• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is God evil?

skeptigirl said:
And then I asked you how it mattered given this discussion if it was allegory or not if the allegory used 'disgusting whores' as the analogy.

In addition, you have yet to acknowledge that Hosea is one of a multitude of examples of the misogyny that permeates every book in the Bible. You claimed I was cherry picking. That implies the Bible does not treat women as the property of men and less than equal. And that makes your position one of a person blind to the facts in front of them. So if you are claiming the Bible does not treat women as worthless garbage, let's hear your cherry picked verses.
Click to expand...
You were cherry-picking. You clicked the "misogyny" icon on the SAB site. You admitted that honestly.

You accidentally included Hosea (and others) that are allegorical. It's not your fault. You just trusted a source that gives "thumbs up" to a verse that has been used to justify war.

Once you read more widely you will appreciate allegory. Try Hesiod's Works and Days or Langland's Piers Ploughman. Those are also allegorical but non-canonical. You can pick out the misogyny they contain, too. But there is no Sceptical Annotated Hesiod nor Sceptical Annotated Langland to send you off in the wrong direction.

I have more examples if you don't like those.
 
Relic said:
Some laws were abolished, some laws remain, but the fundamental teachings of the New Testament and Old Testament laws are in perfect accordance with each other.
Click to expand...
This is complete nonsense.

You are living in an alternate reality.

First, why would this omniscient god be so uncertain of the laws it wanted people to follow?
Second, prove it! Point out to us those supposed clear instructions that say follow this law, now follow that one now stop following this one.....

The Bible is full of vague gibberish throughout.

Relic said:
Do you need an example? Thefoundation of both teachings are "Love the Lord thy God" and "Love thy neighbour". This value, seen in both teachings, does not change, and I use Leviticus as my example... Slavery of course is no longer legal, but if taken by a Christian in regards to not mistreating those of lesser station, whether in a company or elsewhere, the laws of Leviticus are wise. Or, if a maid is hired, the Christian should not mistreat her, but give her the right pay, whatever freedom she's entitled to and so on.
Leviticus teaches all of this, so how can you say there's contradiction?
Click to expand...
Oh really? Stoning a woman to death? Killing children for parental disobedience?

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Lie la lie..."
 
Relic said:
How can you explain to me when words from a scientific text book are taken out of place or twisted? What is the "true" meaning therein?
Click to expand...
The scientific process has a set of operating rules. When followed the conclusions generally move closer and more precisely toward the truth. Thus the collective body of knowledge advances even if current conclusions turn out to be false along the way.

We have proof this works. Scientific advances demonstrate the value of the scientific process. Science leads to cures for diseases when prayers have yet to ever do so. We can deal with the weather and other catastrophes, we don't need to perform useless rituals asking non-existent magical beings to save us. We have landed instruments on Mars. We have telescopes that see billions of light years into space and microscopes that give us images of molecules and instruments that tell us about quantum size particles. None of that is in the Bible. Prayers and rituals are the things of silly children who have yet to learn about the real Universe.
 
stilicho said:
You were cherry-picking. You clicked the "misogyny" icon on the SAB site. You admitted that honestly.
Click to expand...
For someone who pretends to understand the Bible as literature, you sure have a poor understanding of what is cherry picking and what is providing examples that demonstrate a pattern. If the examples I chose did not represent the pattern which permeates the Bible, then you should be able to show that there is an alternate pattern and what I posted was not representative. You have not even attempted to do so.

But even more than that, to claim the Judeo-Christian religion isn't based in misogyny one has to suspend reality. I can't imagine anyone trying to present a case refuting that well known fact.

stilicho said:
You accidentally included Hosea (and others) that are allegorical. It's not your fault. You just trusted a source that gives "thumbs up" to a verse that has been used to justify war.

Once you read more widely you will appreciate allegory. Try Hesiod's Works and Days or Langland's Piers Ploughman. Those are also allegorical but non-canonical. You can pick out the misogyny they contain, too. But there is no Sceptical Annotated Hesiod nor Sceptical Annotated Langland to send you off in the wrong direction.

I have more examples if you don't like those.
Click to expand...
I didn't accidentally include it. And I have already addressed your weak argument it shouldn't have been included. Allegory or not, it is still misogynistic.

But you ignored that, you ignored the fact those were a few of many other examples and most of all, you have presented exactly zero verses as evidence the Bible isn't misogynistic.

The score so far is:
Skeptigirl, 2
Stilicho, 0
 
"Cherry-picked" quotes would be easy to demonstrate as unrepresentative, by pointing out other, more numerous, verses that show the opposite.

Have you done so?
 
skeptigirl said:
But you ignored that, you ignored the fact those were a few of many other examples and most of all, you have presented exactly zero verses as evidence the Bible isn't misogynistic.
Click to expand...

I simply helped you understand that your source (SAB) is either mistaken or fraudulent in most instances.
 
stilicho said:
I simply helped you understand that your source (SAB) is either mistaken or fraudulent in most instances.
Click to expand...
You have to make a convincing argument for someone to "understand" the point you have made in the context you use this word here. Your argument was not convincing.
 
Relic said:
I'll ask again. Can anyone explain away my points about Luther King and 1936, or am I simply going to be made subject to more out-of-place sentences, word-twistings, and off-subject remarks disguised as logical points?
Click to expand...

I'll go with your caveat that the thread only discusses whether God is good or evil, not whether he exists. As in, the assumption He exists is true, therefore He is a) omnipotent and b) The Creator. But if this is true then if evil exists He is evil. I don't see how you can explain evil unless you puncture one of those axioms.

I haven't read much of the Bible, but from what I have it quickly devolves into man's mistakes. But man could have no access to mistake unless it was there for him, if God is ominipotent. Either God created evil to be accessed, or God is not omnipotent and man created something He has/had no potency over.

It's pick one or the other. If you pick man created evil through his free will, or a fallen angel/Satan or whatever, then man created something that God has no dominion over and is not omnipotent of, since God didn't create it (therefore He's not "The Creator". Then you'd have to justify why man should pay more attention to an omnipotent God (presumptively Good), or an omnipotent Evil. Evil would be just as powerful as Good, since God either didn't Create it, or isn't actually only Good.

Your points only seem to work if God doesn't exist or is so "liberal" that he lets you and other man free to describe Him and His powers to enough satisfaction. Thus interpretation as truth. Thus allegory.

btw, pay no attention to Complexity on anything to do with religion, he's knee-jerk to the extreme from what I've seen.

btw 2, Silentknight--general kudos for mentioning the Yuuzhon-vong invasion!
 
Dragoonster said:
btw, pay no attention to Complexity on anything to do with religion, he's knee-jerk to the extreme from what I've seen.
Click to expand...


Knee-jerk? No.

The conscious and deliberate condemnation of an intellectual and moral monstrosity that I'd love to see wiped out of existence? Yes.

Thanks for helping with the rep, however.

If the cretins think it's a knee-jerk reaction, they may be less inclined to write more of their garbage and simply run away instead.
 
fuelair said:
However, you still have not given examples. I really have no idea what you meant there (your original response to my explanation). I cannot answer your question without examples since the question (as stated) provides no clue as to what you are asking about.
Click to expand...
Sure:

My view, not who you asked, but....There is evil in the world (won't cover all of it, and what I will cover is quite sufficient for me) : children are killed/mutilated/foully mistreated all over the world every day; people are harmed/ etc./killed every day.
Click to expand...
Yes, due to volitional choices others have made, fair or unfair.

IF there was a god and IF that god allows this, THEN that god is pure evil and it is my duty to track down and do my best to destroy it.
Click to expand...
Except he isn't present, and everyone has to deal with everyone else's moral relativism. You can do whatever you want to anyone. Nature remains indifferent. Fairness and thoughtfulness are exclusive to human nature. But who has recognized this throughout history than warriors or the educated? Darwin understood and today, who more clearly than academics like Sagan and Dawkins, among few others who don't recognize anything remotely present, rather a complete absense? Or Randi, who has directly involved himself in this part of human nature: abysses of reason and morality. The Old Testament was an allegory, simply that stated humanity and the father of humanity had a falling out. That falling out was due to people wanting to be as gods. To be above nature, other people and consequence itself. In the allegory, he gave the opportunity to choose and their descendants had to essentially, grow up. This process was a reference to the natural world, which unlike how they started out, as we see everyday, is indifferent. Some people are accordingly, cruel and indifferent. Some will take it all the way. You'll never find them at humanists conventions, but altars to grandiosity. At any time a relationship was accessible to anyone who had made an effort to reconcile this, and still is today. It's quite difficult to recognize, I suppose, the catalyst for global conflict is these simple allegories.
 
RobRoy said:
While I agree with your other comments, quite heartily, I think you might be wrong here. In making an argument regarding the nature of God, or Palpatine, we are assuming that those entities are real. We may make that assumption only within the argument itself, as we make a dozen other assumptions, in order to draw comparisons, provide motivations, and argue contentions such as those you provide in your example.

Does this mean we believe Palpatine (or God, if you like) to be a real person who could come over for Sunday brunch? No. But within the the argument we do have to make that assumption. Otherwise, as some have done here, you reject the OP out of hand and argument ceases.
Click to expand...

Within the argument, yes, but an assumption of that nature for the sake of argument is still a hypothetical, and not the same kind of acceptance of the fact of existence that Relic was claiming. I might have misread what he was saying, but it sounded a lot like the claim I've heard many times before from believers, where they say that attacking God as evil is the same as accepting / agreeing that he implicitly exists. Given the context of his statement within the rest of his post, where he was defending God as if God were an actual being that could be insulted or undermined by criticism, that kind of claim goes way beyond the hypothetical assumption purely for the sake of argument.

If I'm talking about a fictional character in a work of fiction, then obviously I'm going to make certain assumptions within the framework of the fiction itself. The argument I was addressing however contained many claims based on God being a real person in the real world who could get offended if you said the wrong things about him.
 
skeptigirl said:
That makes 2 of us pointing this out and stilicho is still ignoring the challenge to his argument.
Click to expand...
You argue that the Bible is "misogynistic" on the basis of cherry-picked quotations. It's not even your argument; you borrowed it from the SAB. I have demonstrated two examples where the SAB is clearly a bad source upon which to base any argument.

It is not about counting up verses containing references you happen to pick.

That's the tactic employed by "truthers" who cherry-pick first responders to "prove" that "explosions" meant the WTC was purposely demolished on SEP 11. I have read about 60% of those from the NY Times site and even found some of the cherry-picked quotations. However, the sense one gets from reading them in full is not that of controlled demolition but something ranging between confusion and horror.

You could try to count the verses contained in those oral histories that mention "it wasn't a controlled demolition" and you wouldn't find any. Not of the 60% that I read, anyhow. By your logic, since we cannot find anything explicitly denying "explosions", then the WTC must have been purposely demolished. Or at least the first responders thought so. Why else would they mention explosions and not mention the opposite?

The same thing applies when you are reading the Bible. The sense that you get from reading it cover-to-cover is decidedly not misogynistic. The first impression you get is of the importance of monotheism. Almost the entire text emphasises monotheism, even if "God" is quite a dick for most of the Old Testament.

Certainly the depiction of women is no worse than it is in Hellenistic mythology, where Medusa, the Sirens, the Furies, and almost all of the women in the Iliad/Odyssey are inimical at best and outright horrid at worst.
 
stilicho said:
You argue that the Bible is "misogynistic" on the basis of cherry-picked quotations. It's not even your argument; you borrowed it from the SAB. I have demonstrated two examples where the SAB is clearly a bad source upon which to base any argument.

It is not about counting up verses containing references you happen to pick.

That's the tactic employed by "truthers" who cherry-pick first responders to "prove" that "explosions" meant the WTC was purposely demolished on SEP 11. I have read about 60% of those from the NY Times site and even found some of the cherry-picked quotations. However, the sense one gets from reading them in full is not that of controlled demolition but something ranging between confusion and horror.

You could try to count the verses contained in those oral histories that mention "it wasn't a controlled demolition" and you wouldn't find any. Not of the 60% that I read, anyhow. By your logic, since we cannot find anything explicitly denying "explosions", then the WTC must have been purposely demolished. Or at least the first responders thought so. Why else would they mention explosions and not mention the opposite?
Click to expand...
All dodge, no substance.

stilicho said:
The same thing applies when you are reading the Bible. The sense that you get from reading it cover-to-cover is decidedly not misogynistic. The first impression you get is of the importance of monotheism. Almost the entire text emphasises monotheism, even if "God" is quite a dick for most of the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
Why would the emphasis on monotheism preclude the misogynistic theme? That argument is an epic fail.

stilicho said:
Certainly the depiction of women is no worse than it is in Hellenistic mythology, where Medusa, the Sirens, the Furies, and almost all of the women in the Iliad/Odyssey are inimical at best and outright horrid at worst.
Click to expand...
Again, why would the fact misogyny is and was common throughout history be an argument that the Bible was not misogynistic? Again your argument is an epic fail.

I don't believe I made any claims that misogyny was not common in other religions. In fact, it is, as it is in the vast majority of philosophies that tout dogmatic maintaining of past ways. Women's liberation, a previously rare but now increasing trend, happens to be associated with successful modern societies. It is my conviction and that of a number of other knowledgeable people that the worst misogynistic societies of today are failing because they oppress half their population of talented people.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
It is my conviction and that of a number of other knowledgeable people that the worst misogynistic societies of today are failing because they oppress half their population of talented people.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

And polytheistic societies tended to fail in BCE times. Monotheism was even adopted, in historical times, to devastating effect in the Arab world. We have a practical test against which we may measure the radical effectiveness of the Biblical monotheism.

The evolution of natural philosophy into true science was only possible under the regimen of monotheism. That's the positive contribution of what you perceive only to be a brutally misogynistic text. It's no mistake that Copernicus and Newton were as much students of theology as they were men of science.
 
Radrook said:
I understand your problem. You are very confused and incapable of comprehending the simple things of God on your own. You have two choices.

1. Continue in your confused state.
2. Ask someone who understands the basic things to help you understand.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you can't answer my questions. I understand your need to run off claiming that it's all obvious, and people who don't understand are stupid, but you're really not fooling anyone.
 
stilicho said:
...

And polytheistic societies tended to fail in BCE times. Monotheism was even adopted, in historical times, to devastating effect in the Arab world. We have a practical test against which we may measure the radical effectiveness of the Biblical monotheism.

The evolution of natural philosophy into true science was only possible under the regimen of monotheism. That's the positive contribution of what you perceive only to be a brutally misogynistic text. It's no mistake that Copernicus and Newton were as much students of theology as they were men of science.
Click to expand...
Leaving aside your lack of concern for the large segment of Earth's population which believes in and promotes the dogma of a misogynistic religion, and trying to keep within the thread question, how do you figure monotheism made one iota of a difference in the success or failure of a society? Evolution from religion to science? What evidence is there monotheism is anything more than a coincidence of timing?

For someone who claims to be atheist or agnostic or whatever it is you said, you certainly seem defensive of the Christian religion in particular.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom