Life, The Universe, And Everything

[Kuroikaze]

Before doing so, we could consider how and why we bombed population centers to bring WWII to a quicker end and to spare the lives of our sons. It was a difficult and agonizing choice for the leaders at the time who espoused the honorable concept of avoiding collateral civilian casualties if at all possible. Following that horrible decision, hundreds of thousands died, but multiple millions did not. In Egypt, what would have been an alternative? I can speculate, but I don't know enough of their story to do so. I can't support the conclusion you reach.

 

Being something of an historian I have to comment on this, as it seems your understanding of WWII history is a bit lacking. First off, leaders have never been that concerned about collateral damage in modern warfare, many more civilians died in the carpet bombing of Germany than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. "Honor" in warfare is a joke, wars are always ugly nasty things with people killing and being killed...there is never anything noble or honorable about killing...it is just sometimes necessary.

 

The choice to drop the Nukes was also somewhat unnecessary as the emperor of Japan was already trying to force the military to surrender before the bombs were dropped, it was unlikely that a land invasion of Japan would have been necessary.

 

In fact many historian speculate that the dropping of the bombs had more to do with the beginning of the cold war with Russia than the ending of WWII.

 

In any case, the story of the exodus is not at all similar to the events in WWII. In actuality the exodus probably never happened as the evidence supports the idea that the Jews were indigenous to palistine and did not come from Egypt.

However, it is worth noting that "God" in the exodus story does not take the option with the fewest casualties, he takes the one that makes him look good. He intentionally hardens pharaoh's heart, if god had not done this, then pharaoh would have set them free before all the first born were killed....and god couldn't have that because he wanted to show off how powerful he was.

[BuddyFerris]

Yes, wiping out a bunch of people is entirely different from the other examples you provided; apples and oranges really.

 

You may not dare to judge, but that just goes to your refusal to be objective on this one subject that to you is taboo, that of your religion. To any clear thinking objective thinker, however, the god who supposedly wiped out the entire human race (or entire tribe of peoples if you wish to not be so literal) was indeed vindictive and stupid. This is especially true in light of the change of heart god seemed to have had as he later came up with a plan to save the human race rather than wipe them out (a plan equally vindictive and stupid btw). For an unchanging god, he sure did a 180 here wouldn't you say?

 

Vigile,

It's apples and apples, from my perspective, with the differences being of degree and judgment.

 

Consider the objections we have in this country to the death penalty. One of the the larger arguments centers on our ability to judge accurately; what if we condemn and execute an innocent? It's happened before; can we allow it to happen again? It's a valid argument brought by people whose concern is for real justice, available equally to everyone. A just God wouldn't be hampered by the judicial inequities we face.

 

To what particular change of plan do you refer? I don't recognize the event.

 

Buddy

Dare not? No. If I recall, the phrase was, 'I wouldn't presume'. The reservation is based purely on reason and available information, not fear.

[Grandpa Harley]

Just for historicity... WW2 is the only time carpet bombing has worked. Following Dresden the Germans stopped bombing the crap out of our soft targets...

 

It's also the only piece of Goebbel's propaganda still quoted as 'fact'.

 

you do it to jungle... it just pisses off the animals.

[Grandpa Harley]

Yes, wiping out a bunch of people is entirely different from the other examples you provided; apples and oranges really.

 

You may not dare to judge, but that just goes to your refusal to be objective on this one subject that to you is taboo, that of your religion. To any clear thinking objective thinker, however, the god who supposedly wiped out the entire human race (or entire tribe of peoples if you wish to not be so literal) was indeed vindictive and stupid. This is especially true in light of the change of heart god seemed to have had as he later came up with a plan to save the human race rather than wipe them out (a plan equally vindictive and stupid btw). For an unchanging god, he sure did a 180 here wouldn't you say?

 

Vigile,

It's apples and apples, from my perspective, with the differences being of degree and judgment.

 

Consider the objections we have in this country to the death penalty. One of the the larger arguments centers on our ability to judge accurately; what if we condemn and execute an innocent? It's happened before; can we allow it to happen again? It's a valid argument brought by people whose concern is for real justice, available equally to everyone. A just God wouldn't be hampered by the judicial inequities we face.

 

To what particular change of plan do you refer? I don't recognize the event.

 

Buddy

Dare not? No. If I recall, the phrase was, 'I wouldn't presume'. The reservation is based purely on reason and available information, not fear.

 

This is just more scarecrow building...

[Kuroikaze]

Vigile,

It's apples and apples, from my perspective, with the differences being of degree and judgment.

 

Consider the objections we have in this country to the death penalty. One of the the larger arguments centers on our ability to judge accurately; what if we condemn and execute an innocent? It's happened before; can we allow it to happen again? It's a valid argument brought by people whose concern is for real justice, available equally to everyone. A just God wouldn't be hampered by the judicial inequities we face.

 

To what particular change of plan do you refer? I don't recognize the event.

 

Buddy

Dare not? No. If I recall, the phrase was, 'I wouldn't presume'. The reservation is based purely on reason and available information, not fear.

 

 

Doesn't it disturb you that to follow this reasoning in the passages in the OT that order genocide requires you to become a racist? In other words, the bible justifies the genocide by saying an entire people group was so evil that they deserved to be wiped out. That sound like racism to me....it is also a logically indefensible position, as no people group could be that evil, or they would have destroyed themselves long before.

 

It is also a little strange that in one breath you utter what is essentially a relativistic position, that you are in no position to judge the Gods actions, and then summarily defend the position that the people group in question was evil enough to deserved to be wiped out, which seems like a judgment to me. So are you a relativist or not? You're philosophical position seems to jump from post to post...and sometimes in mid-sentence.

[Grandpa Harley]

[buddy]

 

I don't know what God knew so I can't judge

[/buddy]

[Kuroikaze]

[buddy]

 

I don't know what God knew so I can't judge

[/buddy]

 

 

What is absurd about this is that you could use this reasoning anywhere. I don't know what Stalin knew so maybe those people he sent to the Gulag had it coming. I don't know everything about my Neighbor's wife so maybe he has a good reason to beat her. So on and so forth, If one applies this thinking to genocide is there anything he wouldn't apply it to?

[Ouroboros]

A Word Wide Deluge?! Silly thing to believe in child stories still... No wonder this world is so messed up, when the majority still think fairy tales are history.

 

So what about the Nephilim... did they exist or not?

[Grandpa Harley]

[buddy]

 

I don't know what God knew so I can't judge

[/buddy]

 

 

What is absurd about this is that you could use this reasoning anywhere. I don't know what Stalin knew so maybe those people he sent to the Gulag had it coming. I don't know everything about my Neighbor's wife so maybe he has a good reason to beat her. So on and so forth, If one applies this thinking to genocide is there anything he wouldn't apply it to?

 

and what did Adolph know of the Romanys, Jews, Slavs and the disabled? Hmmm?

 

They may have had it coming...

[Kuroikaze]

and what did Adolph know of the Romanys, Jews, Slavs and the disabled? Hmmm?

 

They may have had it coming...

 

 

Dammit, GH, I was avoiding using Hitler cause everyone always uses him.

[Grandpa Harley]

Godwin's Law... the universe was out of balance.

[Mankey]

Buddy:

"Literalism may be all well and good, I suppose, but to take an account written several thousand years ago from a non-scientific frame of reference, and to interpret it in a post-17th century context is poor scholarship at best."

Induction is not revelation. Inferences from a story are not revelation. Either you are an anthropologist or you are a superstitionist. Where do you draw the line between what is credible and what is not. Remember that a rational belief, or a rational interpretation is based on probability, where as revelation is a "certainty"

 

Why is it that not all mankeys are certain of how to interpret the bible stories and claims? The bible was not put together as liberal Christian theology. It was put together for the beliefs of the people who put it together. We are stuck with mere inferences. Where is revelation from God?

 

Also, that story may have been borrowed from other peoples....Babylonians.... maybe?

 

 

Free Thought:

Free thought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logical principles and not be compromised by authority, tradition, or any other dogma. The cognitive application of free thought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of free thought are known as freethinkers. Free thought holds that individuals should neither accept nor reject ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Thus, freethinkers strive to build their beliefs on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any factual/logical fallacies or intellectually-limiting effects of authority, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmatic or otherwise fallacious principles. As such, when applied to religion, the philosophy of free thought holds that, given presently-known facts, established scientific theories, and logical principles, there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena.

 

I don't know man....you seem to flirt with reason an awful lot. Muhahahaha!

[Grandpa Harley]

Damn fine point... I doubt youll gey a straight answer but Norman Rockwell shall live again!

[Mankey]

Damn fine point... I doubt youll gey a straight answer but Norman Rockwell shall live again!

Thanks Gramps.

 

[Jun]

Jun, you're Australian... thus it's up to Hell and down to Heaven (since God is clearly a Northern Hemisphere Guy... probably British)

 

(Just gotta love the Hamburger Universe...)

 

Ha ha! I guess so.

 

So if I die when I'm visiting Oz, I'll go up to hell. When I'm home in Japan I'll go down to hell.

 

Hello, Jun.

Your panel says Japan; genuine? Lived there '88-'91. Loved it

 

Dickhead. Don't ever come back, we have enough spreading your fiction.

 

It matters not which parts of the bible you believe in and which you discard, a Christian is one who believes in fairytales. Rather than be content to live in the real world you are happy to hold to ancient teachings based upon superstition and delusion.

[BuddyFerris]

... it seems your understanding of WWII history is a bit lacking. ...

While I appreciate your comment, I'll disagree with your details. My reference was to the decisions to bomb civilian (non-military, non-industrial) targets in both Japan and Germany. Political and military leaders were deeply concerned with the issue; international law, military and national policy at the time prohibited bombing civilians (see the Hague Conventions 1899, 1907); and especially note, in 1938 the Assembly of the League of Nations unanimously adopted a resolution that codified air war laws, the first principle of which was that the intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal.

 

British historian A.J.P. Taylor observes: "At the beginning of the war, the chiefs of staff laid down that Great Britain would always observe the principle of `refraining from attack on civilian population as such for the purpose of demoralization', and Chamberlain [had] declared in the House of Commons: `Whatever be the lengths to which others may go, His Majesty's Government will never resort to deliberate attack on women and children, and other civilians for purposes of mere terrorism.'

 

Things changed over the course of the war.

 

Norman Rockwell

Suddenly, I'm 20 posts behind.

[Mankey]

[buddy]

 

I don't know what God knew so I can't judge

[/buddy]

 

 

What is absurd about this is that you could use this reasoning anywhere. I don't know what Stalin knew so maybe those people he sent to the Gulag had it coming. I don't know everything about my Neighbor's wife so maybe he has a good reason to beat her. So on and so forth, If one applies this thinking to genocide is there anything he wouldn't apply it to?

 

and what did Adolph know of the Romanys, Jews, Slavs and the disabled? Hmmm?

 

They may have had it coming...

Oh man. This reminds me of a sig from another heathen I love to read. Not verbatim..

 

"Hitler killed and burned people for being Jewish...and for that we all call him evil.

The Christians God burns Jews forever and for that Christians call God good."

 

Woh! Pretty heavey huh?

 

[Kuroikaze]

... it seems your understanding of WWII history is a bit lacking. ...

While I appreciate your comment, I'll disagree with your details. My reference was to the decisions to bomb civilian (non-military, non-industrial) targets in both Japan and Germany. Political and military leaders were deeply concerned with the issue; international law, military and national policy at the time prohibited bombing civilians (see the Hague Conventions 1899, 1907); and especially note, in 1938 the Assembly of the League of Nations unanimously adopted a resolution that codified air war laws, the first principle of which was that the intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal.

 

British historian A.J.P. Taylor observes: "At the beginning of the war, the chiefs of staff laid down that Great Britain would always observe the principle of `refraining from attack on civilian population as such for the purpose of demoralization', and Chamberlain [had] declared in the House of Commons: `Whatever be the lengths to which others may go, His Majesty's Government will never resort to deliberate attack on women and children, and other civilians for purposes of mere terrorism.'

 

Things changed over the course of the war.

 

Norman Rockwell

Suddenly, I'm 20 posts behind.

 

They were concerned but they did it anyway? Is that your argument? Concerned is as concerned does. If I told you I was concerned for your well being while I was punching you in the face would you believe me?

 

And the league of nations? you do realize that the league of nations had virtually no power don't you? Even less power than the U.N. does...which isn't much.

 

Of course the governments SAY they are concerned about civilian losses, but in truth they accept that it will (and always has) been a part of war. Do you believe everything the government says?

 

The truth is that people gave lip service to the issue, but as far as the practical day to day running of the war, they gave it nary a thought....which is exactly the same as it is today.

[Mankey]

Damn fine point... I doubt youll gey a straight answer but Norman Rockwell shall live again!

Who is norman rockwell?

 

I will google him I guess.

[Mankey]

... it seems your understanding of WWII history is a bit lacking. ...

While I appreciate your comment, I'll disagree with your details. My reference was to the decisions to bomb civilian (non-military, non-industrial) targets in both Japan and Germany. Political and military leaders were deeply concerned with the issue; international law, military and national policy at the time prohibited bombing civilians (see the Hague Conventions 1899, 1907); and especially note, in 1938 the Assembly of the League of Nations unanimously adopted a resolution that codified air war laws, the first principle of which was that the intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal.

 

British historian A.J.P. Taylor observes: "At the beginning of the war, the chiefs of staff laid down that Great Britain would always observe the principle of `refraining from attack on civilian population as such for the purpose of demoralization', and Chamberlain [had] declared in the House of Commons: `Whatever be the lengths to which others may go, His Majesty's Government will never resort to deliberate attack on women and children, and other civilians for purposes of mere terrorism.'

 

Things changed over the course of the war.

 

Norman Rockwell

Suddenly, I'm 20 posts behind.

 

They were concerned but they did it anyway? Is that your argument? Concerned is as concerned does. If I told you I was concerned for your well being while I was punching you in the face would you believe me?

 

And the league of nations? you do realize that the league of nations had virtually no power don't you? Even less power than the U.N. does...which isn't much.

 

Of course the governments SAY they are concerned about civilian losses, but in truth they accept that it will (and always has) been a part of war. Do you believe everything the government says?

 

The truth is that people gave lip service to the issue, but as far as the practical day to day running of the war, they gave it nary a thought....which is exactly the same as it is today.

Bump.

[Japedo]

Japedo,

You say the Bible shows a tribal mindset; I think that's at least partly true. The book's is primarily for and about just one particular people and the events surrounding their history. The book doesn't cover a large body of information that we think might profitably have been included. The result, one side of many accounts is unrepresented in the narrative. We can speculate about how the Egyptians might have viewed the Exodus events, and perhaps we can therefrom pass judgment on a God who would so punish the innocents. Before doing so, we could consider how and why we bombed population centers to bring WWII to a quicker end and to spare the lives of our sons. It was a difficult and agonizing choice for the leaders at the time who espoused the honorable concept of avoiding collateral civilian casualties if at all possible. Following that horrible decision, hundreds of thousands died, but multiple millions did not. In Egypt, what would have been an alternative? I can speculate, but I don't know enough of their story to do so. I can't support the conclusion you reach.

 

Buddy

 

Hello Buddy!

 

 

It does show a tribal mindset there is no arguing that point. The same tribe always comes out on top and always gets the blessing or the favor of god no matter if they are wrong or right.

 

I look at a god this way Buddy, If I am going to hold my fellow human to a high moral standard. (Fairness, Justice, accountability, doing what's right even when it's not popular and so forth) Than a God that I follow will have to out do humans by immeasurable amounts. A God that I would follow would have to at bare minimum out do *MY* personal standard of Judgment. I hold myself to a higher standard then god holds himself. I would have to compromise my own standard to follow the God you follow. A few examples..

 

If killing a person because they are the wrong race or creed is murder for man, why isn't the same standard held to the god that supposedly made the rule?

 

If Laying down (having sex) with someone outside of marriage is a sin, the why isn't God held to that same standard? God went out of his own rulebook to produce his son so say's your cult.

 

If stealing is wrong why was Jacob rewarded for stealing his brothers birthright? Why doesn't God stick to what's right, instead he rewards the thief and blesses him?

 

Why does God kill hundreds of residents in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for sex crimes, and save a person who commits sex crimes? (Lot who impregnates his own children after offering them to the crowd to be raped is considered righteous?)

 

I could go on and on and on and on with the lopsided *Justice* of this god who's followers keep trying to convince me that is better then any mere man. Far as I can see, He isn't any leader I'd elect, forget worship.

[Vigile]

A just God wouldn't be hampered by the judicial inequities we face.

 

Ah Buddy, you disappoint me. You seem like a clear thinker, but then you come back with this typical xian response about a just god. Xians, like their god, have a warped sense of justice. To this god mere unbelief is worthy of eternal death and torture. I judge this sense of justice immoral. What was the great crime of an entire nation/generation? Were they eating shellfish, or were they unrepentantly breaking one or more of his other 700 some odd silly rules? Since the flood predated Moses, perhaps they held to an even more antiquated, but equally silly set of rules that just pissed off god's warped sense of justice.

 

To what particular change of plan do you refer? I don't recognize the event.

 

Why that would be the new covenant silly rabbit. You know, where he sent himself to save us all from himself so that he wouldn't have to wipe out the human race anymore?

 

I say that it's equally warped and silly because even we wee mortals can see that there must surely be better methods for appeasing judgment and anger than a bloody sacrifice; only a tribal mentality thinks that's reasonable. It's also a very inefficient method since the vast majority can neither agree on what it takes to be saved and/or refuses to believe in the correct method. This "just" god will then torture all those unlucky bastards an eternity for finite, and frankly petty, sins.

 

The god of the flood and of the new covenant is petty and unjust by any reasonable standard. It is only by faith you can arrive at a different conclusion.

[Evolution_beyond]

Consider the objections we have in this country to the death penalty. One of the the larger arguments centers on our ability to judge accurately; what if we condemn and execute an innocent? It's happened before; can we allow it to happen again? It's a valid argument brought by people whose concern is for real justice, available equally to everyone. A just God wouldn't be hampered by the judicial inequities we face.

 

I missed these comments of yours until I read Vigile's reply.

 

Aren't you evading the issue? Someone says that your God is not just, and you reply by saying that it's good to believe in God because of the need for real, flawless justice.

 

But, your God is clearly not just.

 

Are you really saying that because human beings need to believe in pure, flawless justice that it's better to worship an unjust God than no God at all? Or are you really saying that because human beings need to believe in perfect justice that a God that seems unjust must really be just after all?

 

Point 1 - wishful thinking is no reason to believe something is true. Point 2 - an unjust God doesn't become just simply because you need to believe in justice. Point 3 - an unjust God doesn't answer the need for perfect justice at all.

[BuddyFerris]

... I could go on and on and on and on with the lopsided *Justice* of this god who's followers keep trying to convince me that is better then any mere man. Far as I can see, He isn't any leader I'd elect, forget worship.

Good morning, Japedo.

You raise good points, not all easily answered. While your statements are only somewhat accurate*, your conclusions are your own and, I presume, honestly gotten. Knowing almost nothing of your story, I won't argue over your having reached the conclusions you have.

 

Buddy Rockwell Ferris

*e.g. The same tribe always comes out on top and always gets the blessing or the favor of god no matter if they are wrong or right. Actually, they got the short end of the stick with regularity for being pig-headed.

That's the first time I've heard it suggested that Mary's impregnation should be equated with sex outside of marriage. It's a bit of a stretch, I suspect. I'll have to think about it.

Jacob and Esau and the theft to which you refer are part of a conflict between the two sons that spanned perhaps thirty years. From birth, the two were different and in competition. Although the favorite of his father, Esau was an independent fellow with little regard for his birthright. The two were eventually reconciled after Jacob humbled himself and made what restitution he could. Jacob's reward was not for theft, but for the man he became. Any idea what a birthright might be?

Lot did in fact offer his daughters to the mob to protect his guests; a horrifying thought to me, the father of a daughter whom I love above my own life. I don't understand the offer at all, but suggest it might have explanatory roots in the cultural context.

Lot and family rescued, the two daughters pregnant by their father, giving rise to the Moabites and Ammonites; note that Lot was an unknowing participant according to the account we have.

Your contention that God killed some based on race or creed isn't supported by the accounts; behavior and heart intent seems more accurately to be the criteria. In at least one case, national practice was a factor.

[dano]

The beautiful clear concise logic of virtually every one of these posters who are trying to save Buddy from his cult is like reading "virtual, God inspired messages from IT, (God)"

 

It is very comforting to me to know that there are so many wonderful free thinkers out there!

 

Isn't it wonderful to just be able to see, and tell the truth, and not be afraid?

 

You guys and girls have made my day.

 

[Mankey! I just got your name. I've been a Mankey and proud of it for a long time, in fact I wrote a piece for ex-Christian called "I like being a monkeys uncle," over on the main blog.]

Dan, Agnostic