20 arguments for the existence of God

[hamashiachagape]

So it's a case of the anthropologist's idea of cultural relativism, not saying that they are equal, but that they are culturally derived. I can respect that, like one would respect a cannibal who still sees terror in such things as war

I would say read the entire article. They are not culturally derived at all. I see plenty of problems with cultural relativism, which serves to further uphold a moral absolute, inferring a God. There are also Christian authors who address Buddhistic claims such as the ones you understand.

The issue is on the value of human life. Animals have value on a different level. Humans are different than animals. Its not that the love of animals is wrong, or bad. Its that they serve a different role from a human, and this is to be understood since we are capable of rational thought, unlike animals. We are given dominion over the animal kingdom. Thus we must take care of it, and not mistreat the animal population. This does not mean we can not eat other animals.

 

[hamashiachagape]

The Jews respected animals so much that they would bury the blood of an animal. The Greeks could have cared less about such a practice.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I never said anything about treating animals as equal to humans on the level of personhood. Humane treatment doesn't have to be derived from an idea of dominion over the animals and it doesn't have to go to the extreme of vegetarianism either. Don't misunderstand me, I don't think I implied any such ideas as you're attaching to my explanations.

And cultural relativism isn't to be confused with moral relativism, which I agree would present a problematic undermining of a universal objective morality that exists even in a Buddhist perspective.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I never said anything about treating animals as equal to humans on the level of personhood. Humane treatment doesn't have to be derived from an idea of dominion over the animals and it doesn't have to go to the extreme of vegetarianism either. Don't misunderstand me, I don't think I implied any such ideas as you're attaching to my explanations.

And cultural relativism isn't to be confused with moral relativism, which I agree would present a problematic undermining of a universal objective morality that exists even in a Buddhist perspective.

Cultural relavitism leaves no room for two cultures to decide which one is right. It is an Reductio ad Absurdum in practice.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Only if you assume that because something is contingent on something else, it's less than important for consideration. The value of cultural relativism is tolerance, not acceptance. No one is asking anyone to condone cannibalism or the like,but at least recognize that it's something derived from the culture, not something innate to humanity that anyone could just choose to do from birth.

Moral relativism is making an ethical claim, cultural relativism is making a claim of epistemology and metaphysics, not unlike how one would determine how we realize that our breathing in oxygen and breathing out carbon dioxide is contingent upon the existence of plants, albeit on a more scientific level in that case. A better comparison would be the mind body duality problem

 

[hamashiachagape]

Only if you assume that because something is contingent on something else, it's less than important for consideration. The value of cultural relativism is tolerance, not acceptance. No one is asking anyone to condone cannibalism or the like,but at least recognize that it's something derived from the culture, not something innate to humanity that anyone could just choose to do from birth.

Moral relativism is making an ethical claim, cultural relativism is making a claim of epistemology and metaphysics, not unlike how one would determine how we realize that our breathing in oxygen and breathing out carbon dioxide is contingent upon the existence of plants, albeit on a more scientific level in that case. A better comparison would be the mind body duality problem

Now we're trying to deny cause and effect. Thats not wise.

Cultural relavitism however is problematic when we're having to obey two different cultural positiions at the same time. Follow here.

If I go to China, which rules to I follow? The United States? The Chinese? Waht if the Chinese oppose the United States? If this occurs just once,l then it demonstrates Cultural relativism to be false.

We can talk about Moral relativism, though I would warn you that I'm not too fond of sociopaths myself.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Now we're trying to deny cause and effect. Thats not wise.

Cultural relavitism however is problematic when we're having to obey two different cultural positiions at the same time. Follow here.

If I go to China, which rules to I follow? The United States? The Chinese? Waht if the Chinese oppose the United States? If this occurs just once,l then it demonstrates Cultural relativism to be false.

We can talk about Moral relativism, though I would warn you that I'm not too fond of sociopaths myself.

I never denied causality, I wasusing it as an example because I think it exists.

I don't think any cultural relativist advises you to follow two conflicting positions at the same time. Being an American in China doesn't mean you have to be one way or the other, since a moderate position can make everyone as generally calm as possible. Offense is usually a matter of misunderstanding rather than purposeful ill will.


And I wasn't going to disagree with you on normative moral relativism, since that does practically contradict itself.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I never denied causality, I wasusing it as an example because I think it exists.

I don't think any cultural relativist advises you to follow two conflicting positions at the same time. Being an American in China doesn't mean you have to be one way or the other, since a moderate position can make everyone as generally calm as possible. Offense is usually a matter of misunderstanding rather than purposeful ill will.


And I wasn't going to disagree with you on normative moral relativism, since that does practically contradict itself.

Absolutely on the 2nd claim. I'm only demonstrating what is necessary in logistical terms for Cultural relativism to make sense, not what a cultural relativist would emotionally advise upon.

 

[Nooj]

Meh. Its not much different from having a steak in today's society. Our society does it in butcher houses. Our societies mistreat animals unlike the ancients, and there is clear evidence that the ancients had a different methodology for doing things. The Greeks had some very unusual customs within their Paganism as well, as they were also prone to drinking blood and other unsanitary things. This could be equated today with someone going to a restaurant and ordering a rare steak though too. Its not very healthy to do such a thing.

Evidence for them drinking blood?

 

[hamashiachagape]

Evidence for them drinking blood?

Part of this can be found in the writings of Paul. A letter written by him with the accompaniment of the Jerusalem Council. See here -Acts 15 19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

It is obvious that Paul would not have to address this if the Pagans were not doing this.

Also, the fact that it is discussed in the Talmud, and cross references that the Babylonians would sacrifice children to Molech. This began to take form by the Jews who were following the Talmud (oral tradition), and they began to sacrifice their children to Molech through a priest. Part of the reason that Yeshua tells us not to follow the traditions of men as he puts it to the Pharisees. It is not a wonder that Yeshua would have had a problem with this given that God commanded against it. One of many reasons to see that he was the essential nature of God himself. These were more in the form of what I consider awkward towards the approach to sacrificing. The FAITHFUL Jews never participated in these practices, and it was never commanded by God to do so.

Heres some information from the Jewish Encyclopedia on Molech - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=718&letter=M

 

[hamashiachagape]

Julius Caesar also declares "The whole nation of the Gauls is greatly devoted to ritual observances, and for that reason those who are smitten with the more grievous maladies and who are engaged in the perils of battle either sacrifice human victims or vow so to do, employing the druids as ministers for such sacrifices. They believe, in effect, that, unless for a man's life a man's life be paid, the majesty of the immortal gods may not be appeased; and in public, as in private life they observe an ordinance of sacrifices of the same kind. Others use figures of immense size whose limbs, woven out of twigs, they fill with living men and set on fire, and the men perish in a sheet of flame. They believe that the execution of those who have been caught in the act of theft or robbery or some crime is more pleasing to the immortal gods; but when the supply of such fails they resort to the execution even of the innocent."

We also see evidence from prior to this time period in Deuteronomy 12:

The LORD your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. But when you have driven them out and settled in their land, and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, "How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same." You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it. Deuteronomy 12:29-32

As we see here, God did not approve of this type of sacrifice.
​

 

[hamashiachagape]

Here is some more information -
Much attention has been drawn to the Druid human sacrificial ceremonies that usually conducted on the festive days. "Pliny recorded that the slaying of a human being was considered a highly religious acts among the Britons, and the eating of the flesh regarded as a 'wholesome remedy.'" Also "the Roman historian Diodorus Siculus states the Irish ate their enemies, and the Greek historian and traveler Pausaniaus tells how the Gallatin Celts ate the flesh and drank the blood of children." The Irish Celts also are said to have washed their faces in the blood of the slain, and imbibed in it. They drank the blood of dead relatives, a custom that existed until the 16th century. In the Western Isles the blood brotherhood survived until recent times. All of these cultural traditions seem to indicate a Druidic influence.

Druidism

One thing we know about Paganism is that there is nothing original about the groups for the major part. The word Druid actually seems to have developed out of the Greek language, lending to possible hellenistic influence. Also the Romans had a direct contact with this group as well. And it appears that Mithra slayed a bull and drank blood. Mithraism was followed by a majority of the Roman military of the 1st century. I was also reading something about Odysseus having something to do with drinking of blood.

Further -

Saturn* (mythology), in Roman mythology, ancient god of agriculture. In later legends he was identified with the Greek god Cronus, who, after having been dethroned by his son Zeus (in Roman mythology, Jupiter), fled to Italy, where he ruled during the Golden Age, a time of perfect peace and happiness. Beginning on December 17 of each year, during the festival known as the Saturnalia, the Golden Age was restored for seven days. All business stopped and executions and military operations were postponed. It was a period of goodwill, devoted to banquets and the exchange of visits and gifts. A special feature of the festival was the freedom given to slaves, who during this time had first place at the family table and were served by their masters.
​

Now thats significant because Kronos was also associated with Molech. http://www.lightofmashiach.org/paganmas.html

 

[hamashiachagape]

Ah got something else here. Lilu was a vampire from Babylon. This is where vampires originated from.

Coming out of Babylon, was the popular story of Lilith (Babylonian Talmud, many of you may have heard about the rumor of 'Adam's first wife', oddly never mentioned in the Tanakh). Joshua 8:30-34 refutes Adam's first wife being Lilith (its a later addition). This is further evidence of the origin of vampires being from Babylon.

Obviously there is a correlation between vampires and Babylonian culture. And this extends to Greece, which then extends to Rome. Lamiai in fact was the first Vampire demon known to Greece. Empousai and Mormos are seen to be more friendly vampires.

Nonetheless we can obviously see where the drinking of blood is coming from even more clearly when we take a look at vampires. Lamiai, Empousai, and Mormos: Vampires i.. | WritersCafe.org | The Online Writing Community

It can also be seen very clearly within Greek religion.

 

[dlamberth]

Cultural relavitism leaves no room for two cultures to decide which one is right. It is an Reductio ad Absurdum in practice.

In real life examples, how might your comment here about Cultural Relavitism be shown as being true?

.

 

[hamashiachagape]

In real life examples, how might your comment here about Cultural Relavitism be shown as being true?

.

The example of Communism in China vs. Democracy in America.

We also note Sharia law vs. the Constitution. It is not far fetched at all.

 

[dlamberth]

The example of Communism in China vs. Democracy in America.

I still don't understand. Just to make it simple, I reduced your two examples down to one, and an working only with the Communism in China va. Democracy in America example.

What I'm working off of is where you said "Cultural relativism leaves no room for two cultures to decide which one is right". In reading your example that you gave, I'm looking for it but can't find the "Cultural Relativism" in it. I'm not understanding how your using the term I guess. Help me with that please. And help me see the "Cultural Relativism" that your pointing towards.

.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I still don't understand. Just to make it simple, I reduced your two examples down to one, and an working only with the Communism in China va. Democracy in America example.

What I'm working off of is where you said "Cultural relativism leaves no room for two cultures to decide which one is right". In reading your example that you gave, I'm looking for it but can't find the "Cultural Relativism" in it. I'm not understanding how your using the term I guess. Help me with that please. And help me see the "Cultural Relativism" that your pointing towards.

.

When two cultures conflict with one another, what standard says that one is right? Unless you have absolute standards.

The two examples I am giving can show you through A posteriori evidence how Cultural Relativism does not work. In both examples, there is a direct contradiction, with no compromisation.

 

[dlamberth]

The two examples I am giving can show you through A posteriori evidence how Cultural Relativism does not work. In both examples, there is a direct contradiction, with no compromisation.

I don't see "relativism" in the example. What I see are 2 solid ways to approach society. I don't see anything "relativism" about it.

Otherwise, what is the option?

.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I don't see "relativism" in the example. What I see are 2 solid ways to approach society. I don't see anything "relativism" about it.

Otherwise, what is the option?

.

Then you see relativism because you believe they can both be right. I would strongly suggest studying Sharia law before coming to this conclusion.

The 2nd law of noncontradiction holds that these two views can not be compromised.

John Hick's religious relativism is self refuting if you haven't caught onto that yet. Remember the Absolute vs. Relative thing you saw? Apply that to religion.

 

[dlamberth]

The two examples I am giving can show you through A posteriori evidence how Cultural Relativism does not work. In both examples, there is a direct contradiction, with no compromisation.

Yet, they ARE working together. The conflicts between those two superpowers seems to be over power and not culture. We aren't deciding between cultures. We even seem to be assimilating each others culture and are happy doing so. Is that what your meaning?

I'm just not seeing your example as Cultural Relativism I guess.

.