Kanicbird. Yeah, It's probably pointless, but..

I think you’re reading it wrong, and I did give it thought.

The problem here is not that I am not giving it enough thought but that others are giving it TOO MUCH thought. Essentially you have to live with the results of your Father’s actions…period…full stop. You are responsible for the world that your Father leaves you. How you react to that is what determines your culpability in the thing. In traditional societies where families were intertwined in ways they are not in modern America this was much more important as families had obligations, not merely individuals. So saying that you are responsible for your Father’s sins is not a cruel and capricious act but merely a commentary on cause and effect.

If you do nothing to clean up the Hudson then it’s water remains polluted. Basically you can read it as we are responsible for the sins of our ‘forefathers’. Which is a simple statement of fact.

This whole Asshole God belief system that some have is trite and silly, “Rarr your Dad was an asshole, therefore I will send locusts to eat your crops!”, sort of God is just a childish as reading that it’s ok to beat down some ‘faggot’ with a baseball bat because of some dodgy reading of leviticus.

You’re either reading it too literally or not literally enough.

To a modern deracinated mind it is difficult to conceive of being locked into responsibility for a Father’s sins, but in a tribal society where there is no escape from your ancestors’ choices, it makes a whole lot of sense.

(emphasis mine)
Except that Yahwheh quite literally does just that. Consider, for instance, his murderous, cruel–oh, let’s quit faffing about and call it evil–judgment of the Amalekites:

Here the Amalekites (apparently at peace with Israel, as there is no mention of a current conflict between them) are being punished for something their ancestors did to the Israelite’s ancestors, some hundreds of years ago. This isn’t a question of effects following cause; this is a matter of revenge, pure and simple, of a sadist seeking a victim. Apparently God was out of robins to rip wings off of.

Capable of love, sure. Constantly maintaining love, I don’t think so. Ants become boring after a while. I might move on to goldfish or maybe stamp collecting.

If God has grown up, He’s become indifferent. He doesn’t check back with the ants unless they get in His sugar bowl.

Skald I’d need to know more about the relationship with the Amaleks at the time.

But I’d also like to point out that in older times the notion of individuality as we understand it today simply did not exist. People were members of a tribe first, individuals second. The tribe itself was the sovereign entity. So the individuals in this case are Amalek and Israel, not the Amaleks and the Israelites.

Evil in this case is just an appeal to emotion, an irrelevant term. If you’re going to judge ‘God’ then you have to accept things within the terms of the mythology you are judging, in which case, anything God does is Good and anything opposing him is Evil. If you said it would be evil for you to behave that way today, that’s different. It would be evil to emulate this story to be certain, but judging the actions as ‘evil’ really has no traction, it’s emotional expression and not an actual moral analysis. For it to be evil in the terms you’re using, it would have 1) have to actually have happened, and 2) have to be carried out by humans sans God.

You can’t have it both ways, you can’t have God exist and God be evil, because if God exists and really is the creator of everything then evil is only that which defies God.

Right, it’s not a personal love, but you didn’t create the ants either.

This is just too confusing a statement. Either you believe in the God of the bible or you don’t. If you believe then he has constantly communicated with mankind and the ant metaphor is not apt. In that case God doesn’t grow up, but humans do.

What makes the arguments idiotic if they’re not illogical?

bold added

Interesting argument. So you’re saying that all you have to do to have courage is to think that someone is backing you up? You don’t need evidence of it or any proof that it’s true?

If that’s the case, you’ve basically made the case for faith, which is the belief in something unseen and for which there is little or no evidence.

Let’s say that someone told you that there are snipers all around you who will kill off anyone who tries to harm you. Would you have instant courage for any activity given this fact even if there’s no evidence that these snipers actually exist? If someone told you that they exist but they hide themselves very well, does that give you more courage? What if you saw glimmers of someone moving quickly out of your sight, would that give you more proof that these snipers really exist? And would it give you more courage?

Can you make yourself believe? Try it.

What takes courage (or stupidity since there’s a often a fine line between the two) is to believe the first assumption. Then as you say, acting with conviction if you take for granted the first assumption is less difficult.

Exactly. The question in the linked thread is:

which is pretty much a nonsensical question.

If you ask a stupid question, you get answers that are easy to criticize.

And Skald the Rhymer seems to have made of hobby of doing this with religious questions.

Original sin is the ultimate “sins of your father.” That’s a pretty big part of Christianity, so saying that the Christian God isn’t like that is kind of silly.

Sex does unite the 2 into one flesh, or to put it another way both spirits come together into one. Scripture speaks of this many time, even talking about sleeping with a prostitute is the act of getting married (as in uniting your spirit w/ her’s).

It is not irrevocable, however, but required divorce or redemption. This is a act of God, not of man (people who have been divorced by man only are still spiritually united.)

Each person, once married (or having sex) have a longing to please the other, this is the danger of a uncommitted relationship, once the physical relationship ends, the spiritual longing can no longer be satisfied, and that results in trying out multiple partners to try to do that, which just adds more to the problem.

No shit? No wonder I feel drained what with my polygamist spirit involved in The Mother Of All Orgies.

Fuck me! And here I thought I was done paying alimony. :frowning:

Huh? Danger? Spiritual longing? Problem? Ever hear of birth control? Or cumming because it simply feels good? And that’s not even considering what possible “spiritual relation” I have with my own hand – most loyal partner I’ve ever had in my forty plus years of sexual activity.

If you’ll read my OP in the other thread, I was asking in terms of the story. I’m more than capable of arguing strictly within the terms of a mythological universe. For instance (as I posted in GD), I take the meaning of the story as being that Yahweh is choosing to establish himself as a warrior god for the first time, which role he has not before assumed. Note that in Genesis, when Abraham is obliged to do battle to rescue Lot, he does not call upon God to assist him, but rather gathers an alliance himself. Cite. But there are other interpretations of the Exodus story; I was rather hope someone sane, like Polycarp or tomndebb, would proffer an opinion. I don’t think it was I who moved the conversation there to a debate on theodicy. As I wrote in the OP for the other thread, I think it was better suited for IMHO, but religious threadds always end up in GD anyway.

(And actually I’d say the thread was better suited for Cafe Society, as it is the same general idea as many LotR threads in which we analyze the story as if it had some historical basis.)

Deductive logic can manipulate statements as readily as true ones; the mere fact that a statement is logically valid (i.e., follows, from its premises) does not mean it is not stupid, for the premises may be lies. Moreover, the fact that a statement is false doesn’t mean it follows from its premises.

Here’s an example:

  1. All Memphians are murderers.
  2. Skald the Rhymer is from Memphis.
  3. Therefore Skald the Rhymer is a murderer.

Logically valid, yet untrue. Or take

  1. All people from Chattanooga, Tennessee, are assholes.
  2. Skald the Rhymer is from Memphis, Tennessee.
  3. Skald is an asshole.

Statement 3 is arguably true, but the argument is invalid.

I think they’re actually using people named Jesus. They have big bags of Jesus Jerky they bring out for communion.

hnyuk hnyuk hnyuk!

If kanicbird’s god IS real, you’re definitely going to hell. But then so am I, so on the ferry ride over, you bring a six-pack & I’ll bring some burgers. Might as well have one final blowout before they start teh raping with flaming worms.

I’ll bring the Jesus Jerky.

If kanicbird’s god is real, everyone is going to hell, including kanicbird.

I’m not sure where you got that one from, unless everyone is a demon.

Now the morning commute makes sense.

I was raised a fundie (of the Baptist variety) and my parents repeatedly warned me via the aforementioned logic me that if I had sex with someone demon possessed then I would become possessed too. And of course, the odds were disproportionately greater than not that anyone willing to have premarital sex was very likely just that.

:shrug: It worked for a while… but with long term abstinence even demoniacs are appealing.


You admitted in another thread that your particular brand of faith is unique to you. So maybe you won’t go.

I dated a girl from Arkansas whose father was a well-known fundamentalist preacher (his church described itself as non-denominational, but they seemed to toe the Southern Baptist line pretty closely). By well-known, I mean famous enough that I read his obituary in TIME a couple of years ago.

Anyway, he and her mother had taught her that sex creates a “soul tie”, and that sex with demonic people creates a tie between ones’ soul and the demon.

When she found out that, 1) we were having sex, 2) that I’m not white, and 3) that I’m a demon or demon-possessed*, I thought her head was going to asplode. Then I threw her out of my apartment for saying rather uncomplimentary things about my mother, and went back to corrupting her daughter.

*Saw a copy of The Satanic Verses on my nightstand, and apparently didn’t know it was a work of fiction.

I don’t want to weigh in on the religion thing, since everyone who cares probably already knows my opinion, but I just wanted to say I’m sorry you had to experience that. It’s easy for us to think in platitudes like “Indians/Chinese/Pakistanis/whatever country don’t like to give birth to girls”, but those of us who have no direct experience with those cultures may not think about the very real pain and suffering of many millions of real people due to these so-called cultural “quirks”. It’s hard to imagine what it must feel like to be an individual who actually suffered from this phenomenon.

I’m not saying that I understand your pain or that this is close to what you’ve suffered, but when my dad left for the first Iraq War, I felt a sense of confused abandonment–I was too young to understand what was going on. It was very painful for the whole family. But hearing stories like this reminds me not to throw myself a pity party, because I was one of the lucky ones. Thanks for the reminder and I hope you’ve learned how to cope with the many ramifications of your father’s decision.