Bolshevik

The argument usually goes, God put a self-destruct button in Eden (the tree), an All knowing all loving God wouldn't have done that. Therefore, the story is all B.S. I just see the parallel with that argument with the thread topic. We think we can imagine better, therefore Yahweh messed up. You know, my cat can't do as much harm as I can. Does that make it more moral than me? . . . It can't do as much good either. Does it have a right to compare us? The interpretation I'm most comfortable with concerning Eden is one that lays out our early humanities' awareness of our own capacity for good or evil. We are capable of either at any time. And we are aware of what we can do to others and what they can do to us. That's somewhat frightening if you think on it. Consequences of sin is because we are aware of the control we have to change things, and don't do it. (that's a short version) Get to Noah's time and only he is doing things the best way. Everyone else is goofing off to the extreme. The flood represents catastrophe built by their own hands. There's a lot of detail in maintaining a stable society. Noah was just wiser than the rest, was able to see down the road, and his wisdom spared himself and his family. That's not a crazy story. The Law comes in some time after that . . . TLC you're basically saying the Law was to prepare for the need of JC. Convicting people would make sense. You're not supposed to help people who won't help themselves. At least that's bad practice. It sounds like The Law was just a way to get people to that point where they would act themselves? If that's so, Yahweh doesn't look bad in that light.

Also not sure why the focus is on The Law. Why not complain about the Garden of Eden and how the design had a flaw? That's a typical complaint, and rather straight to the point. Same as looking for flaws in creation (i.e. nerves in the eye) Or why we're terming God as Yahweh. Is there some meaning in doing that or is it just for show? That and the question of the Law's purpose, which was not necessarily about morality. I feel this is is a very forced question.

That seems very sensible to me, TLC. The Law had a practical purpose. With a direction. I think the initial posts argues . . . God is omnipotent . . . it should have been a better law. Then begin to poke random holes at random in God's work. This is the same argument you see in all creation. Our eyeballs have a faulty design . . . therefore God doesn't exist. The initial post's argument is unoriginal. In this case though imperfect morality is used. edit to add (I know the argument is not a disproof of God, OT version, just an attack on his credibility.)

This again, is another strawman. You put God in a conscience creation. What science is there to back that?

From the link in the original post:

These are all very intelligent folks with some great questions and I enjoy listening and learning from them about many things. But they all have a collective strawman argument. Harris has the false trichotomy going. Pretty cool. So Raf, your question is a Strawman. Maybe false analogy, false equivalency. And you're in good company. It does not properly relate morality, people, God, The Bible, evolution, reality, and so on.

These guys at least are articulating a position better.

Let's through in some Dawkins to help this along:

Make 'em chase women (something something) drive pickups? and curse tune of this

Remember this song? Mamas don't let your babies grow up to be homos . . . .

We are more moral than muse

Okay so you're asking . . . .WOW . . . just because someone wouldn't do these things and even would be adverse to them . . . that makes them MORAL? Not sure you have good data here . .

We are more moral than justice

While going over the thread I noted another poster stating this is a strawman. So I'm not the first to think that. Your statement "We are more moral than Yahweh" implies a lot. Yahweh, God, other gods, are not objects. Are not people. "We are more moral than Liberty"

God as an abstract concept is also a transcendent one. It is above the system. (take out a dollar bill and look at the pyramid, why is the cap lifting?) He's outside the group and within it. NO human can do that. Unless you are VPW. And we know how that works. The statement "you are more moral than Yahweh" is to lift a person above the system of people. Aren't we to argue together and not lift ourselves over each other?

Raf you appear to hold an objective, absolute view of morality. People's morality is subjective. IMO. We have evolved behaviors, emotions, capacities, instincts, potentials and gut feelings of many sorts that not only conflict within ourselves, but conflict with other people. And we all meet in unique circumstances throughout history. We all come together with our own subjective moralities, talk, argue, fight a war, make peace, overthrow another government and whatnot . . . but hopefully mostly dialogue by taking full responsibility for our Free Speech . . . and try to reason out what the objective morality is. Ideals and abstract concepts that merge and evolve from all this conflict over time could be called God. Or Yahweh on some threads. Yes God in a sense, compared to the rest of us, is all-knowing, all-powerful etc. Each generation we are socialized by the practiced understanding of the culture's cumulative understanding of God, and other gods. That knowledge is greater than any single person. To say any one person is more moral than any god from any time in history . . . it's just wrong. IMO.

Okay . . . suppose people lived in a culture with various practices. Like slavery. Maybe in moves Yahweh and adds Law to guide things in a better direction. Starting with practices already present. Did Yahweh initiate owning slaves?? Kind of like U.S. culture changed over time. Not that long ago. In fact, I believe (some) white folks used God as their argument to own slaves. Was that Yahweh's fault or the people's attitudes? Didn't other religious folks make aggressive campaigns to change things? You've got God being used on both side of an argument. It's clearly the people, not Yahweh. (Just a reminder I don't view God from a Fundamentalist view)

Ok. Here Raf says morality is objective and absolute.

Ok, Raf, So here morality is subjective. I suppose it is. Is Yahweh's morality subjective? Are we setting ourselves equal to a god and then making comparisons?

A way to draw on influence of a higher authority without needing to accept responsibility of actual authority. It's like he found the golden goose.

There's a relationship between people/morality/God . . . and I'll throw in Free Speech. If there was a nuclear catastrophe and our civilization was wiped out, what reason do we think the population wouldn't go through a similar process as in the Old Testament? Because we are not inherently more moral than Yahweh, there's a good chance the process would repeat.

I think the base of your argument is a case against Free Speech.

You were complaining about a God who didn't have a perfect system in place. If he were all-knowing. What's his plan? (Answer: God's morality is derived from the people who created Him, not the other way around. God gets his morality from us. That's why He evolves and gets kinder and gentler as history progresses. A God who really existed and was the source of objective morality would not evolve). And where does our morality come from?