Condemn or Approve?

[Khatru]

It would be helpful if this poll was answered by believers only!   

[jeremyp]

You do realise that "Jehovah" is a mistake made by a Christian when transcribing the Jewish Bible, don't you?

[Brownie]

I found the phraseology of the questions clumsy Khatru and think it might be easier if you posed one question with the option of a yes or no answer. Just my opinion.

Jeremy is correct about ''Jehovah'';   YHWH is the way Jews expressed the name of God - no vowels because God was considered too awesome for his name to be uttered.  Another word that often used is ''Yahweh'' which is equally incorrect because of the vowels.  The New Jerusalem Bible (widely used by Catholics), used ''Yahweh'', but corrected it in later editions.

[floo]

If the Biblical deity actually existed instead of being the mythical entity I believe it to be, we should be doing our best to rid the universe of such an evil tyrant.

[Khatru]

Some backflips by believers who don't like what they see when the question is asked?

OK, despite the semantics, I'll amend the question.

[jeremyp]

I'd like it on record that I have heeded the comment and neither of the two votes registered so far is mine.

[Hope]

Khatru, since the Biblical God's actions go far beyond the questionable list you give, I'm afraid that I can't honestly answer the poll.  Mind you, I doubt whether you really want anyone to answer it, as we've done this set of issues multitudinous times - often courtesy of Floo.

[Owlswing]

Khatru, since the Biblical God's actions go far beyond the questionable list you give, I'm afraid that I can't honestly answer the poll.  Mind you, I doubt whether you really want anyone to answer it, as we've done this set of issues multitudinous times - often courtesy of Floo.

Typical Hope cop-out! As expected.

[Hope]

Typical Hope cop-out! As expected.

Owl, cop-outs involve refusing to face the issues.  Over the years, we have discussed the very examples Khatru has given on numerous occasions - often, as I pointed out, instigated by OPs from Floo - and seen that within nomadic tribes that were seeking to retain their identity such things were commonplace.  It is interesting that, like Floo, Khatru has chosen examples that date to an era that the Jewish people were nomadic and small in numbers, compared with the other 'tribal nations' around them.  Furthermore, he then tries to get Christians, especially, to judge the behaviour of people is such vastly different situations.  Its a bit like asking 21st century atheists to condemn or condone Roman attitudes to women.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the Biblical deity actually existed instead of being the mythical entity I believe it to be, we should be doing our best to rid the universe of such an evil tyrant.

How would you go about getting rid of God?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Owl, cop-outs involve refusing to face the issues.  Over the years, we have discussed the very examples Khatru has given on numerous occasions - often, as I pointed out, instigated by OPs from Floo - and seen that within nomadic tribes that were seeking to retain their identity such things were commonplace.  It is interesting that, like Floo, Khatru has chosen examples that date to an era that the Jewish people were nomadic and small in numbers, compared with the other 'tribal nations' around them.  Furthermore, he then tries to get Christians, especially, to judge the behaviour of people is such vastly different situations.  Its a bit like asking 21st century atheists to condemn or condone Roman attitudes to women.

Yes, I think we have to consider that these people were on a war footing.

War is obviously a failure but we are ourselves a civilisation who vilify people who say that weapons of mass destruction shouldn't be.

[Leonard James]

How would you go about getting rid of God?

Simple! Ignore him, and he would get bored and leave us to it.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I think this question is what is commonly known as a "straw man". It reminds me of the Daily Express phone polls with questions such as "Do you think that Britain should stay within such a morally bankrupt organisation such as the EU"?

[Hope]

Simple! Ignore him, and he would get bored and leave us to it.

Except that wouldn't get rid of either him oir the concept.  Remember that he makes it very plain that what he wants is followers who believe in him, not followers out of a sense of duty or tradition.  Luke, in his gospel, puts it this way - ‘It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but those who are ill.'  Clearly, there are folk here who feel that they and society as a whole are perfectly 'healthy' and are without need of God; there are then others who believe that they and society as a whole are not well, and feel the need of such a helper. 

You'll never get rid of God, or the sense of the divine.

[Nearly Sane]

Except that wouldn't get rid of either him oir the concept.  Remember that he makes it very plain that what he wants is followers who believe in him, not followers out of a sense of duty or tradition.  Luke, in his gospel, puts it this way - ‘It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but those who are ill.'  Clearly, there are folk here who feel that they and society as a whole are perfectly 'healthy' and are without need of God; there are then others who believe that they and society as a whole are not well, and feel the need of such a helper. 

You'll never get rid of God, or the sense of the divine.

What fitless wuckery! If you believe in an omni god, then this is the only way society can be. Not believing in gods has nothing to do with one's opinion of society.

[Sassy]

It would be helpful if this poll was answered by believers only!   

DID you answer it?

[Sassy]

You do realise that "Jehovah" is a mistake made by a Christian when transcribing the Jewish Bible, don't you?

You means the Jewish scholars who translated the OT got it wrong?

More chance of you being wrong... isn't there?

[Leonard James]

Except that wouldn't get rid of either him oir the concept.  Remember that he makes it very plain that what he wants is followers who believe in him, not followers out of a sense of duty or tradition.  Luke, in his gospel, puts it this way - ‘It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but those who are ill.'  Clearly, there are folk here who feel that they and society as a whole are perfectly 'healthy' and are without need of God; there are then others who believe that they and society as a whole are not well, and feel the need of such a helper. 

You'll never get rid of God, or the sense of the divine.

There is no such thing as a "healthy society", except in the evolutionary sense. Humans are simply a product of evolution, and unavoidably come in all forms, ranging from what we call "good" to what we call "bad". But that is purely human nomenclature, and means nothing to nature or the rest of life on earth.

While life exists it has always been so and always will be so, and there is nothing that "God" or his cohorts and followers can do to change that.

We have a judicial system which aims at maximising our lives, but you can't make a silken purse out of a sow's ear. 

[Hope]

There is no such thing as a "healthy society", except in the evolutionary sense. Humans are simply a product of evolution, and unavoidably come in all forms, ranging from what we call "good" to what we call "bad". But that is purely human nomenclature, and means nothing to nature or the rest of life on earth.

You're entitled to your opinion, Len - but evidence to support it would be useful.  Notice that using evolution to prove itself won't be acceptable.

I would also disagree about whether or not there is such a think as a healthy or unhealthy society.  In my view, a society that places individuals above community, money above people's welfare, regards the elderly as burdensome and the young as wasters - to name but a few - isn't just unhealthy but seriously sick. 

While life exists it has always been so and always will be so, and there is nothing that "God" or his cohorts and followers can do to change that.

Oddly enough, there are places in this world where some, though not all, the ailments of western society don't exist.  People in those societies are often far happier than their counterparts in the west.

We have a judicial system which aims at maximising our lives, but you can't make a silken purse out of a sow's ear. 

Could you restate that comment in plain English, Len?

[Khatru]

Khatru, since the Biblical God's actions go far beyond the questionable list you give, I'm afraid that I can't honestly answer the poll.  Mind you, I doubt whether you really want anyone to answer it, as we've done this set of issues multitudinous times - often courtesy of Floo.

It's a simple enough question but it seems to cause you problems.

What is it with believers and their reluctance to answer questions?

Unlike the believers, I think most unbelievers will always try to answer a question posed by another person, regardless of the question, or indeed, who is posing it.

Will we always answer it to complete satisfaction?

Sometimes we will, sometimes not at all and sometimes never.  However, as a believer, I for one really dislike walking away from a question without at least trying to answer it.  Seems that this is a personal standard shared by many unbelievers and not-so-many believers.  It's a good quality.

Sure, we can be seen as arrogant at times; even forceful in our pursuit of accountability.  Unlike believers, we  have no problem being scrutinised and we are also able to elucidate in a way that can be understood by anyone willing to apply the same effort at understanding that we place ourselves out there to be scrutinised.

What I notice with theists is they like to jut the chin out and challenge.  However, try asking them a question that requires them to inspect what they think and you'll find they will try to shift the point of discussion to some sort of "only I can understand it" slant.

So, it's rare you run across an atheist that won't put themselves up to be picked apart or explain why they think as they do.

If it can be understood by one, it can by all, no desire or faith required.

[Leonard James]

You're entitled to your opinion, Len - but evidence to support it would be useful.  Notice that using evolution to prove itself won't be acceptable.

In some ways I am like you! 

I would also disagree about whether or not there is such a think as a healthy or unhealthy society.  In my view, a society that places individuals above community, money above people's welfare, regards the elderly as burdensome and the young as wasters - to name but a few - isn't just unhealthy but seriously sick.

I agree, but that's nothing more than our opinion.

Oddly enough, there are places in this world where some, though not all, the ailments of western society don't exist.  People in those societies are often far happier than their counterparts in the west.

Oh dear, I agree again.  Modern society is far too interested in "getting on in life" than in creating happiness.

Could you restate that comment in plain English, Len?

Certainly. Our judicial system attempts to control antisocial activity and punish miscreants, but you can't alter human nature.

[Khatru]

Owl, cop-outs involve refusing to face the issues.  Over the years, we have discussed the very examples Khatru has given on numerous occasions - often, as I pointed out, instigated by OPs from Floo - and seen that within nomadic tribes that were seeking to retain their identity such things were commonplace.  It is interesting that, like Floo, Khatru has chosen examples that date to an era that the Jewish people were nomadic and small in numbers, compared with the other 'tribal nations' around them.  Furthermore, he then tries to get Christians, especially, to judge the behaviour of people is such vastly different situations.  Its a bit like asking 21st century atheists to condemn or condone Roman attitudes to women.

We really don't need to be told about the prevailing social economics/culture/morality of the day.

The fact is that you refuse to condemn the murderous acts carried out by the Bible god which is why you appear to favour the following:

Slavery
Genocide
Incest
Killing homosexuals
Killing people who have sex outside of marriage
Killing people who opt for freedom of religion 
Killing brides who aren't virgins on their wedding night
Killing your children if they curse or strike you
Killing people who blaspheme against your god
Killing people who work on a Saturday

Of course, you only favour the items in the above list when you believe them to be divinely endorsed.  Otherwise you'd be the first to condemn.  Right?

[Khatru]

DID you answer it?

I didn't answer it but if I certainly don't approve of the tyrannical acts that believers seem to.

[Khatru]

I think this question is what is commonly known as a "straw man". It reminds me of the Daily Express phone polls with questions such as "Do you think that Britain should stay within such a morally bankrupt organisation such as the EU"?

A straw-man argument is all about deliberately mis-representing someone's position in order to make them look weak.

I'm trying to find out believers positions. 

What I'm getting from them are metaphorical somersaults and backflips.  Anything but answer the question.
 

[Khatru]

There is no such thing as a "healthy society", except in the evolutionary sense. Humans are simply a product of evolution, and unavoidably come in all forms, ranging from what we call "good" to what we call "bad". But that is purely human nomenclature, and means nothing to nature or the rest of life on earth.

While life exists it has always been so and always will be so, and there is nothing that "God" or his cohorts and followers can do to change that.

We have a judicial system which aims at maximising our lives, but you can't make a silken purse out of a sow's ear. 

Nicely put

In very much the same way, no nation is evil. 

Those that govern/rule -yes
An entire nation/people - no

Of course, if the Bible god approves, then the slaughter of an entire nation is a wonderful thing!