Bolshevik

When I think "I am more moral than Yahweh" It's like the thought form of a plastic face. That's TWI . . . we're better. Because we are. No matter what happens.

If Zeus threw a lightning bolt at the bubble of a universe nested in a "free society" . . . wouldn't that wake people up? (not condoning anything, don't go there)

Socrates said something about the shadow too, I just remembered. Some old Greek one I think. How you come out of TWI and think anything morally . . . did you see people?

I mentioned that earlier. It's part of the explanation of where God is. How it's part of evolution.

YOU are trolling. The Way International is my evidence. YOU are not more moral than Yahweh.

Carl Jung said that I think. I'll take his word over yours, Raf.

It's the Shadow. Did Yahweh have a Shadow? Does the Devil represent his Shadow? I don't know. Never heard that idea. Where's your shadow? Did it inspire this question about Yahweh and OT Law? How does one read all those things and come to the conclusion "I am more moral than Yahweh". Idiotic.

I believe anybody is capable of anything. Anything.

Bad Faith? Not Hobbes Vs Locke?

Yahweh killed people for picking up sticks on the wrong day? So what. What evil act did Yahweh do that every human being to ever exist isn't capable of worse?

I've tried to be clear where I look from. I think I've failed there. The lens I look through usually goes back to biology. DNA. Deoxyribonucleaic acid. Connect DNA, to God. (not in some fundy/intelligent design sense) Maybe I'll see your view down the road as I'm sure there will be more info, I just can't do that now.

If you understand how religion evolves why not include that somewhere in the thread? That way the question can relate to the real world.

right Karl Marx, or those who subscribed to his ideas, tried to impose a new way of thinking onto nations, millions died for it. So I wouldn't make VPW's cult equal with religion. At least I'm convinced cults and religions arise differently. I do know Waybrain changes the meaning of things in a person's mind. Everything. And alters how they come to decisions.

I posted seven ideas but there's probably a lot more. It appears we don't agree on one point because we don't agree on a lot of others.

One, One, this reasoning is reductionist. Oversimplify and draw conclusions from that. Destined for error. Two, fundamentalism and atheism are two peas in a pod. Three, You haven't demonstrated an understanding of where God is indeed real and how evolution affects that. Four, a human killing a person and Yahweh killing a person, from a Fundy perspective . . . a human can't raise the dead. Five, The modern world is still prone to the problems of 5000 - 10000 years ago. Six, Your view of "originators of the mythology" is a misunderstanding. Propaganda does not survive. Definitely not thousands of years. Don't think of the Bible that way. Seven, What's an ultimate morality?

You're the guy who started "acual errors in PFAL. So I have a lot of respect for you. I don't know if you really believe your own reasoning or if you're staying in character as an exercise. My honest self can't submit to this reasoning. A former form of me could. Pondering your question has opened up a lot of ideas for me though. Your latest post here, mind blown. Why did God confound language in the Tower of Babel story? If we all communicated and collectively submitted to one ideology, what would happen? Not a higher morality. There is a reason that reason cannot flow from reason itself.

I used to think that. But. Religion got humanity through. It should be given some credit, in spite of some faults. Considering, Karl Marx didn't exactly help humanity in any real great leap forward.

I am restating points other folks have already made and thought through on this website if you keep reading. Just putting pieces together in my own head. And Rocky posted some more cool info, meaning there's more modifications of that understanding to make.

No. I am not being dishonest. The Yahweh question here insists that everyone take a fundamentalist viewpoint when thinking on God. It does nothing but insist everyone view this question through a very narrow strip of reality to come to a preconceived conclusion. Maybe if the opening post had more explanation of the specificity of the question. It clearly does not hold in all cases. Only under a narrow strip of conditions does this work.

Explain

How can there be dialogue if you have an open and shut case? Why ask something that silly?

Goes back to I, Robot. Don't see why that is a non sequitur. It's the same old argument. Look for imperfection outside of God. Use The Bible. Use The Law. Use the Human Eye having blood vessels in stupid spot.

If God were the source of objective morality . . . then his law should be objectively moral Like The Word is above his name?

So we're less evil than the devil?

Ok. I will send a PM.