make cheap headlines.

 

[Beachcomber]

Picking the bones out each others faith or lack thereof seems a little pointless to be honest.

A persons faith is a very personal thing - a mixture of many factors distilled from upbringing, personal experiences, type of education, personality and many more. As such, it is often nigh on impossible to find someone who believes exactly what you believe like for like.

Might as well spend your days trying to convince someone who hates marmite why they are wrong and it's not the marmite at fault - it's the persons attitude and approach to marmite thats wrong!

Religious discussions are always fascinating right up until the point they decend into petty point scoring and tit-for-tat comments.

 

Religious discussions are always fascinating right up until the point they decend into petty point scoring and tit-for-tat comments.

The hard part for an outsider is to know which is petty point scoring and which are examples that illustrate serious philosophical points.

If you argue as top hat stated that the Purpose of life is to spread genes - and that evolution has engineered all his responses and actions to that target...

to quote jaws "eat swim and make little sharks"

you have a hard time explaining why humans do much of what they do.
(and what they dont do)

like how is it beneficial in gene spreading terms for Top Hat to spend time here arguing with me - instead of finding his next female conquest, or accumulating wealth to keep her and mini Hats in clover....

Serious question - not point scoring - the human brain is capable of ridiculously more than it needs for apparent evolutionary success, indeed it makes pass times possible that mitigate against breeding success.

So is the purpose of Top Hat to pass on his Genes?

He gets rude about the philosophical problems. and reductio ad absurdum But he should spend more time trying to work out why he does what he does, and what real purpose he serves/

 

[cjd]

If you argue as top hat stated that the Purpose of life is to spread genes - and that evolution has engineered all his responses and actions to that target...

Are you really, seriously, suggesting that genes should controls the way people behave in the same way they do an ant or a chimp?

I mean seriously?

 

Are you really, seriously, suggesting that genes should controls the way people behave in the same way they do an ant or a chimp?

I mean seriously?

Nope , I dont think that.

Top Hat seems to want to reduce man to a breeding machine.

And you seem to think you are just biochemistry, so why should you care.

Oops sorry , I dont mean care. I mean. Why do your electrical impulses get their knickers in a twist over it. After all, chemically programmed futility on legs - doesnt care bout why.

 

[marchog]

Lol! Mein Kampf! Ad you've excelled yourself today. I liked 'drop the nut on' as well. And your Top Hat should be an elephant seal. Lets count the number of times Darwin is mentioned in Mein kampf....0. Lets try the same for God......Oh dear. What a naughty Catholic. Gott mit uns!

 

[marchog]

Who wants to tell me some impressive teachings of Jesus? He must have said something good....something original, something divine?

 

[cjd]

Top Hat seems to want to reduce man to a breeding machine.

And you seem to think you are just biochemistry, so why should you care.

I think, perhaps, you need to do some reading and get back to us when you reach 'Janet and John study Molecular Genetics.'

pfnrr......

 

[creospace]

Who wants to tell me some impressive teachings of Jesus? He must have said something good....something original, something divine?

oh this and that, depends if you're a good boy and ready to listen, perhaps someone will read it as a bedtime story

 

I think, perhaps, you need to do some reading and get back to us when you reach 'Janet and John study Molecular Genetics.'

pfnrr......

Spit it out CJD are you a biochemical machine, evolved from less complex bits of biochemistry, tweaking your biochemistry to improve your spread of genes.

Or is there more to you?

In which case, just aceppt "caring" is just a few electrical nerve triggers.
Dont delude yourself into believeing it has greater meaning than an automatic biolectrical function.

If your lucky "caring" is an imperfection defect that will be evolved out of you, in a few hundred generations. Just get back to whatever futile machines do. Like plastering hedonism on buses for example.