Ordeal at Conservative swarm

Communicate with Management.

Moderator: Brian

Re: Ordeal at Conservative swarm

Postby MADNOTBAD » Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:49 pm

Barmaley wrote:I think I will be Russian if I move to Mars. I live in PA.
You live In PA?... What a Co-Incidence. I don't suppose you live In or near Collingdale Do You, Only I have friends there.
User avatar
MADNOTBAD
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 1:06 am
Location: Bristol, England

Re: Ordeal at Conservative swarm

Postby Boba » Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:10 pm

I would like to know what you are trying to accomplish with this. Why is it so important to you to point these things out? Are you looking to engage in inteligent conversation, or just stir the pot? By telling people their God is an evil, uncaring being, do you think you'll be welcomed? Your arguements are well thought out and obviously you put a lot of effort in composing this document, but to what end? I mean that any true believer in an all powerful being can simply claim that we are incapable of understanding God's motovation. Maybe the people killed would have fathered the next Hitler? I don't necessarily belive this either, but that plain fact is no one can claim to have all the answers. If your intent is simply to stir up shit, then you have probably accomplished your goal. If you hope to make someone "See the light", I think you have failed by starting out with such a negitive stance. They will simply dismiss you. Either way, I don't think you're accomplishing anything.
User avatar
Boba
Contributor
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Ordeal at Conservative swarm

Postby Barmaley » Sun Jul 25, 2010 12:03 am

The reason is simple: one guy who is considered a guru there is a jerk. I was to show him that he is stupid and all hatred he placed there is null.
User avatar
Barmaley
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 3:31 pm

Re: Ordeal at Conservative swarm

Postby Barmaley » Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:41 pm

If anyone is still interested:

nformity to the rules of right conduct.

In order to determine the “Morality” of any person or act there must be a standard by which the person or act can be compared.

Traditionally religion has provided this “standard” however many cultures have opted to abandon such rigid standards and adopt a “sliding scale” that many (including me) refer to as “relative morality” or “situational ethics”.

If this debate is to be judged by the “sliding scale” of morality then either point can be made depending on what time period the sample of “reasonable morality” is taken from and what part of the world is used as the sample.

In other words, this debate is pointless if we embrace “relative morality”.

Nonetheless, I will show that whether the static definition of morality (Biblical Morality) or the sliding version my opponent offered (relative morality) is used the God of the Bible is the perfect example of “Morality” and no evidence exists to conclude otherwise.

The examples that my opponent has chosen to highlight in order to make his case involve mass destruction of human life and no distinction between citizens in general and the military personnel. In one case the example involves “youths” specifically although the text does not further define what age.

First the easy one, the Bible standard of Morality:

From a purely logical perspective the God of the Bible must be “Moral”.

God is declared to be the originator, author, creator and owner of all that exists. God is also declared to be “One God”; therefore no other opinion exists on his level.
The Bible declares that God has maintained supreme authority over all that he has created and that he is endowed with absolute and complete knowledge of everything in that creation and all that will transpire in regards to everything in his creation.

God is therefore the “Standard” and by definition “Moral”.

It does not matter what any portion of his creation thinks about anything God says or does, logically speaking if God does or says “something” that “something” is “Moral”. These events and any others that are chosen by my opponent depend on the integrity of the Biblical record to establish that they occurred; logically speaking the same Bible declarations about God must also be embraced.

Therefore, in Gods judgment (possessing full, complete and accurate knowledge of all involved) it was determined that many groups of humans were beyond redemption and must be eradicated for the benefit of his agenda and those who God decides are part of that agenda.

Those who reject this God will bemoan this authority but I ask that only logic be applied to the concept. If “Moral” refers to a “Standard”, then the owner, creator and supreme authority determines that standard. God is the standard in the Bible so by definition he is “Moral”.
All that he does is therefore “Moral” as well.



DEFINITION?

I say this prior to interjecting any mitigating information to make these events seem less “harsh” because even if there was no potential mitigating perspective it would not matter. Any act by God is by definition “Moral”.

If one rejects the authority that the Bible assigns to God then all these events must also be viewed in the same light, as if they never happened.

We cannot assign the standard of “accurate and true” selectively to the Bible or we are claiming that we have full and complete knowledge.
We would be declaring that “we are God” in that scenario.

That leaves us with the “relative morality” perspective to these events.

In this perspective we decide to “Judge God” from whatever definition that we decide is “moral”, a ludicrous suggestion but since I agreed to this debate I will expose the folly.

My opponent has decided to offer what he considers a “reasonable standard” that we should use as our criteria to “Judge” God. He might object to my calling them “relative morality” but simply observing many other cultures in the world today will reveal that these ideas are not universally accepted.
Let’s look at the “standard” my opponent offered.

It is “Immoral”
1) To cause harm or pain to an innocent unnecessarily.
2) To unjustly cause harm or pain to a child.

The first “standard” my opponent offered has not been met in any of the examples from scripture that he cited. The only record we have of these events is the Bible and nowhere does the Bible record that these people were “innocent” or that these actions were taken “unnecessarily”.
“Harm & Pain” were definitely caused but I am aware of no widely embraced moral standard that would universally condemn the causing of all “Harm & Pain” under any circumstances.
I also reject the idea that we can accurately state that these actions were not necessary.
We do not have the necessary details make that determination and if we did the conclusion would still be a matter of opinion.

My opponent is ascribing “innocence” to the recipients of these actions with absolutely nothing to base that judgment on. In fact, the ONLY record of these events (the Bible) clearly states the opposite about many of these people and the cultures that they embraced.

The second “standard” my opponent offered is equally dubious.
In order to claim an action was “Unjust” a person would have to be aware of every detail of each person involved and establish a moral standard to judge them by. We are not made aware of all the details of everyone mentioned in scripture so calling these youths fate “Unjust” is pure supposition.

An absence of damning details does not equal the non existence of damning details.

We know from our own recent experience just how “guilty” young children can be when raised in an evil environment that indoctrinates them.
In Vietnam very small children were used to get close to U.S. Soldiers to blow them up, poison their food or gain intelligence about how to kill them.
Right now in the Middle East Wars this is happening every day as well.
In our own inner cities the atrocities that are committed by “children” are getting worse every year and the perpetrators get younger every year.
As terrible as it sounds to Americans to consider children part of the enemy it is well known elsewhere in the world that children are indoctrinated from birth to embrace acts of destruction against the enemies their parents and religious leaders identify.

Unless my opponent has some evidence that these “youths” were not products of the culture that we know utilized their children in this way and unless we are privy to all the details about them we cannot say that they were treated “Unjustly”.

My opponent wants me to assume that all the people that were the recipients of these actions were:
A) Innocent when they were made to suffer
B) The “youths” were not guilty of any offense that would justify their punishment.

This is a common error in scripture critique, the claim that any detail not mentioned can be made up by the critic and assigned the same authority as what is recorded. The Bible is not intended as an exhaustive history book for all these cultures. The events recorded are there by Gods decision to communicate what he wants about himself and his agenda.

The Bible is only a history book for the Israelites and even then only the events that have eternal significance. Some details are offered about some of these peoples but only those that have a relevance to the story that God is leaving for posterity. If all the peoples mentioned were covered in the same detail the Bible would be hundreds of volumes and there would be no point to most of them.

God never declared his intent to preserve any element of these cultures, in fact he condemned them as guilty of child sacrifice, sexual deviance, murder, rape, child abuse and rejection of the God that created them. The Bible also records that God gave these cultures many decades (centuries in some cases) to repent of these evils before he laid his judgment on them.

The Bible is a specific compilation of specific information relevant to Gods agenda of redeeming fallen man and building a family that will dwell with him for eternity. Any history of former cultures that is recorded is not done in the interest of “justifying God”; The Bible presumes the absolute supremacy of God so it should not surprise anyone that the Bible makes no effort to “Justify” Gods actions or words.

An automotive repair manual does not include a justification for the environmental impact of the existence of cars. That is not its purpose.

A critic of the Biblical God deciding to assume “innocence” in regards to these people is no more authoritative than a wild guess.

The only assumption that would have logical credibility would be that these people were NOT innocent and that these actions WERE necessary and justified. I base that statement on this fact, the only record of these events that exists (the Bible) does declare that many of these cultures were an “abomination”.
My position that the all knowing God was indeed acting with perfect justice and morality has a contextual foundation to point to in the only existing record.
My opponent’s claim of innocence has nothing for a foundation other than his unsubstantiated assumptions.

Logic would demand that if we are going to Judge God by the events recorded in the Bible we must also accept the declarations of guilt that God lays against most of the recipients who are punished.

The absence of some details in some events can not be logically assumed to violate the standard that is followed in events where details are given.

Knowing that children of many cultures are indoctrinated from birth to hate and kill other groups today in the part of the world where these events occurred should make it obvious to anyone that it was also happening in Bible times. It is also well known that these cultures make sure that their preferred version of events is preserved for thousands of years through their offspring. One need only read today’s newspapers to see this principle hard at work.

As harsh as these strategies may seem to Americans today who are not even well versed in our own history of just the last 200 years it should be clear to anyone that not eradicating an enemy when you have the chance will only cause much more death, war and pain in these cultures where NOTHING is ever forgotten. The greater good is served when a declared enemy for life is defeated quickly and completely in such cases.

Who would argue that centuries of bloodshed, hate, rape, torture, terror and murder between cultures is preferable to a clear victor in a single conflict? History shows us that these are the two options in this part of the world.

Even America has examples of similar actions and attitudes:
Prior to Pearl Harbor the idea of entering the war in Europe was very unpopular.
After Pearl Harbor, Americans could not destroy the Germans or the Japanese fast enough.
At the time America dropped “the bomb” it was cheered as a fitting and Just conclusion for a violent and evil nation to endure.
65 years later most lament the dropping of the bomb as “excessive” and “unnecessary”

Similar examples existed after 9/11 when the most hawkish voices rattling sabers were from the political party that now claims the War on Terror is not needed and doing more harm than good.

My point is this; when your survival and the survival of your family is in jeopardy the reasoning behind incredibly destructive actions in war make perfect sense to almost everyone. After periods of relative security those same actions often seem excessive and unnecessary.

The fact that when the threat is real and present we all pretty much agree is as good a case as can be made that even using the “relative morality sliding scale” these events do not condemn God or his servants who carried them out.

My opponent has inserted his assumptions as to the details that are not recorded in the story to make his case that God violated his “reasonable standard of morality”. These “details” are the opposite of what is recorded in scripture where details about the judged cultures are given and inconsistent with what we know of these cultures from other history and current realities.

This is not logical, regardless of what one thinks about the Bible or the faiths that claim it as the inspired Word of God.

I contend that “The God of the Bible is indeed Moral” based on the irrelevant standard of morality that my opponent offered for this debate and the timeless standard of Morality that is God himself.

Much more information would be required to draw any other conclusion without violating the concept of logical interpretation.
User avatar
Barmaley
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 3:31 pm

Re: Ordeal at Conservative swarm

Postby MADNOTBAD » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:58 pm

I have skiped most of your post B but I was losing the will to live.

However, you can mock my god to your hearts content because I do not have one... that Is unless of course, You are counting four men who I worship as gods, i'e The Stranglers... please google.

Gods, bibles, Korans etc etc do not set the standards of morality. First and fore-most, morality Is set by parents and Governments. Weather we choose to obey or Ignore their doctrines Is up to us. If you argue my theory then think back to the Cave-man where no Government existed and killing, arson and rape where the norm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOCp4_6ATPQ

I chose this little song for you B.... these are the only Gods I have :woo:
User avatar
MADNOTBAD
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 1:06 am
Location: Bristol, England

Re: Ordeal at Conservative swarm

Postby Brian » Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:22 pm

Barmaley:

This is the opinion of your opponent, isn't it? I just want to make that clear to people.

Barmaley wrote:If anyone is still interested:

nformity to the rules of right conduct.

In order to determine the “Morality” of any person or act there must be a standard by which the person or act can be compared.

Traditionally religion has provided this “standard” however many cultures have opted to abandon such rigid standards and adopt a “sliding scale” that many (including me) refer to as “relative morality” or “situational ethics”.

If this debate is to be judged by the “sliding scale” of morality then either point can be made depending on what time period the sample of “reasonable morality” is taken from and what part of the world is used as the sample.

In other words, this debate is pointless if we embrace “relative morality”.

Nonetheless, I will show that whether the static definition of morality (Biblical Morality) or the sliding version my opponent offered (relative morality) is used the God of the Bible is the perfect example of “Morality” and no evidence exists to conclude otherwise.

The examples that my opponent has chosen to highlight in order to make his case involve mass destruction of human life and no distinction between citizens in general and the military personnel. In one case the example involves “youths” specifically although the text does not further define what age.

First the easy one, the Bible standard of Morality:

From a purely logical perspective the God of the Bible must be “Moral”.

God is declared to be the originator, author, creator and owner of all that exists. God is also declared to be “One God”; therefore no other opinion exists on his level.
The Bible declares that God has maintained supreme authority over all that he has created and that he is endowed with absolute and complete knowledge of everything in that creation and all that will transpire in regards to everything in his creation.

God is therefore the “Standard” and by definition “Moral”.

It does not matter what any portion of his creation thinks about anything God says or does, logically speaking if God does or says “something” that “something” is “Moral”. These events and any others that are chosen by my opponent depend on the integrity of the Biblical record to establish that they occurred; logically speaking the same Bible declarations about God must also be embraced.

Therefore, in Gods judgment (possessing full, complete and accurate knowledge of all involved) it was determined that many groups of humans were beyond redemption and must be eradicated for the benefit of his agenda and those who God decides are part of that agenda.

Those who reject this God will bemoan this authority but I ask that only logic be applied to the concept. If “Moral” refers to a “Standard”, then the owner, creator and supreme authority determines that standard. God is the standard in the Bible so by definition he is “Moral”.
All that he does is therefore “Moral” as well.



DEFINITION?

I say this prior to interjecting any mitigating information to make these events seem less “harsh” because even if there was no potential mitigating perspective it would not matter. Any act by God is by definition “Moral”.

If one rejects the authority that the Bible assigns to God then all these events must also be viewed in the same light, as if they never happened.

We cannot assign the standard of “accurate and true” selectively to the Bible or we are claiming that we have full and complete knowledge.
We would be declaring that “we are God” in that scenario.

That leaves us with the “relative morality” perspective to these events.

In this perspective we decide to “Judge God” from whatever definition that we decide is “moral”, a ludicrous suggestion but since I agreed to this debate I will expose the folly.

My opponent has decided to offer what he considers a “reasonable standard” that we should use as our criteria to “Judge” God. He might object to my calling them “relative morality” but simply observing many other cultures in the world today will reveal that these ideas are not universally accepted.
Let’s look at the “standard” my opponent offered.

It is “Immoral”
1) To cause harm or pain to an innocent unnecessarily.
2) To unjustly cause harm or pain to a child.

The first “standard” my opponent offered has not been met in any of the examples from scripture that he cited. The only record we have of these events is the Bible and nowhere does the Bible record that these people were “innocent” or that these actions were taken “unnecessarily”.
“Harm & Pain” were definitely caused but I am aware of no widely embraced moral standard that would universally condemn the causing of all “Harm & Pain” under any circumstances.
I also reject the idea that we can accurately state that these actions were not necessary.
We do not have the necessary details make that determination and if we did the conclusion would still be a matter of opinion.

My opponent is ascribing “innocence” to the recipients of these actions with absolutely nothing to base that judgment on. In fact, the ONLY record of these events (the Bible) clearly states the opposite about many of these people and the cultures that they embraced.

The second “standard” my opponent offered is equally dubious.
In order to claim an action was “Unjust” a person would have to be aware of every detail of each person involved and establish a moral standard to judge them by. We are not made aware of all the details of everyone mentioned in scripture so calling these youths fate “Unjust” is pure supposition.

An absence of damning details does not equal the non existence of damning details.

We know from our own recent experience just how “guilty” young children can be when raised in an evil environment that indoctrinates them.
In Vietnam very small children were used to get close to U.S. Soldiers to blow them up, poison their food or gain intelligence about how to kill them.
Right now in the Middle East Wars this is happening every day as well.
In our own inner cities the atrocities that are committed by “children” are getting worse every year and the perpetrators get younger every year.
As terrible as it sounds to Americans to consider children part of the enemy it is well known elsewhere in the world that children are indoctrinated from birth to embrace acts of destruction against the enemies their parents and religious leaders identify.

Unless my opponent has some evidence that these “youths” were not products of the culture that we know utilized their children in this way and unless we are privy to all the details about them we cannot say that they were treated “Unjustly”.

My opponent wants me to assume that all the people that were the recipients of these actions were:
A) Innocent when they were made to suffer
B) The “youths” were not guilty of any offense that would justify their punishment.

This is a common error in scripture critique, the claim that any detail not mentioned can be made up by the critic and assigned the same authority as what is recorded. The Bible is not intended as an exhaustive history book for all these cultures. The events recorded are there by Gods decision to communicate what he wants about himself and his agenda.

The Bible is only a history book for the Israelites and even then only the events that have eternal significance. Some details are offered about some of these peoples but only those that have a relevance to the story that God is leaving for posterity. If all the peoples mentioned were covered in the same detail the Bible would be hundreds of volumes and there would be no point to most of them.

God never declared his intent to preserve any element of these cultures, in fact he condemned them as guilty of child sacrifice, sexual deviance, murder, rape, child abuse and rejection of the God that created them. The Bible also records that God gave these cultures many decades (centuries in some cases) to repent of these evils before he laid his judgment on them.

The Bible is a specific compilation of specific information relevant to Gods agenda of redeeming fallen man and building a family that will dwell with him for eternity. Any history of former cultures that is recorded is not done in the interest of “justifying God”; The Bible presumes the absolute supremacy of God so it should not surprise anyone that the Bible makes no effort to “Justify” Gods actions or words.

An automotive repair manual does not include a justification for the environmental impact of the existence of cars. That is not its purpose.

A critic of the Biblical God deciding to assume “innocence” in regards to these people is no more authoritative than a wild guess.

The only assumption that would have logical credibility would be that these people were NOT innocent and that these actions WERE necessary and justified. I base that statement on this fact, the only record of these events that exists (the Bible) does declare that many of these cultures were an “abomination”.
My position that the all knowing God was indeed acting with perfect justice and morality has a contextual foundation to point to in the only existing record.
My opponent’s claim of innocence has nothing for a foundation other than his unsubstantiated assumptions.

Logic would demand that if we are going to Judge God by the events recorded in the Bible we must also accept the declarations of guilt that God lays against most of the recipients who are punished.

The absence of some details in some events can not be logically assumed to violate the standard that is followed in events where details are given.

Knowing that children of many cultures are indoctrinated from birth to hate and kill other groups today in the part of the world where these events occurred should make it obvious to anyone that it was also happening in Bible times. It is also well known that these cultures make sure that their preferred version of events is preserved for thousands of years through their offspring. One need only read today’s newspapers to see this principle hard at work.

As harsh as these strategies may seem to Americans today who are not even well versed in our own history of just the last 200 years it should be clear to anyone that not eradicating an enemy when you have the chance will only cause much more death, war and pain in these cultures where NOTHING is ever forgotten. The greater good is served when a declared enemy for life is defeated quickly and completely in such cases.

Who would argue that centuries of bloodshed, hate, rape, torture, terror and murder between cultures is preferable to a clear victor in a single conflict? History shows us that these are the two options in this part of the world.

Even America has examples of similar actions and attitudes:
Prior to Pearl Harbor the idea of entering the war in Europe was very unpopular.
After Pearl Harbor, Americans could not destroy the Germans or the Japanese fast enough.
At the time America dropped “the bomb” it was cheered as a fitting and Just conclusion for a violent and evil nation to endure.
65 years later most lament the dropping of the bomb as “excessive” and “unnecessary”

Similar examples existed after 9/11 when the most hawkish voices rattling sabers were from the political party that now claims the War on Terror is not needed and doing more harm than good.

My point is this; when your survival and the survival of your family is in jeopardy the reasoning behind incredibly destructive actions in war make perfect sense to almost everyone. After periods of relative security those same actions often seem excessive and unnecessary.

The fact that when the threat is real and present we all pretty much agree is as good a case as can be made that even using the “relative morality sliding scale” these events do not condemn God or his servants who carried them out.

My opponent has inserted his assumptions as to the details that are not recorded in the story to make his case that God violated his “reasonable standard of morality”. These “details” are the opposite of what is recorded in scripture where details about the judged cultures are given and inconsistent with what we know of these cultures from other history and current realities.

This is not logical, regardless of what one thinks about the Bible or the faiths that claim it as the inspired Word of God.

I contend that “The God of the Bible is indeed Moral” based on the irrelevant standard of morality that my opponent offered for this debate and the timeless standard of Morality that is God himself.

Much more information would be required to draw any other conclusion without violating the concept of logical interpretation.
"I guess the winter makes you laugh a little slower
Makes you talk a little lower
About the things you could not show her."

-- Counting Crows, "A Long December"
User avatar
Brian
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:02 pm

Re: Ordeal at Conservative swarm

Postby Barmaley » Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:03 pm

To be exact, this is his respond:

Morality: The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
Conformity to the rules of right conduct.

In order to determine the “Morality” of any person or act there must be a standard by which the person or act can be compared.

Traditionally religion has provided this “standard” however many cultures have opted to abandon such rigid standards and adopt a “sliding scale” that many (including me) refer to as “relative morality” or “situational ethics”.

If this debate is to be judged by the “sliding scale” of morality then either point can be made depending on what time period the sample of “reasonable morality” is taken from and what part of the world is used as the sample.

In other words, this debate is pointless if we embrace “relative morality”.

Nonetheless, I will show that whether the static definition of morality (Biblical Morality) or the sliding version my opponent offered (relative morality) is used the God of the Bible is the perfect example of “Morality” and no evidence exists to conclude otherwise.

The examples that my opponent has chosen to highlight in order to make his case involve mass destruction of human life and no distinction between citizens in general and the military personnel. In one case the example involves “youths” specifically although the text does not further define what age.

First the easy one, the Bible standard of Morality:

From a purely logical perspective the God of the Bible must be “Moral”.

God is declared to be the originator, author, creator and owner of all that exists. God is also declared to be “One God”; therefore no other opinion exists on his level.
The Bible declares that God has maintained supreme authority over all that he has created and that he is endowed with absolute and complete knowledge of everything in that creation and all that will transpire in regards to everything in his creation.

God is therefore the “Standard” and by definition “Moral”.

It does not matter what any portion of his creation thinks about anything God says or does, logically speaking if God does or says “something” that “something” is “Moral”. These events and any others that are chosen by my opponent depend on the integrity of the Biblical record to establish that they occurred; logically speaking the same Bible declarations about God must also be embraced.

Therefore, in Gods judgment (possessing full, complete and accurate knowledge of all involved) it was determined that many groups of humans were beyond redemption and must be eradicated for the benefit of his agenda and those who God decides are part of that agenda.

Those who reject this God will bemoan this authority but I ask that only logic be applied to the concept. If “Moral” refers to a “Standard”, then the owner, creator and supreme authority determines that standard. God is the standard in the Bible so by definition he is “Moral”.
All that he does is therefore “Moral” as well.

I say this prior to interjecting any mitigating information to make these events seem less “harsh” because even if there was no potential mitigating perspective it would not matter. Any act by God is by definition “Moral”. If one rejects the authority that the Bible assigns to God then all these events must also be viewed in the same light, as if they never happened.
We cannot assign the standard of “accurate and true” selectively to the Bible or we are claiming that we have full and complete knowledge.
We would be declaring that “we are God” in that scenario.

That leaves us with the “relative morality” perspective to these events.

In this perspective we decide to “Judge God” from whatever definition that we decide is “moral”, a ludicrous suggestion but since I agreed to this debate I will expose the folly.

My opponent has decided to offer what he considers a “reasonable standard” that we should use as our criteria to “Judge” God. He might object to my calling them “relative morality” but simply observing many other cultures in the world today will reveal that these ideas are not universally accepted.
Let’s look at the “standard” my opponent offered.

It is “Immoral”
1) To cause harm or pain to an innocent unnecessarily.
2) To unjustly cause harm or pain to a child.

The first “standard” my opponent offered has not been met in any of the examples from scripture that he cited. The only record we have of these events is the Bible and nowhere does the Bible record that these people were “innocent” or that these actions were taken “unnecessarily”.
“Harm & Pain” were definitely caused but I am aware of no widely embraced moral standard that would universally condemn the causing of all “Harm & Pain” under any circumstances.
I also reject the idea that we can accurately state that these actions were not necessary.
We do not have the necessary details make that determination and if we did the conclusion would still be a matter of opinion.

My opponent is ascribing “innocence” to the recipients of these actions with absolutely nothing to base that judgment on. In fact, the ONLY record of these events (the Bible) clearly states the opposite about many of these people and the cultures that they embraced.

The second “standard” my opponent offered is equally dubious.
In order to claim an action was “Unjust” a person would have to be aware of every detail of each person involved and establish a moral standard to judge them by. We are not made aware of all the details of everyone mentioned in scripture so calling these youths fate “Unjust” is pure supposition.

An absence of damning details does not equal the non existence of damning details.

We know from our own recent experience just how “guilty” young children can be when raised in an evil environment that indoctrinates them.
In Vietnam very small children were used to get close to U.S. Soldiers to blow them up, poison their food or gain intelligence about how to kill them.
Right now in the Middle East Wars this is happening every day as well.
In our own inner cities the atrocities that are committed by “children” are getting worse every year and the perpetrators get younger every year.
As terrible as it sounds to Americans to consider children part of the enemy it is well known elsewhere in the world that children are indoctrinated from birth to embrace acts of destruction against the enemies their parents and religious leaders identify.

Unless my opponent has some evidence that these “youths” were not products of the culture that we know utilized their children in this way and unless we are privy to all the details about them we cannot say that they were treated “Unjustly”.

My opponent wants me to assume that all the people that were the recipients of these actions were:
A) Innocent when they were made to suffer
B) The “youths” were not guilty of any offense that would justify their punishment.

This is a common error in scripture critique, the claim that any detail not mentioned can be made up by the critic and assigned the same authority as what is recorded. The Bible is not intended as an exhaustive history book for all these cultures. The events recorded are there by Gods decision to communicate what he wants about himself and his agenda.

The Bible is only a history book for the Israelites and even then only the events that have eternal significance. Some details are offered about some of these peoples but only those that have a relevance to the story that God is leaving for posterity. If all the peoples mentioned were covered in the same detail the Bible would be hundreds of volumes and there would be no point to most of them.

God never declared his intent to preserve any element of these cultures, in fact he condemned them as guilty of child sacrifice, sexual deviance, murder, rape, child abuse and rejection of the God that created them. The Bible also records that God gave these cultures many decades (centuries in some cases) to repent of these evils before he laid his judgment on them.

The Bible is a specific compilation of specific information relevant to Gods agenda of redeeming fallen man and building a family that will dwell with him for eternity. Any history of former cultures that is recorded is not done in the interest of “justifying God”; The Bible presumes the absolute supremacy of God so it should not surprise anyone that the Bible makes no effort to “Justify” Gods actions or words.

An automotive repair manual does not include a justification for the environmental impact of the existence of cars. That is not its purpose.

A critic of the Biblical God deciding to assume “innocence” in regards to these people is no more authoritative than a wild guess.

The only assumption that would have logical credibility would be that these people were NOT innocent and that these actions WERE necessary and justified. I base that statement on this fact, the only record of these events that exists (the Bible) does declare that many of these cultures were an “abomination”.
My position that the all knowing God was indeed acting with perfect justice and morality has a contextual foundation to point to in the only existing record.
My opponent’s claim of innocence has nothing for a foundation other than his unsubstantiated assumptions.

Logic would demand that if we are going to Judge God by the events recorded in the Bible we must also accept the declarations of guilt that God lays against most of the recipients who are punished.

The absence of some details in some events can not be logically assumed to violate the standard that is followed in events where details are given.

Knowing that children of many cultures are indoctrinated from birth to hate and kill other groups today in the part of the world where these events occurred should make it obvious to anyone that it was also happening in Bible times. It is also well known that these cultures make sure that their preferred version of events is preserved for thousands of years through their offspring. One need only read today’s newspapers to see this principle hard at work.

As harsh as these strategies may seem to Americans today who are not even well versed in our own history of just the last 200 years it should be clear to anyone that not eradicating an enemy when you have the chance will only cause much more death, war and pain in these cultures where NOTHING is ever forgotten. The greater good is served when a declared enemy for life is defeated quickly and completely in such cases.

Who would argue that centuries of bloodshed, hate, rape, torture, terror and murder between cultures is preferable to a clear victor in a single conflict? History shows us that these are the two options in this part of the world.

Even America has examples of similar actions and attitudes:
Prior to Pearl Harbor the idea of entering the war in Europe was very unpopular.
After Pearl Harbor, Americans could not destroy the Germans or the Japanese fast enough.
At the time America dropped “the bomb” it was cheered as a fitting and Just conclusion for a violent and evil nation to endure.
65 years later most lament the dropping of the bomb as “excessive” and “unnecessary”

Similar examples existed after 9/11 when the most hawkish voices rattling sabers were from the political party that now claims the War on Terror is not needed and doing more harm than good.

My point is this; when your survival and the survival of your family is in jeopardy the reasoning behind incredibly destructive actions in war make perfect sense to almost everyone. After periods of relative security those same actions often seem excessive and unnecessary.

The fact that when the threat is real and present we all pretty much agree is as good a case as can be made that even using the “relative morality sliding scale” these events do not condemn God or his servants who carried them out.

My opponent has inserted his assumptions as to the details that are not recorded in the story to make his case that God violated his “reasonable standard of morality”. These “details” are the opposite of what is recorded in scripture where details about the judged cultures are given and inconsistent with what we know of these cultures from other history and current realities.

This is not logical, regardless of what one thinks about the Bible or the faiths that claim it as the inspired Word of God.

I contend that “The God of the Bible is indeed Moral” based on the irrelevant standard of morality that my opponent offered for this debate and the timeless standard of Morality that is God himself.

Much more information would be required to draw any other conclusion without violating the concept of logical interpretation.



"Proud NeoCon"
"Proud Member Of The Hated Religious Right"
Proud "Guy who thinks the Federal Reserve has done a pretty good job"
"I am a hero who does not fail, I cannot be bothered by such details" Underdog.
User avatar
Barmaley
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 3:31 pm

Re: Ordeal at Conservative swarm

Postby MADNOTBAD » Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:30 pm

B... Is It not time to let go?

If we are actually Interested enough to see what this poster has written, then we can go to the site and read It. I do not see any point In posting here what another forums member Is posting. Or are you just trying to Impress us?

The Internet is full of wankers so just deal with It.
User avatar
MADNOTBAD
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 1:06 am
Location: Bristol, England

Re: Ordeal at Conservative swarm

Postby Brian » Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:37 pm

Mad:

Barmaley posted it here to enlist the help of members if they're interested in contributing to the debate. You're not, obviously, but that doesn't mean others aren't. If you're not interested, just don't open the thread, right? :dontknow:

Barmaley: It might be more efficient in the future to simply post a link to the latest response from your opponent.
"I guess the winter makes you laugh a little slower
Makes you talk a little lower
About the things you could not show her."

-- Counting Crows, "A Long December"
User avatar
Brian
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:02 pm

Re: Ordeal at Conservative swarm

Postby Barmaley » Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:46 pm

With God's help my response was posted here:

http://eruditer.com/index.php?Action=re ... other_id=4
User avatar
Barmaley
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 3:31 pm

PreviousNext

Return to 24's Headquarters

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron