jason4liberty:Faith can give one courage that logic can not.
Faith can give one courage that logic can not.
YES!!!!! YES! YES YES!
You have it right there! RIGHT THERE! That's exactly right. It is through virtue of the absurd that men live fulfilled lives, not through the dialectical perspectives that they rely on - as though their meager capacities could ever match to the bredth of knowledge in the world to be gained, that is subsequently, impossible to be gained.This is all very old stuff that Molyneux just appears to completely ignore without any clue. The man truly is, clueless.
To this end passion is necessary. Every movement of infinity comes about by passion, and no reflection can bring a movement about. This is the continual leap in existence which explains the movement, whereas it is a chimera which according to Hegel is supposed to explain everything, and at the same time this is the only thing he has never tried to explain. Even to make the well-known Somatic distinction between what one understands and what one does not understand, passion is required, and of course even more to make the characteristic Socratic movement, the movement, namely, of ignorance. What our age lacks, however, is not reflection but passion. Hence in a sense our age is too tenacious of life to die, for dying is one of the most remarkable leaps, and a little verse of a poet has always attracted me much, because, after having expressed prettily and simply in five or six preceding lines his wish for good things in life, he concludes thus: Ein selige Sprung in die Ewigkeit. Soren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling
To this end passion is necessary. Every movement of infinity comes about by passion, and no reflection can bring a movement about. This is the continual leap in existence which explains the movement, whereas it is a chimera which according to Hegel is supposed to explain everything, and at the same time this is the only thing he has never tried to explain. Even to make the well-known Somatic distinction between what one understands and what one does not understand, passion is required, and of course even more to make the characteristic Socratic movement, the movement, namely, of ignorance. What our age lacks, however, is not reflection but passion. Hence in a sense our age is too tenacious of life to die, for dying is one of the most remarkable leaps, and a little verse of a poet has always attracted me much, because, after having expressed prettily and simply in five or six preceding lines his wish for good things in life, he concludes thus: Ein selige Sprung in die Ewigkeit.
Soren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
ryanpatgray:So, you do not have to follow any parts of the Old Testament except the the parts that we say because they justify our power. It sounds like a politition who ignores those parts of the constitution that they don't like and insists on following other parts of the constitution when it is politically convenient.
So, you do not have to follow any parts of the Old Testament except the the parts that we say because they justify our power. It sounds like a politition who ignores those parts of the constitution that they don't like and insists on following other parts of the constitution when it is politically convenient.
That's not quite what he's saying...When one says the addition of X fulfills Y so that Y no longer stands as the valid principle, one does not say that Y is inapplicable - one says that Y has changed or been replaced.
Apparently, processes are also impossible in Hume's magic park of the empirically incorrect empiricals.
ryanpatgray: MacFall: He didn't "invalidate" the Old Testament. He fulfilled the law of the Old Testament, making its demands inapplicable to followers of His covenant. He also fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament. So, you do not have to follow any parts of the Old Testament except the the parts that we say because they justify our power.
MacFall: He didn't "invalidate" the Old Testament. He fulfilled the law of the Old Testament, making its demands inapplicable to followers of His covenant. He also fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament.
So, you do not have to follow any parts of the Old Testament except the the parts that we say because they justify our power.
No, that's not what I said. At all. A Christian is not bound to ANY of the Deuteronomical law. The New Testament makes it clear that the law is death, and Christians are to choose life.
Let us assume that you met someone on the street who told you that he believed that Moby *** was the literal word of God. You ask him "So, you believe that there really was whaling ship named The Pequad?” “No, of course I don't believe that. don't be silly.” “But you take Moby *** literally?” “Yes.” “OK. But you do believe that Ishmael's life was saved by floating on Queequeg's coffin after the ship sank?” “No, how dare you tell me what I believe!” “But I thought you said you took Moby *** as the literal word of God?”Edit: once again an innocent word has been censored. In case you don't get it from the context i am refering to a novel by Herman Melville.
"So, you believe that there really was whaling ship named The Pequad?”
“No, of course I don't believe that. don't be silly.”
“But you take Moby *** literally?”
“Yes.”
“OK. But you do believe that Ishmael's life was saved by floating on Queequeg's coffin after the ship sank?”
“No, how dare you tell me what I believe!”
“But I thought you said you took Moby *** as the literal word of God?”
Edit: once again an innocent word has been censored. In case you don't get it from the context i am refering to a novel by Herman Melville.
That analogy is horribly flawed. One can believe in the literal inerrancy of the Bible and STILL not be bound to Deuteronomical law, because there are explicit passages of the New Testament that say we are not so bound.
Secondly, a religion founded on a text that doesn't even have advice on how to live one's life is in a completely different class of ideas from one founded on a text that does.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
MacFall: ryanpatgray: So, you do not have to follow any parts of the Old Testament except the parts that we say because they justify our power.No, that's not what I said. At all. A Christian is not bound to ANY of the Deuteronomical law. The New Testament makes it clear that the law is death, and Christians are to choose life.
ryanpatgray: So, you do not have to follow any parts of the Old Testament except the parts that we say because they justify our power.
MacFall: That analogy is horribly flawed. One can believe in the literal inerrancy of the Bible and STILL not be bound to Deuteronomical law, because there are explicit passages of the New Testament that say we are not so bound.
You see, there is this sequel to Melville’s most famous novel called the Resurrection of Queequeg. It explicitly states that you still have to follow the teachings in the odd chapters but you are no longer bound by the teachings in the even ones.
MacFall: Secondly, a religion founded on a text that doesn't even have advice on how to live one's life is in a completely different class of ideas from one founded on a text that does.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
Niccolò: jimbojr:Niccolo, you certainly seem to spend a lot of time thinking and writing about someone you consider to be so much in error. I wonder why that is so? Because opposition to that which is incorrect is important?
jimbojr:Niccolo, you certainly seem to spend a lot of time thinking and writing about someone you consider to be so much in error. I wonder why that is so?
Niccolo, you certainly seem to spend a lot of time thinking and writing about someone you consider to be so much in error. I wonder why that is so?
Because opposition to that which is incorrect is important?
The pursuit of truth seems more effective, for lack of a better term. Opposition to what is incorrect would have us going around writing treatises about every unprovable absurdity that people conjur up - like spirits, elves, sprites, gods, etc. It seems you just have an emotionally vested interest in this particular area of religion, the sacred cow you can't allow to be touched.
MacFall: jimbojr: What does Jesus mean here? What he said.
jimbojr: What does Jesus mean here?
What does Jesus mean here?
What he said.
Thank you for the well thought out response.
What law is Jesus referring to?
Exactly! The Deuteronomical law is no longer convenient. It now looks embarrassing and savage. But once upon a time before Yashua it would have been acceptable to kill a son for disobedience I suppose.
You're neglecting the context of the law: it authorizes capital punishment for incorrigible children, yes--but there is a bit more to it than that.
First, the behavior needs to rise to a level that the community deems sufficient; in the hypothetical example, the parents testify that "he is a glutton and a drunkard" (Deut 21:20), and the parents must have made sufficient attempt to correct the problem (Deut 21:18). Second, for the son to be a "drunkard," he is presumably older than, say, seven--i.e., he is somewhere into adulthood or at the very least "young adulthood." Thirdly, the law would only apply to dependent children, not those who had moved out of the parents' home. Putting those three factors together, we're talking about adult children who still haven't moved out of mommy's house, or teenaged juvenile delinquents. In other words, loosely what right-wing radio hosts like to call "gang-banger youts."
But fourthly and most importantly, Deut 17:7 stipulates that, in death penalty cases, the witnesses are required to throw the first stones. In this case, the witnesses are the parents. So either we're talking about an incredibly bad juvenile delinquent, or else we're talking about such psychopathic parents that they're willing for frivolous reasons to murder their children. Since psychopathic killers of their own offspring are selected against by evolution, they tend to be pretty rare.
Summing it up, the Deuteronomic law is not consistent with libertarian thinking, but it isn't nearly as barbaric as it appears at first blush. It authorizes the parents of inner-city gang-banging delinquents to apply the death penalty to their murderous, violent dependents without specific evidence of the drug-dealing, mugging, raping and murdering that they're out there doing with their homies.
--Len.
What does Jesus mean here? Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
The law in question is obviously Moses' law. The interesting question is what "fulfil" means here. If it means "fulfil" in the sense of a contract, and that argument can be made, then the obligation is discharged, and hence doesn't adhere to us today.
DrunknMunky:I dislike religion since I view it as a form of collectivism.
There's nothing wrong with voluntary collectivism. The problem only kicks in when a Christian confuses voluntary and coerced collectivism; that confusion has caused a few falling outs for me. Opposition to coerced collectivism is mistaken for Rand's "altruism is evil" at the other extreme.
Len,
In my experience there is an awful of lot of back-peddling, apologetics, cherry-picking, and rationalizing going on when Christians try and make their faith seem reasonable. With those methods of reasoning I could turn Mein Kampf into a divine message.
jimbojr:In my experience there is an awful of lot of back-peddling, apologetics, cherry-picking, and rationalizing going on when Christians try and make their faith seem reasonable. With those methods of reasoning I could turn Mein Kampf into a divine message.
There's a reasonable way to look at this from the atheist's perspective: Christians are basically decent people clinging for emotional human reasons to a barbaric relic, but they choose to reinterpret their religion consistent with their basic decency, rather than throwing decency to the wind and embracing the original barbarism from whence it sprang. With that perspective, the most efficient thing for atheists to do is to encourage this process, and help religious people become reasonable freedom-lovers who will eventually drop the crutch of religion. Kicking the crutch out from under them first, and then demanding they get up and walk without any physical therapy, is inefficient at best and coutnerproductive at worst.
From my perspective, of course, the teachings of Christ were always wise and humane, but humans have consistently distorted it in their ignorance and evil. Properly understood, it is almost perfectly compatible with non-aggression; in particular, there's no reasonable argument that Jesus' teachings directly authorize aggression. Therefore, encouraging Christians to embrace non-aggression is synonymous with making them better Christians, and there is no cognitive dissonance.
Your comment above, when viewed from my perspective, is rather insulting. The Bible is a big complicated book. You contemptuously cite that as reason to throw it away; I on the other hand cite it as the reason to study it, and to refrain from making overly pontifical assertions about what it says. I don't intend to coerce you to read it, and I expect you not to coerce me to throw it away. That being the case, I dont see how your belligerent comments help either of us. Instead, they alienate two individuals who have considerable common ground: a love of liberty and a devotion to non-aggression.
Len Budney: What does Jesus mean here? Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. The law in question is obviously Moses' law. The interesting question is what "fulfil" means here. If it means "fulfil" in the sense of a contract, and that argument can be made, then the obligation is discharged, and hence doesn't adhere to us today. --Len.
If Yahweh is the party who is owed in this contract why would he consider the contract fulfiulled by paying the price himself? Just to be nice? Why didn't he think of that before instead of killing almost the entire human race in a flood?
Len Budney: Exactly! The Deuteronomical law is no longer convenient. It now looks embarrassing and savage. But once upon a time before Yashua it would have been acceptable to kill a son for disobedience I suppose. You're neglecting the context of the law: it authorizes capital punishment for incorrigible children, yes--but there is a bit more to it than that. First, the behavior needs to rise to a level that the community deems sufficient; in the hypothetical example, the parents testify that "he is a glutton and a drunkard" (Deut 21:20), and the parents must have made sufficient attempt to correct the problem (Deut 21:18). Second, for the son to be a "drunkard," he is presumably older than, say, seven--i.e., he is somewhere into adulthood or at the very least "young adulthood." Thirdly, the law would only apply to dependent children, not those who had moved out of the parents' home. Putting those three factors together, we're talking about adult children who still haven't moved out of mommy's house, or teenaged juvenile delinquents. In other words, loosely what right-wing radio hosts like to call "gang-banger youts." But fourthly and most importantly, Deut 17:7 stipulates that, in death penalty cases, the witnesses are required to throw the first stones. In this case, the witnesses are the parents. So either we're talking about an incredibly bad juvenile delinquent, or else we're talking about such psychopathic parents that they're willing for frivolous reasons to murder their children. Since psychopathic killers of their own offspring are selected against by evolution, they tend to be pretty rare. Summing it up, the Deuteronomic law is not consistent with libertarian thinking, but it isn't nearly as barbaric as it appears at first blush. It authorizes the parents of inner-city gang-banging delinquents to apply the death penalty to their murderous, violent dependents without specific evidence of the drug-dealing, mugging, raping and murdering that they're out there doing with their homies. --Len.
It isn't as barbaric as it may seem because it is only OK to kill SOME disobedient children and not all of them. Ok, thanks for clearing that up.
There are enough assumptions in your question to make a short answer impossible. Most of your assumptions are compatible with Catholic theology, but not with the Bible. For starters, Yahweh didn't die on the cross in any sense; His son did. He and His son are distinct individuals. I think it's clear that from that starting point, we'll have a hard time even discussing the question. Each of the assumptions in your question represents a lengthy argument when I contradict it.
Your scorn serves no purpose. I point out merely that your cartoonish notion of the law is false: it has nothing to do with murdering your own children because they didn't feed the dog. It's about delinquents incorrigible enough to pose a serious potential threat to life. Libertarian law only allows one to deal with present threats to life; i.e., they must be let alone until their would-be victims kill them in self-defense.
However, considering that the likelihood of a parent consenting to kill his child with his own hand is virtually nil, the purpose of the law is clearly as a deterrent rather than a remedy.
You can disagree with that all you want, but please don't bother with childish caricatures.
What part of what I said insults you and what would you deem belligerent? Do you deny that this sort of faulty reasoning occurs when defending the seemingly infinite contradictions in the Bible?
Well, you're not interested in having a respectful discussion, so I won't bother. But the question whether Christians can be anarchists is much less interesting to me than the question whether atheists can avoid being obnoxious jerks. Can they? Have you ever met a counterexample in your travels? If so, can you introduce him to this forum so we can meet him? If you can't, because he doesn't like you, I'll understand perfectly.
Len Budney: However, considering that the likelihood of a parent consenting to kill his child with his own hand is virtually nil, the purpose of the law is clearly as a deterrent rather than a remedy.
Abraham was willing to and his child was not disobedient.
Jephthah DID and his daughter was not at all disobedient.
Len Budney: If Yahweh is the party who is owed in this contract why would he consider the contract fulfiulled by paying the price himself? Just to be nice? Why didn't he think of that before instead of killing almost the entire human race in a flood? There are enough assumptions in your question to make a short answer impossible. Most of your assumptions are compatible with Catholic theology, but not with the Bible. For starters, Yahweh didn't die on the cross in any sense; His son did. He and His son are distinct individuals. I think it's clear that from that starting point, we'll have a hard time even discussing the question. Each of the assumptions in your question represents a lengthy argument when I contradict it. --Len.
OK, for the sake of the non-Trinitarian Christians why would he consider it fulfilled by his son paying it when it was not his son who signed this contract?
Len Budney: jimbojr:What part of what I said insults you and what would you deem belligerent? Do you deny that this sort of faulty reasoning occurs when defending the seemingly infinite contradictions in the Bible? Well, you're not interested in having a respectful discussion, so I won't bother. But the question whether Christians can be anarchists is much less interesting to me than the question whether atheists can avoid being obnoxious jerks. Can they? Have you ever met a counterexample in your travels? If so, can you introduce him to this forum so we can meet him? If you can't, because he doesn't like you, I'll understand perfectly. --Len.
jimbojr:What part of what I said insults you and what would you deem belligerent? Do you deny that this sort of faulty reasoning occurs when defending the seemingly infinite contradictions in the Bible?
obnoxious jerk = person who points out faulty reasoning
Abraham was willing to and his child was not disobedient.Jephthah DID and his daughter was not at all disobedient.
Jephthah's action is not endorsed. Every Bible student in history has either (1) condemned his action, or (2) attempted to argue that the "sacrifice" of his daughter did not involve her death. Assuming the worst, Jephthah is an example of a sociopath, and those exist but are rare--exactly as I already said.
As for Abraham, I've discussed this elsewhere, and I'm loth to waste my time with someone who will ignore most of what I say, and mock the rest, but here goes. Abraham's action is in a separate category. Non-aggression governs human interaction. It doesn't govern human interaction with animals, nor divine interaction with humans. We can own cows and slaughter them; gods can own people and, if they wish, slaughter them. God does generally interact humanely with humans, as evidenced by His intervention on Isaac's behalf. (Slaughtering the Canaanites can be deemed inhumane, if you wish--but it's justified the same way as veal is: property rights.)
So the latter example is useless, and the second is not applicable. If God looks me in the eye and tells me to do something, I'll obey too. Since you're an atheist, you should be happy: if the set of divinities is empty, non-aggression is the only law. Meanwhile, since God isn't in the business of looking people in the eye and giving them direct orders, non-aggression is also my only law--at least until Messiah comes.
You are appealing to the assumption that "fulfilling a contract" is here synonymous with "paying a debt." Presumably, you are assuming that the "payment" in question is "his blood," i.e., the crucifixion. Both assumptions are incorrect. But I already told you that there are MANY false assumptions in your question, so why did you leap to the conclusion that the single example I gave you was an exhaustive list?
Among other things, you don't know what "contract" I'm referring to, nor (probably) what a "contract of adhesion" is, nor in what sense Jesus "fulfilled" it, nor where we're supposed to fit in. The subject would require lengthy explanation, and I'm not willing to spend the effort on a sysiphean task.
ryanpatgray:Exactly! The Deuteronomical law is no longer convenient. It now looks embarrassing and savage. But once upon a time before Yashua it would have been acceptable to kill a son for disobedience I suppose.
It has nothing to do with convenience. The new covenant supercedes the old in Christian doctrine. The law of moses is the law of the ancient Jews, not of the Christians. Christian law in regards to dealing with one another basically boils down to the non-aggression axiom.
You see, there is this sequel...
...except that there is no such book. You had better abandon this analogy.
Such blasphemy! <Facaetious, irrellevant stuff about Moby D_ck>
What the hell are you trying to do? You've gone beyond comparing apples and oranges; now you're comparing screwdrivers to imaginary numbers. You're accumulating an impressive array of fallacies. You sound silly, and your condescention is just plain juvenile.
Let me try this once more. Sticking to OBJECTIVE FACTS:
Objective fact: Scripturally sound Christian doctrine is derived exclusively from the New Testament, NOT from the Old (where "scripturally sound" refers to an interpretation of the Bible that is not internally contradictory).
Objective fact: The New Testament makes it clear that Old Testament law is not applicable to Christians. Therefore, a Christian who follows Old Testament law is not following scripturally sound Christian doctrine.
Logical conclusion: Stating that a Christian who does not embrace Old Testament law is not a true Christian is an objectively false statement; furthermore, stating that a strict follower of the New Testament is following a contradictory doctrine is also objectively false, as the New Testament clearly states that the Old Testament laws are not applicable, as mentioned above.
To Christians, the Old Testament is poetry, history, allegory, prophecy (now fulfilled) and some general good advice, as in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. It is not law.
You haven't pointed out any faulty reasoning on my part, because I haven't exhibited any. If you think you have, then you misunderstood something and wasted your effort on a straw man. Having a math PhD doesn't make me infallible, but it certainly DOES mean that I'm not going to make logical blunders that can be spotted by any arrogant rookie who wanders by.
An arrogant jerk is someone so convinced of his rightness, on one hand, and so disdainful of his disputant, that he lards his discourse with demeaning and question-begging asides. For example, an arrogant jerk doesn't refer to the "apparent contradictions" in the other's case when he can refer instead to its "infinite contradictions." And he doesn't compare the other's respected text to someone else's respected text, such as the Gita, when he can compare it instead to Mein Kampf. When he succeeds in insulting the other, he replies, "Gee, it's too bad you find the truth so insulting." He refers to his position as "the truth" at all times, of course. And so on.
Treat others with respect. In so doing you will cease to be arrogant, and in one fell swoop, cease to be arrogant as well.
Len Budney: ryanpatgray: Abraham was willing to and his child was not disobedient.Jephthah DID and his daughter was not at all disobedient.Jephthah's action is not endorsed. Every Bible student in history has either (1) condemned his action, or (2) attempted to argue that the "sacrifice" of his daughter did not involve her death. Assuming the worst, Jephthah is an example of a sociopath, and those exist but are rare--exactly as I already said.
ryanpatgray: Abraham was willing to and his child was not disobedient.Jephthah DID and his daughter was not at all disobedient.
Len Budney: Abraham's action is in a separate category. Non-aggression governs human interaction. It doesn't govern human interaction with animals, nor divine interaction with humans. We can own cows and slaughter them; gods can own people and, if they wish, slaughter them. God does generally interact humanely with humans, as evidenced by His intervention on Isaac's behalf. (Slaughtering the Canaanites can be deemed inhumane, if you wish--but it's justified the same way as veal is: property rights.)So the latter example is useless, and the second is not applicable. If God looks me in the eye and tells me to do something, I'll obey too. Since you're an atheist, you should be happy: if the set of divinities is empty, non-aggression is the only law. Meanwhile, since God isn't in the business of looking people in the eye and giving them direct orders, non-aggression is also my only law--at least until Messiah comes.
Len Budney: OK, for the sake of the non-Trinitarian Christians why would he consider it fulfilled by his son paying it when it was not his son who signed this contract? You are appealing to the assumption that "fulfilling a contract" is here synonymous with "paying a debt." Presumably, you are assuming that the "payment" in question is "his blood," i.e., the crucifixion. Both assumptions are incorrect. But I already told you that there are MANY false assumptions in your question, so why did you leap to the conclusion that the single example I gave you was an exhaustive list? Among other things, you don't know what "contract" I'm referring to, nor (probably) what a "contract of adhesion" is, nor in what sense Jesus "fulfilled" it, nor where we're supposed to fit in. The subject would require lengthy explanation, and I'm not willing to spend the effort on a sysiphean task. --Len.
So educate us non-theists. What exactly is you mean by "contract"? What other "false assumptions" does my response make?
MacFall: ryanpatgray:Exactly! The Deuteronomical law is no longer convenient. It now looks embarrassing and savage. But once upon a time before Yashua it would have been acceptable to kill a son for disobedience I suppose. It has nothing to do with convenience. The new covenant supersedes the old in Christian doctrine. The law of Moses is the law of the ancient Jews, not of the Christians. Christian law in regards to dealing with one another basically boils down to the non-aggression axiom.
MacFall: To Christians, the Old Testament is poetry, history, allegory, prophecy (now fulfilled) and some general good advice, as in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. It is not law.
MacFall: ryanpatgray: You see, there is this sequel... ...except that there is no such book. You had better abandon this analogy.
ryanpatgray: You see, there is this sequel...
MacFall: Let me try this once more. Sticking to OBJECTIVE FACTS:Objective fact: Scripturally sound Christian doctrine is derived exclusively from the New Testament, NOT from the Old (where "scripturally sound" refers to an interpretation of the Bible that is not internally contradictory).Objective fact: The New Testament makes it clear that Old Testament law is not applicable to Christians. Therefore, a Christian who follows Old Testament law is not following scripturally sound Christian doctrine.Logical conclusion: Stating that a Christian who does not embrace Old Testament law is not a true Christian is an objectively false statement; furthermore, stating that a strict follower of the New Testament is following a contradictory doctrine is also objectively false, as the New Testament clearly states that the Old Testament laws are not applicable, as mentioned above.
jimbojr:The pursuit of truth seems more effective, for lack of a better term. Opposition to what is incorrect would have us going around writing treatises about every unprovable absurdity that people conjur up - like spirits, elves, sprites, gods, etc. It seems you just have an emotionally vested interest in this particular area of religion, the sacred cow you can't allow to be touched.
Or I generally am concerned for those that are being sucked into Molyneux's cult. You decide.
Granting for the sake of argument that you're right, and every aspect of my religious views is pure irrational nonsense, the fact remains that it would take quite a long time to explain them in any depth. Three times as long with you mocking at each step of the way instead of discussing courteously. You are in effect demanding that I condense a semester's worth of material into a single post, which is impossible--and for no imaginable benefit except to gratify your wish to mock.
I must say, though, asking such a large amount of material, in a forum designed for discussion by many participants making brief posts, is pretty stupid.
Niccolò: jimbojr: The pursuit of truth seems more effective, for lack of a better term. Opposition to what is incorrect would have us going around writing treatises about every unprovable absurdity that people conjur up - like spirits, elves, sprites, gods, etc. It seems you just have an emotionally vested interest in this particular area of religion, the sacred cow you can't allow to be touched. Or I generally am concerned for those that are being sucked into Molyneux's cult. You decide.
jimbojr: The pursuit of truth seems more effective, for lack of a better term. Opposition to what is incorrect would have us going around writing treatises about every unprovable absurdity that people conjur up - like spirits, elves, sprites, gods, etc. It seems you just have an emotionally vested interest in this particular area of religion, the sacred cow you can't allow to be touched.
Could you please explain to us what exactly you mean by the word "cult" in this context?
So Jephthah should not have kept his promise to God?
See, this is the problem: you insist on discussing a subject without any of the background infomation--so much so that you pose absurdly trivial questions like this, and imagine you're making some sort of point. I'll give you three guesses what any religion would say about keeping a "promise to God" such as, "I vow to break each one of your commandments, in numerical order, twice."
If God is so powerful why couldn’t he have had Jephthah meet a chicken or a goat or something?
An even dumber question, on par with "If God is so benevolent then why does He permit cancer?" How do I know what God is thinking? If I knew that, I'd be God. Perhaps He thought it would teach the dumbass a lesson. Perhaps to see what he'd do. Perhaps any of another dozen possibilities I could come up with if I bothered to try. Probably, none of the reasons I'd come up with.
One of my concerns is abuse or misunderstanding by people who are corrupt, insane or have an hallucination...
That's a stupid concern: an insane atheist will kill you every bit as quickly as an insane theist.
Suppose George W. Bush ate some bad food at the White House one afternoon and has an hallucination. He sees a man in a long beard appear before him say “George, this is Yahweh, you don’t have much time left in office, I need you to attack Iran, now.”
Suppose he ate a spicy meat-a-ball, and hallucinated that *** Cheney was telling him Iran had launched nuclear-tipped ICBMs? And truly believed it?
Len Budney: So educate us non-theists. What exactly is you mean by "contract"? What other "false assumptions" does my response make? Granting for the sake of argument that you're right, and every aspect of my religious views is pure irrational nonsense, the fact remains that it would take quite a long time to explain them in any depth. Three times as long with you mocking at each step of the way instead of discussing courteously. You are in effect demanding that I condense a semester's worth of material into a single post, which is impossible--and for no imaginable benefit except to gratify your wish to mock. I must say, though, asking such a large amount of material, in a forum designed for discussion by many participants making brief posts, is pretty stupid. --Len.
Where have I not been courteous? I am debating ideas, not insulting people personally. I simply do not consider religion to be a sacred cow.
Asked and answered, in post ID 21959.
Your disclaimer is silly, though. I don't consider your mother a sacred cow, but I still don't refer to her as (pejorative deleted). Islam is not a sacred cow to me--indeed, it's a dangerous false religion--but I still don't refer to Mohammed as (pejorative deleted). Courtesy involes respecting others' sensibilities, not only your own.
Interesting; so you keep the parts you want (including the parts that justify your new belief) and ignore the rest. How is this not convenient?
Christians are adherents to the New Testament, which says that the Old Testament law is not applicable to followers of Jesus Christ. You believe that Christian doctrine includes following the Old Testament. That is, in point of fact, false. You are changing the definition of Christianity to suit your argument. I am using the actual definition of Christianity. In case there's ANY confusion left, let me clear things up:
Christian doctrine excludes the Old Testament law.
Doctrine that includes Old Testament law is not Christian doctrine; it is Judaic doctrine.
Christian doctrine is derived from the New Testament, which states clearly that Christian doctrine has nothing to do with Old Testament law.
Christianity is based on the gospel and the epistles, which do not endorse Old Testament Law; Judaism is based on the Torah, which IS Old Testament Law.
Christianity is not Judaism. Again, CHRISTIANITY IS NOT JUDAISM.
There, I've said it five different ways. Are you going to ignore them all and persist in erecting your strawman yet again?
ryanpatgray:Are you saying that a Christian who follows Kosher dietary laws is not a true Christian?
If they are following it as a matter of religious docrine, they are not consistently following Christian doctrine. However, following it outside of religious doctrine is a matter of preference. I follow a kosher diet more or less because I feel better physically when I do, but I don't believe I'm doing anything wrong if I eat pork or shrimp once in a while.
Len Budney: I'll give you three guesses what any religion would say about keeping a "promise to God" such as, "I vow to break each one of your commandments, in numerical order, twice."
First of all, the vow was not specifically to kill his daughter but the first thing that met him. That was his daughter. Secondly, ritual human sacrifice is not such a far fetched idea in the ancient Middle East. Besides Abraham there is the more recent example of Yashua.
Len Budney: An even dumber question, on par with "If God is so benevolent then why does He permit cancer?" How do I know what God is thinking? If I knew that, I'd be God. Perhaps He thought it would teach the dumbass a lesson. Perhaps to see what he'd do. Perhaps any of another dozen possibilities I could come up with if I bothered to try. Probably, none of the reasons I'd come up with.
Hebrews: 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 11:18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 11:19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. 11:20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come. 11:21 By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff. 11:22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones. 11:23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment. 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; 11:25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 11:26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. 11:27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible. 11:28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them. 11:29 By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned. 11:30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days. 11:31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace. 11:32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthah; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: 11:33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions.
11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Len Budney: ryanpatgray:One of my concerns is abuse or misunderstanding by people who are corrupt, insane or have an hallucination...That's a stupid concern: an insane atheist will kill you every bit as quickly as an insane theist. ryanpatgray:Suppose George W. Bush ate some bad food at the White House one afternoon and has an hallucination. He sees a man in a long beard appear before him say “George, this is Yahweh, you don’t have much time left in office, I need you to attack Iran, now.” Suppose he ate a spicy meat-a-ball, and hallucinated that *** Cheney was telling him Iran had launched nuclear-tipped ICBMs? And truly believed it?
ryanpatgray:One of my concerns is abuse or misunderstanding by people who are corrupt, insane or have an hallucination...
ryanpatgray:Suppose George W. Bush ate some bad food at the White House one afternoon and has an hallucination. He sees a man in a long beard appear before him say “George, this is Yahweh, you don’t have much time left in office, I need you to attack Iran, now.”
If he thought he was told by a real human being he would see a need to verify and he would probably even check back with Mr. Cheney who would tell him he never said such a thing.
That is the difference. Insanity without a belief in the supernatural is not as dangerous as insanity with a belief in an all powerful deity who outranks all human beings and can order a prophet to kill his son.
Len Budney: Where have I not been courteous? I am debating ideas, not insulting people personally. I simply do not consider religion to be a sacred cow. Asked and answered, in post ID 21959. Your disclaimer is silly, though. I don't consider your mother a sacred cow, but I still don't refer to her as (pejorative deleted). Islam is not a sacred cow to me--indeed, it's a dangerous false religion--but I still don't refer to Mohammed as (pejorative deleted). Courtesy involes respecting others' sensibilities, not only your own. --Len.
How do you search by post ID? Are you sure you are not confusing me with someone else? I have never used a perjoritive. This forum does delete certain words that are very odd at times. The second half of the name of Herman Mellville's most famous novel and the first name of the VPOTUS are replaced with astrisks. So is an alternative term for national-Socialists. I assure you I have never used pejoratives in this forum. How do you search for a post by post ID?
First of all, the vow was not specifically to kill his daughter but the first thing that met him. That was his daughter. Secondly, ritual human sacrifice is not such a far fetched idea in the ancient Middle East.
Give it up. Upon learning that his vow required him to sin, he was required to break it. No religion says otherwise, and in particular the Old Testament says exactly that. Further, nothing in scripture authorizes human sacrifice, let alone commands it, so attempting to impute human sacrifice to Bible believers is fallacious and dishonest. Finally, there's the minor point that Deuteronomy 12:31 forbids child sacrifice. There's no way to wring approval of child sacrifice out of Jephthah's account.
Yep, insane and hallucinating people are famously excellent fact checkers. You've certainly got me there, yes you have!
You're struggling to justify your bigotry, because you flatly refuse to be courteous to people you despise. That's OK: in a free society, the people you despise are free to despise you back, and each can avoid the other. I'll point out, though, that such division among the miniscule freedom-loving minority of humankind guarantees we'll never live to see a free society. And, secondarily, any bigot is potentially violent. Potential violence isn't actionable, but it's a good reason to keep an eye on you. If you decide to express your bigotry through aggression or the threat of aggression, hopefully you will be resisted with deadly force.
I assure you I have never used pejoratives in this forum. How do you search for a post by post ID?
For example, you said, "it is only OK to kill SOME disobedient children and not all of them. Ok, thanks for clearing that up." That's an inaccurate paraphrase that was not just sarcastic; it was condescending and extremely offensive. For the relevant post, search for "larded" on page 5. Bearing this comment of yours in mind, observe that it describes your behavior to a T.
Niccolò: jimbojr:The pursuit of truth seems more effective, for lack of a better term. Opposition to what is incorrect would have us going around writing treatises about every unprovable absurdity that people conjur up - like spirits, elves, sprites, gods, etc. It seems you just have an emotionally vested interest in this particular area of religion, the sacred cow you can't allow to be touched. Or I generally am concerned for those that are being sucked into Molyneux's cult. You decide.
Do you consider dancing back and forth between ad hominem to be a vialbe intellectual pursuit?
In trying to decide, as you suggest, I find myself confused by your lack of consistency.
Niccolo: " Alright, I've made some similar references to Stefan Molyneux - mistakenly - and I'm certain that were I to have any further discussions with Molyneux we would do very little but butt-heads, but his work isn't really cultist or even similar to the types of behaviors observed in the Charles Manson's or the Applegate's of the world."
"...That being said, however, I respect Molyneux as a voice of interest, wit, intelligence, and value to the broader libertarian movement and consider serious allegations of cultism to be of little substance."
"Second, Molyneux's behavior isn't actually typical of any kind of cult leader"
"Then again, however, the idea of "cult" is thrown around so lightly these days almost anything can be called a cult. As far as I can tell, however, under the specific guidelines qualifying a "political cult" - excessive fund raising, ends justifying means, etc. - Molyneux doesn't qualify."
http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/permalink/117364/117607/ShowThread.aspx#117607
Perhaps after being banned from FDR for making baseless claims and ad homs, you saw the real light and decided it was actually a cult. Or perhaps, better yet, it came by divine revelation - which is considered by you to be a vialbe method of obtaining knowledge?
Len Budney: First of all, the vow was not specifically to kill his daughter but the first thing that met him. That was his daughter. Secondly, ritual human sacrifice is not such a far fetched idea in the ancient Middle East. Give it up. Upon learning that his vow required him to sin, he was required to break it. No religion says otherwise, and in particular the Old Testament says exactly that. Further, nothing in scripture authorizes human sacrifice, let alone commands it, so attempting to impute human sacrifice to Bible believers is fallacious and dishonest. Finally, there's the minor point that Deuteronomy 12:31 forbids child sacrifice. There's no way to wring approval of child sacrifice out of Jephthah's account.
By that same logic Abraham was required to disobey his order. Did he fail his test?
Len Budney:If he thought he was told by a real human being he would see a need to verify and he would probably even check back with Mr. Cheney who would tell him he never said such a thing. Yep, insane and hallucinating people are famously excellent fact checkers. You've certainly got me there, yes you have!
As stated earlier it is possible for someone who is not insane to halucinate.
Len Budney: You're struggling to justify your bigotry, because you flatly refuse to be courteous to people you despise.
I am not a bigot, I am not intollerant of people of faith nor do I "dispise them". I am not even the one who started this debate. I tried to avoid it (look early in this thread). Just because I do not believe in your faith does not mean I hate you. Again, where have I ever been incourteous?
Len Budney: That's OK: in a free society, the people you despise are free to despise you back, and each can avoid the other.
If you wish to avoid non-theists that is fine. I do not avoid people of faith. I have nothing against them and usualy do not talk about faith with them. Again, look early in this thread, I tried to avoid getting into this whole debate. I only did so when pressed.
Len Budney: And, secondarily, any bigot is potentially violent. Potential violence isn't actionable, but it's a good reason to keep an eye on you. If you decide to express your bigotry through aggression or the threat of aggression, hopefully you will be resisted with deadly force.
Again, I am no bigot and in any case it has been non-believers of one kind or another who have been the ones who have had to "watch their back".