We can't judge god by our standards.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-11-2013, 07:59 PM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(28-11-2013 07:50 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(28-11-2013 07:20 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  This is why I can't stand people saying they get morals from god. There is no standard of what is good or evil because god is truly apathetic.

When Jews and Christians say they get their morality from God they mean they get it from the imperative portions of scripture not from the narratives about Yahweh's behaviour. Those narratives are there as examples of what happens when you disobey Yahweh not as exemplars to be modeled. Yahweh is most definitely not "apathetic". All of the commands in the OT--including those in Leviticus--are observed by Orthodox Jews (that is why they grow their hair as they do).
I was referring to the character of god, but that in itself is hard to pin down. I see what your saying though I just wonder if these morals changed over the years, do we really want to go back to the age of scripture? I see that some teachings truly are timeless its just difficult to put everything in a little box of good morals.

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2013, 08:14 PM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(28-11-2013 07:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  That is by your incoherent, contradictory definition. And is entirely without evidence. Drinking Beverage

It's not incoherent. If Yahweh exists and He is as He is described in the OT then that is the consequence. Your counter-argument is misguided as is your implied request for evidence. Evidence of what exactly?

If Yahweh exists and the Book of Leviticus is His word then it is true that he doesn't want Jews to eat shellfish. The evidence that he doesn't want Jews to eat shellfish is the text of the Book of Leviticus. You can reasonably ask for evidence that Yahweh exists or if the Book of Leviticus is His word but that is all.

If you are arguing about the morality of Yahweh you are rhetorically/hypothetically assuming He exists and that the OT is an account of His behaviour. That is your argumentative tactic. It doesn't make sense to then question your own rhetorical/hypothetical assumptions--that is incoherent. You are arguing with yourself.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
28-11-2013, 08:17 PM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(28-11-2013 07:59 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  do we really want to go back to the age of scripture?

Of course not! That is not what I am sayimg. My point is that if you want to seriously engage a pious Jew or Christian you need to understand their position. You can't invent a strawman and slash at it with your figurative sword. What is the point? That is a form of intellectual masturbation.

Quote:I see that some teachings truly are timeless its just difficult to put everything in a little box of good morals.

I agree but that is besides the point.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
28-11-2013, 08:21 PM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(28-11-2013 05:00 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  - As you say, we are "made in his image". So why are his abhorrent actions so foreign to our innate moral sense, the one he instilled in us?

The idea that we live in Fallen world is fundamental to Judaism and Christianity. We were "made in his image" but the Fall has corrupted us. The noetic effect of sin is an important idea in the Reformed tradition.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2013, 08:29 PM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(28-11-2013 08:14 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(28-11-2013 07:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  That is by your incoherent, contradictory definition. And is entirely without evidence. Drinking Beverage

It's not incoherent. If Yahweh exists and He is as He is described in the OT then that is the consequence. Your counter-argument is misguided as is your implied request for evidence. Evidence of what exactly?

If Yahweh exists and the Book of Leviticus is His word then it is true that he doesn't want Jews to eat shellfish. The evidence that he doesn't want Jews to eat shellfish is the text of the Book of Leviticus. You can reasonably ask for evidence that Yahweh exists or if the Book of Leviticus is His word but that is all.

If you are arguing about the morality of Yahweh you are rhetorically/hypothetically assuming He exists and that the OT is an account of His behaviour. That is your argumentative tactic. It doesn't make sense to then question your own rhetorical/hypothetical assumptions--that is incoherent. You are arguing with yourself.


The Bible is evidence of nothing - it is the claim.

His definition is incoherent when he claims attributes for something that he says does not even have to exist.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2013, 08:35 PM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(28-11-2013 05:53 PM)Julius Wrote:  Yes...you got it right. However, the Christian Apologist will pull a 1000 Arguments out of his arse to try to contradict you, but they won't.

No that's NOT right. It is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity that humans are Fallen and they live in a Fallen world. The Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is partly motivated by the belief in the corruption of human reason and intuition by the Fall. Revealed "knowledge" is necessary because humans are incapable of gaining knowledge of the salvific doctrine and of right and wrong through reason and intuition. Protestanism makes this point explicit in the concept of total depravity.

You are pulling Christian theology out of your arse. You are inventing your own Christianity to argue against.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2013, 08:38 PM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(28-11-2013 08:35 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(28-11-2013 05:53 PM)Julius Wrote:  Yes...you got it right. However, the Christian Apologist will pull a 1000 Arguments out of his arse to try to contradict you, but they won't.

No that's NOT right. It is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity that humans are Fallen and they live in a Fallen world. The Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is partly motivated by the belief in the corruption of human reason and intuition by the Fall. Revealed "knowledge" is necessary because humans are incapable of gaining knowledge of the salvific doctrine and of right and wrong through reason and intuition. Protestanism makes this point explicit in the concept of total depravity.

You are pulling Christian theology out of your arse. You are inventing your own Christianity to argue against.

And it's batshit crazy regardless of which version. It's all pulled out of someone's arse.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2013, 08:45 PM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(28-11-2013 08:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  The Bible is evidence of nothing - it is the claim.

The issue of whether Yahweh is moral is a question of theology.

Quote:His definition is incoherent when he claims attributes for something that he says does not even have to exist.

He is correct. Fiction can be logically coherent. Spiderman is fiction but the narratives about him are logically coherent within the Marvel Universe. Arguing about whether Yahweh is immoral is a theological question it is the same as arguing whether Spiderman should have to rest his spinnerets after 10 seconds of continued usage. It is not a counter-argument to that question to then say Spiderman doesn't exist. Either argue within that Universe or try and refute the existence of that Universe.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2013, 08:50 PM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(28-11-2013 08:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  And it's batshit crazy regardless of which version. It's all pulled out of someone's arse.

That is besides the point. That aspect of the narrative is not logically incoherent. I'm not insisting that you engage in theological debate. What I am insisting is that if you do you abide by the narrative.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2013, 08:50 PM
RE: We can't judge god by our standards.
(28-11-2013 08:45 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(28-11-2013 08:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  The Bible is evidence of nothing - it is the claim.

The issue of whether Yahweh is moral is a question of theology.

Quote:His definition is incoherent when he claims attributes for something that he says does not even have to exist.

He is correct. Fiction can be logically coherent. Spiderman is fiction but the narratives about him are logically coherent within the Marvel Universe. Arguing about whether Yahweh is immoral is a theological question it is the same as arguing whether Spiderman should have to rest his spinnerets after 10 seconds of continued usage. It is not a counter-argument to that question to then say Spiderman doesn't exist. Either argue within that Universe or try and refute the existence of that Universe.

Theology is an empty set. It is making claims of the unknowable by delusional people. It is the misshapen bastard child of philosophy.

His statement is a meaningless claim of something of which he has no knowledge, because he can have no knowledge of it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: