The apocryphal nature of religious texts

Probably a better discussion if we limit this predominantly to contemporary monotheism, but all three are open for discussion. We're looking for obviously spurious claims or claims that are demonstrably false when compared to what evidence we have, or claims that contradict other claims in other parts of the relevant book.

Beyond that we can broaden the discussion to include traditional dogma or doctrine, whether it is still accepted or has been rejected by the credulous.  We can also use the discussion to analyse why we think the posted quotes are a barrier to credulity,  or conversely why we don't find them a barrier to accepting they are a message from a deity.

I'll start with a contradiction.

John 1:18
No man hath seen god at any time.

Exodus 33:11

And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to a friend.

As one example.

Do you think that torturing a baby is ever justified?

Have you seen this rather well done movie?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

They end asking about a God who tortures babies as God did to King David’s baby.
God also killed many innocent babies in his great flood as well as the innocent first born of Egypt.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.ca/2010/02/gods-73rd-killing-god-slowly-kills-baby.html

Do you think that torturing a baby is ever justified?

Regards
DL

Well if I understand you this is a rhetorical question? Designed to question the logical paradox of the claims for a benevolent omnipotent deity against the incongruous biblical narrative that portrays a sadistic and capricious  megalomaniac.

Rhetorically we could also ask what kind of omniscient omnipotent deity would curse the vast majority of babies to die in childbirth? This is hardly ever even acknowledged in most religious apologetics yet the histrionics over abortion is wildly out of all proportion to the suffering of the deaths of babies and mothers in childbirth.

Again the same science that we have seen denigrated and defamed here has reversed these very brutal statistics.

I wish it was just rhetorical but this question was framed after Christians telling me that God was well within his moral right to do what he did.

Unfortunately, in this case as well as others, God gets a pass for the same infraction that would have Christians in a murdering fit against people for doing.

That double immoral standard is what I am fighting.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:I wish it was just rhetorical but this question was framed after Christians telling me that God was well within his moral right to do what he did.

Unfortunately, in this case as well as others, God gets a pass for the same infraction that would have Christians in a murdering fit against people for doing.

That double immoral standard is what I am fighting.

Regards
DL

Ok, but I meant rhetorical in the sense that you didn't believe a deity had actually done this, but were phrasing the question to focus on the kind of beliefs that would find such an act morally acceptable from their chosen deity?

Well of course the question hits at the heart of what morality is, and how we arrive at what is morally acceptable, and what is not. Theists and apologists I have read tend to argue that God can't do anything that is immoral, so this leaves them with the choice of denying that what is claimed actually happened, such as biblical accounts of genocide etc., or the William Lane Craig "camp" that are apologists for genocide, at least hypothetically, as they insist if the act was as described then God would not be culpable of any wrongdoing as God by his nature is moral and so all his actions are. We've read Polyglide make similar claims on here, where when confronted with biblical accounts of acts of genocide by God, he didn't deny the acts themselves but insisted they were somehow justified, god was helping his chosen people, the victims of God's wrath somehow deserved their fate as they were evil, etc etc. At no point did he condemn genocide or deny the biblical accounts. Yet when posting about the recent IS atrocity in Tunisia he said  he couldn't believe anyone thought of IS as even religious, an odd double standard, and of course it'd be a fairly safe bet that those who commit such acts would probably describe Polyglide's beliefs in precisely the same way. They both have absolute faith, they both have holy texts to show them what their god wants, and they both have their experience of their god to reinforce the certainty that theirs is the correct faith.

Needless to say I find both positions logically irrational, and the latter claims of William Lane Craig to be morally repugnant. Most theists reject Moral relativism of course, but if you accept the idea that any act by God, or act that God commands, is by definition moral then so much for free will, as we're no longer free to choose what acts are correct or not. Yet believers see no irony in them subjectively cherry picking which pieces of scripture or the Koran to believe and act on, I mean I don't see the Westboro baptist church waving placards denouncing cotton polyester blends or shrimp cocktails.

If you are answering the most recent message on a thread, there is no need to copy/paste it. Thanks.
Ivan

Correct. And that also means that they are to ignore wisdom such as this.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

One good thing about ISIS, if any good thing can be said to come from them, is that their antics may be what puts the nail into the religious coffins.

Let us pray to all the moral God who seem to be moral people because the supernatural Gods are certainly not moral or able to answer prayers.

Humans are the only ones who can do that.

Regards
DL

The attention-grabbing of the title of this thread is in line with the glorious tradition of "Elvis lives!" and "Eddie Starr ate my hamster", so is not to be taken literally and may be answered in similar vein.

Criminologists believe that anti-abortion Law increases the amount of crime because "unwanted" children are likely to behave in anti-social ways.

Yes, the only possible way that a sane human being could respond to the thread question is with the word 'No', but all credit to Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD for commenting in a thoughtful, logical and erudite manner.

Thank you, sorry I forgot not to quote the post I was responding to, but I'm sure I'll get the hang of it eventually.

It ocurrs to me now that I should have pointed out the obvious moral bankruptcy of a being that viewed adultery as amoral, but viewed the torture of a child as morally acceptable.  

Any sane human, as Ivan points out, can see how amoral and evil such behaviour is. Whilst any sane human recognises that by comparison adultery is not considered a criminal act in any civilised society.

Ivan wrote:Yes, the only possible way that a sane human being could respond to the thread question is with the word 'No', but all credit to Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD for commenting in a thoughtful, logical and erudite manner.

I hear you and agree but as to sane human beings and how they reply, many, --- if not all Christians, --- give God a pass on his torture and killing of babies.

They are not insane but badly flawed in my view as they have forgotten that God is supposed to be a moral guide. Not a satanic example of evil and immoral actions.

Regards
DL

oftenwrong wrote:The attention-grabbing of the title of this thread is in line with the glorious tradition of "Elvis lives!" and "Eddie Starr ate my hamster", so is not to be taken literally and may be answered in similar vein.

Criminologists believe that anti-abortion Law increases the amount of crime because "unwanted" children are likely to behave in anti-social ways.

I do not need experts to tell me what common sense does.

Just for my education, what title would you have used for this exact topic?

Regards
DL

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:It ocurrs to me now that I should have pointed out the obvious moral bankruptcy of a being that viewed adultery as amoral, but viewed the torture of a child as morally acceptable.  

Any sane human, as Ivan points out, can see how amoral and evil such behaviour is. Whilst any sane human recognises that by comparison adultery is not considered a criminal act in any civilised society.

I hear you but there is something other than insanity keeping Christians adoring an obviously immoral God.

My kingdom to know what that is so that I could focus on fighting it.

I know that our tribal natures are involved but surely that would not make moral people follow such an immoral tribal chief or God would it?

Especially when there are so many other Gods/Churches around that are not following such an immoral God.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote: there is something other than insanity keeping Christians adoring an obviously immoral God.

I'd imagine the reasons are as disparate as the numbers of different believers contained under the generic umbrella term Christian, and certainly too many to tackle in one discussion. However as I suggested in my earlier post, literalists will justify any action by their God by claiming that nothing it does can be immoral, indeed that all morality comes from it, and only from it. Non-literalists will usually deny it actually happened as described. Though how the latter then justify having faith in any of scripture left I don't know. Plus if you can pick and choose your own morals then I'd have to ask what is god for, or at the very least what scripture is for?

Dr, Sheldon,
No one knows if anyone suffered anything death could be painless and used as a method of expressing displeasure and punishment.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, No one knows if anyone suffered anything

The LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. 12.15
When God made the baby sick, David pleaded with God to stop tormenting him. But God wouldn't listen.
David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. 12.16
Finally, after the baby suffered for seven days, God killed him.
On the seventh day, that the child died. 12.18

I think that covers the first sentence, which you might have saved yourself if you'd read the link in the opening post.

Polyglide wrote:death could be painless and used as a method of expressing displeasure and punishment.

Are you seriously suggesting that slowly killing a newborn baby that results from an adulterous affair is a reasonable just or moral way of showing displeasure? I think perhaps if you tried to think these posts through before leaping to defend your religion you might take a more objective or even critical look at the texts in question.

Adultery is not a victimless crime, even without the murder of the husband, but is hardly less despicable than slowly killing a child, and since this was purportedly done by an omniscient benevolent God that could simply have stopped the affair and the murder anyway, and before you say it he could have done this whilst preserving free will else he'd not be omnipotent, it appear to me that if this were all true the God in question would be far more culpable than the very human and fallible king.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: there is something other than insanity keeping Christians adoring an obviously immoral God.

I'd imagine the reasons are as disparate as the numbers of different believers contained under the generic umbrella term Christian, and certainly too many to tackle in one discussion. However as I suggested in my earlier post, literalists will justify any action by their God by claiming that nothing it does can be immoral, indeed that all morality comes from it, and only from it. Non-literalists will usually deny it actually happened as described. Though how the latter then justify having faith in any of scripture left I don't know. Plus if you can pick and choose your own morals then I'd have to ask what is god for, or at the very least what scripture is for?

I think that I and Richard Dawkins would just say that they do not believe at all and are just feeding their need for fellowship, culture and tradition. Old tribal needs within us do not know that we have become a world community and do not need all the various tribes any longer.

Our instincts are still with us and most do not have what it takes to direct them to our new reality. They crave to be sheep within small herds instead of having the confidence to do without or join the rest of the world as individual.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

I'd imagine the reasons are as disparate as the numbers of different believers contained under the generic umbrella term Christian, and certainly too many to tackle in one discussion. However as I suggested in my earlier post, literalists will justify any action by their God by claiming that nothing it does can be immoral, indeed that all morality comes from it, and only from it. Non-literalists will usually deny it actually happened as described. Though how the latter then justify having faith in any of scripture left I don't know. Plus if you can pick and choose your own morals then I'd have to ask what is god for, or at the very least what scripture is for?

I think that I and Richard Dawkins would just say that they do not believe at all and are just feeding their need for fellowship, culture and tradition. Old tribal needs within us do not know that we have become a world community and do not need all the various tribes any longer.

Our instincts are still with us and most do not have what it takes to direct them to our new reality. They crave to be sheep within small herds instead of having the confidence to do without or join the rest of the world as individual.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

Regards
DL

I'm not sure Professor Dawkins has ever claimed the credulous are insincere, though there may be some of course, but there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the majority I suspect. Just their reasoning and logic.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

I think that I and Richard Dawkins would just say that they do not believe at all and are just feeding their need for fellowship, culture and tradition. Old tribal needs within us do not know that we have become a world community and do not need all the various tribes any longer.

Our instincts are still with us and most do not have what it takes to direct them to our new reality. They crave to be sheep within small herds instead of having the confidence to do without or join the rest of the world as individual.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

Regards
DL

I'm not sure Professor Dawkins has ever claimed the credulous are insincere, though there may be some of course, but there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the majority I suspect. Just their reasoning and logic.

I do not agree and think that that is why he put out that clip.

The fact that the maps is as is is because people have not used logic and reason to choose their Gods with and have just inherited them from their families, tradition and culture.

Sure, individually, he nor I can say that any individual theist in insincere, but when we look at the collectives and geographic blend, it is quite easy to see that most are lying and do not really believe.

Finland is a good case in point. Something like 95 % call themselves Christian but only about 4% ever go into a church.

Regards
DL  

Greatest I am wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote: I'm not sure Professor Dawkins has ever claimed the credulous are insincere, though there may be some of course, but there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the majority I suspect. Just their reasoning and logic.

I do not agree and think that that is why he put out that clip.

That clip doesn't mention or imply in any way that the credulous are insincere in their beliefs. It focuses on the absurdity of religious demographics being so neatly geographically distributed globally. This doesn't mean the credulous see how ridiculous a coincidence this is and are secretly doubting their beliefs because of it. If they were then Professor Dawkins wouldn't be wasting his time pointing it out would he?

GIA wrote:The fact that the maps is as is is because people have not used logic and reason to choose their Gods with and have just inherited them from their families, tradition and culture.

The second part is absolutely true, and since such local societal conformity would help societal cohesion and reduce conflict in early human societies the benefits are self evident, though a lot less so in 21st century post industrialised nations where science has moved at such a pace that many of those beliefs, doctrine and dogma have been thoroughly debunked. I'm not sure how anyone can claim to use " logic and reason to choose their Gods" ever. Since faith based beliefs and superstition by definition are neither reasoned nor logical, they are based on faith and the denial of reason and logic, the map as you say shows this quite graphically.

GIA wrote:Sure, individually, he nor I can say that any individual theist in insincere, but when we look at the collectives and geographic blend, it is quite easy to see that most are lying and do not really believe.

Not really, and I'm not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. You're suggesting that just because a belief is demonstrably illogical and irrational, even palpably erroneous, that this suggests those who profess faith are insincere, I don't see that at all. Neither does Professor Dawkins, at least not in anything I have ever read or seen by him. He certainly marvels at the irrationality of faith, but that's not the same thing at all.

GIA wrote:Finland is a good case in point. Something like 95 % call themselves Christian but only about 4% ever go into a church.

You've lost me there I'm afraid. Christian is a broad term defining a very specific belief, that has under that generic term a virtually limitless disparity of dogma, doctrine and faiths, so pointing to one idiosyncrasy of one large Christian group as indicating their beliefs are insincere is illogical.

It's the kind of statement that the credulous make, Polyglide does this all the time, his beliefs are the only true religion etc etc. He doesn't see the irony of the claim at all I'm afraid. Perhaps Professor Dawkins' map will cause an epiphany? Though I seriously doubt it as he has shown no real interest in examining his own belief with any critical scrutiny. Incidentally that wouldn't make me doubt his sincerity as you claim it should.

Dr, Sheldon,
The reason I feel there are numerous beliefs is because when the people were dispersed throughout the world Satan took a hold on the isolated and told them about sun Gods and other such nonsense and the result is as we now find.

God said all those on earth would hear his word before he dealt with the Devil and this has almost been accomplished.

It was David being tormented and not the child, no one knows if the child actually felt any pain, only God.

polyglide wrote: God said all those on earth would hear his word before he dealt with the Devil and this has almost been accomplished.

Not even close, and that's just in a contemporary setting, given that your religion was only created 2000 years ago how many have died ignorant of it, how many do know? How many people identifying themselves as Christian have a through knowledge of the bible? It was a banned book for most of the 2000 years since humans created your religion after all. It's been subjectively edited many times, and there quite a few versions. All originating in a different language that is no longer used.

Polyglide wrote:It was David being tormented and not the child, no one knows if the child actually felt any pain, only God.

 

You just simply don't bother reading anything you don't like do you?

12.15 The LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. 12.16
Finally, after the baby suffered for seven days, God killed him.
On the seventh day, that the child died. 12.18

LEARN TO READ!!!!!!!

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

I do not agree and think that that is why he put out that clip.

That clip doesn't mention or imply in any way that the credulous are insincere in their beliefs. It focuses on the absurdity of religious demographics being so neatly geographically distributed globally. This doesn't mean the credulous see how ridiculous a coincidence this is and are secretly doubting their beliefs because of it. If they were then Professor Dawkins wouldn't be wasting his time pointing it out would he?

GIA wrote:The fact that the maps is as is is because people have not used logic and reason to choose their Gods with and have just inherited them from their families, tradition and culture.

The second part is absolutely true, and since such local societal conformity would help societal cohesion and reduce conflict in early human societies the benefits are self evident, though a lot less so in 21st century post industrialised nations where science has moved at such a pace that many of those beliefs, doctrine and dogma have been thoroughly debunked. I'm not sure how anyone can claim to use " logic and reason to choose their Gods" ever. Since faith based beliefs and superstition by definition are neither reasoned nor logical, they are based on faith and the denial of reason and logic, the map as you say shows this quite graphically.

GIA wrote:Sure, individually, he nor I can say that any individual theist in insincere, but when we look at the collectives and geographic blend, it is quite easy to see that most are lying and do not really believe.

Not really, and I'm not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. You're suggesting that just because a belief is demonstrably illogical and irrational, even palpably erroneous, that this suggests those who profess faith are insincere, I don't see that at all. Neither does Professor Dawkins, at least not in anything I have ever read or seen by him. He certainly marvels at the irrationality of faith, but that's not the same thing at all.

GIA wrote:Finland is a good case in point. Something like 95 % call themselves Christian but only about 4% ever go into a church.

You've lost me there I'm afraid. Christian is a broad term defining a very specific belief, that has under that generic term a virtually limitless disparity of dogma, doctrine and faiths, so pointing to one idiosyncrasy of one large Christian group as indicating their beliefs are insincere is illogical.

It's the kind of statement that the credulous make, Polyglide does this all the time, his beliefs are the only true religion etc etc. He doesn't see the irony of the claim at all I'm afraid. Perhaps Professor Dawkins' map will cause an epiphany? Though I seriously doubt it as he has shown no real interest in examining his own belief with any critical scrutiny. Incidentally that wouldn't make me doubt his sincerity as you claim it should.

"This doesn't mean the credulous see how ridiculous a coincidence this is and are secretly doubting their beliefs because of it."

I did not indicate that they doubt their beliefs because of it. I was indicating that they do not believe in the first place and only say they do so for traditions sake and not rocking the boat.

Peer pressure is a bitch and it is hard to be a black sheep of rebel against the status quo.

Regards
DL

I understood that, I was just disputing that Professor Dawkins had made the claim, I'm still dubious tbh. I'm not sure I agree with it either. As I say if irrationality were a benchmark for credulity then I don't think we'd see the human propensity for superstition that is ubiquitous in every human society to a greater or lesser extent. 

In short I question the reasoning behind religious beliefs as I find them very irrational. This doesn't make doubt the sincerity of the credulous,  just their reasoning.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I understood that, I was just disputing that Professor Dawkins had made the claim, I'm still dubious tbh. I'm not sure I agree with it either. As I say if irrationality were a benchmark for credulity then I don't think we'd see the human propensity for superstition that is ubiquitous in every human society to a greater or lesser extent. 

In short I question the reasoning behind religious beliefs as I find them very irrational. This doesn't make doubt the sincerity of the credulous,  just their reasoning.

You do not understand their thinking because their thinking is not why they are into religion. That is why normal people accept some of the supernatural garbage. They don't care. They are only there for the fellowship of the herd. Herd mentality is not a thinking mentality. Only Gnostic religion are.

It just happens that I just answered another poster on some of these Gnostic goat thinking versus sheeple thinking. Have a look.



You have given these issue some thought. Not bad at all. Good insight.

I think that you are thinking much along the lines of the ancient Gnostics but have not quite moved to the more modern sociological thinking based on what we know today.

Free thinking for those who can is great. You forget that most are created to be sheep and not Gnostic goats. Sheep seek the safety and order of the herd/tribe and do not like to see goats wander free. That is what got us killed in the distant past. They turned against their betters because they knew they were not suited for Gnosticism and turned against the ideal in fear of it. Instead of working to solve the puzzle of free thought, they chose to destroy the puzzle like a child throwing a fit at a puzzle too hard for him to solve.

I get a lot of that when cornering a Christian on some point of logic, reason or morality.

Let me give you a link that shows, I think, why Gnosticism failed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64_El2s7FU

Gnosticism failed to consider the insecurity of the hive and did not create the church structure and hierarchy that the sheep needed for security. Gnostics, natural free thinkers and loners, much like atheists today, failed to recognize that their own children needed the fellowship of the hive. We rejected/refused to pamper that instinctual need. A fatal error. Even atheists recognize that need today and that is why we have atheist churches.

The ancient Gnostics were apart from the herd in thought but should have remained physically in the herd in order to control it, --- but our natural loner attitude gave the herd fear instead of the order it craved. Governments, seeing what they thought was a fracturing of the demographic common, chose to keep the main herd and kill off all the various Gnostic mystery schools to insure that the common only flew the one flag.

If we get another kick at the can, which is doubtful because the technology and common knowledge we can access today, we might give people what they think they need in fellowship. Secular law has bested the old legal laws that Gnostic fought. I do not think Gnostic Christianity will prevail against these new forces. That is a shame because we are still the best humanity has to offer. We, as innovators will always shine brighter than the others. Too bad our nature prevents us from kowtowing to the masses and their insecurity. That is a part of why we will never likely be the mainstream.

Happily, we have the mind set to take the rejection in stride. I am just pleased that killing us is no longer in fashion.

We need an organized church and will likely never create one. Hell. We do not even have a creed so people do not know what we are all about except for our free thinking. They need a solid base and we have not come up with one. Our free thinking strength is also our greatest weakness in terms of getting the sheep on our side.

Regards
DL

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I understood that, I was just disputing that Professor Dawkins had made the claim, I'm still dubious tbh. I'm not sure I agree with it either. As I say if irrationality were a benchmark for credulity then I don't think we'd see the human propensity for superstition that is ubiquitous in every human society to a greater or lesser extent. 
.

This links title is garbage but it shows Dawkins articulating what he is saying in the other link that you already saw. You are a bright guy. I am surprised to be ahead of you on this one. If I am that is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKGtcVoBhBQ&feature=related

Regards
DL

Why does reading this thread feel a bit like dogging?

(Rhetorical question, not requiring an answer)

I'd always imagined that people who went dogging, even the voyeurs who took no part, derived  pleasure from it tbh. Or is this a different kind of "dogging" I've not heard of before?

I didn't catch your response to this one Polyglide?

Polyglide wrote:
It was David being tormented and not the child, no one knows if the child actually felt any pain, only God.
 

You just simply don't bother reading anything you don't like do you?

12.15 The LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. 12.16
Finally, after the baby suffered for seven days, God killed him.
On the seventh day, that the child died. 12.18


LEARN TO READ!!!!!!!

You see I've noticed you have never admitted to a mistake and am wondering if you have the integrity to do so? Or if your 100% certainty in your beliefs negates this possibility?

Who ruled heaven on this day. God or Satan?

This quote speaks of God choosing Jesus as a human sacrifice to take our just punishment for our sins. Dogma says that we cannot redeem ourselves from God condemnation. 1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

The above quote shows this as Gods first actual judgement as judge and shows the setting and accepting of a bribe or human sacrifice to corrupt his justice. That justice usually stated that only the punishment of the guilty was acceptable to justice and that it would be unjust to punish the innocent. The corruption of God’s usual justice is what the bribe or sacrifice of Jesus bought. Injustice.

Recognizing that by whatever name you would use, sacrifice, ransom, bribe or payment, would you say such an immoral request and legal injustice would most likely be demanded by a God or by a Satan?

If punishing the innocent is not a just and moral thing to do, I would say that Satan would be the one to ask or demand such a sacrifice.

That would have Satan ruling heaven and not God as a good God would not do such an immoral thing.

Do you agree that Satan is more likely to ask for us to accept an immoral human sacrifice to bail us out than God would?

If you agree, does that indicate that Satan was ruling in heaven and not God on that day?

Regards
DL

It's a fiction, a myth, it's hoovered up and plagiarised other earlier myths, most of which involved human sacrifice. This one has deified the sacrifice, imagine a human sacrifice with a turbo charger.


It's still a myth though.....not real....

Dr, Sheldon,
You misunderstand what I feel, the quote you make , only God knows if the baby suffered, it is not beyond God's capabilities to make matters appear as such to teach people a lesson.

The scribes of the time may make matters appear more significant by using terminology which we today look at in a different manner.

I agree that at face value the child suffered but only God and the child could actually verify matters.

Dr, Sheldon,
Just what does, If punishing the innocent is not a just and moral thing to do, actually mean?.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Just what does, If punishing the innocent is not a just and moral thing to do, actually mean?.

I have no idea what you're referring to, here's my post in response to GIA's opening post again:

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Yesterday at 9:28 pm

It's a fiction, a myth, it's hoovered up and plagiarised other earlier myths, most of which involved human sacrifice. This one has deified the sacrifice, imagine a human sacrifice with a turbo charger.


It's still a myth though.....not real.... Wink

I made no mention of punishing punishing the innocent, so don't understand what you're asking me, or why?

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                 You misunderstand what I feel, the quote you make ,

In English please?

Polyglide wrote: only God knows if the baby suffered,  it is not beyond God's capabilities to make matters appear as such to teach people a lesson.

We all know, it's written plainly in the biblical text

12.15 The LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. 12.16
Finally, after the baby suffered for seven days, God killed him.
On the seventh day, that the child died. 12.18

What kind of sadistic maniac makes a baby suffer for days then kills it to teach anyone a lesson? Besides what lesson can a baby learn from being tortured and killed? The idea is repulsive, and your defence of it deeply worrying, but then this is the danger when people get their moral guide from bronze age superstitions, and subjugate their own moral responsibility to a supernatural entity.

Polyglide wrote:The scribes of the time may make matters appear more significant by using terminology which we today look at in a different manner.

Or maybe they didn't? Or maybe it never happened at all? Or maybe you're determined to ignore and cherry pick what suits?

Or maybe far more plausible it's all superstitious hokum, and entirely human in origin, and we should judge the whole text on ity's merits as we would any other other human ideas. Of course if you're going to claim the bible is divine in origin, and that the deity is omniscient and omnipotent and omni-benevolent, then it's perfectly reasonable to point out that the texts often contradict these assertions, as does the world and universe we observe.

Polyglide wrote:  I agree that at face value the child suffered but only God and the child could actually verify matters.

Not true, we can all see the claim in plain wording in the biblical text, I've quoted it again above, and it's unequivocal. If of course you're claiming the bible is entirely unreliable, then fine, I already know this, but you seem to want to have your cake and eat it.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:It's a fiction, a myth, it's hoovered up and plagiarised other earlier myths, most of which involved human sacrifice. This one has deified the sacrifice, imagine a human sacrifice with a turbo charger.


It's still a myth though.....not real....

No argument but as always, I try to look at the morality of scriptures thus my question.

Do you agree that Satan is more likely to ask for us to accept an immoral human sacrifice to bail us out than God would?

Regards
DL

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Just what does, If punishing the innocent is not a just and moral thing to do, actually mean?.

??

It means -----

Human sacrifice is evil and your God demanding one and accepting one is evil.

You trying to profit from that evil is evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong – say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong – you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant – of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?
If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am,
Of course I understand where you are comming from, however, I look on the matter in a different way.

As far as I understand matters God's people were on the verge of becomming beyond salvation and to show his love of his people he made the hardest sacrifice one could ever make and this was done to show just how much God loved his people.

God did not punish Jesus he was certain Jesus would not let him down.

We look at matters in a vastly different way in which God works, of course we have to have laws and penalties for breaking them but I do not know of others being punished for the evils of others, in general terms.

Correct. We know that it would be quite immoral yet that is what your God showed as justice.

"the hardest sacrifice one could ever make"

That is a full blown lie.

Do you have a child?

If you set a condition that only a death would satisfy, would you see having your child killed as easier or harder than you stepping up to die?

Should parents bury their children or should children bury their parents?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am,
I have two children and if it came to me or them it would always be me to suffer.

God was aware that he could save Jesus and the test was if Jesus was up to the mark sa a dutyful son.

We cannot think in the terms that reside in God's domain and are therefore unable to understand all the implications.