Raf

So slavery, subjugation and execution for a petty offense are okay because eternity. You can talk yourself into excusing all manner of atrocity.

The thread title was intended to be provocative, not necessarily literal (although in any case where we're not dealing with a sociopath, the answer to the thread question is an obvious yes). I suppose I could have titled the thread, can we have objective morality without God? When you put it that way, the question becomes a little bit more difficult. It becomes more difficult because it assumes that we have objective morality now. Morality is a system of value judgments, and value judgments are by definition subjective. Value judgments do indeed change over time, primarily because of what we decide to base those value judgments on. If "all men are created equal" is one of the premises of your value system, then your morality will reflect that. If life begins at conception is part of your value system, then your morality will reflect that. Societies don't always reach consensus on what is considered moral and what is not. But you, as an individual, are always capable of weighing other people's value systems against your own and determining which is more moral, and perhaps adjusting your views when you discover that you might be wrong about something. Because the judeo-christian faith posits Yahweh as the source of objective morality, that view leaves no room for Yahweh to evolve, to grow, to become more moral over time. His people might, but he cannot.

It seems the concern with the premise of this thread topic is that it is so clear that it makes it impossible for people to evade it by changing definitions and altering the premises. Not for lack of trying, of course.

Recognizing that slavery is wrong and that executing people for petty offenses is morally unjustifiable is not grounded in reality. I'll say it AGAIN: failure to recognize that you are more moral than Yahweh will open the door for you to accept any atrocity so long as it's committed or sanctioned by the right god.

Life Model Decoy

Waysider, I find the "ignore" function quite useful for weeding out trolling responses.

Looking back: the law is only *part* of what I've mentioned, not all of it. Allowing Satan to torture Job and kill his family to win a bet he already knew he would win is not part of the law. Turning a woman into a pillar of salt because she looked back while her home and everything and everyone she knew and loved is being burnt to a crisp by fire He could have stopped at any time is not part of the law. That the law was only given to a limited number of people is not relevant to this discussion: The people to whom it was not given were not exactly given a pass. They were vilified, in part because they did not accept the authority of that law (verse reference to come). That the law was given for a limited length of time is a later New Testament ret-con, but even agreeing with that premise, you still can't justify slavery, executions for petty offenses (can we agree that Sabbath-breaking qualified as a petty offense?), subjugation of women (treating the father of a rape woman as the victim and marriage to the woman as punishment for the rapist CERTAINLY qualifies here, no?), etc. without appealing to ignorance about "The End Game," which is an abdication of your moral discernment and can literally be used to excuse ANY atrocity as long as the right God endorses it. Because to be sure, if this thread were called "Are you more moral than Allah," I guarun-dam-tee not a one of you would be torturing the logical process to justify his brutality.

1. Defense of others is always considered a justifiable use of force. The army was going to return the Israelites to slavery. Stopping the army was necessary force. Arguing about how much force was necessary might be worthwhile, but I would not make it a lynchpin of an argument about morality. Still, he could have just put up a wall or made their horses tell them to stop. But okay. 2. You realize this never happened, right? I mean, I'm all for discussing how things are portrayed in the Bible, but it helps now and then to take a step back and say this is not a historical occurrence. 3. You are making my point that if you are unwilling to recognize that you are more moral than Yahweh, then you open yourself up to excusing all manner of atrocity in the name of religion. If any time you have an objection to an immoral act, I can turn around and tell you "if you knew the big picture you would understand that it's really been moral all along," then I can get you to excuse literally anything I do, ever! Basically what you're attempting here is a form of "appeal to ignorance." The fact that we do not know everything is used to excuse atrocity because we don't know the end game, the big picture. If I were to ask, "What would Yahweh have to do for you to recognize that you are more moral than he," you would literally have no answer! He could order the execution of infants, and you'd say, "but big picture." He could kill a couple for being dishonest about how much they were tithing, and you would say, "but big picture." Maybe. But I know enough not to kill a kid for checking out another religion. And so do you. "But big picture..." You have talked yourself into accepting anything as morally acceptable. That's not faith. That's abandoning discernment.

I'm through with the Ghost Rider segment of Agents of Shield. Now on LMD. I wasn't nuts about Arrow. What happened to Vigilante?

God: If you pick up sticks on the wrong day of the week, I will f-ing kill you. Raf: We are more moral than Yahweh. Bolshevik: By what standard? Did I say we are more moral than Yahweh because of nature? No. But your bulls--- strawman argument makes it seem as though that's my position. It is a lie, and you really need to present my position honestly if you expect not to be called on it. Nature didn't force Yahweh to institute laws that are brutal and violent and morally indefensible. He did that on his own (supposedly).

Is there an "end game" that justifies executions for trivial offenses? Is there an "end game" that justifies having a woman marry the man who raped her as his punishment for rape? You guys are better than that. You know you are. Your objections are hollow.

Pretty sure the only waybrain here is the one who moves the goalposts, changes definitions of commonly accepted words while expecting everyone else tl adopt his definitions despite their inaccuracy. You want to talk about a hateful insult? Your hypocrisy has now joined your incapacity to comprehend what you read on the list of things that should embarrass you but for some reason don't.

Subject repeatedly refuses to acknowledge that his fantasy of a made up God does not resemble the character of Yahweh which is the subject of this discussion. Engages in amateur psychoanaltsis that is insulting to the core while hypocritically accusing his "debate" opponent of being hateful. Prescription: Grade school education.

No. You're not talking about Yahweh. Thanks for playing. NEXT!

Are You stoned?

I think we can agree that everyone would disagree with it. However, that does not mean we excuse whatever he does come up with. Well, shoot, executing someone for sabbath breaking is a problem now? Next you'll have a problem with stoning homosexuals and slaughtering all the Midianite men women and babies. You just can't please some people! I don't know for sure what a perfect law would look like, but anyone who thinks killing sabbath breakers is not a deal-breaker is probably a sociopath.

And the day I start a thread called "Are you more moral than their view of God," feel free to weigh in with these relentlessly irrelevant observations.

Exactly. And seeing as He does not change, He is also the God of the New Testament, and we can reason that He has not changed because He said He does not. Arguing that He has changed argues with the scriptural account, and thus is a different God. P.S. I have not just been talking about the Law. I've been talking about the acts attributed to Him as well. The Law is just the easiest place to find His will recorded. (Allegedly).

"The apparent harshness of the temporary law is not to be taken to hyperbole"? Where do you get this stuff? Yahweh personally ordered the execution of a man for Sabbath breaking. He demanded executions for investigating other religions. This isn't "apparent harshness," and it's an insult to the language to say it is. And that poor guy who got stoned to death would like to thank you for reminding the rock throwers that they weren't supposed to be doing what Yahweh explicitly ordered them to do! Again with the "evolutionary perspective." Yahweh does not change. It seems implausible, to be polite, to suggest that God (who, let's remind you, is "all-powerful") could not conceive of a way to "look out for our eternal well-being" without ordering capricious executions for minor wrongdoing, that He could not have done so without authorizing slavery, that He could not have done so without making marriage to the raped woman a penalty for the commission of rape. There is no scripture that says God represents the process goal from an evolutionary perspective. You are not talking about Yahweh.

I never said anything about knowing God's intentions. His attributes are another story.

I've made no such claim. Be honest.

No. I've laid out a Biblical presentation of Yahweh and claimed we're better than that. And we are. And I've done so without advocating a single genocide. Or even murder. Or the wedding of a woman to her rapist. Or the killing of a man for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week. Or the killing of a kid for considering another religion. or...

For those wondering what Vince F is up to... http://lhim.org/

No. it's a non sequitur. Believing Yahweh was a vicious vindictive tribal war God prone to excessive violence does not lead to the behaviors you claim. Believing he is morally perfect DOES lead to extremism andc excusing moral atrocities, as we've demonstrated on this very thread with you saying "so what" to killing a man for picking up sticks. Or the guy who spent a few pages defending slavery. To be clear, atheists have committed some horrible atrocities, as have theists, statists (especially statists), abortion rights opponents and self-hating gays. But to claim that there's a causal relationship between recognizing you are more moral than Yahweh and "opening yourself up to all manner of atrocity in the name of reaction to extremism" is logically fallacious. You can cite coincidence, but you cannot cite causation. You ARE more moral than Yahweh. That's not going to cause you, me or anyone else to kill Christians.