Post Any Evidence For God Here

[2dimes]

On a slightly more serious note, in extreme cases where starvation is the problem, then it may be justifiable to 'kill' some amount of children ('kill' as in 'let them die by not feeding them enough'). If there isn't enough food being produced, then trade-offs must be made.

And by that you mean, "Not enough food being produced on their street." Or are you going to deny the fact that not counting how much more I eat than I need, North Americans are throwing out plenty of the surplus food being produced?

We have free will to deny poor people that food.

Evidence for God is people feeling bad about it, regardless of their beliefs.

[jonesthecurl]

So you'd say that the multitude of the times that God has killed children were completely justified?

why is it so hard for some people to think that this could possibly be the case?

the moral indoctrination is strong in this one.

Yeah, it isn't like I ran laps around you last time we had this conversation.

GEE, WHY CAN'T THIS GUY ACCEPT THAT KILLING CHILDREN IS OK SOMETIMES?

Of course it's OK to kill some children. Havn't you read the "Rivers of Babylon" psalm?
"Blessed shall he be who dashes out the heads of their children against the rocks".
It's in the Bible so it must be OK.

[Frigidus]

On a slightly more serious note, in extreme cases where starvation is the problem, then it may be justifiable to 'kill' some amount of children ('kill' as in 'let them die by not feeding them enough'). If there isn't enough food being produced, then trade-offs must be made. I'd go with preserving the most valuable producers, so x-amount of the elderly and the children would have to go. Of course, this is an imagined trade-off, so this imaginary decision becomes very easy to justify. *(this is a problem with moral philosophy).

This sort of thing is at least understandable. When you are faced with a situation in which someone is going to die and you are forced to choose who's going to live it is hardly monstrous to choose one person over another. However, like you said, when someone is choosing to kill innocents for the purpose of sending a message you can hardly consider them a beacon of morality.

[2dimes]

Of course it's OK to kill some children. Havn't you read the "Rivers of Babylon" psalm?
"Blessed shall he be who dashes out the heads of their children against the rocks".
It's in the Bible so it must be OK.

You and others are absolutely correct in trying to agree with James 2:10 because it is a truth that many of us struggle with. Jews, atheists and everyone else that's read or heard parts of the bible. Especially when hearing someone expressing the need to follow the laws in it.

I'm going to use a phrase out of context here probably, because I don't care.
Circular reasoning.

Reading the bible will not make you psycho Jones. Sure some who are/were psycho use the bible or other corrupt claims about god to justify their actions. It was not because they read it and tried to follow the laws. It's just them actually doing what you did. Cherry picking a law that sort of appears to fit the situation, to justify some other thing they did.

So much of that fun stuff was written in the Torah to the family of Abram a few generations out specifically. We can't understand it partially because we are not them and partially because Yeshua has come to fulfill those very laws.

2 Timothy 3:16 ends with the disclaimer, "In righteousness." That's the tricky part, i'n'it?

[BigBallinStalin]

On a slightly more serious note, in extreme cases where starvation is the problem, then it may be justifiable to 'kill' some amount of children ('kill' as in 'let them die by not feeding them enough'). If there isn't enough food being produced, then trade-offs must be made.

And by that you mean, "Not enough food being produced on their street."

Right. My scenario refers to people living in a state of autarky, e.g. being in some isolated woods where exchanging with other groups is too costly.

Or are you going to deny the fact that not counting how much more I eat than I need, North Americans are throwing out plenty of the surplus food being produced? We have free will to deny poor people that food.

That's surplus food? It's garbage, which can become more useful if put into a compost bin, but that's another alternative use for waste products.

Transaction costs will cut into your capability to export food to others, and your 'garbage' is also perishable. Given these constraints, I don't see how people who live 3000 miles away are being denied that food. In this case, there is no denial of the allegedly exchangeable garbage because trade isn't possible.

If you wish to take your 'garbage' down the street or delivery it to some charitable organization, then okay, but that also involves costs which may fail to offset the benefits. For example, engaging in these activities requires resources and time which could've been spent working or enjoying time with one's family. Given this opportunity cost, how could you deny your children such time?

Suppose you choose to stop shopping at a more expensive grocery store, Giant, and instead shopped at Wal-Mart. We could ask, "how could you deny the workers of Giant the fruits of your labor (i.e. money)?" If you then shopped at Giant, then we could ask, "how could you deny the Wal-Mart workers the fruits of your labor?" (The 'denying group X' claim becomes pointless; it's not informative).

In short, positing that "we have free will to deny poor people" overlooks the fact that 'free will' is bounded by constraints. We have to choose between alternatives, and the chosen opportunity as well as all the alternatives differ in benefits and costs.

Evidence for God is people feeling bad about it, regardless of their beliefs.

Hopefully, you're joking. If not, then what's the reasoning behind "observing someone's expression of guilt" = "evidence of God"?

Guilt is a result of failing to meet some expectation--in accordance with some rule.

[BigBallinStalin]

Of course it's OK to kill some children. Havn't you read the "Rivers of Babylon" psalm?
"Blessed shall he be who dashes out the heads of their children against the rocks".
It's in the Bible so it must be OK.

You and others are absolutely correct in trying to agree with James 2:10 because it is a truth that many of us struggle with. Jews, atheists and everyone else that's read or heard parts of the bible. Especially when hearing someone expressing the need to follow the laws in it.

I'm going to use a phrase out of context here probably, because I don't care.
Circular reasoning.

Reading the bible will not make you psycho Jones. Sure some who are/were psycho use the bible or other corrupt claims about god to justify their actions. It was not because they read it and tried to follow the laws. It's just them actually doing what you did. Cherry picking a law that sort of appears to fit the situation, to justify some other thing they did.

So much of that fun stuff was written in the Torah to the family of Abram a few generations out specifically. We can't understand it partially because we are not them and partially because Yeshua has come to fulfill those very laws.

2 Timothy 3:16 ends with the disclaimer, "In righteousness." That's the tricky part, i'n'it?

So, any part which refers to the followers of that time need not apply to later followers?


Let's apply your argument to the 10 Commandments. The 10 Commandments were given to a specific group of people at a certain time. Therefore, they don't apply to later groups. Is this where we blend the figurative into the literal to get around this? Or do we seek a broader context and then apply that only to this particular circumstance?

[jonesthecurl]

Of course it's OK to kill some children. Havn't you read the "Rivers of Babylon" psalm?
"Blessed shall he be who dashes out the heads of their children against the rocks".
It's in the Bible so it must be OK.

You and others are absolutely correct in trying to agree with James 2:10 because it is a truth that many of us struggle with. Jews, atheists and everyone else that's read or heard parts of the bible. Especially when hearing someone expressing the need to follow the laws in it.

I'm going to use a phrase out of context here probably, because I don't care.
Circular reasoning.

Reading the bible will not make you psycho Jones. Sure some who are/were psycho use the bible or other corrupt claims about god to justify their actions. It was not because they read it and tried to follow the laws. It's just them actually doing what you did. Cherry picking a law that sort of appears to fit the situation, to justify some other thing they did.

So much of that fun stuff was written in the Torah to the family of Abram a few generations out specifically. We can't understand it partially because we are not them and partially because Yeshua has come to fulfill those very laws.

2 Timothy 3:16 ends with the disclaimer, "In righteousness." That's the tricky part, i'n'it?

Well, to imitate what cetain others have said: It's written quite clearly. Dash their heads out on the rocks. It's very very clear. I'd like to know if one can do that "in righteousness".
Also, Timothy was written by Paul, not God. And was written a long while later. So was it alright to do this until some while after Jesus died, the we had to reevaluate everything because of some latecomer?

[2dimes]

Well, to imitate what cetain others have said: It's written quite clearly. Dash their heads out on the rocks. It's very very clear. I'd like to know if one can do that "in righteousness".

Not anymore.

Also, Timothy was written by Paul, not God. And was written a long while later. So was it alright to do this until some while after Jesus died, then we had to reevaluate everything because of some latecomer?

No.

There in lies a big deal though, doesn't it? In another thread I'm having a discussion with someone who I respect even though I have pretty well documented disdain for his sect.

Paul whom I quite enjoy reading warned me not to fight with someone who claims to be of Francis of Assisi, telling him I'm of Paul. Because like you say Paul's just a sinner like me. He even states, "of which I'm the worst." That's one of the reasons I'm into his work. It's not that he's good or bad, it's that he's honest and wants to share the truth.

Do I want to read the truth? Probably not. Why? Because I can't handle the truth.

Do you agree what Paul wrote there is very different if we ignore the disclaimer? (Provided I used that word right)

So, any part which refers to the followers of that time need not apply to later followers?


Let's apply your argument to the 10 Commandments. The 10 Commandments were given to a specific group of people at a certain time. Therefore, they don't apply to later groups. Is this where we blend the figurative into the literal to get around this? Or do we seek a broader context and then apply that only to this particular circumstance?

Why would you try to make that leap? Just like you, I know murdering someone is still bad but eating shrimp wrapped in bacon is good. I however know why the two were equal at the time Moses brought the law and to whom it applies.

[john9blue]

Yeah, it isn't like I ran laps around you last time we had this conversation.

GEE, WHY CAN'T THIS GUY ACCEPT THAT KILLING CHILDREN IS OK SOMETIMES?

i don't remember that. got a link?

[john9blue]

Right, it's not like people are amoral, so the 'moral indoctrination' claim is meaningless. Everyone is 'morally indoctrinated' to some degree--in that, they abide by some kind of moral standard/rules.

hence, the indoctrination is "strong", not merely present.

How is this related to the God example? It puts God's choice in much worse light. He's not saving the population from starvation, is he? His 'kill the first-born' punishment, for example, was essentially genocide, so I'm not sure how killing innocents can be morally justifiable. Even if one says, 'god's will is moral regardless,' it doesn't follow that his arbitrary killing is a standard to which humans should hold themselves. In short, why support the notion that others must follow the moral standard of serial killers?

firstly, you can't really call people "innocent" when everyone is considered a sinner.

secondly, i never said that god's will is a standard for humans. i'm all for laws against murder because (unlike god) humans are not smart enough to decide who deserves to die.

atheists are the ones who try to hold god to a HUMAN standard of morality. if you're going to criticize that kind of idiocy, then go talk to them instead of me. they are the idiots here.

[BigBallinStalin]

Right, it's not like people are amoral, so the 'moral indoctrination' claim is meaningless. Everyone is 'morally indoctrinated' to some degree--in that, they abide by some kind of moral standard/rules.

hence, the indoctrination is "strong", not merely present.

So, he 'strongly' is 'indoctrinated' in some kind of moral standard? What's your point?

How is this related to the God example? It puts God's choice in much worse light. He's not saving the population from starvation, is he? His 'kill the first-born' punishment, for example, was essentially genocide, so I'm not sure how killing innocents can be morally justifiable. Even if one says, 'god's will is moral regardless,' it doesn't follow that his arbitrary killing is a standard to which humans should hold themselves. In short, why support the notion that others must follow the moral standard of serial killers?

firstly, you can't really call people "innocent" when everyone is considered a sinner.

Sure, I can. If someone or some book says 'everyone is a sinner', then why must I consider everyone to be a sinner? The book/that person can be wrong.

secondly, i never said that god's will is a standard for humans. i'm all for laws against murder because (unlike god) humans are not smart enough to decide who deserves to die.

Laws against murder = laws against illegitimate killing. 'Illegitimate' is defined by the rules created by humans.

So, if humans aren't smart enough to decide who deserves to die, then why would you support laws against murder which were made by 'not smart enough' humans?

atheists are the ones who try to hold god to a HUMAN standard of morality. if you're going to criticize that kind of idiocy, then go talk to them instead of me. they are the idiots here.

They are? From my perspective, they're simply making comparisons and deciding which creator/process provides the better rules. Is that what you call idiotic?

Is it idiotic to call out arguments where 'no one is innocent' and 'genocide is therefore justified'?

[waltero]

What are you guys going on about?

Nature is the proof you need.
The bible is the living word, and the word became Flesh.

Have a little faith and you will see proof (truth)

[john9blue]

Sure, I can. If someone or some book says 'everyone is a sinner', then why must I consider everyone to be a sinner? The book/that person can be wrong.

you're trying to prove here that god's actions in the old testament are immoral. to prove that, you would have to operate on the premise that the events of the bible actually happened... and given that they happened (namely the book of genesis) you can conclude that humans are sinners.

unless your argument is that some parts of the bible aren't true and other parts are immoral, in which case you're just cherry-picking to support your argument.

Laws against murder = laws against illegitimate killing. 'Illegitimate' is defined by the rules created by humans.

So, if humans aren't smart enough to decide who deserves to die, then why would you support laws against murder which were made by 'not smart enough' humans?

i'm against the death penalty in almost all cases, so i'm not really sure if this even applies to me... but what are you saying here? just because we aren't smart enough to see every consequence of our actions doesn't mean we can't try to change our actions. we have free will (supposedly) for a reason.

They are? From my perspective, they're simply making comparisons and deciding which creator/process provides the better rules. Is that what you call idiotic?

Is it idiotic to call out arguments where 'no one is innocent' and 'genocide is therefore justified'?

which process are they advocating? and why?

and yes, like i said earlier, if you operate on the premise that an omniscient, benevolent god exists, then it is idiotic to call that god's actions immoral.

What are you guys going on about?

Nature is the proof you need.
The bible is the living word, and the word became Flesh.

Have a little faith and you will see proof (truth)

just wondering, do you really think this will convince anyone to change their view?

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[crispybits]

And I used maths as an example, and you didn't answer my question before restating your own. We have objective mathematical / scientific rules that do not require the existence of any god/gods for them to be consistent, reliable and true (to the best of our knowledge). If there are objective moral rules in-built into the universe, then why assume a necessity for god(s) there when you would not assume the same thing about any of the other objective rules of the universe we have already discovered?

As for the second point, yes global society dictates morality, I couldn't have stated it much clearer than in the first word of my answer. Who decides who has the moral authority? Well not god(s) for sure. Both sides in the US civil war slavery issue cited god and the bible as proof that their way was the morally correct way. It's a happy accident that the north won and slavery was abolished in the south. If the south had won, we could be living today in a world where the most powerful nation still advocated racism and slavery, and it would be a very different world indeed.

Yes to an extent there is majority rules, or might is right. But that's not the whole story. The north needed to convice their people that abolishing slavery, despite the costs, was the right thing to do. In the same way that Hitler needed to convince the german people that killing jews was the right thing to do, or Ceasar needed to convince the people that the roman way of life (including slavery) was the right way to live. It doesn't always produce the right outcomes (see Hitler), but these arguments don't take place in a vacuum, and these leaders needed to get majority support for their moral stances before they could act on them. Obama couldn't say tomorrow that all south americans are to be considered non-human and we're justified in killing them en masse and taking them as slaves or whatever and then just go do it, he would have to make a convincing moral case to the nation before he could take any action on that.

The best way I know of to think about it is to think of the human race as a whole gaining maturity, wisdom and compassion as time goes by. When we were younger, we made mistakes. Actions taken in good faith then are now, in hindsight, known to be immoral by today's standards. just like as individuals you or I could point to things we did when we were younger and cringe at the stupidity or the folly of those actions, despite those actions seeming perfectly reasonable to us at the time. As time goes by, and the ongoing global debate moves forward, and we refine our moral codes, across multiple societies with all their different religions and cultures, then we are constantly working to ensure the best outcome for the human race as a whole. Some areas grow into this faster than others (normally the less religious areas where dogma is discarded in favour of rational debate, but that's another topic), and this is the cause of moral conflicts, but in the end we try to work towards a morally optimal society. In 2000 years people will probably call something we think is perfectly OK now horribly immoral, but to the best of our knowledge right now this is what is moral, and that is what is immoral.

If there was objective morality revealed in the bible, then the societal rules the bible lays down should apply equally now as they did back then, because they are objective truth. I'd quote you the whole of deuteronomy and leviticus to demonstrate why that's not the case (and still have some passages from other bible books to back my point up further after that).

[chang50]

What are you guys going on about?

Nature is the proof you need.
The bible is the living word, and the word became Flesh.

Have a little faith and you will see proof (truth)

Why didn't I think of that earlier

[2dimes]

... in which case you're just cherry-picking to support your argument.

Doesn't everyone do that sometimes at least a bit.

Shrimp wrapped in bacon needs more discussion here.

[Frigidus]

So you'd say that the multitude of the times that God has killed children were completely justified?

See Exodus 20:5. These cases are not "spur of the moment- hail fireballs from the sky without reason" moments. These are generation after generation of idolaters, thieves, rapists and murderers, who continued in their sinful ways after their forefathers.
If you read Jeremiah, people often SACRIFICED their own children to idols.
God warned these nations time and time again of what was to come, he gave adequate and incessant warnings because he wants no innocent blood to be spilled (for example, read Genesis 18 when God promised to not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if there were but 10 righteous amongst the whole city, or when God, through Noah, warned the earth for 120 years about the coming punishment, to cleanse the earth of its wickedness)

It is difficult to imagine just how many newborns were killed by God directly or because of his commands according to the Bible, and they should not be held accountable for the actions of their parents. Even if you feel that people deserved death for their actions, the heavy handedness is completely unjustified. God killing all of the first born sons in Egypt is a great example of him being a scumbag. Most of the families affected would have had nothing to do with the actions of their ruler. How can that possibly be justified.

On a side note, why throw idolatry in with rape and murder? I know that the Ten Commandments prohibit it, but at worst it is a victimless crime. Any moral code that stipulates that idolatry is evil is worthless in my mind.

[PLAYER57832]

So you'd say that the multitude of the times that God has killed children were completely justified?

See Exodus 20:5. These cases are not "spur of the moment- hail fireballs from the sky without reason" moments. These are generation after generation of idolaters, thieves, rapists and murderers, who continued in their sinful ways after their forefathers.
If you read Jeremiah, people often SACRIFICED their own children to idols.
God warned these nations time and time again of what was to come, he gave adequate and incessant warnings because he wants no innocent blood to be spilled (for example, read Genesis 18 when God promised to not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if there were but 10 righteous amongst the whole city, or when God, through Noah, warned the earth for 120 years about the coming punishment, to cleanse the earth of its wickedness)

It is difficult to imagine just how many newborns were killed by God directly or because of his commands according to the Bible, and they should not be held accountable for the actions of their parents. Even if you feel that people deserved death for their actions, the heavy handedness is completely unjustified. God killing all of the first born sons in Egypt is a great example of him being a scumbag. Most of the families affected would have had nothing to do with the actions of their ruler. How can that possibly be justified.

On a side note, why throw idolatry in with rape and murder? I know that the Ten Commandments prohibit it, but at worst it is a victimless crime. Any moral code that stipulates that idolatry is evil is worthless in my mind.

To truly answer those requires delving a tad more into history than I suspect you want (Tzor anywhere??-- - he seems able to pull out pertinent facts without much prelude)

In the days of these events, that was how humanity acted, that was how life was perceived. The view I, personally hold is that humanity had to learn from its mistakes, had to mature in order to be what we are today.

Per the idolatry bit specifically, killing someone, in the Biblical view, would be just a transitory and personal impact. Even a child dying is just that.. a child dies, making the parents mourn, but that is it. Idolatry, to contrast, means groups of people drawn away from God, and likely influencing and spreading this disbelief to others. Killing impacted an individuals. Idolatry impacted a society.

[PLAYER57832]

... in which case you're just cherry-picking to support your argument.

Doesn't everyone do that sometimes at least a bit.

Shrimp wrapped in bacon needs more discussion here.

Since he said cherry picking.. seems like a pie recipe might be more warranted.

[Frigidus]

In the days of these events, that was how humanity acted, that was how life was perceived. The view I, personally hold is that humanity had to learn from its mistakes, had to mature in order to be what we are today.

I can understand your perspective, because you don't take the Old Testament as an accurate depiction of events. My arguments don't really apply to those that don't think things like the Flood actually occurred.

[2dimes]

Since he said cherry picking.. seems like a pie recipe might be more warranted.

Chicken pot pie with shrimp wrapped in bacon?

[PLAYER57832]

In the days of these events, that was how humanity acted, that was how life was perceived. The view I, personally hold is that humanity had to learn from its mistakes, had to mature in order to be what we are today.

I can understand your perspective, because you don't take the Old Testament as an accurate depiction of events. My arguments don't really apply to those that don't think things like the Flood actually occurred.

Hmm.. I generally do think the old Testament depicts real events, and much of what is reported does disturb me, including the flood. I am not sure it was a 100% world flood, because humanity was not all over the world at the time.

I tend to put these events into one of two categories. Either, something that happened for a reason that I don't understand OR something that needed to happen so that humans could learn from it.

[thegreekdog]

Since he said cherry picking.. seems like a pie recipe might be more warranted.

Chicken pot pie with shrimp wrapped in bacon?

Shrimp and bacon pot pie (with jalapenos).

[isaiah40]

Hmm.. I generally do think the old Testament depicts real events, and much of what is reported does disturb me, including the flood. I am not sure it was a 100% world flood, because humanity was not all over the world at the time.

I tend to put these events into one of two categories. Either, something that happened for a reason that I don't understand OR something that needed to happen so that humans could learn from it.

So why couldn't God have just told Noah to move somewhere else because He was going to flood "THAT" area? Or, the people that saw the waters rising they could have move somewhere else as well, I mean they did have 40 days and 40 nights to travel. Or why did God have 2 of every unclean animal and 7 of every clean animal go on the ark if it was only a "LOCAL" flood?