The Killing Joke

[countingbeans]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Ritual and tradition can be good. I think they are a tool though and as such can definitely matter. Even if all it amounts to is obedience. Obedience for it’s own sake isn’t always a bad thing.[/quote]

Sure. I’m not trying to say it is bad when I say it isn’t needed.

I guess to be clear I’m saying it isn’t needed by everyone. Some people enjoy it, want it and do it with a purity of heart. In that case it certainly matters, and they need it. Others don’t need it to truly worship.

I also think focusing on intent can lead to some bad stuff. Like if all I have to do is want good I’ll just pray for God’s will to always be done and nothing else.

One’s intent in this hypothetical is to absolve one’s self of responsibility to do and be good, and instead place the onus on God. Giving one the ability to later point and say “see, it isn’t my fault.”

The true intention of someone simply praying for good, and not doing good, isn’t truly good.

Or if giving to charity is intent of good so you just give to any charity, when a little research could have made the donation more helpful to those in need.

Again this is half-assing it. What is truly in the heart of the half-asser?
a) I’m really making a difference and doing good here or b) I hope this shit is enough to absolve me of my sins because I don’t have the time to put any real effort into it. More often than not I’m going to say B is the true intent of the half-asser.

I think god wants our best practical execution along with our best intent.

I agree, life requires a full-assed effort.

[smh_23]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Which is why I said “suggests to me”: because I have really fantastic reason to assume exactly that, or rather a set of reasons which I’ve articulated many times hereabouts.

But even without that sentence, the point must stand: god is concerned with the mistreaters and the mistreated, and yet, on the subject of slavery, he doesn’t think it important to do much more than set some ground rules. So, an ominbenevolent being has no problem with slavery. Surely we shouldn’t either.[/quote]

You did not condemn slavery in this post. I will assume you have no problem with it.
[/quote]

I have condemned slavery in this thread, which would be the proper analogy. And I would certainly condemn it if I were laying down a bunch of do’s and don’t’s, and slavery came up as a topic of conversation. Odd that god didn’t.

[quote]
Or maybe book asserted to be the guide for your soul through the hereafter is concerned with… the hereafter. [/quote]

Which would be a decent argument if the book weren’t absolutely filled with worldly concerns about clothing, food, treatment of others, testimony in legal proceedings, grabbing at the testicles men who are fighting with your husband etc.

Again: “Don’t kill, don’t fuck your neighbor’s wife, and make sure your slave gets a day off.” Only one conclusion to be drawn from that.[/quote]

Except that there are plenty of parts of the Bible that condemn slavery. For crying out loud, even your example here has a line right next to it that says “lover your neighbor as yourself” which effectively outlaws slavery.[/quote]

Yes, there are certainly ways for us to interpret different proscriptions as axiomatically anti-slavery. Even “thou shalt not steal” could be said to prohibit slavery in that the latter is a form of the former (theft of freedom or sovereignty or whatever).

But it is clear that, in the Bible’s internal vocabulary, none of these interpretations of ours are legitimate. It is nonsensical to say, “Slavery is banned, don’t have slaves. Incidentally, this is how to have slaves, this is when you can make them work, these are the conditions under which they’re your legitimate slaves, etc.”

We are left with either god is OK with slavery or god is a self-contradictory fool. In either case, I am not a fan.

Edited, a number of times.

[hmm87]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

Are you saying that god made us fallible[/quote]

Seems pretty obvious that is this in fact the case.

or are you saying that god gave us a message that we cannot understand

I’m not saying we cannot understand, but that we very well may, have and could in the future have issues with interpretation, communication and in any way dealing with a message passed to us from an omnipotent being.

In fact, I’m saying, we likely can’t even truly understand omnipotence.

[/quote]

OK I understand what you’re saying. So what do you think happens to those who misinterpret the texts? Whether it be on purpose or by lack of understanding.[/quote]

What I believe is going to be different than what people aligned with a particular religion believe, for sure, at least in a micro sense, but here goes:

I fully believe intent is the key to all this shit. I don’t think an omnipotent being is concerned with rituals, holy texts, lip service or any superficial shit. You can say you love jesus, wear the cross on your neck, but if you don’t truly believe, it doesn’t count. You have to truly believe and have the intent behind your actions for it to matter. And you don’t need the rituals and all that to truly believe.

I also don’t think it matters what name you call God or what or how you pray to said god, or even if you pray. What matters is that you have faith. Shit I’m not convinced you have to even accept that you have faith yet, even though it would seem silly if that was the case, and here is why:

Intent is what matters. If someone like Angry Chicken is a good person, does good and moral things, and lives his life in a way that does the hard thing of being a good person, honestly regrets and LEARNS FROM his transgressions, even if he rejects God’s existence, he still lived by “the code” for lack of a better term. Even though his intent wasn’t because of God in his mind and heart, his mind and heart was still in line with God.

To reject God is to actively think about and evaluate the God concept just the same. Does omnipotence strike you as something that will “punish your soul” (again lack of better phrasing) for struggling with the God concept? I don’t think so. It seems counter productive.

Whether or not you shout your faith from the rooftops or claim you have none, evil is evil, and people trying to be good are trying to be good. Your actions and what you truly hold in your heart (admitted or rejected) are equally important.

While I think life is “random”, I do think there is a purpose. And I fully believe that purpose sort of sucks for some sometimes, others often and a rare few never. We look to “good” in life like it is the goal. I don’t know that life was meant ot be good, or easy or fun or in any way anything other than what it is, hard. [/quote]

So in the case of the Muslim radicals. Let’s assume that most of them genuinely believe they are doing good and are doing gods work. Do you think they would they be praised by god for their intent?

[Varqanir]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Jesus was re-interpreting a set of old commandments that had been written for an ebullient, warlike, conquering tribe, so that they would be relevant to the lives of an impoverished, broken-spirited people living under foreign military occupation.
[/quote]

That is one possible interpretation.

Ever read the book Zealot? I think you’d like it.[/quote]

I haven’t. In fact, I hadn’t heard of it until just now.

Just now read a review of it, which was not terribly complimentary (but what would one expect? a book about Jesus by an Iranian Muslim/Christian/Muslim does not sound like the kind of book a Jewish book reviewer would find much in to like).

What Jesus Wasn't: Zealot - Jewish Review of Books

I will keep an eye out for it, nonetheless. Thanks for the recommendation.

[countingbeans]

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

So in the case of the Muslim radicals. Let’s assume that most of them genuinely believe they are doing good and are doing gods work. Do you think they would they be praised by god for their intent?
[/quote]

I don’t think anyone is praised by God, irrelevant. I don’t see humans as the pet Labrador of God, here simply to amuse a Creator.

I’m also pretty sure an omnipotent God isn’t petty, and wouldn’t see murder in response to a cartoon depicting another human set forth by some as representative of God as a justified reason for the murder of other people.

So while God my “appreciate” for lack of a better word the feelings in their hearts, their love of God, their actions couldn’t be inline with what appears to be a the moral code God set forth. Their actions create a victim, and one who isn’t allowed to struggle with their God concept at that. So I would figure that would make it worse really.

Not only did they cross a line with the murder, but they prevented the contemplation of the God Concept.

[hmm87]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

So in the case of the Muslim radicals. Let’s assume that most of them genuinely believe they are doing good and are doing gods work. Do you think they would they be praised by god for their intent?
[/quote]

I don’t think anyone is praised by God, irrelevant. I don’t see humans as the pet Labrador of God, here simply to amuse a Creator.

I’m also pretty sure an omnipotent God isn’t petty, and wouldn’t see murder in response to a cartoon depicting another human set forth by some as representative of God as a justified reason for the murder of other people.

So while God my “appreciate” for lack of a better word the feelings in their hearts, their love of God, their actions couldn’t be inline with what appears to be a the moral code God set forth. Their actions create a victim, and one who isn’t allowed to struggle with their God concept at that. So I would figure that would make it worse really.

Not only did they cross a line with the murder, but they prevented the contemplation of the God Concept. [/quote]

But it’s their faith. What you would like to believe an omnipotent being might think is beyond us isn’t it? Maybe there’s a purpose behind all of these killing that we cannot comprehend. Remember the message is complex. Can be interpreted in many ways without truly knowing what is the correct interpretation. But you said that didn’t matter it was the intent. So these people with the right intent did what they interpreted from god’s message. And there is absolutely no way you can say they are wrong or immoral, unless you’re an omnipotent begin who can fully understand the message.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Jesus was re-interpreting a set of old commandments that had been written for an ebullient, warlike, conquering tribe, so that they would be relevant to the lives of an impoverished, broken-spirited people living under foreign military occupation.
[/quote]

That is one possible interpretation.

Ever read the book Zealot? I think you’d like it.[/quote]

I haven’t. In fact, I hadn’t heard of it until just now.

Just now read a review of it, which was not terribly complimentary (but what would one expect? a book about Jesus by an Iranian Muslim/Christian/Muslim does not sound like the kind of book a Jewish book reviewer would find much in to like).

What Jesus Wasn't: Zealot - Jewish Review of Books

I will keep an eye out for it, nonetheless. Thanks for the recommendation.[/quote]

I don’t think it’s a real good book and I’m not overpowered by the arguments in it (he doesn’t provide any evidence of a lot of his assertions), but it is a very very interesting interpretation of who the historical Jesus really was. Basically that he was a failed anti-Roman revolutionist as part of the Jewish Zealot movement.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Which is why I said “suggests to me”: because I have really fantastic reason to assume exactly that, or rather a set of reasons which I’ve articulated many times hereabouts.

But even without that sentence, the point must stand: god is concerned with the mistreaters and the mistreated, and yet, on the subject of slavery, he doesn’t think it important to do much more than set some ground rules. So, an ominbenevolent being has no problem with slavery. Surely we shouldn’t either.[/quote]

You did not condemn slavery in this post. I will assume you have no problem with it.
[/quote]

I have condemned slavery in this thread, which would be the proper analogy. And I would certainly condemn it if I were laying down a bunch of do’s and don’t’s, and slavery came up as a topic of conversation. Odd that god didn’t.

[quote]
Or maybe book asserted to be the guide for your soul through the hereafter is concerned with… the hereafter. [/quote]

Which would be a decent argument if the book weren’t absolutely filled with worldly concerns about clothing, food, treatment of others, testimony in legal proceedings, grabbing at the testicles men who are fighting with your husband etc.

Again: “Don’t kill, don’t fuck your neighbor’s wife, and make sure your slave gets a day off.” Only one conclusion to be drawn from that.[/quote]

Except that there are plenty of parts of the Bible that condemn slavery. For crying out loud, even your example here has a line right next to it that says “lover your neighbor as yourself” which effectively outlaws slavery.[/quote]

Yes, there are certainly ways for us to interpret different proscriptions as axiomatically anti-slavery. Even “thou shalt not steal” could be said to prohibit slavery in that the latter is a form of the former (theft of freedom or sovereignty or whatever).

But it is clear that, in the Bible’s internal vocabulary, none of these interpretations of ours are legitimate. It is nonsensical to say, “Slavery is banned, don’t have slaves. Incidentally, this is how to have slaves, this is when you can make them work, these are the conditions under which they’re your legitimate slaves, etc.”

We are left with either god is OK with slavery or god is a self-contradictory fool. In either case, I am not a fan.

Edited, a number of times.[/quote]

Or god’s commandments are unconcerned with the temporary part of existence and doing away with slavery is less consequential to the eternal part than other things.

[Aggv]

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
But it’s their faith. What you would like to believe an omnipotent being might think is beyond us isn’t it? Maybe there’s a purpose behind all of these killing that we cannot comprehend. Remember the message is complex. Can be interpreted in many ways without truly knowing what is the correct interpretation. But you said that didn’t matter it was the intent. So these people with the right intent did what they interpreted from god’s message. And there is absolutely no way you can say they are wrong or immoral, unless you’re an omnipotent begin who can fully understand the message. [/quote]

The murder of innocent people is never ok. You dont need to be Zeus to know this in 2015.

[smh_23]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Or god’s commandments are unconcerned with the temporary part of existence and doing away with slavery is less consequential to the eternal part than other things.[/quote]

And yet we know this not to be true because the Bible is literally brimming with god’s opinions about “the temporary part of existence.”

[hmm87]

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
But it’s their faith. What you would like to believe an omnipotent being might think is beyond us isn’t it? Maybe there’s a purpose behind all of these killing that we cannot comprehend. Remember the message is complex. Can be interpreted in many ways without truly knowing what is the correct interpretation. But you said that didn’t matter it was the intent. So these people with the right intent did what they interpreted from god’s message. And there is absolutely no way you can say they are wrong or immoral, unless you’re an omnipotent begin who can fully understand the message. [/quote]

The murder of innocent people is never ok. You dont need to be Zeus to know this in 2015. [/quote]

Innocence can be a matter of perspective. You may say these murdered people are innocent. But to the murderers their faith told them otherwise. Who are you to question god?

[countingbeans]

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

But it’s their faith. [/quote]

No. Their faith is in God. Their faith isn’t in killing.

They are killing based on the words of other men purported to be the word of God.

What you would like to believe an omnipotent being might think is beyond us isn’t it?

I would imagine “thinking” isn’t real high on the omnipotent list, as I’m pretty sure “thinking” is a human/this worldly endeavor.

Maybe there’s a purpose behind all of these killing that we cannot comprehend. Remember the message is complex.

Sure. If you want to believe in the whole “have to crack some eggs to make an omelet” deal. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume it is that offensive killing in the name of God is probably a bit excessive and not morally consistent, but I could be wrong.

(You’re not catching me in a conundrum here, nor can what I’ve said be used to justify killing.)

Can be interpreted in many ways without truly knowing what is the correct interpretation. But you said that didn’t matter it was the intent. So these people with the right intent did what they interpreted from god’s message.

Okay…

You’re still missing the whole “omnipotent” part of God. Get this, God isn’t a person. God isn’t human. God can condemn an action and praise an intent at the same time. God can say: “your heart was in the right place, but your actions were really fucked up, you both passed and failed the test.”

And there is absolutely no way you can say they are wrong or immoral,

Ummm… Yes I can. Their was a victim. It was immoral.

It’s like you don’t read the posts here.

Even if you wanted to say they were the original victim as the cartoon was offensive and racist. Neither of those offensive threatens the life of these men, therefore they reaction of killing is murder and immoral.

This really isn’t that complicated man.

unless you’re an omnipotent begin who can fully understand the message.

While I fully admit I may be wrong here. I’m not particularly worried about it.

[Aggv]

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
But to the murderers their faith told them otherwise. [/quote]

exactly…

[countingbeans]

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Who are you to question god?[/quote]

Again, another person that ignores these holy books written by men when it is convenient for their argument.

[hmm87]

No. Their faith is in God. Their faith isn’t in killing.

They are killing based on the words of other men purported to be the word of God.

Yes their faith is in god. And they believe the book that was divinely inspired by God would be the truth. It doesn’t matter if these are words written down by men. These men were guided by god so there are no mistakes.

Sure. If you want to believe in the whole “have to crack some eggs to make an omelet” deal. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume it is that offensive killing in the name of God is probably a bit excessive and not morally consistent, but I could be wrong.

(You’re not catching me in a conundrum here, nor can what I’ve said be used to justify killing.)

That’s not for you to decide. How could you possibly know what god finds excessive.

Okay…

You’re still missing the whole “omnipotent” part of God. Get this, God isn’t a person. God isn’t human. God can condemn an action and praise an intent at the same time. God can say: “your heart was in the right place, but your actions were really fucked up, you both passed and failed the test.”

I agree but once again you assume you know what god wants.

Ummm… Yes I can. Their was a victim. It was immoral.

It’s like you don’t read the posts here.

Even if you wanted to say they were the original victim as the cartoon was offensive and racist. Neither of those offensive threatens the life of these men, therefore they reaction of killing is murder and immoral.

This really isn’t that complicated man.

I’m pretty sure you can find instances of people being murdered in the bible when there were no victims. I’m pretty sure some were killed for idol worshiping.

[NickViar]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
His parents would have made a poor choice by, for example, getting captured in a foreign land and then being sold to a landed Hebrew? Yeah, terrible choice. (Aside: that Solomon Northrup sure made some bad choices. Oh well, he got what he deserved for it.)[/quote]
-By conceiving a child while enslaved. (Aside: Kidnapping is prohibited in the Bible.)

[quote]
Furthermore: god would absolutely be depriving child A of something.[/quote] No.

[quote]

1. Child A is part of a society which keeps him as a slave – lifelong, if he’s not among the nation of the chosen – by virtue of nothing he has done.[/quote]
   -If one is absolutely good, what is wrong with allowing one’s followers to own those who don’t follow one?

[hmm87]

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
But to the murderers their faith told them otherwise. [/quote]

exactly…[/quote]

Which means in the eyes of God this could be just. According to their faith which you have no way of disproving.

[hmm87]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Who are you to question god?[/quote]

Again, another person that ignores these holy books written by men when it is convenient for their argument. [/quote]

I’m sure the people who believe in these books will tell you that while they may have been scribed by man, these men were guided by god and god is perfect.

[smh_23]

Like I said, pretzels.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
His parents would have made a poor choice by, for example, getting captured in a foreign land and then being sold to a landed Hebrew? Yeah, terrible choice. (Aside: that Solomon Northrup sure made some bad choices. Oh well, he got what he deserved for it.)[/quote]
-By conceiving a child while enslaved. (Aside: Kidnapping is prohibited in the Bible.)[/quote]

And what terrible choice has the child made, exactly?

[quote]

[quote]

1. Child A is part of a society which keeps him as a slave – lifelong, if he’s not among the nation of the chosen – by virtue of nothing he has done.[/quote]
   -If one is absolutely good, what is wrong with allowing one’s followers to own those who don’t follow one?[/quote]

If one allows one’s followers to own those who don’t follow one, one is not absolutely good. Take issue with that if you want: it will only prove my point that the god you believe in is not good, and that you will bend your sense of morality to fit inside of him. The ultimate subjective morality is what this is.

[smh_23]

^ * Not good under any definition of good worth subscribing to.