The recurring question without an answer

[Gorgias]

Your suspicion is unfounded.

You realize that you just confirmed it there, right?

And if only God would act similarly - trying to be good as long as it does not inconvenience him , everything would be just fine.

Again – you’re in a position to judge God? Good luck with that one…

Now, if your response would be: “Fair enough. I misunderstood you” - that would be an intellectually honest response.

Sadly, I do understand you. And that’s as honest as it gets.

You realize we can apply that same standard to your arguments, right?

macska:

If I would claim something positive, yes, it would.

My evidence is the lack of your evidence.

You can see that you’re positing that you’re presenting evidence of a positive claim, right? So much for “intellectual honesty”.

Massacring children under the orders of God in biblical times is totally moral.

I think the point being missed here is under the orders of God,

No. This is one of the spurious arguments that hurts believers’ credibility. If memory serves, Pope Benedict pointed out that this argument doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Freddy]

macska:

How about some rational argument? If only I would see some rational arguments it would be awesome.

Massacring children in biblical times is totally understandable.

Massacring children under the orders of God in biblical times is totally moral.

So if you massacre a schoolyard full of kids and say that you did it on a direct order from God, then that’s ok?

You see the problem? All anyone needs to do is claim they are acting on the will of God and they will happily fly planes into buildings.

Oh, but hang on. You qualified it by saying it was ok ‘in biblical times’. Maybe it’s not ok now. Please confirm.

 

[Freddy]

Annie:

Massacring children under the orders of God in biblical times is totally moral.

I think the point being missed here is under the orders of God,

No. This is one of the spurious arguments that hurts believers’ credibility. If memory serves, Pope Benedict pointed out that this argument doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

So if God orders what we consider to be evil, He cannot actually have ordered it. I wasn’t aware we had the option of questioning the validity of God’s decisions. That’s quite a can of worms that’s been opened.

 

[Gorgias]

So if God orders what we consider to be evil, He cannot actually have ordered it.

No. It’s more like “if it appears that God orders evil, then we’re misinterpreting the text.” I believe that Augustine taught this, 1600 years ago.

I wasn’t aware we had the option of questioning the validity of God’s decisions. That’s quite a can of worms that’s been opened.

It hasn’t been. We’re not questioning God – we’re questioning a human interpretation.

 

[macska]

Again – you’re in a position to judge God? Good luck with that one…

What should I be afraid of? Of course I do not judge “God”. I judge what you believers say about God. Looks like you don’t understand the difference. Now, if you could PROVE that God exists and has all the attributes you talk about, then there would be something to talk about.

You can see that you’re positing that you’re presenting evidence of a positive claim, right? So much for “intellectual honesty”.

Is it now? I simply presented that your claim is insufficient for being considered. What is there to give evidence for? You still don’t understand that only metaphysical claims need to be substantiated. For example, the claim “God is all-loving, all-kind, etc…” is a metaphysical claim. It needs to be substantiated to be considered acceptable. On the hand, the claim: “I don’t believe what you say about God” is an epistemological claim. Based upon your words I conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about. Your foreseeable answer: “But I do, however you don’t” is just baloney.

No. This is one of the spurious arguments that hurts believers’ credibility.

Her argument is just a carbon copy of yours.

 

[Gorgias]

What should I be afraid of?

Making foolish arguments, perhaps. Unfairly insulting your interlocutors?

Nah… what was I thinking…?

Your foreseeable answer: “But I do, however you don’t” is just baloney.

Pot, meet kettle. That’s precisely what you’ve been doing.

Her argument is just a carbon copy of yours.

It’s not. I get it if you can’t distinguish between them, though. Have a nice night.

 

[Freddy]

It hasn’t been. We’re not questioning God – we’re questioning a human interpretation.

Pass me that can of worms please, Caz. No not that one. The one in the bottom cupboard. Yeah. The really big one. That’s it. Now can you give me hand to open it? Someone has just suggested questioning man’s interpretation of God’s will.

Yeah, yeah. I’ve copied the relevant text for future use. Don’t worry. I’m not that dumb.

 

[Gorgias]

Someone has just suggested questioning man’s interpretation of God’s will.

Yeah, yeah. I’ve copied the relevant text for future use. Don’t worry. I’m not that dumb.

Not sure why you think you’ve scored a point. Questioning human interpretations is fair game. What we do, in that case, is go to authoritative sources… you know, like the Church, who was given authority by Christ Himself.

But hey… if you think that means that your attack on the Church’s authoritative interpretations are thereby justified… then you’ll have to demonstrate why you find yourself more authoritative.

 

[Freddy]

Gorgias:

Again – you’re in a position to judge God? Good luck with that one…

What should I be afraid of? Of course I do not judge “God”. I judge what you believers say about God.

Apparently you are allowed to do that.

We’re not questioning God – we’re questioning a human interpretation.

Gee. It came in handy sooner than I thought.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

An atheist is definitely not going to accept that.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Someone has just suggested questioning man’s interpretation of God’s will.

Yeah, yeah. I’ve copied the relevant text for future use. Don’t worry. I’m not that dumb.

Not sure why you think you’ve scored a point. Questioning human interpretations is fair game. What we do, in that case, is go to authoritative sources… you know, like the Church, who was given authority by Christ Himself.

But you mentioned earlier that we could understand it in relation to the times. That it was acceptable to those comitting the massacre at that time. And you said that you couldn’t condone it now. You never said that the church had authoratively condemned it.

I guess that here’s your opportunity to show us where the church has done so.

 

[Freddy]

An atheist is definitely not going to accept that.

I don’t think many Christians are going to either.

 

[Gorgias]

You never said that the church had authoratively condemned it.

Authoritatively condemned what, exactly? A genocide that never occurred?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You never said that the church had authoratively condemned it.

Authoritatively condemned what, exactly? A genocide that never occurred?

The massacre was said to be God’s will. And you say it didn’t happen. Because we are allowed to question man’s interpretation of God’s will. And you said that we should go to the church for an authorative interpretation.

So has the church declared that it didn’t happen? And that in this case we can say that man’s interpretation has authoratively been declared wrong?

 

[Gorgias]

And you say it didn’t happen.

No… it’s not me who says it didn’t happen – it’s the Bible. (The Amalekites show up much later in the Bible. That’s kinda hard for a nationality who’s been wiped out to do. )

So has the church declared that it didn’t happen?

Read the Bible. A bit more carefully, this time.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And you say it didn’t happen.

No… it’s not me who says it didn’t happen – it’s the Bible. (The Amalekites show up much later in the Bible. That’s kinda hard for a nationality who’s been wiped out to do.

So has the church declared that it didn’t happen?

Read the Bible. A bit more carefully, this time.

To reiterate. You said it didn’t happen according to God’s will. Because we can reinterpret man’s understanding of God’s will. But you were quite clear that it actually happened:

Men are combatants. Boys will grow up to kill in vengeance. In that time and place, the role of a woman was merely to give birth to children for the family/clan/nation. So, women who are not virgins cannot be married (it was a social convention) and the virgins weren’t “for sexual gratification”, they became brides (in order to birth babies for your family/clan/nation).

I’m not going to defend it, but one can understand it in the context of the time and culture. The question is whether God really ordered it, or if that’s how the people understood what they were supposed to do.

So, again: not relative morality, but – perhaps – a misunderstanding of people as to what God wanted of them.

So you were prepared to offer reasons why male children were killed. And why women were kept for sex. But you weren’t going to defend it because - hey, them times were diff’rent.

You even questioned if God actually ordered it. Because we can question man’s interpretation of God’s will. You are on record saying that.

And now you find yourself in a corner, you baldly state that it doesn’t matter about all your previous posts. We can ignore your understanding of why children were killed. We can ignore your reasons why the women were taken. And we can ignore the fact that you said it was possible that man’s interpretation of God’s will might be wrong and He didn’t order the massacre. We can ignore all that because now…it never happened anyway!

How patently transparent.

 

[o_mlly]

It never changes. It’s an automatic response.

Good. You’re time on CAF is finally paying off!

Your morality system is unpredictable and depends on which side of the bed you arise from each morn. The Catholic moral system is not relative to ones’ fleeting feelings but to unchanging reasoned principles and that’s a good thing. Your distant cousin, as well as your mother, would certainly think so!

 

[macska]

It’s not. I get it if you can’t distinguish between them, though.

Oh, I could, if there would be any difference. Just like your assertion that directly performing and implicitly allowing an act (when you have to power to prevent it) are different; they are NOT equally good or reprehensible depending on the facts and the circumstances.

Your current line about the interpretation of certain texts in the Bible only shows that you have no arguments. Yes, I am aware of your upcoming “defense”, that you provided arguments, but I did not “like” them. Maybe you should learn what an argument cannot be: “but the Bible says differently”, or “this is not what the church teaches”. None of these are “arguments”. A real argument is based upon the physical reality, and employs reason - which is not the same as logic.

I would not insult you with asserting that you commit logical errors. (You rarely do.) But I point out that being logical is irrelevant if your argument is not based upon reality. And reality equals the physical reality, where a proposition can be empirically verified. Whatever you believe about God and demons are mildly interesting, but have nothing to do with the actual reality - unless you can provide supporting evidence for them.

And evidence is not some ancient text, translated and interpreted several times over. You continuously confuse evidence with mythology, and refuse to understand that mythology is NOT evidence.

Then comes the real problem, the selective inclusion of what constitutes physical evidence. If something seems to support your hypothesis, you include it among what you consider evidence. If it does not support it, you quietly throw it into the trash. (And THAT is hypocrisy or intellectual dishonesty.) Perfect examples are the supplicative / intercessory prayers. Any prayer, except the purely meditative ones ask for something. If the result seems to be a positive response, you hail God for granting your wish. If it does not, you “exonerate” God, by stipulating that it was not God’s will. Of course you have no idea what God’s will might be.

You can only guess what God’s will might be, depending on the result of the supplicative / intercessory prayers. And based upon those the only conclusion is simple. God (if exists) does not care. There is one theologically established book about this subject by Rabbi Harold Kushner: “When bad things happen to good people”. The one and only book (I have ever encountered, maybe there are others) about the “problem of evil” - and which is not “BS”. And that is still the perennial thorn in the side of Christianity.

 

[macska]

Questioning human interpretations is fair game. What we do, in that case, is go to authoritative sources… you know, like the Church, who was given authority by Christ Himself.

And this is the perfect example of confusing evidence with mythology. The good, old circular argument.

Assertion: The church is the authority when it comes to theological issues.
Question: Why should anyone accept it?
A: Because the church was established directly by Christ.
Q: How do we know this?
A: The bible and the sacred tradition support it.
Q: These are both human concoctions. Why should we trust them?
A: As I said they were established directly by Christ…

So the dog(ma) just keeps chasing its merry tail… The church is true, because the church says that it was established by Christ… and this is true because the church says so. There is no “spiral”, there is no “outside starting point”. There could be, if there would be some actual, physical evidence that Jesus was God, and he really performed some real miracles. But there is no outside evidence for that… only old and tired mythology. The resurrection is just a myth. All the other miracles also.

Of course you could get some supporting evidence, if you would base your argument on some other selected texts in the Scripture, like Matthew 7:7 and Luke 11:9 which explicitly authorize you to “ask” and expect a positive reply. But it never works… and what is your “argument”? Another selected text, Deuteronomy 9:16 or Matthew 4:7 and/or Luke 4:12. Oh, the beauty of quote-mining. Anything and its opposite can be established if you are patient enough, and search long enough. So much for the “authority” of the church and the bible.

The next problem is the nature of evidence. You keep on saying that it is irrational to demand physical evidence for a non-physical entity. This has been rebuffed by pointing out that this alleged non-physical entity interacts with the physical reality, and the effect of this interaction is measurable, regardless of the alleged non-physical causative agent.

So, summing up, you have NOTHING, but mythology. Any and all of your purported arguments have been refuted by actual arguments. In other words you are disqualified as a conversation partner. If you wish to establish your bona-fides, you need to take the questions seriously.

You need to establish your arguments based on the actual reality, the physical reality. Good luck!

 

[Gorgias]

To reiterate. You said it didn’t happen according to God’s will. Because we can reinterpret man’s understanding of God’s will. But you were quite clear that it actually happened:

No… I was pointing out that the context is understandable, and is quite different from the cultural context of the present day. So, we can understand how it could seem reasonable to them (in much the same way that it might have sounded reasonable to Abraham to be asked to sacrifice his son), even though both fill us with horror in the present day.

Did it actually get commanded by God, though? That’s what the Scriptural author seems to be reporting. Did he get it right, from a historical perspective? That’s an open question. (Along the same lines, we still debate whether the Scriptural author of the Noah epic got it right that it was a global flood. It certainly seems that this is how it appeared to him, but the historical/scientific accuracy of his reportage is a different question than the theological lesson he was inspired to relate.)

So, just so that you’ll no longer be confused:

• Yes, we can understand how this might have seemed reasonable to people in that time and place.
• No, we don’t call genocide reasonable today.
• No, we’re not even sure that God would demand it. That would run counter to our understanding of God as all-good.
• No, we don’t think it happened, since the Amalekites show up later in the OT. This isn’t some sort of “revisionist history” – the narratives in the OT show that there were still Amalekite communities, long after the time of King Saul!
• No, this isn’t evidence of “relative morality”. It’s always been wrong, but the fact that some people got it wrong doesn’t mean that it wasn’t always morally illicit.

Does that exhaust all your questions / misunderstandings?

How patently transparent.

Not “transparent”; rather, “rational.” If you want to lampoon the explanation, that’s your business. It’ll be ‘transparent’ that this is your real goal, though.