Four questions for Christians

[Ryantology]

Ooh, how nice. Let's change the analogy to a detention in a school.

Two students who commit the same infraction should be assigned the same punishment as a result.

The phrase "two wrongs make a right" represents a dogma of Christianity: God's love and mercy.

It is not a Christian invention and Christians don't own the patent on it. It is a concept that Christianity happened to adopt.

In OT times, not only did this law not exist due to Adam's sin, but the people of the time implemented a law of retribution and only saw justice in it.

Adam was not a real person. Elite rulers generally implemented laws and enforced them with military might. It was not a situation where the people of nations got together and agreed upon the rules they would follow.

If you are being beaten up by a strangers, you have two options: a) two wrongs don't make a right b) they will deserve what they get.

Vengeance fixes nothing. Even God eventually realized it.

'Eternal punishment' (Hell) is as poor a term as its definition: "Where the bad people go." Hell is rather a state of separation from God that is freely chosen by souls that do not want to be with him. Hell is not "fire and brimstone", rather, that is a description of what it is like to live without God in a person. The 'damned' live forever in the absence of a God they did not want to live with.

Christians need to really unify their opinion on what hell is. It makes talking about hell very difficult.

[Consilius]

For all I know, the Exodus could have never happened.

You could get a much better idea of this narrative's historical accuracy than "for all I know", if you wished to. Simply discarding it is probably the simplest way of dealing with any problem it's inclusion might cause for some other claim, though.

But this is a story forms part of a narrative of the same Christian God and what he does with mankind.

-That- is the troubling part, if we wish to excuse the narrative for what it is. It's foundational, -if not the god that delivered his people from bondage - then which god again?

As for its historical validity, that is irrelevant to whether or not the same loving God in the Bible works in the Exodus.

I think that you aren't giving the narrative a fair shake. For the christ you wish to be the fulfillment of prophecy the god of exodus must be invoked. They must be the same god, loving or not (and lets be clear, a loving being can do atrocious or incoherent things, love isn't any hedge against this if we are to use ourselves as any example). We could, very easily given the narrative, say that "god" -in exodus- did something inexplicable and altogether shitty - but that in some other (later, for example) part of the narrative "god" did explicable, not-so-shitty things.

Is my explanation illogical? Apparently, you see it, and I don't. Are you going to justify your belief with evidence or are going to keep saying that its true?

I'm sorry, I thought that you had finally come to an understanding here? It's not an issue of belief (mine or anyone else's). Your defense is not sound because
A: It is not valid
and
B: You have not demonstrated that the premise is true

It is not valid because it is entirely comprised of a logical fallacy (which you then attempted to drive ad naus....double whammy).

If your defense is not sound or valid, it is -by definition- illogical. My evidence for this is your argument, and the criteria that must be met to have formed a coherent or logical argument- which have not been met......

What part of this is giving you trouble?

And the logical fallacy is…

---

Ooh, how nice. Let's change the analogy to a detention in a school.

Two students who commit the same infraction should be assigned the same punishment as a result.

The phrase "two wrongs make a right" represents a dogma of Christianity: God's love and mercy.

It is not a Christian invention and Christians don't own the patent on it. It is a concept that Christianity happened to adopt.

In OT times, not only did this law not exist due to Adam's sin, but the people of the time implemented a law of retribution and only saw justice in it.

Adam was not a real person. Elite rulers generally implemented laws and enforced them with military might. It was not a situation where the people of nations got together and agreed upon the rules they would follow.

If you are being beaten up by a strangers, you have two options: a) two wrongs don't make a right b) they will deserve what they get.

Vengeance fixes nothing. Even God eventually realized it.

'Eternal punishment' (Hell) is as poor a term as its definition: "Where the bad people go." Hell is rather a state of separation from God that is freely chosen by souls that do not want to be with him. Hell is not "fire and brimstone", rather, that is a description of what it is like to live without God in a person. The 'damned' live forever in the absence of a God they did not want to live with.

Christians need to really unify their opinion on what hell is. It makes talking about hell very difficult.

If Adam's sin (a theological concept and not a historical assertion) makes it so that people live by a code of retribution, the principles of this code need to be channeled by the law of the God who is still the ruler of these people (the Jewish law). After centuries of this law, it comes to completion at a chosen time through Christ.

[Ryantology]

If Adam's sin (a theological concept and not a historical assertion) makes it so that people live by a code of retribution, the principles of this code need to be channeled by the law of the God who is still the ruler of these people (the Jewish law). After centuries of this law, it comes to completion at a chosen time through Christ.

I'd say that's a pretty wonderful reason not to base legal codes on theological concepts. So much blood and suffering resulting from the real-world consequences of a mythical event.

[fr0d0]

All this time you were pro Jesus Ryan!

[The Grand Nudger]

And the logical fallacy is…

Reread the posts I conveniently numbered for you. I haven't suddenly decided to explain it all again.

[tokutter]

If Adam's sin (a theological concept and not a historical assertion) makes it so that people live by a code of retribution, the principles of this code need to be channeled by the law of the God who is still the ruler of these people (the Jewish law). After centuries of this law, it comes to completion at a chosen time through Christ.

The people that original law was for are still here and say your full of shit. Go tell them about it.

[Consilius]

And the logical fallacy is…

Reread the posts I conveniently numbered for you. I haven't suddenly decided to explain it all again.

Can't find them. I guess this ends our wonderfully productive conversation.

---

If Adam's sin (a theological concept and not a historical assertion) makes it so that people live by a code of retribution, the principles of this code need to be channeled by the law of the God who is still the ruler of these people (the Jewish law). After centuries of this law, it comes to completion at a chosen time through Christ.

I'd say that's a pretty wonderful reason not to base legal codes on theological concepts. So much blood and suffering resulting from the real-world consequences of a mythical event.

OK, I thought we were talking about morality in the Bible here. If your going to hit me with the your views on the historicity of the Bible (an entirely different debate that needs to be had somewhere else), then nothing's going to get done.

[The Grand Nudger]

Can't find them. I guess this ends our wonderfully productive conversation.

Am I to conclude that you managed to miss the content of the majority of my posts in this thread -while quoting them- after having claimed to have gone back and reread them....twice? What happened then? Did you simply quote my posts as an opportunity to reassert your position, rather than addressing the criticism of that position that was contained within?

TQ, appeal to hypocrisy. The inequity of one does not excuse the inequity of another. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's a form of ad hom whereby you attempt to discredit a position (usually a derogatory one about whatever you're presenting) by stating that the other people "were bad people too" or "did it first"

-It does not matter. Imagine the worst about the egyptians, none of what you're imagining will excuse the character in the narrative for massacring children. Further, no, it does not matter how many lollipops you imagine the character to have given the children -after it was done massacring them. They will simply be massacred children holding lollipops. It does not matter what any given despot, dunce, or midget thinks is fair or expects from his laws - many despots, dunces, and midgets can expect incoherent things. You have not presented a -single- coherent defense of this narrative and it;s implications for the moral status of your god. Not one. 14 pages of absolute garbage ad nausing it the entire way, and to top it off you thought that maybe this sort of head in sand bullshit might help? No dice.

---

This is just my second post in this thread.....in which I elaborated upon the contents of my first
(my first explaining that such a defense was unsound..and that the entire narrative could be written off to do away with any issues by the same grounds that it was unsound). But please, do tell me what's "not in there". What you "couldn't find". Post 55.

Same goes for you Frodo.

Thoughtcrime immediately followed up by the same appeal to hypocrisy. It's as useless now as it was the last time.

Hardly. I don't want to hear any quibbling about "valid statements" as you defend a logical fallacy, understand? A TQ is a form of ad hom, and in my experience on these boards accounts for the vast majority of people's defenses of any given fairy tale. It wouldn't matter if the group in question -had- attempted to do the same to you. The sins or inequity of another does not excuse one's own, in the more common usage "two wrongs don't make a right".

Should I continue to expose not only the vapid nature of your argument but the dishonest manner in which you've chosen to argue? Or is it remotely possible that we might move past this point, and come up with a competent fucking defense of the narrative or the faith?

[Consilius]

"They did it first" is the much of way the legal system works today and exactly the way it did in 2000 B.C. Attacking soldiers are killed in battle because "they attacked first". Murderers are killed because "they murdered first".
The "tu quoque" defense would only apply to this case if the Israelites had killed the Egyptian children themselves. The judgement was carried out by a judge.
Death is only a punishment on anyone if they are attached to the world around them. This being a biblical event, death for the innocent is the passing on into a better life. It is only a punishment to the people who have to live with the fact that they are dead.

[Foxaèr]

This being a biblical event, death for the innocent is the passing on into a better life.

Following your logic, I wonder if you realize this statement is a veritable precedent for killing under god's name. If god asks you to kill someone, will you comply? After all, following your logic, it is not murder if it is god's will, him taking them into a better life.