Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Why the idea of sacrifice ??

laocmo
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 3:29:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The whole ridiculous idea of "sacrifice" as presented in the bible is a lot of irrational nonsense. First we have a god that seems pleased when his human creations kill and burn innocent animals for him, even grain that could feed the starving. Then he has the audacity to demand a foolish biblical character to sacrifice his son. Finally to top off all this nonsense he sends his son to earth to suffer an ignominious death to satisfy some stupid notion that this is necessary to save mankind from their sins. Even the Catholics still hang onto the silly idea of the mass being a bloodless sacrifice to their god. What exactly separates these foolish ideas from the sacrifices of the ancient Mayans to satisfy their sick god ??
arielmessenger
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 3:38:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What exactly distinguishes a parent's foregoing spending money on themselves in order to help their children? You complain about the human condition everyone faces and try to blame the way human beings cope with the necessity to give time and effort to others before self? Seems rather pointless ranting to me..
laocmo
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 3:53:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You made no attempt to answer the question. You just tried to compare the actions of a human family doing a rational thing by providing for their childeren to the irrational actions of a psychotic god. Once again, what exactly separates these foolish ideas from the sacrifices of the ancient Mayans to satisfy their sick god ??
Dwint
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 4:13:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 3:29:51 PM, laocmo wrote:
The whole ridiculous idea of "sacrifice" as presented in the bible is a lot of irrational nonsense. First we have a god that seems pleased when his human creations kill and burn innocent animals for him, even grain that could feed the starving. Then he has the audacity to demand a foolish biblical character to sacrifice his son. Finally to top off all this nonsense he sends his son to earth to suffer an ignominious death to satisfy some stupid notion that this is necessary to save mankind from their sins. Even the Catholics still hang onto the silly idea of the mass being a bloodless sacrifice to their god. What exactly separates these foolish ideas from the sacrifices of the ancient Mayans to satisfy their sick god ??

Because sacrifice was normal 2000 years ago, when the Bible was written. Just like slavery or incest, it was a normal part of society back then.
Hitchens is the way!
laocmo
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 4:21:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Because sacrifice was normal 2000 years ago, when the Bible was written. Just like slavery or incest, it was a normal part of society back then."

Society maybe but not the normal actions of a rational god. Again what exactly separates these foolish ideas from the sacrifices of the ancient Mayans to satisfy their sick god ??
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 4:49:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 3:29:51 PM, laocmo wrote:
The whole ridiculous idea of "sacrifice" as presented in the bible is a lot of irrational nonsense. First we have a god that seems pleased when his human creations kill and burn innocent animals for him, even grain that could feed the starving. Then he has the audacity to demand a foolish biblical character to sacrifice his son. Finally to top off all this nonsense he sends his son to earth to suffer an ignominious death to satisfy some stupid notion that this is necessary to save mankind from their sins. Even the Catholics still hang onto the silly idea of the mass being a bloodless sacrifice to their god. What exactly separates these foolish ideas from the sacrifices of the ancient Mayans to satisfy their sick god ??

That's a very jaundiced view, and one which reveals a great lack of knowledge of the stories and what is behind them.

God has never either killed or had killed the innocent, and even the ones that have been killed will, like all who have died get a resurrection into much better circumstances, so they have lost nothing apart from suffering this system.

What makes you think there were any starving then?

All of the nations which God destroyed had the option of joining in with his people, and those who took that option were protected from any enemies that their decision made them, even though they were under that terms of God's justice later enshrined in the Mosaic Law, already under a death sentence.

What is wrong with protecting those who take your side?

Human nations protect their allies, so why should the creator of everything not do the same?

As for the idea of sacrifice, God's justice demands like for like, when injury is done then something equivalent should be lost by the one who caused the injury. Only cowards who wish to avoid responsibility for the results of their actions can have any objection to that.

You do not step off the edge of a skyscraper and expect to survive when you hit the pavement do you?

Actions have consequences and we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.

If t were not for the creator of everything you would not be here to complain, so don;t forget that small detail.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 7:48:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 3:29:51 PM, laocmo wrote:
The whole ridiculous idea of "sacrifice" as presented in the bible is a lot of irrational nonsense. First we have a god that seems pleased when his human creations kill and burn innocent animals for him, even grain that could feed the starving. Then he has the audacity to demand a foolish biblical character to sacrifice his son. Finally to top off all this nonsense he sends his son to earth to suffer an ignominious death to satisfy some stupid notion that this is necessary to save mankind from their sins. Even the Catholics still hang onto the silly idea of the mass being a bloodless sacrifice to their god. What exactly separates these foolish ideas from the sacrifices of the ancient Mayans to satisfy their sick god ??

Christians and the Mayans worship the visible things in this world like everyone else does.

In the next age, ALL God's people will know our invisible Creator and that every visible experience is only an illusion.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 8:15:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 3:29:51 PM, laocmo wrote:
The whole ridiculous idea of "sacrifice" as presented in the bible is a lot of irrational nonsense. First we have a god that seems pleased when his human creations kill and burn innocent animals for him, even grain that could feed the starving. Then he has the audacity to demand a foolish biblical character to sacrifice his son. Finally to top off all this nonsense he sends his son to earth to suffer an ignominious death to satisfy some stupid notion that this is necessary to save mankind from their sins. Even the Catholics still hang onto the silly idea of the mass being a bloodless sacrifice to their god. What exactly separates these foolish ideas from the sacrifices of the ancient Mayans to satisfy their sick god ??

1.) If doing/suffering these "sick" acts results in involved persons being rewarded with the ultimate eternal good (heaven), then it can follow that such acts are morally justified.

2.) The question presupposes God exists, and if we are talking about an all-powerful omniscient God, then it can follow that acts of "sick" sacrifice are morally justified, simply because such a God commanded they be done.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 8:19:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 8:15:27 PM, HPWKA wrote:
At 4/13/2014 3:29:51 PM, laocmo wrote:
The whole ridiculous idea of "sacrifice" as presented in the bible is a lot of irrational nonsense. First we have a god that seems pleased when his human creations kill and burn innocent animals for him, even grain that could feed the starving. Then he has the audacity to demand a foolish biblical character to sacrifice his son. Finally to top off all this nonsense he sends his son to earth to suffer an ignominious death to satisfy some stupid notion that this is necessary to save mankind from their sins. Even the Catholics still hang onto the silly idea of the mass being a bloodless sacrifice to their god. What exactly separates these foolish ideas from the sacrifices of the ancient Mayans to satisfy their sick god ??

1.) If doing/suffering these "sick" acts results in involved persons being rewarded with the ultimate eternal good (heaven), then it can follow that such acts are morally justified.

2.) The question presupposes God exists, and if we are talking about an all-powerful omniscient God, then it can follow that acts of "sick" sacrifice are morally justified, simply because such a God commanded they be done.

Only if you presuppose that this god is a moral entity. What if it isn't?

Reading from his book would dissuade many of that presupposition.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 8:39:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
1.) If doing/suffering these "sick" acts results in involved persons being rewarded with the ultimate eternal good (heaven), then it can follow that such acts are morally justified.

2.) The question presupposes God exists, and if we are talking about an all-powerful omniscient God, then it can follow that acts of "sick" sacrifice are morally justified, simply because such a God commanded they be done.

Only if you presuppose that this god is a moral entity. What if it isn't?

Reading from his book would dissuade many of that presupposition.

I believe you are referring to my second bullet-point, as the rebuttal doesn't really address the first.

The forum-author's question presupposes God's existence. Generally, such a God is presumed to be of the Abrahamic variety, meaning all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect. Therefore, it could follow that whatever said God ordains would be necessarily moral. It isn't necessary to "prove" such a being is moral, if such a being existed, he would be the definition of morality, period.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
laocmo
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 9:58:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"God has never either killed or had killed the innocent......"

What about all the innocent babies drowned in his flood? What about the many genocides he demanded of the Jews? Kill all women men and babies.

"What makes you think there were any starving then?...."

Famines have ravaged Africa for thousands of years!

"All of the nations which God destroyed had the option of joining in with his people..."

All the nations, which Hitler destroyed had the option of joining with his people to defeat the Russians. Is there a difference?

"What is wrong with protecting those who take your side....?"

How about Hitler and Italy? Was his protection of the Italians a good thing. better ask a WWII era Italian.

Human nations protect their allies, so why should the creator of everything not do the same?....."

You are making God think and act like a human. You are making him in YOUR image

"As for the idea of sacrifice, God's justice demands like for like, when injury is done then something equivalent should be lost by the one who caused the injury...."

So God is allowed vengeance? Vengeance is a sin, plain and simple. I would'nt want to befriend such a god.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 10:08:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 9:58:02 AM, laocmo wrote:
"God has never either killed or had killed the innocent......"

What about all the innocent babies drowned in his flood? What about the many genocides he demanded of the Jews? Kill all women men and babies.

"What makes you think there were any starving then?...."

Famines have ravaged Africa for thousands of years!

"All of the nations which God destroyed had the option of joining in with his people..."

All the nations, which Hitler destroyed had the option of joining with his people to defeat the Russians. Is there a difference?

"What is wrong with protecting those who take your side....?"

How about Hitler and Italy? Was his protection of the Italians a good thing. better ask a WWII era Italian.

Human nations protect their allies, so why should the creator of everything not do the same?....."

You are making God think and act like a human. You are making him in YOUR image

"As for the idea of sacrifice, God's justice demands like for like, when injury is done then something equivalent should be lost by the one who caused the injury...."

So God is allowed vengeance? Vengeance is a sin, plain and simple. I would'nt want to befriend such a god.
When you're talking about babies who drowned in a flood, you're no longer talking about a ritualistic sacrifice, you're talking about an act of God resulting in a natural disaster. That being the case, you can't relegate the incident to the God of the Bible because these types of natural disasters happen all of the time.

Basically, your argument should fall more along the lines that if a creator exists, be the creator a deistic creator or one affiliated with a religion, is the creator evil for allowing babies to be drowned in floods, killed in earthquakes, bus crashes, etc.?

I used the examples of babies to follow suit with your reference of them used to dramatize the evilness of the God of the Bible.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 10:26:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 8:39:20 PM, HPWKA wrote:
1.) If doing/suffering these "sick" acts results in involved persons being rewarded with the ultimate eternal good (heaven), then it can follow that such acts are morally justified.

2.) The question presupposes God exists, and if we are talking about an all-powerful omniscient God, then it can follow that acts of "sick" sacrifice are morally justified, simply because such a God commanded they be done.

Only if you presuppose that this god is a moral entity. What if it isn't?

Reading from his book would dissuade many of that presupposition.

I believe you are referring to my second bullet-point, as the rebuttal doesn't really address the first.

The forum-author's question presupposes God's existence. Generally, such a God is presumed to be of the Abrahamic variety, meaning all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect. Therefore, it could follow that whatever said God ordains would be necessarily moral. It isn't necessary to "prove" such a being is moral, if such a being existed, he would be the definition of morality, period.

I don't see how presupposing a god's existence naturally makes that god moral, it's especially not the case given the record given in the bible of this abrahamic god.
So I guess you may need to reassess your argument. You see morality is an invention of man ( just like gods) and that makes the gods subject to man's morality. The god of the bible is amoral, by definition.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 10:32:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 3:38:57 PM, arielmessenger wrote:
What exactly distinguishes a parent's foregoing spending money on themselves in order to help their children? You complain about the human condition everyone faces and try to blame the way human beings cope with the necessity to give time and effort to others before self? Seems rather pointless ranting to me..

red herring much?
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 10:33:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 4:49:53 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/13/2014 3:29:51 PM, laocmo wrote:
The whole ridiculous idea of "sacrifice" as presented in the bible is a lot of irrational nonsense. First we have a god that seems pleased when his human creations kill and burn innocent animals for him, even grain that could feed the starving. Then he has the audacity to demand a foolish biblical character to sacrifice his son. Finally to top off all this nonsense he sends his son to earth to suffer an ignominious death to satisfy some stupid notion that this is necessary to save mankind from their sins. Even the Catholics still hang onto the silly idea of the mass being a bloodless sacrifice to their god. What exactly separates these foolish ideas from the sacrifices of the ancient Mayans to satisfy their sick god ??

That's a very jaundiced view, and one which reveals a great lack of knowledge of the stories and what is behind them.

God has never either killed or had killed the innocent, and even the ones that have been killed will, like all who have died get a resurrection into much better circumstances, so they have lost nothing apart from suffering this system.

What makes you think there were any starving then?

All of the nations which God destroyed had the option of joining in with his people, and those who took that option were protected from any enemies that their decision made them, even though they were under that terms of God's justice later enshrined in the Mosaic Law, already under a death sentence.

What is wrong with protecting those who take your side?

Human nations protect their allies, so why should the creator of everything not do the same?

As for the idea of sacrifice, God's justice demands like for like, when injury is done then something equivalent should be lost by the one who caused the injury. Only cowards who wish to avoid responsibility for the results of their actions can have any objection to that.

You do not step off the edge of a skyscraper and expect to survive when you hit the pavement do you?

Actions have consequences and we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.

If t were not for the creator of everything you would not be here to complain, so don;t forget that small detail.

seems like an argument for tribalism....yuck
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 11:50:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 10:33:43 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/13/2014 4:49:53 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/13/2014 3:29:51 PM, laocmo wrote:
The whole ridiculous idea of "sacrifice" as presented in the bible is a lot of irrational nonsense. First we have a god that seems pleased when his human creations kill and burn innocent animals for him, even grain that could feed the starving. Then he has the audacity to demand a foolish biblical character to sacrifice his son. Finally to top off all this nonsense he sends his son to earth to suffer an ignominious death to satisfy some stupid notion that this is necessary to save mankind from their sins. Even the Catholics still hang onto the silly idea of the mass being a bloodless sacrifice to their god. What exactly separates these foolish ideas from the sacrifices of the ancient Mayans to satisfy their sick god ??

That's a very jaundiced view, and one which reveals a great lack of knowledge of the stories and what is behind them.

God has never either killed or had killed the innocent, and even the ones that have been killed will, like all who have died get a resurrection into much better circumstances, so they have lost nothing apart from suffering this system.

What makes you think there were any starving then?

All of the nations which God destroyed had the option of joining in with his people, and those who took that option were protected from any enemies that their decision made them, even though they were under that terms of God's justice later enshrined in the Mosaic Law, already under a death sentence.

What is wrong with protecting those who take your side?

Human nations protect their allies, so why should the creator of everything not do the same?

As for the idea of sacrifice, God's justice demands like for like, when injury is done then something equivalent should be lost by the one who caused the injury. Only cowards who wish to avoid responsibility for the results of their actions can have any objection to that.

You do not step off the edge of a skyscraper and expect to survive when you hit the pavement do you?

Actions have consequences and we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.

If t were not for the creator of everything you would not be here to complain, so don;t forget that small detail.

seems like an argument for tribalism....yuck

No, just an argument for personal responsibility.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 11:59:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 3:29:51 PM, laocmo wrote:
The whole ridiculous idea of "sacrifice" as presented in the bible is a lot of irrational nonsense. First we have a god that seems pleased when his human creations kill and burn innocent animals for him, even grain that could feed the starving. Then he has the audacity to demand a foolish biblical character to sacrifice his son. Finally to top off all this nonsense he sends his son to earth to suffer an ignominious death to satisfy some stupid notion that this is necessary to save mankind from their sins. Even the Catholics still hang onto the silly idea of the mass being a bloodless sacrifice to their god. What exactly separates these foolish ideas from the sacrifices of the ancient Mayans to satisfy their sick god ??

The purpose behind sacrifice in the bible is to teach people that they are responsible for each other, well they like it or not!

Your sins kill the innocent. . . that's what the message of the crucifixion story is about.

Our sins hurt others. Our behavior can lead to the destruction of people we don't even know.

We must prevent ourselves from sinning or left becomes difficult for all of us when we fail to prevent destructive behavior in our society.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 12:04:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 3:29:51 PM, laocmo wrote:
The whole ridiculous idea of "sacrifice" as presented in the bible is a lot of irrational nonsense. First we have a god that seems pleased when his human creations kill and burn innocent animals for him, even grain that could feed the starving. Then he has the audacity to demand a foolish biblical character to sacrifice his son. Finally to top off all this nonsense he sends his son to earth to suffer an ignominious death to satisfy some stupid notion that this is necessary to save mankind from their sins. Even the Catholics still hang onto the silly idea of the mass being a bloodless sacrifice to their god. What exactly separates these foolish ideas from the sacrifices of the ancient Mayans to satisfy their sick god ??

Well, though I don't agree with human sacrifices, the basic idea the Mayans clung to was correct. The wages of sin is death.

Human-killing tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis . . . and also plagues and other dangers are tools God uses to punish the world for its sin. You're not suppose to like this message. It's suppose to annoy you . . . to convince you not to sin.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 12:05:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 9:58:02 AM, laocmo wrote:
"God has never either killed or had killed the innocent......"

What about all the innocent babies drowned in his flood? What about the many genocides he demanded of the Jews? Kill all women men and babies.

They were not innocent. Since Adam no-one has been born innocent, since we are all born thanks to him with a sinful nature. That is simply a fact of life I'm afraid.

Below a certain age everyone is judged on the behaviour of their parents, since that is how they are most likely to turn out.


"What makes you think there were any starving then?...."

Famines have ravaged Africa for thousands of years!


As far as you are aware, and who is to blame for the vast majority of those famines - we, as mankind, are.

"All of the nations which God destroyed had the option of joining in with his people..."

All the nations, which Hitler destroyed had the option of joining with his people to defeat the Russians. Is there a difference?

Yes. Hitler was no a benign force for good, nor was he better option than the Russians, since all human Government is under the influence of Satan.

At least God, as our creator, has a right to say who is acceptable and who isn't.


"What is wrong with protecting those who take your side....?"

How about Hitler and Italy? Was his protection of the Italians a good thing. better ask a WWII era Italian.

Human nations protect their allies, so why should the creator of everything not do the same?....."

You are making God think and act like a human. You are making him in YOUR image


Actually I am simply recognising that I was created in his image.

Anyway, I have accepted his invitation to get to know him well and with his help have learned a lot of how he thinks.

He wants us all to get to know him so we can know how trustworthy he is, and even provided us with a model to copy by sending his son to the earth to take on the human body of Jesus.

"As for the idea of sacrifice, God's justice demands like for like, when injury is done then something equivalent should be lost by the one who caused the injury...."

So God is allowed vengeance? Vengeance is a sin, plain and simple. I wouldn't want to befriend such a god.

Vengeance is a sin only if we, with our very limited "sight" seek it. God as the creator of everything has the right to choose, and tyo expect our cooperation, which is all he wants.

He also has the right, and the knowledge to take vengeance for us against all who would ruin things for his people.

He has no need of vengeance since no-one can harm him to give him cause for it.

Up to you if you want to serve him or not, but I suggest you get to know him before you judge him, that is simple justice. No-one should judge without facts yet so many do judge God without bothering to get to know him properly.

How would you like it if you were judged without knowledge of who and what you are?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 12:08:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 10:26:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/13/2014 8:39:20 PM, HPWKA wrote:
1.) If doing/suffering these "sick" acts results in involved persons being rewarded with the ultimate eternal good (heaven), then it can follow that such acts are morally justified.

2.) The question presupposes God exists, and if we are talking about an all-powerful omniscient God, then it can follow that acts of "sick" sacrifice are morally justified, simply because such a God commanded they be done.

Only if you presuppose that this god is a moral entity. What if it isn't?

Reading from his book would dissuade many of that presupposition.

I believe you are referring to my second bullet-point, as the rebuttal doesn't really address the first.

The forum-author's question presupposes God's existence. Generally, such a God is presumed to be of the Abrahamic variety, meaning all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect. Therefore, it could follow that whatever said God ordains would be necessarily moral. It isn't necessary to "prove" such a being is moral, if such a being existed, he would be the definition of morality, period.

I don't see how presupposing a god's existence naturally makes that god moral, it's especially not the case given the record given in the bible of this abrahamic god.
So I guess you may need to reassess your argument. You see morality is an invention of man ( just like gods) and that makes the gods subject to man's morality. The god of the bible is amoral, by definition.

Presupposing God's existence does nothing but presuppose hie existence.

Getting to know him tells you whether or not he is a truly moral being, so take his invitation to get to know him and judge him in knowledge not in ignorance.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 12:12:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 12:08:42 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/14/2014 10:26:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/13/2014 8:39:20 PM, HPWKA wrote:
1.) If doing/suffering these "sick" acts results in involved persons being rewarded with the ultimate eternal good (heaven), then it can follow that such acts are morally justified.

2.) The question presupposes God exists, and if we are talking about an all-powerful omniscient God, then it can follow that acts of "sick" sacrifice are morally justified, simply because such a God commanded they be done.

Only if you presuppose that this god is a moral entity. What if it isn't?

Reading from his book would dissuade many of that presupposition.

I believe you are referring to my second bullet-point, as the rebuttal doesn't really address the first.

The forum-author's question presupposes God's existence. Generally, such a God is presumed to be of the Abrahamic variety, meaning all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect. Therefore, it could follow that whatever said God ordains would be necessarily moral. It isn't necessary to "prove" such a being is moral, if such a being existed, he would be the definition of morality, period.

I don't see how presupposing a god's existence naturally makes that god moral, it's especially not the case given the record given in the bible of this abrahamic god.
So I guess you may need to reassess your argument. You see morality is an invention of man ( just like gods) and that makes the gods subject to man's morality. The god of the bible is amoral, by definition.

Presupposing God's existence does nothing but presuppose hie existence.

Getting to know him tells you whether or not he is a truly moral being, so take his invitation to get to know him and judge him in knowledge not in ignorance.

If your talking about bible god, I've read his book.

He's amoral by definition.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 12:13:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 10:08:05 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/14/2014 9:58:02 AM, laocmo wrote:
"God has never either killed or had killed the innocent......"

What about all the innocent babies drowned in his flood? What about the many genocides he demanded of the Jews? Kill all women men and babies.

"What makes you think there were any starving then?...."

Famines have ravaged Africa for thousands of years!

"All of the nations which God destroyed had the option of joining in with his people..."

All the nations, which Hitler destroyed had the option of joining with his people to defeat the Russians. Is there a difference?

"What is wrong with protecting those who take your side....?"

How about Hitler and Italy? Was his protection of the Italians a good thing. better ask a WWII era Italian.

Human nations protect their allies, so why should the creator of everything not do the same?....."

You are making God think and act like a human. You are making him in YOUR image

"As for the idea of sacrifice, God's justice demands like for like, when injury is done then something equivalent should be lost by the one who caused the injury...."

So God is allowed vengeance? Vengeance is a sin, plain and simple. I would'nt want to befriend such a god.
When you're talking about babies who drowned in a flood, you're no longer talking about a ritualistic sacrifice, you're talking about an act of God resulting in a natural disaster. That being the case, you can't relegate the incident to the God of the Bible because these types of natural disasters happen all of the time.


Except that the biblical flood was not a natural disaster, it was a deliberate act by God in order to cleanse the earth of all evil mankind, and to force the disobedient angels to forgo their materialised human bodies again.

Basically, your argument should fall more along the lines that if a creator exists, be the creator a deistic creator or one affiliated with a religion, is the creator evil for allowing babies to be drowned in floods, killed in earthquakes, bus crashes, etc.?

I used the examples of babies to follow suit with your reference of them used to dramatize the evilness of the God of the Bible.

Maybe, if you should get a resurrection you can ask those victims of flooding etc. how they feel about being given a short-cut into a much better world without the influence of Satan>

Give them time to get over the shock first though.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 12:19:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 12:12:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/14/2014 12:08:42 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/14/2014 10:26:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/13/2014 8:39:20 PM, HPWKA wrote:
1.) If doing/suffering these "sick" acts results in involved persons being rewarded with the ultimate eternal good (heaven), then it can follow that such acts are morally justified.

2.) The question presupposes God exists, and if we are talking about an all-powerful omniscient God, then it can follow that acts of "sick" sacrifice are morally justified, simply because such a God commanded they be done.

Only if you presuppose that this god is a moral entity. What if it isn't?

Reading from his book would dissuade many of that presupposition.

I believe you are referring to my second bullet-point, as the rebuttal doesn't really address the first.

The forum-author's question presupposes God's existence. Generally, such a God is presumed to be of the Abrahamic variety, meaning all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect. Therefore, it could follow that whatever said God ordains would be necessarily moral. It isn't necessary to "prove" such a being is moral, if such a being existed, he would be the definition of morality, period.

I don't see how presupposing a god's existence naturally makes that god moral, it's especially not the case given the record given in the bible of this abrahamic god.
So I guess you may need to reassess your argument. You see morality is an invention of man ( just like gods) and that makes the gods subject to man's morality. The god of the bible is amoral, by definition.

Presupposing God's existence does nothing but presuppose hie existence.

Getting to know him tells you whether or not he is a truly moral being, so take his invitation to get to know him and judge him in knowledge not in ignorance.

If your talking about bible god, I've read his book.

He's amoral by definition.

Then you haven't read it properly because it actually proves the opposite.

I didn't say just read the book I said get to know him. Study the book carefully.

You continue to judge in ignorance as you are at present. I have found knowledge in there that you have no idea about, hence I can judge him in knowledge and I find him highly moral, no matter how he may appear to a superficial reading.

All you have done is read what it says on the surface without looking into the whys and wherefores which are all explained in there somewhere.

It's not a book you can just read and understand. it takes a lot of study.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 12:22:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 12:19:23 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/14/2014 12:12:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/14/2014 12:08:42 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/14/2014 10:26:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/13/2014 8:39:20 PM, HPWKA wrote:
1.) If doing/suffering these "sick" acts results in involved persons being rewarded with the ultimate eternal good (heaven), then it can follow that such acts are morally justified.

2.) The question presupposes God exists, and if we are talking about an all-powerful omniscient God, then it can follow that acts of "sick" sacrifice are morally justified, simply because such a God commanded they be done.

Only if you presuppose that this god is a moral entity. What if it isn't?

Reading from his book would dissuade many of that presupposition.

I believe you are referring to my second bullet-point, as the rebuttal doesn't really address the first.

The forum-author's question presupposes God's existence. Generally, such a God is presumed to be of the Abrahamic variety, meaning all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect. Therefore, it could follow that whatever said God ordains would be necessarily moral. It isn't necessary to "prove" such a being is moral, if such a being existed, he would be the definition of morality, period.

I don't see how presupposing a god's existence naturally makes that god moral, it's especially not the case given the record given in the bible of this abrahamic god.
So I guess you may need to reassess your argument. You see morality is an invention of man ( just like gods) and that makes the gods subject to man's morality. The god of the bible is amoral, by definition.

Presupposing God's existence does nothing but presuppose hie existence.

Getting to know him tells you whether or not he is a truly moral being, so take his invitation to get to know him and judge him in knowledge not in ignorance.

If your talking about bible god, I've read his book.

He's amoral by definition.

Then you haven't read it properly because it actually proves the opposite.

I didn't say just read the book I said get to know him. Study the book carefully.

You continue to judge in ignorance as you are at present. I have found knowledge in there that you have no idea about, hence I can judge him in knowledge and I find him highly moral, no matter how he may appear to a superficial reading.

All you have done is read what it says on the surface without looking into the whys and wherefores which are all explained in there somewhere.

It's not a book you can just read and understand. it takes a lot of study.

Madman don't kid yourself.

You couldn't find knowledge in the British Library.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 12:49:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 11:50:44 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/14/2014 10:33:43 AM, perplexed wrote:
At 4/13/2014 4:49:53 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/13/2014 3:29:51 PM, laocmo wrote:
The whole ridiculous idea of "sacrifice" as presented in the bible is a lot of irrational nonsense. First we have a god that seems pleased when his human creations kill and burn innocent animals for him, even grain that could feed the starving. Then he has the audacity to demand a foolish biblical character to sacrifice his son. Finally to top off all this nonsense he sends his son to earth to suffer an ignominious death to satisfy some stupid notion that this is necessary to save mankind from their sins. Even the Catholics still hang onto the silly idea of the mass being a bloodless sacrifice to their god. What exactly separates these foolish ideas from the sacrifices of the ancient Mayans to satisfy their sick god ??

That's a very jaundiced view, and one which reveals a great lack of knowledge of the stories and what is behind them.

God has never either killed or had killed the innocent, and even the ones that have been killed will, like all who have died get a resurrection into much better circumstances, so they have lost nothing apart from suffering this system.

What makes you think there were any starving then?

All of the nations which God destroyed had the option of joining in with his people, and those who took that option were protected from any enemies that their decision made them, even though they were under that terms of God's justice later enshrined in the Mosaic Law, already under a death sentence.

What is wrong with protecting those who take your side?

Human nations protect their allies, so why should the creator of everything not do the same?

As for the idea of sacrifice, God's justice demands like for like, when injury is done then something equivalent should be lost by the one who caused the injury. Only cowards who wish to avoid responsibility for the results of their actions can have any objection to that.

You do not step off the edge of a skyscraper and expect to survive when you hit the pavement do you?

Actions have consequences and we have to be prepared to accept those consequences.

If t were not for the creator of everything you would not be here to complain, so don;t forget that small detail.

seems like an argument for tribalism....yuck

No, just an argument for personal responsibility.

whatever makes you feel better, god
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 8:50:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/14/2014 12:13:15 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/14/2014 10:08:05 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/14/2014 9:58:02 AM, laocmo wrote:
"God has never either killed or had killed the innocent......"

What about all the innocent babies drowned in his flood? What about the many genocides he demanded of the Jews? Kill all women men and babies.

"What makes you think there were any starving then?...."

Famines have ravaged Africa for thousands of years!

"All of the nations which God destroyed had the option of joining in with his people..."

All the nations, which Hitler destroyed had the option of joining with his people to defeat the Russians. Is there a difference?

"What is wrong with protecting those who take your side....?"

How about Hitler and Italy? Was his protection of the Italians a good thing. better ask a WWII era Italian.

Human nations protect their allies, so why should the creator of everything not do the same?....."

You are making God think and act like a human. You are making him in YOUR image

"As for the idea of sacrifice, God's justice demands like for like, when injury is done then something equivalent should be lost by the one who caused the injury...."

So God is allowed vengeance? Vengeance is a sin, plain and simple. I would'nt want to befriend such a god.
When you're talking about babies who drowned in a flood, you're no longer talking about a ritualistic sacrifice, you're talking about an act of God resulting in a natural disaster. That being the case, you can't relegate the incident to the God of the Bible because these types of natural disasters happen all of the time.


Except that the biblical flood was not a natural disaster, it was a deliberate act by God in order to cleanse the earth of all evil mankind, and to force the disobedient angels to forgo their materialised human bodies again.

I however did say an act of God resulting in a natural disaster. What would you consider the earthquake that occurred after Christ's death while on the cross?
Basically, your argument should fall more along the lines that if a creator exists, be the creator a deistic creator or one affiliated with a religion, is the creator evil for allowing babies to be drowned in floods, killed in earthquakes, bus crashes, etc.?

I used the examples of babies to follow suit with your reference of them used to dramatize the evilness of the God of the Bible.

Maybe, if you should get a resurrection you can ask those victims of flooding etc. how they feel about being given a short-cut into a much better world without the influence of Satan>

Give them time to get over the shock first though.
You may as well envision me wearing a choir robe.