SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Antonin Scalia, a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice, has died:
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia - one of most conservative members of the high court - has died. Justice Scalia's death could shift the balance of power on the US high court, allowing President Barack Obama to add a fifth liberal justice to the court. The court's conservative majority has recently stalled major efforts by the Obama administration on climate change and immigration.
Justice Scalia, 79, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. He died in his sleep early on Saturday while in West Texas for [a] hunting trip, the US Marshall service said. Justice Scalia was one of the most prominent proponents of "originalism" - a conservative legal philosophy that believes the US Constitution has a fixed meaning and does not change with the times.
Justice Scalia's death is, unsurprisingly, now being widely reported.
From the San Antonio Express News:
According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body.
[...] The U.S. Marshal Service, the Presidio County sheriff and the FBI were involved in the investigation. Officials with the law enforcement agencies declined to comment.
A federal official who asked not to be named said there was no evidence of foul play and it appeared that Scalia died of natural causes.
A gray Cadillac hearse pulled into the ranch last Saturday afternoon. The hearse came from Alpine Memorial Funeral Home.
Most major news outlets are covering this story, including CNN [video autoplays], The Washington Post, The New York Times, and NBC.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:52PM
Last time all I did was respond to your canned, hollow strawman-apologetic army. This time I'm going to start dissecting the foundations of your belief. I don't expect you to be either intelligent or, more pertinently, honest enough with yourself to understand most of it, and that's okay; this is mainly for the benefit of anyone else who is watching. You are a lost cause, and I look forward to hearing your spirit scream in agony when it's revealed to the rest of the universe, entirely exposed, for what it is.
Well, friend, your post is so emotionally loaded that I can only conclude that you are very angry at God. A lot of people are.
And based on the emotional content of some Star Wars posts I can only conclude that a lot of people are mad at Darth Sidious. Which seems odd in that he doesn't exist, but makes sense when you remember that characters in stoies are intended to provoke this response. tl;dr: normal people are capable of separating fantasy from reality, yet still able to hate an evil character. Which Yahweh is.
1. Failure to understand who Yahweh is.
See the above post re: Ugarit. I know who Yahweh is (and stop calling him God; I know God and Yahweh is not it).
2. Failure to understand who oneself is (i.e. failure to humble oneself).
Aha, see, i had the ol' irony-tron ready for you that time :) This time I'll just laugh rather than pick burned bits of metal off the floor.
There are a few problems with your interpretation here. 1. You assume that the quip Jesus made to the woman was intended to provide, or could reasonably be construed to provide, a complete picture of this theological issue. This is not the case. You are extrapolating far too much from this minor anecdote. Jesus may have actually said more before, during, or after that incident, which could provide additional context, but it is not recorded. Also, we do not know exactly what purpose the author thought the anecdote would serve. You are in fact twisting this anecdote to serve your own purpose. 2. You assume that later passages which seem relevant must abrogate, rather than add to, the earlier ones. This is not the case. The stories in Acts and the rest of the NT provide a more complete picture of God's plans for the gentiles. And, in fact, the OT, especially in Genesis before the Abrahamic covenant, also indicates that God loves all humanity.
This, dear friend, is a contradiction...and I must point out that you are the one twisting this combination of texts to your own end here, not me. All I am doing is pointing out the contradiction; you, on the other hand, are blithely ignoring it. And I notice that you have decided to completely ignore the possibility that Luke-Acts' later insistence on the matter is conversion-propaganda. Really, your religion ought to be called Paulianity, considering how much influence Saul of Tarsus had on it.
I can see how you would interpret that as an appeal to emotion, but it's not intended that way. It's simply an analogy. God is typically referred to as a father figure in the Bible, and being the Creator, it's a sensible analogy. No, of course a human parent is not omnipotent, etc, but that does not invalidate the point of the analogy, which is that God created us and loves us. That's all.
Except that no, the analogy does not in ANY way match actual fatherhood. A much closer one would be the "potter" analogy in Romans. "Butbutbut Yahweh's ur daddeh~!" is, as I said, a maudlin, base appeal to emotion.
And here we see yet another infuriating thing about you and your kind: you think the way to answer a serious objection to something you said is...say it again, louder. What's that Einstein said about the definition of insanity again?
I honestly don't think that's even relevant. To me, the point of the Creation story is simply that God created, and that humans are sinful. The point of the Creation story is not to say how God created, or how many of this or that at what time he created, etc. It's not a modern historical account; it's an ancient Creation story. Most of the problems people have with it are caused by burdening it with expectations which it was not intended to bear.
Missing the point again...and if this is the case, why didn't your Yahweh, not once in a good 1700+ years, ever boom down from the clouds "IT WAS NOT SIX DAYS AS YOU UNDERSTAND DAYS. STOP BURNING PEOPLE FOR SAYING OTHERWISE?"
As to "sin," we've been over this before: "sin" is a bogus disease invented by the priestly class to sell you a lifetime subscription to a snake-oil cure. There is good, and there is evil, but "sin" as such does not exist.
Well, you aren't God, you are a finite human being. So what you think you would or wouldn't do if you were God is not relevant.
True, I'm not, but it very much is relevant. Why? Because some woman you don't know from Eve could do a better job. Yahweh isn't God either, and one of the things that disqualifies him is how he's constantly tripping over his own dick over things like this. You would think a guy who's omniscient would have seen certain things coming. And it's odd how he "repents [him] that [he] made mankind." Especially because a later verse says "YHVH is not a man that he should change his mind, nor son of man, that he should repent." Oops!
I'm not making any such claim. I'm simply making an observation about human behavior throughout history. I'm hardly the only one; even atheists recognize that humanity expresses the desire to be effectively godlike, omniscient, omnipotent, infinite, immortal, etc.
Only the people who haven't thought this through or, like you, do not understand the meaning of these words. Infinite existence is infinite torture for a finite mind...which I will discuss later. Suffice it to say that Heaven is a much worse problem than Hell for Christianity :)
There are two main problems with your thinking here: 1) The assumption that, since other pagan gods were believed to have existed at that time, that YHWH must be just another one of them. 2) The assumption that, since ancient peoples' understanding of who YHWH was differs from our understanding or the full biblical account, it must be our understanding or the biblical account that are incorrect, and what the ancients believed was correct. This isn't logical. In fact, even Abraham was henotheistic. God appears to have worked with his people to gradually bring them into knowledge of him. As an aside, I've actually had the privilege of studying under a respected biblical archaeologist. Of course, I'm far from an expert (and even he would be so humble as to say the same of himself).
And there you go ignoring the actual content of what was said again. At least you know Abraham wasn't a Second-Temple Jew. Look closer: stelae bearing the inscription "to YHVH and his Asherah." Those are not Abrahamic-era relics; they are very close to the Exile in terms of age.
And at this point I would like to digress to point out something important, and extremely damaging to your theology: An omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, absolutely sovereign being unchained by spacetime and causality does not bargain with created reality.
What does this mean? It simply means that every time you say "Yahweh gradually did this" or "Yahweh used X to achieve goal Y," you are spitting in your God's face. And this is only the tip of the iceberg: a being with the above attributes, perfect and self-sufficient, cannot have any goals or values in the first place and indeed would never have created anything outside of itself. I realize this is probably much too subtle for you, but it's one of the best of all possible counter-apologetics and it's a real doozy. If you were honest with yourself, just reading that should deconvert you.
You're not, of course, so you need it beaten out of you :)
Having said that, why do you think I'm arrogant? Just because I think I know some of the truth doesn't mean I claim to know everything, or claim to know the things I know with perfect certainty or complete understanding
The very fact that you don't understand why people call you arrogant is most of the reason people call you arrogant.
Regarding morality, I disagree: without an external source, we have no definition to go by. If you want to call God's commands and standards "marching orders" or "moral values" or whatever, it really doesn't matter. They are what they are.
You disagree because you do not understand how morality works. You also do not understand emergent behavior, or "supervenience" as the philosophical types perfer.
Far from needing an external source of morality, I would argue that morality and morals cannot exist or be grounded in an external source. You are falling into the Euthyphro Dilemma, and no apologist has ever offered a coherent escape; their claims that "Yahweh says what is good according to his nature" are not escapes but rather impaling themselves even more firmly on the second horn.
I disagree. Sin is self-evident. Just look at the world around you. Just look inside yourself.
See above.
What snake-oil cure? Jesus? Sadly, there are many, many people who misrepresent Christ, and many who do it for personal gain. Those people will receive their just reward when the time comes, because God is just, and he warns against misleading others (e.g. Mt 18:6). But the fact that some people choose to falsely represent Christ for their own gain does not change who Christ is or what he said. Thankfully, we have the Bible, and we can read the truth for ourselves. Through study and prayer, we can discern those who speak truth from those who lie (e.g. Mt 7:16,20).
Aaaaaaand the point goes sailing leisurely over your head at Mach 3.4, trailing massive sonic booms in its wake...
Yes, but also because he has demonstrated it [mercy and justice] and continues to demonstrate it.
Uh, no, no he hasn't. He has not demonstrated either, and in fact has demonstrated the precise opposite dozens of times in the Bible alone. You make me sick; that you can say this with a straight face just tells me how completely morally disabled you are!
This is probably the strongest argument against God: that suffering exists and that eternal torment is promised to those who do not repent. How could a truly loving God allow or cause these things?
No, it's not the strongest argument by far. I'd put this at number 4 or 5 at most. There are much bigger problems than that.
I don't claim to fully understand this myself. [masturbation]
Then shut up until you do.
But I need not understand everything in order to follow God. I need not be God to believe God. It may be hard for me to understand why he allows suffering, but I can surely understand that he sent Christ to die for me, to redeem me, and I can understand that he loves me. And so I can trust him without being him or being on his level.
Keep telling yourself that. In light of what we do know about his character, I find this dangerous and stupid in the extreme.
This is interesting, because I have studied ἡ κοινὴ. According to Danker (2000), αἰωνιος, especially as translated in Mt 25:46, means "pertaining to a period of unending duration, without end" (33). Regarding κόλασις, it may mean "infliction of suffering or pain in chastisement" or alternately, and specifically in Mt 25:46, "transcendent retribution" (555). τιμωρία is simply translated "punishment", typically referring to that inflicted by God, without any additional connotation (1006).
You apparently didn't study very closely then. Where do you think we get the word "aeon" from in English, idiot? Who were you studying under, Augustine of Hippo? Because he made that same mistake. If by "studying Koine" you mean "I picked up Strong's and followed my finger," turn in your Koine Kard.
By definition "aion" and its derivatives mean "pertaining to an unknown duration of time, appropriate to the thing described."
Then there's this bit from Philo: "“It is better not to promise than not to give prompt assistance, for no blame follows in the former case, but in the latter there is dissatisfaction from the weaker class, and a deep hatred and everlasting punishment [kolasis aiónios] from such as are more powerful.”
As to kolasis and its relatives: again, this means reformatory punishment. Here is an example from Plato: "For the natural or accidental evils of others, no one gets angry or admonishes or teaches or punishes (kolazei) them, but we pity those afflicted with such misfortunes. For if, oh Socrates, you will consider what is the design of punishing (kolazein)the wicked, this of itself will show you that men think virtue something that may be acquired; for no one punishes (kolazei) the wicked, looking to the past only, simply for the wrong he has done. That is, no one does this thing who does not act like a wild beast, desiring only revenge, without thought. Hence, he who seeks to punish (kolazein) with reason, does not punish for the sake of the past wrong deed, but for the sake of the future, that neither the man himself who is punished may dow rong again, no any other who has seen him chastised. And he who entertains this thought must believe that virtue may be taught, and he punishes (kolazei) for the purpose of deterring from wickedness."
From Beecher: "There were at least six theological schools in the church at large. Of these six schools, one, and ONLY one, was decidedly and earnestly in favor of the doctrine of future eternal punishment. One was in favor of the annhilation of the wicked. Two were in favor of the doctrine of universal restoration on the principles of Origen, and two in favor of universal restoration on the principles of Theodore of Mopsuestia."
I'm far from an expert on early church fathers
Boy THAT'S for Goddamn (heh) sure...
however, considering how the gospel was already being corrupted within a few decades of Christ's death, I would not consider their opinions binding or canonical.
You are not qualified to speak of this, and it betrays your ignorance for all to see. Did you know it took until the mid-sixth century for Justinian to anathemize Universalism? Plenty of Origen's other ideas, for example, had been anathemized before, but Justinian specifically had to call a council for this one. In the mid sixth-century.
And contrary to your idiocy regarding "aionios" above, Justinian had to add the word "ateleutelos" to "aionios" to describe said punishment. In the sixth century!
You are not qualified to speak of these things. Educate yourself, and until you do, shut the hell up.
No, just because Islam claims to have the same god does not make it so. In fact, the god portrayed in Islamic holy texts is far from the God portrayed in the Bible, and what Mohammed taught is far from what Christ taught. In fact, they are so different that to consider them the same is ludicrous.
You...have never read the Koran have you? And they ARE the same God, much as you hate the idea. You should, but of course do not, know this.
I'd agree Mohammed diverges from Jesus on some points, but on others he's precisely the same, and it's those similarities that count if you ask me. It's interesting to see how knee-jerk you are about this; I must point out to you that your responses tell the people reading this far more about you than you perhaps suspect, none of it good.
That seems clever, but it's misleading. In the case of such a relationship, both the abuser and the victim are human beings. In contrast, God is God. You say, "You're worthless without me," but God says, "You are so valuable to me that I will send my innocent son to die for you." You say, "You owe me everything you have," but God says, "Even though you can never make restitution for your sins, I will pay the debt for you." You say, "You do what I tell you or I will make you suffer," but God says, "I don't want you to suffer. Follow these guidelines and your suffering here on earth will be greatly reduced. And I will send my son to save you from eternal suffering." You say, "If you ever try to run away I will hunt you down," but Jesus said, "And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age," (Mt 28:20) and they said of him, "if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself" (2 Ti 2:13).
You're floundering in the deep here, sunny Jim :)
First of all, the "debt" here is meaningless. You cannot, in any way, harm, frustrate, stymie, offend, or trick an omniscient, omnipotent being. Here's a clue: when the guy doing the saving is the guy you're being saved from, this is not a gift; it's a racket. Despite my screen name, I am Italian enough to know a protection racket when I see one and this is bloody well it.
Second: none of the verses you quoted neutralize what I said. They are some degree of irrelevant or actually lies, depending. The fact that you do not see this, that you think the answer to someone pointing out the problems with your belief is to quote their originating verses, speaks very badly of both your honesty and your brainpower.
So, objection overrulled :) Yahweh is still the Platonic ideal of the abusive husband or father, and believe me, boy, I have seen enough cases of both to know of which I speak.
No, God loves us because he created us, and I am saved from my sins because Christ died for me, and I washed away my sins calling on his name.
Yahweh does not love you; he is using you to stroke his ego. And, again, when the guy doing the saving is the guy you need to be saved from, you are being gaslit and manipulated.
I know that I am saved because I have washed my sins away, calling on his name (Ac 22:16), and he purifies me (1 Jn 1:19).
No, you do not know this; you believe it. There is a difference. You wanna know why you get called arrogant? Because you don't seem to know the difference. For bonus funsies, you are blaspheming by arrogating the attributes of God (omniscience specifically) to yourself, because belief == knowledge only for an omniscient being!
Not according to Yahweh. :)
*siiiigh* You know, if I were Yahweh, I'd throw you into hellfire just for being an ignorant, smug, greasy, ass-kissing little brownnoser. READ why I said you're gonna burn if Yahweh is actually real. You think the guy's just going to tell you everything?!
Death will truly dispel all of our delusions and illusions. We will all be faced with the truth. For some of us, it will be a day of rejoicing. For others, it will not. The light does not burn what has been cleansed. I pray that you will open your heart to the truth, friend. Feel free to contact me if you want to talk some more.
1) I am not your friend, and if we ever met in person i would very likely injure you.
2) You got one thing right: death dispels illusions. You don't seem to understand the situation you're in though...
3) Okay, you can pray for me; I'll think for you. That way we can both do what we're good at. Isn't division of labor grand?
...allrighty. Now that I've addressed your oily, snivelling, elementary-school dreck, let's get serious about deconstructing your beliefs. I have a few things for you to consider, if you have both the honesty (doubtful) and the smarts (maybe?) to grapple with them.
First: in light of your God's attributes, specifically his perfection, self-sufficiency, aseity, eternality, and utter freedom from causality/spacetime, can you explain to me:
Second: How does "substitutionary atonement" work? How, in other words, can punishing someone for someone else's supposed crimes absolve the alleged criminal of said crimes?
Third: Does Yahweh command what is good because those things are, of themselves, good, or is what Yahweh commands good simply because he commands it? Remember my warning above about the Euthyphro Dilemma; the response you will try for this ("Neither: Yahweh commands according to his nature which itself is good") is not an escape, but falls back onto the second horn of the dilemma.
Fourth: The evidential problem of evil: given Yahweh's attributes, there should be no evil, however you choose to define evil (and your kind defines it as "anything Yahweh doesn't like"). Yet there is evil, and gratuitous evil at that. Explain this.
Fifth: I already know your answer to #4: "humans have free will." If you feel really fancy-pants you might cite Plantinga's "transworld depravity" argument, i.e., "it is logically impossible for any significantly-free essence to be free of sin in any possible world." Given a free-will theodicy, explain:
Sixth: How can you know anything, anything at all, in your worldview? The very laws of logic are putty in Yahweh's hands according to you, and there are incidents in the Bible (Ezekiel 14:9, 1 Kings 22:19-23, all the times in Exodus where Yahweh "hardens Pharaoh's heart") wherein your God infringes on our free will and/or deceives us. This being the case, how do you know that at any given time you are not being utterly deceived to the very core of your being by Yahweh?
I realize I am most likely casting pearls before swine (hardy har har), but again, this isn't so much for your benefit as for anyone who comes across this. You are already beyond redemption and you will burn and scream and howl as the light of truth flays your soul for all to see.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...