Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am curious about your use of the term "aesthetic refutation." Are you really sure you now what those terms mean? (Either of them, really, but the conjunction is quite unusual and strange.)
No thats what we would have if we piled up your posts in a steaming heap.
lets consider the facts
20th century most murderous, two world wars etc
20th century biggest earthquakes ever recorded
20th century huge famines, 40,000,000 in one country alone
and not a single valid aesthetic refutation other than vain attempts to utilise conjectur ...[text shortened]... osition, semantic arguments and logical fallacies, appeals to ignorance and much more. Oh well.
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganTeehee it was a spelling mistake and should have read atheistic refutation, never the less as some one who studied art and design for a number of years I can assure you I understand what aesthetics are 😀
I am curious about your use of the term "aesthetic refutation." Are you really sure you now what those terms mean? (Either of them, really, but the conjunction is quite unusual and strange.)
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot sure about aesthetics ( a bit Oscar Wilde for me) but atheistic is something I can handle. Thanks.
Teehee it was a spelling mistake and should have read atheistic refutation, never the less as some one who studied art and design for a number of years I can assure you I understand what aesthetics are 😀
Originally posted by finneganYeah Oscar, have actually seen one of his plays at the citizens theatre in Glasgow, Salome, not sure but I think the interpretation was trying to hard to be avant-garde, still was interesting for its own sake.
Not sure about aesthetics ( a bit Oscar Wilde for me) but atheistic is something I can handle. Thanks.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOscar WAS Wilde! But I still don't see a response to my charge a god would never kill innocent infants to force a pharaoh to 'let my people go'.
Yeah Oscar, have actually seen one of his plays at the citizens theatre in Glasgow, Salome, not sure but I think the interpretation was trying to hard to be avant-garde, still was interesting for its own sake.
Do you really believe that of your deity?
Originally posted by sonhouseThis is one of the problematic issues of the Hebrew portion of scriptures that the Christian must come to terms with. I have in the past addressed it but not very satisfactorily. Even today I have trouble assimilating it into my understanding and have meditated on it deeply on not a few occasions. I am sorry but I cannot furnish even myself with a rational that is convincing and what hope therefore do I have in furnishing you with one? Do I believe it happened ? Yes. Can I explain why? not at this moment in time.
Oscar WAS Wilde! But I still don't see a response to my charge a god would never kill innocent infants to force a pharaoh to 'let my people go'.
Do you really believe that of your deity?
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouse
Oscar WAS Wilde! But I still don't see a response to my charge a god would never kill innocent infants to force a pharaoh to 'let my people go'.
Do you really believe that of your deity?
a god would never kill innocent infants to force a pharaoh to 'let my people go'.It does not work that way around. What God would do (not "a god" ) is set out in the book and it is for you to interpret its significance. That account describes God acting outside any obvious, objective standard of morality and in places like the Book of Job that fact is discussed explicitly, with the conclusion that one cannot hold God to account. A key conclusion (e.g. Bishop Holloway) is that the God depicted in the bible is not a useful model on which to build morality, which is a task humanity must undertake with his own resources of reason and empathy. God and morality are quite distinct.
Originally posted by finneganThis is problematic for you have Christ not only attributing morality to God but stating that God is the ultimate source of morality.a god would never kill innocent infants to force a pharaoh to 'let my people go'.It does not work that way around. What God would do (not "a god" ) is set out in the book and it is for you to interpret its significance. That account describes God acting outside any obvious, objective standard of morality and in places like the Book of Job t ...[text shortened]... st undertake with his own resources of reason and empathy. God and morality are quite distinct.
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone" - Luke 18:19
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd you just believe the writings of a man who never even MET JC much less was taught by him.
This is problematic for you have Christ not only attributing morality to God but stating that God is the ultimate source of morality.
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone" - Luke 18:19
Historians look askance at second hand or third hand stories. I think Luke was something like 3 generations after JC so naturally the stories of a famous prophet would have been retold a hundred times, embellished with every retelling and pretty soon people say he fed 10,000 people with one fish.....
There is a problem for you in this isn't there? You have on one hand, to believe the god of the OT is the same god of the NT but that leads to contradictions you cannot resolve.
Why can't you come to the conclusion it is the religion itself to blame? Doesn't it sound more reasonable to think a god would in absolute fact, NEVER kill an innocent baby? Especially JUST to impress a despot? When said god would have the power to kill the despot and all his followers, instead of thousands of infants?
Doesn't this cry out as a man made story?
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseThe closest record we have of Alexander was written by those who lived three centuries after his death and yet we never here you call into question his existence or validity of his historical personage or accounts, do we. Yet the Bible contains documents written a mere sixty years after the death of Christ and all we ever get is, historians look askance, Luke is three generations away and other superstitious nonsense. The teachings of Jesus in the Bible are among the most sublime of teaching ever recorded, for their simplicity and profundity.
And you just believe the writings of a man who never even MET JC much less was taught by him.
Historians look askance at second hand or third hand stories. I think Luke was something like 3 generations after JC so naturally the stories of a famous prophet would have been retold a hundred times, embellished with every retelling and pretty soon people say ...[text shortened]... all his followers, instead of thousands of infants?
Doesn't this cry out as a man made story?
I have no problem in relating how the Jewish system relates the the Christian, Paul tells us, nor have I any difficulty in accepting the the sovereign of the universe has jurisdiction over life, my difficulty is in being able to explain it, convincingly.
Someone that supports the killing of thousands of infants through abortion should not be found moralising over the God of the Bible for taking life, by the end of the day, 150,000 infants will have been aborted, the vast majority of them for social convenience, a stance which you support.
No it doesn't cry out a man made story.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI thought the morality of a god would be orders of magnitude above mere humans and I would think a god looking at the problem of a recalcitrant despot would not need to resort to a horrible example, instead go directly to the source of the problem, the Pharaoh.
The closest record we have of Alexander was written by those who lived three centuries after his death and yet we never here you call into question his existence or validity of his historical personage or accounts, do we. Yet the Bible contains documents written a mere sixty years after the death of Christ and all we ever get is, historians look ask ...[text shortened]... m for social convenience, a stance which you support.
No it doesn't cry out a man made story.
We have records that are suspect for sure. If the library of Alexandria was still here we would have a lot of works a lot closer to the times in question no doubt.
And I think historians WOULD look askance at something said about Alexandria 300 years later. Like us today saying it was an established fact Washington said 'Yes father, I cut down that cherry tree' and that supposedly took place in what 1760 or something?
Historians are not so gullible as to believe stuff written down decades later without independent vetting of their subject.
So if you believe the religion is not at fault then you have to believe your god in fact killed thousands of infants, it doesn't seem possible to slice it any other way.
Your mention of 150,000 abortions just says again, that is a human morality issue.
On the same line, how many of the infants who were actually born subsequently died in wars or starvation? I'm sure the numbers there would also be in the thousands so a lot of infants are doomed no matter what, just like not every bird in a nest gets to grow up to be an adult. It's a fact of life. Not all fetuses get to be adults no matter what the species. Humans are no better than fish in that regard, a bit better than some for sure, where only one in a hundred baby sea turtles makes it to adult hood which justifies the adult turtles making literally thousands of eggs in their mating season.
Originally posted by sonhouseJust out of interest how many times was Pharaoh asked to let the Hebrews go free?
I thought the morality of a god would be orders of magnitude above mere humans and I would think a god looking at the problem of a recalcitrant despot would not need to resort to a horrible example, instead go directly to the source of the problem, the Pharaoh.
We have records that are suspect for sure. If the library of Alexandria was still here we woul ...[text shortened]... ood which justifies the adult turtles making literally thousands of eggs in their mating season.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie...but we have mountains of supporting evidence regarding Alexander the Great and his conquests produced long lasting dynasties, notably the Ptolemies in Egypt (which extended to Syria and thus incroporated Palestine) and their capital city, Alexandria. He is therefore referred to in many different histories, from far flung quarters. There is plentiful archaeological evidence of the cities he built and those he destroyed as also of the battles he fought. The impact of Hellenic culture in the regions he conquered was profound and long lasting, not least of course in the development of the Jewish religion.
The closest record we have of Alexander was written by those who lived three centuries after his death and yet we never here you call into question his existence or validity of his historical personage or accounts, do we. Yet the Bible contains documents written a mere sixty years after the death of Christ and all we ever get is, historians look ask ...[text shortened]... m for social convenience, a stance which you support.
No it doesn't cry out a man made story.
The New Testament, by contrast, is inconsistent with all sorts of things we know from other sources, including of course many details around the story of the birth of Jesus. The Roman census, the demand that everyone register in their home towns, the slaughter of the innocents and other fairy tales are simply false and could not have happened. We can still read the History of the Jewish Wars by Josephus and other contemporary written documents to seek confirmation of at least something about Jesus, and what we discover, even when it is consistent with the New Testament, throws it into a much different light. Indeed, if our only source of history for the period in that region were the New Testament we would be deeply confused about major issues, not least the flowering of diverse religious strands among contemporary Jews and the fanatical Jewish nationalist movements resulting in the most violent uprising against Roman Rule.
The fact is that Christianity depends heavily on Paul and his followers, who got to write their own history (and write into it various unconvincing, frankly childish "signs" to fulfil prophecies) without objective support from external sources, in an age that was highly literate, and on the careful selection of approved "scripture" in the fourth century, while we also know that in the theocratic age of Christian domination in Western Europe, when the Church controlled education, writing and the storage of written records, many relevant records were either edited to conform with Christian dogma or entirely suppressed by the Christiian authorities.
2 edits
Originally posted by finneganYour historians are still three centuries late. You can cry about it all you like, Pauls letters are dated to within sixty years of the death of Christ.
...but we have mountains of supporting evidence regarding Alexander the Great and his conquests produced long lasting dynasties, notably the Ptolemies in Egypt (which extended to Syria and thus incroporated Palestine) and their capital city, Alexandria. He is therefore referred to in many different histories, from far flung quarters. There is plentiful ar ...[text shortened]... her edited to conform with Christian dogma or entirely suppressed by the Christiian authorities.