Does God ---- Do unto others?

[spidergoat]

One intellectual problem that is often created when comparing old and new testament, is it is like comparing apples to oranges and not apples to apples. Humans were different in the old testament (hundreds to thousand year earlier) and needed a different type of God. After centuries of conditioning, it was time for an easing in the standards for humans in the new testament. This is why the son appears, who is different from the father but of the same substance.

A good analogy is say we had two groups of humans. One group is full of good kids and other is full of hardened criminals. One set of rules will not optimize both. The criminals live by the sword and deception and respect strength. The good kids live by the golden rule and only need a few basic guidelines.

The way I look at it, the type of law that was in effect during different parts of the bible tells us al lot about the nature of humans at that time. They were not us in ancient clothes, but originally more like the criminally insane of today. The law of the old testament had that in mind.

By the time of Christ, at least some of the humans were more like modern humans and had the self control not to be like the beasts. You can lower the intensity of the laws at that point. The criminal would not understand love your neighbor unless that meant rape. But the good citizen understands this means acceptance like family.

So Christianity is anti-semitism, got it. Jews were criminally insane, and it wasn't until Christianity came along that people got civilized.

 

[Syne]

The good old free will B S gambit.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

Free will has no imposed and arbitrary constraints.

Did God not say, though shalt not, before A & E had shown that they were autonomous creatures.
Yes he did.

Did God not throw a sissy fit against A & E the very first time they did their will and not his?
Yes he did. On them and the earth and all of us. Original sin.

Are those not constraints in your view?

God says————You are free to do whatever you want but here are 10 commandments and you will burn in hell forever if you do your will and not mine. Go exercise your free unencumbered will now.

Yet again I must remind you of your own admonition:

... if you are silly enough to read scriptures literally...

Otherwise you must assume that any consequences are simply those of exercising freewill, not some constraints from on high. Hell is not a specific place, only a state or circumstance people find themselves in as a direct consequence of freewill.

Since you're repeating the same argument in different threads, I'll just repeat my own reply, which you agreed with.

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

Humans wouldn't be what they are without "human nature". People choose what they believe to be in the interests of their survival. This is not the fault of a god, or the nature it may impart. It is simply the liability of belief. To allow for the exercise of freewill, man must often arrive at decisions with incomplete knowledge. Eve would have thought it was in her best interest to acquire more knowledge, i.e. "the knowledge of God". Humans would not persist, as a species, without being capable of evaluating their own survival needs without having access to all the facts.

I agree. Eve is thus justified and should not have been punished.

The "punishment" was just the natural consequence of being able to judge right from wrong, not a penalization per se. This ability would probably only be a degree of self-awareness that facilitates a subjective value judgment. (Of course, this ability would allows us to view it as a punishment, whether it was or not, and man wrote the Bible.) Unless we imagine things like a fish "thinking" it evil to be eaten by a bear, and perhaps pitying its own lot in life.

This sort of subjective value judgment is how we judge our own comparable "toil". Nothing would really change other than our awareness.

 

[kx000]

GIM, faith will never die. Consider who he is, the leader of Gods army.

 

[Greatest I am]

Aside from the fact that your links are meaningless to any reasonable discussion because they are merely the explanation of athiests justifying their worldview, you've completely missed the point of wellwishers statements, which are completely reasonable and unbiased.

Argue his points instead of sweeping them under the carpet. I'm sure that if your worldview has any merit, it will at least bring something to the table.


jan.

I deal with everyone who believes in a literal Christ the same way. If they cannot understand that it is immoral to try to profit from the murder of an innocent man, then they will either get it from what I gave or not. If they did and recognize that immoral stance then I am here for them. If not, they do not have any civil notion of morals or law and I write them off.

I do not have time for all the fools I bump into and I am busy at present.

FMPOV, any who follow a religion based on human sacrifice like Christianity is has no clue as to what a proper moral position is.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

GIM, faith will never die. Consider who he is, the leader of Gods army.

Ya. Satan.

You are right about faith never dying.
There will always be fools willing to shed reason and logic and believe that staffs can turn into snakes and that donkeys can speak human.

Insanity and delusion will always be a human trait.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Yet again I must remind you of your own admonition:
Otherwise you must assume that any consequences are simply those of exercising freewill, not some constraints from on high. Hell is not a specific place, only a state or circumstance people find themselves in as a direct consequence of freewill.

Since you're repeating the same argument in different threads, I'll just repeat my own reply, which you agreed with.

Thanks for this.

What was your point though?

If you wanted to highlight this -----

"The "punishment" was just the natural consequence of being able to judge right from wrong, not a penalization per se. "

---- are you suggesting that cursing the earth and all the other woes God imposed are natural consequences.

We agree on natural free will but that has nothing to do with God.

I admit that the quinine I take has been a bit more active lately so I may have missed something.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Thanks for this.

What was your point though?

If you wanted to highlight this -----

"The "punishment" was just the natural consequence of being able to judge right from wrong, not a penalization per se. "

---- are you suggesting that cursing the earth and all the other woes God imposed are natural consequences.

We agree on natural free will but that has nothing to do with God.

I admit that the quinine I take has been a bit more active lately so I may have missed something.

The natural consequence of being more aware is that man could recognize his own hardship. This doesn't mean that the earth was literally cursed, only that by comparison it would seem that way to man. Nothing about the earth would have to have changed at all.

I have not made any argument that freewill necessitates a god or vice versa. The only argument I have made is that the two are logically compatible.

If freewill exists then if a god exists, it cannot be held to blame, as meaningful choices can only exist in an environment where only intrinsic influences are allowed.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I deal with everyone who believes in a literal Christ the same way. If they cannot understand that it is immoral to try to profit from the murder of an innocent man, then they will either get it from what I gave or not. If they did and recognize that immoral stance then I am here for them. If not, they do not have any civil notion of morals or law and I write them off.

I do not have time for all the fools I bump into and I am busy at present.

FMPOV, any who follow a religion based on human sacrifice like Christianity is has no clue as to what a proper moral position is.

Regards
DL

My point is that you're not listening to what is being said. His points were not foolish, and they explain alot. How can you justify ignoring them, especially as this is your thread.

If you refuse to listen and respond to responces based on your personal view, then your presence here becomes questionable.
It's time to stop with preaching, and start to engage in discussions that seeks to show where your reasoning is flawed.


jan.

 

[Greatest I am]

The natural consequence of being more aware is that man could recognize his own hardship. This doesn't mean that the earth was literally cursed, only that by comparison it would seem that way to man. Nothing about the earth would have to have changed at all.

I have not made any argument that freewill necessitates a god or vice versa. The only argument I have made is that the two are logically compatible.

If freewill exists then if a god exists, it cannot be held to blame, as meaningful choices can only exist in an environment where only intrinsic influences are allowed.

We agree except for one small factor.
The moment a God would say, though shalt not, free will is no longer free. The consequences of his punishments kick in.
What is understood is though shalt not and if you do, burn.

Then, so dogma says, he does unto us what a moral person would not do to ourselves or others.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

My point is that you're not listening to what is being said. His points were not foolish, and they explain alot. How can you justify ignoring them, especially as this is your thread.

If you refuse to listen and respond to responces based on your personal view, then your presence here becomes questionable.
It's time to stop with preaching, and start to engage in discussions that seeks to show where your reasoning is flawed.


jan.

My reasoning is never flawed.
I think before I lay it out there.

I tend to know who I can discuss things with or not.
My friend above had so many wrong assumptions other than the Jesus angle that I knew we would not get far.

That is why I gave him my bottom line in terms of objections. If he could not deal with it, then I would know I was right.

I like discussions. I do not like to waste my time.

Regards
DL

 

[Jan Ardena]

Greatest I am,

We agree except for one small factor.
The moment a God would say, though shalt not, free will is no longer free.

On the contrary. God's commanding something means that thing wasn't being done prior to it.

The consequences of his punishments kick in.
What is understood is though shalt not and if you do, burn.

The consequences of not acting according to the best interest of the soul, the essence of the person, the part which God is pertaining to, kicks in.
IOW, there is a price to pay for every action we perform, which is a natural
thing.

Then, so dogma says, he does unto us what a moral person would not do to ourselves or others.

Your conclusion is based on your twisting the words to suit yourself.
You're not taking into account who and what God is, by description. You're not taking into account the power of God (even as a fictional character). You're real, and only position, is one of new atheist, as you only cherry pick the statements that you can compare with modern day humanity and its laws.
Yet you accept that God is a murderer, and immoral. Can you not see how warped that is. If you don't accept the God as a whole, why bother to accept that God is God, at all.

Just say you don't believe, then move on with your life.
Why spend so much time on a lost cause?


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Greatest I am,

My reasoning is never flawed.
I think before I lay it out there.

Every aspect of your reasoning is flawed.
To prove differently, you need to tackle the counter arguments, not just push them aside, and replace it with your ideology. Or show us that your understanding of biblical events is correct, and ours, wrong

I tend to know who I can discuss things with or not.
My friend above had so many wrong assumptions other than the Jesus angle that I knew we would not get far.

Why do you think that you are correct, and he is wrong?
What do you know that he doesn't?

That is why I gave him my bottom line in terms of objections. If he could not deal with it, then I would know I was right.

Your ''bottom line'', is configuered to your worldview, you use terminologies that confirm your emotion. We can see you.

What is your purpose here?
To discuss about God and religion?
Or to tell us that you're right, and no matter what anybody else say's, there wrong, if they don't happen to agree to your ideas?

Do you think you could be wrong about some of the ideas you present?

I like discussions. I do not like to waste my time.

I don't think you like discussions.
And I take ''waste my time'' to mean, you're not interested in anything that does not agree with you.


jan.

 

[Greatest I am]

Greatest I am,

On the contrary. God's commanding something means that thing wasn't being done prior to it.

Laws are written to react to what has been done. Not to what is imaginary or potential.

The consequences of not acting according to the best interest of the soul, the essence of the person, the part which God is pertaining to, kicks in.
IOW, there is a price to pay for every action we perform, which is a natural
thing.

Infinite punishment for finite sins is demonstrably unjust.

Your conclusion is based on your twisting the words to suit yourself.
You're not taking into account who and what God is, by description.

God, as described, is an impossibility.

You're not taking into account the power of God (even as a fictional character). You're real, and only position, is one of new atheist, as you only cherry pick the statements that you can compare with modern day humanity and its laws.

That is the wisdom and standard of the day. What other standard should I use?

Yet you accept that God is a murderer, and immoral. Can you not see how warped that is. If you don't accept the God as a whole, why bother to accept that God is God, at all.

I do not accept the notion of God at all. I do accept what is written about him and followed with belief by fools.

Just say you don't believe, then move on with your life.
Why spend so much time on a lost cause?


jan.

I do not believe in bible God and have moved on to do my duty to mankind. Correct foolish and harmful thinking.

You have said I am an atheist and I am not.
I just have a better and more moral God than bible God.

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClUCw4&feature=PlayList&p=5123864A5243470E&index=0&playnext=1

They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related

Jesus Camp 1of 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBv8tv62yGM

Promoting death to Gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Zg_BVzw&feature=related

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can. It is your duty to your fellow man. It is to you to ----move on--- to do the right thing. Your duty

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

We agree except for one small factor.
The moment a God would say, though shalt not, free will is no longer free. The consequences of his punishments kick in.
What is understood is though shalt not and if you do, burn.

Then, so dogma says, he does unto us what a moral person would not do to ourselves or others.

You haven't paid attention, as I've already dismissed any punishment directly from a god. Freewill requires consequences, as otherwise it would not be meaningful. A god doesn't directly visit these consequences upon us. Just like causation in the natural world, we draw the consequences of our own free actions.

For someone who admonishes against taking scripture literally, you seem awfully hellbent on criticizing it in a purely literal light. A bit hypocritical, wouldn't you say? Or does that just serve your purpose?

 

[Greatest I am]

You haven't paid attention, as I've already dismissed any punishment directly from a god. Freewill requires consequences, as otherwise it would not be meaningful. A god doesn't directly visit these consequences upon us. Just like causation in the natural world, we draw the consequences of our own free actions.

For someone who admonishes against taking scripture literally, you seem awfully hellbent on criticizing it in a purely literal light. A bit hypocritical, wouldn't you say? Or does that just serve your purpose?

It serves my purpose.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

It serves my purpose.

Shitty purpose.

 

[Greatest I am]

Shitty purpose.

How is that?
Show what you mean.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Well you seem to be interested only in ridiculing the literal, rather than seeking any positive way to increase the understanding beyond the literal. Such tactics work no better than a hostile atheist.

Religion is a primer for personal growth. The literal is there for those who may actually need it.

 

[Greatest I am]

Well you seem to be interested only in ridiculing the literal, rather than seeking any positive way to increase the understanding beyond the literal. Such tactics work no better than a hostile atheist.

Religion is a primer for personal growth. The literal is there for those who may actually need it.

I agree.

Unfortunately, those who use the bible as their external conscience, and are supposed to outgrow it as you seem to say, and reach adulthood without recognizing that, then what, other than tough love, are we to use to reason with them?

Regards
DL

 

[kx000]

Ya. Satan.

You are right about faith never dying.
There will always be fools willing to shed reason and logic and believe that staffs can turn into snakes and that donkeys can speak human.

Insanity and delusion will always be a human trait.

Regards
DL

Faith is not ignorant. I speak the truth, Jesus did not turn water into wine like snap* nor did he walk on water. Im no fool. Retract that statement, friendo.