Bible Club: Exodus

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Religious cognitive dissonance at its greatest. "Our child will die. What a blessing!"

"Our child is deformed. It must be part of God's glory!"

[/ QUOTE ]
God works through a weak person so that it will be known that He had a part in that person's accomplishments. It's for His glory! See Moses as an example.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Religious cognitive dissonance at its greatest. "Our child will die. What a blessing!"

"Our child is deformed. It must be part of God's glory!"

[/ QUOTE ]
God works through a weak person so that it will be known that He had a part in that person's accomplishments. It's for His glory! See Moses as an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, your posts only make sense if you are speaking to someone equally blinded by your personal irrational beliefs.

You could write, "God works through serial killers to make sure his accomplishments are known. See OT for example. His love is endless." It would probably seem no different to us then what you wrote.

Just curious... in the case of the religious family that had their child born sick and it died right after it was born. The parents were excited that they were chosen by God to have their infant die right after it was born. "Thank You, God!!!"

What are the accomplishments here that we're supposed to marvel over? (not in Biblical mumbo jumbo... in layman's terms.)

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you should work harder at applying your creativity. You put tremendous effort into resolving Bible stories, but still view intellect and emotion as inherently contradictory.

I think it's a false dilemma. Neither can work in isolation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if I was implying isolation. More of an ordering, or putting each in their respective place. It's the old, "follow my head or follow my heart," problem, and I'm not sure if that would be considered a false dilemma.

I'm not implying one way is right or the other wrong; I feel that's a personal decision. But I am suggesting that a great deal of the conflict that occurs over this issue is when one side says one perspective is "better" than the other. I don't think that case can be made, and to apply some creativity:

Look at Thomas Paine and Mother Teresa. It would be hard to find two people with more divergent interpretations of the Bible. And I think it would be pretty easy to conclude that Paine placed his head/intellect/reason in position of ultimate arbitrator, and Mother Teresa placed her heart/faith/feeling at the top. But despite the polar opposite views of the Bible, and their own self-governing hierarchy, they both managed to make valuable contributions to mankind.

As far as what's best for society, I don't think how a person governs their own being, whether head or heart, or The Book really factors in - it's the person. Ultimately, I would say that it's rarely the beliefs of a group of people that lead to horrible things in society, but more often the inability of that group to "tolerate" differing beliefs. And I don't believe it is proper to assign the civic responsibility of "tolerance" to any group - I feel it should fall solely on the shoulders of the individual, both the responsibility for being tolerant and the blame when they're not.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at Thomas Paine and Mother Teresa. ... But despite the polar opposite views of the Bible, and their own self-governing hierarchy, they both managed to make valuable contributions to mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to hijack this thread, but the jury's still out on Teresa.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a concrete example, imagine a woman who deliberately takes teratogenic drugs during pregnancy. Should the deformed child be content with an excuse like "Well, I just felt like making you like this"?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, you are discounting the existence of evil.

Secondly, if God for some reason wants that child to be born deformed, then it is because he intends to use that for His glory.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point. The woman has the role of creator here. By your reference to "existence of evil", I assume you would consider a woman who did this evil. But when God does the same thing - deliberately brings a deformed child into the world - that's OK. Why?

You're also assuming that God's glory is a legitimate end in itself. Assuming God exists, he doesn't deserve worship for being the creator any more than a child should be obliged to worship his parents. Creating deformed children for the purpose of his own glorification probably wouldn't be the way to convince me that he deserves worship.

In fact, your final statement above sounds completely insane to non believers. Try on this similar statement as an "explanation" of the mother's actions above:

[ QUOTE ]
If a mother wants their child to be born deformed, then it is because she intends to use that for her glory.

[/ QUOTE ]

You see? Insane.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if I was implying isolation. More of an ordering, or putting each in their respective place. It's the old, "follow my head or follow my heart," problem, and I'm not sure if that would be considered a false dilemma.

[/ QUOTE ]

It can be hard to put them in their proper places. But I believe that both have largely free reign if that's accomplished. Of course, there are those times when a person must force themselves to take an action despite the fact their feelings are against it, and those when an action that is irrational in terms of objective metrics must be taken due to an internal compass. But those situations aren't exactly clear-cut, anyhow.

If I were to see a person trapped in a burning building, and run in to save them, most people would say I put my heart above my head. Most people would be very wrong. My feelings in such a situation would be screaming "run away" at the top of their lungs, but my hope is that my mind would be clear enough to control the fear. In general I only find conflicts between my thoughts and feelings when my heart or mind is turned against itself. And when my heart is turned against itself, thankfully my mind can haul it up again. When my mind is turned against itself, my heart can cut through the tangle. They work together, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not implying one way is right or the other wrong; I feel that's a personal decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think breaking it into two "ways" is a false dichotomy.

[ QUOTE ]
But I am suggesting that a great deal of the conflict that occurs over this issue is when one side says one perspective is "better" than the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that, of course. But I think you misinterpret the atheist position. It's not that reason should prevail over emotion. It's that when your emotions tell you a vicious tyrant is worthy of worship, something is wrong with them. They've turned against you, and only your reason can set things right. Reason here is the good friend who holds the intervention for the desperate addict. It's not that you should listen to reason above emotion, but to entirely dismiss reason is to toss yourself into denial just as surely as any addict ever has.

[ QUOTE ]
Look at Thomas Paine and Mother Teresa. It would be hard to find two people with more divergent interpretations of the Bible. And I think it would be pretty easy to conclude that Paine placed his head/intellect/reason in position of ultimate arbitrator, and Mother Teresa placed her heart/faith/feeling at the top. But despite the polar opposite views of the Bible, and their own self-governing hierarchy, they both managed to make valuable contributions to mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many atheists believe Mother Teresa was a horrible person. I am one of them. She did many underhanded things and dealt with many villainous people to get her money, and her stated goal was to increase suffering in the world. It's not a clear-cut case, but anyone who thinks her goal was to eliminate suffering is just plain wrong. She made it very clear that she valued suffering greatly as a gift from God and wanted to spread it in order to help people become closer to him. I also think she was very "reason" and not at all "emotion." So this analogy isn't very effective as far as I'm concerned.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as what's best for society, I don't think how a person governs their own being, whether head or heart, or The Book really factors in - it's the person. Ultimately, I would say that it's rarely the beliefs of a group of people that lead to horrible things in society, but more often the inability of that group to "tolerate" differing beliefs. And I don't believe it is proper to assign the civic responsibility of "tolerance" to any group - I feel it should fall solely on the shoulders of the individual, both the responsibility for being tolerant and the blame when they're not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's conventional in this society, when a person's behavior and thought patterns indicate potential harm to himself or to others, to consider the person seriously troubled. In most states that's sufficient for hospitalization in a mental institution.

Do you believe that such an approach is mistaken, and that the beliefs of the suicidal or criminally psychotic are irrelevant? Perhaps intervention isn't justified?

I'm not sure you accept the authenticity of my statements that I think religion is worse than these things. I assure you, I mean it quite literally. I don't believe that religious people should be incarcerated, of course, but in terms of raw severity I think the problem of religion is worse.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Why wouldn't God soften Pharaoh's heart, instead of hardening it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or melt his heart with a cool island song....no wait...

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Mother Teresa placed her heart/faith/feeling at the top.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, although it seems like she was finding it difficult to squash the nagging voice of reason:

[ QUOTE ]
Mother Teresa, put on the fast-track to sainthood by the Pope after her death five years ago, was tormented by a crisis of belief for 50 years, her writings reveal.....

Mother Teresa, who worked among the poor of Calcutta, wrote in 1958: "My smile is a great cloak that hides a multitude of pains." Because she was "forever smiling", people thought "my faith, my hope and my love are overflowing and that my intimacy with God and union with his will fill my heart. If only they knew"

Mother Teresa said in another letter: "The damned of hell suffer eternal punishment because they experiment with the loss of God. In my own soul, I feel the terrible pain of this loss. I feel that God does not want me, that God is not God and that he does not really exist."

[/ QUOTE ]

A pity this ambivalence towards faith didn't extend to having a less dogmatic attitude towards contraception for the poor in slums. I guess when you believe that "The suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering", then helping people out of this plight isn't on your agenda. None of Mother Teresa's clinics stock strong analgesics, because it would ruin the experience of watching all that noble misery and suffering. When Mother Teresa got sick herself, though, she preferred to fly to expensive medical clinics in California. Apparently the nobility of suffering didn't extend to her own suffering.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why wouldn't God soften Pharaoh's heart, instead of hardening it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or melt his heart with a cool island song....no wait...

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe that such an approach is mistaken, and that the beliefs of the suicidal or criminally psychotic are irrelevant? Perhaps intervention isn't justified?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there's a general litmus test of whether a person poses immanent danger to himself or others, which seems to be somewhat functional.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure you accept the authenticity of my statements that I think religion is worse than these things. I assure you, I mean it quite literally. I don't believe that religious people should be incarcerated, of course, but in terms of raw severity I think the problem of religion is worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're talking about the Taliban rule in Afghanistan and overall societal structure, I could see your point. But in modern Western democracies, I really can't see the issue or quite frankly the magnitude of the threat you feel religion is posing. All powers to control the life or liberty of a person are vested solely with the government. Not that I don't think there are problems, I do. But I really can't see your point that religion is the sole cause of the problems any more than if a group of UFO-oligists were lobbying Congress or basing their votes for candidates that would support building a federally funded alien welcome center. The problem isn't the Trekker organization it's the Trekkies.

As far as Mother Teresa, when they pull her Noble Peace Prize, I'll think of someone else for the analogy.