Though shalt not kill. Would you do so for your God?

[Arioch]

@NM --

this term 'speaks' is only a word used to communicate a feeling that i have that God is influencing my life..it does not mean i hear voices or that God is in direct/unmisinterpretable communication with me.

I realized that, hence I put the word in quotations to indicate a non-explicit usage.

never said that

So the fact that you have a world-view which isn't based on evidence and is effectively impervious to change that you don't like doesn't bother you? I thought that you christians valued the truth.

 

[NMSquirrel]

So the fact that you have a world-view which isn't based on evidence

it is based on evidence..
evidence that i consider evidence..not evidence that i would have to justify to you..

and is effectively impervious to change

nope..God is changing my views all the time..

that you don't like doesn't bother you?

um..if i wanted everyone to agree with me..i would not be here.

I thought that you christians valued the truth.

you christians???

so now you lump me?

haven't you seen enough of my posts to see i don't always agree with the standard 'Christian' dogma??

(i promised i was done pointing out fallacies..)

 

[Arioch]

@NM --

I thought that we covered this already. Testimony is not evidence.

 

[NMSquirrel]

@NM --

I thought that we covered this already. Testimony is not evidence.

in a court of law maybe..i say maybe because there are cases where testimonies of witnesses has convicted ppl, how many ppl have to say they saw you kill that person to convict you?

In science..even if you were not able to reproduce an experiment, wouldn't you give value to the experiment if enough other scientists said they have confirmed it?

 

[spidergoat]

not if i thought it was Satan disguising himself as God..
I do not believe for a second that God would tell me to kill someone..
that is not how he has guided me.



----


so isn't this a case of since there is no other rational explanation then we say God did it?

It's in the Bible though. What if the whole Bible were the work of Satan?

 

[Arioch]

@NM --

wouldn't you give value to the experiment if enough other scientists said they have confirmed it?

Only if they provide evidence that they reproduced the experiment. Otherwise absolutely not. Just look at my response with the whole "cold fusion" thing that's been going on. I expressed just as much, if not more, skepticism for that as I do for religion.

 

[NMSquirrel]

It's in the Bible though. What if the whole Bible were the work of Satan?

keep in mind i do not believe the bible as the unerring word of God.

i believe it to be mans attempt at communicating what/who God is.
and since it is from man, it is susceptible to mans own humanity (his ability to make mistakes)

i have often argued that man has used God as an excuse to kill..in order for this statement to hold value for me it has to apply to everything, including the bible.(this is assuming the stories are true and not a means to a point)

the whole bible as a work of Satan?
no..this would be a case of 'throwing the baby out with the bath water',
IOW just because some of the parts are in error,does not make the whole in error..
just because we are screwed up in certain areas of our lives does not mean we are worthless.

-----

@ Arioch

I haven't read your cold fusion discussion..

but it has been my experience that there is a fundamental difference between a skepticism for science and for religion, the one for science tends to be a more reasonable approach IE there is(can be) solid proof for scientific claims, were as religion there can be no 'proof' as any 'proof' would invalidate faith.
the best argument i can come up with is 'how do you know that you are loved?'

 

[Pineal]

Though shalt not kill. Would you do so for your God?

I thought that the actual meaning of the word that used to be translated as 'kill' was actually 'murder.' IOW killing may be alright, but certain kinds of killing are prohibited.

God himself is shown as killing in scriptures.

(which fits with do as I say, not as I do)

 

[Arioch]

@NM --

And my response would be because people show me that they love me, with actions which are evidence. No matter what we do in life we humans do attempt to make sure that our beliefs and opinions are coherent(though we can never achieve one hundred percent coherence) and that means that they need to fit together well and need to rest on some sort of evidence.

Only theists seem to think that the alternative is a good thing.

 

[NMSquirrel]

@NM --

And my response would be because people show me that they love me, with actions which are evidence.

actions can be faked.

you have faith that those actions are evidence of that love.
you value those actions as evidence.

and what kind of actions?

 

[Arioch]

@NM --

Sure actions can be faked, but we know they're not faked all the time, thus we have a benchmark. Sure we can be wrong, but we do have some evidence to go on. If I really wanted more I could always ask them to get an fMRI, love shows up pretty well there too. The whole "actions can be faked therefore you must have faith" argument is not valid as that sort of faith, partial trust based on some evidence, is not the same thing as religious faith which is trust based on no evidence. Don't bother going down this road with me, I have people use this argument with me at least a dozen times a year and I win every time.

As for what kind of actions, that's irrelevant. What matters is that some actions correlate strongly with the emotion we call love.

 

[NMSquirrel]

@NM --

...is not the same thing as religious faith which is trust based on no evidence.Don't bother going down this road with me, I have people use this argument with me at least a dozen times a year and I win every time.

i won't get too into this.
cept to say subjective evidence is just as valid to the theist as objective is to the scientist. (subjective evidence is not 'No evidence')(this is assuming the theist is not just 'doing as they are told')

As for what kind of actions, that's irrelevant. What matters is that some actions correlate strongly with the emotion we call love.

well, not really irrelevant..but a topic for another thread anyway..

 

[Arioch]

@NM --

Oh I fully understand that, but that doesn't mean that they're right. What you're talking about is bordering on strong cultural relativism which states that all ideas are equally valid. I won't say much more except that it's a thoroughly self-collapsing statement.

 

[Pineal]

i won't get too into this.
cept to say subjective evidence is just as valid to the theist as objective is to the scientist. (subjective evidence is not 'No evidence')(this is assuming the theist is not just 'doing as they are told')

The distinction in empiricism - read: science - between subjective and objective evidence is not so simple. Everything is based on experiences, which are subjective. What scientists try to do, when they find a pattern or think they have, is to set up steps that mean that other observers will have the same subjective experiences (readbservations) they had when they followed the steps. But if you eliminate subjective experiences - which is really a redundant term -, there is no science.

 

[NMSquirrel]

@NM --

Oh I fully understand that, but that doesn't mean that they're right. What you're talking about is bordering on strong cultural relativism which states that all ideas are equally valid. I won't say much more except that it's a thoroughly self-collapsing statement.

so you are seeking a 'one size fits all' answer?
is there truly a 'one size fits all' answer?

 

[Arioch]

@NM --

I'm just seeking an answer that fits the facts and requires no unnecessary assumptions, so far no religion or faith has ever provided such an answer on any topic.

 

[NMSquirrel]

@NM --

I'm just seeking an answer that fits the facts and requires no unnecessary assumptions, so far no religion or faith has ever provided such an answer on any topic.

i have always thought religion tends to speak to the emotional state of being of a person..(not to be confused with mental,physical)(spiritual is a given for religion)

 

[Arioch]

@NM --

I've always thought, and our research suggests, that our "emotional side" is merely a coating for our physical side, that our physical side is what causes our emotional side. So speaking on one would therefore mean that you're speaking about the other. When religion tends to go on about our "emotional" and "spiritual" sides they're inadvertently speaking about our physical side as well, and they're almost always dead wrong.

 

[NMSquirrel]

@NM --

I've always thought, and our research suggests, that our "emotional side" is merely a coating for our physical side, that our physical side is what causes our emotional side. So speaking on one would therefore mean that you're speaking about the other. When religion tends to go on about our "emotional" and "spiritual" sides they're inadvertently speaking about our physical side as well, and they're almost always dead wrong.

coating?
sure i can understand how our physical state can influence our emotional state,(and vice versa) but to say they are one and the same would be to neglect one or the other..(i am sure you have seen me spout alot about mental,emotional,physical,spiritual)
and yes i know about (not all about..)endorfins,seratonin,dopemine,and adrenaline(?) and how they influence our emotions, but that doesn't mean we should deny our emotional state of being as anything less than real.

to deny any one is to deny our whole state of being..(mind,heart,body,soul)
IMO it is vital to our overall health to consider all of these, and to not neglect any. (not saying i am perfect in these areas..)

 

[lightgigantic]

If a Muslim attacks you, wanting to kill you because you are an infidel, a kafir: How does that fit in with what you have said above?

How doesn't it?

The stereotype of the explosive belt wearing islamic jihadist is primarily one of politics and power

Theists have, throughout history and present, justified violence against others on account that theists, because they are theists, are entitled to do so, and that others must give in to the theists.

people through out history and present justify violence against others on account of whatever popular institutions are likely to draw public sympathy - IOW anything that is a popular institution has the potential to called upon to emblazon provocateurs/justify acts.

Note that it is only the theists who justify killing others in the name of God.

Just like it is no coincidence that it is communists that justify killing others in the name of communism ... although in the case of god you have the added issue of advocating in the name of something that is fully capable and determined to deliver the result anyway (like illuminating the sun with a solar powered torch) ... hence such acts are primarily about the before mentioned occupational duty (ie protection or establishing power)

Any person might kill; but only theists justify killing in the name of God; only theists claim that when they kill someone, they do so in the name of God.

aka communists in the name of communism, rebels in the the name of rebellion, colonials in the name of colonialism, entrepreneurs in the name of capital returns etc etc

:shrug:

Says apologist William Craig, for example:

"I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God's command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land.[…] Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples.
It is therefore completely misleading to characterise God's command to Israel as a command to commit genocide. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. No one had to die in this whole affair."

If the question why god would even need to orchestrate a worldly army to carry out his desires is never addressed it tends to indicate that the problem is heavily shrouded in political issues
"God told me that you are stinky and should get lost"
"well god told me that you have big ears and should go back to wherever you came from"
"My god can beat up your god"
"Yeah?"
"Yeah!"

... and its on
:shrug:

So, basically, if I see a theist coming to my property (material or mental), but I don't flee and instead resist when the theist seeks to take my property, and the theists harm me or kill me - I am supposed to believe that it was my fault that I was harmed or killed? And that the theists were just acting on God's command, while I was infringing on the theists' entitlement?

Don't worry. The chance of such an act happening under the banner of such a general designation as "theist" is non-existent. It won't even be "hindu", "jew", "christian", etc. It will be of some highly schismatic sect that due to having the view of one's place of birth (or other bodily designation) worshippable is incapable of dealing in a non-confrontational manner even with those who subscribe to the same ideology.

IOW even if you say you have become one of whatever they say they apparently are and you aren't, they will still take your property anyway, just like the bank does on properties with defaulted mortgages.