1. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    04 Oct '06 23:27
    More love from God Hates Fags. As a judge has overturned a law prohibiting protests at funerals, the most blessed flock from Wesboro Baptist Church (aka God Hates Fags) will descend upon the pastoral fields of Pennsylvania Amish country to remind the grieving that God is happy the little children were murdered.
  2. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    04 Oct '06 23:28
    Originally posted by kirksey957
    More love from God Hates Fags. As a judge has overturned a law prohibiting protests at funerals, the most blessed flock from Wesboro Baptist Church (aka God Hates Fags) will descend upon the pastoral fields of Pennsylvania Amish country to remind the grieving that God is happy the little children were murdered.
    Not--- if it turns out--- that the killer was a fag.
  3. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    05 Oct '06 04:46
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Not--- if it turns out--- that the killer was a fag.
    You don't seriously endorse picketing at funerals, right?
  4. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36093
    05 Oct '06 09:571 edit
    Originally posted by kirksey957
    More love from God Hates Fags. As a judge has overturned a law prohibiting protests at funerals, the most blessed flock from Wesboro Baptist Church (aka God Hates Fags) will descend upon the pastoral fields of Pennsylvania Amish country to remind the grieving that God is happy the little children were murdered.
    Ah. The price of freedom of expression.

    (Before you ask, I don't endorse picketing at funerals and I don't endorse a "God hates [insert any group of people]" message either.)
  5. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    05 Oct '06 17:33
    throughout history there were enough idiotic, pshycotic zealots claiming God says this and God wants that. Torquemada, the kkk, a large number of popes, the muslim radicals, the baptist radicals and so on. one cannot stop them, one can only agree or preferably disagre with them
  6. Joined
    13 Apr '06
    Moves
    24617
    05 Oct '06 17:35
    some people are stupid
  7. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    05 Oct '06 18:074 edits
    Originally posted by lucifershammer


    (Before you ask, I don't endorse picketing at funerals and I don't endorse a "God hates [insert any group of people]" message either.)
    Did God love the Canaanites, whose slaughter he ordered?

    How about the Sodomites whose slaughter he ordered? Did he love them?

    How about those in Jericho? Did he love them?

    Did God love the Egyptians whom he plagued as a means to manipulate the pharoah?

    Did God love the Midianites?


    Didn't God's chosen people rejoice in all of these deaths? Do you endorse their rejoicing?
  8. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36093
    05 Oct '06 18:23
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Did God love the Canaanites, whose slaughter he ordered?

    How about the Sodomites whose slaughter he ordered? Did he love them?

    How about those in Jericho? Did he love them?

    Did God love the Egyptians whom he plagued as a means to manipulate the pharoah?

    Did God love the Midianites?
    Yes to all of the above.

    (Of course, all your questions presume that the events described actually took place as described. Your questions also presume that God could've willed otherwise.)

    Didn't God's chosen people rejoice in all of these deaths? Do you endorse their rejoicing?

    Perhaps they did rejoice in all these deaths. No, I don't endorse such rejoicing.
  9. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    05 Oct '06 18:27
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Yes to all of the above.
    I see. So, your notion of love is such that it is consistent to order the slaughter of people you love? That's quite a bit more characteristic of my notion of hate.
  10. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36093
    05 Oct '06 18:31
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    I see. So, your notion of love is such that it is consistent to order the slaughter of people you love? That's quite a bit more characteristic of my notion of hate.
    I'll repeat what I wrote above:

    "Of course, all your questions presume that the events described actually took place as described."

    Within the context of people with immortal souls and the consideration given to human freedom, yes, permitting slaughter can be an act of love.

    Besides, if killing people you love is more consonant with your notion of hate, does that mean you are opposed to euthanasia?
  11. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    05 Oct '06 19:12
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    I'll repeat what I wrote above:

    "Of course, all your questions presume that the events described actually took place as described."

    Within the context of people with immortal souls and the consideration given to human freedom, yes, permitting slaughter can be an act of love.

    Besides, if killing people you love is more consonant with your notion of hate, does that mean you are opposed to euthanasia?
    Identify all of the equivocations in your post, resolve them, and I will consider responding.

    You are a goof.
  12. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    05 Oct '06 19:572 edits
    [/b]Of course, all your questions presume that the events described actually took place as described. Your questions also presume that God could've willed otherwise.

    And that the Israelites and/or the writers did not ascribe their actions to God’s command ex post facto, for purposes of “justification” perhaps.

    When one reads these ancient stories mythologically, or midrashically—or just as stories—one can freely bring one’s own moral convictions to them, and call such actions (real or storied) atrocities. One can also, if one is a theist who does not idolize the text, simply say: “Those stories do not reflect my understanding of God.”

    Theists or nontheists, if those stories are part of their “aesthetic” or their cultural heritage, can argue, for example, that they show what evils certain attitudes of religious fundamentalism can lead to and have led to.

    One can also, of course, reject the texts themselves for presenting immoral actions in some (divinely?) positive light. I would suggest, however, unless this is done either (1) because one has implicitly accepted the literalist/historicist interpretations of the texts (in my view, a “modernist” error), and/or (2) because the literalist/historicist interpretations have become so prominent as to render the stories dangerous—then one has to reject most mythologies on the same basis, and not simply allow them to stand as just that: mythologies and stories. (I could probably find morally objectionable things in The Lord of the Rings without feeling compelled to throw it in the garbage. On the other hand, I can imagine some people in a distant future discovering an LOTR that was lost over centuries, and imposing a religious literalism of sorts on it—“Frodo Lives!” )

    People have always told stories (and a story-myth can be woven around some historical event, without pretending to be an accurate record of that event—like historical novels, say), and reworked old stories—the good, the bad and the ugly ones—for good, bad and ugly purposes; and the good, the bad and the ugly ones all can become part of a cultural heritage without requiring that the heirs suspend their own moral judgments in reading and interpreting and reinterpreting them. The whole rabbinical/midrashic tradition has, for a couple of millennia anyway, taken these stories and freely interpreted and reinterpreted them—and argued about them—and continues to do so.

    [I recall, for example, a rabbi I met who said that, Yes, Abraham’s faith was tested when he was commanded to sacrifice Isaac—and that Abraham failed the test! No tzaddik would assent to such a thing, even if (he thought that) it was commanded by God. Real faith—a “torah faith”—required him to say, No! And that became part of the moral lesson that that rabbi taught from that story.] Rejection of this open, interpretive engagement with the texts is a fairly modern development.

    In my view, there are two errors:

    (1) Reading the texts without engaging the moral challenges they present (e.g., simply accepting that if the story says God commanded X, then X, at least in that case, must be accepted as morally unchallengeable); and

    (2) Rejecting the texts out of hand because of the moral challenges they present (whatever other reasons one might have for rejecting them).

    Both errors seem to stem from the literalist/historicist fallacy. DoctorScribbles’ challenge is a fair one—when leveled against that fallacy.

    Within the context of people with immortal souls and the consideration given to human freedom, yes, permitting slaughter can be an act of love.

    That’s a pretty broad statement. Can you justify (any of) the biblical examples provided by Dr. S. in such terms? And what kinds of “slaughter” would you not justify? And what are the criteria? Dr. S.’s examples do not seem aimed at Euthyphro’s dilemma, but at the justification of mass slaughter based on God’s will. So the question seems to become: “Can a loving God (or even a moral God) will (or command) such mass slaughter?”
  13. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    05 Oct '06 23:091 edit
    "I think she's (Shirley from God Hates Fags) just mad at God because he gave her a horse face."

    Howard Stern
  14. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36093
    06 Oct '06 08:37
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Identify all of the equivocations in your post, resolve them, and I will consider responding.

    You are a goof.
    I can't figure out why vistesd would call you "Dr. Logos" based on unreasonable posts like this.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    06 Oct '06 08:51
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Within the context of people with immortal souls and the consideration given to human freedom, yes, permitting slaughter can be an act of love.
    In the context in question most of the immortal souls would be destined for Hell and so I fail to see how it could be an act of love. If it is an act of love why does God not slaughter all human beings and have done with it?

    Besides, if killing people you love is more consonant with your notion of hate, does that mean you are opposed to euthanasia?
    euthanasia has special circumstances which did not apply in the context in question.
Back to Top