Posts by AllTimeJeff

160

God punishes to the 3rd and 4th Generation! How nice!

by Number1Anarchist in

5 you shall not bow down to them or worship them; for i the lord your god am a jealous god, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me!.

wtf !

so if your grandparents screw up god will punish future generations.

AllTimeJeff

BTS

When talking in generalities for the sake of discussion, I apologize if I lumped your personal beliefs and understandings under a label that didn't fit. I happily acknowledge the variety of beliefs in theists and atheists alike. (or even agnostics like me....)

AllTimeJeff, your accusations against God on this thread are framed on the assumption that he exists. Otherwise, why accuse him? My responses rest on the same assumption. That he exists. It isn't really fair for you to then turn to question that premise, as it is a different issue. Basically, for the sake of discussion, lets assume God exists. That he cares about human beings. Also that he is omnipotent and omniscient. Your question encapsulates: How then does suffering exist? Why does God not act immediately?

I am glad you brought this up. For the record, (with all respect to you) by arguing against "god" in this way, I am obviously arguing against how "god" is portrayed. It also allows me to bring out inconsistencies in theistic reasoning. While this may or may not apply to you, there are many who would use the "rightness of their righteousness" and try to apply their standards of right and wrong to others. In this context, the argument about god's alleged existence is fair game, as it is frequently used as the reason why all must accept a certain point of view, even if one chooses personally not to believe or act as Christian theists would have them.

One can reject god as he is traditionally understood by Christians on multiple levels. One OR both is sufficient, and not mutually exclusive.

That he does not exist
That he is not worthy of worship as the source materials portray him.

One thing is for sure, he isn't around now. (metaphysical assertions aside)

While it is a different issue, it isn't totally separate, but instead, very related. However, as you bring out, one can only assume that god exists and that he cares. That he is omnipotent and omniscient. Assuming is the best theists can do. There is no evidence, only assertions.

To put a finer line on it, and as I brought out earlier with my example of James 1 and taking care of orphans and widows, the standards that are offered as coming from god have yet to be followed by god. Would that not make a difference in the acceptance of these standards and their validity? That doesn't make me want to worship god or follow such a standard. Whether the reason is that he either doesn't exist or doesn't follow his own rules is immaterial.

To talk about standards, as this thread started with, is to question their source. To question their source is completely valid. It isn't necessary to assume anything. Look at the claims of Christians, look at the source material from which the theology comes, see what is provable, what isn't, what the evidence shows, and draw your conclusions.

I think it a totally different subject to discuss spirituality in the context of standards. I am not arguing that their isn't a reason why man perceives good and evil, right and wrong, justice and the like. However, where I perceive we differ is that I think one should take their personal experience personally, while respecting others experiences and decisions. I perceive that you would try to frame this in the context of what you said: Basically, for the sake of discussion, lets assume God exists. That he cares about human beings. Also that he is omnipotent and omniscient.

I can't make that assumption, as in my review of the evidence, there is no good reason to assume any of the above. That doesn't rule a higher being out, nor does it minimize the apparent need man has in its spiritual quest. But I would argue that it limits the possibility of discovery for each of us to lock such a discussion where assumptions are treated as facts. Especially where I perceive a fundamentalist Christian argument, I have to speak up.

In addition, theists maintain god punishes. So far, only man punishes. Only man asserts. It is all man. Thus far, at best, god has somehow directed holy writings. His involvement in the carrying out of his thoughts have been nil. Where has he been?

I don't see god in these arguments. I see you BTS. I see Perry. You are the ones making these assertions. God is still silent. His silence is deafening, even if his defenders are as vocal as can be.

12

Rethinking Flight 1549: Was it Terrorism?

by leavingwt in

.

AllTimeJeff

Never trust a duck!!

160

God punishes to the 3rd and 4th Generation! How nice!

by Number1Anarchist in

5 you shall not bow down to them or worship them; for i the lord your god am a jealous god, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me!.

wtf !

so if your grandparents screw up god will punish future generations.

AllTimeJeff

!!!!

160

God punishes to the 3rd and 4th Generation! How nice!

by Number1Anarchist in

5 you shall not bow down to them or worship them; for i the lord your god am a jealous god, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me!.

wtf !

so if your grandparents screw up god will punish future generations.

AllTimeJeff

BTS

I still maintain that the burden of proof is on your theistic assertions, but before I get to them....

You miss the point AllTimeJeff. We only know how we would act in a given situation.

I agree. Really. In fact, history shows this to be the only frame of reference, how we humans tend to act in a given situation. What will god do? Before we get there, we must examine history and ask "What has god done?" To date, not one single thing. There is no evidence that he has.

The only evidence that argues for "bible god"'s existence are those that argue for "bible god's" existence. Many assertions, but zero evidence.

As to how the above statement relates to standards of behavior, the very fact that behavioral standards are subjective also means that they do not argue for the rightness of Christian theistic standards. (which I still maintain is Perry's argument, very clearly. It's not about ANY standard, but his fundamentalist Christian POV that he is arguing for)

For example, if two men see a robbery in progress, and they vary among themselves in power, goodness and knowledge, it is reasonable to surmise that they will act differently. Let's assume equal power and goodness between the two characters but a variance in knowledge. The first man might know that he can easily wrestle the armed robber to the ground and defuse the threat. The second might know the same, but he also knows that the robber has a semtex belt and would choose to self detonate if he is physically restrained. The first man would take action, and the second would not.

Ok. Great. I know analogies are frequently used by Christian theists of all stripes, and they can provide a limited road to discuss these types of issues. But it would be nice if Christian theists didn't have to depend on analogies so much. It turns the argument into an "apples v oranges" scenario. The other possibility is that there really isn't a rational way to explain god's behavior in that he demands what he himself does not do. That conclusion, supported by the evidence, needs zero analogies.

You cannot see to the end of time and see all the outcomes and effects of an action as it propagates down the chains of causality through time. An omniscient God existing outside of Time would. How do you know that this world is not the best of all possible worlds? As soon as there are beings possessed of the will to choose good or evil, there is the possibility of evil. Over a long enough period of time, evil is a certainty. Perhaps this is the best that things can be, because even an omnipotent God cannot commit a logical impossibility.

My point is that we cannot know how an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being should act without being all these things ourselves. How does such a being respond to a human evil? How does he balance justice with allowing humans free will? We cannot know that a OOO being would prevent such evils as you mention, we cannot even know the probability of such an action. Only human hubris could assume to know such a thing.

If this is what you believe, more power to you. However, I find it ironic that you will argue for the existence of a god that we cannot see, who hasn't acted on behalf of his creation, yet maintain with 100% certainty that he does exist, and at the same time say that it is impossible for us to know him, or even the probability of how he might act in terms of suffering and/or punishment??

So you maintain that we know

God exists.
He is an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being, who can come in and out of time.
He will punish those who disagree with him or break his standards in the use of their free will
He cares about all who are suffering
He hasn't solved suffering yet, but we shouldn't hold this against him, because even though we can know with certainty that he exists, we are less certain as to why he allows suffering, even though he created all things and has the power and love to end suffering. We should merely accept that he has his reasons.
His use of "justice" is tempered by the exercise of mans free will. In his justice, he created us to crave things he disapproves of, and will destroy us. (you might remember your clip from the Devils Advocate. I agree with Al Pacino)
It is human hubris to believe that we can judge god, even by his own standards.

That looks pretty bad when it is in black and white.

160

God punishes to the 3rd and 4th Generation! How nice!

by Number1Anarchist in

5 you shall not bow down to them or worship them; for i the lord your god am a jealous god, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me!.

wtf !

so if your grandparents screw up god will punish future generations.

AllTimeJeff

We cannot judge how an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being should act without being all these things ourselves.

BTS (and Perry) I do not begrudge your right to believe this way, but sincerely believe this is in error. I take the exact opposite position, that we can judge how an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being should act. For if we are in gods image, (and to take Pauls words in Romans loosely,) accept that we have a conscience that bears witness, we can indeed judge what god should do, when we see suffering continue for untold millenniums.

The evidence of suffering and neglect and "gods" absence in the meantime argues against their being a god of love out there. Why should mankind hold to gods standards until god does something first for his creation?

Our court system requires us to be judged by a jury of our peers, we are not peers with God.

Although the existence of god himself is debatable, let him be judged by the standards he has put up. I will take just one.

JAS 1:27 (International Standard Version) A religion that is pure and stainless in the sight of God the Father is this: to take care of orphans and widows in their suffering, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

When God himself follows his own command to do this simple thing, to take care of orphans and widows, then he can also count on me being separate from the world the bible says is tainted.

Is it not just, though we may not be peers of god, to expect god to set the example for us? I strongly believe this is fair. I do have expectations of "god" and will not give "god" a free pass because of long held ancient beliefs that have not yet come to fruition. And I will not fear the punishment of a god who allows suffering. It is simply immoral that if he has the power, he has not acted till now, even though he demands us to be sensitive to the suffering of others. There is simply no way around this, no explanation that will suffice. If you believe in "bible god", then you believe in a higher power who demands acts he himself has not yet done.

Or to put it another way, were I to follow bible gods example, I will simply wait for him. There is nothing I can really do. Either way, the impetus is on "god". The ball is in his court. If god waits, that is good enough for me. Thank "god" that their are many altruistic, caring people who do not follow "bible god"'s disinterested example.

160

God punishes to the 3rd and 4th Generation! How nice!

by Number1Anarchist in

5 you shall not bow down to them or worship them; for i the lord your god am a jealous god, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me!.

wtf !

so if your grandparents screw up god will punish future generations.

AllTimeJeff

Jeff, the question was, "can man live up ANY standard of right and wrong?" A standard is something that must be met. The term "standard" implies measurability. With the ideas you put forth, I believe it obvious that they are impossible to exactly measure. (Q) Why did you lie to me? (A) It was just a mistake so don't worry about it. (A2) I made a personal decision to not hurt you with the truth, so I lied.

Perry, as you admit in your next paragraph, I am talking about things that are subjective, while you are talking of them as absolutes. Notice your own phrasing. "A standard is something that must be met". You have missed a key step; A standard must first be accepted before it is met. That is exactly why when it comes to standards of right and wrong relating to human behavior, one must question their premise. You continue to maintain that standards as understood in your flavor of Christianity must be met. I have accepted some of these standards personally, for my own reasons. Others I reject. Please note that my rejection of certain Christian ideals has not ripped a hole in the fabric of rule of law vs anarchy. I gave the very specific example of homosexuality, which the bible condemns as wrong. This is a standard that if my memory serves, you support. Again, personal behaviors engaged in do not affect you Perry, me, or anyone else.

My point is precisely that not all standards need to be met without critical thinking and analysis. And your question is a bit self serving, because you are not advocating living up to "ANY" standard Perry. You are advocating living to a specific theistic understanding of right and wrong according to your interpretation of the bible. It is this premise I reject.

So I reject YOUR premise. Your terms "mistakes" and "personal decisions" are completely subjective and thus synonyms for a lack of standard, which of course was the original question. You could have maintained a logical position by simply stating that that question could not (or should not) be asked of humans. Instead you change the question.

Logically, mistakes and personal decisions are indeed subjective, as they will differ from person to person. I don't believe I presented them as otherwise, but if I did, I apologize. You are quite correct. However, it is precisely because mistakes and personal decisions are subjective that I believe you are in error. I do not view mistakes and personal decisions as sinful. You do. For you to win this arguement, you must convince whatever audience is reading, (me or whoever) that to depart from your standards as you believe and accept them is sinful, as opposed to the other possibility, that such would merely represent a personal decision that differs from your own personal standards. Now that I have cleared that up, since you imply that I have dodged the question, I will quote it again:

Jeff, the question was, "can man live up ANY standard of right and wrong?"

And I will call you out. Do you want to discuss ANY standard, or your Christian standard? Because you clearly are defending a Christian agenda. I am more then prepared to discuss the Muslim standard, the Buddhist standard, the Jainist standard, and the like? Are these "standards" the "ANY" that you refer to? Perhaps you should make clear and come clean as to which standard you are talking about. If you would care to simply admit that you are acting as an apologist for the Christian standard, then we can move on. But for you to imply that the only standard worth considering is your Christian one is extremely myopic.

Doesn't the complexity of government actually prove that man cannot live up to the standard "love thy neighbor"? How much govt. would be necessary otherwise? Doesn't man have to be threatened with punishment every day just to function? Even then it barely works (morning traffic for instance). And of course, just a threat isn't enough is it? It has to be actually demonstrated to have an effect doesn't it?

I really love Jesus teaching of "love thy neighbor". And you and I both know that his command as it is written is to an individual, not to a government. Ironically, it would be unconstitutional to enforce this law. This is a philosophy for living, not a mandate to be enforced by a human. I understand that you are defending the bible and its contradictory teachings that basically commandsus to"love your neighbor, or else..." I personally think you have hit on something here: man is inherently selfish. To submit to a rule of law is altruistic to a point, because it acknowledges that we cannot live as if we were on an island. Thus, we must be responsible citizens, pay our taxes, and pretend to go the speed limit when the radar detector lights up.

To love is the answer. To accept is the answer. To seek to understand what is different from us is the answer. It is idealistic, and will not always work. However, I would strongly say that as the Western world and democratic governments have become less zealous in its pursuit of Christian theistic standards, and instead have adopted a more rational and accepting approach to people and personal decisions, our times have become more peaceful, with less hate and divisiveness. Perhaps this is because a more evolved undertanding that Western Europe and the liberal crowd of the United States accept is that in the greater context of Jesus words, to love your neighbor is to accept your neighbor, not punish him.

If our governments function this way, why would you deny this responsibility to God?

Where is he again Perry? Where has he been?

In areas where you and I agree, do you believe that if there is an all seeing God, that he would be derelict if he saw wrongdoing and he did not punish the perp?

If "god" saw:

a muder happening,
or someone being assaulted and injured
or a war started,
or millions more lacking food and dying without ever having a chance to get to know "god"
or millions of people being wiped out by genocide,
or entire governments oppresing their subjects as they grow rich and fat off of taxes,
or billions of women being abused and treated like 2nd class citizens around the earth,

then yeah, lets punish the perp. Or better yet, lets pretend that god has the power to do something. DO SOMETHING! Don't tell me that punishment will come later on. Step in NOW! Justice delayed is justice denied! God should be held to this highest of standards first. Let him fix what he claims is broken, but let not a man try to spin his inactivity as loving beneficial wisdom, or a way to push a theistic agenda woefully short on logic and common sense.

But as you say, I do believe that god is derelict.

21

Who are the 500 anonymous members of the Watchtower Society?

by yadda yadda 2 in

i believe there are 500 or so official members of the watchtower bible & tract society.

these are the ones who attend the annual meeting of the watchtower society.

they appear to be like company shareholders.. who are these individuals and why are they apparently anonymous?

AllTimeJeff

The Governing Body grants the right to be a voting member.

160

God punishes to the 3rd and 4th Generation! How nice!

by Number1Anarchist in

5 you shall not bow down to them or worship them; for i the lord your god am a jealous god, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me!.

wtf !

so if your grandparents screw up god will punish future generations.

AllTimeJeff

Another debate with Perry.....

So if a government displays a basic standard of right and wrong, that is supposed to be "proof" that individuals can exactly follow all those rules in that basic standard? That is just fluffyness.

What is the point of "exactly"? Why is "exactly" the point at all? I reject your premise. This equates mistakes, or even personal decisions, as sinful. By whose standard?

If there is no "exactly", there is no "sin". If there is no "sin", there is no need for what you and many other Christians of your type are selling. One major theological weakness to Christian theism is the need for redemption. Sin induces mental illness, and reinforces the religions power over people. Your attempt to make right or wrong about behaving "exactly", "correctly", "perfectly", or whatever semantical flavor you wish to put upon it is a false premise.

Mistakes are different from sin. Crimes are different from sin. Sin can only exist metaphysically, when one chooses to believe that some actions are offensive to an invisible being. As I do not believe in such a being, I do not believe in sin. Sin is a psychosomatic illness imo.

So, YOU believe that. Do you have any enemies who might believe otherwise? What happens when your definition of "proper" conflicts with my definition of proper? Let's say you lie to me... for my own good of course; what role does perception play in these kinds of judgments? Have humans been known to deceive themselves for selfish purposes?

I don't burden myself with what you think of me, nor do I particularly care about what my enemies (if I have any,) may think of me. However, you bring up lying, which is an excellent example. I have no issue saying that lying is wrong. If I lie to you, based on the content and circumstances, then you have a right in practically any society to prove the lie and receive compensation based on the laws of the land as a form of justice. This concept of righting a lie and being honest is not uniquely Christian at all, so no trademark can be given to YHWH or Jesus on this one.

And what does this have to do with bible god? Nothing. I maintain that god doesn't care, and you cannot prove otherwise. Telling me that you feel differently doesn't discharge the burden of proof that is upon you. Or "bible god".

You assert correctly that our definitions of "proper" matter. I would ask, has anything of a personal nature that I have done affected you Perry? If you can answer yes, then you have my attention. But we both know the answer. And since the answer is "my life and personal decisions do NOT conflict with your life", then it doesn't really matter.

Lets take that a step further, a controversial subject with Christians, homosexuality. Did you know Perry that it is a statistical probability that as you read this sentence, 2 gay people are having homosexual sex. And this would be affecting you how? If you do not view homosexuality as proper for you, why then is it not proper for others? If you are offended for god, I would submit that god should do his own talking for himself. As usual, a story from the bible (such as Sodom and Gomorrah) that is designed to scare and raise up prejudice only proves a story was written, not that god exists.

So, in your view, values are just suggestions and should not be enforced lest they become tyrannical? Jeff, I am going to hold you to this the next time your house gets broken into, or someone steals your car.

I probably should have made more clear that in your context, the value systems that I was referring to are uniquely "fundamentalist Christian". On items where we agree and which you allude to in your last response, such as lying or theft, someone is hurt. You and I agree that because personal injury occurs, there needs to be consequences. We agree, and history shows that society's of all types and religious backgrounds have held theft and lying as crimes. This is not a trademark Christian discovery and proves nothing as to the superiority of YHWH or Jesus, or the "values" fundamentalists seem to champion.

In matters of personal decisions that harm no one else is where you and I disagree. Your attempts to tie in personal choices of behavior, like who sleeps with who, and linking them to crimes such as breaking and entering and lying are a false dichotomy. Thus when I refer to values in this context, I am referring to bible condemnation of behaviors that harm no one. I hope you will be able to better understand what I mean now.

Quite the opposite. Your subjective notions of right, wrong and lack of punishment would severely limit freedom for others. Unbelievers live in a world that is flying upside down. Because the psychological trauma of living a truly authentic life is so great, they seek blindness..... as a maladaptive survival mechanism. For a long time, there was no other option for man.

However, since Jesus Christ, the option to live authentically has been available.... the ability to fully embrace rule of law without fear of punishment, whether known to other men or not. In Jesus, a person can answer the question honestly, "You who teach do not lie; do you lie? You you teach do not commit adultery; do you commit adultery"? All else is just illusion and untruth.

On this, we disagree. There is no context for further discussion. If I understand you, you maintain that punishment is necessary for the breaking of a law (i.e. what is right) I agree. But your worldview is to divide between believers and unbelievers.

You made the following statement, and it is really shocking to me, so I wouldn't mind you clarifying it. You said regarding unbelievers

Because the psychological trauma of living a truly authentic life is so great, they seek blindness..... as a maladaptive survival mechanism.

That is a subjective conclusion for which you cannot offer any proof other then you believe what you read in the bible. I know the "Apostle" Paul spoke about this a lot. Paul is also on my shit list for his misogynistic, power consolidating writings. He was not right in the head. (if he actually wrote the books credited to him) I don't recognize his thoughts as binding, thus, I am happily free of the burden of sin. This is not because Jesus died. (I know he died, on this we agree) I am free of the affects of sin because I reject the notion that guilt based on the writings of ancient scrolls are not to be binding on thinking people. My mental health is much better since I have rejected "bible god".

160

God punishes to the 3rd and 4th Generation! How nice!

by Number1Anarchist in

5 you shall not bow down to them or worship them; for i the lord your god am a jealous god, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me!.

wtf !

so if your grandparents screw up god will punish future generations.

AllTimeJeff

Thanks for your patience, the Mrs and I had a great dinner out....

The ability to choose right from wrong is not so much the question as: can man live up to any standard of "right" or 'wrong".

I think the answer is YES. This is proven by the amount of governments that have basic standards of right and wrong. Speaking for myself, I believe I live up to a proper standard of law, of right and wrong....

Any standard? Lets be frank, that is the point, because Christians have value systems (i.e. standards) that are different from others.

If we are talking about your chosen value systems, frankly, it comes down to who chooses to submit to your value system. If I do not submit to your standards, but otherwise hurt no one by my decisions, and am an honest responsible citizen, living up to a standard of right and wrong, then yes, I am living up to a high standard of right and wrong, even if it isn't yours, or recognizes your god.

When such value systems are enforced, as in the theocratic governments of the OT, then a standard becomes a matter of tyrannical law. And yes, that goes against the principles of freedom of thought, speech, and worship that we (hopefully) cherish in our Western democracies.

Theists often say that they are promoting what god will enforce. It is quite clear that god is not currently enforcing what his believers adhere to. That is the problem, and why I said in my last post that

History shows only man has enforced morality, often in the name of god, but always in the manifest absence of god.

In the absence of god enforcing his own "stated" standards of right and wrong (which are open to frequent interpretation) the evidence shows that only man enforces codes and morality on man alone. God thus far has not been part of the equation.

To be clear Perry, you have clearly adopted what you would like to believe is Gods standards, but I only hear and read your words.

160

God punishes to the 3rd and 4th Generation! How nice!

by Number1Anarchist in

5 you shall not bow down to them or worship them; for i the lord your god am a jealous god, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me!.

wtf !

so if your grandparents screw up god will punish future generations.

AllTimeJeff

I will answer this when I get back from dinner. :)