The Nature of God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-10-2013, 11:32 PM
RE: The Nature of God
(01-10-2013 11:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It is not. It's simply a matter of historical reality.

Hahahahaha! So the Torah is historically accurate?! Hahahahahaa! Are you by any chance of Jewish heritage? I let out a fart whilst I was laughing. So Noah and his super ark was also a "historical reality"?

Quote:Saying Judaism is the "rootstck" of Christianity implies there is a congruent conceptual flow.

Yes there is partial conceptual congruence and that is all there can be otherwise there would be no Christianity and it would be just more Judaism. That is entirely consistent with the notion of descent. The domestic cat is a descendant of a wild cat hence it is similar and not identical. Humans share traits in common with other primates but we are not identical to any other primate else we would not constitute a distinct species. That I am having to elucidate these basic points demonstrates how desperate you are to score a cheap and easy point.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 11:36 PM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2013 12:15 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Nature of God
It's very clear what you said.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 11:42 PM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2013 12:30 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Nature of God
(01-10-2013 11:32 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(01-10-2013 11:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It is not. It's simply a matter of historical reality.

Hahahahaha! So the Torah is historically accurate?! Hahahahahaa! Are you by any chance of Jewish heritage? I let out a fart whilst I was laughing. So Noah and his super ark was also a "historical reality"?

Quote:Saying Judaism is the "rootstck" of Christianity implies there is a congruent conceptual flow.

Yes there is partial conceptual congruence and that is all there can be otherwise there would be no Christianity and it would be just more Judaism. That is entirely consistent with the notion of descent. The domestic cat is a descendant of a wild cat hence it is similar and not identical. Humans share traits in common with other primates but we are not identical to any other primate else we would not constitute a distinct species. That I am having to elucidate these basic points demonstrates how desperate you are to score a cheap and easy point.

No idiot, I said no such thing. No one is THAT stupid.
Spare me your condescending preaching.
The historical reality contradicts Islam's claims. I said nothing about the claims of the Jews.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 12:47 AM
RE: The Nature of God
(01-10-2013 11:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No idiot, I said no such thing. No one is THAT stupid.

You are apparently that stupid. What you are arguing is akin to arguing whether mathematics did or didn't come from Thoth.

Did mathematics come from Thoth?
Did Islam come from Abraham?

The two questions are analogous. Your "I've got a thread which proves my idiotic idea" attitude only butresses your status as a imbecile. You're like a moron with a security blanket.

Quote:Spare me your condescending crap preaching.

No we wouldn't want anything to interfere with your ignorance would we?

Quote:The historical reality contradicts Islam's claims.

What "historical reality" you silly cunt? If the entire narrative about Abraham is a myth then any discussion on the topic can be nothing more than a language game. The notion of "Abrahamic" is meaningless outside of a language game that is predicated on the historicity of the Torah. X is more or less "Abrahamic" in the same sense in which Y is more or less "Spidermanic". There is no historical event with which to refer to determine if Islam is or isn't really "Abrahamic". If Abraham is a mythological figure what can "Abrahamic" mean, to what can it refer? The signifier "Abrahamic" and its referent start and end in a self-contained domain on discourse. If we aren't playing that language game then the question is meaningless.

Are Batman and Robin really Gothamite? Devote a thread to that you buffoon.

Quote:It's very clear you NEED to tell yourself you are SUPERIOR to everyone here.

Your mind-reading is "very clear" but that you are arguing about whether a doctrine is or isn't really derived from a mythical figure has escaped your keen intellect. Fuckhead.

Quote:Welcome to TTA.
Asshole

Ignorant dickhead. Village atheism at its best.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 01:55 AM
RE: The Nature of God
(02-10-2013 12:47 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(01-10-2013 11:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No idiot, I said no such thing. No one is THAT stupid.

You are apparently that stupid. What you are arguing is akin to arguing whether mathematics did or didn't come from Thoth.

Did mathematics come from Thoth?
Did Islam come from Abraham?

The two questions are analogous. Your "I've got a thread which proves my idiotic idea" attitude only butresses your status as a imbecile. You're like a moron with a security blanket.

Quote:Spare me your condescending crap preaching.

No we wouldn't want anything to interfere with your ignorance would we?

Quote:The historical reality contradicts Islam's claims.

What "historical reality" you silly cunt? If the entire narrative about Abraham is a myth then any discussion on the topic can be nothing more than a language game. The notion of "Abrahamic" is meaningless outside of a language game that is predicated on the historicity of the Torah. X is more or less "Abrahamic" in the same sense in which Y is more or less "Spidermanic". There is no historical event with which to refer to determine if Islam is or isn't really "Abrahamic". If Abraham is a mythological figure what can "Abrahamic" mean, to what can it refer? The signifier "Abrahamic" and its referent start and end in a self-contained domain on discourse. If we aren't playing that language game then the question is meaningless.

Are Batman and Robin really Gothamite? Devote a thread to that you buffoon.

Quote:It's very clear you NEED to tell yourself you are SUPERIOR to everyone here.

Your mind-reading is "very clear" but that you are arguing about whether a doctrine is or isn't really derived from a mythical figure has escaped your keen intellect. Fuckhead.

Quote:Welcome to TTA.
Asshole

Ignorant dickhead. Village atheism at its best.

Exactly.
"What historical reality ?".
And he calls me ignorant. Weeping

"Your mind-reading is "very clear" but that you are arguing about whether a doctrine is or isn't really derived from a mythical figure has escaped your keen intellect."

Nope. That's NOT what I'm arguing. But thanks for demonstrating you utter ignorance of, and comprehension of Islam's claims, and the historical and theological issues.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 02:41 AM
RE: The Nature of God
(02-10-2013 01:55 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And he calls me ignorant. Weeping

The only historical reality that could render meaningful the issue of the "Abrahamicity" of Islam is the historicity of the Torah in all its treatment of Abraham. That is all. There is no more or less evidence that Judaism is "Abrahamic" than there is that Islam is "Abrahamic". If it is meaningful to debate whether Islam is "Abrahamic" then it is also meaningful to debate whether maths is "Thothic". That idiocy belongs to you and whoever wrote your cherished essay. If you reject the historicty of the Torah then you can't play the language game that Jewish and Islamic scholars play. End of story. It is a non-issue for the (intelligent) skeptic. If I don't accept the reality of Thoth then what would motivate any earnest of discussion on whether Thoth is or isn't the source of mathematics? Why not also create a thread "Thoth is not the source of mathematics"?

Quote:Nope. That's NOT what I'm arguing. But thanks for demonstrating you utter ignorance of, and comprehension of Islam's claims, and the historical and theological issues.

That is what you are arguing. The statement "Islam is Abrahamic" means that Islam (or part thereof) was revealed to Abraham by God and also that Arabs are descendants of Abraham, and that is the claim of Muslims. Muslims regard all of the Torah patriarchs as either misguided or misreported Muslims and that is also their attitude to Jesus of Nazareth. So any attempt to contradict the statement "Islam is Abrahamic" will have to involve historical evidence that demonstrates that Islam was not revealed to Abraham by God and that Arabs did not descend from Abraham. But there is no evidence that any religion was revealed to Abraham or even that Abraham existed so there is no basis for affirming "Judaism is Abrahamic" and denying "Islam is Abrahamic". From an evidentiary position Judaism is no more "Abrahamic" than mathematics is "Thothic". But if you want to tilt at windmills and write guides on how to tilt at windmills then go for it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2013, 03:13 AM
RE: The Nature of God
(01-10-2013 11:21 PM)Chippy Wrote:  It works as an archetype because it was created in a prescientific age so it was taken for granted that if a child was reared well the parents are blameless for its crimes as an adult.


That's funny, because I seem to remember the Yahweh of the Old Testament holding descendants accountable for the crimes of their parents. So children can be held accountable for their parent's crimes, but parent's are blameless for the crimes of their children?

Exodus 20-5
You shall not bow down to [idols] or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.


I don't even know why I bother, because I have a good idea where this conversation ma end up going. But just a head's up, nobody here (outside of the theists) finds the Freewill argument even remotely compelling for solving the Problem of Evil/Hell/Satan. Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
02-10-2013, 03:23 AM
RE: The Nature of God
(02-10-2013 03:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  That's funny, because I seem to remember the Yahweh of the Old Testament holding descendants accountable for the crimes of their parents. So children can be held accountable for their parent's crimes, but parent's are blameless for the crimes of their children?

Parents are blameless if they rear their children "correctly".

What you quoted doesn't pose a contradiction.

Quote:I don't even know why I bother, because I have a good idea where this conversation ma end up going. But just a head's up, nobody here (outside of the theists) finds the Freewill argument even remotely compelling for solving the Problem of Evil/Hell/Satan. Drinking Beverage

I don't find the freewill defence persuasive either. You missed my point. Re-read what I posted.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 09:12 AM
RE: The Nature of God
(02-10-2013 03:23 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(02-10-2013 03:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  That's funny, because I seem to remember the Yahweh of the Old Testament holding descendants accountable for the crimes of their parents. So children can be held accountable for their parent's crimes, but parent's are blameless for the crimes of their children?

Parents are blameless if they rear their children "correctly".

What you quoted doesn't pose a contradiction.

Quote:I don't even know why I bother, because I have a good idea where this conversation ma end up going. But just a head's up, nobody here (outside of the theists) finds the Freewill argument even remotely compelling for solving the Problem of Evil/Hell/Satan. Drinking Beverage

I don't find the freewill defence persuasive either. You missed my point. Re-read what I posted.

But clearly God thinks the children are to blame for the parents sins.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 09:27 AM
RE: The Nature of God
(02-10-2013 03:23 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Parents are blameless if they rear their children "correctly".

What you quoted doesn't pose a contradiction.

And what you quoted doesn't make your point. It's a bit from proverbs that admonishes parents to beat their children to instill discipline, all the while calling it 'love'. Okay, so according to this passage in proverbs, raising your children well required one to not 'spare the rod'. Right. How do you get from that to 'parents aren't held accountable for the actions of their children'?

My point was that Yahweh didn't seem to put a lot of emphasis on moral accountability being tied to one person. If it was acceptable to punish a child for their parent's transgressions (shifting moral accountability), why would it not be okay to blame a parent's for the actions of their children (shifting the accountability the other directions)? It's a move of accountability. Your passage in proverbs does nothing to answer why the accountability cannot be shifted in the other direction.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: