It probably goes back half a dozen pages or so where I probably first alluded to it, but as I see it the fundamental flaw in this whole thread is a failure to take into account "the end game" that's always been an integral part of God's plan for man. In other words, if morality is only viewed and judged from man's very limited tactile perspective on what he thinks this mortal life can or should be, with little no thought whatsoever given to the any possible effect on all of creation (say nothing of any possible eternal effect it might have on any individual in particular), then morality itself is only going to be defined by man's restricted view of what is or isn't it "good."
When Egypt's army chased after the unarmed children of Israel fleeing into a path across the floor of the Red Sea... was it "genocide" when not a one of them survived the waters? By the most common of men's standards, it wasn't. But, why not? What was/is the difference?
Take that and extend it into eternity... and all of a sudden perhaps your perspective on what is or isn't "moral" (which means what, exactly... that which offers or results in the greatest benefits to the most people? you tell me) needs some tweaking.
On 7/29/2017 at 8:40 AM, TLC said:
On 7/28/2017 at 2:03 PM, Bolshevik said:
You're saying Man was the next plan?
In a way, yes. Think of it as "what if," if you want...
What if Lucifer was second, only to the Lord God, in all creation. (forget any nonsense about being one of three "archangels." there are no others beside him, and there is one - and only one - above him.) But, there came a point where that wasn't enough. And (you probably know this part) ... he abdicates his second place position and reaches for higher.
The result? A vacancy at the right hand of God (i.e., second only to God Himself.) You're a smart young guy... what should God to do? Create another perfect being to fill that position? Wait... wasn't the first one created perfect for that position? How is God going to do any better in a "do over"? And, what happens to the first character that failed (aka, the devil)?
What if (and to show how utterly foolish the prior morning star was), a rock - a chunk of dirt - (i.e., "man" - aka, Adam) is the nominee. But, there will be a time of proving, after which - if proven worthy, the appointment will be made.
well, it's a deep rabbit hole (not much related to this thread) ...and you're already working to fill in the blanks, so... 'nuff said.
Queen of Hearts: You've got to run fast to stay in the same place, off with their heads
Mother Nature: It's gonna suck
Raf: We are more moral than Yahweh
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).
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).
I said your not putting anything in context. Like others have said.
It probably goes back half a dozen pages or so where I probably first alluded to it, but as I see it the fundamental flaw in this whole thread is a failure to take into account "the end game" that's always been an integral part of God's plan for man. In other words, if morality is only viewed and judged from man's very limited tactile perspective on what he thinks this mortal life can or should be, with little no thought whatsoever given to the any possible effect on all of creation (say nothing of any possible eternal effect it might have on any individual in particular), then morality itself is only going to be defined by man's restricted view of what is or isn't it "good."
When Egypt's army chased after the unarmed children of Israel fleeing into a path across the floor of the Red Sea... was it "genocide" when not a one of them survived the waters? By the most common of men's standards, it wasn't. But, why not? What was/is the difference?
Take that and extend it into eternity... and all of a sudden perhaps your perspective on what is or isn't "moral" (which means what, exactly... that which offers or results in the greatest benefits to the most people? you tell me) needs some tweaking.
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.
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.
Maybe. But I know enough not to kill a kid for checking out another religion. And so do you.
See kidz . . . Debil Spurt influence.
Slippery Slope Arguments.
There may be evil acts done in the name of religion . . . but don't throw all religion under the bus.
Definitely don't pull one from thousands of years ago and make moral judgement against it.
They have a place in the progression of history that we should appreciate in context.
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.)
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.
Gods arise from from nature. They are a naturally arising tool and product of evolution.
Looking at VPW's works and realizing he was a bad guy is one thing. Doing that toward a god is another. It's a move toward "reason" and Totalitarian Rule.
His question "Are you more moral than Yahweh" sidesteps any practical application.
Was reading this morning about Dawkins and others getting booted off of patreon, for absurd reasons really.
Tangent. Someone else made a similar point, in the context of religion, that I was making using a cheetah eating a baby antelope. What's the morality?
How does morality develop? How do gods play a role?
The opening post question is leading, like we're aiming higher. I don't see a grounding in reality. That's a leap of faith, under "questioning faith" forum.
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.
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.
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.
To live in a society we each have to give up some values in exchange of the benefits of being in a society.
Not so much right and wrong, as sacrifice and exchange. We have to sacrifice parts of ourselves for the sake of others. What that might be may change with context.
Much like most of us are unaware of they physical challenges we do not face in the modern world, I think there's a lot of moral dilemmas we are not faced with that past societies had to make decisions on. They did not have the resources to ignore what we can afford to ignore.
Are we more moral because our decisions are easier?
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.
So, you can justify the ending of one physical life for the protection of... what, exactly?
Another's privacy and peace of mind (i.e.,within their own home or bedroom)?
Another's physical property (i.e., don't break into my house and steal my TV)?
Another's life? ...just where do you draw the line?
Yet, you won't (or can't) extend or correlate any these temporal issues to eternal realities?
What is 10, 50, or even 100 years in comparison of importance to that?
On 8/4/2017 at 1:39 PM, Raf said:
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.
Any chance that you're not as smart or clever as you think, raf? Evidently you're either not aware of, or have chosen to ignore, the (relatively recent) empirical evidence for it.
On 8/4/2017 at 1:39 PM, Raf said:
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.
Nonsense. Why did Jesus Christ (of whom it is declared, never sinned) not cast that first stone when it was plainly written in the law that the penalty for the woman caught in the act was death by stoning? I suppose your proclivity is to either say, It didn't really happen, or, It's just proof of one more contradiction and error in the scriptures.
On 8/4/2017 at 1:39 PM, Raf said:
You have talked yourself into accepting anything as morally acceptable. That's not faith. That's abandoning discernment.
More utter nonsense. I think you've simply talked (or "reasoned") yourself out of any real belief and genuine understanding of scripture.
So, you can justify the ending of one physical life for the protection of... what, exactly?
Response: The protection of another life. Like, if I'm coming at you with a knife and someone shoots me to stop me. Yeah. Cool.
Another's privacy and peace of mind (i.e.,within their own home or bedroom)?
Another's physical property (i.e., don't break into my house and steal my TV)?
Another's life? ...just where do you draw the line?
Response: Good question. Which is why I would never use that example. And why I didn't. You did, and claimed I would. But I didn't and wouldn't.
Yet, you won't (or can't) extend or correlate any these temporal issues to eternal realities?
What is 10, 50, or even 100 years in comparison of importance to that?
Response: You can talk yourself into all manner of atrocity when you put it that way. I mean, really, what difference does it make if God kills you for investigating another religion as long as you get a cookie later!
Any chance that you're not as smart or clever as you think, raf? Evidently you're either not aware of, or have chosen to ignore, the (relatively recent) empirical evidence for it.
Response: Ah, the ever present recently discovered evidence that proves Exodus happened. Which of course you decline to cite. But I'm sure it's around here somewhere.
Nonsense. Why did Jesus Christ (of whom it is declared, never sinned) not cast that first stone when it was plainly written in the law that the penalty for the woman caught in the act was death by stoning? I suppose your proclivity is to either say, It didn't really happen, or, It's just proof of one more contradiction and error in the scriptures.
Response: Actually, it is the opinion of a large number of Bible scholars that, yeah, precisely, that anecdote is an interpolation into the original gospel of John. So there's that. By the way, why IS the penalty for adultery death by stoning? Seems a little harsh, no? Oh, right, she gets a cookie later. I forgot. And you have several times underscored my point that you will excuse anything. You keep doing it. Repeatedly. "What is 10, 50 or 100 years in comparison to eternal realities?" YOU JUST DID IT. Like, in the very same post where you call my assertion nonsense.
More utter nonsense. I think you've simply talked (or "reasoned") yourself out of any real belief and genuine understanding of scripture.
Response: You can say that, but I think what really terrifies some folks is the knowledge that I know the scripture as well as if not better than many of you. I didn't come to my positions because I fail to understand scripture. I came to my positions because I understand it just fine.
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
Bolshevik
This is something that needs to be backed up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
It probably goes back half a dozen pages or so where I probably first alluded to it, but as I see it the fundamental flaw in this whole thread is a failure to take into account "the end game" that's always been an integral part of God's plan for man. In other words, if morality is only viewed and judged from man's very limited tactile perspective on what he thinks this mortal life can or should be, with little no thought whatsoever given to the any possible effect on all of creation (say nothing of any possible eternal effect it might have on any individual in particular), then morality itself is only going to be defined by man's restricted view of what is or isn't it "good."
When Egypt's army chased after the unarmed children of Israel fleeing into a path across the floor of the Red Sea... was it "genocide" when not a one of them survived the waters? By the most common of men's standards, it wasn't. But, why not? What was/is the difference?
Take that and extend it into eternity... and all of a sudden perhaps your perspective on what is or isn't "moral" (which means what, exactly... that which offers or results in the greatest benefits to the most people? you tell me) needs some tweaking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The Law apparently has a provision for killing someone for picking up sticks on the wrong day.
Most people would not do this. They would think it silly.
Does that make them more moral than Yahweh?
NO.
Because,
How would that make anyone more moral than Yahweh?
What has been established to equate disgust with a provision in the Law with a superior morality?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I said your not putting anything in context. Like others have said.
Nature is chaos. Law is order.
Think about it.
Edited by Bolshevikpoor word choice
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
See kidz . . . Debil Spurt influence.
Slippery Slope Arguments.
There may be evil acts done in the name of religion . . . but don't throw all religion under the bus.
Definitely don't pull one from thousands of years ago and make moral judgement against it.
They have a place in the progression of history that we should appreciate in context.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If you were Mother Nature, would you allow sea otters to rape baby seals to death?
Why the hell not?
YOU are more moral than reality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
If I was a carpenter and you were a lady.......
What the hell are we even talking about anymore?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Waysider, I find the "ignore" function quite useful for weeding out trolling responses.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Gods arise from from nature. They are a naturally arising tool and product of evolution.
Looking at VPW's works and realizing he was a bad guy is one thing. Doing that toward a god is another. It's a move toward "reason" and Totalitarian Rule.
His question "Are you more moral than Yahweh" sidesteps any practical application.
It's a real danger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/15928/do-sea-otters-rape-baby-seals-to-death
(I assumed this was common knowledge)
Was reading this morning about Dawkins and others getting booted off of patreon, for absurd reasons really.
Tangent. Someone else made a similar point, in the context of religion, that I was making using a cheetah eating a baby antelope. What's the morality?
How does morality develop? How do gods play a role?
The opening post question is leading, like we're aiming higher. I don't see a grounding in reality. That's a leap of faith, under "questioning faith" forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'd rather say I'm thankful I don't have to make choices some people in history and today have had to make.
The premise alters definitions from the get go by comparing your own immediate reactions to a god.
Removing gods from the equation does not equal more peace and morality. Someone else posted a great article with some famous researchers on the topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
To live in a society we each have to give up some values in exchange of the benefits of being in a society.
Not so much right and wrong, as sacrifice and exchange. We have to sacrifice parts of ourselves for the sake of others. What that might be may change with context.
Much like most of us are unaware of they physical challenges we do not face in the modern world, I think there's a lot of moral dilemmas we are not faced with that past societies had to make decisions on. They did not have the resources to ignore what we can afford to ignore.
Are we more moral because our decisions are easier?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
It's me alone, not "you guys." And I think it's your own lack of vision that leaves you blind to the substance of the objection.
Mere physical (mortal) life should not be set above, and valued so much greater than, eternal life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
So, you can justify the ending of one physical life for the protection of... what, exactly?
Another's privacy and peace of mind (i.e.,within their own home or bedroom)?
Another's physical property (i.e., don't break into my house and steal my TV)?
Another's life? ...just where do you draw the line?
Yet, you won't (or can't) extend or correlate any these temporal issues to eternal realities?
What is 10, 50, or even 100 years in comparison of importance to that?
Any chance that you're not as smart or clever as you think, raf? Evidently you're either not aware of, or have chosen to ignore, the (relatively recent) empirical evidence for it.
Nonsense. Why did Jesus Christ (of whom it is declared, never sinned) not cast that first stone when it was plainly written in the law that the penalty for the woman caught in the act was death by stoning? I suppose your proclivity is to either say, It didn't really happen, or, It's just proof of one more contradiction and error in the scriptures.
More utter nonsense. I think you've simply talked (or "reasoned") yourself out of any real belief and genuine understanding of scripture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
So slavery, subjugation and execution for a petty offense are okay because eternity.
You can talk yourself into excusing all manner of atrocity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
So can you so can I.
The worst thing is we won't notice if it does happen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Edited by RafLink 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.