|
Post by clusium on May 13, 2023 13:49:52 GMT
No there isn't, amyghost . Nowhere does the Gospels mention Our Lady having anymore children after the Christ. The words "brother" and/or "sister" is used in more than simply children of the same parents, in the Bible.This is tenuous, debated by a number of scholars, and not proven contextually in the scriptural passages cited. And even if one accepts the ambiguous multi-meanings, that does not 'prove' Mary had no other biological children than Jesus. It makes it a linguistic/translational quibble and nothing more. It is a pet theory of the RCC, put forward for obvious reasons, and the RCC choice of interpretation simply isn't any more valid than another, except for the biased. The fact that Our Lord Gives over His Mother to the care of St. John the Apostle in St. John chapter 19 verses 26 - 27, means that there were no other children of Mary in the Holy Family.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 13, 2023 20:19:17 GMT
Sorry, I meant I reckon so. Autocorrect is my worst enema!
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 14, 2023 12:28:22 GMT
This is tenuous, debated by a number of scholars, and not proven contextually in the scriptural passages cited. And even if one accepts the ambiguous multi-meanings, that does not 'prove' Mary had no other biological children than Jesus. It makes it a linguistic/translational quibble and nothing more. It is a pet theory of the RCC, put forward for obvious reasons, and the RCC choice of interpretation simply isn't any more valid than another, except for the biased. The fact that Our Lord Gives over His Mother to the care of St. John the Apostle in St. John chapter 19 verses 26 - 27, means that there were no other children of Mary in the Holy Family. It means this only if you accept the biased RCC interpretation of the translation of 'brothers' and 'sisters'. The mere fact of Jesus giving over Mary to the care of John in no way indicates that there were no other siblings; it simply indicates that Jesus, as the eldest male child, would have had the say-so as to the disposition of their mother into another's care.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 14, 2023 18:24:57 GMT
The fact that Our Lord Gives over His Mother to the care of St. John the Apostle in St. John chapter 19 verses 26 - 27, means that there were no other children of Mary in the Holy Family. It means this only if you accept the biased RCC interpretation of the translation of 'brothers' and 'sisters'. The mere fact of Jesus giving over Mary to the care of John in no way indicates that there were no other siblings; it simply indicates that Jesus, as the eldest male child, would have had the say-so as to the disposition of their mother into another's care. Firstborn In The Bible
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 14, 2023 21:47:02 GMT
It means this only if you accept the biased RCC interpretation of the translation of 'brothers' and 'sisters'. The mere fact of Jesus giving over Mary to the care of John in no way indicates that there were no other siblings; it simply indicates that Jesus, as the eldest male child, would have had the say-so as to the disposition of their mother into another's care. Firstborn In The BibleInteresting read, but there's nothing in this that contests the probability of Mary's having had other children...and there is nothing contextually present in the gospels that directly contests it either.
|
|
monicah
Sophomore
@monicah
Posts: 300
Likes: 166
|
Post by monicah on May 14, 2023 23:53:19 GMT
Sorry, I meant I reckon so. Autocorrect is my worst enema! That’s hilarious 🤣
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jun 15, 2023 0:33:37 GMT
The fact that Our Lord Gives over His Mother to the care of St. John the Apostle in St. John chapter 19 verses 26 - 27, means that there were no other children of Mary in the Holy Family. It means this only if you accept the biased RCC interpretation of the translation of 'brothers' and 'sisters'. The mere fact of Jesus giving over Mary to the care of John in no way indicates that there were no other siblings; it simply indicates that Jesus, as the eldest male child, would have had the say-so as to the disposition of their mother into another's care.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 15, 2023 21:12:43 GMT
Do you ever think there was ever any other virgin birth to happen in history? (I don’t think there ever was one but Christians seem to 🤷♀️) Once you have 'bought' a religion then the vagaries of faith demand all sorts of subjective truths to be held. Whether it is the virgin birth (as already noted one of various claims of such made through history), an angel dictating a holy book to an illiterate in a cave over decades, another angel revealing golden plates of holy wisdom in C19th America, a blue elephant or even, presumably, the Overlord Xenu and frozen souls in volcanos. While every one is entitled to believe and think as they choose that does not mean that ultimately their ideas cannot be laughed at. So... ha ha ha at the lot!
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 16, 2023 0:57:46 GMT
Do you ever think there was ever any other virgin birth to happen in history? (I don’t think there ever was one but Christians seem to 🤷♀️) Once you have 'bought' a religion then the vagaries of faith demand all sorts of subjective truths to be held. Whether it is the virgin birth (as already noted one of various claims of such made through history), an angel dictating a holy book to an illiterate in a cave over decades, another angel revealing golden plates of holy wisdom in C19th America, a blue elephant or even, presumably, the Overlord Xenu and frozen souls in volcanos. While every one is entitled to believe and think as they choose that does not mean that ultimately their ideas cannot be laughed at. So... ha ha ha at the lot! It has come to my attention time and time again in our exchanges that you are less than the master of factual reality that you imagine yourself to be. Therefore I must keep your opinions at a distance until I can verify them elsewhere.
So... ha ha ha at the lot!
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 16, 2023 19:31:49 GMT
Once you have 'bought' a religion then the vagaries of faith demand all sorts of subjective truths to be held. Whether it is the virgin birth (as already noted one of various claims of such made through history), an angel dictating a holy book to an illiterate in a cave over decades, another angel revealing golden plates of holy wisdom in C19th America, a blue elephant or even, presumably, the Overlord Xenu and frozen souls in volcanos. While every one is entitled to believe and think as they choose that does not mean that ultimately their ideas cannot be laughed at. So... ha ha ha at the lot! It has come to my attention time and time again in our exchanges that you are less than the master of factual reality that you imagine yourself to be. Therefore I must keep your opinions at a distance until I can verify them elsewhere.
So... ha ha ha at the lot!
Please specify which part of my post does not relate to factual reality.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 16, 2023 23:27:08 GMT
It has come to my attention time and time again in our exchanges that you are less than the master of factual reality that you imagine yourself to be. Therefore I must keep your opinions at a distance until I can verify them elsewhere.
So... ha ha ha at the lot!
Please specify which part of my post does not relate to factual reality. It is no certain fact whether a human "virgin" woman can become pregnant although it is "known" to occur, however rarely, in lower forms of life such as fish, amphibians, and reptiles (parthenogenesis). I myself do not know whether it is possible, although I am already quite aware there are almost no reports, verified or not. i am inclined to assume that if it did happen the news would very unlikely be accepted.
Because you have no idea how "factual reality" is found you assume for your own "reasons" what is or is not reality. It appears here, pardon me, you are laughing at the notion of virgin birth. If not that, what then were you "laughing" at?
The really fascinating question is, suppose that you, or anyone, knew with absolute certainty, for a "fact," that human virgin birth can never happen. Are you following so far? Then why is there no "science" that abiogenesis can never happen? How are you able to believe that totally lifeless matter might give birth, and at the same time believe a full grown human female cannot? Do you see the double standard there? Those are two very different modes of "science." Maybe one of them is not science, huh?
Wonder which one? Let's see. We can perform "science" on cockroaches and perhaps even mice. We can control their environment completely. We cannot perform science on human beings because we cannot control their environment much at all. There are myriads of factors that can escape our notice and control. It is illegal to experiment on prisoners. Getting a "random" group of humans to volunteer for cages for very long is extremely unlikely, and also might be illegal or otherwise rejected by various established disciplines. So medical "science" really cannot be science in the sense of science ceteris paribus.
There is someone here who believes "science" has established with some degree of certainty that human virgin birth is not possible. I would be happy to look at such data as they might have, but no, absolutely not am I going to believe them until I see the data myself. Notice my reason above to suspect people parading as "scientists."
Laugh at me then.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 17, 2023 11:08:58 GMT
Please specify which part of my post does not relate to factual reality. It is no certain fact whether a human "virgin" woman can become pregnant although it is "known" to occur, however rarely, in lower forms of life such as fish, amphibians, and reptiles (parthenogenesis). I myself do not know whether it is possible, although I am already quite aware there are almost no reports, verified or not. i am inclined to assume that if it did happen the news would very unlikely be accepted.
Because you have no idea how "factual reality" is found you assume for your own "reasons" what is or is not reality. It appears here, pardon me, you are laughing at the notion of virgin birth. If not that, what then were you "laughing" at?
The really fascinating question is, suppose that you, or anyone, knew with absolute certainty, for a "fact," that human virgin birth can never happen. Are you following so far? Then why is there no "science" that abiogenesis can never happen? How are you able to believe that totally lifeless matter might give birth, and at the same time believe a full grown human mother cannot? Do you see the double standard there? Those are two very different modes of "science." Maybe one of them is not science, huh?
Wonder which one? Let's see. We can perform "science" on cockroaches and perhaps even mice. We can control their environment completely. We cannot perform science on human beings because we cannot control their environment much at all. There are myriads of factors that can escape our notice and control. It is illegal to experiment on prisoners. Getting a "random" group of humans to volunteer for cages for very long is extremely unlikely, and also might be illegal or otherwise rejected by various established disciplines. So medical "science" really cannot be science in the sense of science ceteris paribus.
There is someone here who believes "science" has established with some degree of certainty that human virgin birth is not possible. I would be happy to look at such data as they might have, but no, absolutely not am I going to believe them until I see the data myself. Notice my reason above to suspect people parading as "scientists."
Laugh at me then.
I think you missed where I asked for you to please specify which part of my post does not relate to factual reality. All I read above is that you do not know, but sound as if you doubt, the reality of proven human virgin birth. Which view I agree with. In fact "So, while it’s possible for a human baby to be born of a virgin mother, it’s very, very unlikely:" slate.com/news-and-politics/2007/12/is-it-possible-for-a-virgin-to-give-birth.html#:~:text=So%2C%20while%20it's%20possible%20for,parthenogenesis%20in%20the%20first%20place. See what did there? If you read carefully back to what I originally said, I was not so much ridiculing the notion of a virgin birth as such, more to when it is considered down to an action of the preferred supernatural, as a subjective truth by those buying into a particular system of faith. Ha ha ha.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 17, 2023 12:00:38 GMT
It is no certain fact whether a human "virgin" woman can become pregnant although it is "known" to occur, however rarely, in lower forms of life such as fish, amphibians, and reptiles (parthenogenesis). I myself do not know whether it is possible, although I am already quite aware there are almost no reports, verified or not. i am inclined to assume that if it did happen the news would very unlikely be accepted.
Because you have no idea how "factual reality" is found you assume for your own "reasons" what is or is not reality. It appears here, pardon me, you are laughing at the notion of virgin birth. If not that, what then were you "laughing" at?
The really fascinating question is, suppose that you, or anyone, knew with absolute certainty, for a "fact," that human virgin birth can never happen. Are you following so far? Then why is there no "science" that abiogenesis can never happen? How are you able to believe that totally lifeless matter might give birth, and at the same time believe a full grown human mother cannot? Do you see the double standard there? Those are two very different modes of "science." Maybe one of them is not science, huh?
Wonder which one? Let's see. We can perform "science" on cockroaches and perhaps even mice. We can control their environment completely. We cannot perform science on human beings because we cannot control their environment much at all. There are myriads of factors that can escape our notice and control. It is illegal to experiment on prisoners. Getting a "random" group of humans to volunteer for cages for very long is extremely unlikely, and also might be illegal or otherwise rejected by various established disciplines. So medical "science" really cannot be science in the sense of science ceteris paribus.
There is someone here who believes "science" has established with some degree of certainty that human virgin birth is not possible. I would be happy to look at such data as they might have, but no, absolutely not am I going to believe them until I see the data myself. Notice my reason above to suspect people parading as "scientists."
Laugh at me then.
I think you missed where I asked for you to please specify which part of my post does not relate to factual reality. All I read above is that you do not know, but sound as if you doubt, the reality of proven human virgin birth. Which view I agree with. In fact "So, while it’s possible for a human baby to be born of a virgin mother, it’s very, very unlikely:" slate.com/news-and-politics/2007/12/is-it-possible-for-a-virgin-to-give-birth.html#:~:text=So%2C%20while%20it's%20possible%20for,parthenogenesis%20in%20the%20first%20place. See what did there? If you read carefully back to what I originally said, I was not so much ridiculing the notion of a virgin birth as such, more to when it is considered down to an action of the preferred supernatural, as a subjective truth by those buying into a particular system of faith. Ha ha ha. There is a big difference between something being impossible and something being "very, very unlikely." The essential difference is that very, very unlikely things are possible.
Since no one here is saying the event is by any stretch frequent, you have no one here to find amusing but yourself, now that it is clear that you admit the event is possible. What you might mean by the "preferred supernatural" or any "system of faith" is not relevant.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 18, 2023 19:04:18 GMT
There is a big difference between something being impossible and something being "very, very unlikely. Indeed. Nothing gets past you, I can see that. The point here is that no one takes seriously every thing just because it is possible, let alone not sensible to even consider. If one says that something ought not to be dismissed or laughed at, just because it can be conceived as happening, is to ignore the humour implicit in endless credulity. The claims of the different, frequently competing systems of religious faiths in the world are especially susceptible to this, as they are generally not amenable to normal levels of evidence or falsification, relying instead on personal truths or the imagination of ancient peoples.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 19, 2023 4:01:50 GMT
There is a big difference between something being impossible and something being "very, very unlikely. Indeed. Nothing gets past you, I can see that. The point here is that no one takes seriously every thing just because it is possible, let alone not sensible to even consider. If one says that something ought not to be dismissed or laughed at, just because it can be conceived as happening, is to ignore the humour implicit in endless credulity. The claims of the different, frequently competing systems of religious faiths in the world are especially susceptible to this, as they are generally not amenable to normal levels of evidence or falsification, relying instead on personal truths or the imagination of ancient peoples. Thank you for making the real problem in the world especially clear.
This one reply is intended to cover your disparate ramblings on other threads as well including
Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways to Prove the Existence of God Without God
The problem is that some people read at a tragically rudimentary level. They have the mentality of a small child and often even as adults have less understanding of the world around them than some small children have. You have been trying to use the dictionary like it is an encyclopedia. An actual encyclopedia would improve your outlook somewhat, but even then you need to exercise better analysis of more data. You need more real life examples of people. As I will show presently you never have analyzed the world around you, at least not here. When I observe that Deists, for example, tend to dislike a disorderly universe, your complaint is that it is not part of the definition of a Deist such as a dictionary might have. Your argument here, and everywhere else for that matter, is based on what you imagine is authority. If the dictionary does not describe what a Deist is in entirety you will never know. You will never understand them. You will get hopelessly lost in discussions about them, as you have here. Your view of the world is simple in order to suit your simple childish mind. You use the "authority" of, for example, dictionaries because like a small child you are utterly dependent on authority. You can memorize very short strings of words without understanding even one of them. Do southerners like iced tea? It is sometimes held that they do more than other people. Is it in the dictionary definition of a southerner? No. It is not. Still it would make sense that they do since their weather can call on the need for cold tea more than other places. We are often warned in early education not to "generalize" about people. That is we should not assume that Tom likes iced tea simply because he is a southerner. We should not do that because indeed Tom might not like iced tea. I have never made that mistake. I do however notice cases where generalization serves a good purpose. When we are stocking shelves in the South, we should probably make more iced tea and its ingredients available because generally speaking, that is on the whole, that is without regard to individuals, southerners do like iced tea more than people from or in other areas. (That was especially true before air conditioning and might be less true lately, but it is only for illustration.) Likewise, you might find an individual "Deist" who absolutely loves all sorts of surprises, but that is not the general finding. It is not the general finding because there is something in the nature of a Deist to steer them away from surprises. You often complain about the Bible. We know exactly why now. You read it at the level of a small child. There it is again! The real problem in the world today! Consider two scenarios. In one you have ten enemies determined to kill you immediately and no one else is present to help defend you. In the other scenario there are ten of you sworn to each other's defense and only one person there is threatening to kill you. Please notice now as you never have before that the solution in one scenario can be very different from the solution in the other. When it is ten to one against you, it might be necessary to thoroughly incapacitate several enemies, quite possibly resulting in their deaths. When it is ten to one for you, it is far more likely you can subdue the one person who is a threat and transport him to secure quarters. Perhaps now you can see what a fool you have been accusing the God of the Bible of excessive violence. Perhaps now you can at last understand that your examples of "rampant evil" in the world today are utterly ridiculous comparisons. Perhaps now you can grow up. Many people can see what the problem is. You have no more mental development than a child who cannot understand life and death scenarios. Aha! We have the answer! At one time, especially immediately after Darwin, a sort of "authority" developed that had your attitudes about life, especially disdain for the Bible. Then all you had to do was follow that authority. You didn't have to think about anything ever. You could look down on people like me much like you do today. Times have changed though. Your "authorities" lost their arguments. Now they have none and somebody has to make some for them. You obviously cannot. The god-of-the-gaps excuse is expired. (I can explain.) We now know that the "RNA soup" is going nowhere because we thoroughly understand why it is going nowhere. Is a small child of Nazi parents innocent? You are like one. Your "authorities" lost the war, so to speak. Now what will you do? Will you keep fighting against people in the know because your small brain cannot understand its own mistakes? Or can you change your allegiance to the authorities who deserve to be authorities? The point here is that you have insufficient intellectual development to offer your opinions on this board, and they are indeed nothing but outdated opinions.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 19, 2023 10:52:31 GMT
When I observe that Deists, for example, tend to dislike a disorderly universe, Something which, needless to say, still remains to be substantiated - and for which you are now taking up large areas of space trying to avoid, it would appear. It might well be that a Deist would expect to see a disorderly universe in some respects, based on the deity essentially being an 'absentee landlord'. Incidentally I have lately run a Google search on "deists dislike universe " since you see seem unable to, and results have been negligible. No I only ask for evidence in support of your claim. I might even agree with your statement, but just need substantiation. Unfortunately all we get is a long, windy reply such as this was, full of characteristic condescension then sadly, if rather inevitably, the usual Arlongeurs of rudeness and hubris. An ad hominem is not an argument. I have told you this before. Oh, and are you not the same Arlon who 'never judges people'? but then: That warning apparently, went unheeded... but then again: We are back to irony again lol Some substantiation, of something, from you at some point would certainly be welcome. Now that all your intemperateness has come to an end with the above stream of empty rhetorical challenges, any chance, finally, of actual substantiation for your claim that "The original point of denying the existence of a god was to make the universe more orderly. Some people, not all of them "atheists," disliked the idea that a "god" might interfere in the order of things at just any time." ? The original point of our exchange? You know I will keep asking. Wandering from thread to thread, btw, even with such insightful and valued musings as you offer in lieu of substantiation, is necessarily confusing for readers, making things hard to follow. But perhaps that is the point. This exchange was actually about the freedom to laugh at religious credulity. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 19, 2023 13:22:00 GMT
When I observe that Deists, for example, tend to dislike a disorderly universe, Something which, needless to say, still remains to be substantiated - and for which you are now taking up large areas of space trying to avoid, it would appear. It might well be that a Deist would expect to see a disorderly universe in some respects, based on the deity essentially being an 'absentee landlord'. Incidentally I have lately run a Google search on "deists dislike universe " since you see seem unable to, and results have been negligible. No I only ask for evidence in support of your claim. I might even agree with your statement, but just need substantiation. Unfortunately all we get is a long, windy reply such as this was, full of characteristic condescension then sadly, if rather inevitably, the usual Arlongeurs of rudeness and hubris. An ad hominem is not an argument. I have told you this before. Oh, and are you not the same Arlon who 'never judges people'? but then: That warning apparently, went unheeded... but then again: We are back to irony again lol Some substantiation, of something, from you at some point would certainly be welcome. Now that all your intemperateness has come to an end with the above stream of empty rhetorical challenges, any chance, finally, of actual substantiation for your claim that "The original point of denying the existence of a god was to make the universe more orderly. Some people, not all of them "atheists," disliked the idea that a "god" might interfere in the order of things at just any time." ? The original point of our exchange? You know I will keep asking. Wandering from thread to thread, btw, even with such insightful and valued musings as you offer in lieu of substantiation, is necessarily confusing for readers, making things hard to follow. But perhaps that is the point. This exchange was actually about the freedom to laugh at religious credulity. Just saying.
I cover various threads with one reply because it is the same problem in each one. You are the same problem in each one. It is the pattern of your behavior throughout that we need to examine.
Let's start with the obvious. That might be a refreshingly new experience for you. There has been nothing obvious to you before. You have only copied the papers of people who, as we now thoroughly know, have a rudimentary understanding of anything. You complain about the Bible because you interpret it the way a small child might. I proved that. I "substantiated" it. You utterly failed to find unusual cruelty in any god. Instead of thanking me and apologizing to me, you accuse me of misconduct as if I am somehow required to respect your claims no matter how ridiculous they are. I am not, by the way. You misunderstand the rules
To show that the God of the Bible is not especially cruel I had you consider two scenarios. It is obvious that if ten people were evil enough to demand you die, and you had only yourself for defense, your only choices would be either to kill several if not all of them, or allow evil to reign supreme in the world. There is no telling who else they might kill after you. I explained that things would be different if it were ten to one in your favor. Therefore the god of the Bible is not especially cruel, those were different circumstances. Case closed. I won. It is now very thoroughly substantiated that you are not capable of reading the Bible. Your comments can safely be ignored.
That is just the first example, there are more. Let's make sure you understand what that means already though. It means you have no power. In order to say I have failed here you need to have any power to say it. You don't. If a raving lunatic says I still need to "substantiate" something his claim is irrelevant. In a similar manner if you say I still need to substantiate something your claim is irrelevant. In addition there is your claim that my observation requires "substantiation" that some people dislike frequent and capricious interventions in human business from unknown agencies or gods. I explained to you that when something is not contested and apparent to all, there is no need for further substantiation. You still seem to believe you have the power to require me to find some authority that states what is obvious in the same words I used. It's there, just not in my words.
Where I went to school we had to prove our understanding of things by putting them in our own words. You might want to consult a brain specialist about why you can't do that, or allow anyone else to do that.
It is as if you are in a rubber room with no experience of real people and trying to fit all reality into "dictionary" definitions. I noted that like a small child you want an authority to guide your every thought and move. I explained that the dictionary represents no comprehensive study of Deists. Neither, by the way, does an encyclopedia confer any doctor of philosophy on any readers. To understand the world you need to get out of your rubber room. You need to show, and have not shown, how anything I said is not consistent with some authority or data. Until you get out of your rubber room your claim that I still need to "substantiate" anything is merely the raving of a lunatic. There was a time in this world when your disdain for the Bible, your childish faith in science, and your rudimentary understanding of anything at all developed a sort of "support" from people with some sort of "authority." Those authorities no longer have any power, and neither do you. You are like some pathetic child of Nazi parents with nowhere to turn after the war. That great host of Darwin hanging on your every word is gone, dude. You lost. I do not know how much longer this board will tolerate your incompetence, insulting attitude, and false accusations. You are not "entitled" by any authority or discipline to them. People have already been shut down for differing with you, but a long overdue change is coming at last. It is not exactly "obvious" yet but it will be. You are the stunning example of the problem that will at last be recognized and treated accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 19, 2023 17:35:05 GMT
It is obvious that if ten people were evil enough to demand you die, and you had only yourself for defense, your only choices would be either to kill several if not all of them, or allow evil to reign supreme in the world. There is no telling who else they might kill after you. I explained that things would be different if it were ten to one in your favor. Therefore the god of the Bible is not especially cruel, those were different circumstances. Case closed. This, inevitably is the expected special pleading for a supposed god which, it is alleged, killed virtually all in a catastrophic genocidal flood and then on various succeeding occasions in scripture either mass killed, or ordered the same from its followers - a process which you yourself deemed "excessive", just earlier! This is the usual argument for the depredations of God, that somehow they were 'justified': either for reasons we know or we cannot. As I am sure you know, there is a distinction between two main ethical positions: deontology and consequentialism. Deontology says that whether an action is "good" or "bad" depends on some quality of the action itself. Many believe that certain actions are inherently bad, things like murder, torture, stealing, etc. Some die-hard deontologists, like Kant, believe that lying, for example, is always bad. That is to say, these actions are never justified. Consequentialism, on the other hand, says that whether an action is "good" or "bad" depends on the outcome. They propose some standard by which to measure the outcome (usually "utility"), and think that the best course of action is the one that maximizes utility. For consequentialists, the ends always justify the means. Most people's ethical beliefs fall into some hybrid version of the two. The vast majority of people, including me, hold the deontological belief that some actions like rape, torture or genocide are never justified (it seems you do), while those same people may hold the consequentialist belief that it's sometimes okay to lie, like in the case of a "white lie", or for a dentist to cause discomfort in the pursuit of oral hygiene, say. You have now just been suggesting that your all-good deity might deliberately allow suffering (notably including mass killing) if a greater good justifies it. It is inhumane special pleading, as it is especially uncomfortable and contradictory to make exceptions to regular morality at that extreme level of cruelty and suffering. In the real world, away from the inhumane theoretical extremes of fundamentalist logic it would be almost impossible to find anyone who would take consequentialism that far. Leaving aside scenarios that only exist in the philosophy classroom (what if an evil demon makes you commit genocide, and if you don't do as you're told the demon will do an even worse genocide?), no, genocide is always a tremendous evil and is never justified satisfactorily, even if Genocides are always justified to and by those who are causing them. And can we ever say of a genocide victim that they will shrug and say "never mind, the extermination of me and my kind is all to the good" justifying the special exception? I doubt it. The problem is that it is a only a blurry gradation from justifying murder, rape, torture and mass killings etc because God supposedly orders/does it, and then committing these acts because a deity (or scripture) apparently justifies it. Thus there is a line between Abraham going to kill Isaac and bombs going off - or planes flying into buildings. Now back to regular broadcasting.. In fact the opposite is true, since something which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed on the same basis.
The trouble is, as with so many of your assertions, very often things are not 'obvious' to others at all
Unfortunately nothing is there but your words, sadly which are becoming increasingly intemperate.
Where I went to school we had to show our workings and quote from supporting sources. But I guess your school was a special one.
Actually, the burden of proof remains with you, as the one who made the original assertions to provide that authority or data in the first place.
An offensive ad hominem is still not an argument. I told you that again, just recently. Please try and remember. Incidentally equating someone like this with the Nazis is not big, or clever, but just trivialises that which should not be. Maybe, and I was sad you were banned before when you prove so regularly educational and entertaining. But in the meantime, while we are waiting the "long overdue change" (are you starting anger management classes?) can we just have the substantiation for your notion that ""evil is [not] prevalent in modern times" - instead of justifying the dubious work of your supposed god in olden times, or even "The original point of denying the existence of a god was to make the universe more orderly. Some people, not all of them "atheists," disliked the idea that a "god" might interfere in the order of things at just any time" - instead of fixating on Deists. All your vexed verbiage just seems, more and more, an evasion of simple, reasonable requests. Is there a problem?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 19, 2023 21:06:43 GMT
It is obvious that if ten people were evil enough to demand you die, and you had only yourself for defense, your only choices would be either to kill several if not all of them, or allow evil to reign supreme in the world. There is no telling who else they might kill after you. I explained that things would be different if it were ten to one in your favor. Therefore the god of the Bible is not especially cruel, those were different circumstances. Case closed. This, inevitably is the expected special pleading for a supposed god which, it is alleged, killed virtually all in a catastrophic genocidal flood and then on various succeeding occasions in scripture either mass killed, or ordered the same from its followers - a process which you yourself deemed "excessive", just earlier! This is the usual argument for the depredations of God, that somehow they were 'justified': either for reasons we know or we cannot. As I am sure you know, there is a distinction between two main ethical positions: deontology and consequentialism. Deontology says that whether an action is "good" or "bad" depends on some quality of the action itself. Many believe that certain actions are inherently bad, things like murder, torture, stealing, etc. Some die-hard deontologists, like Kant, believe that lying, for example, is always bad. That is to say, these actions are never justified. Consequentialism, on the other hand, says that whether an action is "good" or "bad" depends on the outcome. They propose some standard by which to measure the outcome (usually "utility"), and think that the best course of action is the one that maximizes utility. For consequentialists, the ends always justify the means. Most people's ethical beliefs fall into some hybrid version of the two. The vast majority of people, including me, hold the deontological belief that some actions like rape, torture or genocide are never justified (it seems you do), while those same people may hold the consequentialist belief that it's sometimes okay to lie, like in the case of a "white lie", or for a dentist to cause discomfort in the pursuit of oral hygiene, say. You have now just been suggesting that your all-good deity might deliberately allow suffering (notably including mass killing) if a greater good justifies it. It is inhumane special pleading, as it is especially uncomfortable and contradictory to make exceptions to regular morality at that extreme level of cruelty and suffering. In the real world, away from the inhumane theoretical extremes of fundamentalist logic it would be almost impossible to find anyone who would take consequentialism that far. Leaving aside scenarios that only exist in the philosophy classroom (what if an evil demon makes you commit genocide, and if you don't do as you're told the demon will do an even worse genocide?), no, genocide is always a tremendous evil and is never justified satisfactorily, even if Genocides are always justified to and by those who are causing them. And can we ever say of a genocide victim that they will shrug and say "never mind, the extermination of me and my kind is all to the good" justifying the special exception? I doubt it. The problem is that it is a only a blurry gradation from justifying murder, rape, torture and mass killings etc because God supposedly orders/does it, and then committing these acts because a deity (or scripture) apparently justifies it. Thus there is a line between Abraham going to kill Isaac and bombs going off - or planes flying into buildings. Now back to regular broadcasting.. In fact the opposite is true, since something which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed on the same basis. The trouble is, as with so many of your assertions, very often things are not 'obvious' to others at all
Unfortunately nothing is there but your words, sadly which are becoming increasingly intemperate. Where I went to school we had to show our workings and quote from supporting sources. But I guess your school was a special one.
Actually, the burden of proof remains with you, as the one who made the original assertions to provide that authority or data in the first place.
An offensive ad hominem is still not an argument. I told you that again, just recently. Please try and remember. Incidentally equating someone like this with the Nazis is not big, or clever, but just trivialises that which should not be. Maybe, and I was sad you were banned before when you prove so regularly educational and entertaining. But in the meantime, while we are waiting the "long overdue change" (are you starting anger management classes?) can we just have the substantiation for your notion that ""evil is [not] prevalent in modern times" - instead of justifying the dubious work of your supposed god in olden times, or even "The original point of denying the existence of a god was to make the universe more orderly. Some people, not all of them "atheists," disliked the idea that a "god" might interfere in the order of things at just any time" - instead of fixating on Deists. All your vexed verbiage just seems, more and more, an evasion of simple, reasonable requests. Is there a problem? You are making this more complicated than it needs to be. Did you mean to detract? Have you another topic you would like to explore? The question here is whether the god of the Bible was unusually cruel. Following so far? My claim is that the prevalence of evil in the Bible was not like today, and that it would be unfair to expect such massive problems to be solved by today's methods. You countered that a problem with the Catholic Church and a problem with Putin showed that there is evil in the world today, which I am guessing you believe compares to eighty percent plus of the population of the world murdering and raping. How you define evil is not relevant here. It is the quantity that is relevant here. I consider that the "evil" of eighty percent plus of the population of the world murdering and raping is not contested here. It needs no further examination or specification other than it's enormous quantity and apparent evil. I would be willing to concede that what you found in today's world is also "evil," but the point is not whether it is evil by various definitions. The point is that it is not very many people. The quantity of evil, if we agree to call it that, is no comparison to the evil in ancient Bible times. I took the trouble to provide you an illustration of how the quantity of evil can require different solutions. If it were ten to one against you, you would be hard pressed to act much like the god of the Bible did. If it were ten to one for you then less "cruel" solutions would be available. See how the quantity is the essential factor? Not "consequentialism"?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 20, 2023 11:58:49 GMT
There are actually two issues here between us: was God unusually cruel and, also, were his actions justified? In the case of the first you have already admitted that your preferred deity's actions were "excessive" and "cruel". In the case of the latter I have just explained carefully why it is special pleading for actions such as genocide, rape, torture etc to be ever justified. This is a good one. In which case, if definitions of evil really are irrelevant I can say that that parking fines and dentists causing pain are 'evil' and are matters experienced all around the world, and in fact 'evil' is even more "rampant" today than I thought. I don't think you have thought this through lol (If it was me btw, I would have opted for the proportion of evil, rather than quantity, as what is to be counted within a society and stick with what the majority consider to be really bad. But it's your choice and we shall go with that...) QED However to make this statement you will need to define what evil is to be so identified.. oh, that's right: definition is irrelevant.... QED But again, without a satisfactory definition you have no way of deciding this. Given that you now insist that "the definition of 'evil' is irrelevant" and quantity is the thing, I can easily find limitless examples all over the modern globe since we are comparing anything to anything. Thus I can guess that there are more people suffering from the 'evil' of traffic wardens around the world this week that say the first born of ancient Egypt, especially when one remembers how small such old populations were likely to be. Or to put it another way, even by traditional reckoning, the basic quantity of evil within the population of the modern globe (which has more people alive than ever before) is obviously of a much larger quantity than the ancient middle east, your own reckoning and so the amount of evil today is necessarily larger. Glad to help. See how I went through the notion of special pleading for the Lord's choice of genocide, rape and murder, just above? I did. Finally, if an all powerful deity wanted to solve the issue of evil of peoples in the ancient world without slaughter, rape and torture by his followers he could just have softened the heart of the offenders, or simply given them a propensity to do better... God was, after all the person who repeatedly hardens peoples hearts when it suited, so why not work the reverse? bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/God-Hardening-People The way it happened we have a supposed god who chose the very worst alternative as a matter of process.
|
|