Warp wrote:
>   So you *did* understand that I was talking exclusively about that one
> single verse, yet you regardless went and accused me of trying to explain
> *all* the verses related to the subject with the same explanation, even
> though I did no such thing.

I phrased it poorly. I was asking why you answered only one question out of 
the many. It's a normal rhetorical device to ask if, when a person asks 
about 5 items, and the answer is about 1, whether that same answer is 
supposed to apply to the other four.

>   I did not answer your question because I have already written in length
> about it and I didn't want to write it again. 

OK.

>> Plus, you don't seem to be reading what *I* am saying well. I didn't ask if 
>> the verse said God told people to dash out the brains of infants against 
>> rocks.
> 
>   Does that mean I cannot comment on that particular verse, as a side note?
> I really think the comment was appropriate and valid in this context.

I do too. But I expected your answer to actually be addressing the question 
I asked, I suppose.

>> It still seems to me that my earlier list of four possibilities hasn't been 
>> addressed. Either God has ordered people to do what seems to me to be 
>> unspeakably horrible things yet in reality are actually good for reasons we 
>> can't comprehend
> 
>   You can't comprehend, or you are not willing to?

I'm trying to paraphrase your words. "Can't comprehend" in the same way the 
child can't comprehend why the father is disallowing ice cream. It's the old 
"it's all for the best in the end" argument that I'm talking about.

Given you came up with the child-wanting-ice-cream example, I figured that 
might be a good argument to address.

>   The nazi regime and World War 2 was ended by a full-fledged attack on
> Germany. Lots of civilians and innocent people died on that attack, and
> one could argue that the attack was "unspeakably horrible". However, few
> people would deny that in the grand scale of things it was a good thing
> because it ended a reign of terror, oppression and mass killings. We can
> only imagine how many lives were saved because of the attack, which killed
> so many innocent people.

I agree. And you can explain to me why that's a good thing.

>   If 3000 years ago there was a local nazi regime oppressing a region
> and God ordered for it to be stopped by force, was it a good or a bad
> thing? People were killed, yes, but how many were saved?
 >
>   It's easy to show outrage about some war which happened some 3000 years
> ago when you don't have all the details nor the exact reasons why that
> war was fought.

I believe you're missing the point of the question I'm asking.

Either you trust that God is right when he tells you to do things that seem 
evil, or you don't. You seem to be arguing that trusting God and doing evil 
things he commands is a reasonable idea, because God is more wise than us. 
Your argument that we don't know enough history to know why God commanded 
such attacks seems to be implying that those attacks were good for reasons 
we don't understand.

However, since atheists don't believe in God to start with, you can imagine 
why an atheist would argue against doing evil in the name of a fictional 
being for fictional reasons.


>   I think that the question you posing at least borders the false dilemma.
> You assume that an act must be either "good" or "evil", even though it's
> not necessarily that simple. There may be additional options.

Certainly I feel that way. However, there are many faithful who don't feel 
that way. God, to them, is 100% good, no evil present at all, and any evil 
one *thinks* God might have committed or commanded was really good in 
disguise. Voltaire did an entire book on the subject, you know.

I agree the question is a false dilemma, if you're a rational and reasonable 
and tolerant person. If you're the kind of person who thinks homosexuality 
is unholy, I can't imagine it's rational to also believe there are some 
circumstances where it's perfectly acceptable. If you're the kind of person 
who believes God needs your help enforcing his laws *because* they're 
inherently and universally moral, questioning whether that is actually so is 
a reasonable thing to do. Following the implications of such a stance is a 
reasonable thing to do, if you're of the bent that feels God disapproves not 
only of your own homosexuality but everyone else's as well. For example.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message