Author Topic: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto  (Read 2168 times)

Davin

  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6164
  • Gender: Male
  • (o°-°)=o o(o*-°)
    • DevPirates
Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
« Reply #30 on: June 14, 2011, 11:53:20 AM »
That'll teach me for saying the word "God" out loud.  ;)
Or you could take the lesson of explaining that it was an exclamation not meant to be taken literaly instead of avoiding questions like you had done. This is not in the nub zone, this is in the general zone which is meant for discussion.
Well it was meant "literally", as well as being an exclamation (as I explained at the beginning).  Which questions were these that I avoided?
If you meant it literally, then you should have no complaints for being asked to defend the statement.

God, save us from ourselves.
Why?

Why what?

Instead of answering why, you asked "Why what?" which is an avoidance to answering a very clear and direct question.

As a second bit of advice, don't state things as a fact if you're not willing to back the statements up with evidence and/or reasoning.

Consider it a cry of desperation for the state of humanity, bent on self-destruction, to a God who, though under no obligation towards us, is a God of grace and love who will ultimately save us from ourselves.
You will have to provide the evidence to support your positive claims. I'd like to know how you know that this god is a god of grace, a god of love and a god that will ultimately save us from ourselves.

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Nimzo

  • Made of Star Stuff
  • *
  • Posts: 80
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Is The Antitype
Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
« Reply #31 on: June 14, 2011, 12:29:10 PM »
I've seen you assert here more than once that the Christian view is that "God is not a moral agent."

How does a Christian reconcile this with the supposed sacrifice of Jesus? Does not Jesus as described in the Bible perform moral acts? Is Jesus not the Christian god?

A couple of Old Testament examples of YHVH apparently acting as a moral agent; the global flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. When your god acts directly (no intermediaries whatever) in this world to pursue an agenda, how is it possible to avoid describing him as a moral agent?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is the Christian view, but I think it is the correct one.  By a moral agent, I mean a being who is able to choose between good and evil, but is under a moral obligation to choose good.  In other words, a moral agent is a morally responsible being, whose actions are held to account by a standard of morality (Goodness).  In my view (and it can be shown clearly, I believe, the Biblical view) is that God is not a moral agent by this definition.  Rather, God's nature is Goodness: He is the standard of morality.  He is not able choose evil, only good.  He is under no obligation to choose good, and His actions are not held to account by anything or anyone.  He is not morally responsible for anything or to anyone.  Now, this does not mean that He doesn't perform acts which are morally good.  On the contrary, all of the acts He performs are morally good.
“Those who believe that they believe in God, but without passion in their hearts, without anguish in mind, without uncertainty, without doubt, without an element of despair even in their consolation, believe only in the God idea, not God Himself."  (Miguel de Unamuno)

Tank

  • Fed up with stupid.
  • Administrator
  • Excellent and Indefatigable Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 28325
  • Gender: Male
Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
« Reply #32 on: June 14, 2011, 12:29:27 PM »
Holy shit.


It is rather isn't it. 1958 and parts of the early '60s are like watching a nuclear war but all the weapons going off on their own territory. All the way through the USAs total exceeds the sum of all the other nuclear powers combined. I was mildly amused how the British and French blew the crap out of their colonies  ;D

Did you notice the handful of British tests that took place in the USA?

No, I didn't notice the British tests in the US, but I did see all those territories getting bombed! LOL! When that first one went off in Australia, I was really surprised. It makes total sense to have tested there, but I never knew they did so.

One of the things that I had never appreciated was how many nukes the French had detonated. No wonder the French Polynesians are up in arms about the contamination.

I think I'm right in saying those British tested in the USA warheads were for the Trident system. Apparently computer modelling is better now. But the French computer models were not up to scratch hence all the real bombs.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett

Nimzo

  • Made of Star Stuff
  • *
  • Posts: 80
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Is The Antitype
Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
« Reply #33 on: June 14, 2011, 12:36:19 PM »
Quote from: Nimzo
Well it was meant "literally", as well as being an exclamation (as I explained at the beginning).  Which questions were these that I avoided?
If you meant it literally, then you should have no complaints for being asked to defend the statement.
It wasn't a declarative statement, but an exclamation, as stated already.  There is, thus, nothing to defend in it.  That is why the following discussion was about my exclaiming it, not the exclamation itself.

Quote
Instead of answering why, you asked "Why what?" which is an avoidance to answering a very clear and direct question.
It was a question of clarification (the question Why? has more than one possible meaning), and I answered the clarified question afterwards.

Quote
As a second bit of advice, don't state things as a fact if you're not willing to back the statements up with evidence and/or reasoning.
I am quite willing to defend the statements I made.  That doesn't mean that it was necessary for me to do so for each one (for example, in my responses to Tank's internal critique).  There is also an infinite regress problem here lurking round the corner somewhere...

Quote
Consider it a cry of desperation for the state of humanity, bent on self-destruction, to a God who, though under no obligation towards us, is a God of grace and love who will ultimately save us from ourselves.
You will have to provide the evidence to support your positive claims. I'd like to know how you know that this god is a god of grace, a god of love and a god that will ultimately save us from ourselves.
Pop on over to the "Question for Nimzo" thread for the very small beginnings of an approach to that question.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2011, 12:40:16 PM by Nimzo »
“Those who believe that they believe in God, but without passion in their hearts, without anguish in mind, without uncertainty, without doubt, without an element of despair even in their consolation, believe only in the God idea, not God Himself."  (Miguel de Unamuno)

wildfire_emissary

  • Not Sure About That Kool-Aid
  • **
  • Posts: 331
  • Gender: Male
Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
« Reply #34 on: June 20, 2011, 05:29:28 PM »
You have yet to show that a Christian should believe that God is even a moral agent, let alone that if He exists He is responsible for man’s evil.

I've seen you assert here more than once that the Christian view is that "God is not a moral agent."

How does a Christian reconcile this with the supposed sacrifice of Jesus? Does not Jesus as described in the Bible perform moral acts? Is Jesus not the Christian god?

A couple of Old Testament examples of YHVH apparently acting as a moral agent; the global flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. When your god acts directly (no intermediaries whatever) in this world to pursue an (apparently moral) agenda, how is it possible to avoid describing him as a moral agent?

YHWH don't do that no more. He sent Jesus for those. And he's only good for the end of days. They have the bible right now. Sam Harris said something about Christians seeing a mushroom cloud but also seeing a silver lining because it means Jesus is coming.
"All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." -Voltaire

Recusant

  • Miscreant Erendrake
  • Administrator
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 5249
  • Gender: Male
  • infidel barbarian
Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
« Reply #35 on: June 20, 2011, 08:14:26 PM »
...By a moral agent, I mean a being who is able to choose between good and evil, but is under a moral obligation to choose good.  In other words, a moral agent is a morally responsible being, whose actions are held to account by a standard of morality (Goodness).  In my view (and it can be shown clearly, I believe, the Biblical view) is that God is not a moral agent by this definition.  Rather, God's nature is Goodness: He is the standard of morality.  He is not able choose evil, only good.  He is under no obligation to choose good, and His actions are not held to account by anything or anyone.  He is not morally responsible for anything or to anyone.  Now, this does not mean that He doesn't perform acts which are morally good.  On the contrary, all of the acts He performs are morally good.

Thank you for the clarification.

OK; I can see how one might choose to deny any questions regarding the actions of their god by asserting that according to their understanding, their god is the definition of good.  Any questions about drowning an entire world, ordering the slaughter of entire nations (down to and including babes in arms [e. g. 1 Samuel 15:3, Deuteronomy 7:1-2, Deuteronomy 20:16]) are dismissed as a shortfall in human understanding; "my god's ways are beyond human understanding." So when a mere human questions such biblical genocides they are trying to apply their moral understanding, but they don't have that right because the god's actions by definition are good according to the believer, and any attempt to apply morality to the god is a failure.  This god cannot be judged; he only judges. Thus not a moral agent.  I failed to ask what you meant by the term "moral agent," and I appreciate you setting me right.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2011, 08:17:27 PM by Recusant »
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


DaemonWulf

  • Made of Star Stuff
  • *
  • Posts: 68
  • Gender: Male
  • professional antagonist
Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
« Reply #36 on: August 23, 2011, 08:05:10 PM »
God is not a moral agent by this definition.  Rather, God's nature is Goodness: He is the standard of morality.  He is not able choose evil, only good.  He is under no obligation to choose good, and His actions are not held to account by anything or anyone.  He is not morally responsible for anything or to anyone.  Now, this does not mean that He doesn't perform acts which are morally good.  On the contrary, all of the acts He performs are morally good.
Thank you for the clarification.

OK; I can see how one might choose to deny any questions regarding the actions of their god by asserting that according to their understanding, their god is the definition of good.  Any questions about drowning an entire world, ordering the slaughter of entire nations (down to and including babes in arms [e. g. 1 Samuel 15:3, Deuteronomy 7:1-2, Deuteronomy 20:16]) are dismissed as a shortfall in human understanding; "my god's ways are beyond human understanding." So when a mere human questions such biblical genocides they are trying to apply their moral understanding, but they don't have that right because the god's actions by definition are good according to the believer, and any attempt to apply morality to the god is a failure.  This god cannot be judged; he only judges. Thus not a moral agent.  I failed to ask what you meant by the term "moral agent," and I appreciate you setting me right.

Not trying to sound like a prick here, but I have to point out that sounds like the great-granddaddy of all weak cop-outs right there. So he's all powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing, and yet not capable of anything but good? And because of the assumption that he's only capable of good, he's beyond reproach? Above question? Well isn't THAT convenient. The church has the market cornered on propaganda.
So I wonder this, as life billows smoke inside my head; this little game where nothing is sure... why would you play by the rules? - Dave Matthews

Tank

  • Fed up with stupid.
  • Administrator
  • Excellent and Indefatigable Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 28325
  • Gender: Male
Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
« Reply #37 on: August 08, 2012, 01:26:06 PM »
Bump for new members.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett

BooksCatsEtc

  • Surprisingly OK
  • Global Moderator
  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 8111
  • Gender: Female
Re: "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto
« Reply #38 on: August 08, 2012, 03:15:48 PM »
Consider it a cry of desperation for the state of humanity, bent on self-destruction, to a God who, though under no obligation towards us, is a God of grace and love who will ultimately save us from ourselves.
Ah! Wishful thinking at it's very best  ;)
Perhaps, if there was no Resurrection.

A subject under much debate, even among religious scholars, and dependant on the existance of the supernatural.  I'm not holding my breath.
Sandy

  
"I think this is the prettiest world -- as long as you don't mind a little dying, how could there be a day in your whole life that doesn't have its splash of happiness?"  from The Kingfisher, by Mary Oliver