Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Religion
Register FAQ Chat Social Groups Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-02-2014, 05:01 PM   #601
devyn
Senior Member
 
devyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
again, those two quotes of mine don't mean the same thing.
You missed the question, so I will ask again.

Do sons get punished for the sins of their fathers or not?
devyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 05:04 PM   #602
bikerdruid
Senior Member
 
bikerdruid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: north peace bioregion of north america's great boreal forest
Posts: 21,030
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by devyn View Post
You missed the question, so I will ask again.

Do sons get punished for the sins of their fathers or not?
depends on which book of the bible you are reading, but of course, there are no contradictions.
__________________
Subvert the Dominant Paradigm!
bikerdruid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 05:07 PM   #603
tomereader
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The voice of raisin in currant affairs
Posts: 2,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oh_me View Post
For example, do yo have a medical reason why the Egyptian babies died as a result of the Pharoah's genetic make-up? Or any moral reason? Or was it simply because God has the right to take it out on who he wants to?

God didn't like what specimen A had done, so he decides to punish lots of people that had nothing to do with the sin.
Well, as I don't take the Bible literally (or think it a consistent thing) that isn't really my problem, is it.

My own take on that, if I was being generous, would be that the story is a metaphorical parable attempting to describe the same thing - that the repercussions of 'sin' often hurts those who do not commit the 'sin'.

A similar line could be taken towards the Canaanites or Sodomites. Or you could even see it literally as the extermination of a defective genepool that leads to attrocious behaviour (if you take the view that behaviour is more nature than nurture).

For me, the problem is not what the Bible "says". The problem (or not) is in how it is interpreted by Jews, Christians, Muslims and Baha'i. Some (both Christian or anti-Christian) may interpret it as "God" blasting the innocent in a fit of pique. Others may interpret as "God" representing cause and effect and, through metaphor, seeking to describe how innocents are hurt through the unintended consequences of the committer of a bad act.

In the end we are trying to look for a consistent line in an inconsistent book, and we simply are not going to find one. So all we have left, really, is whether we are going to treat its believers with a generosity of spirit or whether we are going to mock them because we are as idiotic as the worst of them.

Last edited by tomereader; 06-02-2014 at 05:11 PM.
tomereader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 05:09 PM   #604
seanx
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,991
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomereader View Post
He didn't liken his "God" to a crack-addict.

He likened his "God" to cause-and-effect which leads to the crack-addict's child suffering the consequences of the crack-addict parent's choices.
Rubbish.

Logos is referring to a god punishing a group of people indiscriminately for a leader's failure.

wHAT we have in the baby's case is a law of health and wellbeing.

God IS NOT PUNISHING the child- what has happened is that a fundamental LAW of health has been broken with the attendant results.

We are not punished for our sins ( our ignorance of the law) but by our sins
( our refusal to follow the laws of health in this case)

Logos's idea of a god watching and judging everybody every minute of the day
waiting for them to commit sins ....and then PUNISH them is dark ages nonsense.

Stop encouraging him in his ignorance.
seanx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 05:10 PM   #605
logos880
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by devyn View Post
You missed the question, so I will ask again.

Do sons get punished for the sins of their fathers or not?
no.
__________________
a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
logos880 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 05:11 PM   #606
seanx
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,991
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oh_me View Post
I think he is trying to justify God's right to instigate a punishment on something that has no connection to the supposed crime. When questioned about it, he tries to then use an example of a crack addict leading to their child suffering. One is a natural consequence, the other is a desire of God that is an apparent solution to what God abhors. God doesn't like what specimen A does, so he punishes specimen B, which has no connection to specimen A. I would liken that to a serial killer going around a city killing random people at will.
As usual, Oh-me has it dead on correct!
seanx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 05:14 PM   #607
logos880
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seanx View Post
As usual, Oh-me has it dead on correct!
no, not an accurate accounting of my position here.
__________________
a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
logos880 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 05:14 PM   #608
chunky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 684
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
I thought you didn't want to play word games.
One should always make time for a little humour. It does you good.

I know you'll never admit it but you're basically likening your god (I know it's not the right word so do feel free to argue semantics all you wish) to a crack addict because your god is behaving much worse than the crack addict. Or, as ohme pointed out, he's behaving more like a serial killer. Although I cant help thinking a war criminal is more appropriate.

It's a bit like when Christians bring up Communist Russia to try and discredit atheism because they actually think they're arguing a valid point but all they're really saying is that they're no worse than the communists, or in this case - God is no worse than a crack addict.

I know the argument isnt completely the same so please dont argue it's a strawman, it's the sentiment that's similar. You both think you're arguing a good point but all you're really saying, to anyone who isnt a fundie, is that your god is no worse than a crack addict.

And that really is all I have time for.
chunky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 05:15 PM   #609
tomereader
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The voice of raisin in currant affairs
Posts: 2,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seanx View Post
Rubbish.

Logos is referring to a god punishing a group of people indiscriminately for a leader's failure.
He has said several times that in his interpretation of scripture the innocent are not "punished" for the sins of others, but that they do get caught in the consequences.
tomereader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 05:16 PM   #610
seanx
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,991
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomereader View Post
Well, as I don't take the Bible literally (or think it a consistent thing) that isn't really my problem, is it.

My own take on that, if I was being generous, would be that the story is a metaphorical parable attempting to describe the same thing - that the repercussions of 'sin' often hurts those who do not commit the 'sin'.

A similar line could be taken towards the Canaanites or Sodomites. Or you could even see it literally as the extermination of a defective genepool that leads to attrocious behaviour (if you take the view that behaviour is more nature than nurture).

For me, the problem is not what the Bible "says". The problem (or not) is in how it is interpreted by Jews, Christians, Muslims and Baha'i. Some (both Christian or anti-Christian) may interpret it as "God" blasting the innocent in a fit of pique. Others may interpret as "God" representing cause and effect and, through metaphor, seeking to describe how innocents are hurt through the unintended consequences of the committer of a bad act.

In the end we are trying to look for a consistent line in an inconsistent book, and we simply are not going to find one. So all we have left, really, is whether we are going to treat its believers with a generosity of spirit or whether we are going to mock them because we are as idiotic as the worst of them.
Good post, there ! Some decent points.

I think most of these things were 'metaphors' .....but the problem has been they are all taken literally by the fundamentalists.........
with the horrendous results that history has recorded.

Last edited by seanx; 06-02-2014 at 05:17 PM.
seanx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 05:17 PM   #611
tomereader
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The voice of raisin in currant affairs
Posts: 2,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chunky View Post
I know the argument isnt completely the same so please dont argue it's a strawman, it's the sentiment that's similar. You both think you're arguing a good point but all you're really saying, to anyone who isnt a fundie, is that your god is no worse than a crack addict.
He so obviously is NOT saying that; as I have already pointed out to you (and to which you responded with immature jibes...which speaks volumes really, doesn't it).

Last edited by tomereader; 06-02-2014 at 05:17 PM.
tomereader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 05:17 PM   #612
logos880
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chunky View Post
One should always make time for a little humour. It does you good.

I know you'll never admit it but you're basically likening your god (I know it's not the right word so do feel free to argue semantics all you wish) to a crack addict because your god is behaving much worse than the crack addict. Or, as ohme pointed out, he's behaving more like a serial killer. Although I cant help thinking a war criminal is more appropriate.

It's a bit like when Christians bring up Communist Russia to try and discredit atheism because they actually think they're arguing a valid point but all they're really saying is that they're no worse than the communists, or in this case - God is no worse than a crack addict.

I know the argument isnt completely the same so please dont argue it's a strawman, it's the sentiment that's similar. You both think you're arguing a good point but all you're really saying, to anyone who isnt a fundie, is that your god is no worse than a crack addict.

And that really is all I have time for.
no, as tomereader already correctly pointed out to you, I'm not "likening [my] god (I know it's not the right word so do feel free to argue semantics all you wish) to a crack addict." it's not the Creator's responsibility if a mother uses crack while pregnant. the crack addict is akin to pharaoh.
__________________
a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Last edited by logos880; 06-02-2014 at 05:18 PM.
logos880 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 05:20 PM   #613
chunky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 684
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
no, as tomereader already correctly pointed out to you, I'm not "likening [my] god (I know it's not the right word so do feel free to argue semantics all you wish) to a crack addict." it's not the Creator's responsibility if a mother uses crack while pregnant. the crack addict is akin to pharaoh.
chunky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 05:22 PM   #614
logos880
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chunky View Post
^projection. the irony is palpable.
__________________
a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
logos880 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 05:24 PM   #615
seanx
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,991
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomereader View Post
He has said several times that in his interpretation of scripture the innocent are not "punished" for the sins of others, but that they do get caught in the consequences.
NO, he is saying God punished them.

Because some bloke made a mistake as a leader. And that is how he is justifying God destroying all these people.

But, of course, it's all dark age nonsense of people, in the past looking to 'gods' for the cause of all good and all bad things.

if our political leaders fuck up and don't understand the basic laws of the economy, yes we all suffer, but THAT is not God
punishing us, it is our own collective ignorance and failure to apply the laws that govern good economic management.

Last edited by seanx; 06-02-2014 at 05:25 PM.
seanx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 05:26 PM   #616
tomereader
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The voice of raisin in currant affairs
Posts: 2,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seanx View Post
NO, he is saying God punished them.

Because some bloke made a mistake as a leader. And that is how he is justifying God destroying all these people.

But, of course, it's all dark age nonsense of people, in the past looking to 'gods' for the cause of all good and all bad things.

if our political leader fuck up and don't understand the basic laws of the economy, yes we all suffer, but THAT is not God
punishing us, it is our own ignorance and failure to apply the laws that govern good economic management.
Maybe that is part of what "God" is......

Last edited by tomereader; 06-02-2014 at 05:26 PM.
tomereader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 05:28 PM   #617
oh_me
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,411
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomereader View Post

My own take on that, if I was being generous, would be that the story is a metaphorical parable attempting to describe the same thing - that the repercussions of 'sin' often hurts those who do not commit the 'sin'.
There are natural repercussions, of course. TB can rear its ugly head and affect lots of people who are not connected with each other. The argument simply goes too far when someone is taking the stories from a literal pov. Then we can begin imagining that this great Order that God is meant to be is akin to it purposely executing your partner for what Jimmy Saville did. Or anyone not connected with Saville's crimes.


Quote:
A similar line could be taken towards the Canaanites or Sodomites. Or you could even see it literally as the extermination of a defective genepool that leads to attrocious behaviour (if you take the view that behaviour is more nature than nurture).
oh yeah, we'd have to believe every word of the Jewish account of the events!

And why hasn't this genepool exterminated greed, if that is how God would act?



Quote:
For me, the problem is not what the Bible "says". The problem (or not) is in how it is interpreted by Jews, Christians, Muslims and Baha'i. Some (both Christian or anti-Christian) may interpret it as "God" blasting the innocent in a fit of pique. Others may interpret as "God" representing cause and effect and, through metaphor, seeking to describe how innocents are hurt through the unintended consequences of the committer of a bad act.

In the end we are trying to look for a consistent line in an inconsistent book, and we simply are not going to find one. So all we have left, really, whether we are going to treat its believers with a generosity of spirit or whether we are going to mock them because we are as idiotic as the worst of them.
Interpretation is what it is all about, for sure. That in one hand, and a bit more reasoning in the other. I only tend to get in a 'mocking' kind of mood when someone mocks my own common sense, or treats my opinion as below their own. Some people, like the Pope and logos here, think their interpretation is infallible.
oh_me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 05:29 PM   #618
logos880
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seanx View Post
NO, he is saying God punished them.
no I'm not, I've said half a dozen times already in this thread that innocents aren't punished by G-d. innocents aren't punished by G-d. innocents aren't punished by G-d.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seanx View Post
Because some bloke made a mistake as a leader. And that is how he is justifying God destroying all these people.

But, of course, it's all dark age nonsense of people, in the past looking to 'gods' for the cause of all good and all bad things.

if our political leaders fuck up and don't understand the basic laws of the economy, yes we all suffer, but THAT is not God
punishing us, it is our own collective ignorance and failure to apply the laws that govern good economic management.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomereader View Post
Maybe that is part of what "God" is......
I don't understand why this point seems to escape everyone but you and me.
__________________
a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
logos880 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 05:32 PM   #619
seanx
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,991
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by logos880 View Post
no, as tomereader already correctly pointed out to you, I'm not "likening [my] god (I know it's not the right word so do feel free to argue semantics all you wish) to a crack addict." it's not the Creator's responsibility if a mother uses crack while pregnant. the crack addict is akin to pharaoh.
Yes, but it is your creator's responsibility that he created the biology of little babies that they are totally at the mercy of the behaviour of their mothers!

He could easily has done otherwise.

You want it both ways. Your god is never to blame - but here he clearly is- he created a product with a huge default problem.
seanx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 05:34 PM   #620
seanx
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,991
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomereader View Post
Maybe that is part of what "God" is......
Not with at all with that point.........
seanx is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:09 PM.