[This message has been edited by BizAg01 (edited 5/12/2005 3:05p).]
Notafraid "are you still beating your wife"
1,079 Views |
38 Replies |
Last: 20 yr ago by
[This message has been edited by BizAg01 (edited 5/12/2005 3:05p).]
BTW For anyone who is interested in the entire thread, it is under "atheism dying under it's own irrelevance".
Notafraid is NotAnAggie...
BizAg, you need to give it a rest friend. Notafraid knows you don't beat your wife, the comment was posted as a "follow-up" to your comments about God killing innocent children. I don't know why he attempts to reason with folks that have an open contempt for God Almighty. Maybe some day he will learn that not everyone has an ear to hear and leave it at that.
Your quoting of Ezekiel shows the danger of taking Scripture out of context and using it to prove a point. That's done by Christian and non-Christian alike. You say you don't believe in God. You ain't the first and won't be the last. Scripture teaches that there will be many that don't have faith, no surprise here.
This is your position? Hey, the sun still came up today, and you can rest assured that God Almighty will sort these things out in the end. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Your quoting of Ezekiel shows the danger of taking Scripture out of context and using it to prove a point. That's done by Christian and non-Christian alike. You say you don't believe in God. You ain't the first and won't be the last. Scripture teaches that there will be many that don't have faith, no surprise here.
quote:
I asked myself this question as a young child, "Could I kill women and children if commanded by God as he did in the Bible"? I concluded that a loving God would never ask me to do this, and that merely by him asking people to do this would more closely resemble the requests of a tyrant or Satan. Not someone I would love and cherish, but someone I should fear. Did that perception overtake my other thoughts on God? You better believe it.
This is your position? Hey, the sun still came up today, and you can rest assured that God Almighty will sort these things out in the end. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
BizAg,
A&O and Notafraid are both right. You asked offensive loaded question with no good answer. Notafraid responded with a question that has been used on this board on multiple occasions as an example of an offensive loaded question.
Notafraid does not actually think you beat your wife.
http://www.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?forum_id=15&topic_id=432246
http://www.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?forum_id=15&topic_id=427845
http://www.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?forum_id=15&topic_id=421778
A&O and Notafraid are both right. You asked offensive loaded question with no good answer. Notafraid responded with a question that has been used on this board on multiple occasions as an example of an offensive loaded question.
Notafraid does not actually think you beat your wife.
http://www.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?forum_id=15&topic_id=432246
quote:
This is another form of the "are you still beating you wife?" question. The question implies an answer. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
http://www.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?forum_id=15&topic_id=427845
http://www.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?forum_id=15&topic_id=421778
BizAg01:
Not too sure about how this came up, but traditionally the question
Not too sure about how this came up, but traditionally the question
quote:is a rhetorical question. It is used to show an example of a loaded question; that is to say a question that assumes facts not in evidence. I seriously doubt that Notafraid was "trying to bring your wife" into anything. Something you should consider because you might be jumping the gun on your criticism.
"Are you still beating your wife?"
It's just a saying. Please unwad your panties.
There is some great philosophical hypocrisy with the very posting of this thread.
Today for lunch I shall eat a chicken sandwich.
How is the question "Would you murder a child if commanded to by the Lord" a loaded question? It is a moral dillema and contains the word "would". I even offered my own answer to this question on the thread and reffered to it as a question of my own faith.
"Are you still beating your wife" is a loaded question because of the word "still". Not the same.
But I will retract my attack on him being a blackeye to his fellow Christians because I don't think he (and some of you) was able to understand my question. At this point nothing he says will surprise me anymore. I now see extreme BLIND faith in him now.
"Are you still beating your wife" is a loaded question because of the word "still". Not the same.
But I will retract my attack on him being a blackeye to his fellow Christians because I don't think he (and some of you) was able to understand my question. At this point nothing he says will surprise me anymore. I now see extreme BLIND faith in him now.
Whatever. You are making yourself look dumb now.
Your question is a straw man, just like "can God make a rock too heavy for him to lift". He called you on it. It's not a moral dilemma, it's a philosophical dilemma.
Your question is a straw man, just like "can God make a rock too heavy for him to lift". He called you on it. It's not a moral dilemma, it's a philosophical dilemma.
Regardless of whether or not your question was loaded, by saying what he did he wasn't literally accusing you of beating your wife. He was saying your question was loaded.
*shakes head*
It's GOT to be bad when you have me defending Notafraid.
[This message has been edited by NoACDamnit (edited 5/12/2005 2:31p).]
*shakes head*
It's GOT to be bad when you have me defending Notafraid.
[This message has been edited by NoACDamnit (edited 5/12/2005 2:31p).]
Nixter. Your confusion might be making me appear dumb to you, but I'll forgive you for it.
The MORAL question is internal because it has occured in history in the Bible and could possibly occur again. Don't discount it or me as being invalid simply because you don't or won't understand the basis.
Thanks NoAC. I'm past that now. You are a little late on this. I offered my retraction.
BTW This is a great example on why I shouldn't post that late at night.
[This message has been edited by BizAg01 (edited 5/12/2005 2:45p).]
The MORAL question is internal because it has occured in history in the Bible and could possibly occur again. Don't discount it or me as being invalid simply because you don't or won't understand the basis.
Thanks NoAC. I'm past that now. You are a little late on this. I offered my retraction.
BTW This is a great example on why I shouldn't post that late at night.
[This message has been edited by BizAg01 (edited 5/12/2005 2:45p).]
Everyone but BizAg is confused about everything always.
Would it have been immoral to kill Hitler as a child? What about his mother? What about his mother's mother? You might have children that will perpetuate incredible evil...if I had certain knowledge of such events would it be immoral to have you killed?
By what do you assert that murder is immoral in the first place? If I can argue that murdering an individual has more utility than letting them live, your atheism allows you no logical choice but to agree with me. But then, utility is relative, so ultimately you are at the mercy of the effectiveness of my argument. But then if you say, let's take the safe road and not murder anyone, then you must figure out some way of arguing against the concept of just murdering everyone. After all, there is no meaning and a life is ultimately worth no more than sheer nothingness.
The fact is, your moralizing implies a moral doctrine of some kind, and you have no means of defending that doctrine outside of utilitarianism, and even then you make faith-based presuppositions about universal utility. So really, your question is moot as its answer has no real value to you, if you are consistent with your own worldview. Thus one can only assume that either a) you are a hypocrite, b) you aren't very intelligent and don't know much about the worldview you hold, or c) you are simply a troll. Which is it?
By what do you assert that murder is immoral in the first place? If I can argue that murdering an individual has more utility than letting them live, your atheism allows you no logical choice but to agree with me. But then, utility is relative, so ultimately you are at the mercy of the effectiveness of my argument. But then if you say, let's take the safe road and not murder anyone, then you must figure out some way of arguing against the concept of just murdering everyone. After all, there is no meaning and a life is ultimately worth no more than sheer nothingness.
The fact is, your moralizing implies a moral doctrine of some kind, and you have no means of defending that doctrine outside of utilitarianism, and even then you make faith-based presuppositions about universal utility. So really, your question is moot as its answer has no real value to you, if you are consistent with your own worldview. Thus one can only assume that either a) you are a hypocrite, b) you aren't very intelligent and don't know much about the worldview you hold, or c) you are simply a troll. Which is it?
Thanks Nixter.
According to you, I am atheist, therefore I can have no abilty to distinguish fair or moral dillemas. We all go through life without any remorse in any actions including murder, crime, etc. Only the religious are capable of this.
I was Christian when I came upon this moral dillema, not Atheist.
Just because I don't need a moral doctrine to insert my right or wrong status dosen't mean that I have nothing. As a matter of fact, I fear what you might have become without religion.
Based on your comments, are you either A) Incapable of understanding anyone outside or the religious right of having an understanding of murder not being acceptable, or B) The loch-ness Monster.
[This message has been edited by BizAg01 (edited 5/12/2005 3:29p).]
According to you, I am atheist, therefore I can have no abilty to distinguish fair or moral dillemas. We all go through life without any remorse in any actions including murder, crime, etc. Only the religious are capable of this.
I was Christian when I came upon this moral dillema, not Atheist.
Just because I don't need a moral doctrine to insert my right or wrong status dosen't mean that I have nothing. As a matter of fact, I fear what you might have become without religion.
Based on your comments, are you either A) Incapable of understanding anyone outside or the religious right of having an understanding of murder not being acceptable, or B) The loch-ness Monster.
[This message has been edited by BizAg01 (edited 5/12/2005 3:29p).]
BurtOrangeAndBlue
Still struggling with the other post I see.
Still struggling with the other post I see.
I spit coffee out my nose when I read the title of this thread but the content is even better.
quote:Classic!
It's GOT to be bad when you have me defending Notafraid.
quote:Is there any other kind?
I now see extreme BLIND faith in him now.
quote:You are right, you have no philosophical means by which to do so, because philosophically they are empty constructs. However, you feel otherwise and thus is the hypocrisy of the athestic worldview.
According to you, I am atheist, therefore I can have no abilty to distinguish fair or moral dillemas. We all go through life without any remorse in any actions including murder, crime, etc.
Can you live a moral life? Yes. Can you defend that life as how one should live? No. Thus your moralizing is hollow, because your denunciation of a moral doctrine necessitates the defense of your own, and you have none.
BTW Nixter If you reffer to me as Agnostic does it get us past this point and on to the initial question?
NoAC,
(Clapping) You get the Impartiality Award! I applaud your fairness here.
BizAg,
I will take a stab at your dilemma on the thread itself, but when I first got to read this thread, I saw just what NoAC saw, and bias wasn't involved. The beating wife phrase is a notorious slang term for indicating one has themselves asked a loaded question. I was surprised at the umbrage.
(Clapping) You get the Impartiality Award! I applaud your fairness here.
quote:
Regardless of whether or not your question was loaded, by saying what he did he wasn't literally accusing you of beating your wife. He was saying your question was loaded.
*shakes head*
It's GOT to be bad when you have me defending Notafraid.
BizAg,
I will take a stab at your dilemma on the thread itself, but when I first got to read this thread, I saw just what NoAC saw, and bias wasn't involved. The beating wife phrase is a notorious slang term for indicating one has themselves asked a loaded question. I was surprised at the umbrage.
Not really...
If you are genuinely that interested, just state what, in regards to murder, you ultimately consider 'right' and what you consider 'wrong'.
If you are genuinely that interested, just state what, in regards to murder, you ultimately consider 'right' and what you consider 'wrong'.
Murder = the intentional unjustified killing of a person
Not all killing is murder obviously. If God told you to kill someone, then the fact that God told you to do it would justify it. Therefore it wouldn't be murder. I think the faulty assumption that BizAg makes is that the women and children of Canaan were innocent. The military campaigns of Israel after the Exodus were the execution of God's wrath against the people of Canaan. The Israelites had a bonafide Prophet of God, who had miracles to back up his claims (Moses, Joshua). The Israelites therefore had the assurity that the commands to destroy Canaan actually were from God.
Not all killing is murder obviously. If God told you to kill someone, then the fact that God told you to do it would justify it. Therefore it wouldn't be murder. I think the faulty assumption that BizAg makes is that the women and children of Canaan were innocent. The military campaigns of Israel after the Exodus were the execution of God's wrath against the people of Canaan. The Israelites had a bonafide Prophet of God, who had miracles to back up his claims (Moses, Joshua). The Israelites therefore had the assurity that the commands to destroy Canaan actually were from God.
*Sigh
I guess no one can answer the question without judging me and continuing to question me first. My answers to moral basis are, while I understand confusing to some of you, not apart of my question, nor are they even remotely getting closer to the question.
The question is simple. If God commanded you to murder women and children would you? The question is based on a hypothetical question I posed to myself while I was in Sunday School after learning that this act had taken place in the Bible.
Forget my moral basis and use your own. I answered this question myself, but I will again here for those of you who insist on running away from the question which I consider valid since it had an impact on my life.
I concluded that based on the Commandments of "Thou shalt not MURDER (Thanks Notafraid for exposing the folly of translation which I am sure we can address later as I found it intriguing that you would accept that idea, but not accept that these incorrect translations could lead to unintended miscommunication). My dillema as a CHRISTIAN at the time was that I was being told a story of a vengeful God that would have me murdered by my fellow man if I didn't believe. In addittion, if I was going to believe, what would prevent him from asking me to do the murdering of my fellow man since he has already shown a history of doing this?
As I said earlier in the other post this basis or Morality had been given to me by the commandments and a good upbringing with my family. However, I know then and now that I would be unwilling to murder someone else who I simply viewed as uneducated or enlightened in Christianity if I had chosen to be Christian. I feel that I would be murdering them simply to win favor with the Lord and secure my place in Heaven. I would rather spend an eternity in hell than a day in Heaven with a child's blood on my hands.
Around this time I realized that my faith in God was not strong enough for me to accept this act or potential burden. Yes. I could have said to myself that I would most likely never be asked this question and continued along my Christian path, but I also knew that if he was truly the all knowing being, he would see me at the gates and know that I didn't love him more than I do my fellow man and would be cast to hell anyways.
Now I ask the same question to anyone out there. If you don't like the question yourself that is OK with me. I like you guys and I don't want to cause and distress, but for those of you who have possibly asked yourself the same question or see the dillema I was in, please provide me with either insight or reason without constantly bashing me.
Look at me as a sheep and you the shepard if you must, but stop slamming me by just asking a question which I think may be touching a nerve with some of you, and me.
I guess no one can answer the question without judging me and continuing to question me first. My answers to moral basis are, while I understand confusing to some of you, not apart of my question, nor are they even remotely getting closer to the question.
The question is simple. If God commanded you to murder women and children would you? The question is based on a hypothetical question I posed to myself while I was in Sunday School after learning that this act had taken place in the Bible.
Forget my moral basis and use your own. I answered this question myself, but I will again here for those of you who insist on running away from the question which I consider valid since it had an impact on my life.
I concluded that based on the Commandments of "Thou shalt not MURDER (Thanks Notafraid for exposing the folly of translation which I am sure we can address later as I found it intriguing that you would accept that idea, but not accept that these incorrect translations could lead to unintended miscommunication). My dillema as a CHRISTIAN at the time was that I was being told a story of a vengeful God that would have me murdered by my fellow man if I didn't believe. In addittion, if I was going to believe, what would prevent him from asking me to do the murdering of my fellow man since he has already shown a history of doing this?
As I said earlier in the other post this basis or Morality had been given to me by the commandments and a good upbringing with my family. However, I know then and now that I would be unwilling to murder someone else who I simply viewed as uneducated or enlightened in Christianity if I had chosen to be Christian. I feel that I would be murdering them simply to win favor with the Lord and secure my place in Heaven. I would rather spend an eternity in hell than a day in Heaven with a child's blood on my hands.
Around this time I realized that my faith in God was not strong enough for me to accept this act or potential burden. Yes. I could have said to myself that I would most likely never be asked this question and continued along my Christian path, but I also knew that if he was truly the all knowing being, he would see me at the gates and know that I didn't love him more than I do my fellow man and would be cast to hell anyways.
Now I ask the same question to anyone out there. If you don't like the question yourself that is OK with me. I like you guys and I don't want to cause and distress, but for those of you who have possibly asked yourself the same question or see the dillema I was in, please provide me with either insight or reason without constantly bashing me.
Look at me as a sheep and you the shepard if you must, but stop slamming me by just asking a question which I think may be touching a nerve with some of you, and me.
I think my previous post answers your question.
Aggie4Life02 - Thanks.
The other assumption I make is that the women and children pose no real threat to the Lord or his believers. If they are opposed to his belief, then why not attempt to rehabilitate them rather than murder them. Also, where did thier supposed souls go?
The other assumption I make is that the women and children pose no real threat to the Lord or his believers. If they are opposed to his belief, then why not attempt to rehabilitate them rather than murder them. Also, where did thier supposed souls go?
Also - if he commanded it I am sure the justification would be with him. He is the one giving the command, but that dosen't justify the actions to me about children and women. Why not take the burden upon himself? Why would he use me as a pawn as he did them?
[This message has been edited by BizAg01 (edited 5/12/2005 4:29p).]
[This message has been edited by BizAg01 (edited 5/12/2005 4:29p).]
I don't know the answer to the question as to why he uses human agents to accomplish his means. But, just because I don't know the answer doesn't make it unjust.
Thanks.
I think my initial question should have worded differently as I had already answered it myself and it is probably none of my business about what you guys would do in the same situation. I can see how it might be troubling to answer or insulting as it will forever define you on this board.
For those that would say yes to his request, I am sure you will live a great eternity in Heaven. But surely you must understand why abortion clinics are bombed and suicide bombings are rampant. Not that they are justified to you personally, but what if they were merely acting out a request from God that you were not apart of?
For those who might say no, do you think he would deny you of Heaven because of your lack of faith to him?
I think my initial question should have worded differently as I had already answered it myself and it is probably none of my business about what you guys would do in the same situation. I can see how it might be troubling to answer or insulting as it will forever define you on this board.
For those that would say yes to his request, I am sure you will live a great eternity in Heaven. But surely you must understand why abortion clinics are bombed and suicide bombings are rampant. Not that they are justified to you personally, but what if they were merely acting out a request from God that you were not apart of?
For those who might say no, do you think he would deny you of Heaven because of your lack of faith to him?
BizAg,
Sorry, when I said the "thread itself" I meant the one you posted it on, the `irrelevance' one. I posted there.
Sorry, when I said the "thread itself" I meant the one you posted it on, the `irrelevance' one. I posted there.
I had told myself that I was not gonna post on this thread, so I show my hypocrisy by doing this.
The question is loaded, because as I already explained to you the Scriptures teach that the only militant actions in the name of Christianity are spiritual. All of orthodox Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Orthodoxy stand in agreement on this. Those who would kill in the name of Christ are confused, and do not know the Word of God.
[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 5/12/2005 4:53p).]
quote:
For those that would say yes to his request, I am sure you will live a great eternity in Heaven. But surely you must understand why abortion clinics are bombed and suicide bombings are rampant. Not that they are justified to you personally, but what if they were merely acting out a request from God that you were not apart of?
For those who might say no, do you think he would deny you of Heaven because of your lack of faith to him?
The question is loaded, because as I already explained to you the Scriptures teach that the only militant actions in the name of Christianity are spiritual. All of orthodox Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Orthodoxy stand in agreement on this. Those who would kill in the name of Christ are confused, and do not know the Word of God.
[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 5/12/2005 4:53p).]
quote:He's using you as pawn in this thread. You are unwittingly bringing others to Christ by keeping this up.
Why would he use me as a pawn as he did them?
Well, maybe not...but it's a thought.
BizAg,
Notafraid again explained accurately why this is a twisting of the concept of spiritual war. But yes, I can see where it leads to that thinking by the foolish or those projecting their own bigotries and desires as the will of God.
As a "government" I would still SHOOT them. It doesn't really matter. As I said in reply on the irrelevance thread, the trust that God would make the request you asked is so doubtful as to raise extreme suspicion.
Doubtful, but I would take that chance where it concerned such a clearly discernible contradiction of the spirit of Christ's life. The probability of it as a trap is too great, and wicked from a mortal point of view. Would even so call on it.
Further, if actions don't determine salvation, it would not be a risk. So you have to also allow for the one addressing the question to.
quote:
For those that would say yes to his request, I am sure you will live a great eternity in Heaven. But surely you must understand why abortion clinics are bombed and suicide bombings are rampant.
Notafraid again explained accurately why this is a twisting of the concept of spiritual war. But yes, I can see where it leads to that thinking by the foolish or those projecting their own bigotries and desires as the will of God.
quote:
Not that they are justified to you personally, but what if they were merely acting out a request from God that you were not apart of?
As a "government" I would still SHOOT them. It doesn't really matter. As I said in reply on the irrelevance thread, the trust that God would make the request you asked is so doubtful as to raise extreme suspicion.
quote:
For those who might say no, do you think he would deny you of Heaven because of your lack of faith to him?
Doubtful, but I would take that chance where it concerned such a clearly discernible contradiction of the spirit of Christ's life. The probability of it as a trap is too great, and wicked from a mortal point of view. Would even so call on it.
Further, if actions don't determine salvation, it would not be a risk. So you have to also allow for the one addressing the question to.
quote:Sounds eerily like jihad to the more moderate / accomodating Muslims I know! The pop-religion view of Islam foisted on us by the media has us non-Muslims thinking jihad is like the Christian's wars against the Muslim possessors of the Holy Land during the crusades.
The question is loaded, because as I already explained to you the Scriptures teach that the only militant actions in the name of Christianity are spiritual. All of orthodox Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Orthodoxy stand in agreement on this. Those who would kill in the name of Christ are confused, and do not know the Word of God.
SWOSU,
A greater source of folly and misinformation is difficult to imagine. Even the Devil's propaganda minister could learn a thing or two about promoting inaccuracy from today's press!
Jihad does indeed have a spiritual component that is similar. The main difference actually emerges in that the founder of Christianity, Christ, so point-blank negated the sword in the garden, as compared to the fact that at best, Muhammad only implied it shouldn't be a first resort.
Christians, from the execution of heretics, to the Inquistion, to abortion clinics, have to slap Christ in the face and commit blatant hypocrisy to do so.
But Muslims unfortunately, have a less clear-cut `don't you dare' message from their faith, though it is stressed the People of the Book were to be respected. But it gets muddled.
In the Christian "muddling" I submit it is no coincidence that the blessing of violent coerced conversion became vogue after the government merger.
[This message has been edited by titan (edited 5/12/2005 5:30p).]
quote:
Sounds eerily like jihad to the more moderate / accomodating Muslims I know! The pop-religion view of Islam foisted on us by the media has us non-Muslims thinking jihad is like the Christian's wars against the Muslim possessors of the Holy Land during the crusades.
A greater source of folly and misinformation is difficult to imagine. Even the Devil's propaganda minister could learn a thing or two about promoting inaccuracy from today's press!
Jihad does indeed have a spiritual component that is similar. The main difference actually emerges in that the founder of Christianity, Christ, so point-blank negated the sword in the garden, as compared to the fact that at best, Muhammad only implied it shouldn't be a first resort.
Christians, from the execution of heretics, to the Inquistion, to abortion clinics, have to slap Christ in the face and commit blatant hypocrisy to do so.
But Muslims unfortunately, have a less clear-cut `don't you dare' message from their faith, though it is stressed the People of the Book were to be respected. But it gets muddled.
In the Christian "muddling" I submit it is no coincidence that the blessing of violent coerced conversion became vogue after the government merger.
[This message has been edited by titan (edited 5/12/2005 5:30p).]
Featured Stories
See All