Is god kind?

[Zyxzy]

That's a mechanical translation.

Exactly. It's a direct literal translation of the actual Hebrew, without correcting for grammar, and it shows that the timeframe was specified in the original Hebrew.

That's the point. There is a justification, but it is not shown to Job as an example for us.

NO. There was no justification given, the deaths of all of Job's children and slaves went entirely unremarked upon in the diatribe in which god merely says "I know better than you, but I'm not going to actually demonstrate that, I'm just going to tell you it". The only "justification" is because I say so.

All people should be in utter subservience to God. It would be evil not to be. I do not debase the value of human life, merely acknowledge that one's life belongs soley to God, and it is his to do with as is just.

No. Absolutely not. Anyone who ever says that any person should be utterly subservient to anything is committing the most vile moral outrage imaginable. It is literally reducing the value of human life to nothing.

This is why your god is not "kind", and the authority of the bible are utterly and completely invalid. It is absolutely unconscionable to reduce the value of a life by demanding "utter subservience" to anything, ever. Even if that god existed, the only moral course would be to reject him utterly.

...How in the world did you come to the conclusion that offering up the woman was a moral duty of a host. After all, the one doing the offering is the guest.

And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.

Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

Because it's in the bible. That your holy book, remember.

God does not need to justify himself us. That's the point.

But we are utterly subservient to God, to serve and praise him is the purpose of our existence, asnd we owe everything, our lives, our talents, our family, food, wealth, all of it to him.. It is a good thing to be, and evil to rebel.

The hosts in that case is merely trying to save his houseguest, as hospitality dictates. And remember "In those days Israel had no king, and each man did what he thought was right."

 

[GloatingSwine]

God does not need to justify himself us. That's the point

However, the only justification you can give for why this should be the case is that he is god and we're not. Which is no justification at all.

But we are utterly subservient to God, to serve and praise him is the purpose of our existence, asnd we owe everything, our lives, our talents, our family, food, wealth, all of it to him.. It is a good thing to be, and evil to rebel.

Once again, anyone who demands utter subservience of anyone to anything is morally unconscionable. Anyone who demands that you be subservient to anything actually means you to be subservient to them.

And that's even accepting that this god exists in the first place.

The hosts in that case is merely trying to save his houseguest, as hospitality dictates. And remember "In those days Israel had no king, and each man did what he thought was right."

However he does so not by any morally justifiable means, but by offering up a woman to be gangraped to death. And the bible explicitly uses this as an example of an upstanding and just person twice.

 

[Zyxzy]

God does not need to justify himself us. That's the point

However, the only justification you can give for why this should be the case is that he is god and we're not. Which is no justification at all.

But we are utterly subservient to God, to serve and praise him is the purpose of our existence, asnd we owe everything, our lives, our talents, our family, food, wealth, all of it to him.. It is a good thing to be, and evil to rebel.

Once again, anyone who demands utter subservience of anyone to anything is morally unconscionable. Anyone who demands that you be subservient to anything actually means you to be subservient to them.

And that's even accepting that this god exists in the first place.

The hosts in that case is merely trying to save his houseguest, as hospitality dictates. And remember "In those days Israel had no king, and each man did what he thought was right."

However he does so not by any morally justifiable means, but by offering up a woman to be gangraped to death. And the bible explicitly uses this as an example of an upstanding and just person twice.

Oh, enough of this. If you cannot accept the subservience of man and the individual to God, you are incapable of fully understanding the Word.

Lot isn't in Judges.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Oh, enough of this. If you cannot accept the subservience of man and the individual to God, you are incapable of fully understanding the Word.

I find great comfort in the fact that I am incapable of subscribing to such a poisonous doctrine, thank you.

Lot isn't in Judges.

I didn't say he was. The story of the women offered to the mob to be raped is repeated, almost word for word, in both the story of Lot and in the story of the Levite in Judges.

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof

Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.

Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

Once more, your holy book.

 

[GloatingSwine]

This deserves a fuller reply

And the problem that opposes that is the identification of a "ruling class" which leads to...

Modern representative democracy? By the strict interpretation, utilitarianism applied to politics would lead to those most qualified to make decisions being the ones trusted to do so.

In the same way that if you wanted a bridge designed you'd ask an engineer not a street sweeper, if you wanted a tax system designed you'd talk to an accountant rather than a gardener.

Mill has some good ideas; but like monetarism, communism and a lot of other economic types, they collapse in the face of corporations, pirates and general douchebaggery.

Mill wasn't talking about economics, he was talking about ethics. The only lessons the bible can hope to still have applicable are ethical, it just turns out that the very few things in it that are ethically valid can all be derived without referring to it, as mostly they consist of expansions on the golden rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, it's even there entire, but it's a lot older than the new testament in which it appears).

The good bits of the bible are not worth keeping the bad bits of the bible, the moral justifications of the oppression of women, genocide, murder, slavery, and rape.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

This deserves a fuller reply

And the problem that opposes that is the identification of a "ruling class" which leads to...

Modern representative democracy?

I was going to say slavery.

If I wanted someone not to rip me off, I'd talk to the street sweeper about what they wanted in a bridge and then hire the engineer to build it. I'd never ask the engineer what sort of bridge he'd like.

Democracy is as big a joke as Communism, and for almost exactly the same reasons. People just can't be trusted to stick to the rules if there own pocket can be filled.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I was going to say slavery.

It's a fair stretch from wanting the most competent administrators to instituting slavery. We already have a de facto ruling class, but it's based on who can afford to get into politics and who can afford politicians. Note that nothing in the utilitarian political system precludes people deciding between a number of different administrators.

If I wanted someone not to rip me off, I'd talk to the street sweeper about what they wanted in a bridge and then hire the engineer to build it. I'd never ask the engineer what sort of bridge he'd like.

Except the street sweeper is no more able to make sound decisions than anyone else, and probably considerably worse, because he's not likely to consider what kind of bridge you actually need. There are some good bits in a book called Risk, by Dan Gardner, about how bad we are at decision making and how easy we are to manipulate.

Democracy is as big a joke as Communism, and for almost exactly the same reasons. People just can't be trusted to stick to the rules if there own pocket can be filled.

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other ones that have been tried.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I was going to say slavery.

It's a fair stretch from wanting the most competent administrators to instituting slavery. We already have a de facto ruling class, but it's based on who can afford to get into politics and who can afford politicians.

For which we work long hours to keep them in luxury...

If I wanted someone not to rip me off, I'd talk to the street sweeper about what they wanted in a bridge and then hire the engineer to build it. I'd never ask the engineer what sort of bridge he'd like.

Except the street sweeper is no more able to make sound decisions than anyone else, and probably considerably worse, because he's not likely to consider what kind of bridge you actually need.

Possibly, but he'll tell me the bridge he needs rather than what he wants. That's a far better way of making a decision.

There are some good bits in a book called Risk, by Dan Gardner, about how bad we are at decision making and how easy we are to manipulate.

Apart from tricks like TDS and Ericksonian hypnosis rely on the fuzzy logic of wants rather than needs, which is where the sweeper will know a lot more than the engineer, and be less likely to be influenced.

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other ones that have been tried.

It's just a pity that we only really tried Monarchy and Communism before reaching our current "Utopia".

 

[GloatingSwine]

For which we work long hours to keep them in luxury...

Certainly, though that's a detail of the system, MPs wages and expenses should be in the public eye more.

Possibly, but he'll tell me the bridge he needs rather than what he wants. That's a far better way of making a decision.

He'll tell you the bridge he thinks he needs. What people think they need and what they actually need aren't always the same. See Risk again.

Apart from tricks like TDS and Ericksonian hypnosis rely on the fuzzy logic of wants rather than needs, which is where the sweeper will know a lot more than the engineer, and be less likely to be influenced.

There are far more subtle effects than that, like the Anchor Effect. For instance, if you run a supermarket and want to get rid of a large shipment of, say loaves of bread, put a sign on it saying "limit 10 per customer" or similar. Customers who were otherwise going to buy bread will see the number in relation to them purchasing bread, and it will bias their own estimate of how much bread they need upwards, buying maybe two loaves where they would have bought one without the sign.

It's just a pity that we only really tried Monarchy and Communism before reaching our current "Utopia".

Though theocracy, anarchy, and various other forms of totalitarianism (monarchy tended to be more feudal than totalitarian for much of it's run) have also been tried.

 

[Jedoro]

Given that God is immortal, his interpretation of death is different from ours. When we die, we are separated from the physical world and sent to either Heaven or Hell. Thus, God's meaning of "die" could just be that they would be separated from him. Bearing that in mind, yes, they did die that day.

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means

Why should we beleive your word over that of the divinely inspired scripture?

Because like I said, since God is immortal, his meaning of "die" is different from ours, mortal beings. In our meaning of the word, no one dies to him, because of our souls that just move to either Heaven or Hell.

I'm not twisting God's words or anything. I'm just trying to bridge the gap between the thoughts of our mortal minds and the word he chose with his immortal mind.

And I'd rather try to find a reason that the "divinely inspired scripture" is true rather than just call it a lie.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I wouldn't consider that kind in any way.

Ok...seem to have missed a point here. "Kind" is a manmade word, not really applicable to God-dom, given an omniscient entity can't really have a subjective view.

But if you denounce part of it, why follow the rest?

Because some of it is ok?

Who are you to omit parts of the teachings of god, thereby judging him?

Well, my forefather/mother ate some of this apple they weren't allowed to.

If I am reading this correctly, you don't place much importance on the bible itself, so how can you claim to be Christian while disregarding what is accepted as the word of god?

If you were reading correctly, you'd see I never have claimed to be Christian.

The Roman translation of the bible is still the bible in essence. What I know of the matter is that the main edits made to the contents were mostly calendar dates so that the Christian holidays would align with the Roman-Pagan holidays, most notably Jesus' birth being changed to December 25 so that it would be celebrated in place of the birth of the Roman sun god.

We've all seen that naff "All religions are the same ZOMG!" video. And anyway, given Jesus allegedly died on the cross for our sins, I think he's probably saved all the homosexuals already.

I want to find out your beliefs.

I wrote them earlier....same post I believe.

I am unconcerned with anything else.

See, that's sort of the point of faith, to be concerned with others.

you might want to watch [a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/chaser/#/latestepisode/chaser_09_03_05/"]this[/a]. It may be a satirisation, but it gives a lot of insight into how the media in the middle east operates.

You'll pardon me if I chuckle at two men re-enacting Fantasy Football League, especially as I've lived in the Middle East.

I've always found that not worrying about something as small as metaphorical existence is a good way to sleep though. It's not as if we can do anything about it. Easy as Pi.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

If you were reading correctly, you'd see I never have claimed to be Christian.

I may have been overly presumptuous, but you claimed to be religious. What religion do you follow?

I'm a poly-theistic agnostic at the moment. I don't really have faith in any major religion, but I believe that it's possible, if unfeasible.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

In any case, you never actually answered the question posed by this thread: is god kind?
Wait. That is rather a stupid question. As an agnostic you believe nothing can be known of higher powers.

Not quite true, I believe nothing can be proven. You can surmise the work of higher powers by scientific inquiry in the same way you can surmise dark matter.

It just occurred to me that you can't have seen the entire video I linked to you. Based on the differences in post times you probably only saw 10 minutes of it at most. Did you actually see the part that I was talking about?

I've put it on my list to do later, but as I sat watching Middle Eastern TV for some time, I don't think there's a lot you can show me.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Because like I said, since God is immortal, his meaning of "die" is different from ours, mortal beings. In our meaning of the word, no one dies to him, because of our souls that just move to either Heaven or Hell.

I'm not twisting God's words or anything. I'm just trying to bridge the gap between the thoughts of our mortal minds and the word he chose with his immortal mind.

And I'd rather try to find a reason that the "divinely inspired scripture" is true rather than just call it a lie.

Except that every other time the concept of death appears in the entire bible it refers to the literal end of mortal processes. Jesus is not said to have figuratively died for three days, but to have actually died for three days. Lazarus was not raised from metaphorical death but actual death.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Not quite true, I believe nothing can be proven. You can surmise the work of higher powers by scientific inquiry in the same way you can surmise dark matter.

Except the chances are that that's not what you're doing.

Cold Dark Energy is a hypothetical explanation for a certain set of observed facts

You could attempt to claim that a set of observed facts is explained as "the work of higher powers", but this raises the problem of explaining those higher powers, which must be orders of magnitude more complex than the thing you were originally attempting to explain with them. This is not a productive line of epistemology, to say the least. (Also, there are currently no sets of observed facts which cannot be explained without recourse to higher powers. Even the beginning of the known universe has a number of explanations which require no such thing in fields such as m-theory and brane cosmology)

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Not quite true, I believe nothing can be proven. You can surmise the work of higher powers by scientific inquiry in the same way you can surmise dark matter.

Except the chances are that that's not what you're doing.

Funny...I thought I was.

Cold Dark Energy is a hypothetical explanation for a certain set of observed facts

As is God to me.

This is not a productive line of epistemology, to say the least.

Really don't care about productive, I'm not trying to mass market this idea.

(Also, there are currently no sets of observed facts which cannot be explained without recourse to higher powers. Even the beginning of the known universe has a number of explanations which require no such thing in fields such as m-theory and brane cosmology)

Well, ok, then you can explain basic things like the Golden Ratio, Pi (Gosh, that's rather appropriate), the disparity in specific heat point of dihydrogen chalcogen compounds, dark matter (again), Brownian motion, long term memory or even how women think?
Or philosophical concepts like the brain in the jar, nature versus nurture, definitions of sentience or why consoles haven't introduced a mouse for FPS's.
Or biologically why the duck-billed platypus is a poisonous mammal with a beak that lays leathery eggs?

Solve some of those first and then say there's no higher power at work somewhere.

 

[Jedoro]

Except that every other time the concept of death appears in the entire bible it refers to the literal end of mortal processes. Jesus is not said to have figuratively died for three days, but to have actually died for three days. Lazarus was not raised from metaphorical death but actual death.

So you've gone through and counted every time death is mentioned in the Bible? I must say, I'm impressed by how much spare time you seem to have.

Notice how in those two instances, it's the disciples using the word, and not God.

 

[GloatingSwine]

As is God to me.

Except that God requires significantly more explanation than the facts you are using it to explain. Cold Dark Energy has been hypothesised based on the rest of the body of known physical science.

Really don't care about productive, I'm not trying to mass market this idea.

If the productivity of an epistemology had anything to do with it's marketability, there would be no religion. Your epistemology produces no answers.

Well, ok, then you can explain basic things like the Golden Ratio, Pi (Gosh, that's rather appropriate), the disparity in specific heat point of dihydrogen chalcogen compounds, dark matter (again), Brownian motion, long term memory or even how women think?
Or philosophical concepts like the brain in the jar, nature versus nurture, definitions of sentience or why consoles haven't introduced a mouse for FPS's.
Or biologically why the duck-billed platypus is a poisonous mammal with a beak that lays leathery eggs?

Solve some of those first and then say there's no higher power at work somewhere.

Most people stick to one False Dilemma fallacy. Using a great number of them does not make the argument more impressive. Even if I could not answer these things, that doesn't mean that there isn't an answer that doesn't include your pet pixie, and your pixie does not explain them either. (For example, the duck billed platypus has an odd combination of traits, all of which have independently evolved several times, and are present in several other combinations, it is not, for instance, the only egg-laying mammal).

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Except that God requires significantly more explanation than the facts you are using it to explain.

Not really, tenth dimensional super strings could explain it, or fairy dust.

If the productivity of an epistemology had anything to do with it's marketability, there would be no religion. Your epistemology produces no answers.

If I wanted answers I'd use science to estimate. I'm looking for clues.

Most people stick to one False Dilemma fallacy.

If you're using reductio ad absurdum on me, you can hardly complain if I use it back.

and your pixie does not explain them either.

Which is why I'm polytheistic. There are clues that point to a force beyond our comprehension that no atheist can explain, and clues that point to an underlying rule structure that could be used to explain away God; but as neither side has achieved victory yet, it doesn't make sense to say there isn't a higher power.

You can google "Where the bible is wrong" for arguments for the rest of your days, but you're still only arguing with an interpretation. Finding an epistemology that works for you is far more important than finding holes in others imho.