Noah unbelievably bad and no redeeming moments!


Recommended Posts

Michael writes:

Peter and Greg,

Support answered me quickly. (Yay! :) )

Are you using Internet Explorer 11?

Apparently there is a glitch for copy/paste when using this browser on IPB. However, there is a patch (called a hook) and, following instructions from support, I have installed it.

Now it should work (I hope). Simply do "hard refresh (CTRL+F5 on a Windows machine) [on] the posting screen" to quote the message I received. I don't know if you have to do this each time you post or only one time right now if you don't want to close OL and open it again.

Please fiddle with this and let me know how it works out.

Thanks,

Michael

Thanks for the diligence, Michael. Yes, I have Internet Explorer 11, and refreshing the posting screen doesn't make any difference. Everything is still the same. It's ok because I'm already used to it. As long as there's a way to get around it and to quote and post manually with the html post option, it's fine. :smile:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 221
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wow!!

Thanks Michael!

I did all that keyboard stuff and a stunning redhead showed up and said that she needed a place to rest...thank you Michael...

you da man ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank writes:

Even before I came to the conclusion that a supernatural being was an illogical concept (see, for example, George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God, p. 28), I had decided that if God of the Old Testament existed, with his destruction of millions by the flood and the fire and brimstone in Genesis and by the Angel of Death in Exodus, he must be a homicidal maniac.

There are a couple of assumptions you made so as to arrive at your conclusion that God is a homicidal maniac. And just for clarity, I don't believe in your irrational morally depraved description of God any more than you do.

The first assumption you made is that the evil people who were destroyed were actually good and did nothing to deserve what they got. That assumption naturally begets another in that you believe that there is no such thing as moral justice. For if God isn't just, certainly no one else could be either.

However, you do have the consolation that Satan, also known as The Deceiver and The Accuser, is in total agreement with you. For he also accuses God of being unjust because he represents his own kind. So he also feels that evil people are only innocent helpless victims who did not deserve what they got.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank writes:

Even before I came to the conclusion that a supernatural being was an illogical concept (see, for example, George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God, p. 28), I had decided that if God of the Old Testament existed, with his destruction of millions by the flood and the fire and brimstone in Genesis and by the Angel of Death in Exodus, he must be a homicidal maniac.

There are a couple of assumptions you made so as to arrive at your conclusion that God is a homicidal maniac. And just for clarity, I don't believe in your irrational morally depraved description of God any more than you do.

The first assumption you made is that the evil people who were destroyed were actually good and did nothing to deserve what they got. That assumption naturally begets another in that you believe that there is no such thing as moral justice. For if God isn't just, certainly no one else could be either.

However, you do have the consolation that Satan, also known as The Deceiver and The Accuser, is in total agreement with you. For he also accuses God of being unjust because he represents his own kind. So he also feels that evil people are only innocent helpless victims who did not deserve what they got.

Greg

Okay, what evil little tricks did the first born babies of the Egyptians play to "deserve" the "moral justice" of the death penalty?

4 And Moses said, Thus saith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:

5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

6 And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more.

--Exodus 11:4–6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God's not about morality; that's Jesus. God is about power, the power of reality through allegory reflecting patriarchy in cultures built on agriculture.

--Brant

monotheistic religion mostly trumps any others with contesting gods and it did

Jesus is the God buffer (I think); that's why they burned Joan: she went straight to the source, so she said, threatening the temporal power of the Church (I imagine)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, what evil little tricks did the first born babies of the Egyptians play to "deserve" the "moral justice" of the death penalty?

4 And Moses said, Thus saith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:

5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

6 And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more.

--Exodus 11:4–6

There were ten plagues which Egypt suffered and which the Israelites did not. It was collective punishment. Yaweh is not a -nice- God. When He gets pissed He even kills Israelites.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] why they burned Joan: she went straight to the source, so she said, threatening the temporal power of the Church (I imagine)

She threatened more than that. There was a political context and a war, and her "magic" reputation was a "bad press" problem from the standpoint of the English. Besides which, she was inconvenient to the leaders on her own side.

The trial lasted nine months because Cauchon, the head inquisitor, was an honest man who wanted to know if Joan was a witch - and to save her soul if he could.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just tie her to a chair and throw her in the river. If she floats she needs a witch's power. Haul her out and burn her. If she sinks she is innocent and God will take her from there. We don't need no stinkin' trial!

--Brant

still works today!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] why they burned Joan: she went straight to the source, so she said, threatening the temporal power of the Church (I imagine)

She threatened more than that. There was a political context and a war, and her "magic" reputation was a "bad press" problem from the standpoint of the English. Besides which, she was inconvenient to the leaders on her own side.

The trial lasted nine months because Cauchon, the head inquisitor, was an honest man who wanted to know if Joan was a witch - and to save her soul if he could.

Ellen

A couple other points: She is called "Saint Joan," you know. The guilty verdict of the trial was reversed some years after her death and she was declared a martyr. Many years later (1920) she was declared a saint.

Also, unlike some others who were canonized, Joan didn't claim to be talking directly to God, but instead to three emissaries, Archangel Michael, Saint Catherine, and Saint Margaret.

It's true that the Church was (I suppose still is) leery of persons claiming to be getting input straight from the source, but the major issue with Joan's trial and sentencing was the threat she posed to English not to Churchly authority.

At one point, about twenty-five years ago, a friend of mine, who was program director of the Connecticut Association for Jungian Psychology, did extensive research on Joan's life and gave a couple lectures about her. At that time I read the Vita Sackville-West biography. The biography includes sections from the trial transcript, plus my friend who was researching the story handed out copies of additional sections at the lectures he gave.

Joan's performance in the trial was remarkable. Over the course of the nine months she was arrayed against, all told (not all at the same time), about 100 Church representatives trying to trap her into saying something definitively heretical. She kept managing to avoid the traps - an illiterate peasant girl, not yet 20 when she was burned at the stake (according to such information as can be gotten as to her birth date).

One of my favorite replies was when a questioner was asking if Archangel Michael appeared clothed. "Do you think that God can not afford to clothe his saints?" she replied.

One exchange has become oft-quoted. I'll copy it as told by Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc]link

"Asked if she knew she was in God's grace, she answered: 'If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me.'"[59] The question is a scholarly trap. Church doctrine held that no one could be certain of being in God's grace. If she had answered yes, then she would have convicted herself of heresy. If she had answered no, then she would have confessed her own guilt. Notary Boisguillaume later testified that at the moment the court heard this reply, "Those who were interrogating her were stupefied."[60]

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some years ago I found myself TV watching the silent 1930s movie The Passion of Joan of Arc. I immediately emailed Barbara Branden so she could watch it. It had a modern operatic sound track. The making of the movie was so wearing on the principal actress she never made another movie. The director pushed her to her limits if not over them in a way almost akin to actual torture. The result was cinematic brilliance and the most powerful movie I have ever seen including Francis Ford Capolla's presentation of the restored Napoleon, scored by Carmine Capolla, which I saw at its Radio City Music Hall premier.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank writes:

Okay, what evil little tricks did the first born babies of the Egyptians play to "deserve" the "moral justice" of the death penalty?

People who do evil inflict the consequences of their immoral actions upon their own offspring.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael writes:

Greg,

Please do me a favor. Clear your cookies and try again. (Or better, close the browser and start it again.) I want to make sure it doesn't work before I report the feedback to support.

Thanks.

Michael

I cleared, cleaned, scanned, updated, and restarted... and the results remain the same. But it's all good, as long as there's a way to get around the obstacle. :smile:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank writes:

Okay, what evil little tricks did the first born babies of the Egyptians play to "deserve" the "moral justice" of the death penalty?

People who do evil inflict the consequences of their immoral actions upon their own offspring.

Greg

In Post #29, you wrote, "The first assumption you made is that the evil people who were destroyed were actually good and did nothing to deserve what they got."

So what the first born babies "did" to "deserve what they got" was to choose evil parents to be born to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg is the only one here I know of who is completely beyond any logic that contradicts anything he says. I don't think the rest of us need a refresher, but he does need to be bookmarked from time to time--so thanks.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg is the only one here I know of who is completely beyond any logic that contradicts anything he says. I don't think the rest of us need a refresher, but he does need to be bookmarked from time to time--so thanks.

--Brant

The fallacy that represents the Stalker's primary method of "thinking" is that of Affirming the Consequent.

Evil actions have the consequence of misery.

Fiona is experiencing misery.

Therefore Fiona committed an evil act which caused the misery.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank writes:

In Post #29, you wrote, "The first assumption you made is that the evil people who were destroyed were actually good and did nothing to deserve what they got."

So what the first born babies "did" to "deserve what they got" was to choose evil parents to be born to?

Let's start at the beginning:

Do you have any children?

Please answer the question.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant writes:

Greg is the only one here I know of who is completely beyond any logic that contradicts anything he says. I don't think the rest of us need a refresher, but he does need to be bookmarked from time to time--so thanks.

--Brant

Ok. Same question for you, too: Do you have any children? A simple yes or no will suffice, and then I'll continue...

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I don't want you to continue. Everything of value to me you've said I've fished, cooked and eaten and the rest is down the river now and I've not wanted you to continue for a long time. That doesn't mean, however, that I want you to stop.

--Brant

I'll not ever respond to this please answer the question first approach and you're the first to try it on me, as I recall, in the over seven years I've posted here, by answering the question; I don't like it's structural discourtesy although I've on occasion been otherwise discourteous here myself, sometimes apologizing, sometimes half-assed apologizing (not sure about this) and sometimes simply apologizing apart from not apologizing at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now