TV Tropes Org
site search
The Bible back to reviews
Comments
I'm sorry, but no
I've tried to see the christian POV. I've tried to pretend that all the evil of this book was due to mistranslations and other interpretations. But I'm sorry, no.

The Bible is an EVIL, evil book.

Yahweh comes across as celestial Stalin mixed with Ranavalona on steroids, all "good morals" are better stated in Aesop's fables, all "Fair For Its Day" crap was unjustifiable, since this book is supposed to be intemporal and appliable for the modern era.

I'm gong to give credit where it is due: I love all the mythological creatures, specially the Ezekiel angels. But other than that, it simply needs to suffer the fate His Dark Materials and Harry Potter copies all suffer.
Something tells me that this is not going to end well... xDD
comment #15916 kay4today 26th Aug 12
[T]his book is supposed to be intemporal and appliable for the modern era.

What led you to believe that? Many books (such as Leviticus) were outdated and no longer applicable by the time they were put down in book form.
comment #15917 doctrainAUM 26th Aug 12
Yet another review like this? I'll credit the reviewer for trying, but it sounds like they either got confused about all the mistranslations and incorrect interpretations (admittedly easy to do) or they're Completely Missing The Point. Oh well.
comment #15940 shiro_okami 28th Aug 12
I think it would make more sense (and perhaps be less Flame Baity) to review individual books of the Bible, or even individual narratives within those books.

While I'm aware it's customary to refer to "the Bible" as if it were one big unified book, the fact is that it isn't. First, even traditional Jews and Christians acknowledge that it wasn't one author—not even God—who wrote the whole thing, Jewish and Christian scriptures. (At most, traditionalists believe that God, via Moses, authored five of the books, i.e. the Torah, aka Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses. That still leaves many books they admit to being the work of many different authors.) Second, modern-day, non-traditionalist scholarship has shown that biblical authors not only stemmed from different times and places, but had varying, even at times, competing religious and political agendas in what they wrote. Third, and most important, reviewing individual works or narratives within the Bible makes it clear that it isn't all God, and those speaking for God, going "Blagh smite smite smite." There's a fair bit of that, yes, but there are also many passages (and not just in the "New Testament") which preach compassion, social equity, and other good things. Really, there are. I've checked.
comment #15941 AliceMacher 28th Aug 12
Not to mention the Bible is an ongoing narrative rather than a straight up rule book. Reviews like these (as well as the headscratchers/just bugs me section) is pretty passive aggressive. Fun fact, however, many scholars believe that Biblical Literalism wasn't the way the Bible was read until the late 20th century. (This actually makes non-literalism look bad)
comment #15943 son 28th Aug 12
I actually think from the comments that it's the same can't view pass my ideologies or can't have my beliefs be criticized issue all over again. If you stop and view it as any other review you would find that it's difficult to almost impossible to discuss the review's points to begin with, simply because of the lack of elaboration, description and or explanation. Why did Yahweh came out as a celestial Stalin mixed with Ranavalona on steroids?
comment #15947 marcellX 29th Aug 12
Indeed, there are no examples given. These are commonly raised objections, but without examples then they're just assertions here.
comment #15948 Tuckerscreator 29th Aug 12
Sorry for the absence. I will entertain your inquiries/insults and hypocrisy:

@shiro: Rather hypocrital you say that. I've seen other comments from you on this matter, and you reject things like the fact that homosexuality isn't listed as a sin in the otiginal hebrew and so forth. But alas, genocides, plagues and direct torture (Whore of Babylon, anyone?) are applied by Yahweh directly. You can't brush these off as "mistranslations" because they occur even in the oldest Dead Sea Scrolls.

@Alice: The problem is that the Bible is treated as if there were no inconsistencies, as if it was an unified work.

@son: True, but a literalist interpretation is currently omnipresent in Christianity.

@marcell: Indeed I should have elaborated better. But frankly, given how iconic his shenigans are, and how his praising is similar to propaganda, I assumed I didn't need to repeat ad nausuem.
comment #16447 Peryton 12th Oct 12
@Peryton I think you need to give something to show, or else you will get nowhere in debate. (i.e. if you have something to show how prevalent literalism or inerracy are). In my personal experience, all the religious scholars and preachers I know (I have worked at churches as a media technician), none of them considered the bible to be a unified book. To be fair, these were the less dogmatic denominations (Presbyterian, Methodist, etc). All that said, if you have some sort of evidence, source, or anything like that about prevalency/amount/commonality of literalism. That's how you contradict my anecdotal evidence. I know there are people like the Southern Baptist convention who have this idea, but we don't have data (in this thread) for anyone else.
comment #16449 fenrisulfur 12th Oct 12
The Bible reveals a specific God with certain characteristics: just, wrathful, jealous, powerful, wise, merciful, gracious, loving, good. These descriptions are all used irrespective of human definitions, but rather with respect to God's nature. While you can argue that God's expectations about adherence and obedience are fascism, this is only in light of human sentimentality. The Bible defines standards based on God's characteristics, and as a result the punishment he metes is in accordance with perfect justice, and the love he displays is in accordance with perfect love, etc.

The Bible acts in part as a way to show standards for goodness, justice, and perfection, according to God. If you disagree with those standards (as you're free to do), the result will be that God appears evil; however, God in the Bible is internally consistent. Any other result is achieved through an external lens.
comment #16450 JobanGrayskull 12th Oct 12
@fenrisulfur: Here's a list of the most obvious contraditcions:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Feel free to deride the site if you want. But I've read the greek versions, and the inconsistensies are still there.

@Joban Grayskull: Except God's standards are inconsistent. In some books he is is sincerily merciful, in orders a minor offense triggers his temper like someone just raped a child or something.
comment #17071 Peryton 4th Dec 12
  • others
comment #17072 Peryton 4th Dec 12
I apologize, I needed to clarify. I was asking for data of how common literalism is. The contradictions support your theory if most Christians support literalism.
comment #17074 fenrisulfur 4th Dec 12
Well that's what I'm saying, "sincerely merciful" and "minor offense" are based on human perception. The way we see and interpret events is completely different from the way a transcendent, omniscient God sees events. We can't know what it's like to be God, so we can't know entirely how he operates or perceives the universe.

And like I said, you don't have to believe in God or agree that his actions are justified. But people who do believe it concede that God is perfect while humans are not, thus it doesn't ultimately matter what humans think about mercy, justice, moral standards, etc. Just trying to offer a different perspective on the matter. I'm honestly not trying to troll or start a flame war, just so you know.
comment #17076 JobanGrayskull 5th Dec 12
isn't that a textbook description of blindly and mindlessly following, not to mention fallacious?
comment #17078 marcellX 5th Dec 12
^ How is it fallacious? If God created all things, he also created morals, so that alone would make him the authority on what is right or wrong. (Of course, that wouldn't matter to anybody who doesn't believe in God.) And it's not any more "blindly and mindlessly following" than somebody would "blindly and mindlessly follow" the instructions to using a tool or taking medicine.
comment #17084 shiro_okami 5th Dec 12
Ok here's the first huge error is that statement (well not the first but the biggest one). You don't blindly and mindlessly follow the instructions of a tool, if you buy an electronic and it says put the plug in the toaster and turn it on, you'll notice that something is wrong, and medicine is one of the things people are more wary at, and as such often require a n explanation of what it does, how it works and why should they be taking it. Now about being fallacious, it is so because it's following not following the notion that God only does just, fair and or good things, but that things he did are just, fair and good "because" God did it, read Appeal To Authority and Circular Reasoning.
comment #17092 marcellX 6th Dec 12
Also can we finally stop with the the whole it wouldn't matter to anybody who doesn't believe in God, etc. etc. since after all it's obviously implied already, as it in in any discussion about religion.
comment #17093 marcellX 6th Dec 12
It's neither of those two fallacies. God is good by definition, and all moral standards are based on God's nature. God doesn't "only do good things," because that would mean God is abiding by an external moral law, which defies the transcendent and non-contingent definition of God. On the other hand, God doesn't arbitrarily decide what is good; the things God commands and does are objectively good because they reflect his nature, which is objectively good. This logical dilemma only arises from an improper definition or understanding of God. God is not bound to the rules of logic; those rules instead are rooted in God's nature. It's a lot easier to imagine God as a bearded man in the sky making up rules, but that's a gross over-simplification.
comment #17096 JobanGrayskull 6th Dec 12
For reference, this is called the "Euthyphro Dilemma:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
comment #17097 JobanGrayskull 6th Dec 12
an that is why I try to stay away from this kind of discussions. All I saw was reasons why it was indeed a fallacy in your argument, but again sadly this looks like it'll slow degrade again to a belief war as I stated above.

God is good by definition, and all moral standards are based on God's nature.
God doesn't "only do good things," because that would mean God is abiding by an external moral law

those two statements are contradictory

God doesn't arbitrarily decide what is good; the things God commands and does are objectively good because they reflect his nature, which is objectively good.

again, Circular Reasoning, God decides what is good, why is it good, because God says it is and he's good by nature, why is God good by nature, because he decides what's good, which then falls into Appeal To Authority which has been the issue with the "because God/the bible" says so.
comment #17100 marcellX 6th Dec 12
in fact all 3 things I quoted are contradictory
comment #17101 marcellX 6th Dec 12
Those two aren't contradictory. They're both saying that God doesn't abide by a separate moral law existing apart from him, the way we do. God is not free to defy his own nature, meaning that he isn't going to the moral cafeteria and picking out the ones he likes while discarding the rest. Good is what it is in this world because God created the world in accordance with his nature. If you disagree that God's nature is good, then that is one thing, but we all must agree on what we are disagreeing on before we can agree to disagree on it.
comment #17107 luomo 6th Dec 12
Those two aren't contradictory.

God doesn't "only do good things"
the things God commands and does are objectively good because they reflect his nature

saying that God doesn't abide by a separate moral law existing apart from him, the way we do

and we're using "his" moral law as the example not another, and that's where it becomes fallacious in a do as I say not as I do kind of way, you guys are focusing too much on there being something over God, which is not where I'm coming from, so can you discuss with me.
comment #17108 marcellX 6th Dec 12
It's not "do as I say, not as I do" at all, because God demands that humans be exactly like him, i.e. perfect, in order to be in his presence. God demands perfection because God is perfectly just, and to allow imperfection in his presence would be a lapse of justice. That would be a contradiction of God's nature, and that itself would be logically fallacious. Because our personal lens on the actions of God leads us to interpret them as mean-spirited, unjust, or cruel does not make them so. In fact, it is we who arbitrarily apply personal moral standards to God's actions to reach such a conclusion. And we don't have the power to apply those standards meaningfully, because we are not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, transcendent, non-contingent, and perfect.
comment #17110 JobanGrayskull 6th Dec 12
For example, we might try to fault God for killing "innocent" humans. However, humans are guilty of transgression against God (sin), and the Bible (since that is the topic of discussion) clearly states that the penalty for sin is death. The fact that humans are allowed to live, make free choices, and come to believe in God for salvation is an act of mercy and patience on the part of God. God killing so-called innocent humans is not the same as murder, because God has prerogative to take a life that is guilty of transgression, but humans do not have the same prerogative (in general). Our notions of justice, which reflect the perfect justice of God, allows that sometimes it is acceptable to kill another human without guilt.
comment #17111 JobanGrayskull 6th Dec 12
Now about being fallacious, it is so because it's following not following the notion that God only does just, fair and or good things, but that things he did are just, fair and good because God did it, read Appeal To Authority and Circular Reasoning.

God essentially defines what is right and wrong because he's the creator. If that qualifies as Circular Reasoning, SO WHAT? What is your point, then?
comment #17116 shiro_okami 6th Dec 12
Oh, I forgot, your point was that it was fallacious right? Then I suppose that means that in this case that example of Circular Reasoning doesn't qualify as a fallacy (even if it does qualify as a fallacy to human logic, it would only mean that there exists logic beyond human comprehension). After all, God created logic, too.
comment #17117 shiro_okami 6th Dec 12
And we don't have the power to apply those standards meaningfully, because we are not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, transcendent, non-contingent, and perfect.

first of all that sounds more like a divine being in all aspects is the only one allowed to deem moralities, regardless of the topic.

Because our personal lens on the actions of God leads us to interpret them as mean-spirited, unjust, or cruel does not make them so.

And as I already said I'm talking about God's own rules, which when not followed by him then fall into Appeal To Authority and it's ok when I do it, which is the same premise of do as I said not as I do.

the Bible (since that is the topic of discussion) clearly states that the penalty for sin is death.

which was goes with Peryton's argument about minor offences, which with what you just said are treated the same as major ones.

The fact that humans are allowed to live, make free choices, and come to believe in God for salvation is an act of mercy and patience on the part of God.

I'm truly sorry but how is this part relevant again? without it it sounds more like preaching.

God essentially defines what is right and wrong because he's the creator. If that qualifies as Circular Reasoning, SO WHAT? What is your point, then?

My point has always been that it's a fallacy, it's not my fault that you're such a bad debater prone to taking this things too personally, I mean cmon, so what? you were the one who said it wasn't. That's like taking the review currently bellow this one Adventure Quest Worlds: AQ Worlds: A Review that the reviewer say it's elaborate, prove how it's not then for him to go, ok it's not elaborate, SO WHAT?

Oh, I forgot, your point was that it was fallacious right? Then I suppose that means that in this case that example of Circular Reasoning doesn't qualify as a fallacy (even if it does qualify as a fallacy to human logic, it would only mean that there exists logic beyond human comprehension). After all, God created logic, too.

sigh, you know what I'm done with you if you're gonna be like this in every discussion about religion I'm just gonna simply not waste my time and ignore you, I mean you used the same fallacies I was talking about as an argument.
comment #17121 marcellX 6th Dec 12
^ I probably should have thought of this before, but your argument appears to presume that God does everything on a whim. He has a reason for everything he does, even if it's not obvious to humans. Of course, the discussion would then boil down to "If God's action is moral because of X, why is X moral?"

And as I already said I'm talking about God's own rules, which when not followed by him then fall into Appeal To Authority and it's ok when I do it, which is the same premise of do as I said not as I do.

This statement makes no sense. God always follows his own rules.
comment #17139 shiro_okami 7th Dec 12
The problem with your assertions is that Yahweh's moral code is not only at times nonsensical, it is frequently self contraditory.

This makes his followship even more like the population in a dictatorship.
comment #17168 Peryton 10th Dec 12
...Thing is, if we define "good" as "the code set forth by God", does that mean there's no such thing as good acts without God, and every evil act is against it? Does that entail that an atheist or even a Satanist cannot possibly help an old lady across the street or give a 20 to a homeless man? Does that mean that the murder of that abortion doctor was perfectly justified? And relevant to that, what if someone does something that complies with one commandment but contradicts another? Say that you have insane nutbag parents, and you come home from school beat up, and they tell you they will send you to school with a gun to get rid of the one responsible. The choice is to either lie/betray your elders, which is breaking two laws, or to have the other kid murdered, which is breaking another. Obviously, to our perception, of course we'd lie to them and probably report them to the police or someone. But does that mean some commandments take priority over others? How do we judge that? Is the inherent nature of God's moral code flexible in the slightest, or are his ten all-encompassing laws equal without fail?

And for that matter, what specifically states that godliness is what we should strive to? Why is what we should do what this one guy says for us to do?

There's also the whole ridiculously confusing Jesus matter in which God manifests as a person born from a virgin (I can only imagine how hard Mary was freaking out from that) and manipulates matters so that we torture and kill said manifestation, and somehow that means we're all forgiven for our actions and we all go to Heaven now, and that in and of itself seems to contradict things heavily, but that's neither here nor there.
comment #17174 GyraSolune 10th Dec 12
No, there is a such thing as good acts "without God," if by that you mean not performed directly by God's hand (which is what your wording suggests). That's part of what it means to be made "in God's image." We have essential qualities that directly reflect the nature of God, irrespective of our personal beliefs. Unbelief does not prevent good actions. That is, at least, the explanation from a theist perspective. On the other side of the coin, theists are equally susceptible to performing evil acts. As believers are specifically called to reject sin and be holy, evil acts on the part of a believer are arguably much worse. Belief doesn't confer perfection, it merely gives justification in the eyes of God despite sin (according to the Bible).

As for the insane parents...it's true that "honor your father and mother" is a commandment. (Incidentally, reporting them to the police would not be breaking another commandment, as it wouldn't be false witness against them.) However, the pertinent issue is that they are directing you to disobey another commandment. Ultimately, we answer to God and not parents. We are not told to unquestioningly obey every command given by a parent or authority figure; Jesus even said he came to turn a man against his father. The short answer is to obey the spirit of the law, not the letter.

The reason we should do what one guy says we should do is because he created the universe and us, and has a detailed understanding of us on an individual level. If God is omniscient and benevolent, it makes sense that his instructions will lead to the best possible ends for us. Paul wrote to Timothy, "But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness." Even a non-theist can embrace most of those as positive things to pursue (godliness and faith, obviously, being the exceptions).

And to address your not-here-nor-there point about Jesus, I've heard it appropriately described as a sort of metaphysical logic bomb that solves the necessary and sufficient conditions that allow humans to enter God's presence. I won't deny that it's basically impossible to wrap the brain around entirely. But the same is true of a lot of matters dealing with God due to our finite minds and the nature of affairs that exist on a level outside of the universe to which we are constrained. We can't understand the mechanics, but the fundamental idea of fulfilled justice is something we can grasp, and the important part.
comment #17176 JobanGrayskull 10th Dec 12
Yahweh's moral code is not only at times nonsensical, it is frequently self contradictory.

How so?
comment #17179 shiro_okami 10th Dec 12
Consider his statements and actions in the Old Testament, The New Testament and Revelation. Compare each statement, and you'll see that Yahweh's opinions in the OT and Revelation are at great contrast with his opinions in Revelation.

To say nothing on self contradictory messages within the NT. See his opinion on laws on Acts, 1 Peter and Romans.
comment #17197 Peryton 11th Dec 12
Consider his statements and actions in the Old Testament, The New Testament and Revelation. Very, very broad spectrum that we can't be expect to entirely search in a short amount of time. Be more specific in verses.
comment #17198 Tuckerscreator 11th Dec 12
Here's some more specific instances:

Does Yahweh consider sacrifice necessary? (Genesis 4:4, 8:20 and 15:9, Exodus 20:24 and 29:11-37, Leviticus, Psalms 40:6, 50:13 and 51:16, Isaiah 1:11 and 66:3, Matthew 9:13 and 12:7) You might answer with the bullshit "Oh, but that was before Jesus" Read the context; it all speak of sacrifice as a concept in itself, especially the last.

On divorce. (Deuteronomy 24:1/2, 1 Corinthians 7:15, Matthew 19:6/9)

Kindness versus being a Knight Templar (Exodus 23:4, Proverbs 25:21, several Psalms, Lamentations 3:64-66)

You go to Heaven regardless of you being a good person, so long as you believe? (Mark 16:16, John 3:18/36, Acts 16:30/31, multiple Romans verses, Psalm 62:12, Proverbs 10:16, Ecclesiastes 12:14, Jeremiah 17:10, Ezekiel 18:27/30, several Matthew verses)

Honestly, to say there are no contradictions in the Bible is the biggest evidence for all thoses statistics about "heathens" knowing more about the Bible than christians.
comment #17215 Peryton 12th Dec 12
Does Yahweh consider sacrifice necessary? (Genesis 4:4, 8:20 and 15:9, Exodus 20:24 and 29:11-37, Leviticus, Psalms 40:6, 50:13 and 51:16, Isaiah 1:11 and 66:3, Matthew 9:13 and 12:7) You might answer with the bullshit "Oh, but that was before Jesus" Read the context; it all speak of sacrifice as a concept in itself, especially the last.

The verses in Psalms, Isaiah, and Matthew refer to the Jews' habitual tendency to completely miss the point of the Mosaic Law, such as making material sacrifices but failing to fulfill its more important points. (Matthew 23:23) Also, the verses in Isaiah refer to a time when the Israelites were offering lame animals with defects (when they were supposed to offer the best they had). It wasn't the sacrifice itself God disapproved but rather the spirit and motivation behind it.

On divorce. (Deuteronomy 24:1/2, 1 Corinthians 7:15, Matthew 19:6/9)

These scriptures refer to three different circumstances. 1 Corinthians refers to an unbeliever who doesn't have the same standards as the Christian and wants to leave or get a divorce. Even though God would want the marriage to stay together, he won't force the unbeliever to stay in it. As for Deuteronomy and Matthew, as inferred in Matthew the Mosaic Law was not in any way a perfect reflection of God's intended standards for humans, God instead at that time choosing to regulate certain practices (divorce, polygamy, slavery) instead of abolishing them completely.

Kindness versus being a Knight Templar (Exodus 23:4, Proverbs 25:21, several Psalms, Lamentations 3:64-66)

Not seeing a contradiction here. Lamentations is in a different context.

You go to Heaven regardless of you being a good person, so long as you believe? (Mark 16:16, John 3:18/36, Acts 16:30/31, multiple Romans verses, Psalm 62:12, Proverbs 10:16, Ecclesiastes 12:14, Jeremiah 17:10, Ezekiel 18:27/30, several Matthew verses)

If you're pointing out a contradiction here too, I'm not seeing it. Also, I'm not really sure I understand your question, are you asking if good people get resurrected with unending life if they are good regardless if they believe or not, or if they do believe even if they are not a good person?
comment #17224 shiro_okami 12th Dec 12
1- In the Leviticus Yahweh makes clear that, while not technically needing sacrifice, it demanded physical sacrifice anyways. So there still is a massive contradiction in his moral code.

2- Er, not really. Even if you render Lamentations as simply a Malicious Prayer, it is still clear Yahweh finds violent vengeance as apropriate for a holy man. See also 1 Corinthians 16:22

3- I'm reffering to the fact that all those verses show different opinions on whereas faith is necessary or if goodness is. The fact that you don't see the cntradictions is worrying, to say the least.
comment #17229 Peryton 13th Dec 12
1. You didn't point out a specific verse for Leviticus, so I can't really comment on what you're saying, nor do I really get what the supposed contradiction you're pointing out is.

2. Lamentations and 1 Corinthians refer to divine vengeance. The other verses you mentioned refer to human vengeance. Different context. See Romans 12:19-21.

Also, I'll say this: there are no contradictions in the Bible. Anyone who says that there are simply doesn't understand what they're reading. Reading the Bible is one thing. Reading it and understanding is something completely different.
comment #17236 shiro_okami 13th Dec 12
1- Sorry, Psalm 50.

2- So, it pretty much falls under "Yahweh can do it, everyone else can't". Forget the fact that, even if this wasn't a case of extreme hypocrisy, it would still supposedly negate "his nature". Also, it's people clearly invoking his wrath.

I would reccomend that you didn't outright made a statement like that. Makes you look desesperate.
comment #17237 Peryton 13th Dec 12
Also, I'll say this: there are no contradictions in the Bible. Anyone who says that there are simply doesn't understand what they're reading. Reading the Bible is one thing. Reading it and understanding is something completely different.

And this is pretty much why I now refuse to debate with someone like you any longer. If you think like that what the heck are you doing in a discussion page other than the old can't have no one say anything negative no matter on what level about my religion. It also goes with the the way I view it, understand it is the correct one, why? because I said so, as Peryton said it makes you look even more desperate.
comment #17238 marcellX 13th Dec 12
2. Why is that hypocrisy? God is not a human, so of course he wouldn't live by the standards he gives to humans. God gave life to all things, so he can take the life of anything. Humans can't give life to anything, so they don't have the authority to take life. One of the major themes of the Bible is that God's status as the creator gives him the authority to tell the rest of creation what is right and wrong and the authority to do things his creations can't. It's part of what makes God God? If you think that's wrong, essentially your whole argument boils down to that you think God should not exist.

I would reccommend that you didn't outright made a statement like that. Makes you look desperate.[[quoteblock]]

How does that make me look desperate?

[[quoteblock]]If you think like that what the heck are you doing in a discussion page other than the old can't have no one say anything negative no matter on what level about my religion. It also goes with the the way I view it, understand it is the correct one, why? because I said so, as Peryton said it makes you look even more desperate.

Because I think you're dead wrong, that's why. And I don't mind at all explaining why I think my view is the correct one, although I really don't think you care one iota about what my views are or why I think this way, so what's the point? And what is so wrong about getting offended with all the negative statements you make, anyway? You say something I think is offensive, and you have the audacity to blame me for getting offensive?
comment #17248 shiro_okami 14th Dec 12
It's part of what makes God God. (The question mark was a typo. Not to mention I forgot the quoteblock closer. Why did they ever take editing off comments?)
comment #17249 shiro_okami 14th Dec 12
If you think that's wrong, essentially your whole argument boils down to that you think God should not exist.

see this is what I'm talking about. That's a down right lie, there's a ton of other reasons and outcomes that you just boiled down to this. This has never been about the validity of God but it's practically expected of you to use these kinds of fallacies by now. The argument (who you keep misunderstanding) has always been about if the things said on the Bibble about got are true or not when you use reasoning, it has never been about whether or not he should exist, is needed, etc.

Why is that hypocrisy? God is not a human, so of course he wouldn't live by the standards he gives to humans. God gave life to all things, so he can take the life of anything. Humans can't give life to anything, so they don't have the authority to take life. One of the major themes of the Bible is that God's status as the creator gives him the authority to tell the rest of creation what is right and wrong and the authority to do things his creations can't. It's part of what makes God God? If you think that's wrong, essentially your whole argument boils down to that you think God should not exist.

and again, you're just blindly attacking everything without regards of it making sense or not, if we put what you have said throughout together, you pick and change more than Romny, can you at least pay attention to the discussion that's present.

. And I don't mind at all explaining why I think my view is the correct one, although I really don't think you care one iota about what my views are or why I think this way

on the contrary, you are the one that doesn't, please don't use another fallacy to compare me to the likes of you. And yes there's a lot of things wrong with getting offended over every little thing, this is and hear me clearly out on this one a d.i.s.c.u.s.s.i.o.n.

You say something I think is offensive, and you have the audacity to blame me for getting offensive?

This doesn't even make sense, at least to me, what were you trying to say. There're such a thing as being oversensitive. That and even if that was the case (which I highly doubt but for the sake of argument) two wrongs don't make a right.
comment #17250 marcellX 14th Dec 12
[quote]Why is that hypocrisy? God is not a human, so of course he wouldn't live by the standards he gives to humans. God gave life to all things, so he can take the life of anything. Humans can't give life to anything, so they don't have the authority to take life. One of the major themes of the Bible is that God's status as the creator gives him the authority to tell the rest of creation what is right and wrong and the authority to do things his creations can't. It's part of what makes God God? If you think that's wrong, essentially your whole argument boils down to that you think God should not exist. [/quote]

It doesn't matter if he's human or not. If you're moral, either you follow what you preach, or you are an hypocrite. If the latter, your statements loose weight if you can't be bothered to practise them. That is simple logic.

Now, if God was ammoral with a benevolent streak, this wouldn't be a problem. But he is defined as a moral being.

Also, your argument boils down to lack of self-worth.

[quote]How does that make me look desperate?[/quote]

Seriously? You can't see how blunt statements instead of providing an argument for said statements aren't evidence for desesperation?

To put it in less complex terms, it's like a rebellious teen being confronted with his fallacies and responding with "ur wrong!111!"
comment #17252 Peryton 14th Dec 12
BTW, I'm reccording these threads, in case butthurt behaviour leads to unjustified deletion.
comment #17253 Peryton 14th Dec 12
That's a down right lie, there's a ton of other reasons and outcomes that you just boiled down to this. This has never been about the validity of God but it's practically expected of you to use these kinds of fallacies by now.

Well, that was the only possible reason I could come up with for Peryton's and/or your arguments. Sorry if I made the wrong assumption. Besides the fact that I was replying to Peryton, not you, anyway.

The argument (who you keep misunderstanding) has always been about if the things said on the Bible about God are true or not when you use reasoning.

So in other words, if something in the Bible about God doesn't make sense, it can't be true? I don't have a problem with that. But the problem is that, from my point of view at least, you (and Peryton) seem to keep applying standards meant for humans to someone that is divine and definitely not human. If we were talking about a human, I'd agree with you. But we're not.

And again, you're just blindly attacking everything without regards of it making sense or not, if we put what you have said throughout together, you pick and change more than Romny, can you at least pay attention to the discussion that's present.

I don't understand why you say I "pick and change more than Romny", unless I've been doing so by mistake. And again, I was replying to my discussion with Peryton, not you. And besides, regardless of whether my response did or didn't have anything to do with what you or Peryton were arguing about, it made perfect sense. If you think it didn't, then I doubt that there is anything you or I can agree on regarding this subject.

On the contrary, you are the one that doesn't, please don't use another fallacy to compare me to the likes of you. And yes there's a lot of things wrong with getting offended over every little thing, this is and hear me clearly out on this one a d.i.s.c.u.s.s.i.o.n.

I've been trying to explain my views, but I guess I'll have to try harder then. And why do you keep reminding me that this is a "discussion"? Can you please explain and not just assume I know what you're talking about?

There're such a thing as being oversensitive. That and even if that was the case (which I highly doubt but for the sake of argument) two wrongs don't make a right.

Well, I'm sorry if I offended you then. Anyway, whether or not I'm oversensitive, religion does tend to be a sensitive topic.
comment #17254 shiro_okami 14th Dec 12
It doesn't matter if he's human or not.

Well, I disagree that thinking it is logical to think this way. If we disagree on what even constitutes "simple logic", then I doubt that there is any point in discussing this any further.

Also, your argument boils down to lack of self-worth.

Huh?

Seriously? You can't see how blunt statements instead of providing an argument for said statements aren't evidence for desperation?

I've been providing reasons for why I think the "contradictions" you've been pointing out aren't contradictions. What more do you want? Besides, I don't see how my statement is any different from the statement you made that contradicts mine, so aren't you being a little hypocritical here?
comment #17255 shiro_okami 14th Dec 12
It doesn't matter if he's human or not.

Let me illustrate why this doesn't make sense. Calling God a hypocrite because God as creator doesn't adhere to the same standards he gives to his creations is like calling computer programmers hypocrites for not thinking in computer code. Which is absurd.
comment #17256 shiro_okami 14th Dec 12
"Huh?"

You're asking people to basically submit without debating the ethics of mass suicide and opression. Granted, it's more like "utter obliteration of the human spirit" rather than lack of self worth, but still.

"I've been providing reasons for why I think the "contradictions" you've been pointing out aren't contradictions. What more do you want? Besides, I don't see how my statement is any different from the statement you made that contradicts mine, so aren't you being a little hypocritical here?"

Except:

1- You've been recycling discredited theological arguments.

2- In that case, you blatantly weren't.

"Let me illustrate why this doesn't make sense. Calling God a hypocrite because God as creator doesn't adhere to the same standards he gives to his creations is like calling computer programmers hypocrites for not thinking in computer code. Which is absurd."

Why do all theologists resort to fallacious comparisions to computer programs? Do you not realise how utterly nihilistic that is? For your information, programs are not sapient.

But alas, you're missing the point. Worse than that, I've just explained why your reasoning is wrong, but you're doing exactly what all christians do when cornered: using circular logic.
comment #17257 Peryton 14th Dec 12
You're asking people to basically submit without debating the ethics of mass suicide and oppression. Granted, it's more like "utter obliteration of the human spirit" rather than lack of self worth, but still.

I really don't get what you're saying here. And where does the "mass suicide" come from?

You're asking people to basically submit without debating the ethics of mass suicide and opression. Granted, it's more like "utter obliteration of the human spirit" rather than lack of self worth, but still.

Where does the mass suicide come from?

You've been recycling discredited theological arguments.

You didn't discredit any of my arguments.

Why do all theologists resort to fallacious comparisons to computer programs? Do you not realize how utterly nihilistic that is? For your information, programs are not sapient.

But what if they were?

Maybe I should explain that a bit further. A computer program operates in computer code which exists as its own separate brand of 'logic' for the computer. Not to mention that a computer program is fundamentally different from an actual human. So even if a human somehow managed to make a sentient program (AKA artificial intelligence) 'in human image', it would still be different from a human and have its own set of standards compared to humans, in fact, in some cases it would be impossible to apply some of the AI's 'standards' to humans and vice versa. The same relationship can be applied to humans and God.

And what does that have to do with being nihilistic?
comment #17258 shiro_okami 14th Dec 12
"I really don't get what you're saying here. And where does the "mass suicide" come from?"

Sorry, "genocide". But anyways, I think it is extremely self evident, considering your arguments put forth. In case you somehow still haven't figured it out: "Yahweh is above your petty criticisms. Mistake humility for total submition towards Him, no matter how immoral He acts".

"You didn't discredit any of my arguments."

You must have conveniently forgot my arguments, then. Your entire argument boils down to Yahweh not being a schizophrenic bipolar case; not only have I pointed out inconsistencies, but contradictions are acknowledged by most christians.

At this point, it's just like marcellX said: you're almost lying.

"But what if they were?"

Then we'd be monsters if we destroyed them without remorse.

"Maybe I should explain that a bit further. A computer program operates in computer code which exists as its own separate brand of 'logic' for the computer. Not to mention that a computer program is fundamentally different from an actual human. So even if a human somehow managed to make a sentient program (AKA artificial intelligence) 'in human image', it would still be different from a human and have its own set of standards compared to humans, in fact, in some cases it would be impossible to apply some of the AI's 'standards' to humans and vice versa. The same relationship can be applied to humans and God."

Then the correct answer would be to try to empathise with these theoretical sentient programs. To judge these sentient life forms by our standards just because we created them is ironically far more a display of arrogance than any luciferian depictions in media.

"And what does that have to do with being nihilistic?"

At this point, I'm hoping that you are trolling, because otherwise it'd mean you're blind to the fact that stating we're little more than computer programs is the exact kind of argument the Straw Nihilist spouts.

Also, for your information, the analogy is incorrect. We need computer programs; Yahweh doesn't need us.
comment #17259 Peryton 14th Dec 12
At this point, it's just like marcellX said: you're almost lying.

At what point did I lie?

To judge these sentient life forms by our standards just because we created them is ironically far more a display of arrogance than any luciferian depictions in media.

Well, at least you're being consistent.

Also, for your information, the analogy is incorrect. We need computer programs; Yahweh doesn't need us.

If anything, I would think that this would further drive home my point.

It doesn't matter if he's human or not. If you're moral, either you follow what you preach, or you are an hypocrite. If the latter, your statements loose weight if you can't be bothered to practice them. That is simple logic.

And you say I make blunt statements instead of providing an argument. If you say that God has to adhere to the standards he made for humans whether he's human or not, why? Why does it not matter?

comment #17260 shiro_okami 14th Dec 12
Well, that was the only possible reason I could come up with for Peryton's and/or your arguments. Sorry if I made the wrong assumption. Besides the fact that I was replying to Peryton, not you, anyway.

See what I mean, when you get yourself into a corner you quickly resort to fallacies and bad debating, how is it relevant that you were replying to someone else, or do you want me to add more to the hypocrisy list and point out all the times you have done so in this very thread.

I don't understand why you say I "pick and change more than Romny", unless I've been doing so by mistake. And again, I was replying to my discussion with Peryton, not you. And besides, regardless of whether my response did or didn't have anything to do with what you or Peryton were arguing about, it made perfect sense. If you think it didn't, then I doubt that there is anything you or I can agree on regarding this subject.

Answer to that:

Why is that hypocrisy? God is not a human, so of course he wouldn't live by the standards he gives to humans. God gave life to all things, so he can take the life of anything. Humans can't give life to anything, so they don't have the authority to take life. One of the major themes of the Bible is that God's status as the creator gives him the authority to tell the rest of creation what is right and wrong and the authority to do things his creations can't. It's part of what makes God God?

'''This statement makes no sense. God always follows his own rules.

God essentially defines what is right and wrong because he's the creator. If that qualifies as Circular Reasoning, SO WHAT? What is your point, then?

Then I suppose that means that in this case that example of Circular Reasoning doesn't qualify as a fallacy (even if it does qualify as a fallacy to human logic, it would only mean that there exists logic beyond human comprehension).

Basically it's whatever fits you better at the moment.

Well, that was the only possible reason I could come up with for Peryton's and/or your arguments.

Just because that's the only reason you could think of (which I highly doubt) doesn't make it the only one.

I've been trying to explain my views, but I guess I'll have to try harder then. And why do you keep reminding me that this is a "discussion"? Can you please explain and not just assume I know what you're talking about?

this is a discussion, which means that there's an almost sure chance that they'll be two or more views and not just one big group agreeing unconditionally with each other. You should be aware from the beggining of this and not take things as some sort of personal attack (unless it is a direct personal attack). Take for example the latest talk about gun control due to the elementary school massacre, when discussing both sides should be aware of the level of the topic and not just be mad at the others for daring to think differently. You don't approve of gay people and in a discussion about marriage wouldn't like the other side is already dismissing your points because you're from the opposite side whether their valid or not or if they are how much so.

Well, I'm sorry if I offended you then. Anyway, whether or not I'm oversensitive, religion does tend to be a sensitive topic.

you haven't offended me, and that's the point, you are aware that this is a sensitive topic and as such should try not to be so emotional, you don't agree with me, fine, that's the point and the reason we're discussing in the first place. But don't just go Ad Hocing around and using fallacies like there's no tomorrow, heck if I remember correctly on another discussion you went back, changed the text of something I replied to and then replied to my post accusing me of not reading, to which I went on about how it was so blatantly easy to find out what you did and just how downright low it was. If you're so sure about yourself then why do you constantly resort to these shady things?

I've been providing reasons for why I think the "contradictions" you've been pointing out aren't contradictions. What more do you want? Besides, I don't see how my statement is any different from the statement you made that contradicts mine, so aren't you being a little hypocritical here?

The different is that the problem with his statements is lack of elaboration and taking that we would just agree with it when we're not even sure what exactly is he talking about, your statement can be translated to this is perfect because I said so, all Peryton has to do is go into the details requested, your statement can't even do that since in itself is absolutistic.
comment #17261 marcellX 14th Dec 12
more for the bunch

This statement makes no sense. God always follows his own rules.

If you say that God has to adhere to the standards he made for humans whether he's human or not, why? Why does it not matter?
comment #17262 marcellX 14th Dec 12
"And you say I make blunt statements instead of providing an argument. If you say that God has to adhere to the standards he made for humans whether he's human or not, why? Why does it not matter? "

Since you don't seem to even consider the implications, let me use this analogy for you. Imagine a person preaching to save children. Instead of acting on said preaching, said person not only blatantly indulges hims/herself, but harms children in the process.

Really, this is something even a child understands. Am I really having to explain to you why hypocrisy is a bad thing?
comment #17263 Peryton 15th Dec 12
Since you don't seem to even consider the implications, let me use this analogy for you. Imagine a person preaching to save children. Instead of acting on said preaching, said person not only blatantly indulges hims/herself, but harms children in the process.

That doesn't even remotely answer my question, not to mention the analogy doesn't even apply to what I was talking about. What I'm asking is why the difference between the creator and creation doesn't matter when applying standards. Even the difference between parent and child, which is smaller than creator and creation, matters. For instance, parents can drink alcohol and children can't, parents can have sex and teenagers can't, parents can talk to strangers and children can't, etc.

Also, do you even realize how ridiculous your standpoint is? God has lived infinitely longer than you have, is powerful enough to create the universe and laws of physics, and who's actions are ultimately the very reason why you and the rest of humanity exists, and yet you're going to call him illogical and amoral? Good luck with that.

This statement makes no sense. God always follows his own rules.

I probably should have provided context for this statement. I was referring to God's own standards, not the standards he made for humans. It does not contradict any of the other statements I made.

You are aware that this is a sensitive topic and as such should try not to be so emotional.

And maybe you should be more sensitive to others. Perhaps I should tell you that my tendency to be irritated by your opposing viewpoint and constantly challenging and my own viewpoint and theology in general by constantly calling it fallacious without giving adequate explanation why is the reason why I continue arguing. If I wasn't so emotional, I would have simply dismissed your first comment without a second thought as somebody who either doesn't know what they're talking about or who's viewpoint is so different from my own that discussion would be pointless because finding any common ground would be completely impossible, and stick to discussions that are either more trivial or more balanced.
comment #17267 shiro_okami 15th Dec 12
"That doesn't even remotely answer my question, not to mention the analogy doesn't even apply to what I was talking about. What I'm asking is why the difference between the creator and creation doesn't matter when applying standards. Even the difference between parent and child, which is smaller than creator and creation, matters. For instance, parents can drink alcohol and children can't, parents can have sex and teenagers can't, parents can talk to strangers and children can't, etc."

But they eventually will. Their "inferiority" is temporary - not to mention arbitary, given the standards of several cultures.

Not to mention that parents can and will be penalised if they fail. Yahweh is supposedly above criticism according to you. Also, [proper] parents are consistent in regards to their treatment of their charges.

"Also, do you even realize how ridiculous your standpoint is? God has lived infinitely longer than you have, is powerful enough to create the universe and laws of physics, and who's actions are ultimately the very reason why you and the rest of humanity exists, and yet you're going to call him illogical and amoral? Good luck with that."

Again, appeal to lack of worth. This is a logical fallacy for a reason.

Also, age =/= moral high ground. And, if he created us, then he hardwired our thought patterns; making up random and nonsensical rules for your charges is liable to get your charges away from you for psychological abuse.

"And maybe you should be more sensitive to others[...]"

On other words: you're motivated by butthurtness. This is not looking well for your credibility.
comment #17268 Peryton 15th Dec 12
But they eventually will. Their "inferiority" is temporary.

Again, if anything, this would further prove my point, because humans will never become like Yahweh.

Again, appeal to lack of worth. This is a logical fallacy for a reason.

It's called humility, which you seem to lack. Anyway, if you call even that a logical fallacy, than at this point I'm not sure you even understand what the word means, or even what basic logic even is.

On other words: you're motivated by butthurtness. This is not looking well for your credibility.

So you're going to condemn me for being emotional? Really?
comment #17269 shiro_okami 15th Dec 12
"Again, if anything, this would further prove my point, because humans will never become like Yahweh."

I'm sorry, do you even read what you write? You're basically agreeing with my point: parents are only temporarily superior, Yahweh is [supposdely] not.

"It's called humility, which you seem to lack. Anyway, if you call even that a logical fallacy, than at this point I'm not sure you even understand what the word means, or even what basic logic even is."

Here start the ad hominems. You're not doing yourself a favour with this.

Humility is one thing; lack of inherent worth is another. Even the Bible makes this distinction. Also, bother to research logical fallacies; appeal to emotion is a good starter, of which your transgression is a derivative.

"So you're going to condemn me for being emotional? Really?"

Being oversensitive is not look well in rational debates for a reason.
comment #17271 Peryton 15th Dec 12
And maybe you should be more sensitive to others. Perhaps I should tell you that my tendency to be irritated by your opposing viewpoint and constantly challenging and my own viewpoint and theology in general by constantly calling it fallacious without giving adequate explanation why is the reason why I continue arguing. If I wasn't so emotional, I would have simply dismissed your first comment without a second thought as somebody who either doesn't know what they're talking about or who's viewpoint is so different from my own that discussion would be pointless because finding any common ground would be completely impossible, and stick to discussions that are either more trivial or more balanced.

That's a rather selfish point, as I said you're issue is being oversensitive, and that if you acknowledge and even embrace this then maybe you shouldn't part take in this discussion. If the discussion is about child raising, then the parents shouldn't be oversensitive and prone to anger over the other parents for having different views than them, after all yet again, it's a discussion. Not to mention that you are the one who seems to come to this discussion with a stuck up mind, I personally always come with the mind that I could always be just wrong, I'm human after all (but that's me), I don't just read stuff that agree with my view or read things that are not the same already with a jaded view. Also how does that make any sense? so I shouldn't call you out when you make fallacious and low things like that? so I shouldn't call someone who stole something a thief or call them out on it because their feelings might get hurt? not to mention that you're doing this whole mirror effect again. You say that I and I quote constantly calling it fallacious without giving adequate explanation why.

Now about being fallacious, it is so because it's following not following the notion that God only does just, fair and or good things, but that things he did are just, fair and good "because" God did it, read Appeal To Authority and Circular Reasoning.

again, Circular Reasoning, God decides what is good, why is it good, because God says it is and he's good by nature, why is God good by nature, because he decides what's good, which then falls into Appeal To Authority which has been the issue with the "because God/the bible" says so.

and we're using "his" moral law as the example not another, and that's where it becomes fallacious in a do as I say not as I do kind of way, you guys are focusing too much on there being something over God, which is not where I'm coming from, so can you discuss with me.

And as I already said I'm talking about God's own rules, which when not followed by him then fall into Appeal To Authority and it's ok when I do it, which is the same premise of do as I said not as I do.

So that's not even a fallacy or shady debating, that's an outright lie. These things are the things I keep talking about, it's just a constant sunk cost, since you seem to think that you must respond even if you can't do it reasonable, fairly, etc. so I ask again, why do you keep using this low and shady methods?
comment #17272 marcellX 15th Dec 12
Pretty much my feelings on the matter. All good messages in it are in Gnostic works, so frankly it is worthless.
comment #17772 Agapornis 19th Jan 13
In order to post comments, you need to Get Known
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy