Four questions for Christians

[ronedee]

I'm not the one who offered it up or tried to defend it Ron. Maybe it's not important to you.....but that's probably because you haven't thought such a position through. Not that any of this would matter, whether someone offered an incoherent position on some narrative in the OT or Fight Club, I will have been interested enough to bring light to that.

On the other point..... You, of anyone here, should know that my issue with your faith does not originate from the OT. When we had our little exchange, how much of the OT did I call you to task on? None, huh? So maybe, just maybe....you outta keep that sort of bullshit under control. Don't be the third person I have to call out for the same shit in a single thread.

So, I don't have a dog in this fight is what you are saying? I guess that could be true in the pure argument sense...but don't you see your own hypocrisy?

I'm called out on everything... every morsel of a word I utter gets scrutinized (just look at the sharks above on my OT quote) yet you get to pick and choose.

Well, that's fine. Its your rules here. I have enough skin and endurance for the whole mess of yuz!

[The Grand Nudger]

So, I don't have a dog in this fight is what you are saying?

No.......perhaps you do ( i do think that you have a dog in it, sure, but I could be wrong), what I'm saying, is that you jumped in and dropped a deuce on a conversation.

I guess that could be true in the pure argument sense...but don't you see your own hypocrisy?

I'm calling heinous bullshit, I think it's entirely likely that in your zeal to drop said deuce, you didn't take the time to figure out what I'm discussing with Cons or why.

I'm called out on everything... every morsel of a word I utter gets scrutinized (just look at the sharks above on my OT quote) yet you get to pick and choose.

Well, that's fine. Its your rules here. I have enough skin and endurance for the whole mess of yuz!

I don't make the rules here, what gave you the impression that I did? In fact, me and the guy (and folks) who make the rules here are very often at odds (for much more solid reasons and disagreements I might add - than anything I get into with your ilk). I'm sure you're right though, I make the rules, and I use those rules to suppress, harass, and belittle your oh-so-valid- observations. If I could throw you to the lions I would, honestly. Unfortunately I can't, mostly because I don't make the rules.

[Consilius]

TQ isn't an issue of revenge. That the narrative is a revenge story is ancillary and unrelated to why your argument failed on the grounds of TQ. Though, admittedly,explanations for revenge often amounts to TQ.

TQ is simple. Discrediting the position of another by reference to some "bad" thing that another party has done. Somebody else can do "bad" things all day long, and that won't establish that what -you- did is good..or at the very least, not bad. IOW, avoiding the point and attacking the arguer (or who the arguer serves as a proxy for). Following? If using an example unrelated to this discussion would help, say the word (not that I'm going to do anything more than quote one of my own posts in this thread that has already been mentioned for you-but hey...if it helps...).

In that case, any act of punishment on anybody is "bad".

[The Grand Nudger]

Sigh, no, whether or not any act of punishment is good or bad is irrelevant. That your justification -for a specific act of punishment- is not logically coherent is all that TQ addresses. TQ would apply -even if it were- a "good" act of punishment. It isn't a "good" act of punishment (nor is criticism of that act diminished or addressed in any way) for the TQ offered, there must be some other reason. The problem isn't whether or not the punishment was "good" but that neither of us can conclude that it was good...or can be excused as "not bad"..by what you offered.

In short, and simply, to argue that the child killing bit is consistent with a character that is always "good" or that the act itself was "good" - or to address my criticism that it is "not good" something other than-

"the egyptians did it too"

-is required.

[Consilius]

I think you are playing with the term TQ—tu quoque—you also.
TQ is falsely used to justify an act done by acknowledging that it has been done by another person. The relation between these persons is insignificant.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you are playing with the term TQ—tu quoque—you also.
TQ is falsely used to justify an act done by acknowledging that it has been done by another person. The relation between these persons is insignificant.

Yeah.... as in

"Why is it okay for god to do shitty things to egyptians?"

"Because the egyptians did shitty things to the jews".

Or

"God did something shitty"

"The egyptians did something shitty!"

Pretty cut and dry.

[Consilius]

If by "do shitty things" you mean "punish for offenses done", the way the legal system works, then yeah, sure.

[The Grand Nudger]

legality =/= morality. What is legal can be wrong, and what is illegal may be right. You have no traction, you have yet to acknowledge the bullshit I've put up with in this thread..and here you are fleeing off to some other set of bullshit.... In any case, our legal system does not "work" by punishing the children for the offense of the parent. So even though the two things aren't equivalent, we still manage to do it just that much better than the god in your head manages to do it.

I'm starting to lose interest (which is rare for me, btw).

Are you clear on the concept of TQ and why it doesn't work yet? I don't think that you are - since "punish for offense done" - is yet another fucking TQ. Even if they did "commit the offense" this will not excuse you from my criticism of your position. Why was it right or good for anyone..a god or a waffle, to do what you claim was done? Does someone else doing something "bad" all of a sudden mean all bets are off, and you can do some batshit thing and be "good"? No, it does not. TQ.

[Consilius]

The act of being punished and having your child punished are incredibly different, as I've said before.
What I've also been trying to say is that whether or not anything bad happened to the kids at all depends on what you dislike about death. Being an atheist, you percieve dying as much worse than it is in the theistic realm.

---

And again, the Egyptians would have expected any just legal system to punish their children in the way they did other children.

[Silver]

Being an atheist, you percieve dying as much worse than it is in the theistic realm.

Atheists do not fear death. We understand and accept that there is absolutely nothing after death, which is why we make the best of the one life we do have.

Theists, on the other hand, have created for themselves an afterlife due to the fact that they fear the inevitable finality of death where nothing awaits them on the other side of life.

Also, claiming to know that there is a better existence after death does not excuse god from murder.