|
|
#101
08-09-2006, 08:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Follow up question if you said NO
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Personally, when defending theism, I am not trying to persuade a non-believer it is true. I am trying to persuade them it is internally consistent. [/ QUOTE ] Oh! but it may be very internally consistent, simply consistently immoral (ie Abraham's story) and therefore consistently reproachable. [/ QUOTE ] Agreed - if my beliefs are immoral I want to be told that too. (Although, my position is that I wouldnt do a bad thing if god told me too). I find it slightly amusing that we agree on so much - there's just this one little thing... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] 
|
|
#102
08-09-2006, 08:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Follow up question if you said NO
[ QUOTE ]
I find it slightly amusing that we agree on so much - there's just this one little thing... [/ QUOTE ] Bah, don't worry about it, it is very small. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#103
08-09-2006, 08:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Follow up question if you said NO
[ QUOTE ]
I dont want to speak for txag007 but I have also been accused of this or similar and it seems like an unfair criticism (or perhaps a misunderstanding of my reasons for posting here). Personally, when defending theism, I am not trying to persuade a non-believer it is true. I am trying to persuade them it is internally consistent. By doing so I hope to find where, in fact, my beliefs are inconsistent so I can modify them and get closer to the truth. So far, arguments with atheists have fundamentally altered my beliefs twice - my aim is with changing/refining my own worldview, not anyone else's. If this is the goal I think quoting the bible or outlining what you believe God's properties to be is not unreasonable - it's just a clarification of the position you are defending. [/ QUOTE ] You spit hot fire. Hugs! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#104
08-09-2006, 08:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Follow up question if you said NO
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I've never really though of myself as a fundamentalist, but as far as taking the Bible literally, ummmmm, yeah I'm one of those. :-) [/ QUOTE ] Can I ask which day you think God made humans? [/ QUOTE ] Wednesday, obv.
|
|
#105
08-09-2006, 09:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What if God told you to kill the president?
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you are praying to god one night and he communicates to you that you must kill the president. [/ QUOTE ] I would look under my bed and expect to find either John Kerry or Howard Dean.
|
|
#107
08-09-2006, 10:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Follow up question if you said NO
Your approach is as far from txag's as possible. For one thing, your goal is to refine your own worldview, whereas his is to change the worldviews of others. You're open to change and deal respectfully with your opponents, while txag condescends and is unwilling to give an inch (after all, he's right and he knows it because it's in the Bible). And most importantly, while you consistently confront the difficult issues, txag just disappears when someone points out a contradiction or hard truth about Christianity.
In this very thread, txag quoted an interpretation of the Bible that endorsed mass genocide and slavery. Txag brought up this interpretation in order to "prove" that the slaves were not, in fact, sex slaves. But in so doing he offered a position that accepted God had ordered his people to commit genocide and enslave their enemies. He also implied that a "guilty nation" deserves the sort of ethnic cleansing God ordered. Of course, a couple of us recognized that not only was this a very questionable approach, but it was also relevant to the topic of the thread. Txag, a biblical literalist, believes that God on multiple occasions directly ordered genocide. He also believes that God spoke directly to his people through words, signs, and regular miracles. But his position on this thread is that if ordered to kill the president, we shouldn't do it because it's not consistent with the Bible. That's quite a claim. He believes that God ordered people to commit not only killings but even ethnic cleansing campaigns, yet he doesn't think God would ever order anyone's death in the modern day? It doesn't make sense at all. The Bible itself represents a clear precedent. So from a rational standpoint, it appears that txag has completely destroyed his position. But txag ignored all the relevant comments. He distanced himself very quickly from his post justifying the genocide, and ignored the responses to it. This is very typical of him. He claims that he wants to clarify the Christian position, but he refuses to actually deal with the elements of his religion he doesn't like. When God curses the land with plagues, wipes out cities or even 99% of the world population, sends his people on campaigns of violent war and recommends that they show no mercy to their enemies (going so far at times as to kill every dweller within a city or nation), kills the firstborns of every family in Egypt and accepts it as "collateral damage" in order to convince one guy to let his people go, has children ripped apart for making fun of a bald man, calls himself jealous, or generally goes a-scourging, some explanation is required. You've defended your position well enough. But if someone really wants to clarify Christianity, they should start with those passages that are hardest for us to accept and understand. Especially if they believe in the Bible literally. And they definitely shouldn't go around making statements that apparently contradict the Bible, and then heavily backtracking when relevant passages show up. Oh also, you don't answer every objection by quoting the Bible. You don't quote the Bible much at all, so I'm not sure why you're accused of that.
|
|
#109
08-09-2006, 10:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Follow up question if you said NO
[ QUOTE ]
Your approach is as far from txag's as possible. For one thing, your goal is to refine your own worldview, whereas his is to change the worldviews of others. [/ QUOTE ] I didnt think this was his point, I thought it was to clarify what he means by christianity. If the latter, I think it is a reasonable thing to quote the bible (although I agree that further explanation is required). [ QUOTE ] Oh also, you don't answer every objection by quoting the Bible. You don't quote the Bible much at all, so I'm not sure why you're accused of that. [/ QUOTE ] I have quoted the bible on occasion, but I more mean that when I state my view it is misunderstanding my point to respond "Why should I believe that?" which happens from time to time. I think a lot of the threads here get sidetracked from failing to understand the protagonists are arguing from different premises. The validity of the arguments is an area where discussion between atheists and theists can be fruitful imo. I am more pessimistic when arguing the soundness.
|
|
#110
08-09-2006, 10:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Follow up question if you said NO
[ QUOTE ]
But his position on this thread is that if ordered to kill the president, we shouldn't do it because it's not consistent with the Bible. That's quite a claim. He believes that God ordered people to commit not only killings but even ethnic cleansing campaigns, yet he doesn't think God would ever order anyone's death in the modern day? It doesn't make sense at all. [/ QUOTE ] Well bible apologists will just say that the murder and genocide all happened before killing was declared officially "wrong" by god in the ten commandments. As if god thought murder was a-ok, then one day changed his mind. It just goes to show the lengths people will go through to try and defend the indefensible.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
