No, my insult is a perfectly accurate description of how you have treated this thread. You're not engaging the topic. You're interfering with esoteric nonsense that is not designed to further conversation but rather to find a platform to pontificate on barely related nonsensical stream-of-consciousness thoughtless experiments that are only tangentially related to the topic of this thread.
Are you more moral than Yahweh.
Not "Are you more moral than Bolshevik's unique concept of what a god might be if a god were to exist and he must even though he doesn't because propaganda doesn't survive centuries which is a rule I just made up."
Hateful is what you've done to this topic and the others you polluted with nonsensical diversions that appear to make you feel oh so clever and enlightened.
Here's what's become clear:
If I posted that the sky is blue and clouds are white, you would find something to argue about.
If I said water is wet, you would say "what about ice?"
If I said the earth travels around the sun, you would say neither is stationary.
It's not that your observations and pontifications are incorrect. It's that they're f-ing irrelevant to the topic, and I've tried saying it politely but apparently it's not getting through.
Other people have managed to grasp my point with ease. Some have tried (and in my opinion failed) to engage appropriately, by challenging the notion that Yahweh's actions were truly immoral, by challenging the notion that Biblical slavery was wrong, even by presenting the notion that Yahweh's positive attributes demonstrate that he is more moral than we. Each of those arguments was discussed.
You're not presenting an argument. Your "evolving God" is not Yahweh, who does not change.
You're having a conversation about religion in general, and I'm discussing the defined God of a defined religion.
Honestly, your contempt for the topic of conversation is revealed in your repeated attempts to redefine it.
This is not "The Way International" section of the forum.
How does it free anyone? Now THAT's a good question.
When you realize that morality is neither objective nor dependent on the existence of a God, you realize that morality, while not objective itself, does have an objective basis. That basis is not some archaic law, but something we can all agree on, regardless of religious beliefs. We may not agree all the time on what acts are moral or not, but we can discuss the basis for morality intelligently, once we get notions like "God" as the source of it out of the picture.
Hence the separate thread on where we get our morals.
What did it have to do with David and Bathsheba? Exactly what I said it did back on that thread. No need to rehash it here. If you need a basic reading comprehension course, I suggest contacting some of those people with degrees and reputations at your nearest community college.
When you realize that morality is neither objective nor dependent on the existence of a God, you realize that morality, while not objective itself, does have an objective basis. That basis is not some archaic law, but something we can all agree on, regardless of religious beliefs. We may not agree all the time on what acts are moral or not, but we can discuss the basis for morality intelligently, once we get notions like "God" as the source of it out of the picture.
. . .
You're still confused. You've dismissed what I told you as "evolving God". As you have with other posters.
I understand that's your choice.
You advertised this thread. You misled. You deceived.
Personally, I think the rampant disingenuousness of the arguments challenging my thread topic demonstrate that I've touched a nerve.
Yahweh is a petty, vindictive, genocidal war-god with a serious jealousy and impulse control problem. If you are not more moral than Yahweh, then you need a padded cell.
I don't mind having a nerve touched. We discuss to figure what it is. I hope.
I don't know what I haven't done proves other than I haven't done it.
I don't know what I haven't thought proves other than I haven't thought it.
I do know there's always more that could be thought and done.
This website is full of stories of folks who aimed high for good and unwittingly did evil instead.
Did Yahweh not understand what he was doing? If he knew exactly what he was doing and exactly what the outcome would be, I think he's head and shoulders above the rest of us.
For those not keeping track, when he says Yahweh, he's talking not about the God actually depicted in the Bible, but his own wishful thinking of what that God should be.
For those not keeping track, when he says Yahweh, he's talking not about the God actually depicted in the Bible, but his own wishful thinking of what that God should be.
Yeah the one that cuts up babies and force feeds them to their mothers. With garlic.
I cited scripture to support every single contention I made about Yahweh. You have cited nothing to refute those characterizations. You merely deny them and expect me to accept your denials as having some kind of weight because somebody with a degree gave you a half baked idea.
I cited scripture to support every single contention I made about Yahweh. You have cited nothing to refute those characterizations. You merely deny them and expect me to accept your denials as having some kind of weight because somebody with a degree gave you a half baked idea.
Yeah that might have been a comic book character. We're not supposed to use those now.
(I mentioned I learned these ideas elsewhere and not from some pothead only to say I'm not making this up on the fly . . . I only hoped you saw how it worked and its utility, not to immediately accept it.)
This is the closest to a usable idea you have put forth:
Quote
When you realize that morality is neither objective nor dependent on the existence of a God, you realize that morality, while not objective itself, does have an objective basis. That basis is not some archaic law, but something we can all agree on, regardless of religious beliefs. We may not agree all the time on what acts are moral or not, but we can discuss the basis for morality intelligently, once we get notions like "God" as the source of it out of the picture. - RAF
Which sounds like the Nietzsche Superman and free speech together . . . but there's a more important discussion in there than whether or not we are more moral than Yahweh.
Which I've tried to put forth where morality comes from a number of times here. But, I think your view on God has been hardened by arguing with too many fundies. And what I tried to express isn't being received well.
Sell a false premise, and you can build (or buy into) the most logical looking POS thought imaginable.
Why insist on attributing any and every differences to a change in the nature of God - which you've disparagingly referred to as an "evolution" of God - rather than allowing any possibility for a changing vantage point and perspective on the progressive revelation of something so significantly beyond the realm and scope of man's very limited tactile perception and mental comprehension? God has not changed. But, perhaps it's not so unlike the elephant that blind men can't get their head around, looking through the one sided lens of "the law" (engraved in stone, so to speak) - which was given only to a very limited number of people (which you never mentioned), for a specific and limited length of time (which you refuse to acknowledge), for a very specific purpose (the depths of which remain unspoken, and which you evidently fail to grasp.)
Sell a false premise, and you can build (or buy into) the most logical looking POS thought imaginable.
Why insist on attributing any and every differences to a change in the nature of God - which you've disparagingly referred to as an "evolution" of God - rather than allowing any possibility for a changing vantage point and perspective on the progressive revelation of something so significantly beyond the realm and scope of man's very limited tactile perception and mental comprehension? God has not changed. But, perhaps it's not so unlike the elephant that blind men can't get their head around, looking through the one sided lens of "the law" (engraved in stone, so to speak) - which was given only to a very limited number of people (which you never mentioned), for a specific and limited length of time (which you refuse to acknowledge), for a very specific purpose (the depths of which remain unspoken, and which you evidently fail to grasp.)
the point I'm "selling"
Is one in which both theists and atheists can use together while maintaining there own viewpoints
Why is it disparaging to refer to changes in the nature of God as evolution?
If you sell a false premise, for example, morality comes from and is dependent on God, then you are forced into a position of Defending indefensible and immoral actions because to do otherwise is to admit that the premise was false.
For my part, I am still waiting for someone to demonstrate at the premise that I put forth is false. I've seen it denied, but I have not seen it refuted.
Why is it disparaging to refer to changes in the nature of God as evolution?
. . .
People's understanding of morality changes, the ideal person changes, then God changes. Evolution provides the number of frames from which we draw morality.
The problem with the "holy just and good" law is not alleviated by the fact that it was only given to a limited number of people. The problem is that it was given to anyone at all!
I mean, Jeffrey Dahmer only ate a miniscule fraction of the people he met. Why does he get stuck with the cannibal label?
I can't even get you guys to admit genocide is immoral because it was ordered by Yahweh and he must have had his reasons and who am I to judge?
And that's sad, because if you cannot call immorality immoral on its face, then you can still be suckered into any cult with a halfway clever story (to answer the previous question about how this topic relates to waybrain and recovery).
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
266
38
32
188
Popular Days
Aug 7
50
Aug 8
46
Aug 2
42
Aug 1
33
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 266 posts
waysider 38 posts
TrustAndObey 32 posts
Bolshevik 188 posts
Popular Days
Aug 7 2017
50 posts
Aug 8 2017
46 posts
Aug 2 2017
42 posts
Aug 1 2017
33 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
Raf.......YES! And so are you! TY!
TrustAndObey
I can understand where you are coming from Raf. However, if you honestly are inviting a discussion on these topics, could you be clear on what you consider is dodging. Because, to myself, you make it
TLC
It's not just people that say it. Scripture itself says that God is good. But simply equating morality to that which is "good" and attributing the cause (or source) of it to the law (and then equati
Posted Images
Raf
"Hateful"?
No, my insult is a perfectly accurate description of how you have treated this thread. You're not engaging the topic. You're interfering with esoteric nonsense that is not designed to further conversation but rather to find a platform to pontificate on barely related nonsensical stream-of-consciousness thoughtless experiments that are only tangentially related to the topic of this thread.
Are you more moral than Yahweh.
Not "Are you more moral than Bolshevik's unique concept of what a god might be if a god were to exist and he must even though he doesn't because propaganda doesn't survive centuries which is a rule I just made up."
Hateful is what you've done to this topic and the others you polluted with nonsensical diversions that appear to make you feel oh so clever and enlightened.
Here's what's become clear:
If I posted that the sky is blue and clouds are white, you would find something to argue about.
If I said water is wet, you would say "what about ice?"
If I said the earth travels around the sun, you would say neither is stationary.
It's not that your observations and pontifications are incorrect. It's that they're f-ing irrelevant to the topic, and I've tried saying it politely but apparently it's not getting through.
Other people have managed to grasp my point with ease. Some have tried (and in my opinion failed) to engage appropriately, by challenging the notion that Yahweh's actions were truly immoral, by challenging the notion that Biblical slavery was wrong, even by presenting the notion that Yahweh's positive attributes demonstrate that he is more moral than we. Each of those arguments was discussed.
You're not presenting an argument. Your "evolving God" is not Yahweh, who does not change.
You're having a conversation about religion in general, and I'm discussing the defined God of a defined religion.
Honestly, your contempt for the topic of conversation is revealed in your repeated attempts to redefine it.
Hateful? Hardly. But I guess the truth hurts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"You are more moral than Yahweh"
what does it have to do with The Way International?
How does it free anyone?
How does it explain waybrain?
What does it have to do with anything?
How does it explain VPW and TWI and the corps and the rank and file?
What did it have to do with David and Bathsheeba? How did your insult help understand the original poster mindframe better?
I found my ideas from people who study such things. With degrees and reputations.
Of course I won't immediately agree with, Raf, former Wayfer. Without some more supporting info.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This is not "The Way International" section of the forum.
How does it free anyone? Now THAT's a good question.
When you realize that morality is neither objective nor dependent on the existence of a God, you realize that morality, while not objective itself, does have an objective basis. That basis is not some archaic law, but something we can all agree on, regardless of religious beliefs. We may not agree all the time on what acts are moral or not, but we can discuss the basis for morality intelligently, once we get notions like "God" as the source of it out of the picture.
Hence the separate thread on where we get our morals.
What did it have to do with David and Bathsheba? Exactly what I said it did back on that thread. No need to rehash it here. If you need a basic reading comprehension course, I suggest contacting some of those people with degrees and reputations at your nearest community college.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You're still confused. You've dismissed what I told you as "evolving God". As you have with other posters.
I understand that's your choice.
You advertised this thread. You misled. You deceived.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You distort my thread and accuse me of misleading and deceiving?
Funny how a dozen people got the point immediately, but you fail and that's MY fault.
Go learn to read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Do I want to be associated with those dozen people?
They are all capable of worse than Yahweh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yet another disingenuous diversion from the topic. You're amazing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The thread asks "Are you more moral than Yahweh"
The thread has provided zero evidence that anyone is more moral than Yahweh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Whatever you say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Personally, I think the rampant disingenuousness of the arguments challenging my thread topic demonstrate that I've touched a nerve.
Yahweh is a petty, vindictive, genocidal war-god with a serious jealousy and impulse control problem. If you are not more moral than Yahweh, then you need a padded cell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Tell me, how many genocides have you ordered?
How many did you personally commit?
Not "mankind." YOU.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I don't mind having a nerve touched. We discuss to figure what it is. I hope.
I don't know what I haven't done proves other than I haven't done it.
I don't know what I haven't thought proves other than I haven't thought it.
I do know there's always more that could be thought and done.
This website is full of stories of folks who aimed high for good and unwittingly did evil instead.
Did Yahweh not understand what he was doing? If he knew exactly what he was doing and exactly what the outcome would be, I think he's head and shoulders above the rest of us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
For those not keeping track, when he says Yahweh, he's talking not about the God actually depicted in the Bible, but his own wishful thinking of what that God should be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yeah the one that cuts up babies and force feeds them to their mothers. With garlic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I cited scripture to support every single contention I made about Yahweh. You have cited nothing to refute those characterizations. You merely deny them and expect me to accept your denials as having some kind of weight because somebody with a degree gave you a half baked idea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yeah that might have been a comic book character. We're not supposed to use those now.
(I mentioned I learned these ideas elsewhere and not from some pothead only to say I'm not making this up on the fly . . . I only hoped you saw how it worked and its utility, not to immediately accept it.)
This is the closest to a usable idea you have put forth:
Edited by Bolshevikquote box wtf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Sell a false premise, and you can build (or buy into) the most logical looking POS thought imaginable.
Why insist on attributing any and every differences to a change in the nature of God - which you've disparagingly referred to as an "evolution" of God - rather than allowing any possibility for a changing vantage point and perspective on the progressive revelation of something so significantly beyond the realm and scope of man's very limited tactile perception and mental comprehension? God has not changed. But, perhaps it's not so unlike the elephant that blind men can't get their head around, looking through the one sided lens of "the law" (engraved in stone, so to speak) - which was given only to a very limited number of people (which you never mentioned), for a specific and limited length of time (which you refuse to acknowledge), for a very specific purpose (the depths of which remain unspoken, and which you evidently fail to grasp.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
the point I'm "selling"
Is one in which both theists and atheists can use together while maintaining there own viewpoints
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
post was for raf. (you just happened to sneek one in before I had it up)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
My bad.
I agree with you that understanding changes with time. Because, yes, we are limited.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Why is it disparaging to refer to changes in the nature of God as evolution?
If you sell a false premise, for example, morality comes from and is dependent on God, then you are forced into a position of Defending indefensible and immoral actions because to do otherwise is to admit that the premise was false.
For my part, I am still waiting for someone to demonstrate at the premise that I put forth is false. I've seen it denied, but I have not seen it refuted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The problem with the blind men and the elephant analogy is that each person is wrong.
The one who says it's a wall is ignoring all the other evidence.
"Without God, there is no objective morality" is one of the blind men. He is ignoring all the evidence of God's immorality.
As are you guys.
Open your eyes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
People's understanding of morality changes, the ideal person changes, then God changes. Evolution provides the number of frames from which we draw morality.
That's why.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The problem with the "holy just and good" law is not alleviated by the fact that it was only given to a limited number of people. The problem is that it was given to anyone at all!
I mean, Jeffrey Dahmer only ate a miniscule fraction of the people he met. Why does he get stuck with the cannibal label?
I can't even get you guys to admit genocide is immoral because it was ordered by Yahweh and he must have had his reasons and who am I to judge?
And that's sad, because if you cannot call immorality immoral on its face, then you can still be suckered into any cult with a halfway clever story (to answer the previous question about how this topic relates to waybrain and recovery).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.