I've noticed that when it comes to the "moral issues", conservative Christians and atheists are mutually opposed more than any other two groups. What one group considers immoral the other group doesn't have a problem with. For example, Christians opposed to celebrating Halloween while atheists don't have a problem with that. And atheists having a problem with childhood indoctrination, and Christians don't have a problem with that.
The Amazing Atheist had a discussion with VenomFangX (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUXiJySS548&t=29m54s) (youtube creationist and Christian apologist). VenomFang brought up a Barna Group poll (https://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/16-teensnext-gen/25-young-adults-and-liberals-struggle-with-morality#.VVS1fEZRrdc) (the Barna Group is an evangelical Christian polling organization, so take the link with a pillar of salt) which states that atheists were most likely to reject "traditional morality". VenomFang gives some interesting examples of traditional morality: opposition to illegal drug use, excessive drinking, sex out of wedlock, cohabitation, abortion, obscene language, gambling, pornography, homosexuality, and bisexuality.
And like the Amazing Atheist, I don't have any strong moral objection to any of these things. That said, the first two are the most troubling because when it gets to the point of substance abuse, they can be very harmful. Not opposed to abortion or gambling. Or cussing, for fuck's sake. And the rest are all sex crimes. I don't consider any of those reprehensible at all.
But what strikes me as strange is the completely different angles Christians and atheists approach these issues.
For Christians in general and VenomFang in particular, their morality is defined by Godly decree. (Although I think we both know that this God character is just a mask and it's ultimately people making these judgments) And God apparently is in the business of regulating and controlling sex more than any other human behavior. Slavery? God's pretty much okay with that. Genocide? It depends on the victim. Gay sex? Worst thing ever!
For me, and probably a lot of atheists, I'm more concerned about harm. Who's the victim? How were they harmed? And for most of VenomFang's list, there is no victim. Two gay guys have sex, there's no victim. An unwed straight couple has sex, there's no victim. Taking the Lord's name in vain, there's no victim. Or at least none forthcoming. So there's little wonder how we come to completely opposite conclusions.
In many countries, conservative Christians and atheists live side by side with completely mutually exclusive notions of what's permissible and what's forbidden. And only one set of rules can govern a society, which necessarily brings us in political conflict with each other - a political conflict that can only have one victor.
And I agree completely except I think we should be opposed to Halloween as well. :-)
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 14, 2015, 12:56:43 PM
And I agree completely except I think we should be opposed to Halloween as well. :-)
Why doesn't that surprise me..
You do understand that christmas was stolen by christians and is actually the celebration saturnalia?
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 14, 2015, 12:56:43 PM
And I agree completely except I think we should be opposed to Halloween as well. :-)
Watch it buddy. I have an American invasion request pending as we speak to get a week long, booze mandatory, full throttle Halloween holiady! You are on thin ice.
:lol:
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 14, 2015, 01:08:26 PM
Watch it buddy. I have an American invasion request pending as we speak to get a week long, booze mandatory, full throttle Halloween holiady! You are on thin ice.
:lol:
I'm working on it, the landings are scheduled to begin on June 2, with a direct pincer assault being planned for Istanbul
The thing is, Christian (and most other religion-based) morality isn't about being a good person. It's about being a controlled person. It's a hangover from when the leader was 'anointed by god'--for example, Brits, Canadians, and other Commonwealthers may see D:G:REG:FID:DEF or the like on their coins, which roughly translates as 'queen by the grace of god and defender of the fairh'. If you didn't behave the way the priests told you to, you were in both religious and political trouble as you were in opposition to "god's chosen king/queen".
I suspect this is where morality as a social function arose, as a way to impose order on the first large tribes/proto-villages. The shaman keeps 'em afraid of challenging the chief on the grounds of BECAUSE I SAID SO!! and is given a piece of temporal power himself.
QuoteVenomFang gives some interesting examples of traditional morality: opposition to illegal drug use, excessive drinking, sex out of wedlock, cohabitation, abortion, obscene language, gambling, pornography, homosexuality, and bisexuality.
Opposition to illegal drug use and excessive drinking are legal/common sense issues. All the rest come under the heading of sinful behavior according to religion. That is not traditional morality, that is what Christianity defines as sinful. They all used to be illegal or rejected. Now, sex out of wedlock, cohabitation, abortion, obscene language, gambling, pornography, homosexuality and bisexuality are either not illegal or allowed, depending in where you are.
It is not evil if you don't make it evil.
Traditional morality , what a lovely turn of phrase , and like most language in the bible , it is so perfectly ambiguous that it can mean anything.
Quote from: trdsf on May 14, 2015, 01:22:34 PMThe thing is, Christian (and most other religion-based) morality isn't about being a good person. It's about being a controlled person.
Right. It's about submission. Doing what you're told.
While secular morality tends to be more about people's well-being. Doing something or not doing something because of how it'll affect others.
These two approaches are leagues from each other. Imagine a world in which religion-based morality is the norm. Now imagine a world in which secular morality is the norm. Quite the difference, eh?
With a world governed by secular morality we would see a lot more naked people strolling the streets....
[spoiler](http://homepage.eircom.net/~ator/Spencer%20Tunick%20Experience%20Barcelona/hands.jpg)[/spoiler]
Quote from: Termin on May 14, 2015, 02:26:31 PMTraditional morality , what a lovely turn of phrase , and like most language in the bible , it is so perfectly ambiguous that it can mean anything.
Exactly. And of course, the drug use and abortion issues are actually fairly modern issues.
Another thing that struck me about it is that "traditional" values have changed a lot over the years. Divorce steadily became more acceptable. Racism has become a lot less acceptable, even to religious folks. Working on the Sabbath is barely an issue anymore. Tattoos are more acceptable. Etc.
Morality isn't like the Ten Commandments, with edicts etched into stone. It's more like the Constitution, littered with amendments and repeals. Religions, by definition, are traditionalistic and lag behind the people's changing moral views. But the fact that religious morality changes at all severely damages the proposition that morality is authored by God. Because why would an all-knowing being change his mind?
Quote from: stromboli on May 14, 2015, 02:57:41 PM
With a world governed by secular morality we would see a lot more naked people strolling the streets....
[spoiler](http://homepage.eircom.net/~ator/Spencer%20Tunick%20Experience%20Barcelona/hands.jpg)[/spoiler]
Apparently the full bush look is still the rage in that city.
Gave this some thought and I came to a conclusion, that if I ever find myself in this sort of argument again.
Justifying my actions ? sure I have no problem with that. I will take responsibility for what I do But why the $%$ do I have to justify my morals ?
Ah yes, morality. Its immoral for gay people to have consensual sex but not immoral for the Republican party to legally mandate 2% sales tax for the wealthy while lumping 27-35% on the poor and middle class. That be Jesus right there. Sending a plane load of bibles to Nepal after the earthquake, morality in action. Making a saint out of Mother Teresa after she forces poor women who are suffering to endure more pain while she herself receives treatment from the best doctors, all the while stuffing millions into a Swiss bank account. Yup, that is certainly moral.
And his Popaliciousness sitting on a golden throne telling starving African minions they can't use birth control and abstinence will stop climbing birth rates and stop HIV/AIDS from spreading. And gay people are condemned, and Charlie Hebdo was evil for mocking religion. That be some morality right there.
Leaders of the Mormon religion excommunicating gay members who are legally married- moral. Creating a "pro LGBT" freedom of religion law that allows people to discriminate against gays, atheists or whoever because their religion trumps human rights- Moral.
Morality just oozing out the cracks, I swear.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 14, 2015, 11:53:11 AM
I've noticed that when it comes to the "moral issues", conservative Christians and atheists are mutually opposed more than any other two groups. What one group considers immoral the other group doesn't have a problem with. For example, Christians opposed to celebrating Halloween while atheists don't have a problem with that. And atheists having a problem with childhood indoctrination, and Christians don't have a problem with that.
The Amazing Atheist had a discussion with VenomFangX (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUXiJySS548&t=29m54s) (youtube creationist and Christian apologist). VenomFang brought up a Barna Group poll (https://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/16-teensnext-gen/25-young-adults-and-liberals-struggle-with-morality#.VVS1fEZRrdc) (the Barna Group is an evangelical Christian polling organization, so take the link with a pillar of salt) which states that atheists were most likely to reject "traditional morality". VenomFang gives some interesting examples of traditional morality: opposition to illegal drug use, excessive drinking, sex out of wedlock, cohabitation, abortion, obscene language, gambling, pornography, homosexuality, and bisexuality.
And like the Amazing Atheist, I don't have any strong moral objection to any of these things. That said, the first two are the most troubling because when it gets to the point of substance abuse, they can be very harmful. Not opposed to abortion or gambling. Or cussing, for fuck's sake. And the rest are all sex crimes. I don't consider any of those reprehensible at all.
But what strikes me as strange is the completely different angles Christians and atheists approach these issues.
For Christians in general and VenomFang in particular, their morality is defined by Godly decree. (Although I think we both know that this God character is just a mask and it's ultimately people making these judgments) And God apparently is in the business of regulating and controlling sex more than any other human behavior. Slavery? God's pretty much okay with that. Genocide? It depends on the victim. Gay sex? Worst thing ever!
For me, and probably a lot of atheists, I'm more concerned about harm. Who's the victim? How were they harmed? And for most of VenomFang's list, there is no victim. Two gay guys have sex, there's no victim. An unwed straight couple has sex, there's no victim. Taking the Lord's name in vain, there's no victim. Or at least none forthcoming. So there's little wonder how we come to completely opposite conclusions.
In many countries, conservative Christians and atheists live side by side with completely mutually exclusive notions of what's permissible and what's forbidden. And only one set of rules can govern a society, which necessarily brings us in political conflict with each other - a political conflict that can only have one victor.
Part of the problem is the number of erroneous notions that exist within your own supposed understanding of Christians and what they believe. Some of the things that your so-called Christian named are essentially the same thing. Cohabitation is only a problem because it is assumed that premarital sex is taking place or the appearance of such impropriety could be a stumbling block to other believers. I’m not aware of any prohibition against gambling or playing games with or for money. Some denominations my frown on it, but it has nothing to do with Biblical prohibitions. The idea that morality comes by way of God’s decree is not an accurate view of morality. Christianity rejects the idea that morality is some arbitrary function of God’s power. We also reject the idea that God is responding to something outside of Himself. From a Christian perspective, morality is not anterior to God (logically prior to Him) but rooted in His nature. Morality is not grounded ultimately in God’s commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands. In other words, whatever a good God commands will always be good because God always acts in perfect harmony with His nature.
Also, I would point out that while God has placed rules around sexual behavior, due to its sacredness, He does not control it. You are free to violate those rules at will. With regard to the other accusations, you go to farther than reason will take you when you say that God approves of slavery or genocide. There are a lot of things that God didn’t explicitly condemn that Christians believe are deeply wrong. And yes, that would include women choosing to murder their preborn children for the sake of their own convenience. In addition, you may want to make note of the difference between descriptive and prescriptive acts in the Bible. Lastly, I would simply point out that the anti-slavery movement in the western world was largely a Christian movement built upon Christian ideas and motivations.
The reason Christians and atheists approach these circumstances differently is that we have different starting points. The atheist ultimately thinks he came from nothing and is destined to return there. The Christian ultimately thinks that we were created for a purpose, and that purpose will not find its full expression until after this life of deep consequence is lived out in all of its beauty and horror for and to the glory of our creator. The atheist ultimately believes that he/she is the master of his/her own life, and the Christian understands that we are contingent, finite, fragile beings whose life is like a vapor and is over in the blink of an eye, relative to the eternity that awaits him/her. We believe that men and women are unique and special, in that fathers and mothers bring something unique and necessary to the production and rearing of children. We believe that sex is a sacred act that binds the souls of two people together in an intimacy not meant for separation. Same-sex marriage, polyamory, bisexuality, fornication, and same-sex adoption deny the same. Christians believe that there will be consequences for the acts we perform here on Earth, and not all of them will be immediate. Some of those consequences won’t come until after death, and so the so-called harm cannot be rightly judged from this side of eternity. The atheist believes that the lights simply go out at death and so have no incentive to even attempt to tally the harms or consider the longer-term post-physical death realities.
With regard to harm or the so-called victimless crime, I would say this. The mechanics of the human body appears to have been designed for particular purposes. If I were dispositionally incapable of making use of parts of my body for their intended purpose, I have a feeling that people wouldn’t be rushing to affirm me in my dispositions. So if I were dispositionally, though not physically or mechanically, incapable of using my legs for anything but jumping and my hands for anything but hitting, I think people would understand this as a limitation, malady, or even a handicap on my part and treat it accordingly. The same thing applies to those who cannot make use of their sexual organs in the way that they were intended. Male and female organs fit together and when brought together often produce human offspring. This is a rather obvious clue as to their purpose. Of course, pleasure is an attending part of that purpose, likely placed there to incentivize the only highly cogitative and volitionally free creature God saw fit to create, to seek out sexual intimacy. So while pleasure might be able to be achieved in any number of other ways, clearly, the intended purpose was for the pleasure to be expressed in the context of an act that can in general, as a rule, and by design…produce the next generation. Affirming people in their dispositional or psychological inabilities, depriving children of a mother and father, and divorcing the sexual act from its necessary connection to children and the intimacy necessary for a long-term monogamous heterosexual union will not be a victimless crime. Just as no-fault divorce and destigmatizing single-motherhood had terrible consequences for society and the criminal justice system, so too will the desacralization of sex and the denial of God’s design for men and women.
Morality is a complicated issue and it seems as if everyone wants an objective standard of it, while others think it to be entirely subjective. Ultimately though, I think that everyone follows some degree of objective understanding, even if they have subjective alterations between person to person. For example, no one considered normal by all standards of society would believe that senseless murder is okay, while nearly everyone considered normal believe self-defense is justified and killing your attacker if he has intent to kill you is morally okay.
I think our understanding of self-defense is also why many value pacifists as such righteous men, and often times prophets. So really, we all follow a degree of objective morality set into play by our culture, which evolves again and again.
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 14, 2015, 12:56:43 PM
And I agree completely except I think we should be opposed to Halloween as well. :-)
Not to mention Harry Potter.
Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 06:09:02 AMPart of the problem is the number of erroneous notions that exist within your own supposed understanding of Christians and what they believe.
Spare me the feeble insults. Whether you're willing to admit it or not, these are actually fairly common beliefs.
QuoteSome of the things that your so-called Christian named are essentially the same thing.
No need for the "so-called" there, bucko. He's a real guy. I even linked him. And he's exactly your type of pious crazy.
QuoteCohabitation is only a problem because it is assumed that premarital sex is taking place or the appearance of such impropriety could be a stumbling block to other believers.
Yeah. Those adults living together and possibly even having sex! How terrible that must be for believers. How intrusive these couples must be into other people's private affairs.
QuoteI’m not aware of any prohibition against gambling or playing games with or for money. Some denominations my frown on it, but it has nothing to do with Biblical prohibitions.
Correct. It has little to do with the Bible. "Traditional morality" seldom is.
QuoteThe idea that morality comes by way of God’s decree is not an accurate view of morality. Christianity rejects the idea that morality is some arbitrary function of God’s power. We also reject the idea that God is responding to something outside of Himself. From a Christian perspective, morality is not anterior to God (logically prior to Him) but rooted in His nature. Morality is not grounded ultimately in God’s commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands. In other words, whatever a good God commands will always be good because God always acts in perfect harmony with His nature.
In related news, cars don't drive on roads. They simply express themselves along roads in perfect harmony with their nature. :wink2:
A simple rhetorical parlor trick does not excuse believers from problems inherent with divine command theory, a theory that is still quite popular (though not as popular) in religious circles long after saner people abandoned it. I doubt you even truly disagree with that theory. If you get your musts and mustn'ts from on high, then you're in the same camp as them.
QuoteAlso, I would point out that while God has placed rules around sexual behavior, due to its sacredness, He does not control it.
Whew! That's good to hear. For a while there, I almost thought that you thought that non-Christians should be beholden to rules of a god they don't even believe in. Imagine something like that happening. A lot. In ancient history. In recent history. And even currently.
QuoteWith regard to the other accusations, you go to farther than reason will take you when you say that God approves of slavery or genocide.
There's a story in the bible about God perpetuating genocide. So, yeah, you're the one who's on shaky ground.
QuoteThere are a lot of things that God didn’t explicitly condemn that Christians believe are deeply wrong. And yes, that would include women choosing to murder their preborn children for the sake of their own convenience.
Pro-lifer and deeply religious? Why, I never would have guessed.
QuoteIn addition, you may want to make note of the difference between descriptive and prescriptive acts in the Bible. Lastly, I would simply point out that the anti-slavery movement in the western world was largely a Christian movement built upon Christian ideas and motivations.
The abolition movement was largely built by Christians (and opposed by equally pious slaveholders (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2011/01/the-abolition-spirit-is-undeniably-atheistic/)). The western world was also largely Christian. Funny how that works out. But the Bible itself is strangely silent on the practice. Almost like it was written by people who were inured to the practice rather than some far-sighted supernatural being.
QuoteThe reason Christians and atheists approach these circumstances differently is that we have different starting points. The atheist ultimately thinks he came from nothing and is destined to return there. The Christian ultimately thinks that we were created for a purpose, and that purpose will not find its full expression until after this life of deep consequence is lived out in all of its beauty and horror for and to the glory of our creator. The atheist ultimately believes that he/she is the master of his/her own life, and the Christian understands that we are contingent, finite, fragile beings whose life is like a vapor and is over in the blink of an eye, relative to the eternity that awaits him/her.
I think you forgot the baby-eating and devil horns on my side and didn't decorate yours with enough flowers and laurels, but meh, basically correct. Atheists (btw, please don't use 'the atheist', you come across like a Nazi talking about 'the Jew') by definition don't believe in a god and therefore, don't look at moral issues with religious decrees in mind. Christians do. This skews their perceptions and conclusions.
QuoteWe believe that sex is a sacred act that binds the souls of two people together in an intimacy not meant for separation. Same-sex marriage, polyamory, bisexuality, fornication, and same-sex adoption deny the same.
I'm dying to hear how same-sex marriage or adoption denies intimacy between two people. *bakes a giant tub of popcorn*
QuoteThe atheist believes that the lights simply go out at death and so have no incentive to even attempt to tally the harms or consider the longer-term post-physical death realities.
It's unintentionally hilarious how you put this, but yes, atheists tend to not consider post-death harm.
QuoteWith regard to harm or the so-called victimless crime, I would say this. The mechanics of the human body appears to have been designed for particular purposes. If I were dispositionally incapable of making use of parts of my body for their intended purpose, I have a feeling that people wouldn’t be rushing to affirm me in my dispositions. So if I were dispositionally, though not physically or mechanically, incapable of using my legs for anything but jumping and my hands for anything but hitting, I think people would understand this as a limitation, malady, or even a handicap on my part and treat it accordingly. The same thing applies to those who cannot make use of their sexual organs in the way that they were intended. Male and female organs fit together and when brought together often produce human offspring. This is a rather obvious clue as to their purpose.
^ Unintentional endorsement of masturbation and oral sex. :biggrin2:
QuoteOf course, pleasure is an attending part of that purpose, likely placed there to incentivize the only highly cogitative and volitionally free creature God saw fit to create, to seek out sexual intimacy. So while pleasure might be able to be achieved in any number of other ways, clearly, the intended purpose was for the pleasure to be expressed in the context of an act that can in general, as a rule, and by design…produce the next generation. Affirming people in their dispositional or psychological inabilities, depriving children of a mother and father, and divorcing the sexual act from its necessary connection to children and the intimacy necessary for a long-term monogamous heterosexual union will not be a victimless crime. Just as no-fault divorce and destigmatizing single-motherhood had terrible consequences for society and the criminal justice system, so too will the desacralization of sex and the denial of God’s design for men and women.
So now contraception and divorce are immoral, and same-sex parents and single-parent households have had "terrible consequences for society". And whether you see any of the above as immoral hinges on whether or not you subscribe to "God's design for men and women". Thanks for proving my point!
What I find most vexing about all the abrahamic religions is the morality issue. Regardless of where their starting point is and how cleverly they disguise it with rhetorical mechanisms the fact remains that morality, to them is an externality. It is not up for debate or examination. Within religious circles it certainly has been subject to discussion and debate but usually just as a means of clarification and modernization. There are obviously many different levels of religious commitment but if you are truly pious then this shit just isn't up for any type of real fundamental debate. Religion becomes a moral crutch. One no longer needs to examine his/her morality or beliefs. In addition everything good that happens is gods doing and everything bad is the devil, or at least his influence. Absolution is usually guaranteed, as long as you are sincere, regardless of the frequency or nature of your particular transgression. It has a very interesting effect of externalizing everything of which in secular ethics must be rigorously examined and justified. I'm not implying that secular ethics is always right but at least the possibility for correction and adaptation is there. The average religious individual has a retarded moral sense due to its utter lack of use. Morality originates, not from above, but from our social nature. Our social construct is always in flux, to a great extent, and therefore so must our ethical construct be just as dynamic and responsive. A static ethical construct is... Well, unethical. This is the root cause of religions harm. Religions inherent dogmatic nature condemns it to atrophy.
I like Jonathan Haidt's theory of liberal-conservative moral philosophy. It's not perfect but I think he is on to something when he demonstrates that when looking at moral issues from five dimensions: 1) Care for Others/Do no harm; 2) Fairness/Justice/Equality; 3) In-Group Loyalty; 4) Respect for Authority; and 5) Purity, conservatives tend to consider all five dimensions where liberals tend to focus on dimensions 1 and 2. It helps me understand Odoital's perspective even though it is completely different from my own, although I confess I don't believe Odoital and I could ever truly understand each other.
From a conversation I had with a christian, of course murder came up and morality I posted a reason why I was against murder (per his request) and this was part of the response.
QuoteUltimately, if a person does not have Jesus Christ as their authority figure, there is no right and wrong. An atheist has no laws that govern their actions. If it's man's laws alone that matter, then there is no absolute law, such as murder is wrong. I follow the commandments of God, which include not murdering. Not because I think it's ok and good for society. But because God said so. Athiest have no answer to god, therefore no law.
Quote from: AtheistLemon on June 01, 2015, 09:24:56 PM
Morality is a complicated issue and it seems as if everyone wants an objective standard of it, while others think it to be entirely subjective. Ultimately though, I think that everyone follows some degree of objective understanding, even if they have subjective alterations between person to person. For example, no one considered normal by all standards of society would believe that senseless murder is okay, while nearly everyone considered normal believe self-defense is justified and killing your attacker if he has intent to kill you is morally okay.
I think our understanding of self-defense is also why many value pacifists as such righteous men, and often times prophets. So really, we all follow a degree of objective morality set into play by our culture, which evolves again and again.
This is what I mean by there is no objective morality. You mentioned murder as being morally wrong in this society. Yes, that is so. But do you mean to suggest that there are no societies that don't condone murder? We don't condone murder within our own group or society for that would diminish that society and destroy it's stability and thus damage the entire group. There are societies that don't condone murder within that group, but have no problem with it if you kill one of 'them' or an outsider. That's why I say it is subjective. The moral rules change as a group changes.
Can you point out a universal rule of conduct that is always bad? And by universal, I don't mean just today, but in all of history? I can't think of a single one. All human actions have been condoned by some group or society somewhen or somewhere. Therefore, all such rules are subjective.
I've always been baffled by the concept that humans possess no intrinsic moral sense. I think by definition this would imply that people who subscribe to this kind of thought are the truly amoral ones. Basically they are saying that without their god to tell them what is wrong or right that they would be completely clueless and prone to various atrocities just because... Is a moral crutch
Quote from: wbuentello on June 04, 2015, 01:10:48 PM
I've always been baffled by the concept that humans possess no intrinsic moral sense. I think by definition this would imply that people who subscribe to this kind of thought are the truly amoral ones. Basically they are saying that without their good to tell them what is wrong or right that they would be completely clueless and prone to various atrocities just because... Is a moral crutch
Yeah, I've often thought that, too.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 04, 2015, 01:10:12 PM
Can you point out a universal rule of conduct that is always bad? And by universal, I don't mean just today, but in all of history? I can't think of a single one. All human actions have been condoned by some group or society somewhen or somewhere. Therefore, all such rules are subjective.
There are indeed some universal morals. These have been observed across cultures, time and environments. There are anthropologists who have studied this subject extensively. A couple of examples are no lying, no stealing and no murder. And of course this is indeed, as you say, within their specific group. If you want to say that universal morals need apply to also non-group members then so be it but within the group there are indeed universal morals
Quote from: wbuentello on June 04, 2015, 01:29:25 PM
There are indeed some universal morals. These have been observed across cultures, time and environments. There are anthropologists who have studied this subject extensively. A couple of examples are no lying, no stealing and no murder. And of course this is indeed, as you say, within their specific group. If you want to say that universal morals need apply to also non-group members then so be it but within the group there are indeed universal morals
Yes, I do mean to include our moral actions not only within a group, but outside that group as well. If killing somebody is okay outside the group, the it is obvious that the moral against killing is subjective. To begin with, lying, stealing and murder need to be defined. For example, in Sparta it was expected that the males would steal--just don't get caught. Stealing from Athenians was perfectly okay. Murder depends upon the definition. If killing within the group was murder, perhaps killing outside was called something else. But even so, if it is immoral to kill somebody within the group how could it be moral to do so outside the group. Morals are thought of and usually meant to be applied everywhere and everywhen.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 04, 2015, 01:10:12 PM
Can you point out a universal rule of conduct that is always bad? And by universal, I don't mean just today, but in all of history? I can't think of a single one. All human actions have been condoned by some group or society somewhen or somewhere. Therefore, all such rules are subjective.
Speaking against the current god.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 04, 2015, 01:10:12 PM
This is what I mean by there is no objective morality. You mentioned murder as being morally wrong in this society. Yes, that is so. But do you mean to suggest that there are no societies that don't condone murder? We don't condone murder within our own group or society for that would diminish that society and destroy it's stability and thus damage the entire group. There are societies that don't condone murder within that group, but have no problem with it if you kill one of 'them' or an outsider. That's why I say it is subjective. The moral rules change as a group changes.
Can you point out a universal rule of conduct that is always bad? And by universal, I don't mean just today, but in all of history? I can't think of a single one. All human actions have been condoned by some group or society somewhen or somewhere. Therefore, all such rules are subjective.
Rape.
At the very least, before Religion arose, we had universal rules. Chimpanzees and other greater primates will beat rapists to death, or near death. Rape is universally considered wrong by every culture I can think of. Even in Islamic cultures, rape laws are more lenient but rape is still considered wrong.
Quote from: AtheistLemon on June 04, 2015, 02:51:26 PM
Rape.
At the very least, before Religion arose, we had universal rules. Chimpanzees and other greater primates will beat rapists to death, or near death. Rape is universally considered wrong by every culture I can think of. Even in Islamic cultures, rape laws are more lenient but rape is still considered wrong.
Once again, what do you define rape as? Is it simply sex with another person without their consent? If so, then rape was acceptable within the US not long ago. A slave was a piece of property and if the owner of said property wanted to have sex with it, then that owner could do so. That man was not judged as being immoral. I would suggest that every army that has walked the earth since time began has 'raped' as the spoils of war. Maybe is was, at times, considered to be not right, but it was seldom punished. So, it is probably just about universal that rape within a society or group is immoral. But not always outside of that society. The members of all religions have raped their enemies--it must not be all that universal.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 04, 2015, 03:31:03 PM
Once again, what do you define rape as? Is it simply sex with another person without their consent? If so, then rape was acceptable within the US not long ago. A slave was a piece of property and if the owner of said property wanted to have sex with it, then that owner could do so. That man was not judged as being immoral. I would suggest that every army that has walked the earth since time began has 'raped' as the spoils of war. Maybe is was, at times, considered to be not right, but it was seldom punished. So, it is probably just about universal that rape within a society or group is immoral. But not always outside of that society. The members of all religions have raped their enemies--it must not be all that universal.
You're forgetting evolution is influenced just as much by culture and social norms as by the natural processes. Even if there are no universal rules, we obviously evolved altruism for a reason, and creating these moral laws simply helps reinforce altruism to benefit all of society. Religion has simply corrupted them.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 04, 2015, 02:12:34 PM
Yes, I do mean to include our moral actions not only within a group, but outside that group as well. If killing somebody is okay outside the group, the it is obvious that the moral against killing is subjective. To begin with, lying, stealing and murder need to be defined. For example, in Sparta it was expected that the males would steal--just don't get caught. Stealing from Athenians was perfectly okay. Murder depends upon the definition. If killing within the group was murder, perhaps killing outside was called something else. But even so, if it is immoral to kill somebody within the group how could it be moral to do so outside the group. Morals are thought of and usually meant to be applied everywhere and everywhen.
Morality only has significance within the context of the group. It is a means to prescribe social norms only within a given group in order to better secure group cohesion. Because of this it is commonly understood that universal morals need only be expressed across groups but not between them. You are free, of course, to define your own standards but then we would be speaking in apples and oranges.
Quote from: AtheistLemon on June 04, 2015, 03:45:38 PM
You're forgetting evolution is influenced just as much by culture and social norms as by the natural processes. Even if there are no universal rules, we obviously evolved altruism for a reason, and creating these moral laws simply helps reinforce altruism to benefit all of society. Religion has simply corrupted them.
Absolutely! Altruism is not god based. It has developed quite naturally as societies evolve. I quite agree. I also agree that religion has corrupted it.
Quote from: wbuentello on June 04, 2015, 05:08:18 PM
Morality only has significance within the context of the group. It is a means to prescribe social norms only within a given group in order to better secure group cohesion. Because of this it is commonly understood that universal morals need only be expressed across groups but not between them. You are free, of course, to define your own standards but then we would be speaking in apples and oranges.
I believe that Odoital would say that morals are universal--both inside and outside any group. And that they were also dictated to us by God--and are therefore, objective. I was, and am, suggesting that morals are derived by each society or group--and that those morals change over time.
You said--Because of this it is commonly understood that universal morals need only be expressed across groups but not between them.
could you further explain that? Commonly understood by whom?
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 04, 2015, 09:16:14 PM
I believe that Odoital would say that morals are universal--both inside and outside any group. And that they were also dictated to us by God--and are therefore, objective. I was, and am, suggesting that morals are derived by each society or group--and that those morals change over time.
You said--Because of this it is commonly understood that universal morals need only be expressed across groups but not between them.
could you further explain that? Commonly understood by whom?
Even from a Abrahamic theists perspective it would be extremely problematic if the moral law applied even to outsiders. This is why we see raping, pillaging and killing being condoned and even requested by God, as long as it is only committed against outsiders.
I want to also point out that the exclusive nature of morality is evident in the particulars of language, and these linguistic distinctions are observed also universally. For instance, murder is a term generally and historically reserved for a killing between group members. If it involves a non member it's referred to something like a killing, assassination or such. Now in today's world, overlap of these terms is much more likely but mostly only from third parties. The local news may report an intentional killing of a person from one group by a member from another group as murder but within the offending group the language would be much different. The same applies to the other universals I mentioned. Theft is theft within the group and acquisition without. Now this is a very brief treatment of the subject. There are lots of holes that I could fill, like the fact that we often belong to many many social groups at once. But in the interest of clarity I will let you steer the conversation.
As far as who's "who", I'm referring in general to the academics. Most people don't consciously examine their moral beliefs. Ethics has generally been in the domain of the humanities like philosophy but recently the social sciences have begun to make empirically based studies and discoveries in this field. We have now fields like the behavioral sciences, social psychology, anthropology and sociology making contributions to our understanding of ethics, both applied and theoretical. I'm no expert but I believe I have studied it more then most non-academics. Hopefully I can at least point you in the right direction to form your own understanding because I believe it to be a very important subject.
When a person believes they are moral, and they believe those morals come from a god, they are going to see a great deal of congruence between their own morality, and what they believe a god wants from them. Since the two are identical, they must come from God, right? The problem is that they will never know if their morality actually comes from a god, or if they just ascribe their moral values to a god.
As for raping and pillaging of outsiders, the ancients rationalized such inhuman behavior by saying it was God's will. They even wrote it right into their Bible.
"When we rape and pillage, we are following God's orders. It has nothing to do with the fact that we want to dehumanize the enemy, show them who's in charge, and take their stuff."
Quote from: wbuentello on June 05, 2015, 06:33:45 AM
Even from a Abrahamic theists perspective it would be extremely problematic if the moral law applied even to outsiders. This is why we see raping, pillaging and killing being condoned and even requested by God, as long as it is only committed against outsiders.
I want to also point out that the exclusive nature of morality is evident in the particulars of language, and these linguistic distinctions are observed also universally. For instance, murder is a term generally and historically reserved for a killing between group members. If it involves a non member it's referred to something like a killing, assassination or such. Now in today's world, overlap of these terms is much more likely but mostly only from third parties. The local news may report an intentional killing of a person from one group by a member from another group as murder but within the offending group the language would be much different. The same applies to the other universals I mentioned. Theft is theft within the group and acquisition without. Now this is a very brief treatment of the subject. There are lots of holes that I could fill, like the fact that we often belong to many many social groups at once. But in the interest of clarity I will let you steer the conversation.
As far as who's "who", I'm referring in general to the academics. Most people don't consciously examine their moral beliefs. Ethics has generally been in the domain of the humanities like philosophy but recently the social sciences have begun to make empirically based studies and discoveries in this field. We have now fields like the behavioral sciences, social psychology, anthropology and sociology making contributions to our understanding of ethics, both applied and theoretical. I'm no expert but I believe I have studied it more then most non-academics. Hopefully I can at least point you in the right direction to form your own understanding because I believe it to be a very important subject.
I find this area to be interesting, too. I especially am interested in sociological anthropology--but I have not read about it in years. If you could suggest some current studies and/or authors who write about it, I'd appreciate it.
Where do you think our morals originate from?
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 05, 2015, 01:53:26 PM
I find this area to be interesting, too. I especially am interested in sociological anthropology--but I have not read about it in years. If you could suggest some current studies and/or authors who write about it, I'd appreciate it.
Where do you think our morals originate from?
When I get home and get a chance I'd be more then willing to look to see what all I have in my meager little library that I might find helpful.
The origins of morals... What a great question. I've thought about this quite a bit. Morals seems to be a requirement of any social creature with a sense of individuality. This is easy to illustrate by looking at the creatures that live on the extremes of the sociability scale. At one end you would have non-social, very independent creatures like say tigers or bears. You would expect very little, if any, moral sense in these animals. A hermit living on the woods by his/herself gives a rats ass if they do something offensive, no one is there to offend or wrong.
At the other extreme we have the super social organisms. The most illustrative examples would be bees or ants. But since they're typically not perceived to have the intelligence required to develop a moral sense then these examples are not very helpful. There are a few lesser known mammalian species that seem to function with a hive mind like a certain species of mole. But I think it might be more helpful to think of what a sentient hive mind creature would be like in a social context. If you've ever seen star trek you may be familiar with the Borg. A super advanced race of beings that are essentially of one mind. In this case there also would be little, if any, need for a moral sense. Everyone is always on the same page all the time.
Everything else falls somewhere in between. The creatures closer to the center of the sociability scale are the ones with the most well developed moral sense. Half individual, half social. What are these creatures? The ones that form groups. Now there are a lot of animals that fall into this category and this is where intelligence comes into play. The higher the intelligence the better developed and more nuanced the moral sense is. For along time morality was considered wholly and poorly in the human domain. Not so anymore. A growing numbers of studies on animals like dogs, dolphins and simians are beginning to shine light on the hubris of humans. So it turns it that our individuality is just as important as our sociability in the origins and development of or moral sense
Quote from: wbuentello on June 05, 2015, 03:02:25 PM
When I get home and get a chance I'd be more then willing to look to see what all I have in my meager little library that I might find helpful.
The origins of morals... What a great question. I've thought about this quite a bit. Morals seems to be a requirement of any social creature with a sense of individuality. This is easy to illustrate by looking at the creatures that live on the extremes of the sociability scale. At one end you would have non-social, very independent creatures like say tigers or bears. You would expect very little, if any, moral sense in these animals. A hermit living on the woods by his/herself gives a rats ass if they do something offensive, no one is there to offend or wrong.
At the other extreme we have the super social organisms. The most illustrative examples would be bees or ants. But since they're typically not perceived to have the intelligence required to develop a moral sense then these examples are not very helpful. There are a few lesser known mammalian species that seem to function with a hive mind like a certain species of mole. But I think it might be more helpful to think of what a sentient hive mind creature would be like in a social context. If you've ever seen star trek you may be familiar with the Borg. A super advanced race of beings that are essentially of one mind. In this case there also would be little, if any, need for a moral sense. Everyone is always on the same page all the time.
Everything else falls somewhere in between. The creatures closer to the center of the sociability scale are the ones with the most well developed moral sense. Half individual, half social. What are these creatures? The ones that form groups. Now there are a lot of animals that fall into this category and this is where intelligence comes into play. The higher the intelligence the better developed and more nuanced the moral sense is. For along time morality was considered wholly and poorly in the human domain. Not so anymore. A growing numbers of studies on animals like dogs, dolphins and simians are beginning to shine light on the hubris of humans. So it turns it that our individuality is just as important as our sociability in the origins and development of or moral sense
I like and appreciate your answer. It was not the direction I was expecting it to go. That is far from being bad--and it is most interesting and I'd like to explore morals and other animals in much more detail.
But what I was aiming toward, in humans, what do you see as the creator of what we call morals?
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 05, 2015, 03:48:33 PM
I like and appreciate your answer. It was not the direction I was expecting it to go. That is far from being bad--and it is most interesting and I'd like to explore morals and other animals in much more detail.
But what I was aiming toward, in humans, what do you see as the creator of what we call morals?
So in humans specifically we have a burning sense of individuality that is often in conflict with our longing desire for community. Both of these are inherent characteristics of humans and because of this apparent duality we have evolved a sense of right and wrong. Morality comes naturally to us.
Is this closer to answering your question? Maybe you were asking how it is that we decide how to express our morality?
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 05, 2015, 03:48:33 PM
I like and appreciate your answer. It was not the direction I was expecting it to go. That is far from being bad--and it is most interesting and I'd like to explore morals and other animals in much more detail.
But what I was aiming toward, in humans, what do you see as the creator of what we call morals?
Survival. We are social creatures and very much depend on others for our survival. I think it really is that simple, now originally that attitude only went so far as our family, but later it would be extended to tribes, and then nations and someday, hopefully all humans.
It's imperfect of course, but most things that are evolved are.
Quote from: Termin on June 05, 2015, 04:36:10 PM
Survival. We are social creatures and very much depend on others for our survival. I think it really is that simple, now originally that attitude only went so far as our family, but later it would be extended to tribes, and then nations and someday, hopefully all humans.
It's imperfect of course, but most things that are evolved are.
I mean, not to be a Debbie downer but if it really was this simple we would see a moral sense in all creatures since they all needed to survive. There for there has to be more specific reasons why a moral sense develops
You mean there isn't, even most animals know they shouldn't harm those they love or bothers if not hungry, unless they are so primitive they haven't developed the higher feelings of empathy. What happens to all these people that are moral just because they believe a God will punish them when their passions overcome their principles, or are supported by religious dogma in the Testaments? Who's morals are the correct ones? In some primitive tribes all the men in the village have a shot at any that has her period. If evolution doesn't support morality, how do you explain this? I have been as immoral according to Christian morality as you can get, have I hurt people because of it? Yes! But only because the people that were hurt were Christian moralists.
Quote from: Solitary on June 05, 2015, 05:02:58 PM
You mean there isn't, even most animals know they shouldn't harm those they love or bothers if not hungry, unless they are so primitive they haven't developed the higher feelings of empathy. What happens to all these people that are moral just because they believe a God will punish them when their passions overcome their principles, or are supported by religious dogma in the Testaments? Who's morals are the correct ones? In some primitive tribes all the men in the village have a shot at any that has her period. If evolution doesn't support morality, how do you explain this? I have been as immoral according to Christian morality as you can get, have I hurt people because of it? Yes! But only because the people that were hurt were Christian moralists.
Maybe you didn't read any of my other posts. I clearly stated that morality is evolutionary and that other animals exhibited morality. I also showed animals that didn't exhibit moral awareness and also explained why.
So it is ultimately is reducible to survival but so is everything else that is evolutionary. It's the easy answer and offers no real enlightenment into the origins of morality. Again I don't mean to belittle your answer but I'm just pointing out that you may not have posted that if you had read my previous posts on this thread
Quote from: wbuentello on June 05, 2015, 04:21:41 PM
So in humans specifically we have a burning sense of individuality that is often in conflict with our longing desire for community. Both of these are inherent characteristics of humans and because of this apparent duality we have evolved a sense of right and wrong. Morality comes naturally to us.
Is this closer to answering your question? Maybe you were asking how it is that we decide how to express our morality?
I do see a tension of the individual and the group. The individual wants to survive and survive the best it can; and in the long run it will still need to be in a group (if even just loosely) to help insure his survival. So, what would be a good working definition of what morality is--the code of conduct that each society or group formulates for the members of that group or society--could that be one? And those rules, then evolve as the group changes.
In my discussion with Odoital, I said that morals are all subjective. He states that all morals are objective and are codified by God. So, what do you think--are morals subjective or objective?
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 05, 2015, 05:59:53 PM
I do see a tension of the individual and the group. The individual wants to survive and survive the best it can; and in the long run it will still need to be in a group (if even just loosely) to help insure his survival. So, what would be a good working definition of what morality is--the code of conduct that each society or group formulates for the members of that group or society--could that be one? And those rules, then evolve as the group changes.
In my discussion with Odoital, I said that morals are all subjective. He states that all morals are objective and are codified by God. So, what do you think--are morals subjective or objective?
I think your definition works fine.
As far as whether morals are objective or subjective; this has always been a healthy debate within the philosophical community. Huge amounts of literature exist on this specific debate. However, like I said earlier, there recently has been empirical evidence collected which indicate that there are a very limited set of morals which are indeed universal. Most of this specifically comes from the anthropological fields. Animal behaviorists have also augmented these findings by very similar universals within non-human species. But outside of this very limited list, ethics is very subjective.
So like everything else in the world the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Quote from: wbuentello on June 05, 2015, 08:08:42 PM
I think your definition works fine.
As far as whether morals are objective or subjective; this has always been a healthy debate within the philosophical community. Huge amounts of literature exist on this specific debate. However, like I said earlier, there recently has been empirical evidence collected which indicate that there are a very limited set of morals which are indeed universal. Most of this specifically comes from the anthropological fields. Animal behaviorists have also augmented these findings by very similar universals within non-human species. But outside of this very limited list, ethics is very subjective.
So like everything else in the world the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Thanks for the answer. I look forward to reading some of the authors you suggest.
Kibitzing. To me, a reasonable person is someone who is able to see multiple sides to a given issue, though they may have a preference for a particular POV. For me, ethics is suggested by the positive and negative Golden Rule ... as stated by Confucius, Rabbi Hillel et al. But underlying the Golden Rule is a metaphysical assumption ... that all people are inter-connected. In Hinduism, there is the myth that all beings are the result of the dreams of Brahma. It is an assumption, that personal identity is absolute. In my personal experience it is quite relative. In Buddhism, there is the myth that all beings are like jewels in the Net Of Indra. So what I do for myself that is good, is good for all. What I do for myself that is bad, is bad for all. But not exclusively. What I do that is good for others, is good for myself What I do that is bad for others, is bad for myself.
Of course that leaves open the question of what is good and what is bad ... but we need Adam and Eve to mythically discover that ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on June 10, 2015, 10:54:26 PM
Kibitzing. To me, a reasonable person is someone who is able to see multiple sides to a given issue, though they may have a preference for a particular POV. For me, ethics is suggested by the positive and negative Golden Rule ... as stated by Confucius, Rabbi Hillel et al. But underlying the Golden Rule is a metaphysical assumption ... that all people are inter-connected. In Hinduism, there is the myth that all beings are the result of the dreams of Brahma. It is an assumption, that personal identity is absolute. In my personal experience it is quite relative. In Buddhism, there is the myth that all beings are like jewels in the Net Of Indra. So what I do for myself that is good, is good for all. What I do for myself that is bad, is bad for all. But not exclusively. What I do that is good for others, is good for myself What I do that is bad for others, is bad for myself.
Of course that leaves open the question of what is good and what is bad ... but we need Adam and Eve to mythically discover that ;-)
The mere fact that you have referenced Hindusim, Buddhism and other viewpoints is indicative of an objective mindset. Religious morality from my perspective works just like creationism. Instead of drawing a conclusion based on observation and testing, the result is stated and the argument works backward to justify it. Any objective study of morality in a wider context inevitably results in the conclusion it is subjective.
stromboli - the principle work in philosophy, according to Wittgenstein v2.0 is the careful definition of words and meaningful sentences. I would use objective/subjective a little more narrowly than you do, but I get the version you are using.
My POV is based on my experience, which is both similar to other people, and unique to me. Teasing this out will take time over many posts, because of relevance and long development. Similarly I would have to read many posts by another person ... to more fully get them. I will take my time.
Yes, rationalization is what that is usually called ... to assume the conclusion and work backward to some set of principles and method of derivation. But that is what the Greek geometers did ... they worked backward ... and forward. It was a dialectic, and math/science still is. And this trips up those who do it ... lay people being more casual and less rigorous. One of the simple proofs of the Pythagorean theory illustrates this. But when we are using general language, rather than the jargon of math ... reason is much more difficult given the raw material ;-)
To just put a few points out there ... I am an empiricist more than a rationalist. And I am a humanist more than a reductionist. And I am a relativist more than an absolutist. So while I use the name and avatar of Baruch Spinoza ... who did write about ethics ... and I agree with one of his fundamental axioms in metaphysics ... but I don't agree with his extreme rationalism ... so I am ironic in those ways. I am closer to Socrates, but distant from Plato ... Spinoza being closer to Plato. While ethics for me has to be contextual ... that doesn't trivialize it for me ... I find serious ethical decisions (and I have to do them every day at work and at home) to be extremely difficult in practice ... to separate two "goods" or worst case to separate two "bad". I don't have the experience some have, that this is easy, or "black and white". Even after deciding, one has to re-decide in the light of results and changed context. So for example, the Biblical injunction "Though shall not kill" I respond to with "It depends". That leaves me always uneasy that my decisions are sub-optimal ... it seems hubris to even hope that any decision I make would ever be optimal. I am left with "good enough?" and "not too bad!".
I am a student of comparative religion ... because I am a student of human culture in general. I lean Jewish, but I am not chauvinistic. I lean American, but I am not nationalistic. In my study of comparative religion, I have found Hinduism (the world's leading polytheism) to be very useful as a touchstone for understanding religious practice. Similarly Mahayana Buddhism has been decisive in my understanding of theology. Though I am sympathetic to the Abrahamic faiths of course. I think it was Samuel Johnson who said he could learn something new from any man ... and I agree.
Quote from: stromboli on June 10, 2015, 11:43:53 PMAny objective study of morality in a wider context inevitably results in the conclusion it is subjective.
This just is not accurate
I make that statement because we have debated morality on here many times. There have been discussions with theists and without, and many claims made to the universality of morals. But the simple fact that one religion or another can find it moral to condone rape, murder or genocide in any form speaks against it. the fact that one set of society can condone homosexual marriage and gay unions and another set condemn it speaks against it.
For any moral code to be universal it must be agreed to and abided by, by all. The Japanese found justification for the rape of Nanking. ISIL finds justification for rape and beheading today, right now. You can go through history and go around the world and find any number of examples of variances in applied moral codes, so don't claim universality by god or anything else. I can go through just different sects of Christianity and come up with different conclusions. Early Calvinists burned witches at the stake, other sects like the Quakers condemned it. There is no such thing as a universal morality and we have concluded that more than once on here.
Quote from: stromboli on June 11, 2015, 10:39:12 AM
For any moral code to be universal it must be agreed to and abided by, by all... There is no such thing as a universal morality and we have concluded that more than once on here.
I find the premise for your conclusions to be the point where we disagree. Universality of ethics does not require intra group adherence. Only inter group adherence. For instance, group a and b have prescriptions against killing within their respective group but they will kill between the groups under certain circumstances. If these were the only two groups in the world we would be able to say that to kill within the group (i.e. murder)is universally wrong. To kill outside of the group is patently not called murder, but it's usually "making war" or assassination or some such.
Just because it's obvious that most morals are subjective doesn't make it absolutely true. There are indeed some morals that are observed to be universal. Just a handful. Murder is one. Rape is not. It is also important to note the difference between descriptive morality and normative morality.
Also the fact that you have concluded morality to be purely subjective here many times doesn't make it true.
I don't know why atheists always bring up what religion has to say about morality when discussing morality. Religion in no way has any bearing on how I consider morality and ethics.
Quote from: stromboli on June 11, 2015, 10:39:12 AM
I make that statement because we have debated morality on here many times. There have been discussions with theists and without, and many claims made to the universality of morals. But the simple fact that one religion or another can find it moral to condone rape, murder or genocide in any form speaks against it. the fact that one set of society can condone homosexual marriage and gay unions and another set condemn it speaks against it.
For any moral code to be universal it must be agreed to and abided by, by all. The Japanese found justification for the rape of Nanking. ISIL finds justification for rape and beheading today, right now. You can go through history and go around the world and find any number of examples of variances in applied moral codes, so don't claim universality by god or anything else. I can go through just different sects of Christianity and come up with different conclusions. Early Calvinists burned witches at the stake, other sects like the Quakers condemned it. There is no such thing as a universal morality and we have concluded that more than once on here.
Quote from: wbuentello on June 11, 2015, 11:32:29 AM
I find the premise for your conclusions to be the point where we disagree. Universality of ethics does not require intra group adherence. Only inter group adherence. For instance, group a and b have prescriptions against killing within their respective group but they will kill between the groups under certain circumstances. If these were the only two groups in the world we would be able to say that to kill within the group (i.e. murder)is universally wrong. To kill outside of the group is patently not called murder, but it's usually "making war" or assassination or some such.
Just because it's obvious that most morals are subjective doesn't make it absolutely true. There are indeed some morals that are observed to be universal. Just a handful. Murder is one. Rape is not. It is also important to note the difference between descriptive morality and normative morality.
Also the fact that you have concluded morality to be purely subjective here many times doesn't make it true.
I don't know why atheists always bring up what religion has to say about morality when discussing morality. Religion in no way has any bearing on how I consider morality and ethics.
I find your reasoning interesting. Could you give us a thumbnail of what you mean by descriptive and normative morality? Is it usual for a group or society to have two sets of morals--one for the group and one for outside the group or society?
Quote from: wbuentello on June 11, 2015, 11:32:29 AM
I find the premise for your conclusions to be the point where we disagree. Universality of ethics does not require intra group adherence. Only inter group adherence. For instance, group a and b have prescriptions against killing within their respective group but they will kill between the groups under certain circumstances. If these were the only two groups in the world we would be able to say that to kill within the group (i.e. murder)is universally wrong. To kill outside of the group is patently not called murder, but it's usually "making war" or assassination or some such.
Just because it's obvious that most morals are subjective doesn't make it absolutely true. There are indeed some morals that are observed to be universal. Just a handful. Murder is one. Rape is not. It is also important to note the difference between descriptive morality and normative morality.
Also the fact that you have concluded morality to be purely subjective here many times doesn't make it true.
I don't know why atheists always bring up what religion has to say about morality when discussing morality. Religion in no way has any bearing on how I consider morality and ethics.
Application versus idealism. You can split hairs all day on the philosophy of it. Sign me up to the normative side. I'm the guy with the axe, not the harp playing idealist who waxes philosophical about trees.
Quote from: stromboli on June 11, 2015, 12:18:31 PM
Application versus idealism. You can split hairs all day on the philosophy of it. Sign me up to the normative side. I'm the guy with the axe, not the harp playing idealist who waxes philosophical about trees.
Sounds like you're talking descriptive morality then. And they aren't really two different types of morality just two different ways of discussing it. Descriptive morality, or more properly, ethics is talking about ethics in the context of how they are practiced. Normative ethics is a conversation about "oughts". What one ought to do. And I'm not splitting hairs here. One way of thinking about morality is virtually meaningless, unless your a theist, which I'll assume you aren't, and the other makes more logical sense. I'll also assume that we can agree here, you, mike cl and I that morality doesn't come from above. Which is why the idea of universal morality, as you understand the term, rubs you wrong. So we can also agree that without a omnipotent moral dictator that the same moral perspective can't apply to everyone all the time. Here's where you and i start to deviate. You conclude from this that this must mean that universality has been refuted. I think in order to answer this we have to make sure we understand it in the right context.
So what is the purpose of morals. I mean why do we even have a sense of right and wrong in the first place? They didn't come upon us with the advent of religion. They come to us based on our social nature. If we were solitary creatures we would have no use of right and wrong. More specifically morals are a means of managing an individuals inter group behavior. This conclusion comes from the fact that if morals have their origins in our social nature and a social being is a being that interacts in groups then it only stands to reason that the proper perspective with which to hold any discussion about morals and ethics is one from the perspective of the group. So when asking or answering the question of whether there are are universal morals or not, we must be certain that we are looking at it from a meaningful vantage point. If morality has no meaning outside of the context of our social groupings then we should be careful not to group the whole world into a single social group. And as an added bonus hopefully this also answers mike cl's question
stromboli et al ... I have to appreciate this division into descriptive and prescriptive/proscriptive. Prescriptive means what is enjoined on the individual/group. Proscriptive means what is forbidden to the individual/group. The Decalogue are primarily proscriptive when it deals with ethics. They are primarily prescriptive when it deals with morality. I would split ethics from morality. Ethics is tactical and deals with human to human relationships. Morality is strategic and deals with human to G-d relationships. For me, if one is non-theist or anti-theist ... morality is the wrong term to use, it is meaningless. But of course the non-theist or anti-theist can be ethical. But they can't be moral (being amoral would the the exact description). One has to be a theist to be immoral. Some theists are ethical and moral, others are ethical and immoral, yet others are unethical and moral, yet more others are unethical and immoral. In terms of Venn diagram, you have four different divisions of theists vs ethics vs morality. For the non-religious (non-theist or anti-theist) morality is meaningless. The non-religious are simpler ... they only are ethical or unethical. One can slice and dice further, but let's stop there. So in this kind of discussion, it would help to more clearly identify what people/faction we are talking about. Six distinct types should be enough for now.
But idealism vs realism in the context of ethics has another problem to deal with. For idealists, the way things are, may or may not be the way they should be (this implies both prescription and proscription). If I choose to be a realist instead ... then the notion of the way things should be, is meaningless. The notion of both prescription and proscription are meaningless. All one has in realism, is simple description. So and so did such and such. The implication being that realism isn't immoral, so much as it is amoral. You have to be a moralist, to do bad things that are immoral. My personal experience is that idealism is a parlor trick appropriate for fashionable intelligentsia salons in Paris shortly before the French Revolution. That was where and when mesmerism aka hypnosis arose. It was the guillotine that proved its reality. The French middle and upper classes had created their own Matrix, detached from the reality outside their sensation deprivation tanks ;-)
That isn't to say, that I am happy with the way things are, or that I don't wish that things were changed to more closely align with my fantasies ... but unlike the Elite, I am not in a position to construct an experimental dystopia at the expense of the peasants.
wbuentello ... your analysis regarding in-group/out-group is the majority condition. But there is a minority report. In New Guinea ... there is frequent fighting anytime two hunting bands come into contact at the boundary between their territories, made worse by the usual condition that their languages are mutually unintelligible. This is not unlike European history. But they have a unique custom regarding in-tribal killing. The Killing Game, which seems to be a practice designed to add "spice" to an otherwise tedious existence ... involves becoming close friends with someone in your tribe. You don't know in advance if the game is afoot or not. The close friend may be just a close friend, a protagonist. But they may be an antagonist ... the very person who is planning carefully over time to kill you ... just because it is a game to do so. The stress on the potential victim rises and falls with their suspicions, but in a well played game, the antagonist becomes the best friend whose loyalty is beyond dispute. That way, the eventual betrayal, is even more surprising to the victim. For the antagonist, they are under constant stress of living a dual existence, unable to act they way they really feel, for fear that the killing will not be optimized, or even prevented. In advanced societies, we call these people schizoid and sociopathic ... and find them in advanced social positions. Because we too, are not that different from New Guinea forest dwellers.
Quote from: Baruch on June 11, 2015, 11:26:08 PM
I would split ethics from morality. Ethics is tactical and deals with human to human relationships. Morality is strategic and deals with human to G-d relationships. For me, if one is non-theist or anti-theist ... morality is the wrong term to use, it is meaningless. But of course the non-theist or anti-theist can be ethical. But they can't be moral (being amoral would the the exact description). One has to be a theist to be immoral.
Of all the things in the above quoted post that I find interesting , I take the most issue with this particular part. I will preface by saying that you are correct to differentiate between morals and ethics but after that you fall flat on your face, so to speak. In short, morality is the individual sense of right and wrong and ethics is the science of morality or less academically, the socially prescribed "oughts". I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you're either a theist or are heavily influenced by non-secular ethicists. If so, i'm curious if you arrived at your definition's of morals and ethics through these non-secular influences.
Maybe been said before, but bears repeating; I think there's no such thing as "atheist morality".
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 12, 2015, 08:59:21 AM
Maybe been said before, but bears repeating; I think there's no such thing as "atheist morality".
I'm really baffled by this concept. Is because you define morality as coming from a god? I mean the definitions are very clear on this and theism has nothing to do with it. Unless of course there is a contrasting non-secular definition... [emoji53]
Or perhaps the assumption is that a sense of right and wrong, i.e morality, is not internally intrinsic to the individual but is external and handed down from above?
Quote from: wbuentello on June 12, 2015, 09:09:22 AMQuote from: Sal1981 on June 12, 2015, 08:59:21 AM
Maybe been said before, but bears repeating; I think there's no such thing as "atheist morality".
I'm really baffled by this concept. Is because you define morality as coming from a god? I mean the definitions are very clear on this and theism has nothing to do with it. Unless of course there is a contrasting non-secular definition... [emoji53]
Let me clarify: I think there is moral behavior, of course, I just think it's nothing atheistic about morality, and moral or immoral to be an atheist in any way.
What I mean is that there's a qualitative difference between morality and atheism. Atheism is *merely* the lack of belief in god(s), nothing more, nothing less; whereas morality is about how we behave towards other people.
Quote from: wbuentello on June 12, 2015, 09:13:04 AM
Or perhaps the assumption is that a sense of right and wrong, i.e morality, is not internally intrinsic to the individual but is external and handed down from above?
Look at my post above this one.
I'm an agnostic atheist, I just think there's nothing particularly special or intrinsic to morality in being atheistic. I could very well be a bad person, morally speaking, and still be an atheist.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 12, 2015, 09:31:52 AM
I'm really baffled by this concept. Is because you define morality as coming from a god? I mean the definitions are very clear on this and theism has nothing to do with it. Unless of course there is a contrasting non-secular definition... [emoji53]
Let me clarify: I think there is moral behavior, of course, I just think it's nothing atheistic about morality, and moral or immoral to be an atheist in any way.
What I mean is that there's a qualitative difference between morality and atheism. Atheism is *merely* the lack of belief in god(s), nothing more, nothing less; whereas morality is about how we behave towards other people.
Oh. I get it. Makes absolute sense now, I absolutely agree also.
The subject of morality hinges very much on the definition of that word. In order to have a meaningful discussion about it, it has to be pinned down how each person defines it. Much of the time people talk past each other because they start from different starting points and the word means something different for each person. Morality, ethics and values tend to get all jumbled up.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 12, 2015, 12:28:58 PM
Much of the time people talk past each other because they start from different starting points and the word means something different for each person.
This is a very astute observation. It's essential to define your terms first. Often when you find yourself going in circles with someone you can back up and define some key terms and start again on the same playing field
Lively and smart string of posts y'all ... I will have to drop my zen thinking cap and put on my grok-king cap ...
An interaction such as we have here ... involves living words. The definitions in a dictionary, however useful for technical jargon, are were words go to die. Later to be dug up by lexicographical paleontologists ... and restored to potential reuse, with some imagination, by historical (or is that hysterical?) linguists. Ever read about the mad man who contributed to the OED?
Living words are the product of the creative impulse inside people's psyche, and the refining rhetorical Serengeti of the Athenian agora. So of course my definition is dynamic. Without getting into the bird's nest of what thought is and what words are, suffice it to say, that per Lewis Carroll, a word means exactly what I choose it to mean ... until I change my mind of course. Since there are more than one of us involved, this semantic evolution is polyvalent.
It is a miracle that any communication can take place, given the difficulties involved. But we must try, if only to avoid talking only to ourselves while facing a mirror ... that way lies madness, politics and acting lessons. I have to agree, or at least be concurrent, with Sal1981 ... that there is a qualitative difference between even similar words, unless we are constructing the latest version of MSM New Speak. I was also less clear, in spite of proofreading ... concerning morality vs ethics ... I wanted to clearly imply that morality is not a meaningful concept in atheistic though ... but that ethics is, because ethics applies to everyone. So in that way, I am actually using it in the exactly opposite way to Sal1981 ;-) I am concurrent with wbuentello ... in that at least generally speaking, morality is at least externally derived. Though this doesn't have to be theistic. Buddhist non-theism I think touches on both morality and ethics. A Buddhist higher being is quite a bit less divine than an Abrahamic one ... more like an archangel in Western terms. The "ultimate" in Buddhism is impersonal ... hence they can be described as non-theistic, but not atheist in the sense of anti-theist. An anti-theist wouldn't imagine there are devas and asuras or buddhas. However wbuentello is right to subdivide this subject between individual and social areas ... though in non-Western societies there isn't a lot to individuality, that isn't already overwritten by society. This is one reason why non-Western societies find Western societies to be so deeply subversive and unintelligible.
So to directly address wbuentello ... yes, as per my introduction, I am a theist ... but not like any other theist you might know. It will be easy to project partially or totally incorrect positions on me ... based on the paucity of specificity with such a general term. Absolutely ... you ask where my ethical sources arise, and I can tell you. I find it everywhere, though human experience comes in many forms. Human writings, particularly by people who by time or culture are radically different from myself, whether the writings are fictional or factual ... provide many inspirations. I was particularly influenced at an earlier stage, with a historical fiction (and the Bible is such a thing too) about the last generation of Aztecs before the arrival of the Spanish. The Luck of Huemac. This book made the psychological and cultural position, of the Aztecs, who otherwise would be so repulsive ... to be both understandable and attractive in terms of ... being put into the life and Weltanschaung of an alien time and place, that really happened (not to knock on SciFi, but I really admire good historical fiction even more). You were inside the characters, particularly the protagonist (Huemac), you became them ... and they were considerably less alien than they were before. A really important aspect for me, of ethics, is compassion. But compassion requires the releasing of the self at least into personal ambiguity, if not transference. For example if you can manage to really read a poem, and this takes perhaps many attempts over a lifetime ... you can recreate the thought of the distant and long dead, inside your own psyche ... and they live again thru you. Anyway, I can now sympathize with the Aztecs, their victims and the Spanish too. And in that way my experience of Apocalypto might be different than yours.
You have a certain flourish with your syntactical structure that at times is difficult for me to navigate. It sure does sound pretty though.... I think I'm getting used to it though.
I can easily acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with a more dynamic yet ephemeral definition of any particular term. This is indeed your creative prerogative. But if mutual dialogue and comprehension then common ground is recommended
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-humans-became-moral-beings-80976434/?no-ist
How humans became moral beings
QuoteChristopher Boehm, an evolutionary anthropologist, is the director of the Jane Goodall Research Center at the University of Southern California. For 40 years, he has observed primates and studied different human cultures to understand social and moral behavior. In his new book, Moral Origins, Boehm speculates that human morality emerged along with big game hunting. When hunter-gatherers formed groups, he explains, survival essentially boiled down to one key tenetâ€"cooperate, or die.
My hypothesis is that when they started large game hunting, they had to start really punishing alpha males and holding them down. That set up a selection pressure in the sense that, if you couldn’t control your alpha tendencies, you were going to get killed or run out of the group, which was about the same as getting killed. Therefore, self-control became an important feature for individuals who were reproductively successful. And self-control translates into conscience.
Read the article. Ultimately the development of a conscience and altruism are survival traits- not just of a species or group, but for an individual.
The development of altruism and a conscience are survival traits.Which is ultimately selfish, if you think about it. So if these traits are developed from evolution, where does a universal morality come from? I argue that it doesn't exist because for it to exist, it would have have to be of a nature that transcended every set, every civilization, every cultural group and every conceivable disagreement between sets, groups, societies and so on. It doesn't matter what aspect of moral behavior that you name, if it is not universally agreed on and lived up to-
application versus idealism. Bandy all the terms you want, but how it is applied and adhered to is where the rubber meets the road, ese.
See this is why I don't do philosophy. All I ever saw of philosophers was a bunch of pipe smoking wingnuts with bad hair quoting obscure shit from books with lofty titles. And none of them could tie their shoes right, much less fix a car or put up a chain link fence. Fuck that crap. I live in the real world. And I'm done with this nonsense.
Quote from: stromboli on June 12, 2015, 11:01:13 PM
I argue that it doesn't exist because for it to exist, it would have have to be of a nature that transcended every set, every civilization, every cultural group and every conceivable disagreement between sets, groups, societies and so on. It doesn't matter what aspect of moral behavior that you name, if it is not universally agreed on and lived up to- application versus idealism. Bandy all the terms you want, but how it is applied and adhered to is where the rubber meets the road, ese.
I'm not sure why this isn't getting through.. That universal norms have been observed. And your right. The impetus for them are indeed evolutionary. Their development was necessary for survival as a social species because cooperation is key. This is the element that you say must transcend all cultures and time. The survival of a social species. There are going to be certain ground rules that are prerequisites to social cohesion. Universals. Not many but only a couple that if there are not normative prescriptions against will only always work to undermine social cohesion.
Just because I don't always do what's right doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge that there is a wrong or right. And whether or not I conform to the social norms doesn't mean that they aren't an effective way of controlling the groups behavior. The discussion of what we ought to do is just as important as what we actually do because we are inherently a social creature and so we generally follow the social norms as a group though we all, individually, decide from time to time to violate these norms for what ever reason. But in the aggregate what we ought to do is just as important as what we actually do because most of the time it is what we do. We are naturally conformists
wbuentello - I do apologize for being less than laconic ... but my mind when it is working well, works by association, though the links aren't random, though they may seem to be ;-0 It is not the same as, but bears resemblance to "automatic writing". When I am in a heightened mental state ... I can be tough to follow. Though i do some small post-draft edits. Ordinarily ... my focus is more linear and circumscribed.
On universal norms ... I think this can be overstated. The number of universal norms are few in number (don't get eaten). They are also observed in such a variety of ways, it is hard to say if they are being followed or not (this is assuming competence of the test subject ... which is an assumption).
Stromboli - yes, it is a blow to both Darwin and Nietzsche that we aren't pure savages. Cooperation and altruism, can on some occasions, enhance survival. But most importantly, they give meaning and value to life.
I understand your aversion to philosophy. It is quite a warren of mental constructs ... that might be only appropriate to discuss at high tea ;-) I limit my indulgence ... I wouldn't want to develop philo-gout. Like in my example ... what is ethics in the context of Aztec culture ... shall we see them inside out or outside in. Are we Spanish or Mexican? This will become critical to navigate, if we actually encounter really alien life someday. Star Trek Next Generation sometimes dealt with the conundrum of mutual intelligibility.
Quote from: wbuentello on June 12, 2015, 09:09:22 AM
I'm really baffled by this concept. Is because you define morality as coming from a god? I mean the definitions are very clear on this and theism has nothing to do with it. Unless of course there is a contrasting non-secular definition... [emoji53]
It's because atheists are not a group.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 13, 2015, 11:24:47 AM
It's because atheists are not a group.
Yeah I figured our what was meant by it
Quote from: stromboli on June 12, 2015, 11:01:13 PM
The development of altruism and a conscience are survival traits.
I have been saying that for nearly forty years. It is so obvious that apparently it is not.
Just because something might aid survival, doesn't mean that any given animal exhibits that behavior. This is why most animals end up as prey. I saw a TV show about Australian crocodiles ... and there is this river in N Australia that is filled with them. And there at a shallow point, were people fishing and wading. Don't worry ... those people were safe, the crocodiles were so dumbfounded they couldn't get their mouths shut ;-)
Altruism is a kind of ... strategic technique. It leads to a better ecology and society. But this won't help you in the short term. In the short term, if you can't swim, don't try to save a drowning person ... go find someone else who can swim.
I found this video to be very helpful in understanding the different views of morality. He talks about what different things we base morality on, and how different groups rank those things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc
Quote from: Baruch on June 13, 2015, 10:07:37 AM
Stromboli - yes, it is a blow to both Darwin and Nietzsche that we aren't pure savages.
I don't know about that. I really haven't read Nietzche. (Should I? Why?) But it does kind of bother me when people say this or that contradicts Darwin as if the field of biology hasn't moved on from his original theories in the last 150 years.
QuoteBut most importantly, they give meaning and value to life.
Appeal to emotion.
the_antithesis ... shall I do a little synthesis? Yes ... appeal to Darwin ... is a weak gambit. Biology has moved on, and the argument for evolution is much stronger. Also we now know much more about the mechanisms involved, a thesis/antithesis produces synthesis kind of dialectic. By all means, I really don't think that Marx is completely lost to history ... change is happening, for various reasons, even if it is a variation on an old theme. Materialistically, we really haven't changed much since the invention of agriculture, a gift of the end of the last ice age, which will go away with the advent of the next ice age. Ideology and theology will not trump thermodynamics. So do you need to read any "dead white men"? I don't have an answer, only my own example, which might only apply to myself.
Appeal to emotion is a "fallacy". But the biggest fallacy of all is logic ... as far as actual people. Almost nobody does logic, we are not Vulcans. Even in mathematics and physics ... there are less than logical gambits involved, if you actually listen to what mathematicians and physicists say about themselves when the grant committee is not listening. Logic is used to shore up any consistency problems in work that came from elsewhere. Actual people actually behave as if the list of "fallacies" is a program for action ;-). Of course we may like or dislike some fallacies more than others ... I don't like "appeal to authority" myself ;-))
Drummer Guy - Great video. Isn't empirical evidence great? In spite of the limitations and biases of TED talks.
Speaking of Nietzsche ... a quote at the end of this video mentions going beyond good and evil. Nietzsche was all over that ... Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future ... is one of his books. Now Nietzsche was a madman ... so I find him relevant to contemporary times ... which has so much madness in it. It takes a madman to deal with chaos. On the other hand, there is a danger in going outside of the good/evil paradigm. Nietzsche was used by the Nazis to justify what they were doing, but I don't think that Nietzsche would have approved. Survival requires some contact with reality, and the Nazis failed this test.
Speaking of liberal/conservative ... the contemporary Marxist philosopher, Slavov Zizek brings up a good point. In fact both liberals and conservatives are authoritarian. But their style differs ... the conservative says "do what I say, and I don't care how you feel about it" ... this is like Chancellor Bismark who founded the German Empire in 1871 ... the liberal says "do what I say, but change yourself so that you also like it". The conservative is a brute. The liberal is more ... S&M. And that is what happens in the book 1984 ... our world is the world of 1984. It really happened, just not exactly the same as in the book.
Quote from: Drummer Guy on June 14, 2015, 06:18:10 PM
I found this video to be very helpful in understanding the different views of morality. He talks about what different things we base morality on, and how different groups rank those things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc
Much food for thought. I liked the way Ted broke down what a baby comes into this world with already. I was never very fond of the 'blank slate' theory; I saw in a personal way that that really did not make much sense. Anyway, thanks for the video.
Hey, thanks for responding to my vid. I hate posting stuff like that and having nobody say anything...
Jonathan Haidt is a current heavyweight in secular moral philosophy. I'd also recommend Joshua Greene. If you search for them on youtube you'll find additional talks by them, if you're interested in taking the time to watch more on the topic.
Quote from: Drummer Guy on June 15, 2015, 11:33:56 AM
Hey, thanks for responding to my vid. I hate posting stuff like that and having nobody say anything...
Jonathan Haidt is a current heavyweight in secular moral philosophy. I'd also recommend Joshua Greene. If you search for them on youtube you'll find additional talks by them, if you're interested in taking the time to watch more on the topic.
Understand what you mean with the video. It was very good. And I appreciate the extra name--I'll look both of them up.
Here's one more. Joshua Greene has a lot of good talks but they are very long. I picked this one out because it's a nice summary of his views.
It's interesting how easy it is to talk about morality without invoking god as the source.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9reBdFoIdY0
Quote from: Drummer Guy on June 15, 2015, 03:41:07 PM
Here's one more. Joshua Greene has a lot of good talks but they are very long. I picked this one out because it's a nice summary of his views.
It's interesting how easy it is to talk about morality without invoking god as the source.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9reBdFoIdY0
Thanks for the video. I agree that I was a little surprised that one can talk about morality without god. But when one thinks about it, it makes sense. Since god is a fiction, and morality is not, then inserting god into it only muddies the water, not make it clearer.
Quote from: Givemeareason on May 14, 2015, 12:56:43 PM
And I agree completely except I think we should be opposed to Halloween as well. :-)
And it is high time broom sticks were banned.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 14, 2015, 11:53:11 AMSlavery? God's pretty much okay with that. Genocide? It depends on the victim. Gay sex? Worst thing ever!
God never approved of slavery in any form. It was tolerated OT and this was still nothing compared to what it was in recent times. Slavery among the Jews was a six year contract. They could leave at anytime to a new owner. That new owner was not allowed to report this.
Genocide was only done when their evil was full measure...and mostly after many warnings. God HATES it when children and good people are completely surrounded by very evil people.
With regards to sex crimes.... waiting for marriage and been faithful and commited to one person >. More peace of mind. Sex does not become two animals going at it. Not to mention showing respect to a very real Creator of our truly amazing bodies :syda:.
You have never actually had dirty filthy sex have you? :pai:
Quote from: KingJ on July 01, 2015, 09:44:48 AM
Genocide was only done when their evil was full measure
What exactly did they do that was evil? The KJV only says that they were "wicked" and "corrupt" and that there was "violence."
God kills people in the Bible for MUCH lesser reasons than violence, and in fact "wicked" and "corrupt" only seems to mean doing whatever God doesn't like, whether or not you even physically or emotionally harm anyone. He kills Onan for nothing more serious than pulling out. Later on kills the firstborns of Egypt ONLY for being the firstborns of Egypt.
Quote from: KingJ on July 01, 2015, 09:44:48 AM
God never approved of slavery in any form. It was tolerated OT and this was still nothing compared to what it was in recent times. Slavery among the Jews was a six year contract. They could leave at anytime to a new owner. That new owner was not allowed to report this.
Genocide was only done when their evil was full measure...and mostly after many warnings. God HATES it when children and good people are completely surrounded by very evil people.
Good point, though it's probably unintentional - this stuff is bad because it gets otherwise normal people to rationalize abject evil.
"Well, God was totally against slavery, but never really condemned the practice in the OT." I suppose he had to wait around for people to condemn it first before condemning it himself. Funny how that works.
"And biblical slavery wasn't all that bad, Jews weren't enslaved by other Jews for life." This conveniently leaves out the fact that non-Jews were enslaved by Jews for life (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+25:44-46).
"Genocide was okay for reasons X, Y, Z" Genocide is never okay. And you worship a guy who makes Hitler look like an amateur by comparison.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 01, 2015, 12:12:03 PM
Good point, though it's probably unintentional - this stuff is bad because it gets otherwise normal people to rationalize abject evil.
1. "Well, God was totally against slavery, but never really condemned the practice in the OT." I suppose he had to wait around for people to condemn it first before condemning it himself. Funny how that works.
2. "And biblical slavery wasn't all that bad, Jews weren't enslaved by other Jews in perpetuity." This conveniently leaves out the fact that non-Jews were enslaved by Jews in perpetuity (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+25:44-46).
3. "Genocide was okay for reasons X, Y, Z" Genocide is never okay. And you worship a guy who makes Hitler look like an amateur by comparison.
1.He was never ok with it. Perhaps I was not clear. It was more on par with an employment contract. Then we have this instruction to them: Lev 19:34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself.
2. ''Make them slaves for life'' is not forcing them against their will. Ex 21:5 But
if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free.
The rest of the verse is just saying that Jews cannot work for Jews.
3. Death is inevitable. God is the only one who is exempt for bringing / ordering it. It points to change, not murder. He knows we live on for eternity.
Quote from: Savior2006 on July 01, 2015, 11:46:02 AM
1.What exactly did they do that was evil? The KJV only says that they were "wicked" and "corrupt" and that there was "violence."
2.God kills people in the Bible for MUCH lesser reasons than violence, and in fact "wicked" and "corrupt" only seems to mean doing whatever God doesn't like, whether or not you even physically or emotionally harm anyone. He kills Onan for nothing more serious than pulling out. Later on kills the firstborns of Egypt ONLY for being the firstborns of Egypt.
1.Well many rejected God and the Jews. For anyone to hate the Jews of that day was shocking. This group of people were so mindful of and dilligent to punish evil among themselves. Everyone knew of the miracles God did for them. So by not helping them they were pulling the middle finger to God too.
2.God can gauge depths of inner rebellion Jer 17:9-10. We need to look at many scriptures for His justification in taking people out. For example, Jews and Christians are always more accountable for their actions / God is less merciful with them should they transgress. Heb 10:29 for Christians and the obvious enforcement of the OT laws on the Jews.
Killing babies is never evil for God as they all go to heaven. We also need to understand that God was trying to get them to submit to doing the right thing ''let their slaves that they treated cruelly go''. Increasing levels of harrassment culminating with them losing their firstborns > day one killing them all surely?
Quote from: KingJ on July 01, 2015, 12:30:51 PM
1.He was never ok with it. Perhaps I was not clear. It was more on par with an employment contract. Then we have this instruction to them: Lev 19:34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself.
2. ''Make them slaves for life'' is not forcing them against their will. Ex 21:5 But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free.
The rest of the verse is just saying that Jews cannot work for Jews.
3. Death is inevitable. God is the only one who is exempt for bringing / ordering it. It points to change, not murder. He knows we live on for eternity.
The same rationalizations a second time. How tiresome. Once again, I must point out that you make my case for me. In rationalizing evil (in this case, slavery of any kind), you don't protect your ideology, you make the case that your ideology is morally bankrupt and unworthy of anyone of conscience.
Quote from: KingJ on July 01, 2015, 12:30:51 PM
1.He was never ok with it. Perhaps I was not clear. It was more on par with an employment contract. Then we have this instruction to them: Lev 19:34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself.
Bull. You deliberately quit reading early.
Quote from: Leviticus 25:44-46
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
So, nice cherry pick there, avoiding the inconvenient part that explicitly undermines what you just claimed. Slaves were slaves, and were slaves for life, inherited like property.
And on the subject of cherry-picking:
Quote from: KingJ on July 01, 2015, 12:30:51 PM
2. ''Make them slaves for life'' is not forcing them against their will. Ex 21:5 But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free.
Well, no. Let's have that full quote, why don't we?
Quote from: Exodus 21:2-6
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.
Emphasis added.
That's not choosing to remain a slave, that's being blackmailed and/or manipulated into it because his wife and children
are not freed with him.
In fact, why don't we look at the very next verse?
Quote from: Exodus 21:7
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.
Emphasis added, despite the problem here being stomach-churningly obvious.
In what possible way is it ever moral or ethical to
sell one's own daughter into slavery? This isn't condemned by your book, this is taken as perfectly normal behavior and the rules about it are then quite dispassionately set forth.
That's just plain evil and wrong, and there is no justifying it.
Quote from: KingJ on July 01, 2015, 12:30:51 PM
3. Death is inevitable. God is the only one who is exempt for bringing / ordering it. It points to change, not murder. He knows we live on for eternity.
"He was gonna die eventually anyway" is not an acceptable excuse for murder, and I don't care who "orders" it.
And claiming that there's a life after death without demonstrating that it exists is an exceptionally weak form of rationalization. It certainly does no good for the victim in this life to claim that he's still alive in another one.
The god you describe, is not a god that matches up with anything I can directly relate to in my own life. The problem with theology, including Christian theology, is that if you start with contradictory absurdities, and then attempt to rationalize it ... you derive even more absurd absurdities from it. The Western Church has had this tendency to rationalize ... that the Eastern Church has not ... though rabbinic Judaism and Sunni Islam have similar tendencies, but they limit themselves to legalistic rationalization, they don't extend it across the spectrum like Western theologians do. The East has never been entrapped in this word salad. If it is your salad, then you can put what dressing you want over it to hid all the tasteless fiber ... but I can't join you there.
Quote from: KingJ on July 01, 2015, 12:59:50 PM
1.
Killing babies is never evil for God as they all go to heaven. We also need to understand that God was trying to get them to submit to doing the right thing ''let their slaves that they treated cruelly go''. Increasing levels of harrassment culminating with them losing their firstborns > day one killing them all surely?
I guess at the child's funeral the Mother and Father and other family members would be comforted by the fact god killed their baby.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 01, 2015, 01:18:13 PM
The same rationalizations a second time. How tiresome. Once again, I must point out that you make my case for me. In rationalizing evil (in this case, slavery of any kind), you don't protect your ideology, you make the case that your ideology is morally bankrupt and unworthy of anyone of conscience.
You simply waffle and express your desire to not find the truth of a matter. I have exposed you for falsely accusing God of approving of slavery. Are you going to be a good person and apologize for an unintentional reading
blunder?
Failure of English language comprehension?
My exact words were "Slavery? God's pretty much okay with that." And indeed, in the Bible, the are plenty of rules about slavery, yet unsurprisingly, no condemnation of it.
You replied, "He was never ok with it." And then proceeded to defend slavery (a move roughly as intelligent as tying a cement block to your ankles and then throwing it into the ocean) by cherry-picking verses to cast it as something relatively benign (which it obviously wasn't).
Little more needs to be said than that your comments were vile and wrong in equal measure and that your claims of "exposing" me is simply yet another act of self-deception.
Quote from: Termin on July 01, 2015, 09:18:03 PM
I guess at the child's funeral the Mother and Father and other family members would be comforted by the fact god killed their baby.
They will know that they brought it upon themselves.
Quote from: trdsf on July 01, 2015, 06:49:34 PM
So, nice cherry pick there, avoiding the inconvenient part that explicitly undermines what you just claimed. Slaves were slaves, and were slaves for life, inherited like property.
Slaves were never slaves for life. They could choose that. It was a six year contract Exo 21:2.
Jews could sell themselves into ''''slavery'''' to local foreigners that became rich Lev 25:47. Jews working for Jews were to give only yearly contracts. I guess six years was seen as slavery.
You must try understand those times too. Jews were wealthy. Foreigners wanted to work there. It was more convenient to stay with the boss if your job was helping with house chores and such. Most were unskilled too. The contract was for both parties protection. The investment in skills and providing shelter and food for six years of service.
What really does need to sink in is Deut 23:15-16 If a slave has taken refuge with you,
do not hand them over to their master.
Let them live among you wherever they like and in
whatever town they choose.
Do not oppress them.
QuoteThat's not choosing to remain a slave, that's being blackmailed and/or manipulated into it because his wife and children are not freed with him.
The husband of his 'slave wife and children' could not just take them as they had not served their six years. If the 'slave' came in with his wife, she leaves with him because they have both served their six years Exodus 21:3.
QuoteQuote from: Exodus 21:7
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.
Emphasis added, despite the problem here being stomach-churningly obvious.
In what possible way is it ever moral or ethical to sell one's own daughter into slavery? This isn't condemned by your book, this is taken as perfectly normal behavior and the rules about it are then quite dispassionately set forth.
Lets read the full passage ''“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If
he marries another woman, he must not
deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money'.
Note the bold and underlined. This is clearly referring to a daughter sold as a bride. Ie she is liked and someone wants to marry her, so they must pay 'dowry'.
If your stomach churns with the Jews….well then it is because you ate something. If this man that just paid for his bride wrongs her in ANYWAY he just may get
stoned to death for it. Please let that sink in. If this woman does not like this man, she can run away and be free of him Deut 23:15-16.
Quote"He was gonna die eventually anyway" is not an acceptable excuse for murder, and I don't care who "orders" it
You have no control over your birth. You have no control over your death. Do you have any control over your death? If God annihilated your spirit you would have a valid gripe.
Bear in mind that you need to use the bible to judge God of the bible. Using your non belief in an afterlife to judge a God that teaches us of one is simply silly.
QuoteAnd claiming that there's a life after death without demonstrating that it exists is an exceptionally weak form of rationalization. It certainly does no good for the victim in this life to claim that he's still alive in another one.
Accepting your human brain as a limiting factor on much wisdom is wisdom. On our future we can only look at where the evidence points. Evidence is not only a noun. We are amazing creations. When you make something very nice, do you want to just destroy it?
KingJ ... please don't be ignorant. This is how slavery was introduced to Virginia. At first they were indentured servants for 7 years ... White or Black. But Whites were allowed to complete their term of servitude. This was intolerable to the White community, for their Black servants ... they actually believed that dark skin color was the mark of Caine. So in company store tradition, the Whites put the Black servants into debt ... and made sure it could never be payed back ... and made the rule that if the parent failed to pay it back, then it was obligatory on the children. Otherwise, the Whites were simply acting as paterfamilias in Roman terms (Christianity being Roman not Jewish) over their indebted extended family members (the ones down in the cabins, not up in the big house). This economic standard applied to White folks too ... George Washington came from a minor branch of his ancestry ... his older half brother was the one with the money ... and George only had it made, when his older half brother died and left him the Mt Vernon estate. An equivalent free Black, and there were some, simply didn't have this serendipity, since all their family was still back in Africa. And the debt enslaved Black couldn't own any property anyway, or have control over their marriage or their children, because Roman paterfamilias aka Mafia ... is no joke.
So if you approve of slavery ... then you are in good company. Most Americans approve of wage slavery and debt slavery ... and have enslaved their own children and grandchildren to their irresponsible debt (and irresponsible debt pushers, who are also the ones who won't hire you, and if they hire you won't pay you) ... and the slave chaser is coming to your home ... before you know it. VISA/MC ... will shackle you and whip your ass. And now some places have reintroduced debt prison ... in addition to for profit prison. Your future will be as a chattel slave, working out your parent's debt, while making license plates.
Quote from: KingJ on July 02, 2015, 06:09:20 AM
They will know that they brought it upon themselves.
No, try again.
Quote from: Baruch on July 02, 2015, 07:48:42 AM
KingJ ... please don't be ignorant. This is how slavery was introduced to Virginia. At first they were indentured servants for 7 years ... White or Black. But Whites were allowed to complete their term of servitude. This was intolerable to the White community, for their Black servants ... they actually believed that dark skin color was the mark of Caine. So in company store tradition, the Whites put the Black servants into debt ... and made sure it could never be payed back ... and made the rule that if the parent failed to pay it back, then it was obligatory on the children. Otherwise, the Whites were simply acting as paterfamilias in Roman terms (Christianity being Roman not Jewish) over their indebted extended family members (the ones down in the cabins, not up in the big house). This economic standard applied to White folks too ... George Washington came from a minor branch of his ancestry ... his older half brother was the one with the money ... and George only had it made, when his older half brother died and left him the Mt Vernon estate. An equivalent free Black, and there were some, simply didn't have this serendipity, since all their family was still back in Africa. And the debt enslaved Black couldn't own any property anyway, or have control over their marriage or their children, because Roman paterfamilias aka Mafia ... is no joke.
So if you approve of slavery ... then you are in good company. Most Americans approve of wage slavery and debt slavery ... and have enslaved their own children and grandchildren to their irresponsible debt (and irresponsible debt pushers, who are also the ones who won't hire you, and if they hire you won't pay you) ... and the slave chaser is coming to your home ... before you know it. VISA/MC ... will shackle you and whip your ass. And now some places have reintroduced debt prison ... in addition to for profit prison. Your future will be as a chattel slave, working out your parent's debt, while making license plates.
It is a pleasure reading your posts. Always so informative!
I don't disagree with your point. But I do believe you need to meditate more on what / who a Jew is / was back in that day.
Constantly correcting, punishing, excommuincating, stoning and burning each other for being bad.
Nobody could get away with wrong doing. The levites 1/12 were constant watchdogs in fulltime ministry.
Quote from: Termin on July 02, 2015, 10:59:08 AM
No, try again.
Do you think God would not have spared their children if they agreed to NOT torture, abuse and take advantage of their slaves?
They just saw plagues like have never been seen before in the history of mankind....They knew God of the universe was paying them a visit....and yet kept pointing the middle finger at Him.....
I think they can be lucky they didn't receive a worse punishment.
Quote from: KingJ on July 01, 2015, 12:59:50 PMKilling babies is never evil for God as they all go to heaven.
Wow, just ... wow. What a fantastically warped view your faith has given you.
Quote from: KingJ on July 02, 2015, 11:44:45 AM
Do you think God would not have spared their children if they agreed to NOT torture, abuse and take advantage of their slaves?
Exactly what the extremist islamists claim. This is why their god allowed them to take women as slaves and it is halal to have sex with them. God wouldn't allow it if they would abuse or rape them, would he?
Because nobody could go away with wrong doing!
Guys, where did this moron come from?
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 02, 2015, 11:45:36 AM
Wow, just ... wow. What a fantastically warped view your faith has given you.
God is behind everyones death.... and birth. We are a creation with little to no say in the matter.
If we want to judge God, we need to examine His motive.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 02, 2015, 11:50:04 AM
Exactly what the extremist islamists claim. This is why their god allowed them to take women as slaves and it is halal to have sex with them. God wouldn't allow it if they would abuse or rape them, would he?
Huh? what you smoking? Muslims abusing woman is on par with God punishing Egyptians for cruelty to slaves?
Quote from: KingJ on July 02, 2015, 11:44:45 AM
Do you think God would not have spared their children if they agreed to NOT torture, abuse and take advantage of their slaves?
They just saw plagues like have never been seen before in the history of mankind....They knew God of the universe was paying them a visit....and yet kept pointing the middle finger at Him.....
I think they can be lucky they didn't receive a worse punishment.
Do you really think
all Egyptians owned slaves ?
And what if they did resist the pharoah ?
Well , later on we get new rules on that don't we ?
Romans "13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."
But that rule came later, so I guess it just didn't count then.
Quote from: KingJ on July 02, 2015, 12:00:07 PM
Huh? what you smoking? Muslims abusing woman is on par with God punishing Egyptians for cruelty to slaves?
The story doesn't matter. The idea is exactly the same. That's the whole point. God gave them some right to do something or not to do something because of their faith or lack of it.
I know you are not smoking anything. You wish you were.
I keep forgetting these poeple think these things really happened and that they mean something than common torture-rape and massacre because god made it happen. And again why there is no sense in talking with believers through script. It's just making it worse.
Quote from: KingJ on July 01, 2015, 12:59:50 PMKilling babies is never evil for God as they all go to heaven.
(http://i.imgur.com/tyhJFOw.gif)
Um, mods, is this purgatory-worthy? Because I think this is purgatory-worthy.
Quote from: KingJ on July 02, 2015, 11:56:09 AM
God is behind everyones death.... and birth. We are a creation with little to no say in the matter.
If we want to judge God, we need to examine His motive.
The same way parents can do whatever the hell they please with their offspring? Huh?
Quote from: KingJ on July 02, 2015, 06:09:20 AM
Quote from: Termen
I guess at the child's funeral the Mother and Father and other family members would be comforted by the fact god killed their baby.
They will know that they brought it upon themselves.
That is without question the single vilest thing I've ever heard anyone say. How
dare you make a judgment like that? I have lost a child myself and I wouldn't wish that emotional horror show on anyone, but you think it's okay because your make-believe invisible sky fascist "willed" it?
You need to count yourself lucky that your beliefs are bullshit, because if there were a Hell, you can go there.
Quote from: KingJ on July 02, 2015, 06:09:20 AM
Quote from: Termin on July 01, 2015, 09:18:03 PM
I guess at the child's funeral the Mother and Father and other family members would be comforted by the fact god killed their baby.
They will know that they brought it upon themselves.
But how can someone bring their own child’s death upon themselves if the child’s death was a part of God’s plan? Yes, I’m aware God killed King David’s firstborn as punishment for the whole Bathsheba thing, but really, come on. It takes a special kind of troll I suppose.
Quote from: KingJ on July 02, 2015, 11:44:45 AM
Do you think God would not have spared their children if they agreed to NOT torture, abuse and take advantage of their slaves?
They just saw plagues like have never been seen before in the history of mankind....They knew God of the universe was paying them a visit....and yet kept pointing the middle finger at Him.....
I think they can be lucky they didn't receive a worse punishment.
KingJ, ya know, I have known christians such as yourself. That is one of the reasons I could not become a christian. You are evil's minion. You are the kind who would happily stoke up the death camp ovens excusing it as god's will. After all, you say......................who knows what you'd say, but there are plenty of verses in your evil book to pick from. And in the end it would simply be god's wisdom that you were following. I can also see your eyes, peering out from under you white hood, knowing you were serving god's purpose in putting the mud people in their place. You twist and turn the ancient words of the barbaric OT into phrases and verses your jesus made-up god spews forth and you lap up it up and turn it into hate. I know you call yourself loving. And your god loving. But your kind of love is vile and I want nothing of it. For the health and safety of our society your kind need to be confronted and swept into the dust bin of antiquity. You need to become an ignored and forgotten belief system. Many of the statements you make literally turn my stomach and outrage my sense of morality!
King J ... consider that you might be infected with Calvinism ... and Jean Cauvin (he is French, not English) was a nasty dude. Consider this miracle of Jesus ... that there was a man blind from birth ... and Jesus said, it wasn't because of his sin or his parent's sin that he was born blind (thus not as a consequence of running with scissors) ... but for the glory of G-d ... not because G-d glories in blindness, but in healing the blind. That isn't Calvinism is it? On the other hand, I still dislike Jesus' explanation ... better there be no blindness to begin with I say.
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 02, 2015, 02:08:22 PM
The same way parents can do whatever the hell they please with their offspring? Huh?
There is a difference between your parents and God of the universe :wall:.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 02, 2015, 01:58:29 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/tyhJFOw.gif)
Um, mods, is this purgatory-worthy? Because I think this is purgatory-worthy.
That was funny! I must keep this one!
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 02, 2015, 01:02:40 PM
The story doesn't matter. The idea is exactly the same. That's the whole point. God gave them some right to do something or not to do something because of their faith or lack of it.
I know you are not smoking anything. You wish you were.
I keep forgetting these poeple think these things really happened and that they mean something than common torture-rape and massacre because god made it happen. And again why there is no sense in talking with believers through script. It's just making it worse.
The story does matter. The idea is not the same. The point is that God is against abuse of woman and cruelty to slaves.
The underlined makes no sense.
You mock God of the bible with the bible and then when corrected from the bible you mock the bible...
Quote from: trdsf on July 02, 2015, 07:50:02 PM
They will know that they brought it upon themselves.
That is without question the single vilest thing I've ever heard anyone say. How dare you make a judgment like that? I have lost a child myself and I wouldn't wish that emotional horror show on anyone, but you think it's okay because your make-believe invisible sky fascist "willed" it?
You need to count yourself lucky that your beliefs are bullshit, because if there were a Hell, you can go there.
If God asked you nicely to stop doing something evil and you completely ignore Him. He then gives you time to come right and you still pull the middle finger. He then sends a plague to show you He is very serious and you still pull the middle finger. He thend sends another and another and another and you still pull the middle finger. Is something more severe really unexpected?
God does not deal with us after the cross in the same manner as He did with the Jews OT. God had to force certain issues OT. NT He doesnt have to. God had nothing to do with you losing your child.
Sorry about it.
Quote from: TomFoolery on July 02, 2015, 08:16:34 PM
They will know that they brought it upon themselves.
But how can someone bring their own child’s death upon themselves if the child’s death was a part of God’s plan? Yes, I’m aware God killed King David’s firstborn as punishment for the whole Bathsheba thing, but really, come on. It takes a special kind of troll I suppose.
The evidence does not point to the childs death being part of God's plan.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 02, 2015, 09:55:03 PM
KingJ, ya know, I have known christians such as yourself. That is one of the reasons I could not become a christian. You are evil's minion. You are the kind who would happily stoke up the death camp ovens excusing it as god's will. After all, you say......................who knows what you'd say, but there are plenty of verses in your evil book to pick from. And in the end it would simply be god's wisdom that you were following. I can also see your eyes, peering out from under you white hood, knowing you were serving god's purpose in putting the mud people in their place. You twist and turn the ancient words of the barbaric OT into phrases and verses your jesus made-up god spews forth and you lap up it up and turn it into hate. I know you call yourself loving. And your god loving. But your kind of love is vile and I want nothing of it. For the health and safety of our society your kind need to be confronted and swept into the dust bin of antiquity. You need to become an ignored and forgotten belief system. Many of the statements you make literally turn my stomach and outrage my sense of morality!
You mock God of the bible because He is
EVIL personified. It is good that you hate what is evil. But I am confused then by how you are completely oblivious to the evil of manipulating / construing / twisting / omitting scripture.
There is
so much scripture telling us that God hates what is evil. He sweat blood in anticipation of it coming upon Him. So if you do hate what is evil, you should hate half truths and love God of the bible.
How do you ever believe God of the bible is evil when the bible says He gave His life for you?
Rom 12:9 ''Let love be genuine,
hate what is evil and
cling to what is good''.
Quote from: Baruch on July 02, 2015, 11:35:59 PM
King J ... consider that you might be infected with Calvinism ... and Jean Cauvin (he is French, not English) was a nasty dude. Consider this miracle of Jesus ... that there was a man blind from birth ... and Jesus said, it wasn't because of his sin or his parent's sin that he was born blind (thus not as a consequence of running with scissors) ... but for the glory of G-d ... not because G-d glories in blindness, but in healing the blind. That isn't Calvinism is it? On the other hand, I still dislike Jesus' explanation ... better there be no blindness to begin with I say.
5pt Calvinism is believing God knows from birth who is His and who is not. I am 100% against it. They take Rom 9 where God says He can do anything as evidence of God being evil / Making a vessel unto dishonour. When the rest of scripture tells us what in fact God does decide to do with His power John 3:16.
I believe God limits His omnipotence and omniscience to uphold who He is. We see crystal clear evidence of this on the cross. Hence I believe there is a kind of randomness on earth. Children born blind because of previous incest or just bad luck.
Jesus could have been speaking specifically about that boy being born for a miracle. I am more a cessationist on healings and miracles.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 02, 2015, 09:55:03 PM
I can also see your eyes, peering out from under you white hood, knowing you were serving god's purpose in putting the mud people in their place.
Isn't doing good and helping others what we should all desire?
God does not reward us for vanity and His rewards never boost vanity.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 02, 2015, 09:55:03 PMFor the health and safety of our society your kind need to be confronted and swept into the dust bin of antiquity
Remove a respectful fear of God from society and you will have chaos.
Respecting God 101 = Treat your body as His temple + love and respect all He created (no killing any infidels / no murder period).
But now Christianity goes one step further in that we are to do unto others as we want done unto us / ie put others before ourselves / ie turn the left cheek. How in the universe can anyone be upset with a bible believing Christian?
How does atheism stop society from descending into pure selfishness?
Quote from: Termin on July 02, 2015, 12:51:41 PM
1. Do you really think all Egyptians owned slaves ?
And what if they did resist the pharoah ?
2. Well , later on we get new rules on that don't we ?
Romans "13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."
But that rule came later, so I guess it just didn't count then.
1. They just saw God's displeasure with them. They all knew why. There was no blur. Anyone of them could have gone to Moses / a Jew and befriended / helped them and would have had their firstborn spared.
2. Luke 12:11 says we will be taken before authorities and leaders. Do you think this happens because Jesus is telling us to do as they say?
What scripture is saying is that we must not
resist our leaders law. IE, punishment for doing what is right is death. Well then we embrace it.
Then there is the fact that God uses evil leaders to achieve a purpose. He has used the devil, Judas...why not Nero? He did not create them evil and for His plan, but rather they were there to be used.
KingJ ... the Egyptians who resisted Pharaoh ... were called Hebrews in Egyptian slang ... and were considered both useful and a threat ... they were mixed tribal peoples who were not assimilated into Egyptian society (ancient Egypt was a melting pot like America), useful because they were used as mercenaries ... as Jews were used much later after the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and many Jews went down to Egypt to find work. But what came out of Egypt was a "mixed multitude" ... because Hebrews weren't just descendants of Jacob (aka Arabs). In Hebrew, Jews are called "Ivrit" not "Abiru". "Abiru" is an ancient Egyptian word, borrowed inaccurately by the writers of the OT. "Israel" was a non-state marginal group defeated by Pharaoh Merneptah around 1200 BCE.
Sorry, but Paul was brilliant (it is mentioned in Acts, by his interrogator King Herod Agrippa II) ... but he was also wrong on several things, as any human prior to 1900 CE would have been. As a pacifist and pro-Roman ... the other messianic Jews were militant and anti-Roman ... he was seen as a threat in Jewish politics ... just as pacifists were seen as at the beginning of WW I. He was also a threat because he was a disturber of the peace (by stirring up god-fearers in the synagogues) and a scoff-law by creating illicit brotherhoods. The leading French pacifist in 1914 was actually assassinated. Jewish pacifists and pro-Roman Jews were persecuted by their fellow Jews during the Jewish-Roman wars that happened in the generation or two after Paul. Generally Hellenistic Jews were pro-Roman. Palestinian and Babylonian Jews were violently anti-Roman ... and usually pro-Persian (see book of Esther).
Quote from: KingJ on July 03, 2015, 04:14:49 AM
There is a difference between your parents and God of the universe :wall:.
Of course there would be, being the creator of all things, its responsibility would be insurmountable. And what does it do? Abso-fucking-lutely nothing to its effect when it has all the power to.
Quote from: KingJ on July 03, 2015, 07:38:56 AM
1. They just saw God's displeasure with them. They all knew why. There was no blur. Anyone of them could have gone to Moses / a Jew and befriended / helped them and would have had their firstborn spared.
How, did god send a mass email to all the Egyptians ? Egypt was a fairly large place even back then, there is nothing stating God went to any lengths at all to make sure all the people knew what was happening, they just knew it was.
Quote from: KingJ on July 03, 2015, 07:38:56 AM
2. Luke 12:11 says we will be taken before authorities and leaders. Do you think this happens because Jesus is telling us to do as they say?
Luke 12, which happened AFTER , LONG after what happened in Egypt simply does not apply.
Quote from: KingJ on July 03, 2015, 07:38:56 AM
What scripture is saying is that we must not resist our leaders law. IE, punishment for doing what is right is death. Well then we embrace it.
And the leaders law was quite clear, slavery was A'ok. The Pharaoh was in charge
Of their days and their nights the Pharaoh was in charge of their wrongs and their rights.
Quote from: KingJ on July 03, 2015, 07:38:56 AM
Then there is the fact that God uses evil leaders to achieve a purpose. He has used the devil, Judas...why not Nero? He did not create them evil and for His plan, but rather they were there to be used.
So like when he hardened the Pharaoh heart just before Moses asked for his people to be free ?
Look you need to understand something, I don't believe any christian or Jew believes in slavery today, they've learned it's wrong, to their credit. But it's clearly in the bible, it cannot be denied.
(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/FormicHiveQueen/lawd-moderatah-i-call-upon-thee-to-ban-this-troll.png)
(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/FormicHiveQueen/ronald-reagan-berlinwall.jpg)
Quote from: Termin on July 03, 2015, 11:51:58 AM
1. How, did god send a mass email to all the Egyptians ? Egypt was a fairly large place even back then, there is nothing stating God went to any lengths at all to make sure all the people knew what was happening, they just knew it was.
2.Luke 12, which happened AFTER , LONG after what happened in Egypt simply does not apply.
3. And the leaders law was quite clear, slavery was A'ok. The Pharaoh was in charge
Of their days and their nights the Pharaoh was in charge of their wrongs and their rights.
4.So like when he hardened the Pharaoh heart just before Moses asked for his people to be free ?
5.Look you need to understand something, I don't believe any christian or Jew believes in slavery today, they've learned it's wrong, to their credit. But it's clearly in the bible, it cannot be denied.
1. The firstborns death was a plague like all the others. You can't choose to believe this one affected all and the rest didn't or vice versa. The plagues either affected a whole city or they affect the whole of Egypt.
2. You quoted Romans initially. If you are referring to any scripture at the time of the Jews, well then it is clearly to them only. We know very well that the Jews had prophets, well respected and qualified high priests and elders.
3. God was not happy with Pharoah. You can missinterpret a single verse on leaders, but the rest of scripture or even just what He did to Pharoah should help with context.
4. God hardening hearts is a long bible study. It has to do with Him giving up trying to get through to them. God is actively trying to soften and reach all of us Rev 3:20.
5. Gods will for mankind from day 1 was Isaiah 6:11. Slavery among the Jews was nothing like what we see as evil today. Suggesting the bible says that as many have and do is simply heresy. Yes, there were slaves back in those days. No, the bible never approved of the Jews misstreating anyone. The Jews were told to love all foreigners among them...as themselves Lev 19:34.
Quote from: KingJ on July 03, 2015, 01:41:51 PM
1. The firstborns death was a plague like all the others. You can't choose to believe this one affected all and the rest didn't or vice versa. The plagues either affected a whole city or they affect the whole of Egypt.
Which doesn't address my point whatsoever , how would the everyday Egyptian,
know who caused this plague ? It would be more logical that it would be blamed on one of their gods. Bottom line is, people who have nothing to do with the Jewish slaves are being punished.
Quote from: KingJ on July 03, 2015, 01:41:51 PM
2. You quoted Romans initially. If you are referring to any scripture at the time of the Jews, well then it is clearly to them only. We know very well that the Jews had prophets, well respected and qualified high priests and elders.
Wow, you do understand that was a sarcastic remark to begin with, and you do understand that Romans wasn't written until centuries later ? You are going to claim that they knew what was going to be written ?
Quote from: KingJ on July 03, 2015, 01:41:51 PM
3. God was not happy with Pharoah. You can missinterpret a single verse on leaders, but the rest of scripture or even just what He did to Pharoah should help with context.
Then punish the Pharaoh, or at the very least introduce yourself to the guy.
Quote from: KingJ on July 03, 2015, 01:41:51 PM
4. God hardening hearts is a long bible study. It has to do with Him giving up trying to get through to them. God is actively trying to soften and reach all of us Rev 3:20.
It's amazing how difficult it is for an all powerful being to get through to someone isn't it ? sorry this don't fly.
[/quote]
Quote from: KingJ on July 03, 2015, 01:41:51 PM
5. Gods will for mankind from day 1 was Isaiah 6:11. Slavery among the Jews was nothing like what we see as evil today. Suggesting the bible says that as many have and do is simply heresy. Yes, there were slaves back in those days. No, the bible never approved of the Jews mistreating anyone. The Jews were told to love all foreigners among them...as themselves Lev 19:34.
If you beat a slave with a rod, and he doesn't die within two days, then it's all good, doesn't matter if he's in bent over with pain for 2 days, can't walk, for two days, comes within a inch of his life, no problem, as long as he stays alive for two days then everything is ok.
If he dies on the third, no problem , he was your property to begin with.
You are very bad at this btw, have you actually read the bible ? ? ?
Sal1981 ... if your parents were like G-d, they would be arrested for child abuse ;-( And excusing G-d by saying Her reasons are mysterious ... please try that defense in Family Court after they arrest your ass ;-) There was a recent case, of a toddler abandoned in the park swing (the enclosed kind of seat) and the child was left there two days and died of exposure. Not even G-d can excuse that, including excusing Herself. Saying that G-d cried, but did nothing ... is the crime of abandonment ... including not inspiring anyone to notice the child and its cries, and do something about it. This also doesn't excuse the mother, who brought the child there, and was missing for some god-damned reason. I don't approve of abandoning kittens or puppies.
Also it is bad for the children to overanalyze fairy tales ... and an adult's inner child, still needs feeding ... so children aren't just kids, children are all of us, even if we gave birth to ourselves (which in part we do). Being a good story teller isn't a crime ... give your children some Smores over a camp fire, not a lecture by Sheldon Cooper ;-)
Quote from: KingJ on July 03, 2015, 04:32:59 AM
If God asked you nicely to stop doing something evil and you completely ignore Him. He then gives you time to come right and you still pull the middle finger. He then sends a plague to show you He is very serious and you still pull the middle finger. He thend sends another and another and another and you still pull the middle finger. Is something more severe really unexpected?
God does not deal with us after the cross in the same manner as He did with the Jews OT. God had to force certain issues OT. NT He doesnt have to. God had nothing to do with you losing your child.
Sorry about it.
If you're so sure that's what happened, then you need to tell me what those signs were. Surely your invisible buddy will pass that information along to you. Until then, you have no right making a claim like that.
Otherwise, you're just making an assumption that I deserved to have that happen on no basis other than that I call bullshit on your claims.
And, you contradict yourself -- you said earlier that everything's your god's decision, and then you say he had nothing to do with it?
I got a better idea: you could grow the hell up and take responsibility for saying an evil thing rather than pretend it's not your fault for being a self-righteous holier-than-thou ass, and blame your mouth on your invisible friend.
You dare to blame me for my own daughter's death.
If you want to know what evil looks like, I suggest a mirror.
Quote from: Termin on July 03, 2015, 02:13:10 PM
1.Which doesn't address my point whatsoever , how would the everyday Egyptian, know who caused this plague ? It would be more logical that it would be blamed on one of their gods. Bottom line is, people who have nothing to do with the Jewish slaves are being punished.
2. Wow, you do understand that was a sarcastic remark to begin with, and you do understand that Romans wasn't written until centuries later ? You are going to claim that they knew what was going to be written ?
3. It's amazing how difficult it is for an all powerful being to get through to someone isn't it ? sorry this don't fly.
4. If you beat a slave with a rod, and he doesn't die within two days, then it's all good, doesn't matter if he's in bent over with pain for 2 days, can't walk, for two days, comes within a inch of his life, no problem, as long as he stays alive for two days then everything is ok.
If he dies on the third, no problem , he was your property to begin with.
5. You are very bad at this btw, have you actually read the bible ? ? ?
1.If the first plague was to 10 people then the last plague was to ...10 people. The last plague was to all of Egypt...meaning the first plague was to..... :wall:
Then....we know from
many other stories in the OT that the evidence does not point to God just destroying without warning. People watched Noah build an ark for around 100 years. Sodom was warned, Nineveh was warned.
2. You are simply contradicting yourself and making no sense. You first say it is NT, you then say it was OT, you then say it is NT and mock me for it being many years after / battling to keep up with a moving goal post....
If you are referring to the OT, it makes perfect sense as Jews definitely had Godly leaders.
If you are referring to the NT Jesus says Matt 10:18 and Matt 24:9 because we must agree with leaders? Paul was making a point in Romans. His point was that we should embrace death if that was what was coming our way. Paul did not teach submission to evil laws. You just have to read 'any' chapter from him.
3.God had no problem getting through to him. Pharoah had a problem submitting to God's will. When we pull the middle finger just enough times, our desire to hate God becomes clear. This causes God to give us over to our desires / He stops softening / ie He hardens.
4.This verse is referring to the charge of murder. The first line discussing the subject of personal injuires is talking about
murder Exodus 21:12. It is not saying a master can beat his slave and get away with it. It is saying that if a master beats his slave and the slave survives,
don't kill the master.
If a slave is beaten here are the consequences for the master: vs 14 But if
anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, t
hat person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.
vs 26 An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it
must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave
must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
How exactly did you miss these verses? :shocked:
5.I am bad? You can't even read two or three lines after the verse you quote.
I don't mind you throwing stones at the bible...as If God is evil I am on your side. But all I see is you becoming more and more guilty of construing a false accusation.
Have you got anything that does stick / Is not a language blunder?
Quote from: trdsf on July 03, 2015, 06:00:56 PM
1. If you're so sure that's what happened, then you need to tell me what those signs were. Surely your invisible buddy will pass that information along to you. Until then, you have no right making a claim like that.
Otherwise, you're just making an assumption that I deserved to have that happen on no basis other than that I call bullshit on your claims.
2. And, you contradict yourself -- you said earlier that everything's your god's decision, and then you say he had nothing to do with it?
3. I got a better idea: you could grow the hell up and take responsibility for saying an evil thing rather than pretend it's not your fault for being a self-righteous holier-than-thou ass, and blame your mouth on your invisible friend.
You dare to blame me for my own daughter's death.
If you want to know what evil looks like, I suggest a mirror.
1. I never made that assumption. I was referring to the Egyptian firstborns and the reason they were taken.
2. Our babies being taken is a difficult bible study. 1. We are given as their protection. 2. God does not hear all our prayers John 9:31. 3. Bad things can happen to good and bad people. 4. God does still look after bad people.
I actually don't know what to say on your child been taken other then that anyone under the age of 19 is likely in heaven and any baby is definitely in heaven.
3. I know where you are coming from. My baby has a head condition from birth. Many came to me and said I have not got enough faith to heal my baby. Fortunately for me I know scripture better then them.
All we know is that oneday when we are in heaven with Him having tea and scones He will have full explanations for all He has done. 1 Cor 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 03, 2015, 11:00:05 AM
Of course there would be, being the creator of all things, its responsibility would be insurmountable. And what does it do? Abso-fucking-lutely nothing to its effect when it has all the power to.
It is difficult to understand free will. I don't profess to fully grasp it. I am with you on children and babies being hurt. There is a blur there.
With adults that are ''His'' we know that He is with them in their suffering. From verses like this:
Deut 31:6 He will never leave you nor forsake you. Phil 4:7 And the peace of God, which
surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Daniel 3 with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the fire.
We know that adults who are not ''His'' are still protected when we consider this verse 1 Pet 5:8 Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for
whom to devour. Meaning if we not dead, we are protected. And a verse like Gen 15:16 points to Him not destroying us if our sin is not full measure.
Babies, children and animals seem to be / are victims of our free will. To suggest God is not upset by our abuse of them is ridiculous! To suggest He does nothing is also not true as we know from scripture that He removes those whose sin is full measure.
We must not forget that free will is good. Even though it empowers evil people to do evil things. 70years on earth is nothing compared to eternity. It would be evil of God to force people who hate Him to be with Him. Force lions to be ruled by a lamb / lambs to live with lions. God would be guilty of evil if He sent children and babies to hell.
Understanding free will is nearly axiomatic. It isn't something to be deduced. By being alive, you already have knowledge of free will. If you realize you are free, then you understand it already. Trying to deduce this from scripture or from quantum mechanics is word salad. Do you need a logician to convince you that you are alive?
I hope you also have grasped that ... while this forum is very hard on people like you ... I do care for you ... humanitarian that I am. The fact that there are people that care ... that is the proof of G-d's caring, and is worth 1000 Bibles. Do you know from theology or Bible, that you can only become whole thru struggle, suffering and death? I see you as pretty young, too much into books (but a man unto my heart) ... I was like you when I was younger, though not as into quoting Bible ... reading and contemplating, but not quoting. Memorize the Epistle of James ... we moderns are such babies compared to people of old ... the best I could do was memorize the preamble of the Gospel of John. But that is only a first step ... become what you memorize, then you can forget the verses.
Quote from: KingJ on July 06, 2015, 06:25:52 AM
It is difficult to understand free will. I don't profess to fully grasp it. I am with you on children and babies being hurt. There is a blur there.
With adults that are ''His'' we know that He is with them in their suffering. From verses like this:
Deut 31:6 He will never leave you nor forsake you. Phil 4:7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Daniel 3 with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the fire.
We know that adults who are not ''His'' are still protected when we consider this verse 1 Pet 5:8 Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for whom to devour. Meaning if we not dead, we are protected. And a verse like Gen 15:16 points to Him not destroying us if our sin is not full measure.
Babies, children and animals seem to be / are victims of our free will. To suggest God is not upset by our abuse of them is ridiculous! To suggest He does nothing is also not true as we know from scripture that He removes those whose sin is full measure.
We must not forget that free will is good. Even though it empowers evil people to do evil things. 70years on earth is nothing compared to eternity. It would be evil of God to force people who hate Him to be with Him. Force lions to be ruled by a lamb / lambs to live with lions. God would be guilty of evil if He sent children and babies to hell.
tl;dr: God works in mysterious ways and it's our free will damnit.
Quote from: Baruch on July 06, 2015, 06:43:21 AM
Understanding free will is nearly axiomatic. It isn't something to be deduced. By being alive, you already have knowledge of free will. If you realize you are free, then you understand it already. Trying to deduce this from scripture or from quantum mechanics is word salad. Do you need a logician to convince you that you are alive?
I hope you also have grasped that ... while this forum is very hard on people like you ... I do care for you ... humanitarian that I am. The fact that there are people that care ... that is the proof of G-d's caring, and is worth 1000 Bibles. Do you know from theology or Bible, that you can only become whole thru struggle, suffering and death? I see you as pretty young, too much into books (but a man unto my heart) ... I was like you when I was younger, though not as into quoting Bible ... reading and contemplating, but not quoting. Memorize the Epistle of James ... we moderns are such babies compared to people of old ... the best I could do was memorize the preamble of the Gospel of John. But that is only a first step ... become what you memorize, then you can forget the verses.
Agree with all you said!
Your same proof of free will I would use for God. We don't need evidence of God if we are alive and not so by the laws of physics.
Yes, we do have similar agitations and quietings ... now let go of the side of the pool, slide into the Abyss, without the waterwings of scripture with you ;-) If you aren't a witch, you will sink ;-))
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MFmC6BD1B4
Quote from: KingJ on July 06, 2015, 10:48:52 AMWe don't need evidence of God if we are alive and not so by the laws of physics.
You seem to be arguing that if god was real then we would be alive in a way that physics can't explain. But we are alive by natural laws...so does that mean there's no god?
Would someone explain to me what the fuck atheist morality is! Christian morality is just a word for controlling people according to some idiotic code of conduct that is puritanical in nature, and has nothing to do with actual harm, or no harm, accept in the delusional minds of religious nuts. :wall:
Quote from: Solitary on July 07, 2015, 04:17:24 PMWould someone explain to me what the fuck atheist morality is!
A better way to say it would be "secular morality". It's simply morality that doesn't invoke god as the source.
Quote from: KingJ on July 06, 2015, 06:01:41 AM
1. I never made that assumption. I was referring to the Egyptian firstborns and the reason they were taken.
Bull. And I quote your own exact words:
Quote from: KingJ
If God asked you nicely to stop doing something evil and you completely ignore Him. He then gives you time to come right and you still pull the middle finger. He then sends a plague to show you He is very serious and you still pull the middle finger. He thend sends another and another and another and you still pull the middle finger. Is something more severe really unexpected?
Translation: "You had it coming for not being a believer." You were
not talking about the plagues of Egypt, you were citing them as a reason I should've expected to be "punished". Nice try at a backpedal, but your explanation is not true, and you
know it's not true.
As for your child, please just listen to the doctors. I'm thoroughly convinced you're a horrible person, and I fear for what you're going to teach your child, but even you don't deserve that kind of suffering.
Quote from: Drummer Guy on July 07, 2015, 04:07:17 PM
You seem to be arguing that if god was real then we would be alive in a way that physics can't explain. But we are alive by natural laws...so does that mean there's no god?
We are not alive by natural laws.
Quote from: trdsf on July 08, 2015, 05:23:08 PM
1. Bull. And I quote your own exact words:
2. Translation: "You had it coming for not being a believer." You were not talking about the plagues of Egypt, you were citing them as a reason I should've expected to be "punished". Nice try at a backpedal, but your explanation is not true, and you know it's not true.
3. As for your child, please just listen to the doctors. I'm thoroughly convinced you're a horrible person, and I fear for what you're going to teach your child, but even you don't deserve that kind of suffering.
1. So I knew that a plague came upon your child? If you read the post that you originally quoted you will see I was talking about Egyptian firstborns.
2. What in the universe?? God punish you for not being a believer?? Please man. Look at the Egyptians for a second. (Whilst assuming whatever you want about my post). What stands out is that they were not God's chosen race / ie
He did not care if they believed or not. He sent them plague after plague to help to stop
their EVIL. They continually defied Him / chose evil and the last resort was the calamity of their babies. IE warning after warning about stopping an evil. NOT about belief.
Applying this to us NT is not possible because God does not have to force things as He did OT. It is not always so cut and dry.
3. You are thoroughly convinced that I am a horrible person for following a belief system that teaches me to turn my left cheek and then some...
Of course I won't keep my kid from doctors. That would be tempting God.
For what its worth I agree wholeheartedly with you being upset with anyone suggesting it was your atheism that was too blame...or if you were a Christian...your faith...
The bible does not teach that you go to hell for being atheist and heaven for being Christian. It teaches that those who hate what is evil and cling to what is good have genuine love for God Rom 12:9 and God finds them. As long as you and I are living we are both candidates for heaven.
I want to go to the worst case scenario.....lets say you do in fact go to hell. I don't believe that even in hell you will be isolated from or not have knowledge of your children. God tells us to love our enemies because He loves His enemies. If we are God's enemy, He will not go out of His way to torture us by keeping us from seeing our kids for example. In hell you will still have contact with your kids I believe. Scripture does not say this but the evidence does point there.
Quote from: KingJ on July 13, 2015, 07:44:01 AM
We are not alive by natural laws.
you're wrong.
life started as a result of physical and chemical process.
Quote from: KingJ on July 13, 2015, 08:05:21 AM
3. You are thoroughly convinced that I am a horrible person for following a belief system that teaches me to turn my left cheek and then some...
Not a horrible person. Just so willfully ignorant that you have become totally blind to anything resembling reason or thinking. In fact, so willfully ignorant that I'd call it stupidity. But you are a hoot--you give me a chuckle every now and again with your 'logic' and 'reasoning'. No, not a horrible person--I'm sure you treat your furry children with respect and love--and for that I give you a pat on the head.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on July 13, 2015, 08:10:33 AM
you're wrong.
life started as a result of physical and chemical process.
Do you have any proof?
Quote from: KingJ on July 13, 2015, 09:33:03 AM
Do you have any proof?
Proof that you are not horrible? No, not really. Just an assumption. Proof you are not stupid? Just reread your posts. Any sane person would come to the same conclusion. But then, you most likely are not sane. Sorry.
Quote from: KingJ on July 13, 2015, 09:33:03 AM
Do you have any proof?
it's obvious like sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
have a look at evolutionary biology.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 13, 2015, 08:55:43 AM
Not a horrible person. Just so willfully ignorant that you have become totally blind to anything resembling reason or thinking. In fact, so willfully ignorant that I'd call it stupidity. But you are a hoot--you give me a chuckle every now and again with your 'logic' and 'reasoning'. No, not a horrible person--I'm sure you treat your furry children with respect and love--and for that I give you a pat on the head.
Mike, come now. Discarding the bible, Jesus and let alone God with the amount of confidence your insults suggest is a long stretch.
I would like to scratch you more and see what more you have, but I am not going to get my hopes up. So far your arguments have just not held water.
I must believe YOU. Your evidence is always greater then mine? Your historians existed and mine didn't. :naughty: Do you have anything valid? Perhaps if you followed through on your accusation that God of the bible is evil by debunking my quoting of omitted scripture without mocking the validity of scripture...you might convert me.
I had an open invitation on a prior post. If someone can prove to me from scripture that God is evil I will convert. Of course scripture just has to be used honestly. No ommissions like was done on slavery.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on July 13, 2015, 09:37:14 AM
it's obvious like sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
have a look at evolutionary biology.
Frankenstein's creature is a real possibility? Yes or No?
Quote from: KingJ on July 13, 2015, 09:48:12 AM
Mike, come now. Discarding the bible, Jesus and let alone God with the amount of confidence your insults suggest is a long stretch.
I would like to scratch you more and see what more you have, but I am not going to get my hopes up. So far your arguments have just not held water.
I must believe YOU. Your evidence is always greater then mine? Your historians existed and mine didn't. :naughty: Do you have anything valid? Perhaps if you followed through on your accusation that God of the bible is evil by debunking my quoting of omitted scripture without mocking the validity of scripture...you might convert me.
I had an open invitation on a prior post. If someone can prove to me from scripture that God is evil I will convert. Of course scripture just has to be used honestly. No ommissions like was done on slavery.
Convert you???? I really don't care what you believe. I just point out the error in your non-thinking. I cannot change anybody--they have to do that for themselves. So, don't puff yourself up to think I am trying to convert you. As I stated before, your hubris is gigantic. Your prided knows no bounds. You really are not the center of the universe.
Quote from: KingJ on July 13, 2015, 07:44:01 AM
We are not alive by natural laws.
What exactly do you mean? Can you please elaborate on this?
Quote from: KingJ on July 13, 2015, 09:48:12 AM
If someone can prove to me from scripture that God is evil I will convert.
Isaiah 45:7King James Version (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Now go away.
Quote from: the_antithesis on July 13, 2015, 07:12:30 PM
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
God could just not be all knowing? He fucked up! Come on, give god a break! :eyes:
Quote from: dtq123 on July 13, 2015, 07:19:06 PM
God could just not be all knowing? He fucked up! Come on, give god a break! :eyes:
Why?
Quote from: KingJ on July 13, 2015, 10:00:31 AM
Frankenstein's creature is a real possibility? Yes or No?
maybe
because dtq is crazy
So much good stuff ...
Yes, we can create a Frankenstein monster, in fact, according to one school of thought we are indistinguishable from zombies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
The usual way to make a Frankenstein monster is to mate ... not scour the cemetery for body parts ... though some women who are passive in bed ... are a bit too much like a zombie for comfort ;-) Cold too ;-))
In Lurianic Kabbalah, G-d made the universe by accident, a lab experiment gone bad. Later Nation of Islam folks picked up on this ... saying that White people were the result of a bad experiment by a Black scientist. The purpose of humans, according to Lurianic Kabbalah, is to clean up G-d's big mess.
Isaiah 45:7 ... is consistent with the Book of Job, and a big reason why I don't like G-d. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist. I don't like cooked "beef liver and onions" ... but it exists anyway. Organ meats remind me too much of church ;-)
As I have reparteed with Mike CL ... I find that the natural/supernatural division is arbitrary ... and that reality is simply unnatural in the extreme .. in a different sense of that word ... unnatural as zombies.
I don't agree that life started naturally, because I don't believe in beginnings nor in naturalism. I also don't think it started supernaturally ... again because I don't believe in beginnings nor in supernaturalism. And Genesis 1:1 to 1:2 is clearly not "ex nihilo" anyway. It is about an undefined phrase in Hebrew:
×'ר×שית ×'×¨× ×ל×"×™× ×ת ×"×©×ž×™× ×•×ת ×"×רץ׃
b’reshit bara ‘elohim ‘et ha-shamayim w’-et ha-‘aretz:
In the beginning, gods created the heavens and the earth
ו×"×רץ ×"ית×" ת×"ו ו×'×"ו וחשך ×¢×œÖ¾×¤× ×™ ת×"×•× ×•×¨×•×— ×ל×"×™× ×ž×¨×—×¤×ª ×¢×œÖ¾×¤× ×™ ×"מי×׃
w’-ha-‘aretz w’-ha-y’tah tohu wa-bohu w’-choshek ‘al p’ne t’howm w’ruach ‘elohim m'rachepet ‘al p’ne ha-mayim:
and the earth was “without form and void†and the spirit of gods was on face of the waters
ת×"ו ו×'×"ו
tohu wa-bohu
"without form and void" is actually of unknown meaning ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tohu_wa-bohu ... pick your rabbi as you will
Quote from: the_antithesis on July 13, 2015, 07:12:30 PM
Isaiah 45:7King James Version (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Now go away.
If God's omniscience is your argument I would have quoted Rom 9 like Calvinists do. Rom 9 is much easier to missread and goes into much more detail.
But anyways, on Isaiah 45:7. The word evil there is not '''God made you torture your pet'' rather it is ''God brings calamity''. The word translated 'evil' is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.†Other translations: “disaster†(NIV, HCSB), “calamity†(NKJV, NAS, ESV), and “woe†(NRSV).
Now God bringing calamity is always a last resort. After warnings and trying all He can to get us to repent and His calamity is never torturous!! He destroys properly!! IE No brazen bulls! Reading Jonah helped toward my conversion. It is very interesting how Jonah wanted the people of Nineveh to be immediately destroyed. God wanted to spare them and give them more time.
Jonah 4:2 That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love,
a God who relents from sending calamity.
Quote from: Baruch on July 13, 2015, 11:22:20 PM
Isaiah 45:7 ... is consistent with the Book of Job, and a big reason why I don't like G-d. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist. I don't like cooked "beef liver and onions" ... but it exists anyway. Organ meats remind me too much of church ;-)
I don't see how it is. Is Job really a tough pill to swallow?
God of the universe has only 70 years to put us through trials and tribulations. For all eternity God and Job will be closer as a result of what Job was able to endure. God never put him through what he couldn't handle.
Job is in 100% conflict with prosperity and healing theology. That is probably why I like it so much :azn:. Life can be hell even for the God fearing, but what a close relationship that person will have with God for all eternity if they endure and keep their faith in God through it all.
Quote from: Drummer Guy on July 13, 2015, 04:16:15 PM
What exactly do you mean? Can you please elaborate on this?
We are in a realm limited by the laws of physics. The only plausible explanation is that we have a creator
not limited by this as in our realm 0 + 0 does not = 1.
Suggesting anything else (aliens, astronaut, primordial sludge) is simply moving the goal posts and denying reality / wasting time.
Quote from: dtq123 on July 13, 2015, 07:19:06 PM
God could just not be all knowing? He fucked up! Come on, give god a break! :eyes:
It is easy to see evil and conclude God messed up. But have you tried to put yourself in God's shoes?
What would you do differently? Remove free will? Not make humans?
....
Isaiah 45:7 is about omnipotence, not omniscience. Please learn English, so you can learn how the translations of the Bible are part of the problem ... after you learn Hebrew and Greek. I have studied both, and have taught Hebrew.
Putting yourself in G-d's shoes? That is blasphemy, not piety. Sloppy religion is the end of spirituality. Theologians put themselves in G-d's mind ... and that is blasphemy to. I see the results of G-d's work (theurgy) in the world ... and know G-d thru G-d's works.
Quote from: KingJ on July 14, 2015, 04:12:25 AM
Job is in 100% conflict with prosperity and healing theology. That is probably why I like it so much :azn:. Life can be hell even for the God fearing, but what a close relationship that person will have with God for all eternity if they endure and keep their faith in God through it all.
My, my--just like the little Munchkins of Oz, dancing, prancing, tumbling, cowering down the Yellow Brick Road to there God of Oz. What a fine little Munchkin you are!
Quote from: KingJ on July 14, 2015, 04:22:09 AM
It is easy to see evil and conclude God messed up. But have you tried to put yourself in God's shoes?
What would you do differently? Remove free will? Not make humans?
If god knew everything, then there is no free will. And I wouldn't make humans XD
Quote from: dtq123 on July 14, 2015, 12:29:02 PM
If god knew everything, then there is no free will. And I wouldn't make humans XD
Ah, I see you are beginning to see what it is like trying to reason with a christian. Reason does not exist in their world--if you try to insert it into theirs they can become a bit touchy--and they always revert to their set of self proving beliefs.
When we get to Oz, I intend to get elected the shop steward of the Lollipop Guild ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on July 14, 2015, 07:17:18 PM
When we get to Oz, I intend to get elected the shop steward of the Lollipop Guild ;-)
To hell with that--I want a heart, a brain and courage.
Quote from: KingJ on July 13, 2015, 08:05:21 AM
3. You are thoroughly convinced that I am a horrible person for following a belief system that teaches me to turn my left cheek and then some...
No. I'm convinced you're a horrible person because you've demonstrated to my satisfaction through your posts here that you're a self-righteous liar and hypocrite.
I
do not believe you when you claim you were talking about the Egyptians and the book of Exodus. They only turned up when you got called out for making the absolutely appalling statement that the parents of children who died brought it on themselves. And then you tried to hide behind your Big Book of Fairy Tales rather than taking responsibility for your statement. That makes you a liar in my book.
Since you obviously missed that day in primary school, let me advise you how that should have been handled, assuming you still wanted to go for the lie that you were talking about something else: "Oh, wow, I didn't mean to imply that but I can see how you could have taken it that way, I'm sorry." I might have even believed the lie; I would have certainly accepted the apology. And the failure to do that and claim to be the innocent misunderstood party here makes you self-righteous in my book.
And since you continue to put yourself forward as an innocent victim
after all that, that makes you a hypocrite in my book.
Don't bother responding, I have absolutely no interest in anything further you have to say. If you want to accomplish something positive out of this, spend some time
thinking about your behavior here. Not praying about it,
thinking about it. It may sting a little, but it's a good burn, like chilis. And the next time you're about to say something insufferably judgmental, maybe pause and
think about it before you start typing.
Quote from: trdsf on July 15, 2015, 03:09:18 AM
No. I'm convinced you're a horrible person because you've demonstrated to my satisfaction through your posts here that you're a self-righteous liar and hypocrite.
I do not believe you when you claim you were talking about the Egyptians and the book of Exodus. They only turned up when you got called out for making the absolutely appalling statement that the parents of children who died brought it on themselves. And then you tried to hide behind your Big Book of Fairy Tales rather than taking responsibility for your statement. That makes you a liar in my book.
Since you obviously missed that day in primary school, let me advise you how that should have been handled, assuming you still wanted to go for the lie that you were talking about something else: "Oh, wow, I didn't mean to imply that but I can see how you could have taken it that way, I'm sorry." I might have even believed the lie; I would have certainly accepted the apology. And the failure to do that and claim to be the innocent misunderstood party here makes you self-righteous in my book.
And since you continue to put yourself forward as an innocent victim after all that, that makes you a hypocrite in my book.
Don't bother responding, I have absolutely no interest in anything further you have to say. If you want to accomplish something positive out of this, spend some time thinking about your behavior here. Not praying about it, thinking about it. It may sting a little, but it's a good burn, like chilis. And the next time you're about to say something insufferably judgmental, maybe pause and think about it before you start typing.
Go and read your first reply to me on...babies (#111)....where you quoted my reply to Termin (# 94) where it is clear that I was talking about Egyptian firstborns.
Re the underlined, understand that if I was guilty I would quickly apologize. I am 100% with you on this!! I even gave you my story....
You seem to have an unnatural desire to want to paint me with this brush. Did Christians in your past say you were to blame?
Quote from: dtq123 on July 14, 2015, 12:29:02 PM
If god knew everything, then there is no free will. And I wouldn't make humans XD
That is logical, yes. But we have to try look beyond our noses. We have to accept that we ARE a creation. We HAVE a small brain and only use a SMALL percentage of it. It should come as NO surprise that grasping God of the UNIVERSE ...be beyond us.
The bible paints the picture that God's omniscience, omnipotence and His goodness run
alongside each other. God is good and omniscient. The bible says He is a bright morning start (Rev 22:16) with no darkness in Him at all (1 John 1:5). I imagine God being like a great sun watching over us. He knows all and righteousness is a raging fire that is one with Him.
With our useful but limited grey matter we can only really look at
where the evidence points in grasping / judging God.
The evidence points to God limiting His omnipotence on the cross. On His omniscience, there are many scriptures where God considered our requests. One example that comes to mind is Exodus 32 “I have seen these people,†the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.†11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,†he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’†14
Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.
Then creating an earth and temporal bodies gives us time and space to exercise our free will. We can go fishing today and choose to throw our catch back in the water, kill it instantly or torture it to death.
Too much metaphysics (aka theology). Try empirical observation, based on walking the walk, not talking the talk. Then based on recurring success/failure ... diagnose and prognose. Otherwise it is "my dead ancient Greek daddy is bigger than your dead ancient Greek daddy".
Quote from: KingJ on July 15, 2015, 05:34:01 AM
That is logical, yes. But we have to try look beyond our noses. We have to accept that we ARE a creation. We HAVE a small brain and only use a SMALL percentage of it. It should come as NO surprise that grasping God of the UNIVERSE ...be beyond us.
The part in bold . you don't seriously believe that do you ? You know that's nothing more than an Urban myth, if you believe that . . . well it does explain quite a few things.
Quote from: KingJ We HAVE a small brain and only use a SMALL percentage of it.
/quote]
no actually are brains are fairly large by comparison to other animals. Also FYI we use 100% of our brains not the urban legend 10%. Look it up and educate your self.
Quote from: KingJ on July 15, 2015, 05:34:01 AM
That is logical, yes. But we have to try look beyond our noses. We have to accept that we ARE a creation. We HAVE a small brain and only use a SMALL percentage of it. It should come as NO surprise that grasping God of the UNIVERSE ...be beyond us.
Then why do you have a concept of "God" then? Or is your "God" some special meaning, following special implications?
When you say something is unknowable, or in your words, "be beyond us" and then turn around and give explicit definitions for it, guess what, you've gone and done a Catch 22. Either "God" is knowable or it isn't, so which is it?
Quote from: KingJ on July 15, 2015, 05:34:01 AMThe bible paints the picture that God's omniscience, omnipotence and His goodness run alongside each other. God is good and omniscient. The bible says He is a bright morning start (Rev 22:16) with no darkness in Him at all (1 John 1:5). I imagine God being like a great sun watching over us. He knows all and righteousness is a raging fire that is one with Him.
With our useful but limited grey matter we can only really look at where the evidence points in grasping / judging God.
You know, you're just giving your god a free ride, right? All-good, all-knowing, all-powerful, and yet we can't grasp it. It's all so very obtuse and contradictory if you think about it.
Quote from: KingJ on July 15, 2015, 05:34:01 AMThe evidence points to God limiting His omnipotence on the cross. On His omniscience, there are many scriptures where God considered our requests. One example that comes to mind is Exodus 32 “I have seen these people,†the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.†11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,†he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’†14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.
Ah, so your god is able to change his mind, being so fucking omni-max and all? Do you into logic?
Quote from: KingJ on July 15, 2015, 05:34:01 AMThen creating an earth and temporal bodies gives us time and space to exercise our free will. We can go fishing today and choose to throw our catch back in the water, kill it instantly or torture it to death.
I can't help but laugh at your ridiculous outhro. "Torture it to death", yes, quite. And don't get me all to bent out of shape about free will -&- temporal, you're just vomiting words around like a fucking loose garden hose on full pressure.
But I do hope you're enjoying yourself groveling like a worm towards your imaginary omni-max dictator.
Quote from: Termin on July 15, 2015, 01:06:16 PM
The part in bold . you don't seriously believe that do you ? You know that's nothing more than an Urban myth, if you believe that . . . well it does explain quite a few things.
''''You seriously believe that'''' '''well that does expalin quite a few things'''... :blahblah:
The only post of yours that I will reply to is the one where you apologize for your reading blunder on slavery.
Quote from: doorknob on July 15, 2015, 01:11:32 PM
no actually are brains are fairly large by comparison to other animals. Also FYI we use 100% of our brains not the urban legend 10%. Look it up and educate your self.
I don't think anyone has ever believed 90% of our brains are waste. Einstein never meant that when he made the claim. The point was that we don't use it for thought.
Now science has proven that we use all of the brain for something....in a way debunking a myth that was never there...well goshness...I could have told you all from day one that God is great and everything has a purpose.
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 15, 2015, 07:28:06 PM
1.Either "God" is knowable or it isn't, so which is it?
2. You know, you're just giving your god a free ride, right? All-good, all-knowing, all-powerful, and yet we can't grasp it. It's all so very obtuse and contradictory if you think about it.
3. Ah, so your god is able to change his mind, being so fucking omni-max and all? Do you into logic?
4. But I do hope you're enjoying yourself groveling like a worm towards your imaginary omni-max dictator.
1. This has to be the dumbest question on God I have ever heard. It is like saying you have to understand how God came into existence to know He is there... Seriously?
2. You....can grasp it. You have free will right now. Contradictory? Lol. What is amazing is that you continue mud slinging God for your own
assumptions. ''I can't grasp how God is good and omniscient at the same time...becuase I can't, God is evil''. ''God is evil because there is evil''. Highly intelligent reasoning! :wall:
3. He considers our requests, yes. But you are hradly trying to see the full picture. God is in ultimate control of who goes to hell and who doesn't. When we are in heaven we can judge Him. If He sent anyone to hell that hated what is evil, we have a bone to pick with Him. The evidence points to Him having nothing to hide as He increases our intelligence in heaven per scripture.
4. I hope you don't honestly believe your arguments against God of the bible hold water.
See that's the funny thing kingj, you can't physically hold water with your imagination, or your imaginary friend. You might tell yourself you see water being held by your imaginary friend, but most children grow out of that by time they reach school.
Quote from: KingJ on July 16, 2015, 06:57:28 AM
I don't think anyone has ever believed 90% of our brains are waste. Einstein never meant that when he made the claim. The point was that we don't use it for thought.
Now science has proven that we use all of the brain for something....in a way debunking a myth that was never there...well goshness...I could have told you all from day one that God is great and everything has a purpose.
KingJ, the magic man. Talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. Come one, come all! This is a great side show!
You made an assertion, and when called on it, you claimed you never believed that. Good job!
Your contention that the God of the Bible wasn't evil? Bullshit. See, when I was younger, it always puzzled me why Pharaoh was refusing the Israelites go even after all this horrific stuff was happening to them. Upon a more careful reading of the Bible, I found out why:
Starting from Exodus 7:
1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. 2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land. 3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. 4 But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments. 5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.
So here, we get an immidate answer of why Pharaoh was being pig-headed about keeping the Israelites as slaves: Yahuwahu was making him stubborn, just so that he could show off his power.
And it continues:
13 And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
22 And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said.
8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
Now, so far the plauges haven't been that bad, so it might be understandable why Pharaoh hasn't let the Israelites go yet. Yet there is the "hardened his heart" phrase showing up again and again, a phrasology which Yahuwahu uses explicitly, indicating that he is the culprit.
32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.
Then Yahuwahu starts with the livestock. This is now getting serious, because livestock represents one of the major assets of the ordinary farmer.
9:7 And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.
Pharaoh's heart was hardened again. Wonder who did that?
11 And the magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils; for the boil was upon the magicians, and upon all the Egyptians. 12 And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had spoken unto Moses.
Now we're getting more explicit that it was Yahuwahu who was hardening Pharaoh's heart. That is, Yahuwahu who was manipulating Pharaoh's emotions and thoughts, prodding him to do something he wouldn't normally do under the circumstances.
In short, he is violating Pharaoh's free will.
It becomes even more stark the next chapter, Exodus 10:
1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him: 2 And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the Lord.
So Yahuwahu fully cops to doing this thing to Pharaoh, and repeats why he did it. It's to demonstrate his power. Now, you have to know something about the Pharaoh of Egypt â€" the Pharaoh was considered a living god. Yahuwahu is showing Pharaoh that he has the bigger divine dick.
16 Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said, I have sinned against the Lord your God, and against you. 17 Now therefore forgive, I pray thee, my sin only this once, and intreat the Lord your God, that he may take away from me this death only. 18 And he went out from Pharaoh, and intreated the Lord. 19 And the Lord turned a mighty strong west wind, which took away the locusts, and cast them into the Red sea; there remained not one locust in all the coasts of Egypt. 20 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.
So here Pharaoh was, pleading for mercy from the plague of locusts. This was a plea that was not caused by Yahuwahu's meddling, but Pharaoh's true heart. He'd clearly had enough by this point. But when Yahuwahu sends the locusts away, what did he do? Hardened Pharaoh's heart again. Fuckssake, Exodus itself was portraying Pharaoh to be at his wits end and was going to let the Israelites go just to get them out of his beeswax-greased hair â€"which was what Yahuwahu and Moses wantedâ€" yet Yahuwahu, the jerk, forced him back into the game that he didn't want to play. What an asshole!
And it continues:
27 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go.
Exodus 11, the plauge of the firstborn, the divine faggotry continues:
9 And the Lord said unto Moses, Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you; that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt. 10 And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.
Again, more divine dick-wagging. Again, Yahuwahu tramples Pharaoh's free will just so that he could show off once more.
12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.
Read that again, "ALL OF THE FIRSTBORN" in the land of Egypt. Beasts as well as people. (Whatever did the beasts do to the Israelites?) You are fucking insane if you think this would amount to ten people. You are also fucking insane if you think that all (or even most) of these firstborn had anything to do with the slavery of the Israelites. Indeed this is underlined later in the section:
30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.
"There was not a house where there was not one dead." This is not ten people. This is hundreds of thousands. The population of Egypt at the time was a cool million. Most of those would never have seen an Israelite slave, let alone own one.
31 And he called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve the Lord, as ye have said. 32 Also take your flocks and your herds, as ye have said, and be gone; and bless me also. 33 And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said, We be all dead men.
Okay, now we're on the right track. Pharaoh finally is free to tell the Israelites to get the fuck out of Egypt and take their god with them. Like he was ready to do since Exodus 10:16 before Yahuwahu was a dick to him.
Now, how many finaly made it out of Egypt?
Exodus 12:37 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. 38 And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.
Hundreds of thousands of people, and their livestock. Remember that. It'll be important later.
Ah, but we're not done with Pharaoh yet. In Exodus 14, he does something really really strange given the previous few sections:
5 And it was told the king of Egypt that the people fled: and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people, and they said, Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?
Are ye daft, Pharaoh?!! Did you not remember how their god hardened your heart and made you keep them against your own will just so that Yahuwahu could show how badass he is and how ineffectual you are as a "living god"? What possessed you to do this?
6 And he made ready his chariot, and took his people with him: 7 And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them. 8 And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand.
Oh, of course. You were, in fact, possessed. Possessed by the jerk-ass god Yahuwahu.
To sum up, yes, the God of the Bible is evil to the core. Exodus is a book where Yahuwahu absolutely revels in his ass-kicking power, such that he has to set up Pharaoh and the entirety of Egypt as his punching bag. This is an evil act by any sane standard of morality.
It also blows away any excuse that God doesn't want to violate our free will. He was perfectly willing to do so for the Pharaoh of Egypt, on multiple occasions.
And remember those hundreds of thousands of people with their livestock fleeing Egypt? Didn't happen. See, a group that large would leave signs behind. They would throw away their trash, and their livestock would eat whatever was on the way, leaving a clear archeological signal behind. It is exactly this that we do not find. There was no Exodus.
Quote from: Munch on July 16, 2015, 09:03:55 AM
See that's the funny thing kingj, you can't physically hold water with your imagination, or your imaginary friend. You might tell yourself you see water being held by your imaginary friend, but most children grow out of that by time they reach school.
Imaginery friend? When all the evidence points to a Creator and a good one...? is on par with Santa Claus and the tooth fairy...Seriously? Jesus is on par with the tooth fairy? A little bit of doubt on history causes '''maximum'' assurance....seriously?
I don't believe you believe what you are saying :wink:. I believe you just like saying it.
Quote from: KingJ on July 16, 2015, 11:11:58 AM
I don't believe you believe what you are saying :wink:. I believe you just like saying it.
Why not both?
Quote from: KingJ on July 16, 2015, 11:11:58 AM
Imaginery friend? When all the evidence points to a Creator and a good one...? is on par with Santa Claus and the tooth fairy...Seriously? Jesus is on par with the tooth fairy? A little bit of doubt on history causes '''maximum'' assurance....seriously?
I don't believe you believe what you are saying :wink:. I believe you just like saying it.
Maybe not on par with the Tooth Fairy. More like my imaginary best buddy, Sauron. The both of them, however, are equally imaginary. And just as juvenile.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 16, 2015, 10:46:09 AM
KingJ, the magic man. Talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. Come one, come all! This is a great side show!
You made an assertion, and when called on it, you claimed you never believed that. Good job!
Really? I don't care which way you interpret it as either way its a red herring. What is interesting is the eagerness to jump on something so silly.
I will be praying for you :wink:.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 16, 2015, 11:10:50 AM
Your contention that the God of the Bible wasn't evil? Bullshit. See, when I was younger, it always puzzled me why Pharaoh was refusing the Israelites go even after all this horrific stuff was happening to them. Upon a more careful reading of the Bible, I found out why:
Starting from Exodus 7:
1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. 2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land. 3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. 4 But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments. 5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.
So here, we get an immidate answer of why Pharaoh was being pig-headed about keeping the Israelites as slaves: Yahuwahu was making him stubborn, just so that he could show off his power.
And it continues:
13 And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
22 And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said.
8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
Now, so far the plauges haven't been that bad, so it might be understandable why Pharaoh hasn't let the Israelites go yet. Yet there is the "hardened his heart" phrase showing up again and again, a phrasology which Yahuwahu uses explicitly, indicating that he is the culprit.
32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.
Then Yahuwahu starts with the livestock. This is now getting serious, because livestock represents one of the major assets of the ordinary farmer.
9:7 And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.
Pharaoh's heart was hardened again. Wonder who did that?
11 And the magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils; for the boil was upon the magicians, and upon all the Egyptians. 12 And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had spoken unto Moses.
Now we're getting more explicit that it was Yahuwahu who was hardening Pharaoh's heart. That is, Yahuwahu who was manipulating Pharaoh's emotions and thoughts, prodding him to do something he wouldn't normally do under the circumstances.
In short, he is violating Pharaoh's free will.
It becomes even more stark the next chapter, Exodus 10:
1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him: 2 And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the Lord.
So Yahuwahu fully cops to doing this thing to Pharaoh, and repeats why he did it. It's to demonstrate his power. Now, you have to know something about the Pharaoh of Egypt â€" the Pharaoh was considered a living god. Yahuwahu is showing Pharaoh that he has the bigger divine dick.
16 Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said, I have sinned against the Lord your God, and against you. 17 Now therefore forgive, I pray thee, my sin only this once, and intreat the Lord your God, that he may take away from me this death only. 18 And he went out from Pharaoh, and intreated the Lord. 19 And the Lord turned a mighty strong west wind, which took away the locusts, and cast them into the Red sea; there remained not one locust in all the coasts of Egypt. 20 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.
So here Pharaoh was, pleading for mercy from the plague of locusts. This was a plea that was not caused by Yahuwahu's meddling, but Pharaoh's true heart. He'd clearly had enough by this point. But when Yahuwahu sends the locusts away, what did he do? Hardened Pharaoh's heart again. Fuckssake, Exodus itself was portraying Pharaoh to be at his wits end and was going to let the Israelites go just to get them out of his beeswax-greased hair â€"which was what Yahuwahu and Moses wantedâ€" yet Yahuwahu, the jerk, forced him back into the game that he didn't want to play. What an asshole!
And it continues:
27 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go.
Exodus 11, the plauge of the firstborn, the divine faggotry continues:
9 And the Lord said unto Moses, Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you; that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt. 10 And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.
Again, more divine dick-wagging. Again, Yahuwahu tramples Pharaoh's free will just so that he could show off once more.
12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.
Read that again, "ALL OF THE FIRSTBORN" in the land of Egypt. Beasts as well as people. (Whatever did the beasts do to the Israelites?) You are fucking insane if you think this would amount to ten people. You are also fucking insane if you think that all (or even most) of these firstborn had anything to do with the slavery of the Israelites. Indeed this is underlined later in the section:
30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.
"There was not a house where there was not one dead." This is not ten people. This is hundreds of thousands. The population of Egypt at the time was a cool million. Most of those would never have seen an Israelite slave, let alone own one.
31 And he called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve the Lord, as ye have said. 32 Also take your flocks and your herds, as ye have said, and be gone; and bless me also. 33 And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said, We be all dead men.
Okay, now we're on the right track. Pharaoh finally is free to tell the Israelites to get the fuck out of Egypt and take their god with them. Like he was ready to do since Exodus 10:16 before Yahuwahu was a dick to him.
Now, how many finaly made it out of Egypt?
Exodus 12:37 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. 38 And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.
Hundreds of thousands of people, and their livestock. Remember that. It'll be important later.
Ah, but we're not done with Pharaoh yet. In Exodus 14, he does something really really strange given the previous few sections:
5 And it was told the king of Egypt that the people fled: and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people, and they said, Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?
Are ye daft, Pharaoh?!! Did you not remember how their god hardened your heart and made you keep them against your own will just so that Yahuwahu could show how badass he is and how ineffectual you are as a "living god"? What possessed you to do this?
6 And he made ready his chariot, and took his people with him: 7 And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them. 8 And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand.
Oh, of course. You were, in fact, possessed. Possessed by the jerk-ass god Yahuwahu.
To sum up, yes, the God of the Bible is evil to the core. Exodus is a book where Yahuwahu absolutely revels in his ass-kicking power, such that he has to set up Pharaoh and the entirety of Egypt as his punching bag. This is an evil act by any sane standard of morality.
It also blows away any excuse that God doesn't want to violate our free will. He was perfectly willing to do so for the Pharaoh of Egypt, on multiple occasions.
And remember those hundreds of thousands of people with their livestock fleeing Egypt? Didn't happen. See, a group that large would leave signs behind. They would throw away their trash, and their livestock would eat whatever was on the way, leaving a clear archeological signal behind. It is exactly this that we do not find. There was no Exodus.
1. What do you think happens when you are about to go to hell / die? Do you think God is softening your heart? When someones sin is full measure, God stops working on them. God is working on everyone's heart Rev 3:20. He has done this OT and NT. When you die, all hope is gone. Look at Sodom, their sin was full measure and death was inevitable. God hardened is simply Him not softening / working on the heart. Ie God has given up trying to get through to the guy. So God gave him completely over to his desires / hardened his heart. God just didnt give him over to the devil because He wanted to use him.
Now God uses the evil if He must / can. Yes God did use Pharoah to make an example. Every nation the Jews would now approach would NOT doubt that God of the universe was with them. God uses many evil people. He does not make them evil. Big difference.
Now the real confusion comes in when we read Rom 9. God of the universe can do anything and who are we to question Him. Calvinists would hence agree with you. But sadly for them (and you) the rest of the bible tells us what in fact God does decide to do with His power. John 3:16 alone debunks Calvinism and your take. Acts 10:34 says clearly that God is no respecter of persons. If God really did wrong Pharoah, he would be crying blue murder when in hell and rightly so. All the humans and the angels in heaven would raise this with God. God of the universe says in His word that we will not see through a glass darkly in heaven. Meaning we will better grasp all things. Meaning if we currently grasp partiality is evil, how much more then? We will help Pharoah out of hell if he was wronged....that desire for righteousness comes from God...so to assume God would not be the first to help him out of hell is 100% hilarious.
I am truly amazed that you single this out and ignore the many other scriptures that point to God being in favor of impartiality!!!! Mind boggling how someone can profess to know the bible well and yet judge God of the bible so terribly.
2. What archeological evidence you want to find? They were in a desert. Quite hard to dig up fossils in a desert wouldn't you agree?
Quote from: KingJ on July 16, 2015, 07:08:17 AM
1. This has to be the dumbest question on God I have ever heard. It is like saying you have to understand how God came into existence to know He is there... Seriously?
Moving goalposts.
Is. God. Knowable? Simple yes/no answer, yet you fail even at that.
Quote from: KingJ on July 16, 2015, 07:08:17 AM2. You....can grasp it. You have free will right now. Contradictory? Lol. What is amazing is that you continue mud slinging God for your own assumptions. ''I can't grasp how God is good and omniscient at the same time...becuase I can't, God is evil''. ''God is evil because there is evil''. Highly intelligent reasoning! :wall:
What?
Even if I believed in a god, and that's mighty big if, I wouldn't grovel to something that did such a big fuckup of everything.
You plainly see the contradictions yourself, but you, in your double-think state, fail to acknowledge them.
Quote from: KingJ on July 16, 2015, 07:08:17 AM3. He considers our requests, yes. But you are hradly trying to see the full picture. God is in ultimate control of who goes to hell and who doesn't. When we are in heaven we can judge Him. If He sent anyone to hell that hated what is evil, we have a bone to pick with Him. The evidence points to Him having nothing to hide as He increases our intelligence in heaven per scripture.
(emphasis mine)And you see nothing wrong with this? Either you're a loki-troll, pretending to believe when you're not, or you can't account for evil acts stemming from the source.
Quote from: KingJ on July 16, 2015, 07:08:17 AM4. I hope you don't honestly believe your arguments against God of the bible hold water.
You seem to have the faulty idea that I think that god exists in order to disprove it. I'm just working with your obtuse and contradictory logic.
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 16, 2015, 12:19:27 PM
Moving goalposts.
1. Is. God. Knowable? Simple yes/no answer, yet you fail even at that.
What?
2. Even if I believed in a god, and that's mighty big if, I wouldn't grovel to something that did such a big fuckup of everything.
3. You plainly see the contradictions yourself, but you, in your double-think state, fail to acknowledge them.
(emphasis mine)
And you see nothing wrong with this? Either you're a loki-troll, pretending to believe when you're not, or you can't account for evil acts stemming from the source.
You seem to have the faulty idea that I think that god exists in order to disprove it. I'm just working with your obtuse and contradictory logic.
1. Yes. All of God, no. Our brain is a limiting factor. Hardly rocket science disernment.
2. Really? You and I would not come close to inventing anything that He has created. We can only imagine better because we have God given brains to do so and what does exist to work with...
3. Omniscience + good is hard to grasp. I ask God daily why my kid is suffering with a head condition. Why my job is crappy. But whatever happens to us < what has already been done for us.
If I took a bullet for you. You would tolerate my crap for the rest of your life would you not? You / we must also try understand that this ''crap'' life lasts for only 70 years. God only has 70 years to determine if you love Him > hating Him. Ie Love what is evil > hating it Rom 12:9.
[quote author=KingJ link=topic=7729.msg1082718#msg1082718 date=1436860927
But anyways, on Isaiah 45:7. The word evil there is not '''God made you torture your pet'' rather it is ''God brings calamity''.Bullshit bullshit bullshit.
[/quote]
And this is why you should just go away.
You are a slippery little shit and we do not want you here.
Go away.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 16, 2015, 11:10:50 AM
Your contention that the God of the Bible wasn't evil? Bullshit. See, when I was younger, it always puzzled me why Pharaoh was refusing the Israelites go even after all this horrific stuff was happening to them. Upon a more careful reading of the Bible, I found out why:
Starting from Exodus 7:
1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. 2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land. 3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. 4 But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments. 5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.
So here, we get an immidate answer of why Pharaoh was being pig-headed about keeping the Israelites as slaves: Yahuwahu was making him stubborn, just so that he could show off his power.
And it continues:
13 And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
22 And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said.
8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
Now, so far the plauges haven't been that bad, so it might be understandable why Pharaoh hasn't let the Israelites go yet. Yet there is the "hardened his heart" phrase showing up again and again, a phrasology which Yahuwahu uses explicitly, indicating that he is the culprit.
32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.
Then Yahuwahu starts with the livestock. This is now getting serious, because livestock represents one of the major assets of the ordinary farmer.
9:7 And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.
Pharaoh's heart was hardened again. Wonder who did that?
11 And the magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils; for the boil was upon the magicians, and upon all the Egyptians. 12 And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had spoken unto Moses.
Now we're getting more explicit that it was Yahuwahu who was hardening Pharaoh's heart. That is, Yahuwahu who was manipulating Pharaoh's emotions and thoughts, prodding him to do something he wouldn't normally do under the circumstances.
In short, he is violating Pharaoh's free will.
It becomes even more stark the next chapter, Exodus 10:
1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him: 2 And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the Lord.
So Yahuwahu fully cops to doing this thing to Pharaoh, and repeats why he did it. It's to demonstrate his power. Now, you have to know something about the Pharaoh of Egypt â€" the Pharaoh was considered a living god. Yahuwahu is showing Pharaoh that he has the bigger divine dick.
16 Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said, I have sinned against the Lord your God, and against you. 17 Now therefore forgive, I pray thee, my sin only this once, and intreat the Lord your God, that he may take away from me this death only. 18 And he went out from Pharaoh, and intreated the Lord. 19 And the Lord turned a mighty strong west wind, which took away the locusts, and cast them into the Red sea; there remained not one locust in all the coasts of Egypt. 20 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.
So here Pharaoh was, pleading for mercy from the plague of locusts. This was a plea that was not caused by Yahuwahu's meddling, but Pharaoh's true heart. He'd clearly had enough by this point. But when Yahuwahu sends the locusts away, what did he do? Hardened Pharaoh's heart again. Fuckssake, Exodus itself was portraying Pharaoh to be at his wits end and was going to let the Israelites go just to get them out of his beeswax-greased hair â€"which was what Yahuwahu and Moses wantedâ€" yet Yahuwahu, the jerk, forced him back into the game that he didn't want to play. What an asshole!
And it continues:
27 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go.
Exodus 11, the plauge of the firstborn, the divine faggotry continues:
9 And the Lord said unto Moses, Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you; that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt. 10 And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.
Again, more divine dick-wagging. Again, Yahuwahu tramples Pharaoh's free will just so that he could show off once more.
12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.
Read that again, "ALL OF THE FIRSTBORN" in the land of Egypt. Beasts as well as people. (Whatever did the beasts do to the Israelites?) You are fucking insane if you think this would amount to ten people. You are also fucking insane if you think that all (or even most) of these firstborn had anything to do with the slavery of the Israelites. Indeed this is underlined later in the section:
30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.
"There was not a house where there was not one dead." This is not ten people. This is hundreds of thousands. The population of Egypt at the time was a cool million. Most of those would never have seen an Israelite slave, let alone own one.
31 And he called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve the Lord, as ye have said. 32 Also take your flocks and your herds, as ye have said, and be gone; and bless me also. 33 And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said, We be all dead men.
Okay, now we're on the right track. Pharaoh finally is free to tell the Israelites to get the fuck out of Egypt and take their god with them. Like he was ready to do since Exodus 10:16 before Yahuwahu was a dick to him.
Now, how many finaly made it out of Egypt?
Exodus 12:37 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. 38 And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.
Hundreds of thousands of people, and their livestock. Remember that. It'll be important later.
Ah, but we're not done with Pharaoh yet. In Exodus 14, he does something really really strange given the previous few sections:
5 And it was told the king of Egypt that the people fled: and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people, and they said, Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?
Are ye daft, Pharaoh?!! Did you not remember how their god hardened your heart and made you keep them against your own will just so that Yahuwahu could show how badass he is and how ineffectual you are as a "living god"? What possessed you to do this?
6 And he made ready his chariot, and took his people with him: 7 And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them. 8 And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand.
Oh, of course. You were, in fact, possessed. Possessed by the jerk-ass god Yahuwahu.
To sum up, yes, the God of the Bible is evil to the core. Exodus is a book where Yahuwahu absolutely revels in his ass-kicking power, such that he has to set up Pharaoh and the entirety of Egypt as his punching bag. This is an evil act by any sane standard of morality.
It also blows away any excuse that God doesn't want to violate our free will. He was perfectly willing to do so for the Pharaoh of Egypt, on multiple occasions.
And remember those hundreds of thousands of people with their livestock fleeing Egypt? Didn't happen. See, a group that large would leave signs behind. They would throw away their trash, and their livestock would eat whatever was on the way, leaving a clear archeological signal behind. It is exactly this that we do not find. There was no Exodus.
Excellent! And there was no Moses. Just as there is no Jesus. And no god.
Quote from: KingJ on July 16, 2015, 11:28:14 AM
Really? I don't care which way you interpret it as either way its a red herring. What is interesting is the eagerness to jump on something so silly.
I will be praying for you :wink:.
Oh, goody, goody!
Quote from: KingJ on July 14, 2015, 04:16:36 AM
We are in a realm limited by the laws of physics. The only plausible explanation is that we have a creator not limited by this as in our realm 0 + 0 does not = 1.
Suggesting anything else (aliens, astronaut, primordial sludge) is simply moving the goal posts and denying reality / wasting time.
I still don't know what you mean. What are we beyond our physical selves? And more importantly, how do you know?
Quote from: KingJ on July 16, 2015, 11:57:11 AM
1. What do you think happens when you are about to go to hell / die? Do you think God is softening your heart? When someones sin is full measure, God stops working on them. God is working on everyone's heart Rev 3:20. He has done this OT and NT. When you die, all hope is gone. Look at Sodom, their sin was full measure and death was inevitable. God hardened is simply Him not softening / working on the heart. Ie God has given up trying to get through to the guy. So God gave him completely over to his desires / hardened his heart. God just didnt give him over to the devil because He wanted to use him.
Under no version of the English language does "hardening" mean "not softening." Your spew otherwise is just your worthless spin-doctoring to try to dodge around the implications of what is written in plain English: Yahuwahu was directly meddling with the will of a living human to get him to do what he would normally not.
Furthermore, if anything, what you describe casts your god in an even WORSE light. It's basically a tacit admission that not one person would come to Yahuwahu
unless he meddled with their hearts. Sorry, chum, but you've just admitted that everyone who accepted Yahuwahu's word had done so by way of the worst psychological manipulation.
Quote from: KingJ on July 16, 2015, 11:57:11 AM
Now God uses the evil if He must / can. Yes God did use Pharoah to make an example.
But it wasn't just the Pharaoh who suffered Yahuwahu's wrath, was it? It was the entire nation of Egypt. Remember, not a single family of Egyptians escape without losing someone, and that's not even counting the damage caused by the previous nine plagues. These are victims who were
blameless in the slavery of the Israelites.
Quote from: KingJ on July 16, 2015, 11:57:11 AM
Now the real confusion comes in when we read Rom 9. God of the universe can do anything and who are we to question Him. Calvinists would hence agree with you. But sadly for them (and you) the rest of the bible tells us what in fact God does decide to do with His power. John 3:16 alone debunks Calvinism and your take. Acts 10:34 says clearly that God is no respecter of persons. If God really did wrong Pharoah, he would be crying blue murder when in hell and rightly so. All the humans and the angels in heaven would raise this with God. God of the universe says in His word that we will not see through a glass darkly in heaven. Meaning we will better grasp all things. Meaning if we currently grasp partiality is evil, how much more then? We will help Pharoah out of hell if he was wronged....that desire for righteousness comes from God...so to assume God would not be the first to help him out of hell is 100% hilarious.
This is merely a post-hoc rationalization of you and other christians trying to make moral sense of a scenario where Yahuwahu is clearly acting immorally by any modern standard.
Back in the day Exodus was written, the Hebrew writers thought
nothing of Yahuwahu's treatment of Pharaoh, because Pharaoh was not one of Yahuwahu's charges and as such didn't owe him a fucking thing. After all, Pharaoh had his own pantheon of gods he could draw upon to help him, and was a living god himself according to the Egyptians (a fact that any culture that had spent any time in Egypt would have been clued in on) â€" the fact that Pharaoh and his gods couldn't stand up to Yahuwahu was neither Yahuwahu's fault, nor his concern. This is what allowed them to square away how manipulating Pharaoh's heart was righteous â€" in their eyes, it
was righteous on its face. But morality evolved since then and now such behavior looks exactly like what it is: bronze-age barbarism. So you guys have to wring your hands and make excuses for your god.
What you admit with your references to Rom 9 and Acts 10:34 is that Yahuwahu follows a "Might Makes Right" approach to morality. No, we've progressed beyond that point. An evil act is an evil act no matter who causes it and how powerful he is.
Furthermore, how would you know that Pharaoh isn't crying blue murder in hell? Have you visited it lately? And why would angels created by Yahuwahu to serve him question him about any of his acts? Why would an immoral god not surround himself with sycophants, and as such shield him from any human in heaven who would question his morality? And how would you know that we "would not see through a glass darkly in heaven"? Have you visited that place recently? What if in heavevn I would find his actions just as disgusting,
if not more?But of course I wouldn't be there because I'm not a bootlicking toady.
It's hillarious how you are blinded to a situation where anywhere else would be a clear con game. No information coming from people who previously taken the offer? No recourse if what I find out that what I had taken up was a raw deal? Promise of an infinite reward of candy and funness at the right hand of your best buddies Jesus and God, we promise, cross our hearts and hope to die stick a needle in our eyes? If this were any other scenario, you would be running away screaming.
Quote from: KingJ on July 16, 2015, 11:57:11 AM
I am truly amazed that you single this out and ignore the many other scriptures that point to God being in favor of impartiality!!!!
If you think Yahuwahu's "Might Makes Right" attitude is an example of 'impartiality,' then you are truly delusional.
Quote from: KingJ on July 16, 2015, 11:57:11 AM
Mind boggling how someone can profess to know the bible well and yet judge God of the bible so terribly.
Shove that condecending attitude up your ass. Real biblical schollars see the bible as it actually is: an anthology of bronze-age myths with a clear pedigree of additions and revisions.
Quote from: KingJ on July 16, 2015, 11:57:11 AM
2. What archeological evidence you want to find? They were in a desert. Quite hard to dig up fossils in a desert wouldn't you agree?
No. For one thing they would be visiting oases along the way to Judea, which provides obvious spots to look. Furthermore, we know of some of the waypoints where the Israelites supposedly gathered and made camp. Hundreds of thousands of people and their livestock making camp in one spot is
going to leave a mark visible millennia later, even in a desert, because the desert is very very good at preserving things. That's one of the reasons why we know so bloody much about Egypt in the first place â€" because the civilization had made it's home on the fertile banks of the Nile, in the middle of a huge fuck-off desert. Hell, we've found stuff that the Egyptians were TRYING to hide in the desert.
Furthermore, if so many Israelites left Egypt, why is it that Egypt, one of the most impressive bureaucracies of the ancient world, never made note of it? Because the sudden removal of the best part of a million people from your economy (because even if they were slaves, the Israelites would still have to be fed and sheltered) is going to disrupt it and cause it to reorganize. But *pfft* nuthin'. Same with the plagues.
14 pages…let me know when you've had enough of this moron.
Quote from: aitm on July 16, 2015, 05:29:31 PM
14 pages…let me know when you've had enough of this moron.
I'm interested to see how he answers my questions as we keep going with the line of discussion about us being more than just physical.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 16, 2015, 04:09:47 PM
Furthermore, if so many Israelites left Egypt, why is it that Egypt, one of the most impressive bureaucracies of the ancient world, never made note of it? Because the sudden removal of the best part of a million people from your economy (because even if they were slaves, the Israelites would still have to be fed and sheltered) is going to disrupt it and cause it to reorganize. But *pfft* nuthin'. Same with the plagues.
It has always amazed me that so many christians today believe in the OT fairy tales and legends. One can start from the very beginning of Genesis and the Adam and Eve stories--they think this is history. Amazing! A main fox news man suggested that the remains of Noah's Ark was found after 2,000 years of searching. Sodom, Gomorrah, Lot, Moses, and on and on........all history. And they expect that everybody should accept this crap at face value and as they say it happened. What can one term it other than they are insane.
Quote from: aitm on July 16, 2015, 05:29:31 PM
14 pages…let me know when you've had enough of this moron.
I was kinda surprised it hadn't happened already, but that's why it's your call and not mine. I'd've flushed that toilet pages ago.
It isn't bad to have an "inner child" ... the trick is in toilet training him/her ;-)
"Is. God. Knowable?" ... for me the answer is yes. "Is. God. Understandable?" ... for me the answer is no. I find the "human" aspect of G-d troubling, and the "inhuman" aspect of G-d to be ... monstrous. Think of Rabbi Cthulhu ... basically as G-d is described at the end of the Book of Job.
For most of the rest of you, your epistemological choices preclude "knowing a god" by definition. With Rabbi Cthulhu ... he promises to eat the Jews last (we are the desert).
Quote from: the_antithesis on July 16, 2015, 12:44:40 PM
[quote author=KingJ link=topic=7729.msg1082718#msg1082718 date=1436860927
But anyways, on Isaiah 45:7. The word evil there is not '''God made you torture your pet'' rather it is ''God brings calamity''.Bullshit bullshit bullshit.
And this is why you should just go away.
You are a slippery little shit and we do not want you here.
Go away.
Original Greek, Hebrew and simple hermeneutics agree with me.
I must go because I want to scrutinize the bible ''properly'' / give God of the bible a ''fair'' trial.
I don't think you would be impressed if someone purposely missinterpreted or did not even try to properly interpret something you wrote. Especially if it is something of importance.
Quote from: KingJ on July 17, 2015, 08:46:15 AM
Original Greek, Hebrew and simple hermeneutics agree with me.
I must go because I want to scrutinize the bible ''properly'' / give God of the bible a ''fair'' trial.
I don't think you would be impressed if someone purposely missinterpreted or did not even try to properly interpret something you wrote. Especially if it is something of importance.
Oh I quite agree! Paul Bunyan would be quite upset if we were to misinterpret the history of he and his Blue Ox. Yes, indeed!
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 16, 2015, 04:09:47 PM
1. Under no version of the English language does "hardening" mean "not softening." Your spew otherwise is just your worthless spin-doctoring to try to dodge around the implications of what is written in plain English: Yahuwahu was directly meddling with the will of a living human to get him to do what he would normally not.
2. Furthermore, if anything, what you describe casts your god in an even WORSE light. It's basically a tacit admission that not one person would come to Yahuwahu unless he meddled with their hearts. Sorry, chum, but you've just admitted that everyone who accepted Yahuwahu's word had done so by way of the worst psychological manipulation.
3. But it wasn't just the Pharaoh who suffered Yahuwahu's wrath, was it? It was the entire nation of Egypt. Remember, not a single family of Egyptians escape without losing someone, and that's not even counting the damage caused by the previous nine plagues. These are victims who were blameless in the slavery of the Israelites.
4. This is merely a post-hoc rationalization of you and other christians trying to make moral sense of a scenario where Yahuwahu is clearly acting immorally by any modern standard.
5. bronze-age barbarism. So you guys have to wring your hands and make excuses for your god.
6. What you admit with your references to Rom 9 and Acts 10:34 is that Yahuwahu follows a "Might Makes Right" approach to morality. No, we've progressed beyond that point. An evil act is an evil act no matter who causes it and how powerful he is.
7. Furthermore, how would you know that Pharaoh isn't crying blue murder in hell? Have you visited it lately? And why would angels created by Yahuwahu to serve him question him about any of his acts? Why would an immoral god not surround himself with sycophants, and as such shield him from any human in heaven who would question his morality? And how would you know that we "would not see through a glass darkly in heaven"? Have you visited that place recently? What if in heavevn I would find his actions just as disgusting, if not more?
8. But of course I wouldn't be there because I'm not a bootlicking toady.
9. If you think Yahuwahu's "Might Makes Right" attitude is an example of 'impartiality,' then you are truly delusional. Shove that condecending attitude up your ass. Real biblical schollars see the bible as it actually is: an anthology of bronze-age myths with a clear pedigree of additions and revisions.
10. No. For one thing they would be visiting oases along the way to Judea, which provides obvious spots to look. Furthermore, we know of some of the waypoints where the Israelites supposedly gathered and made camp. Hundreds of thousands of people and their livestock making camp in one spot is going to leave a mark visible millennia later, even in a desert, because the desert is very very good at preserving things. That's one of the reasons why we know so bloody much about Egypt in the first place â€" because the civilization had made it's home on the fertile banks of the Nile, in the middle of a huge fuck-off desert. Hell, we've found stuff that the Egyptians were TRYING to hide in the desert.
11. Furthermore, if so many Israelites left Egypt, why is it that Egypt, one of the most impressive bureaucracies of the ancient world, never made note of it? Because the sudden removal of the best part of a million people from your economy (because even if they were slaves, the Israelites would still have to be fed and sheltered) is going to disrupt it and cause it to reorganize. But *pfft* nuthin'. Same with the plagues.
1. If you are spending time with your kids you are developing a closer relationship with them. If you are not, you are making their hearts grow cold toward you. You would only have an argument if there was evidence of Pharoah being a God fearing / good man. Though the evidence is against you as cruel slave owners are generally not good people.
2. Huh? He is trying to reach
all of us. Re-read the verse I quoted.
3. Blameless? I have already discussed this. They were not blameless. We also know from many OT examples that those who side with God escape His wrath. But you know this don't you...
4.Acting immorally? It is immoral to want to punish mortal sinners? It is immoral to warn them over and over before you punish them? What you smoking?
5. ''Might makes right''' You got that from what I wrote? Did you miss me saying ''the rest of the bible shows us what in fact God decides to do with His power?...John 3:16 for starters''? Just because God can be cruel does not mean He is cruel. CAN and IS are different words.
6. Agreed. That is why it is impressive to grasp that God has nothing to hide. He invites our judgment by making us smarter in heaven. Heck even now with our God given brains. Not sure someone can always be SO biased when using their God given brain. You ''''''really'''''' believe God did not expect you to use your brain to judge Him / could not see your judgment coming / stated that He is good whilst knowing the brain he gave us would judge Him as evil....please think on this more.
7. We are judging God of the bible
with the bible. The bible says we will not see through a glass darkly. The fact that angels are good and Christians / His people are supposed to be the type that lay their life down for you should tell you all you need to know about God...as you were alluding to.
8. That has nothing to do with it. Think more on these scriptures Rom 12:9, James 1:27.
9. Real scholars would not make such terrible reading blunders or ignore history and current reality just because a little doubt is cast.
10. I disagree. If they set up
camp there will be no evidence today. Albeit 600 000 + people. They left in 1446bc. 3500 years of history on the same spots can never be traced to them. Unless they built up a town, which we know they didn't.
11.Well it is always interesting how one nation records history differently to another. Must I really explain why they would do such?
Quote from: Drummer Guy on July 16, 2015, 06:17:22 PM
I'm interested to see how he answers my questions as we keep going with the line of discussion about us being more than just physical.
We are not having a discussion. I am stating a fact and you are playing dumb.
Can you make a dead baby come to life. Yes :liar: or No :hang:
:axe:
Quote from: aitm on July 16, 2015, 05:29:31 PM
14 pages…let me know when you've had enough of this moron.
Moron?
I am on two Christian forums for years now and I have seen many atheists come and go. We would never call you guys morons. We would only give warnings when you curse and pass insults. Any Christian that would pass an insult or be rude
gets a warning.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 16, 2015, 01:15:29 PM
Excellent! And there was no Moses. Just as there is no Jesus. And no god.
Mike just wondering. You know that I am not here to convince you that Jesus exists? I am not even here to convince you that God exists. Simply that we need to all hate what is evil and love what is good Rom 12:9. Judge ourselves hasrshly on this 1 Cor 11:31 and then it becomes God's oness to reveal Himself to us.
The only difference between you and I is that I believe God has done that with me with Jesus.
Quote from: KingJ on July 17, 2015, 10:16:35 AM
I am not even here to convince you that God exists. Simply that we need to all hate what is evil and love what is good Rom 12:9. Judge ourselves hasrshly on this 1 Cor 11:31 and then it becomes God's oness to reveal Himself to us.
Its like.. you took the concept of contradiction, and imploded with it.
Quote from: Munch on July 17, 2015, 10:41:55 AM
Its like.. you took the concept of contradiction, and imploded with it.
Well not if you have done the first part and not had an encounter. My point is that the first part is the important thing.
1 Cor 11:31 reads easily: ''But if we judged ourselves
truly, we would not be judged''.
This we can all do. This is common ground for atheists, Christians, Muslims and all.
Quote from: KingJ on July 17, 2015, 10:16:35 AM
Mike just wondering. You know that I am not here to convince you that Jesus exists? I am not even here to convince you that God exists. Simply that we need to all hate what is evil and love what is good
OK great, then we can all agree that homophobia, and the denial of people's rights based simply on their sexuality is an evil we can all hate ?
Quote from: KingJ on July 17, 2015, 10:16:35 AM
Mike just wondering. You know that I am not here to convince you that Jesus exists? I am not even here to convince you that God exists. Simply that we need to all hate what is evil and love what is good Rom 12:9. Judge ourselves hasrshly on this 1 Cor 11:31 and then it becomes God's oness to reveal Himself to us.
The only difference between you and I is that I believe God has done that with me with Jesus.
No, KingJ, that is not the only difference between us. You repeatedly demonstrate that you promote evil. And you do so willfully blind and ignorant. I think you would treat your children and pets with care and kindness--but I'm not convinced of that. The same for your wife and others you profess to love. I don't see you brand of belief kind, considerate, loving or beneficial to humankind. The world would be much better off with your brand of belief a relic of the past. The faster that happens the better off we, as a whole, will be.
Quote from: KingJ on July 17, 2015, 09:41:19 AM
We are not having a discussion. I am stating a fact and you are playing dumb.
Can you make a dead baby come to life. Yes :liar: or No :hang:
:axe:
Can you please outline your actual argument? How do you know that we are more than just our physical selves?
My own ability to make a dead baby come to life seems irrelevant, given the fact that you have not presented an actual argument that could give it relevance.
The ball's in your court. You're the one making the claim.
I suppose I could claim that Santa exists, and then when you ask me how I know I could say "well can you deliver gifts to all the kids in the world in one night?" It would be just as illogical as what you're doing.
Quote from: KingJ on July 17, 2015, 09:33:43 AM
1. If you are spending time with your kids you are developing a closer relationship with them. If you are not, you are making their hearts grow cold toward you.
This is catagorically
not what is happening in Exodus. Let me repeat the relevant passage, the first fucking passage that I quoted into Exodus:
1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. 2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land. 3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. 4 But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments. 5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.Yahuwahu
explicitly says that
he would harden Pharaoh's heart, not that Pharaoh's heart would already be hard to Moses' words.
We see from subsequent passages that this isn't just Pharaoh's Yahuwahu abandonment issues. Yahuwahu has to
repeatedly harden Pharaoh's heart.
Explicitly in the final run. The kind of issues you are trying to alude to takes place over
years. Are you really saying that this plague drama took place over the course of years? And then there's the fact that Pharaoh was on an emotional rollercoaster, because this was a repeated hardening of his heart, not his heart became hard and it stayed hard for the duration, as would happen in a heart growing cold as you described.
But again, why would Pharaoh have divine abandonment issues? We know a lot about the religion of the Egyptians. They had their own pantheon, creation myths, beliefs and rituals. Pharaoh didn't need Yahuwahu; he had his own gods.
Quote from: KingJ on July 17, 2015, 09:33:43 AM
You would only have an argument if there was evidence of Pharoah being a God fearing / good man.
Those two terms are not synonymous.
Quote from: KingJ on July 17, 2015, 09:33:43 AM
Though the evidence is against you as cruel slave owners are generally not good people.
There is no evidence that the Israelites were
ever held as slaves by Egyptians in the first place. Remember, it's a big freaking bureaucracy. The onslaught of a bunch of plagues in a row of varying types, followed by the up and disappearance of half a million inhabitants and their livestock and the needed supplies would have been fucking noticed. The same way that the Chinese would have noticed a worldwide flood.
Quote from: KingJ on July 17, 2015, 09:33:43 AM
2. Huh? He is trying to reach all of us. Re-read the verse I quoted.
Re-read the verses
I quoted, where Yahuwahu was
explicitly hardening Pharaoh's heart, and stated that he was doing so from the very beginning? How in the world does that equal 'he's trying to reach
all of us'? No, I don't think I'm misreading those passages.
You are trying to apologize for their clear evidence of the immorality of your god â€" pretty piss poorly, too, but I repeat myself.
So let me ask you this: why was it that, when Pharaoh promised to let the Israelites go, did Yahuwahu not then go, "You did it! You made the right choice!" and then let Pharaoh make good on that promise, and then return to try to "reach" him after his first step on the road of rehabilitation? Why did Yahuwahu instead harden Pharaoh heart so that he would renege on his promise, just so that Yahuwahu could beat him down more? Why was it that when Pharaoh finally got to get to see the backs of the Israelites after going through all that suffering, that Yahuwahu then hardened his heart
again to make him go after the Israelites.
This does not sound like a god that wants to reach Pharaoh. This sounds like a god that is playing with Pharaoh to demonstrate his power to his homes, the Israelites.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, the proper conclusion is that
it's a fucking duck.Quote from: KingJ on July 17, 2015, 09:33:43 AM
3. Blameless? I have already discussed this. They were not blameless. We also know from many OT examples that those who side with God escape His wrath. But you know this don't you...
It is
absolutely ludicrous that the EVERY PERSON OF THE NATION OF EGYPT played a willing part in the enslavement of the Israelites, or benefited from the same. Most people in Egypt would be poor farmers who couldn't afford a single slave. The people who would own slaves would be the upper crust, who are much much less numerous than the pesants below. Also, do you think that small children who don't know any better or the little babies just born only to die in the last plague caused harm to a single Israelite, you psycho? Yet these babies and children died. They are, by any reasonable definition of the word,
blameless.Quote from: KingJ on July 17, 2015, 09:33:43 AM
4.Acting immorally? It is immoral to want to punish mortal sinners? It is immoral to warn them over and over before you punish them? What you smoking?
It is immoral to punish
innocent people while you are punishing those 'sinners', you psycho. It is immoral to manipulate the wills of even sinners to make it
impossible to accept any warning you give them. In that case, you are not "warning" them; you are
taunting them.
Quote from: KingJ on July 17, 2015, 09:33:43 AM
5. ''Might makes right''' You got that from what I wrote? Did you miss me saying ''the rest of the bible shows us what in fact God decides to do with His power?...John 3:16 for starters''? Just because God can be cruel does not mean He is cruel. CAN and IS are different words.
I know what I said. When his cruelty is directed towards innocents, knowingly and willfully, then yes, he IS cruel.
Quote from: KingJ on July 17, 2015, 09:33:43 AM
6. Agreed. That is why it is impressive to grasp that God has nothing to hide.
"Nothing to hide"?
<Searching for Hell>
<Hell not found>
<Searching for Heaven>
<Heaven not found>
<Searching for Yahuwahu/God>
<Yahuwahu/God not found>
He seems to be hiding rather a lot for someone who has "nothing to hide."
Quote from: KingJ on July 17, 2015, 09:33:43 AM
He invites our judgment by making us smarter in heaven. Heck even now with our God given brains. Not sure someone can always be SO biased when using their God given brain. You ''''''really'''''' believe God did not expect you to use your brain to judge Him / could not see your judgment coming / stated that He is good whilst knowing the brain he gave us would judge Him as evil....please think on this more.
The problem, my dear demented psycho, is that I
have thought about this, much deeper than
you have. There is no evidence for his existence equal to the claim of his existence. A supposedly all-powerful being could manifest in the next minute, perform some amazing act that is verifiable all around the world by the best scientific instruments. He could show us Pharaoh, suffering in hell, contrite and repentant. He could lift that "darkly glass" â€"nowâ€" and reveal to all of us why he's such a good chap, even if he has to lower it again to preserve our tiny little minds. It would not prove that he is everything he says,
but it would be a fucking start!The only thing you have is your worthless apologetic, trying to defend the undefendable acts of the Yahuwahu portrayed in the OT. The OT God was a vile creature, and Christianity would have done well to drop him altogether. Your attempts to try to spin my refusal to fold to your empty reasoning is not my problem. It's
yours.Quote from: KingJ on July 17, 2015, 09:33:43 AM
7. We are judging God of the bible with the bible. The bible says we will not see through a glass darkly. The fact that angels are good and Christians / His people are supposed to be the type that lay their life down for you should tell you all you need to know about God...as you were alluding to.
Of course Yahuwahu would pass by his
own standard, in a book that he (supposedly) wrote, no matter how evil he is in (hypothetical) fact.
Of course a deceptive god would try to convince you that his goodness is beyond your understanding. I am absolutely unconvinced by such self-serving propoganda. Most people here are similarly unconvinced, because we hold the bible to the same skepticism we hold any other book or work.
Quote from: KingJ on July 17, 2015, 09:33:43 AM
8. That has nothing to do with it. Think more on these scriptures Rom 12:9, James 1:27.
Cherrypicked and empty platitudes. Do Romans and James restore the innocent Egyptian lives tortured and killed during Exodus? And there
were innocent lives; the Egyptians were not a hive mind or the fucking Borg!
Quote from: KingJ on July 17, 2015, 09:33:43 AM
9. Real scholars would not make such terrible reading blunders or ignore history and current reality just because a little doubt is cast.
Ha ha ha!
Real schollars know that later passages don't negate the former passages.
Real schollars note that apparently Yahuwahu did the awful shit to Egypt and took away more people in one stroke than in all their wars... and
apparently never noticed and think that the book is telling a fib, even if it was the bible.
Real schollars would note that the bible does not square away with archeology, and think that the bible is telling a distorted story.
Of course, the people who are pumping you with bible info are not
real schollars.
Quote from: KingJ on July 17, 2015, 09:33:43 AM
10. I disagree. If they set up camp there will be no evidence today. Albeit 600 000 + people. They left in 1446bc. 3500 years of history on the same spots can never be traced to them. Unless they built up a town, which we know they didn't.
I don't care if YOU disagree.
You are not an archeologist.
You don't know what we're capable of finding by way of our modern instruments.
You don't know what ancient peoples on the move leave behind. We have found ancient, long abandoned silver mines in Israel. We've found
exactly the kind of encampments you deny we find in desert areas. We've found ancient trade routes through tracking ancient camel tracks.
And guess where
this thing was found?
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2519996/thumbs/o-KING-TUT-MASK-570.jpg?4)
That's right, hoss! It was in the middle of a fucking desert! Specifically, in the Valley of the Kings, where New Kingdom pharaohs were entombed in secret.
Quote from: KingJ on July 17, 2015, 09:33:43 AM
11.Well it is always interesting how one nation records history differently to another. Must I really explain why they would do such?
Would they really
not remind themselves to not fuck with the God of Israel? To organize themselves after major disasters? Where are all the orders to send relief food to the various provinces? Where is all the chatter that livestock had been felled by a mysterious agent? Where were all the reports of the movement of the Israelites through Egyptian territory? Where are all the orders from Pharaoh to the various commanders and provinces to free their Israelite slaves and instruct them to go to Moses? What happened to the millitary orders to congregate to chase after the Israelites after Pharaoh's mind was changed for him?
Furthermore, where are all the foreign dignitaries during this debacle and who also would have bore witness/been hit by the plagues? (Yes, they existed. We have their diplomatic reports. And more innocent victims of Yahuwahu's temper tantrums.)
There have been about
seven major bronze age empires in the ancient world in the Mediterainean and middle east regions
alone. All ancient bureaucracies operated much like ours: you can't make a move in them without generating mountains of paperwork. If
anything like what is described in the bible happened, there would have been vast piles of papyrus scribbled upon all over the Egyptian empire referencing it. Where is even
one surviving document out of all this paperwork that surely would have been generated by Yahuwahu's actions if the bible was
at all accurate?
I say again: *pfft* NUTHIN'!
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, chances are, it's a duck. Your bible looks like mythology from any angle examined.
Mythology is mythical ... but history is political. History has always been state supported propaganda ... it isn't so much a search for facts for their own sake, but the finding, selecting and distorting of facts in support of a political agenda. Take any historical event, look at it from multiple perspectives, and you see less and less truth. It is mistaken or lying to call myth ... history. But it is equally tendentious to call history factual ... best to just call it propaganda. Not that there aren't facts ... but that all the juicy parts, the meaning of history that is the pattern woven by the historian out of the current facts (which change all the time) ... that is the propaganda.
There were and still are Egyptians (Hamites). There were and still are Hebrews (Semites). Some of these Hebrews were later called Judeans (Jews). It is always fun for me to study history, but I can never actually go back and interview Pharaoh to get the real skinny. But as the propaganda changes over time ... that is interesting too ... like the relationship between Thera, Atlantis and the "story" of the Exodus.
Playing Devil's Advocate ... I remain unconvinced that people actually love good and hate bad (a more neutral term than "evil").
Quote from: Baruch on July 17, 2015, 11:34:17 PM
Playing Devil's Advocate ... I remain unconvinced that people actually love good and hate bad (a more neutral term than "evil").
I really like you take on history. I was introduced to that concept while in college. I hated high school history. And also the 'required' college history. But then, I had a class that introduced the idea that the victor of an event got to write the history. And I was hooked. The old adage--there are two sides to any story--is hogwash. There are multiple sides to any story and not all are equally factual.
My take on your quote above is that while all people (well, the vast majority) like 'good', not all can agree on what that is. It can a does change with each society and to some degree, with each individual. Good and bad are never written in stone. For me personally, time matters. Some of what I termed as 'bad' has become mostly good with the passing of time. And visa versa. Same with good. So, even for own personal life, those terms are relative. But 'evil' has remained mostly unchanged. For as long as I can remember, torturing an animal has been a hallmark of evil. It has not changed and I doubt it ever will. So, while evil remains constant for me, good and bad do not.
History is something that you only get better at over time/effort made. The young are closed minded, uninformed and naive. As you get involved, one can become more open minded, better informed and less naive. If anything, one is studying the history of propaganda. One starts to ask ... why did the author write this, and what was his agenda in doing so. This goes back to Pharaoh Rameses creating giant propaganda in stone about his "victory" over the Hittites. We can only wish we had more Hittite material to compare it to.
Quote from: KingJ on July 17, 2015, 08:46:15 AM
give God of the bible a ''fair'' trial.
God is not on trial.
There is no god here.
Just you.
You are completely alone.
And you are found wanting.
Go away.
Actually "give G-d of the Bible a "fair" trial" is Buddhist not Christian. The existential approach to religion is Buddhist ... the Buddha says, be diligent in working out your own salvation. That isn't how Christianity works ... originally the king or emperor decides to adopt a new religion and a new clergy ... and then presto-chango all his subjects are now Christians. That is what King Clovis of the Franks did.
Evangelical Christianity is mostly American pop psychology, with very little Christianity in it. But it is a funny notion:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Year-Living-Biblically-Literally/dp/0743291476/ref=cm_cr_pr_bdcrb_top?ie=UTF8
Of course the point of the exercise was to be Jewish ... not Gentile. The Christians never get that point!
A quick thing about morality and hell .... What would have happened if Hitler had embraced Jeeeeesus just before he shot himself? Would he go to Heaven? And would I be sent in the opposite direction just for rejecting mumbo-jumbo Christianity (as opposed to starting to world wars and killing everyone). And then there's eternal hell fire?!!!! What a concept! Eternal burning flesh for ever and ever? I wouldn't even do it to Hitler, because even that monster didn't actually ask to be born.
FUCK
OFF
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 14, 2015, 02:44:56 PM
Right. It's about submission. Doing what you're told.
Funny you should say this but someone just told me that Islam literally means "submission".
Don't worry ... I assume spending an eternity with Hitler will be hell indeed ;-( How many times will I have to hear ... "If only I had shot that fat idiot, Goering ... I could have won the big one!".
On a more personal note ... I find some eidetic dreams to be ... about reincarnation or other worldly. I met Napoleon at a wine and cheese party once, 200 years ago ... and we made very short chit-chat in French, when I didn't know any French at the time. I studied French for three years afterward ... so if I meet him again, we can have a more interesting conversation. If I meet Hitler in a dream ... "gott in himmel" ... I will be in trouble, because I have never gotten a knack for German ... and you know how fast and emotional his orations are! But in another eidetic dream, I was a German soldier in WW II ... so I might stand a chance from that POV ... but I might be only allowed to salute ;-(
Totally figures.,
Quote from: Baruch on July 21, 2015, 08:51:32 PM
Don't worry ... I assume spending an eternity with Hitler will be hell indeed ;-( How many times will I have to hear ... "If only I had shot that fat idiot, Goering ... I could have won the big one!".
On a more personal note ... I find some eidetic dreams to be ... about reincarnation or other worldly. I met Napoleon at a wine and cheese party once, 200 years ago ... and we made very short chit-chat in French, when I didn't know any French at the time. I studied French for three years afterward ... so if I meet him again, we can have a more interesting conversation. If I meet Hitler in a dream ... "gott in himmel" ... I will be in trouble, because I have never gotten a knack for German ... and you know how fast and emotional his orations are! But in another eidetic dream, I was a German soldier in WW II ... so I might stand a chance from that POV ... but I might be only allowed to salute ;-(
Enough (...)'s XD
dtq123 ... as I have opined before ... heaven/hell is a matter of perception. For some people, spending an eternity in a bath house with handsome men will be heaven, for others ... less so. There was once a post-life play, put on TV, with Bill Bixby in the lead, which was situated in a bath house. After you die, you wake up in the bath house with other recently departed. The men adjust to the fact that they are dead (Bixby's character died on a chicken bone while eating) ... and one by one go off to Last Judgement. G-d is in trouble at that point, because if Bixby gets angry, he will turn into the Hulk, and smash G-d! He certainly smashed Loki!!
1liesalot ... well I was being totally honest here ;-) If you feel like a Stone Age native seeing the Enterprise rising from the sea, don't blame me ;-)
Too many Ellipses! Seriously.
If I put in too many comas ... I would go unconscious! ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on July 21, 2015, 09:28:08 PM
If I put in too many comas ... I would go unconscious! ;-)
Bad Spinoza! Bad! Go and reflect on your actions! ;-P
A semi-colon is better than a colostomy bag ;-) But I will hold a colon better still (ducks).
Quote from: Termin on July 17, 2015, 11:58:38 AM
OK great, then we can all agree that homophobia, and the denial of people's rights based simply on their sexuality is an evil we can all hate ?
Homosexuality is an interesting sin.
A thiest cannot but see it as a mortal sin. Thiesm 101 = respect the Creator / don't use your body against the purpose for which it was created.
I do sympathize with many homosexuals. As most (all non- Christian) don't see it as a typical mortal sin. Adultery for example is hating another person. Whereas homosexuality is hating your Creator.
As to your point. Yes there is evil in anyone bashing homosexuals. I completely disagree with many signs Christians raise at their rallies. Discriminating, hating and mocking is not Christainity 101.
Judgment like this is only to be had with Christians. 1 Cor 5 is crystal clear on this.
So there
is evil in rebuke if you are not a Christian..... and then there
is evil in wanting a homosexual marriage in a Christian church when our bible explicitly forbids it.
Quote from: Drummer Guy on July 17, 2015, 05:18:55 PM
I suppose I could claim that Santa exists, and then when you ask me how I know I could say "well can you deliver gifts to all the kids in the world in one night?" It would be just as illogical as what you're doing.
No it wouldn't...You and I can believe in a Santa of sort if all kids received presents and regularly / yearly :wink:.
Still playing dumb I see...
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 08:51:00 AM
No it wouldn't...You and I can believe in a Santa of sort if all kids received presents and regularly / yearly :wink:.
Still playing dumb I see...
You can term him 'dumb'--but you are simply stupid and wallow in your stupidity. You are the poster child of a person who is willfully ignorant, stupid and simply and naturally, evil. You have no morals--in fact, I'd say you are amoral--you will do as you will, to whomever you wish, and then cherry pick your evil book to make it 'right' in your eyes. You represent what is wrong with this world. If you and your kind were to somehow just disappear, this world would be infinitely better off. And no, this is not a rant. It is simply the bald, naked Truth--and the only Truth you will be exposed to. Go away.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 17, 2015, 07:34:08 PM
This is catagorically not what is happening in Exodus. Let me repeat the relevant passage, the first fucking passage that I quoted into Exodus:
1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. 2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land. 3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. 4 But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments. 5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.
You are not even trying and it is tiresome to have a discussion with someone
playing dumb when its convenient.
Rom 9:18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and
he hardens whom he wants to harden.
Christianity 101 = It is not only Pharoahs heart that was hardened...it is EVERY sinner that goes to hell that has his heart hardened.
As I have AlReAdY said to you...the ReSt Of ThE bIbLe TeLlS uS wHo In FaCt WhO GoD cHoOsEs To HaRdEn AnD sOfTeN...the whomsoever will accept HIm = soften, reject Him = harden.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 17, 2015, 07:34:08 PMThose two terms are not synonymous. There is no evidence that the Israelites were ever held as slaves by Egyptians in the first place.
When judging God of the bible please try stick to the bible...
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 17, 2015, 07:34:08 PMYou are trying to apologize for their clear evidence of the immorality of your god
You are zooming in on the tooth of a big cuddly teddy bear. I sure hope you are not in law! Your trial of God is ridiculously biased and unfair.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 17, 2015, 07:34:08 PMSo let me ask you this: why was it that, when Pharaoh promised to let the Israelites go, did Yahuwahu not then go, "You did it! You made the right choice!" and then let Pharaoh make good on that promise, and then return to try to "reach" him after his first step on the road of rehabilitation? Why did Yahuwahu instead harden Pharaoh heart so that he would renege on his promise, just so that Yahuwahu could beat him down more? Why was it that when Pharaoh finally got to get to see the backs of the Israelites after going through all that suffering, that Yahuwahu then hardened his heart again to make him go after the Israelites.
As I have already said. God wanted to make a proper example of Pharaoh for all those nations that would next meet the Jews.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 17, 2015, 07:34:08 PMThis does not sound like a god that wants to reach Pharaoh. This sounds like a god that is playing with Pharaoh to demonstrate his power to his homes, the Israelites.
God has been trying to reach Pharaoh from birth. As He does us all. God's MO is not to reach us with ''signs and wonders''. Like a rich man splashing his money and hoping for a faithful wife. If we see signs and wonders it is normally bad news for us.
QuoteIt is absolutely ludicrous that the EVERY PERSON OF THE NATION OF EGYPT played a willing part in the enslavement of the Israelites, or benefited from the same. Most people in Egypt would be poor farmers who couldn't afford a single slave. The people who would own slaves would be the upper crust, who are much much less numerous than the pesants below
I am not God to comment on this. But what I do know from looking at the
rest of scripture is that God always protects and delivers those who turn to Him. I am sure that those who sided with the Jews were spared. We believe God of the universe is highly intelligent.
QuoteAlso, do you think that small children who don't know any better or the little babies just born only to die in the last plague caused harm to a single Israelite, you psycho? Yet these babies and children died. They are, by any reasonable definition of the word, blameless. It is immoral to punish innocent people while you are punishing those 'sinners', you psycho
. I am psycho because you are too lazy to look beyond your nose in your judgment of God...of the universe? Really?
Did you have any control over your birth? It is not evil for God of the universe who LOVES babies AND sinners Matt 5:44.....to take them to be with Him....He did make them after all.
As for you and me, yes it is very evil for us to kill babies.
QuoteIt is immoral to manipulate the wills of even sinners to make it impossible to accept any warning you give them. In that case, you are not "warning" them; you are taunting them.
Does it make sense to you that God give him warnings and make him unable to head them at the same time? Try and read with some lateral thought and context please.
It is either a case of:
1. Pharaoh was already ''long gone'' and God used the plague process to set a precedent on how He would deal with the evil.
2. Pharaoh was not long gone and God was earnestly trying to reach him with increasing in severity plagues. This agrees with the rest of scripture.
Quote1. <Searching for Hell>
<Hell not found>
2. <Searching for Heaven>
<Heaven not found>
3. <Searching for Yahuwahu/God>
<Yahuwahu/God not found>
1. So we don't have a working brain that grasps the need to isolate the evil?
2. So we assume a God who created all does not have a nice home?
3. Notice that your nose is nowhere near your behind.
QuoteHe seems to be hiding rather a lot for someone who has "nothing to hide."
The problem, my dear demented psycho, is that I have thought about this, much deeper than you have. There is no evidence for his existence equal to the claim of his existence. A supposedly all-powerful being could manifest in the next minute, perform some amazing act that is verifiable all around the world by the best scientific instruments. He could show us Pharaoh, suffering in hell, contrite and repentant. He could lift that "darkly glass" â€"nowâ€" and reveal to all of us why he's such a good chap, even if he has to lower it again to preserve our tiny little minds. It would not prove that he is everything he says, but it would be a fucking start!
God has got nothing to prove to us. He is only interested in ONE thing right now. That we choose to HATE what is evil and cling to what is good in the space and time He has given us. We are ''on show'', not Him.
Believing in the miraculous does not cause a change of heart. James 1:27 = looking after widows and orphans is religion
undefiled.
QuoteThe only thing you have is your worthless apologetic, trying to defend the undefendable acts of the Yahuwahu portrayed in the OT. The OT God was a vile creature,
The evidence points to Pharaoh being warned many times and him still defying God. A missinterpretable line of God hardening his heart just as Rom 9 can easily be missinterpreted. A common mistake by someone who has not read the rest of the bible (even OT) or someone looking to construe and not interested in a fair trial.
God of the OT was actually very good. It is good to remove the wicked. What we notice is the manner in which He removed them was good. No brazen bulls. Just proper / quick deaths. We also notice that removing them was a last resort after many warnings Jonah 4:2.
Have you got anything else on Him from the OT?
QuoteYour attempts to try to spin my refusal to fold to your empty reasoning is not my problem.
Spin? When you are in court I will hear your FULL story before I pass judgment.
QuoteReal schollars note that apparently Yahuwahu did the awful shit to Egypt and took away more people in one stroke than in all their wars... and apparently never noticed and think that the book is telling a fib, even if it was the bible. Real schollars would note that the bible does not square away with archeology, and think that the bible is telling a distorted story.
Are these real scholars the same ones that made terrible reading blunders recently on OT slavery?
Like quoting.... ''masters can beat slaves and go without punishment...God of the OT is EVIL personified''..... when a prior verse says the punishment they avoid is death and verses after say that if they beat a slave badly the slave is free.... :lipsrsealed:
QuoteOf course, the people who are pumping you with bible info are not real schollars.
I simply read the bible unbiasedly. Don't attend church often and don't agree with many Christians on many things. But one thing that is crystal clear is that your take on God of the bible is
ridiculously biased and wrong.
Have you ever read the bible with an open mind?
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 23, 2015, 09:33:15 AM
You can term him 'dumb'--but you are simply stupid and wallow in your stupidity. You are the poster child of a person who is willfully ignorant, stupid and simply and naturally, evil. You have no morals--in fact, I'd say you are amoral--you will do as you will, to whomever you wish, and then cherry pick your evil book to make it 'right' in your eyes. You represent what is wrong with this world. If you and your kind were to somehow just disappear, this world would be infinitely better off. And no, this is not a rant. It is simply the bald, naked Truth--and the only Truth you will be exposed to. Go away.
I cherry pick? You have not been reading the posts have you...
Quote from: Baruch on July 17, 2015, 11:34:17 PM
Playing Devil's Advocate ... I remain unconvinced that people actually love good and hate bad (a more neutral term than "evil").
Nobody on earth is pure evil. Hence they are
still on earth.
I believe when your love of evil is full measure, God relocates you. We also don't need to do an evil to be evil. Approving of evil is evil.
Then there is the fact that God '''knows'' that He has been trying to constantly reach each of us....and us constantly rejecting Him ...equates to us '''thinking''' we are not evil....when in fact we are. Nobody wants to go to bed at night thinking they are evil. So step 1. stop thinking about a God. Step 2. brainwash yourself that your evil is good.
Would you say that there are not people that love adultery? People that feel nothing for murdering? People that feel nothing for the person they hurting when stealing? We can't all agree that paedophiles are evil?
Quote from: 1liesalot on July 21, 2015, 08:38:20 PM
1. A quick thing about morality and hell .... What would have happened if Hitler had embraced Jeeeeesus just before he shot himself? Would he go to Heaven? And would I be sent in the opposite direction just for rejecting mumbo-jumbo Christianity (as opposed to starting to world wars and killing everyone). 2. And then there's eternal hell fire?!!!! What a concept! Eternal burning flesh for ever and ever? I wouldn't even do it to Hitler, because even that monster didn't actually ask to be born.
FUCK
OFF
1. If your kid comes to you and apologizes for running away, will you make him sleep outside with the dogs?
The gospel from God to mankind has NEVER been sin = hell, no sin = heaven. It has always been ''we are given space and time to come to the decision that we choose to hate what is evil or love it. Repentance = 100% hating what is evil. It is very possible to be stuck in sin and still hate it Rom 7:15. But that would really only apply to venial sins and not mortal sins.
2. Hell is completely missunderstood. Everyone who claims it is a place of eternal torture is simply incapable of lateral thought and reading scripture properly.
The fire of our torment goes to heaven = we are in torture of our doing.
God tells us to love our enemies because He loves His = God will ensure that hell is a good a place as possible. Expect better then Geneva convention treatment.
What we have to understand is that
God describes things from His vantage point. Anyone not currently ''with Him'' is suffering / in death / lost. That is God describing your CURRENT position in life. It is all relative to what He wants for us. Compared to heaven, hell is terrible. Compared to what God wants to reveal to us, not experiencing that is the difference between death and life.
God DOES NOT hate His enemy! God is NOT evil 1 John 1:5. God has spent NO time inventing torture machines. God honouring the request of the demons to be cast into pigs = evidence of hating them? God allowing the devil to tempt Him in the wilderness on not one but three occasions = evidence of hating him?
God hopes that all choose to be with Him. Choosing to be with Him is NOT choosing Christianity over Islam or even over atheism. Choosing to be with Him is choosing to HATE what is evil and CLING to what is good Rom 12:9. You condemn yourself to hell when your deeds are evil and you love them John 3:19. Christianity comes in when you get a direct revelation from God of Jesus Matt 16:16-17 and 1 Cor 12:3. This happens when we draw close to Him James 4:8 by following Rom 12:9.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 08:51:00 AM
No it wouldn't...You and I can believe in a Santa of sort if all kids received presents and regularly / yearly :wink:.
Still playing dumb I see...
Now you're just starting to get ruder and ruder. Are you able to explain how you know we are more than our physical selves or not? If not, please just be honest and say so. Insulting me isn't an argument.
My wife and I are both adulterers and love each other, even though she doesn't like me. How do you know so much about sin? Oh, I get it, you were created from the sin of your parents. All you do is keep parroting Christian-Judeo-Islamic ignorance thinking you have knowledge. Do you ever think for yourself? I feel sad for people like you that still need a magical father figure in the sky to guide them out of fear of making their own mistakes in life, and use the devil as an escape goat, or teachings of Scripture to justify their ignorance.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AMYou are not even trying and it is tiresome to have a discussion with someone playing dumb when its convenient.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-yHDBHxAfI
KingJ ... If G-d ever did describe things from Her standpoint ... we wouldn't be able to recognize it or interpret it. This is the put-down for every claimed revelation and scripture. Humans can only recognize and interpret things that are human. Once I understood that "transcendental inspiration" was a con ... it all fell into place. You need to understand "immanence" and forget about "transcendence". Nobody has ever raised themselves off the Earth by their pulling their own bootstraps.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
You are not even trying and it is tiresome to have a discussion with someone playing dumb when its convenient.
Rom 9:18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
How does this exhonorate God for his actions? Your own scripture cite actually speaks against your merciful God. God hardens the heart of whom he wants, basically making it impossible for them to repent even if they wanted to, unless it be by his pleasure.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
Christianity 101 = It is not only Pharoahs heart that was hardened...it is EVERY sinner that goes to hell that has his heart hardened.
Reading comprehention 101 = When a subject-verb-object relationship is being expressed, the subject is causing the condition of the object.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
As I have AlReAdY said to you...the ReSt Of ThE bIbLe TeLlS uS wHo In FaCt WhO GoD cHoOsEs To HaRdEn AnD sOfTeN...the whomsoever will accept HIm = soften, reject Him = harden.
Your shifting case does not impress. There is no clear emphasis on points. It just makes you look like a retard.
Your screed does not dismiss the fact that the
plain reading paints a nasty picture of God. The apologetic you're spouting now was developed over millennia of Christian thinkers poring over the bible, scrutinizing each word. The people who wrote this stuff didn't have the benefit of that thought, such as it is, so why did
they keep those nasty passages in there?
Which brings us back to the point that I stated at the beginning: that the reason why this asshole of a god was regarded as a good character is because this is what was good character back in, assholishness and all. The guys who wrote the bible didn't need your apologetic, because this is what goodness meant back then.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
When judging God of the bible please try stick to the bible...
The hell I will. The bible was not written in a vaccuum and was not meant to be evaluated in a vaccuum. "God fearing" meant exactly that â€" you feared God. Loving god and being a good person are not a part of that. And I doubt your morality if you do anything deemed good out of mere fear.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
You are zooming in on the tooth of a big cuddly teddy bear. I sure hope you are not in law! Your trial of God is ridiculously biased and unfair.
Of course you would call such a trial unfair. That doesn't make the trial unfair.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
As I have already said. God wanted to make a proper example of Pharaoh for all those nations that would next meet the Jews.
Again admitting that "might makes right!" The only people who 'make examples of other people' this way are people with shakey moralities.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
God has been trying to reach Pharaoh from birth. As He does us all. God's MO is not to reach us with ''signs and wonders''. Like a rich man splashing his money and hoping for a faithful wife. If we see signs and wonders it is normally bad news for us.
And then what does God do when Pharaoh finally starts taking him seriously as a force to be reckoned with? He's all "Nah, just kidding!" and goes back to beating him down. Furthermore, because God acted this way, the Jews had to endure more life as slaves. Not only was it unfair to Pharaoh, it was unfair to the Jews!
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
I am not God to comment on this. But what I do know from looking at the rest of scripture is that God always protects and delivers those who turn to Him. I am sure that those who sided with the Jews were spared. We believe God of the universe is highly intelligent.
Belief and truth are two different things. By your own scripture, there was not one house that did not suffer from the curse of the firstborn.
Not one. Everyone in Egypt suffered in some way. There are no reservations on this, and nothing in scripture justifies your apologetic that those who sided with the Jews were spared.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
. I am psycho because you are too lazy to look beyond your nose in your judgment of God...of the universe? Really?
You are a psycho, because you are unwilling to defend
prima face morally repugnant acts by God. The bible was quite simply never meant to be read the way that you want me to read it.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
Did you have any control over your birth? It is not evil for God of the universe who LOVES babies AND sinners Matt 5:44.....to take them to be with Him....He did make them after all.
Again, there is a great gulf between what is said about God, and what God actually seems to be doing, when he acts at all. Also, I notice all the passages you cite meant to gentle God are all books from the NT. Where are all the passages from the OT that shows God to be a great guy? That would provide a more convincing argument that this is meant to be a consistent message rather than a later whitewash.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
As for you and me, yes it is very evil for us to kill babies.
So why is it that Gpd gets a pass when he kills babies?
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
Does it make sense to you that God give him warnings and make him unable to head them at the same time? Try and read with some lateral thought and context please.
It is either a case of:
1. Pharaoh was already ''long gone'' and God used the plague process to set a precedent on how He would deal with the evil.
2. Pharaoh was not long gone and God was earnestly trying to reach him with increasing in severity plagues. This agrees with the rest of scripture.
Only in your own mind. See, there's this principle in law: what the bold text promises, the fine print cannot take away. See, God takes credit for hardening Pharaoh's heart, and from before the fact. I cannot emphasize this enough. Either God was manipulating Pharaoh at the moment, or Pharaoh was always meant to be a sacrificial victim of God. That's the plain reading of the text. No amount of apologetic can dismiss that.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
1. So we don't have a working brain that grasps the need to isolate the evil?
2. So we assume a God who created all does not have a nice home?
3. Notice that your nose is nowhere near your behind.
Don't try to be clever, hoss. There is no physical, verifiable, empirical evidence that hell, heaven, or god exist at all. The only thing you have is a book. Every apologetic you spout ultimately derives from trying to read that book in a certain way. You can't squeeze blood from a stone, hoss.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
God has got nothing to prove to us.
Exodus puts lie to that. The story itself is a giant dick-wave by God, and you don't do that unless you think you do have something to prove. The fact that it's still there as a part of the canon means that there is something for him to prove. Your mealy-mouthed apologetic will not get you anywhere.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
Believing in the miraculous does not cause a change of heart. James 1:27 = looking after widows and orphans is religion undefiled.
Tell that to the firstborn of Egypt.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
The evidence points to Pharaoh being warned many times and him still defying God. A missinterpretable line of God hardening his heart just as Rom 9 can easily be missinterpreted. A common mistake by someone who has not read the rest of the bible (even OT) or someone looking to construe and not interested in a fair trial.
Again, the only one here misinterpreting things is you.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
God of the OT was actually very good. It is good to remove the wicked.
The bible was written by the winners.
Of course they'd paint themselves as righteous and their opponents as wicked.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
What we notice is the manner in which He removed them was good. No brazen bulls. Just proper / quick deaths.
It took
ten plagues for this drama to play out, and I don't know how you call a plague of boils or the famine following a plague of locusts a "proper/quick death."
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
We also notice that removing them was a last resort after many warnings Jonah 4:2.
God failed to remove the
one person who was the lynchpin of Egypt's supposed slavery of the Hebrews: Paraoh himself. The officers and officials of Pharaoh's government were not going to let the Hebrews go without the Pharaoh's word of leave. The people at large were innocent of the slavery and hardly in a position of help, but if anything Pharaoh was more insulated from the first nine plagues than the populace. Of course, meanwhile the Jews are still suffering under the yoke of slavery while all this would be happening â€" slavery doesn't stop just because you're in a bad way; and if anything the demands on them would increase. And again, the hardening of Pharaoh's heart was quite plainy something that was done
to Pharaoh by God.
Your bleating about Pharaoh was 'too far gone' indicates that God didn't see fit to intervene in the previous twenty to thirty years that it took Moses to grow up. Pharaoh would have been a much more receptive man back then, so where was his intervention?
What God did was not fair to Pharaoh, not fair to the Egyptians and not fair to the Jews that were his people. If god isn't evil, he's certainly a tremendous screw up.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
Have you got anything else on Him from the OT?
The Flood comes to mind.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
Spin? When you are in court I will hear your FULL story before I pass judgment.
We are not in court, and I think you have already passed judgement.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
Are these real scholars the same ones that made terrible reading blunders recently on OT slavery?
Like quoting.... ''masters can beat slaves and go without punishment...God of the OT is EVIL personified''..... when a prior verse says the punishment they avoid is death and verses after say that if they beat a slave badly the slave is free.... :lipsrsealed:
No, any more than they and I think that the people who would keep slaves back then were 'EVIL personified.' Because slavery was hardly unusual at the time, and just about everyone passed laws on how to treat slaves. After all, they represented a fair amount of investment of time and energy. God's morality was indistinguishable from the people who worshiped him, but by modern standards would be way behind the times.
I'm talking about the experts in textual criticism who have pored over the bible and have discovered that the entire book is one of redactions and edits were actually fucking traceable from the language used. Basically, they know very well how the bible we know today came to be, and any notion that it contains any sort of literal or historical truth as we know it is simply childish.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
I simply read the bible unbiasedly.
:lol:
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
Don't attend church often and don't agree with many Christians on many things. But one thing that is crystal clear is that your take on God of the bible is ridiculously biased and wrong.
If by "wrong," you mean I don't swallow everything it says uncritically, then guilty and proud.
Quote from: KingJ on July 23, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
Have you ever read the bible with an open mind?
Have you? "Open mind" doesn't mean what you think it means. "Open mind" means that new ideas get a chance to make their case, but I'm still allowed to be unrelentingly critical about what I read. "Open mind" means being open to the possiblity that the bible isn't a book inspired by god.
The bible isn't even really a good book, let alone one of spiritual truth. It certainly isn't a book of factual truth in the slightest. Again, if anything like the Exodus happened, Egypt and the other great empires of the time would have known about it, and the desert would still be bearing the scars of having a half-million people and their livestock treading across it in one big lump for forty years.
Archeological evidence shows that the Exodus was a gradual trickle of Semitic escaped slaves and smugglers over many centuries ... there is no big encampment possible, and it wasn't where later scholarship thought it was (W of rift valley) but to the E in Midian (E of rift valley) basically around Petra ... which could only sustain a limited nomadic population (it is a severe desert). Aaron's tomb is in Petra. Philological analysis of the text of Exodus shows that it was composed after 1000 BCE, not before ... though the "Song of Miriam" could date earlier. Basically a made up story, made up of bits of history and more made up stories. Though the "Song of Miriam" could be an old Arab war song from before 800 BCE.
QuoteIf you could reason with theists they wouldn't be theists.
People defending God are not any different than those that defend ignorance is bliss, and authority is always right with God on their side. Idiots!
This video came to mind when I read over these recent posts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyFM0_AhIYA
Seriously, KingJ worries me a bit. Insults are going to be mean soon, and Remilia does not approve.
Great animation ;-) Wonder what the story was like before editing?