The Viral "Sinner" Mentality

[SnakeLord]

gee you make it sound so simple

Make what sound so simple? Look, god says that if they have enough faith they can drink poison and survive. You doubt gods word?

I thought my answer was obvious - No

So having an ability to give life back to that person doesn't mean it's ok to kill the person in the first place?

then I bring to your attention the inherent differences between god and the living entity - namely that one possesses all potency and the other possesses virtually none

Simply put: One has the power and thus can do whatever it wants free from any moral implication simply because nobody can challenge it. It's how we squash ants with absolutely no moral concern. Of course I wonder if that would be different if the ants showed that they didn't want to be killed.

If you insist that the omnipotent and the non-potent have identical parameters it is foolishness

I haven't insisted anything.

I said that while people were debating big time killers, it's worth mentioning that god outranks them all. That was it. You jumped in with your quick god defence - which boiled down as him being able to do as he pleases because he is all powerful. I agree with it.

However, having the ability to do something and that something being moral to do are two different things. I accept that a god can do whatever it wants, but - especially when it claims them as immoral - how do you justify it doing those things as moral other than on the basis that it can because it can?

 

[lightgigantic]

snakelord

“
gee you make it sound so simple
”
Make what sound so simple? Look, god says that if they have enough faith they can drink poison and survive. You doubt gods word?

ever heard of the phrase "text critical issues"?

“
I thought my answer was obvious - No
”
So having an ability to give life back to that person doesn't mean it's ok to kill the person in the first place?

no - but being omnipotent is a separate issue .....

“
then I bring to your attention the inherent differences between god and the living entity - namely that one possesses all potency and the other possesses virtually none
”
Simply put: One has the power and thus can do whatever it wants free from any moral implication simply because nobody can challenge it. It's how we squash ants with absolutely no moral concern. Of course I wonder if that would be different if the ants showed that they didn't want to be killed.

In your ant example its not clear how we fulfill the status of omnipotency

there is a subtle difference between being omnipotent and "very powerful"

that difference is that omnipotence/omniscience etc enables one to have a grander vision of how and in which way the world works
a better analogy might be that of a parent forcing their child to go to school - from the (lesser) view of the child, time would be better spent playing, but from the "greater" view of the parent, they understand that their child will soon be an adult and have a need to facilitate their lifestyle, so its in their best interest to go to school, even though the child may detest it

“
If you insist that the omnipotent and the non-potent have identical parameters it is foolishness
”
I haven't insisted anything.

then why do you insist on it below?

I said that while people were debating big time killers, it's worth mentioning that god outranks them all. That was it. You jumped in with your quick god defence - which boiled down as him being able to do as he pleases because he is all powerful. I agree with it.

However, having the ability to do something and that something being moral to do are two different things.

so please tell us - why do you insist that the moral implications of our activities and god's are identical (despite us both having completely different scopes for potency)?

I accept that a god can do whatever it wants, but - especially when it claims them as immoral - how do you justify it doing those things as moral other than on the basis that it can because it can?

from the child's perspective it also appears that the parent can do whatever they like - what they are missing is the vision of their ultimate benefit - they imagine that it is their ultimate benefit to sit around and play games all day, much like the conditioned living entity imagines that it is their ultimate benefit to languish in material existence

 

[ashura]

so please tell us - why do you insist that the moral implications of our activities and god's are identical (despite us both having completely different scopes for potency)?

I have to agree. Not establishing what morality is while continue to discuss this issue doesn't make any sense.

 

[Revolvr]

Make what sound so simple? Look, god says that if they have enough faith they can drink poison and survive. You doubt gods word?

Where does the bible say this?

 

[SnakeLord]

ever heard of the phrase "text critical issues"?

I'll say no to give you a chance to explain it.

In your ant example its not clear how we fulfill the status of omnipotency

From whose perspective... Yours or the ants?

a better analogy might be that of a parent forcing their child to go to school

... In your example its not clear how the parent fulfills the status of omnipotency. :bugeye: In saying the ant example is just as pertinent.

why do you insist that the moral implications of our activities and god's are identical (despite us both having completely different scopes for potency)?

I guess I have too much of a personal problem with hypocrisy. The minute you assign something as good or bad to someone else, I would submit that you are instantly under its jurisdiction. Of course I guess we differ on this.

According to many christians, gods feelings on homosexuality are quite clear. Wouldn't it leave a rather puzzled expression on your face if you then found out god was gay? This is the same thing.

This entity asserts that this is immoral behaviour but then does it himself as much as possible - and as witnessed for petty issues such as begging for food, (quail).

The only argument here, and one I have said is ok several times, is that this entity can merely because nobody can challenge it. Of course my sense of morality that was instilled within me by that very same entity says that what that very same entity is doing is wrong because that very same entity says it is.

Where does the bible say this?

Mark 16

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
ever heard of the phrase "text critical issues"?
”
I'll say no to give you a chance to explain it.

basically involves examining the context in which a literary work is produced - text critical issues of the bible might would include the relationships between the time, place and circumstances of the various contributing authors.

At least in academic circles, there is no question of providing an interpretation of the bible without addressing text critical issues

for eg, regarding your spin on Mark 16

And light the fuse Ehrman did, exploding his book to the New York Times Bestseller's list! Wallace is right, and his article is worth reading in full. Mark 16 and John 8 are two of the more notorious passages, but rather than just give the church a fish (i.e., teach them response for these two specific cases) I agree with Wallace that we should teach the church to fish (i.e., educate the church about text critical issues in general).
source

“
In your ant example its not clear how we fulfill the status of omnipotency
”
From whose perspective... Yours or the ants?

it doesn't matter
as previously mentioned there is a subtle difference between the words "omnipotent" and "very strong"

“
a better analogy might be that of a parent forcing their child to go to school
”
... In your example its not clear how the parent fulfills the status of omnipotency. In saying the ant example is just as pertinent.

in the parent analogy more potencies are exhibited than just mere overlordship
an analogy must always run short of the issue it is examining, but still a greater analogy wins out to a lesser one if it can exhibit more qualities of the subject

“
why do you insist that the moral implications of our activities and god's are identical (despite us both having completely different scopes for potency)?
”
I guess I have too much of a personal problem with hypocrisy. The minute you assign something as good or bad to someone else, I would submit that you are instantly under its jurisdiction. Of course I guess we differ on this.

According to many christians, gods feelings on homosexuality are quite clear. Wouldn't it leave a rather puzzled expression on your face if you then found out god was gay? This is the same thing.

This entity asserts that this is immoral behaviour but then does it himself as much as possible - and as witnessed for petty issues such as begging for food, (quail).

The only argument here, and one I have said is ok several times, is that this entity can merely because nobody can challenge it. Of course my sense of morality that was instilled within me by that very same entity says that what that very same entity is doing is wrong because that very same entity says it is.

you misunderstand

I am not contending your definition of morality

I am contending why you think that moral codes should be identical to persons of different potencies.

try this analogy.

Take the example of murder.
A state or country has the ability to either legally value or condemn a person who murders according to the circumstances and the perpetrator.
For instance during a war a solider may be rewarded for bravery for killing the enemy. If that same solider kills his next door neighbor he faces legal persecution.
This is not a contradiction but an indication how the same action in different contexts bestows different results.
There are very good reasons why general citizens are prohibited from acting in a similar fashion to soldiers - both of them are contributing to a social stability but their social duties are completely opposite.

In the same way there are very good reasons why the non-potent living entity is prohibited from acting in a manner befitting the omnipotent, god.

 

[draqon]

this sinner mentality also reflects in buddhism somewhat...were all are thought to be suffering and must end their sufferings either way.

 

[SnakeLord]

At least in academic circles...

At the end of the day surely gods word outranks that of any human - regardless to what circle he considers himself a part of? If god says you can, surely you can.. What is there to argue?

Of course we could always debate the position and value of these texts themselves but not if someone claims that those texts are the word of god - in which case when god says you can drink poison, you can.

it doesn't matter

Sure it does.

as previously mentioned there is a subtle difference between the words "omnipotent" and "very strong"

Problem time then because unless you can test and confirm this entities omnipotence, you're walking down a path of pointlessness. It might just be "very powerful", you'd need to confirm it first. Of course that's like an ant confirming whether you're omnipotent or not, which is why perspective does matter.

I am not contending your definition of morality

I never said you were.

I am contending why you think that moral codes should be identical to persons of different potencies.

That was what I explained.

This is not a contradiction but an indication how the same action in different contexts bestows different results.

It is hypocrisy if and when the general says to his soldiers 'thou shalt not kill' and then proceeds to kill everyone he sees. That is my issue.

Of course we generally learn and do what our superiors do, so it's no surprise that the hypocrisy concerning murder/war killing exists because it's exactly what this god has done and has ordered.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
At least in academic circles...
”
At the end of the day surely gods word outranks that of any human - regardless to what circle he considers himself a part of? If god says you can, surely you can.. What is there to argue?

Of course we could always debate the position and value of these texts themselves but not if someone claims that those texts are the word of god - in which case when god says you can drink poison, you can.

people in the highest risk category of not understanding what god is talking about (apart from those who never read scripture to begin with) are those not familiar with text critical issues

“
it doesn't matter
”
Sure it does.

“
as previously mentioned there is a subtle difference between the words "omnipotent" and "very strong"
”
Problem time then because unless you can test and confirm this entities omnipotence, you're walking down a path of pointlessness. It might just be "very powerful", you'd need to confirm it first. Of course that's like an ant confirming whether you're omnipotent or not, which is why perspective does matter.

then you are introducing a different argument - namely god is not omnipotent (which is also something you can't verify btw) as opposed to the current argument of "god is only tenable if he is bound by the identical moral codes of living entities"

does this mean you have given up on your previous argument and want to proceed with a related yet different one?

“
I am not contending your definition of morality
”
I never said you were.

“
I am contending why you think that moral codes should be identical to persons of different potencies.
”
That was what I explained.

maybe you should try again

“
This is not a contradiction but an indication how the same action in different contexts bestows different results.
”
It is hypocrisy if and when the general says to his soldiers 'thou shalt not kill' and then proceeds to kill everyone he sees. That is my issue.

perhaps you should examine the text critical issues

Of course we generally learn and do what our superiors do, so it's no surprise that the hypocrisy concerning murder/war killing exists because it's exactly what this god has done and has ordered.

I think you miss point

I wasn't validating any particular current political event but rather the general role of the solider and the citizen

I was establishing that it is the duty of a soldier to kill and it is the duty of a citizen to not kill - by performance of these duties, a greater stability is achieved (if you have soldiers that don't kill or citizens that do kill, social chaos reigns)
representing a greater "potency' (namely the needs, interests and concerns of the nation) the solider has a special ability to transgress the normal standard - if a solider who has killed thousands of the enemy kills his next door neighbour however, he is judged according to the "potency" of a general citizen

 

[SnakeLord]

people in the highest risk category of not understanding what god is talking about (apart from those who never read scripture to begin with) are those not familiar with text critical issues

O..k, not really an answer to my question - it's you and your typical attempt at subtle insult under the pretence that the person you're speaking to has never read scripture and, furthermore, is a complete idiot. I don't appreciate it. This is one of the reasons I rarely respond to you.

then you are introducing a different argument - namely god is not omnipotent (which is also something you can't verify btw) as opposed to the current argument of "god is only tenable if he is bound by the identical moral codes of living entities"

does this mean you have given up on your previous argument and want to proceed with a related yet different one?

Calm yourself.

You are asserting some weird line between an omnipotent being and a very powerful being and the morality of killing something. It's bizarre.

I wasn't validating any particular current political event..

I never said you were.

Now, next time you respond to me try not to be so condescending. Thanks.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

people in the highest risk category of not understanding what god is talking about (apart from those who never read scripture to begin with) are those not familiar with text critical issues
”
O..k, not really an answer to my question - it's you and your typical attempt at subtle insult under the pretence that the person you're speaking to has never read scripture and, furthermore, is a complete idiot. I don't appreciate it. This is one of the reasons I rarely respond to you.

from my side its not so much insulting but a waste of time suggesting that issues integral to academic understanding can be sidelined on the whim of any interpretation that takes one's fancy

“
then you are introducing a different argument - namely god is not omnipotent (which is also something you can't verify btw) as opposed to the current argument of "god is only tenable if he is bound by the identical moral codes of living entities"

does this mean you have given up on your previous argument and want to proceed with a related yet different one?
”
Calm yourself.

You are asserting some weird line between an omnipotent being and a very powerful being and the morality of killing something. It's bizarre.

just trying to keep the argument on topic
from my side it strange that you are asserting a non-difference between "relatively powerful" and omnipotent

 

[SnakeLord]

from my side its not so much insulting but a waste of time suggesting that issues integral to academic understanding can be sidelined on the whim of any interpretation that takes one's fancy

Firstly it is attempted insult. I am well studied in the area and yet you dismiss, without even asking, anything said as "whim that takes ones fancy". Furthermore it needs to be said that these 'academics' don't even agree with each other because interpretation of such text is ultimately a personal thing. That is why you have many sects of the same religion - funnily enough in this case also snake handlers, those that speak in tongues, those that lay hands on the sick etc.. - those that interpret Mark as it is arguably supposed to be. Now, you lg can dismiss them off hand as is your style, but on what basis do you do so and how do you show it as valid?

This is not an intepretation issue, it's that religious folk have some small trace of common sense within and know damn well that they'll die if they drink poison absolutely smegging regardless to what god says on the matter.

from my side it strange that you are asserting a non-difference between "relatively powerful" and omnipotent

As stated earlier: "I said that while people were debating big time killers, it's worth mentioning that god outranks them all. That was it. You jumped in with your quick god defence - which boiled down as him being able to do as he pleases because he is all powerful. I agree with it."

I then mentioned us having power over ants, to which you whined that we're not omnipotent.. I don't see the relevance to anything? We can still kill ants with no moral consequence right? Isn't that then the whole point.. that an omnipotent being can kill whatever it wants with no moral consequence because it's above or beyond morals as we understand them? If so why did you whine about my ant analogy in the first place? Seems it fit perfectly..

Oh well, whatever.

 

[lightgigantic]

Firstly it is attempted insult. I am well studied in the area and yet you dismiss, without even asking, anything said as "whim that takes ones fancy"

bypassing text critical issues and passing an opinion on the bible is kind of like being hazy on your times tables and talking about algebra

Furthermore it needs to be said that these 'academics' don't even agree with each other because interpretation of such text is ultimately a personal thing.

such discussion is based on text critical issues
the problem is that your discussion is not

That is why you have many sects of the same religion - funnily enough in this case also snake handlers, those that speak in tongues, those that lay hands on the sick etc.. - those that interpret Mark as it is arguably supposed to be. Now, you lg can dismiss them off hand as is your style, but on what basis do you do so and how do you show it as valid?

one reason for examining text critical issues is that it enables discerning the essential from the peripheral - thats why your arguments against religion by presenting obtuse references are not really valid

This is not an intepretation issue, it's that religious folk have some small trace of common sense within and know damn well that they'll die if they drink poison absolutely smegging regardless to what god says on the matter.

then it begs the q why you are playing it up as a normative description
:shrug:

As stated earlier: "I said that while people were debating big time killers, it's worth mentioning that god outranks them all. That was it. You jumped in with your quick god defence - which boiled down as him being able to do as he pleases because he is all powerful. I agree with it."

I then mentioned us having power over ants, to which you whined that we're not omnipotent.. I don't see the relevance to anything? We can still kill ants with no moral consequence right?

what makes you think we can kill ants with no moral consequence?

Isn't that then the whole point.. that an omnipotent being can kill whatever it wants with no moral consequence because it's above or beyond morals as we understand them? If so why did you whine about my ant analogy in the first place? Seems it fit perfectly..

Oh well, whatever.

clearly from your ant analogy, you are missing some integral contributions of the word "omnipotent"

 

[SnakeLord]

one reason for examining text cri....

Blah blah blah, nothing but hot air.

Answer the question. You are obviously espousing that the text doesn't say you can drink deadly poison and survive if you have enough faith so kindly show how you support that. Kindly then show on what basis you can dismiss those that lay hands on the sick, speak in tongues and handle snakes as wrong. I doubt it means much coming from a hindu, but try anyway.

If you can't answer the question just don't reply.

what makes you think we can kill ants with no moral consequence?

Umm lol?

clearly from your ant analogy, you are missing some integral contributions of the word "omnipotent"

Uhhh.. clearly you missed the point. Was to be expected.

Kindly leave it here, you're not the person I wanted to end up talking to.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

one reason for examining text cri....
”
Blah blah blah, nothing but hot air.

another display of astute listening skills

Answer the question. You are obviously espousing that the text doesn't say you can drink deadly poison and survive if you have enough faith so kindly show how you support that. Kindly then show on what basis you can dismiss those that lay hands on the sick, speak in tongues and handle snakes as wrong. I doubt it means much coming from a hindu, but try anyway.

If you can't answer the question just don't reply.

in short, there are standard ways to understanding such topics and non-standard ways
if you want to discuss things in a non-standard way perhaps you are better off in some other sort of company that can disregard fallacies of many questions

“
what makes you think we can kill ants with no moral consequence?
”
Umm lol?

:shrug:

“
clearly from your ant analogy, you are missing some integral contributions of the word "omnipotent"
”
Uhhh.. clearly you missed the point. Was to be expected.

:shrug:

Kindly leave it here, you're not the person I wanted to end up talking to.

:shrug:

 

[Revolvr]

Nowhere in the Bible does it say one can drink snake poison or do something else stupid and be unaffected because of your "faith". I suppose it's possible someone could take a verse from the Bible and give some whacky non-standard interpretation. But if Christians don't interpret it that way (and they don't), then it doesn't say it. The burden of proof that the Bible does in fact say one can drink snake poison is upon the one who suggests it.

 

[lightgigantic]

Nowhere in the Bible does it say one can drink snake poison or do something else stupid and be unaffected because of your "faith". I suppose it's possible someone could take a verse from the Bible and give some whacky non-standard interpretation. But if Christians don't interpret it that way (and they don't), then it doesn't say it. The burden of proof that the Bible does in fact say one can drink snake poison is upon the one who suggests it.

don't underestimate snakelord's ability to call upon whacky interpretations of scripture - its a profound ability he has developed over many years that helps him function comfortably in his atheism

 

[SnakeLord]

Nowhere in the Bible does it say one can drink snake poison or do something else stupid and be unaffected because of your "faith".

And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover

Mark

It does.. Sorry.

don't underestimate snakelord's ability to call upon whacky interpretations of scripture

Yes, it's all my fault. It's all down to me.. :bugeye: Of course never underestimate lg's inability to answer questions while instead just talking down to everyone else while pretending he knows them.

He has now been added to ignore until such time where I am informed that he actually concentrates on what is written instead of who is doing the writing.

 

[Revolvr]

And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover

Mark

It does.. Sorry.

God gave certain individuals charismatic gifts early in the development of Christianity to help it gain a permanent foothold. How else would a short 3 year ministry from an unknown person spread so fast.

But the Bible says these gifts were very selectively given to only a few people, not everyone, and for the express purpose of evangelizing. There is some debate among Christian groups regarding if these gifts are still available today. But the Bible allows for different interpretations of non-essential doctrines. There is another verse which clearly shows how selective these gifts were. There is another verse that implies these gifts disappeared after Christianity spread wide enough that they were no longer necessary.

Since you're so good at finding verses I'll let you look for these.

 

[ashura]

There is another verse which clearly shows how selective these gifts were. There is another verse that implies these gifts disappeared after Christianity spread wide enough that they were no longer necessary.

Since I'm not so good at finding Bible verses, would you mind finding them for me? Since they'd be hard evidence and, you know, completely shoot down SnakeLord's argument. After all, all he has to go on is your word right? And he did provide the scripture for you when you requested it.