Critical Thinking and the Bible #14 God's Preference for the Self-Interested

[ultradevon04]

What was the point of god testing people when he/it already knew what they were going to do in the first place. If one is all knowing, why the need to test anything? It all seems like BS to me!

[LetReasonPrevail1]

Nice, bro. I found your vids, and I plan on checking out the whole series.

Kudos for framing your bible analysis as "Critical Thinking". There is a dearth of critical thinking when it comes to the bible. Instead, I am bombarded with a seemingly never-ending stream of logically fallacious hogwash...circular reasoning, appeals to consequence, appeals to authority, non sequitors, and just plain bullshit to name a few.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Cheers,

Let Reason Prevail

[nathanaelstacy1]

@LetReasonPrevail1 Thanks for the support, LRP

[GFoladi]

I believe in god, but not the god of the known religions(Christianity, Islam....etc), I haven't even read one word from the bible, so my opinion is based on common sense. Psychopath is a label, like the word cool. Therefore the meaning does change based on the society's acceptance. Which means something that may seem wrong to us, may have little meaning to god, who sees death day by day, whether it's an ant or a human. My point is if you truly believe something is right then it is right, morally

[nathanaelstacy1]

@GFoladi The word "psychopath" is a psychiatric or psychological designation (outdated, actually, as now the term "antisocial personality" is more acceptable, although "psychopath" is still commonly used also) meaning someone who does not have what we would typically refer to as a conscience. A psychopath is someone who doesn't bond with others, and therefore wouldn't experience the same grief as a normal person when, say, a child dies... (Cont'd)

[GFoladi]

@nathanaelstacy1 you proved my point. psychopath is someone with antisocial personality. Social personality is based on society's acceptance. Let's just pretend that killing your own son would be ok and normal, so if someone doesn't kill his own son then he's a psychopath? same with the term normal, it differs on society's' acceptance

[nathanaelstacy1]

@GFoladi Antisocial personality or psychopath doesn't simply mean someone who goes against societal rules. (There's no way I can explain it to you in brief comments, so I suggest you read a book about it. Do some research.) It sounds as if you've learned just enough about psychology or social anthropology to be thoroughly confused. ;-) But that can be easily rectified with a little effort.

[nathanaelstacy1]

@GFoladi (Cont'd)... So if a man were to be ordered to kill his own child, whether by a god, a dictator, or whatever, if he were able to do so, feeling no remorse or apprehension, then he would be a psychopath, or antisocial personality. The other commenter was using the term against me as a general, meaningless pejorative... And really, if you believe something (anything) is right, that makes it right? So, for instance, murder of a child would be ok if the murderer really believed it?

[GFoladi]

@nathanaelstacy1 Abraham was ordered by god the all knowing, which means you have to do what he says whether it's out of fear or respect, because if god is all knowing he already knows the outcome and that means that's what he wants, which makes you think why he would do it if he already knows the results, he could just pretend it in his mind(1 reason I don't believe in the bible). Oh and yes if a man truly believes that murderer is(i don't want to use the term ok, because you could....con't

[GFoladi]

@nathanaelstacy1 (con't) not do what is ok, so ill use the term 'right') then yes murder is the right thing to do. The man might be in denial or mislead but if he truly believes that murder is the right thing then yes he is 100% innocent. The law obviously would stop the man because society doesn't accept murder.

[nathanaelstacy1]

@GFoladi I'm not a complete moral relativist -- in fact, I suspect that no one (even one who professes to be) is. It's easy to be a moral relativist from a distance, speaking of hypothetical situations. But I think anyone who could have stopped, for example, Hussein from massacring women and children, and knew it was going on, and had a conscience of his own, would have been forced by his own conscience to do it. Even a full-blown atheist. The only exception would be a psychopath.

[GFoladi]

@nathanaelstacy1 I have no comment on the 'moral relativist' part, and I'm not familiar with the story of Hussein massacring women and children, I do know that he was a Muslim prophet. I don't know his motives so I can't call him a psychopath.

[nathanaelstacy1]

@GFoladi I'm speaking of Saddam Hussein. He gassed villages full of women and children.

[GFoladi]

@nathanaelstacy1 like I said some people do beliefs are mislead and some deny the truth, most beliefs based on religions are mislead. If someone's belief comes from common sense and knowledge it's more likely to be honest.Saddam Hussein's beliefs were based on only stories, the truth is there really is no proof that Allah or Jesus existed/exists, so it's like basing the religion on stories which can be altered

[nathanaelstacy1]

@GFoladi You've entirely missed the point of my Saddam reference earlier. I was speaking in the context of someone from the outside -- someone claiming to be a moral relativist (as you claim to be) -- having the opportunity to stop him. Even a moral relativist, I believe, wouldn't say, "well, if he thinks gassing those Kurdish villages is right, then it's right." If you don't know what moral relativism is, you might want to look that up, too.

[GFoladi]

@nathanaelstacy1 I understand exactly what you mean, I don't think you understand what I mean. And I did look up moral relativism, I knew what the subject meant, I just didn't really give a **** what it was called, to be honest. The reason I can't give you an answer is because you're throwing stories at me that I have no clue they happened or why they happened, I don't think you know why he gassed those Kurdish villages, you just like the short answer, he's a psychopath

[nathanaelstacy1]

@GFoladi You're still not paying attention. The item of discussion isn't whether Saddam is a psychopath. My example of Saddam wasn't directly about psychopathy at all, or his motivations. It was about whether a moral relativist could know of, have the power to stop, but refuse to stop, those actions by Saddam, because observer is a moral relativist. And if you have no clue about these things, try educating yourself.

[GFoladi]

@nathanaelstacy1 You have no argument here. I'll use myself as the moral relativist(apparently you like to label people with an adjective). If I had the power to stop Saddam's forces, I would 100%. Other then this I don't see what you're arguing. So let's continue from me stopping Saddam's forces, looking forward to reading what your point is....

[nathanaelstacy1]

@GFoladi It was actually a minor point, responding to your statement that whatever someone thinks is right is right. That's a morally relativistic stand -- hence, the stand of a moral relativist. But, as I said, it's easy to take this type of stand from a distance, or with purely hypothetical situations. In other words, I think it's a load of crap when people say what's right is whatever society or individual says is right. There's the point.

[GFoladi]

@nathanaelstacy1 it's obviously not that simple, but it's not a load of crap and society and individuals decide what is right and wrong, who else would decide it? Different societies and individuals have their differences but everyone's decision and opinion influences others, therefore there comes a compromise. I'll give you examples and living proof if you want....(con't)

[GFoladi]

@nathanaelstacy1 (con't) If I kidnap a girl/woman and I go rape her that's considered wrong in most places right? What if I told you there is a tribe, a small tribe, but still a society of people that men kidnap women and if they can "pull it off" they have the right to marry that woman. This is not a joke.

When a praying mantis(female) mates with a male, after the female eats the male. On very rare occasions the male escapes, they know this, I wouldn't say it's right but who am I to judge?

[nathanaelstacy1]

@GFoladi This is your "living proof"? Seriously? Rape, and a preying mantis? First, I can say the rape is wrong, whether the society in which it occurs permits it or not. And if someone within that society with the power to do so were to outlaw rape, that would be an improvement in that society. Why? Because rape is wrong -- that fact would not change -- and finally that society would realize a moral reality that was already true.

[GFoladi]

@nathanaelstacy1 you're in such a denial it's unbelievable. To us who live in advanced countries, yea rape is wrong. But they accept that and you can't go and change what they do. I know you think rape is wrong and I'm not saying people should go around raping others, I'm saying they're ok with a man kidnapping a woman and raping her. If that's not enough for you....If 2 people have sex without 1's consent that's considered rape, but if both of them want it, then that's ok.(con't)

[GFoladi]

@GFoladi (con't)that alone proves that people can change what's wrong and right, and if you can't accept that then I'm just wasting my time because you can't educate someone in denial

[nathanaelstacy1]

@GFoladi Not to be rude, but the idea of you educating me is absurd. But thanks anyway. Lol. Good bye.

[GFoladi]

@nathanaelstacy1 I'm not offended at all I just feel sorry for you. And a bit disappointed to see you're not as intelligent as I thought you were

[pdormody]

Perhaps if this story was brought up to date it would be more meaningful.Imagine if you will,hearing a disembodied Voice,or maybe,just a strange old man called Yahweh,telling you to do something like this.Then,being just an average sheepherder,you go along with this crazy idea.Sure, then an angel pops up and stops you,thats what happened yea.

[chessfidemaster]

preto you do not take yourself seriously or you would learn how to use your brain ..... you have addressed non of the questions this vid poses ..... by the way nathan my parents attmpeted to brainwash me into this crap ,, luckily i was an intelligent enough child to see through the rubish and never took any of it seriously ,,, you are doing a good job , but i wouldnt expect any of these limited intellects to refrain from transitive logic fallacy ,well poisoning ,or the fav fallacies they enjoy

[chessfidemaster]

he is not using gods intention for this simple mathematical equation he is using Abraham's ,, Abraham prefers self preservation to the morality of protecting his only son ... and god prefers this and is pleased by this ,,, please learn how to use that thing i like to call a brain

[chessfidemaster]

so lets see questioning things that make no reasonable sense places me in an intellectual box ? pointing out the contradictions between your own morality you must follow according to your religion or instincts( not that you even believe in these) directly contradicts the behavior of the very god you follow puts me in a box ? i swear listening to a christian attempt to use logic for the art of biblical defense is truly humorous . also learn how to spell

[chessfidemaster]

poor little brainwashed victims do not know how to apply logic to clearly asked questions,, this is as simple as 1+1=2 .. it is a mathematical equation he clearly put forth to you ,, imo the discussion of these events by biblical scholars and preachers is twisting the scenario 1 million fold more than the logic is in this video .... learn the art of syllogism please , and also learn how to spell

[pretoshohmoofc]

I think that you missed the whole point of Abraham. We are to love God more than everything/one else. Why? Because we were created by God, for God. Abraham proved that he loved God more than his own son. Thus, Not only did God let the boy live, but he also blessed the son as well. The fact that the ram was already there on the mountain with abraham to act as an alternative to the son for sacrifice, proves that God had an exit strategy for Abraham the whole time.

[nathanaelstacy1]

I think you missed the point of the video. I know it can be difficult to look past the "points" that are drilled into a person in church. It can seem that anything that doesn't reaffirm those points must be "missing" them. But I encourage you to watch my videos for what they're actually saying, not just to see if they restate religious propaganda. Think deeper. Thanks preto.

[pretoshohmoofc]

I know what was going on with Abraham. At no time was Isaac going to be killed.

If Abraham didn't kill his son due to his love for him, the son would have lived.

If Abraham was going to go through with the killings, God supplied the Ram so the son wouldn't be killed.

Either way, The son was going to live. And God knew this.

It wasn't a hard question for me to answer. Please except that.

[nathanaelstacy1]

Preto, the video isn't discussing whether Isaac was ever at risk of being killed (or whether Isaac ever existed in the first place.) The video is about the Bible God's preference for someone who would be willing to kill his own son in order to keep God's favor. The Bible states explicitly that Abraham was willing to do this, and that made him righteous.

It isn't an easy question for you; you simply refuse to address the points of the video. Oh, and "'except'" isn't the same as "accept."

[pretoshohmoofc]

The video isn't about that?

Ok,

well, the story about Abraham isn't about what you are trying to twist it into either.

The Story is about abraham loving his son, but loving God more.

You ask Christians to view your video and think about it. When the Christians watch the video, and respond anyway other than what you are hoping they will react, you simply reject the answer and ask them to view it again?

Who's in the box now?

[nathanaelstacy1]

So asking someone to address the actual subject of the video is being 'in a box'? When I make a video, I shouldn't expect people to really watch it, and then address the issue I'm discussing, rather than choosing an issue they'd prefer?

Watching a video in which I use a particular scripture as an example, and then returning with the old standard religious explanations that don't address the subjects I'm discussing is non-productive. Sorry if that displeases you.

[pretoshohmoofc]

No, not accepting their answers is being in a box.

You said, "The Bible states explicitly that Abraham was willing to do this, and that made him righteous."

Chapter and verse please. You are quoting from Gen 15:6 and Rom 4:22 and these verses have nothing to do with what happened in Gen 22. Also, nowhere in the verse does it even say that Abraham even struggled with the idea of sacrificing his son. You assumed this.

Your video is based on an assumption.

[nathanaelstacy1]

Genesis 22:10 says Abraham was in the process of killing his son, (thus was obviously willing to do so). In verse 12 it states that this was out of "fear" of God. In verses 16 - 18, God expresses his pleasure at this fact, and rewards Abraham as a result. (Do you not read the Bible or something?)

If a man is willing to kill his own child without "struggling with the idea" of doing so, then he's a psychopath. So are you implying that Abraham was a psychopath, and God prefers psychopaths?

[pretoshohmoofc]

No, this is why I am saying that you are twisting the word of God.

The word"fear" in the Bible is an semitic expression. It just means "reverence". Just like "you're my dog". Or "that was sick..." or "let's *hit* McDonalds on the way home" Proverbs 1:7 says, The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge. The CEV translates Gen 22:12 as "you truly obey God". CEV translates Prov 1:7 "Respect and obey the LORD!"

Christians know this.

This is why I don't take you seriously.

[pretoshohmoofc]

Again, you are just twisting the Bible.

It was God who asked him to kill his son.

It was God who never had any intention OF killing his son.

This is why there was a Ram.

If you believe that a creator created his creation to surve him. then yes, it would be wrong for the creation to love creation more than the creator.

Abraham proved this was wrong.

You are trying to get us to love the creation more than the creator.

Now who's the psychopath?

[nathanaelstacy1]

1) You're scrambling. I don't believe it's unintentional. Let's put it simply for you, in bite-sized pieces. If this story were true, it would mean that God preferred that a human was willing to ignore conscience and love for child, and kill that child upon command. If a human won't do that, they're punished. If they will, they're rewarded. Think about it. (You know what thinking is, right?)

2) You obviously don't know the meaning of psychopath, anymore than you know how to spell.

3) bye.

[pretoshohmoofc]

I'll tell you what I proved.

A.You clearly don't understand biblical language.

B.You just contradicted your own video.

C. I know what a psychopath is, I just watched one on this video.

[haller136]

3So there is much changed during many centuries. And when you know that you don't may interpret it. Then it becames funny when you see that even the list of descent of jesus is not the same in all gospels.

But again, thanks for doing all this work.

[nathanaelstacy1]

Thanks for your comments haller, but I'd appreciate keeping things on subject. Thanks.

[haller136]

2. And to kill everyone in the city, man, women and children.

I was very intresting in your vision about the bible. Thanks for it. For me the OT is no more then a kind of historybook written in the babylonian exile time to give moral to the jewish people.

The NT gives even more problems, there are many many gospels, only 4 are choosen as ggod. Why that 4? Why not the other. Even popes makes revieuws of the NT, one is almost comdamned for heresy for that.

[haller136]

1.Sorry, this time i can not agree with you, this is a question of faith (i don't say that it is good), you see the same with Job. On that moment Abrahams faith is unconditonaly, and there many others storys like this in other cultures in the ancient times.The intrest of the group is more important then the intrest of the individual. You see this with to modern eyes i think. But you find enough parts in the bible that the conscience not really exist. In the OT when he ordered to take a city.

[nathanaelstacy1]

I believe you're interchanging faith with obedience, which, in this case, isn't correct. Yes, according to the account, Abraham was being obedient, out of, it says, fear. He feared God, and was willing to kill his son out of that fear. God says kill your son, you're afraid of God, you do it.

Also, there was no "group" yet according to the account. Abraham was promised he'd be the founder of a group (a selfish interest), but the only members at that time were himself, his wife, and his son.

[anzwertree]

Dude!!!! This actually makes a lot of sense. I've always wondered whether or not my motivation was genuine or unconscious selfishness. Sometime even in the middle of prayer I'd be thinking: am I saying this because I truly believe it, or am I somehow selfishly motivated. Sometimes I'd pray for someone I didn't even like, or for someone that has wronged me. And yet, I ask good things for them. If he exists, God knows why. Was I really just saying something so God would reward me? Very good point.

[nathanaelstacy1]

I used to wonder the very same thing. All religious people should. If you feel you stand to gain a reward or escape punishment by doing good things, how can you ever be sure whether you're a "good person," or a "bad person" who just wants the reward or to escape punishment.

[nathanaelstacy1]

I think, certainly, if someone does something they would otherwise never even THINK of doing (disfellowshipping, among JW's, for instance) because their religion tells them God will reward them if they do/punish them if they don't, that most certainly falls within the category of self-interest. Thanks for your comment.

[anzwertree]

The elders came by the other day. Lately I've started to be more up front with them -- questioning things.

They mentioned something about making a curious clay figure I made jumping up and asking me questions. As if implying I'd have a problem with it.

Then they tried to guilt trip me into return. They were talking about the new world, and they'd be asking "Where's Josh?" Suppose they think I'll be missing. I guess I was supposed to act on my "self interests" so I'd be in paradise with them

[nathanaelstacy1]

Man, if I made a clay figure, and it jumped up and started asking me questions, I'd have a problem with it. I'd be thinking, "Oh no! I'm schizophrenic!!!"

[anzwertree]

@nathanaelstacy1, I think it would be cool. I'd be like, "Word, he's talking and everything." I'd answer any questions he had. The elders seemed to be implying I'd be upset with him for questioning my authority as his creator. Accordingly, He should just do as he is told and not worry about how fd'-up the world is that I put him in.

[nathanaelstacy1]

Lol. That sounds like something that would come out of Pixar Studios.

But yeah, of course that's what they were saying, that you'd be upset with your creation for asking you questions. In reality, of course, they just don't like being asked questions they don't have answers to. Universal religious trait, I think.

[Catch22here]

Sounds more like a Luney Toons cartoon to me. I seem to recall there was one where a frog would only sing for his owner and the second he showed it to someone else, the frog would be silent or just croak like a frog. I think there was a reference to that cartoon in one of the Mask movies... the second one I think. BTW, Christian teachings say that there are no good people.

[nathanaelstacy1]

I vaguely remember something like that cartoon.

[Catch22here]

Yep, he was called "Michigan J Frog". The song he would always sing was called "Michigan Rag".

[nathanaelstacy1]

Cool. Thanks for the research!

[Catch22here]

HaHa, yeah I had to google it because I couldn't remember the name... if I ever knew it in the first place. The song brought back memories though. I used to like Buggs Bunny, Yo Samity Sam, ...etc and they sometimes played it with those type cartoons.

[nathanaelstacy1]

Oh man, I used to love those cartoons, too. Big part of my childhood. The thing I always disliked about Bugs Bunny -- he chewed with his mouth open! Arg! And when I was little I believed people might actually be able to shoot themselves into the air like Yosemite Sam did when he was angry... Good fun.

[dariuscravenz]

@Catch22here OMFG u just triggerd a flash from the past!!! Owwchhhh

[MrJohnnyrace]

Dont forget the talking snake !! hahahahaha!!