The X virtuous men of history or whatever

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:51 pm

I don't understand everyone's fascination with boring myths with intentionally opaque morals.

-Crissa

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:50 pm

Caliborn: presenting Goblins. But as for your argument, the moment you say "omniscience", it instantly goes sour.

Calibron · Post by **Calibron** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:15 am

Why is that? Anyway my spiel is not dependent on God knowing the outcome of Job's trials. Assuming God doesn't know the future, which is stupid since God is not constrained by time as we know it, does make Him seem reckless with human lives, but over all He was still benevolent.

As to the fate of Job's children, all humans die sooner or later(except for Elijah and Enoch anyway), and the kids were righteous people in their own right, not to mention daddy was always watching their spiritual backs, so after hanging around in Sheol for the next couple millennia they ended up in heaven with all the other righteous, law obeying Jews, including Job, their mom(presumably), and the other kids(also presumably).

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:45 am

Biblegod is demonstrably neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

(Edit: I should perhaps mention that I use "Biblegod" to refer to God as described in the Big Black Sleeping Pill, as opposed to an actual divine being.)

Caliborn wrote:Assuming God doesn't know the future, which is stupid since God is not constrained by time as we know it, does make Him seem reckless with human lives, but over all He was still benevolent.

Do tell. Here's a stripped-down version of the Book of Job (King Talisman Version)

YHWH: Satan, buddy, have you seen Job? He's awesome. Totally loyal.
Satan: Really? I bet I can make him loose faith in you.
YHWH: Sure, go ahead and try, but you're not allowed to hurt him.
Satan: Fair enough.

Satan slaughters Job's animals.
Satan murders Job's servants.
Satan murders Job's children.

YHWH: Well, you screwed him over pretty good but he's still loyal!
Satan: Maybe he's just a sociopath who doesn't care about others. Let me hurt him, and I guarantee he'll bitch you out.
YHWH: Go for it. But you can't actually kill him.
Satan: You got it, boss.

Satan afflicts Job with cancer.

Job: Aaaaauugh! I'm poor, my children are dead, and I'm in constant agony! YHWH, why won't you let me die? I wish I had never been born!

(insert long philosophical conversation here)

Satan: Whew! You were right; that guy's either rock-stubborn or totally whipped.
YHWH: Yeah, he's my homie.

YHWH cures Job's cancer and gives him much material wealth and doubles his lifespan. After many years Job learned to deal with the grief and the loss of his children.

Biblegod comes across as a dick here because he decides to murder Job's family and the innocent, unassociated servants, and to - let's be frank - torture Job merely to see whether Job remains faithful. If Biblegod is omniscient or unconstrained by time, he does not need to do this: he's freakin' God! He just knows that Job is faithful.

If Biblegod is not omniscient, this comes across as petty and unnecessarily cruel. Torture a faithful follower to see whether he remains faithful? That's downright evil, whatever amends you try to make afterward. Biblegod and Job seem to have the classic abuser/victim relationship here: Biblegod abuses Job to test his love, and Job remains faithful because "He's God; he knows what I deserve," even as he genuinely wishes for death.

As to the fate of Job's children, all humans die sooner or later(except for Elijah and Enoch anyway), and the kids were righteous people in their own right, not to mention daddy was always watching their spiritual backs, so after hanging around in Sheol for the next couple millennia they ended up in heaven with all the other righteous, law obeying Jews, including Job, their mom(presumably), and the other kids(also presumably).

That's damn cold.
I guess that means it's acceptable to murder good people because they go to Heaven, right?

Count Arioch the 28th · Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:27 am

I probably have posted this before, but it works here too, so I'm doing this again.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:23 pm

I forgot that existed. Thanks for doing my job better than I'd be able to.

Caliborn: if you wanna discuss YHWH's alignment not having an "E", feel free to start here.

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:47 pm

Crissa wrote:I don't understand everyone's fascination with boring myths with intentionally opaque morals.

-Crissa

When Edmund Hillary was asked why he climbed Everest, he said it was because it was there.

Mostly my fascination with religion is for this reason.

Wait... that's a lie. I, as a kid, was damnably devout. LIke many, I read and searched later and found myself to be... a pantheistic agnostic something. I hate labels.

But I have a child. and I have a devout Hindu family on my side and I have a Christian (at-times devout) family on my wife's side. This is not just about raising her into religion. Religion is also about culture, in my opinion. I try to find answers still so that I can satisfy myself so that I can have a nice and loving relationship with my large family.

That last sentence seems weird because it might seem all of this shouldn't even come in the way of a "nice and loving relationship' but, let's be realistic, it does. So I do what I do.

Oh, on a tangent that goes back to my Edmund Hillary quote, I'm pretty sure he probably didn't say that and it was probably just a press release someone made up. That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:40 pm

No, I'm pretty sure he said that.

But he didn't walk across deserts because they were there. And I'd find that far more interesting than religion.

Then again, I find religion more like a club that's bashing in my head.

-Crissa

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:08 pm

Crissa wrote:Then again, I find religion more like a club that's bashing in my head.

When nobody's trying to convert you, religions can be beautiful. An incredible amount of art has been inspired by religion. I'd be surprised if the majority of art in the world wan't religiously inspired. A lot of it is even good art. Cathedrals, temples, hymns, statues, paintings, good fiction... the list goes on.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:33 pm

The assumption that the art and the energy and wealth used to create it simply would not exist without religion is really a very large assumption.

The fact that such art exists among all religions and also independent of religion would suggest it is a natural element of human society with no particularly divine association.

In the mean time we KNOW that religions are highly oppressive towards artists and artistic traditions and regularly kill artists and destroy priceless works of art and limit what can be created and who gets to see it.

I'm pretty happy to call religion a loss on the art and beauty front without any real fear of being wrong.

Heath Robinson · Post by **Heath Robinson** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:33 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:
Crissa wrote:Then again, I find religion more like a club that's bashing in my head.
When nobody's trying to convert you, religions can be beautiful. An incredible amount of art has been inspired by religion. I'd be surprised if the majority of art in the world wan't religiously inspired. A lot of it is even good art. Cathedrals, temples, hymns, statues, paintings, good fiction... the list goes on.

And for the longest period of time organised religion held an awful lot of money with which to commission works of art. The works of man can inspire awe, and it is by awe that many religions commission the dedication of man.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:01 am

You know in fact. It is a lot like saying, man those nazi's were bad, but you got to appreciate the artistic beauty of their propaganda posters.

In fact, its EXACTLY like that.

Edit: no one is allowed to call Godwin's law on this. Because I called it first.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:20 am

Crissa wrote:Then again, I find religion more like a club that's bashing in my head.

When someone tries to bash my head in, I either find it amusing, or am absolutely forced to get interested, so I fail to see a contradiction.

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:29 am

Crissa wrote: Then again, I find religion more like a club that's bashing in my head.

-Crissa

Religion is a club that bashes your head, YES, YES, and a RESOUNDING FUCKING YES.

But, discourse about the hand that wields the club and discourse about how to gentle that club.

Discourse to keep it sane.

Discourse to keep us all in there and to soften this club from a morningstar into a quarterstaff or a foam-stick is great. Hell, if it could be a cheerleader's baton in the end that actually exhilirates, I would be happy. That is what this is about. discourse.

I mean, we aren't actually using discourse to talk about it. we are vilifying religion because we are talking about it's protection racket angles. but if you talk about the bad. maybe you can bring out the good later.

that's my vew.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:41 am

A_Cynic wrote:Discourse to keep us all in there and to soften this club from a morningstar into a quarterstaff or a foam-stick is great. Hell, if it could be a cheerleader's baton in the end that actually exhilirates, I would be happy.

Best metaphor I heard in ... a long time.

In other news: God vs. the Bible's fvcking awesome.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:32 am

If you're looking for some good, old-fashioned lulz about the Bible for my money you can't beat Mark Twain and Thomas Paine. Thomas Jefferson, when he wasn't raping slaves, had some scatching things to say about theism as well.

Notably, Thomas Paine's lulz apparently inspired so much butthurt that Theodore Roosevelt suddenly paused in the middle of a speech one time to talk about what a filthy atheist he was. /b/ wishes they could troll beyond the grave that hard.

I always hated the story of Job, because it turned Job's family into...things that don't matter, just objects/treasures to be taken and away and then replaced because Job's been a good boy. If I remember right, they're all killed, but it's all right because Job proves his faith and he gets a new family, so everything's just hunky-dory.

That's called values dissonance, good buddy. Back then, children and wives WERE considered possessions. That's why Job had several of them. God sets your X-Box 360 and your D&D books on fucking fire then the next day gives your infant son sonic diarrhea. But suck enough celestial cock and it's all good in the hood. I gotz sparez, bitches!

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:55 am

I'd also like to point out the fact that if Genesis is to be believed, God completely and totally fucked up the order in which things are supposed to be created.

Like, it's so screwy that it's just embarrassing. I seriously believe that a 2nd grader would do a better job if he had a list of things he needed to do.

I mean, fucking seriously, plants before there was a sun? The EARTH before there was any light? What, did he just work in the dark? What if one mountain range ended up looking like a penis from outer space? How the fuck could you make light separate from the sun? So the sun doesn't give off any fucking light now? It's just some ornament that doesn't really do anything?

C'mon, even a small child would've made the flowering plants, reptiles, and insects come before the birds. This is just ridiculous on a Biblical scale. Well, it is the Bible so joke's on me I guess.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:02 am

PhoneLobster wrote:You know in fact. It is a lot like saying, man those nazi's were bad, but you got to appreciate the artistic beauty of their propaganda posters.

In fact, its EXACTLY like that.

Edit: no one is allowed to call Godwin's law on this. Because I called it first.

Actually, I do appreciate the aesthetics of WW2 propaganda posters, and my girlfriend is a fan of fascist architecture. That doesn't mean that we're fascist (or communist, or capitalist) any more than we're religious.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:14 am

But my point is when someone says "Nazis kill people"

You don't go "AHA!, But what about... this poster! In your face, anti Nazi, this poster is proof of how Nazis had an overall positive role".

Does the poster outweigh the bad things they did?

If they didn't make the poster would another piece of equal, or even better art have existed in its place?

You can sit me down and say "Micheal Angelo painted for the Church, Bitch!"

I'm going to regard the argument as dumb as hell until you come back with a picture that God painted himself, the lazy insane bastard.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:15 am

Fair enough. The art doesn't excuse the atrocities.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 3:43 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:I'd also like to point out the fact that if Genesis is to be believed, God completely and totally fucked up the order in which things are supposed to be created.

Which time?
You mean in Genesis 1, where Biblegod creates:

Plants (day 3);
then fish and birds (day 5);
then animals (fish and birds are not animals, apparently; day 6);
then man and woman (both from dust; also day 6).

Or Genesis 2, where Biblegod creates:

Man (day 3);
Then plants (day 4);
Then animals (day 5);
Then woman (from man's rib; day 6).

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Fair enough. The art doesn't excuse the atrocities.

I think it's a matter of looking for something good in a bad situation.

"Well, that movie sucked, but I thought the CGI was good."

That sort of thing.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:12 am

"Well, that movie sucked, but I thought the CGI was good."

Perhaps but you see the church brings us art argument is essentially that without the church we wouldn't get the art.

You may say the CGI in the sucky movie was good but you DON'T say...

"Thank goodness for that totally sucky movie, without it surely that somewhat comparatively good CGI would not have existed. It most certainly would never have been used to make a non-sucky movie even better instead! And surely that okay CGI would NOT have been totally even more excellent if only it wasn't animating JarJar Binks."

Some people say, oh look at the spectacular religious art works of Leonardo, you know, the last supper, and I say, do you know how much fricking NECROMANCY that guy did to get good? Can you imagine what he might of painted for different less religious patrons? Can you imagine what he might have painted for himself?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:00 am

Fuck Job. I mean, yes, that book is a fuckjob and Job didn't deserve any of that shit but that's nothing compared to some of the bullshit you'll find in Judges.

I mean, Jesus fucknuts, God actually sends an angel down to punish the Israelites for failing to complete genocide! What the fuck?

Oh, and pretty much one of the most disgusting things I've ever read happens in Judges 19. I don't even want to talk about it. No justice, no feeling or sympathy or remorse. God just rolls up to your face after inspiring about something that's too gross to even appear in Hostel and tells you to discuss and consider it.

Let's just say that if you posted the worst parts of FATAL in the middle of that chapter, the aggregate of the new work would be more morally pure. That's how fucking wrong and twisted this book is.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:15 pm

Yeah, Judges 19 speaks to me of an evil god. But I have hope, because of Judges 1:19.

-Username17

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:34 pm

PhoneLobster wrote:
"Well, that movie sucked, but I thought the CGI was good."
Perhaps but you see the church brings us art argument is essentially that without the church we wouldn't get the art.

You may say the CGI in the sucky movie was good but you DON'T say...

"Thank goodness for that totally sucky movie, without it surely that somewhat comparatively good CGI would not have existed. It most certainly would never have been used to make a non-sucky movie even better instead! And surely that okay CGI would NOT have been totally even more excellent if only it wasn't animating JarJar Binks."

Some people say, oh look at the spectacular religious art works of Leonardo, you know, the last supper, and I say, do you know how much fricking NECROMANCY that guy did to get good? Can you imagine what he might of painted for different less religious patrons? Can you imagine what he might have painted for himself?

I'm not arguing with you; I'm just saying the "the church brings us art" argument is essentially looking for some good in a bad situation.

FrankTrollman wrote:Yeah, Judges 19 speaks to me of an evil god. But I have hope, because of Judges 1:19.

-Username17

Got your iron chariot?