God is a Dictator. [Archive]

tradeunionsupporter

24th October 2011, 03:41

God loves slavery If the Bible is written by God, and these are the words of the Lord, then you can come to only one possible conclusion: God is an impressive advocate of slavery and is fully supportive of the concept.

http://godisimaginary.com/i13.htm

In my opinion it is hypocritical for God to disprove of the Egyptians enslaving his chosen people the Hebrews/Israelites but God approves that they the Hebrews enslaved Non Hebrew Tribes and Nations my question is why would God be upset with the Israelites being Slaves in Egypt but God is not upset with the Israelites enslaving other Nations/Tribes/Peoples ?

Revolutionair

24th October 2011, 03:42

lol

Optiow

24th October 2011, 03:45

If we talk of an Abrahamic god then I agree with you.

Kitty_Paine

24th October 2011, 03:50

God doesn't exist... but if we're talking hypothetically then... :p

I don't think anyone can say what God believes or "would be like", as the bible is so hypocritical and aged it holds a very different interpretation with every person who reads it. Basically every Christian/Catholic/Jew has there own interpretation of God and who he (she???) is so it's impossible to say one way or another how this "God" would act or behave.

One man could agree with your argument and another could have the exact opposite opinion and you can't really say either is wrong because... it's religion and the Bible is very unclear. Is it factual? Metaphorical? No one can say because they don't know. Not to mention the bipolar God who says he loves all of his children before daming them for some petty sin like thinking about that hot chick from down the street in a sexual way.

My point is religion is unclear and there are limitless numbers of view points. So to argue or debate on something with absolutely no factual base is silly to me...

But that's just my opinion...

ComradeMan

24th October 2011, 10:13

G-d loves slavery If the Bible is written by G-d, and these are the words of the Lord, then you can come to only one possible conclusion: G-d is an impressive advocate of slavery and is fully supportive of the concept.

http://godisimaginary.com/i13.htm

In my opinion it is hypocritical for G-d to disprove of the Egyptians enslaving his chosen people the Hebrews/Israelites but G-d approves that they the Hebrews enslaved Non Hebrew Tribes and Nations my question is why would G-d be upset with the Israelites being Slaves in Egypt but G-d is not upset with the Israelites enslaving other Nations/Tribes/Peoples ?

Points:

1- Do you think that source is neutral and objective?

2- What is the word for "slave" in Hebrew

3- What is the context in which the word is used (i.e. Old Testament/Tanakh)?

4- Do you think that just because it is dealt with in the Bible means that "G-d" advocates it?

5- Do you think that there may be a difference between saying "written by G-d" or perhaps someone, subject to the context of their times, being "inspired in writing by G-d"?

6- Not all of "Israel" were "Hebrews or Israelites" either....

ColonelCossack

24th October 2011, 13:19

Points:

1- Do you think that source is neutral and objective?

2- What is the word for "slave" in Hebrew

3- What is the context in which the word is used (i.e. Old Testament/Tanakh)?

4- Do you think that just because it is dealt with in the Bible means that "G-d" advocates it?

5- Do you think that there may be a difference between saying "written by G-d" or perhaps someone, subject to the context of their times, being "inspired in writing by G-d"?

6- Not all of "Israel" were "Hebrews or Israelites" either....

Why did you replace all the "o"'s in "God" with a hyphen? :P

ВАЛТЕР

24th October 2011, 13:25

God, if he/she exists is an outright asshole.

It would be like me having a child, and then allowing it to fall down stairs and starve and whatnot, then saying "Oh well the child has free will, I'm not going to interfere."

A loving, benevolent god is out of the question.

As for believing in any form of god, I have no reason to. No objective, sold, evidence points to the existence of a god or gods.

Void

24th October 2011, 13:41

There are thousands of gods :) About which one are you talking ? We need to be more specific... Zeus ? BAAL ? Uranus ? Allah ? Yehovah ? Trinity ? etc etc...

"I kill a God for fun, but for a green card, I gonna carve him up real nice."

Tony Montana

http://www.tersninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/tony-montana.jpg

Mitja

24th October 2011, 13:53

communists,anarchist, socialists are atheists and that they don't beleave in god!

p.s: prove me that god exists i just love reading such replays :laugh:

ZeroNowhere

24th October 2011, 17:13

communists,anarchist, socialists are atheists and that they don't beleave in god!

p.s: prove me that god exists i just love reading such replays :laugh:
Your intellect is imperfect, the conception of imperfection implies a conception of perfection, hence the concept of God, the universal subject, exists. All knowledge and hence all propositions presuppose the existence of this universal subject if they are to have sense.

Franz Fanonipants

24th October 2011, 17:19

i KNEW i liked that guy for some reason

Nox

24th October 2011, 17:25

God doesn't exist and all religious people are fucking twats.

There's your answer.

The Jay

24th October 2011, 17:26

Your intellect is imperfect, the conception of imperfection implies a conception of perfection, hence the concept of God, the universal subject, exists. All knowledge and hence all propositions presuppose the existence of this universal subject if they are to have sense.

No, the existence of an abstract concept does not mean that the abstract concept has a physical basis. If what you were saying were true than invention would be impossible. What I mean by this is that when someone constructs something in their mind, there would, by your logic, have to be a perfect model for that something already. Your platonic world of forms does not exist, sir. If you have proof, show it. Sry for coming off as harsh btw :)

Franz Fanonipants

24th October 2011, 17:28

God doesn't exist and all religious people are fucking twats.

There's your answer.

thus spake the global proletariat

Franz Fanonipants

24th October 2011, 17:29

No, the existence of an abstract concept does not mean that the abstract concept has a physical basis. If what you were saying were true than invention would be impossible. What I mean by this is that when someone constructs something in their mind, there would, by your logic, have to be a perfect model for that something already. Your platonic world of forms does not exist, sir. If you have proof, show it. Sry for coming off as harsh btw :)

scholasticism is categorically not debunked by observable phenomena comrade. try again.

The Jay

24th October 2011, 17:33

scholasticism is categorically not debunked by observable phenomena comrade. try again.

It must be provable in the material world to be taken seriously if one is not talking about pure logic. The moment somebody starts to apply logic to the real world like the other poster did, it becomes subject to the scientific method. As such, the burden of proof is a valid requirement to be filled from my perspective.

Franz Fanonipants

24th October 2011, 17:35

Read Aquinas comrade

The Jay

24th October 2011, 17:37

Read Aquinas comrade

I've read summaries and I can't say that I'd enjoy that read, as I already disagree with what he says. What can you tell me about his views without giving me a 500 page homework assignment lol?

ZeroNowhere

24th October 2011, 17:41

No, the existence of an abstract concept does not mean that the abstract concept has a physical basis.Strangely enough, God isn't supposed to be physical.

What I mean by this is that when someone constructs something in their mind, there would, by your logic, have to be a perfect model for that something already.No, because that's still conceiving of perfection in material, objective and limited terms, and is not comparable with the perfection of an absolute subject. God is supposed to be the absolute, infinite subject which realizes itself in us and the world, so it's a bit different. Of course the idea of something perfect does not imply its existence in the material world, but here we're talking about the universal mind, which has existence in the sense of 'cogito ergo sum', not, 'Hey, that's a tree'. And, of course, it would make no sense to speak of demonstrating 'cogito ergo sum' by the scientific method (which only by itself disqualifies it from meaning if one wants to take a verificationist viewpoint, which has its own issues.)

Your platonic world of forms does not exist, sir.It was a fair bit closer to Descartes' idealism than to Socrates' ethics.

If you have proof, show it.It's probably not worth derailing this thread with an explanation of idealist theory. In any case, it was hardly the most compelling of the motives for my writing of the original post.

God doesn't exist and all religious people are fucking twats.

There's your answer.Firstly, I don't think that you're allowed to call people twats on Revleft. Secondly, that's bollocks.

Franz Fanonipants

24th October 2011, 17:43

Scholasticism is actually a form of dialectical reasoning, as a Marxist it would probably behoove you to check out Aquinas in general, regardless of whatever atheism you've chosen.

Refusing to understand or read a thinker because he doesn't agree with you about God is about as stupid as Creationism, comrade.

Revolution starts with U

24th October 2011, 20:54

Why did you replace all the "o"'s in "God" with a hyphen? :P

For multiple reasons. For some it is because to know the name of G-D is to have power over it. For some it represents the fundamental unknowability of G-D. For some its just habit; progressing the tetragrammaton (YWHW) into modern terminology.

ComradeMan

24th October 2011, 21:01

For multiple reasons. For some it is because to know the name of G-D is to have power over it. For some it represents the fundamental unknowability of G-D. For some its just habit; progressing the tetragrammaton (_____) into modern terminology.

No, it's that you do not write the sacred names in any way that they may be destroyed or deleted and seeing that a web page could be deleted, or printed and destroyed it applies. Although a web-page is not permanent, it could be printed and thus the rule would apply.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/name.html#Writing

PS- Your reasons are also good ones too.

Revolution starts with U

24th October 2011, 21:19

I personally do it for my second reason. G-D is fundamentally unknowable, and using a real term "God" only muddys that, and makes it seem like people can actually know G-D. They can't.

"The dao that can be known is not the Dao."

Zostrianos

25th October 2011, 10:01

Points:

2- What is the word for "slave" in Hebrew

The problem here is that the Hebrew word used for "slave" ('ébed - 'Ayn Beth Daleth) also means "worker". There was no etymological distinction between a worker and a servant.

ComradeMan

25th October 2011, 10:45

The problem here is that the Hebrew word used for "slave" ('ébed - 'Ayn Beth Daleth) also means "worker". There was no etymological distinction between a worker and a servant.

עבד It could mean- slave, servant, prisoner of war, worker, house-servant, devotee or devotee of a cult, official and so on...

Nucking_Futz51

22nd November 2011, 21:34

communists,anarchist, socialists are atheists and that they don't beleave in god!

p.s: prove me that god exists i just love reading such replays :laugh:

So your saying that I, as a Communist do not believe in a higher power? Your wrong. I do believe in a higher power. There are such branches of Communism called "Christian Communism". Look on my home page.

ZeroNowhere

22nd November 2011, 21:42

TheGodlessUtopian

22nd November 2011, 22:18

In judo-Christian terms of course their concept of god is a dictator;after all,it is called the Kingdom of Heaven, not the Peoples Republic of Heaven.lol

Azraella

22nd November 2011, 22:21

communists,anarchist, socialists are atheists and that they don't beleave in god!
No true Scotsman.

Savior

23rd November 2011, 00:34

Socialists can be atheists, or what ever other belief system they want. As long as they fight for a secular and socialist society.

RGacky3

23rd November 2011, 09:26

Its TOTALLY irrelivent if God is a dictator or not, theologically it has no implications at all, dictator is a term for human rulers, a transendental being is a god, whether you want to call him a dictator does'nt matter, its not like you could do anyhting about it if he were real, its a non argument, its like saying gravity is totalitarian.

No, it's that you do not write the sacred names in any way that they may be destroyed or deleted and seeing that a web page could be deleted, or printed and destroyed it applies. Although a web-page is not permanent, it could be printed and thus the rule would apply.

A: god is a title, the bible refered to various things and people as gods, it refered to moses as god, i.e. a very powerful person, but the title God, as in the supreme God is only used for YHWH.

So God is not a sacred name, its a title, the sacred name would be YHWH, yahweh, and in the scripts the tetrogramiten was written thousands and thousands of time, the idea that the name cannot be written was not brought in until latter rabbies added that doctrine.

BTW are you Jewish Comrademan?

Bloodwerk

23rd November 2011, 09:53

The main reason atheism/apatheism is rising is because the awareness in people is rising.
They have seen that "religions" have done nothing good for humanity so far.

Whatever "God" was supposed to be in the original sense, religions have twisted it into something tyrannical and wrathful just to keep you silent and obedient.
Remember, God loves you very much, but if you do bad, you will burn in hell. But he still loves you.

Even if someone, someday proves the existence of some almighty being (which I highly doubt), I will still refuse it.

RGacky3

23rd November 2011, 10:02

Even if someone, someday proves the existence of some almighty being (which I highly doubt), I will still refuse it.

So you'll refute evidence or proof due to the implications? I personally don't think there are any innate implications if Gods existance is proved.

Revolution starts with U

23rd November 2011, 20:51

No, I think he is taking the "if the G-D of the Old Testament is real, I will worship Satan; the knowledge giver" approach. I would take that approach too. The G-D of the Bible (not the G-D of Jesus) is nothing worthy of praise and worship.

Nucking_Futz51

24th November 2011, 01:38

Unarguably the most touchy topic in the forums for people who do believe in a God. :)

Rafiq

24th November 2011, 01:54

:rolleyes: Usually it's the religiously insecure people who talk of nonesense like 'god' being a dictator.

I understand if you just turned godless, but there are better arguments against theism.

Not like it matters, though, as we shouldn't care what people beleive as long as they keep it to themselves...

Franz Fanonipants

24th November 2011, 01:55

Unarguably the most touchy topic in the forums for people who do believe in a God. :)

it isn't touchy at all. i heart god AND dictators so...

Klaatu

24th November 2011, 02:21

communists,anarchist, socialists are atheists and that they don't beleave in god!

p.s: prove me that god exists i just love reading such replays :laugh:

Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, etc are free to believe in whatever they want to. Or not believe.

Personally, I am of the opinion that we have descended from ancestors which were aliens. Or at least have been influenced by them. ;)