Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Assertionism lives!

Rhology said...
That you say you depend on Jesus to tell you what is right strikes me as darkly funny, because it was the atrocities in the OT

You say "atrocities", but you need to give us a good reason to think you have any moral knowledge of any kind.
As it happens, what God commands is good by definition. They weren't atrocities. They were judgment.

conflicting with everything I had learned of Jesus' words

That's because you only knew SOME of His words.

plus the feelings in my heart about it(where supposedly the Law was written)

The feelings in your heart are merely feelings. What makes you think they hold any authority or bearing on what is morally true?
And as far as the law being written on your heart, you've taken that saying out of context. Romans 2:12-15 is where that is discussed, and it is communicating that the law is written on hearts such that we know we have done wrong and feel guilt. It is supposed to lead us to seek for God and His Savior, and yet it deepens our guilt that we don't seek Him. Thus the law being written on our hearts and the fact that we show it is written there by feeling and expressing guilt and making up false religion to deal with that guilt is actually more evidence of our wickedness.

the first steps down the path to losing my faith in the first place.

You had at best a woefully incomplete faith, so no big loss there.
You are responsible for repenting of ALL of your sin and placing ALL of your trust in Jesus. What we've seen so far here demonstrates that your faith is in yourself and your own baseless moral judgments. You'd rather gripe at God than throw yourself at His feet for mercy and forgiveness.
Please, repent.

How you can distinguish between when god is telling you to follow a commandment like Do Not Kill and when he wants you to do just the opposite such as in the example listed above when he provides no rationale behind the commands is beyond me

Then just ask.
It's not "Do not kill"; it's "do not murder". Murder = unjustified and intentional taking of human life.
But when God tells you to exercise HIs judgment on people, that's not murder. It's actually a good thing.
It doesn't matter whether you like it or not. Just who are you to talk back to your Creator? And how do you know you're right in your moral intuitions, again?

especially since he seemed to lose the ability to communicate with real words sometime around the time that the Word became flesh, but I'll move on.

The Bible is really, really long. That's a pretty lengthy communication, and the Bible contains "real words", in case you've forgotten.
Words like "Jesus", "sin", "the", "went", "money", "life", "death", "God"... those are real. What are you talking about?

I find it interesting that you take (Lk 18:19) and give me half of it, something you were accusing evilbible.com of doing earlier.

Untrue. You're just missing what I'm communicating b/c you have a shallow understanding of the text.
Jesus didn't say He's not good. He's inviting the rich young ruler to consider well his words about Jesus. If no one is good but God...and Jesus is good...Jesus is God.
As it happens, Jesus *IS INDEED* God, so of course He's good. He wants the r.y.r. to come to his own conclusion.
Rhology said...

I'll give you that the Romans passage does seem to give some support of it, though it only specifically says that those from Adam to Moses(when the Law was formed) were killed by sin that they didn't commit.

1) Sort of. They inherited death b/c the sin of Adam was IMPUTED to them (much like the righteousness of Jesus is IMPUTED to the repentant).
2) The passage doesn't say why they were "killed". It says it was sufficient to condemn each of us to death. We also ratify that imputation of sin by our own sin, which we commit every day.

The fact that you say God did the killing and that he used men as tools does not in any way remove the bloody swords from their hands

Shrug. I wasn't trying to remove bloody swords from their hands. What is your meaning?

You don't claim that Adam and Eve were justified for their sin just because they were Satan's tools

Huh? They weren't Satan's tools. They chose to listen to Satan and not God. They chose to sin, all by themselves.

how can you claim that the Israelites were justified in their killing because they were god's tools?

Despite the bad premise to your question, let me help you understand.
They were commanded, straight up, by God to do those killings. It would have been evil to refuse to kill whom He had commanded they kill. Of course they had the chance to choose not to do it, and if they had, they would have been punished somehow.
They were justified in doing it b/c whatever God says is good by definition. He said "kill those people", and that made the action a good thing.

You won't like it, but again, that doesn't matter. You're not the Pope of Morality. You don't have authority to judge God or anyone else. You don't know whether your moral intuitions are correct. You're all by yourself. You have nothing.
Submit your likes and preferences to God, because what God says is actually, truly good.
Rhology said...
you, too, can learn some things that are not "directly from the mouth of God

Of course one can learn things that are not in the Bible. You misunderstand my meaning.

since my method is based on trying to understand what constitutes as harm,

No no no, that's not what I asked you.
I asked you this: How do you know minimising harm is correct?

That's not the same as "what constitutes harm?" Not even close.

you can see how things can affect a larger sample of humanity.

This is true. So what? Effects can be good or bad.

but certainly a bad thing from the viewpoint of someone who looks at visible facts)

Don't ASSERT it. SHOW it. PROVE it. From your worldview.

the family and friends of the victim have to deal with the grief caused by this act, the hole in their life where this person was

Don't ASSERT that grief is bad. SHOW it. PROVE it. From your worldview.

the general worsening of their lives caused by this person not being around

Now you're begging the question. You need to SHOW that their lives are worse. How do you know what is better/worse and good/bad?

A rapist causes emotional pain to the victim often times for the rest of their life

Yes, of course, and if Jesus is Lord, rape is one of the most evil things possible.
But on YOUR worldview, I want you to SHOW rape is evil. Don't ASSERT it. SHOW it. PROVE it.

it's very easy to extrapolate the damage it could cause to society as a whole.

Don't ASSERT that you know what damage is, or that damage is bad. SHOW it. PROVE it. 
Rhology said...
I have to ask you what, exactly are the attributes that have been most effective for the human race?

Using the word "effective" begs the question in two ways.
1) Assumes that you know toward which goal we SHOULD be moving.
2) Assumes that you know that being effective is good.

But I want you not to ASSERT these things, but rather to SHOW, to PROVE, them.

If size and strength were the most beneficial, why aren't elephants the primary beings on earth?

So shallow!
1) Using the word "beneficial" begs the question in two ways.
a. Assumes that you know toward which goal we SHOULD be moving.
b. Assumes that you know that being beneficial to survival is good.
But I want you not to ASSERT these things, but rather to SHOW, to PROVE, them.
2) What does "primary" mean? Who decides who or what is primary? By what standard? SHOULD someone attempt to be primary? How do you know?
Don't ASSERT it. SHOW it. PROVE it.

is the idea that all other humans are worthy of life and that they should be allowed to live that life as long as they are not preventing others to do the same. 

But who says that idea is actually correct? So what if it generally extends humans' lives when more humans share the idea? How do you know that human life length is a standard for good?
Don't ASSERT it. SHOW it. PROVE it.

If the Israelites were attempting to just live in the area, trying to farm and such and were faced with attacks from that city and so had to fight back in order to ensure their survival, then attacking it was necessary

I'm so glad you stopped by to share your moral pontifications. Everything is so much clearer since you shared your assertions on morality. Maybe you should work up your thoughts into a book and publish it so that everyone in the world can benefit from your keen insights and we could achieve Utopia for real.

The next step, where they slaughtered the noncombatants of the city certainly seems excessive

Did you know that when you're in the desert and you look far away, the reflections of sunlight on the horizon make it SEEM that there's a pool of water there?
Did you know that when I tell my three year old son not to touch the hot stove, my injunction SEEMS unjust to him?

Tell me, please, why I should care how it SEEMS to you.

With unlimited power, he could have easily chosen a different course for them

Probably. But since the course He chose was actually good, why would He do something different?
Don't ASSERT it. SHOW it. PROVE it.

when it comes to the young children, there is absolutely no reason for that choice

Don't ASSERT it. SHOW it. PROVE it.
As a matter of fact, the children were sinners and God chose to put them to death. Probably they went to eternal bliss with Him in Heaven and were spared a life growing up among pagan idolaters, learning how to maximise their evil in their earthly life and stacking more and more condemnation upon themselves.
Rhology said...

if He was really serious about not wanting humans to kill each other, why would he then purposely use them as a tool for it when He had so many other options available to Him?

He obviously ISN'T serious about not wanting humans to kill each other.
He IS, however, serious about not wanting humans to MURDER each other. But since the example of, say, Jericho, isn't murder...

He could send manna to supplement their works

Probably. But since the course He chose was actually good, why would He do something different?
Don't ASSERT it. SHOW it. PROVE it.

You know, this type of argument can go in any direction. Anything you don't like, God "could have" done better. You cut your pinky. God COULD HAVE stopped you, or healed your pinky instantly. Ergo, God is actually not worth believing in. Airtight logic!

You'll never be satisfied with anything God does because He didn't do what you wanted Him to, and He didn't consult you before proceeding.
That's the problem here - you're not God. You actually commit logical fallacy upon logical fallacy (specifically, the naturalistic fallacy, deriving OUGHTs from IS all over the place without justification) and yet you want God to do what you want Him to. You want to be God.
But you're not God. You're a tiny, ignorant, sinful and rebellious windbag who dares to tell your Creator that He's doing a lousy job. What you need to do is repent of your sin and submit your affections and opinions to Him. He knows far better everything about everything than you could hope to know about anything.

it's very hard to sum up more than a decade of rationale into a few paragraphs

True, but it would have been far better if you had attempted to answer my questions.

No comments: