Is god kind?

[Scrittore]

phenomenon's plural could be phenomenons as well, look it up. also, grammar is spelled with two a's, not an a and an e.

:O sorry for that btw, couldn't help myself!

Well, well, well, were he presently present I think Bon Scott would observe that I've just been shot down in flames, then he'd likely add "Ain't it a shame? To be shot down in flame!" And Angus Young would play an amazing solo just to rub it it. Well it happens to us all from time-to-time, my Linguistics textbook last year has the word Lingusitics proudly emblazoned on the front, so I'll take solice from the experts getting it wrong.
What's your source for ~ons? Mine has ~ena as the only option, which leads me to suspect that we're about to fall into the trap of UK vs US usage...

P.S.: Nothing to apologise for, I'm just glad I'm not a Samuri!

 

[la-le-lu-li-lo]

Well, well, well, were he presently present I think Bon Scott would observe that I've just been shot down in flames, then he'd likely add "Ain't it a shame? To be shot down in flame!" And Angus Young would play an amazing solo just to rub it it. Well it happens to us all from time-to-time, my Linguistics textbook last year has the word Lingusitics proudly emblazoned on the front, so I'll take solice from the experts getting it wrong.
What's your source for ~ons? Mine has ~ena as the only option, which leads me to suspect that we're about to fall into the trap of UK vs US usage...

P.S.: Nothing to apologise for, I'm just glad I'm not a Samuri!

my source is good ole dictionary.com as well as muh brain!

and you're right, it probably is a UK vs US issue. us americans allow just about anything. we've pretty much raped the english language and left its crack-baby offspring to fend for itself on the streets.

:sigh:

 

[GloatingSwine]

Genesis 2: 17 "except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die." Don't make up quotes.

I'm not. I'm directly quoting the KJV bible. Also, the phrase "in the day" is present in the original hebrew text. you are adulterating holy scripture to your own ends.

God responded to Job with the fact that he was just a man, while God was omniscient and omnipotent, whose knowledge of the situation was limited. and thus Job had no grounds to question him.

Yes. As I said "I'm bigger than you". Hardly an appropriate response given the death toll caused.

And Job was harrased by satan as a means of testing him and providing us with the Book of Job.

With god's express permission.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

I don't reacall Lot being described as a holy and noble man, just Abraham's brother.[/quote]

And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

If god exists, he is either apathetic or uncaring.

I always thought of god as a narcissistic entity; granting salvation in exchange for worship.

So you believe you're in a position to be judging God?

Can I just point out that "kind" is a human invention, sort of like Epicurus's philosophy?

So you believe you're in a position to be judging me?

I try not to judge, but I find the idea of putting yourself above a Omnipotent deity to be a little more narcissistic than what you imply him to be.

While the Bible obviously is a human invention (as is the Torah/Qur'an/Teachings of Buddha), it's the word of the Lord as seen by Man. This leaves it as flawed as the translator is. (For the Bible, would you trust implicitly something rewritten by someone named Constantine?)

I'm not overly religious, but it seems to me a huge leap into the abyss to condemn all religion simply because it doesn't follow predicted behaviour. Especially when said manual contains decent enough rules, hidden in there, like "Don't fuck with your neighbors", "Don't disrespect people you might need to rely on" and "Be Excellent to each other".

 

[Zyxzy]

Genesis 2: 17 "except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die." Don't make up quotes.

I'm not. I'm directly quoting the KJV bible. Also, the phrase "in the day" is present in the original hebrew text. you are adulterating holy scripture to your own ends.

God responded to Job with the fact that he was just a man, while God was omniscient and omnipotent, whose knowledge of the situation was limited. and thus Job had no grounds to question him.

Yes. As I said "I'm bigger than you". Hardly an appropriate response given the death toll caused.

And Job was harrased by satan as a means of testing him and providing us with the Book of Job.

With god's express permission.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

I don't reacall Lot being described as a holy and noble man, just Abraham's brother.

And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds

[/quote]

The KJV is not the most accurate translation, and that's the NIV translation.

Yes, but far more justified and explanatory than merely declaring "bigger than you."

To test Job's faith, a noble thing.

Just because he was declared a rigteous man does not mean he was a perfect man and all his actions good.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I try not to judge, but I find the idea of putting yourself above a Omnipotent deity to be a little more narcissistic than what you imply him to be.

The very concept that an omnipotent deity is at all interested in the affairs of a bunch of jumped up monkeys in the first place is as narcissistic as you can get, frankly.

I'm not overly religious, but it seems to me a huge leap into the abyss to condemn all religion simply because it doesn't follow predicted behaviour. Especially when said manual contains decent enough rules, hidden in there, like "Don't fuck with your neighbors", "Don't disrespect people you might need to rely on" and "Be Excellent to each other".

The bad in the bible far outweighs the good, containing as it does instructions about selling your daughters into slavery and the proper way to do so, avoiding women entirely when they are in menses because they are unclean, putting rape victims to death because they are obviously complicit in adultery (within the confines of the city, of course, if they didn't really want it they'd have screamed louder), and a host of other excrescenses.

Frankly, none of the good bits of the bible could not have been derived without it, and the rest is a work of almost unparalleled vileness, especially in it's misogyny.

 

[GloatingSwine]

The KJV is not the most accurate translation, and that's the NIV translation.

However the timeframe of one day is present in the original Hebrew. I notice you are ignoring that.

Yes, but far more justified and explanatory than merely declaring "bigger than you."

No, it's just a wordier version of "I'm god and you're not".

To test Job's faith, a noble thing.

To test the faith of one man is worth the lives of ten people? And that's only Job's children, all his servants were slaughtered as well, but they were only slaves, and don't count as real people as far as the bible's concerned.

It's interesting that you think so, but it really only reinforces my point above about how vile the Bible is, that it can utterly devalue and debase human life in that way.

Just because he was declared a rigteous man does not mean he was a perfect man and all his actions good.

He was sufficiently good to be considered a role model in 2 Peter. And you didn't address the poor woman raped to death in Judges either.

 

[Zyxzy]

The KJV is not the most accurate translation, and that's the NIV translation.

However the timeframe of one day is present in the original Hebrew. I notice you are ignoring that.

Yes, but far more justified and explanatory than merely declaring "bigger than you."

No, it's just a wordier version of "I'm god and you're not".

To test Job's faith, a noble thing.

To test the faith of one man is worth the lives of twelve people? And that's only Job's children, all his servants were slaughtered as well, but they were only slaves, and don't count as real people as far as the bible's concerned.

It's interesting that you think so, but it really only reinforces my point above about how vile the Bible is, that it can utterly devalue and debase human life in that way.

Just because he was declared a rigteous man does not mean he was a perfect man and all his actions good.

He was sufficiently good to be considered a role model in 2 Peter. And you didn't address the poor woman raped to death in Judges either.

The KJV's Hebrew? Because if so, that's not the most accurate one.

It explains why Him being God and Job not is a valid justification.

The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. Your life is not yours, merely loaned to you and can be revoked at any time.

David was a righteous man, and he made serious mistakes. It's the faith that's the main thing.
And what does the woman's rape have to do with anything? No one in that story is treated like a righeous man.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Frankly, none of the good bits of the bible could not have been derived without it, and the rest is a work of almost unparalleled vileness, especially in it's misogyny.

You missed out a very relevant point:

This leaves it as flawed as the translator is. (For the Bible, would you trust implicitly something rewritten by someone named Constantine?)

And can you provide me with a non-religious work that actually keeps the good bits? I'm sure no scientific work contains them (Quite the reverse if we're talking about Skinner et. al.)

 

[GloatingSwine]

The KJV's Hebrew? Because if so, that's not the most accurate one.

The original Hebrew version of the Old Testament, you know, the language is was written in, includes a specific timeframe of one day for Adam to die on eating the fruit.

It explains why Him being God and Job not is a valid justification.

No it doesn't, not at all. It's "Shut up and how dare you question me, I can crush you like a bug"

The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. Your life is not yours, merely loaned to you and can be revoked at any time.

Exactly my point. The bible is a vile work of utter depravity, which leads people to debase and devalue human life to the utmost degree.

And what does the woman's rape have to do with anything? No one in that story is treated like a righeous man.

The story is presented as a moral lesson on the duties of a host.

 

[GloatingSwine]

And can you provide me with a non-religious work that actually keeps the good bits? I'm sure no scientific work contains them (Quite the reverse if we're talking about Skinner et. al.)

Utilitarianism, by John Stuart Mill, is the book you're looking for.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I condemn that which condemns me.

So...the re-writings of a Roman rather than the words of a/the God?

If you feel that the higher power to which you adhere wills you to denounce me as an evil doer, we are at an impasse.

He actually condemns all of us. Corinthians 6:9-10 gets 99% of the world. With Homosexuals lie software pirates, people who have sex, people who party...

I think this discussion has gone far enough off topic, if you want to continue it do it via PM.

I'm still debating whether you can find a definition of "kind"

And can you provide me with a non-religious work that actually keeps the good bits? I'm sure no scientific work contains them (Quite the reverse if we're talking about Skinner et. al.)

Utilitarianism, by John Stuart Mill, is the book you're looking for.

Merci, I shall take a look later and get back to you

But don't you think there's a possibility that some of those words that had been around for 19 centuries might have found their way to his book.

I'd also say that Mills declaring "slapstick" or schadenfraude to be anti-social might not go down well either. That and university graduates are better qualified to decide what's best for the simple man. Didn't seem to work well with the English Parliaments taxes, did it?

 

[Zyxzy]

The KJV's Hebrew? Because if so, that's not the most accurate one.

The original Hebrew version of the Old Testament, you know, the language is was written in, includes a specific timeframe of one day for Adam to die on eating the fruit.

It explains why Him being God and Job not is a valid justification.

No it doesn't, not at all. It's "Shut up and how dare you question me, I can crush you like a bug"

The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. Your life is not yours, merely loaned to you and can be revoked at any time.

Exactly my point. The bible is a vile work of utter depravity, which leads people to debase and devalue human life to the utmost degree.

And what does the woman's rape have to do with anything? No one in that story is treated like a righeous man.

The story is presented as a moral lesson on the duties of a host.

Well the KJV is not the most accurate translation, and I see no evidence that "in a day" was in the Hebrew.

Yes it is, it shows Job the limitations of his knowledge and that he has no real grounds to question God.

How is that depraved? It still does not allow other humans to devalue human life, merely state how utterly subservient you are to God.

And so showing the moral failures of Israel and what not to do is bad why?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Methinks that sleep might be far better for you than more debate, so look on this later.

I assumed we were talking about the Christian god; he who had his laws interpreted by man to be written in the bible. If you disregard any part of the scriptures, the rest hold little weight.

Not so at all. For a start, the words "interpreted by man" should be enough to remind you of politicians/journalists or pundits and their ways. And even if you think all classical music is bunk, you can still enjoy Nightcrawlers attack on the White House with Dies Irae playing. Same with the Bible.

he demonstrated how religion can be utilised to control people in a way that few other things can.

And also how it can be used as a target, which is why I save my anger towards religious bigots rather than the religion itself.

Definition of Kindness

Now that you've defined it, may I ask how it applies to a Omnipotent Father Figure, A Norse God of Thunder or a Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I now turn my attention to your interpretation of the passages I just quoted to you. How do they fit into your religious views?

I'll turn the mirror back. Given you are judging something by second hand information that you know to have been altered, wouldn't it be better to find out for yourself?

For my basic view, I'd say that as the Romans had different words for blue, cat and believed that women had smaller brains because they had fewer teeth; it would be perhaps unfair to judge their moral views in the same way we hold them today.

Look back thirty years and I'm sure you could find something at least as bonkers.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I'd also say that Mills declaring "slapstick" or schadenfraude to be anti-social might not go down well either.

You have to be careful to understand what he was talking about. He wasn't talking about comic presentation of slapstick or schadenfreude, but applying it to legislation. It's an argument against the tyranny of the majority.

That and university graduates are better qualified to decide what's best for the simple man. Didn't seem to work well with the English Parliaments taxes, did it?

The easy counter-argument is to point out that the state of California could do with some educated people working on it's taxes, because leaving it in the hands of the simple has led to the state being fucked sideways by costs it can't cover because tax increases keep getting voted down.

On the whole, I would trust a university graduate to be right about economics over a dropout who failed maths, wouldn't you?

 

[GloatingSwine]

Well the KJV is not the most accurate translation, and I see no evidence that "in a day" was in the Hebrew.

Here's a direct literal translation of the verses in question. [http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/9_example.html] Note that the timeframe is specified.

Yes it is, it shows Job the limitations of his knowledge and that he has no real grounds to question God.

No, no justification is given at all for the deaths caused under god's direct license. God's only response is "I'm bigger than you and how dare you question me".

How is that depraved? It still does not allow other humans to devalue human life, merely state how utterly subservient you are to God.

You place all people in utter subservience. You debase the value of human life so much that you consider it noble for tens to die simply so that one person can have his faith tested.

And so showing the moral failures of Israel and what not to do is bad why?

Except offering up a woman to be raped to death was not presented as a moral failing, but, just as it was with Lot offering his daughters for the same fate, a moral duty of the host towards his guests. Remember, the entire justification for the destruction of Sodom is that the mob would prefer the angels over Lot's daughters, and that Lot, who had done his just duty in offering his daughters to be raped to death was the only righteous man there.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

It's an argument against the tyranny of the majority.

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

On the whole, I would trust a university graduate to be right about economics over a dropout who failed maths, wouldn't you?

Go into any University bar. Still the same answer? And remember that most politicians are Univeristy graduates.

Although I did just run into a cashier who didn't know about the old £5 notes with Isaac Newton on weren't legal tender.

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.

Now if you could get a Religion that stopped people being like that, I'd join in a heartbeat.

(Scientology/Mormons/Amish don't count because they're equally as "We're right, you're wrong")

 

[Zyxzy]

Well the KJV is not the most accurate translation, and I see no evidence that "in a day" was in the Hebrew.

Here's a direct literal translation of the verses in question. [http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/9_example.html] Note that the timeframe is specified.

Yes it is, it shows Job the limitations of his knowledge and that he has no real grounds to question God.

No, no justification is given at all for the deaths caused under god's direct license. God's only response is "I'm bigger than you and how dare you question me".

How is that depraved? It still does not allow other humans to devalue human life, merely state how utterly subservient you are to God.

You place all people in utter subservience. You debase the value of human life so much that you consider it noble for tens to die simply so that one person can have his faith tested.

And so showing the moral failures of Israel and what not to do is bad why?

Except offering up a woman to be raped to death was not presented as a moral failing, but, just as it was with Lot offering his daughters for the same fate, a moral duty of the host towards his guests. Remember, the entire justification for the destruction of Sodom is that the mob would prefer the angels over Lot's daughters, and that Lot, who had done his just duty in offering his daughters to be raped to death was the only righteous man there.

That's a mechanical translation.

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

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.

...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.

P.S. Do you see this topic in the forum, because I don't.

 

[GloatingSwine]

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.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Go into any University bar. Still the same answer? And remember that most politicians are Univeristy graduates.

Go into a bar on a scummy estate*, that reconfirms the answer ten times over

* Assuming it hasn't been burned down for the insurance yet.