There is no context wherein God's approval or endorsement of child abuse, rape, murder, genocide, human sacrifice, slavery, misogyny, condemnation for crimes of other parties, etc is moral. Those are always immoral.
There is no context wherein God's approval or endorsement of child abuse, rape, murder, genocide, human sacrifice, slavery, misogyny, condemnation for crimes of other parties, etc is moral. Those are always immoral.
There is no context wherein God's approval or endorsement of child abuse, rape, murder, genocide, human sacrifice, slavery, misogyny, condemnation for crimes of other parties, etc is oral. Those are always immoral.
(by oral I assume you mean immoral)
Good another player lol (Raf put me on ignore)
What is your definition for gods? Raf takes a fundy viewpoint.
Jesus endorsed the OT saying "No jot or tittle shall be changed"
He also passed up every opportunity to denounce things such as slavery, but decided not to. Instead the NT uses slave/master analogies as a positive example.
Also, Jesus' "best" examples of morality, found in the Sermon on the Mount, are terribly flawed.
Lastly, to say Jesus "improves" god law is an admission that God's morality meter is flawed.
What is your definition for gods? Raf takes a fundy viewpoint.
Yes, "immoral".
I don't posit a definition since I don't hold the belief that they exist. The theist should define their terms, but the character of the god of The Bible is typically the classical definition (transcendent being, creator, etc).
I do get to see quoted material, and I think it would be nice if certain people didn't presume to characterize my position when they've repeatedly shown such a failure at basic reading comprehension skills that it's healthier to ignore them than swim through their sewage for a salient point.
"The character of God in the Bible" is my definition for Yahweh, as I've said repeatedly. Dismiss that as "the fundy viewpoint" if you wish, but it's Yahweh as opposed to the conveniently shifting, goalpost-moving evolving God that some people keep trying to make this thread about.
I do get to see quoted material, and I think it would be nice if certain people didn't presume to characterize my position when they've repeatedly shown such a failure at basic reading comprehension skills that it's healthier to ignore them than swim through their sewage for a salient point.
"The character of God in the Bible" is my definition for Yahweh, as I've said repeatedly. Dismiss that as "the fundy viewpoint" if you wish, but it's Yahweh as opposed to the conveniently shifting, goalpost-moving evolving God that some people keep trying to make this thread about.
Pffft
You get to characterize my view with "evolving God", than you set the precedent.
"be honest"
"be honest"
"be honest"
after repeated "evolving God" mis-characterizations
I don't posit a definition since I don't hold the belief that they exist. The theist should define their terms, but the character of the god of The Bible is typically the classical definition (transcendent being, creator, etc).
I am neither theist nor am I atheist nor am I agnostic.
I made my claims based on scientific research.
God is real like numbers are real and serve a function in reality.
I am neither theist nor am I atheist nor am I agnostic.
You can't be neither. They are a true dichotomy. You either accept the claim that a god exists or you do not accept it. There is no middle ground.
Also, if you are not agnostic, that is a claim that you do know weather a god exists or not.
You can't be neither. They are a true dichotomy. You either accept the claim that a god exists or you do not accept it. There is no middle ground.
Also, if you are not agnostic, that is a claim that you do know weather a god exists or not.
False.
Think of those definitions as absolutes on a non-linear spectrum, if you are able at this time.
No, that's what a true dichotomy is, by definition. This is basic logic.
There is no middle ground between accepting a claim and not accepting a claim.
No, that's what a true dichotomy is, by definition. This is basic logic.
There is no middle ground between accepting a claim and not accepting a claim.
Interesting.
I used to see it that way as a Wayfer and as Atheist.
I disagree with the lack of middle ground.
Do you agree at least God served a role in building our present society?
No, something is either A or Not A.
You either accept a claim or you do not. That's a direct negation of the statement. It is by necessity and by definition a true dichotomy. To deny that is a formal logical fallacy.
No, something is either A or Not A.
You either accept a claim or you do not. That's a direct negation of the statement. It is by necessity and by definition a true dichotomy. To deny that is a formal logical fallacy.
that may be an example, but the direct analogy would be" Something is either a Tiger or not a tiger".
There is no middle ground.
You are either a theist or not a theist.
A liger is genetically part tiger. You would need more description to say it is not a full tiger, whatever that is.
I think I already posted about the problems with Laws. The I, Robot example?
You are insisting in absolutes that I will not agree to because I know alternatives exist. God is an abstraction of many ideals over many generations. That exists. To insist God does not exist is to voluntarily put blinders on.
A liger may share some properties with a tiger, but is not a Tiger. There is no middle ground. Similarly with a God. You can define it how you want, but it is either A or not A.
Please demonstrate an alternative to A or not A.
Atheism is not an assertion that God does not exist, merely not accepting the claim. You are conflating theism/atheism with gnosticism/agnosticism.
I'm using the true dichotomy of accepting the claim and not accepting the claim. There is no middle ground. There may be diferent concepts of God, but far any of them, you either accept it or do not accept it, without middle ground.
For the sake of this discussion, it might serve our purpose best to limit the definition of God to that which is present in the sections of scripture being examined.
. . .
Atheism is not an assertion that God does not exist, merely not accepting the claim. You are conflating theism/atheism with gnosticism/agnosticism.
I'm using the true dichotomy of accepting the claim and not accepting the claim. There is no middle ground. There may be diferent concepts of God, but far any of them, you either accept it or do not accept it, without middle ground.
If I look at this cup in front of me and someone refutes my claim that it exists, I'm still getting a cup of coffee.
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
Longhunter
^God's moral relativism.
Edited by LonghunterThere is no context wherein God's approval or endorsement of child abuse, rape, murder, genocide, human sacrifice, slavery, misogyny, condemnation for crimes of other parties, etc is moral. Those are always immoral.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You ain't seen nothing yet. Keep reading.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
(by oral I assume you mean immoral)
Good another player lol (Raf put me on ignore)
What is your definition for gods? Raf takes a fundy viewpoint.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhunter
Jesus endorsed the OT saying "No jot or tittle shall be changed"
He also passed up every opportunity to denounce things such as slavery, but decided not to. Instead the NT uses slave/master analogies as a positive example.
Also, Jesus' "best" examples of morality, found in the Sermon on the Mount, are terribly flawed.
Lastly, to say Jesus "improves" god law is an admission that God's morality meter is flawed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhunter
Yes, "immoral".
I don't posit a definition since I don't hold the belief that they exist. The theist should define their terms, but the character of the god of The Bible is typically the classical definition (transcendent being, creator, etc).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I do get to see quoted material, and I think it would be nice if certain people didn't presume to characterize my position when they've repeatedly shown such a failure at basic reading comprehension skills that it's healthier to ignore them than swim through their sewage for a salient point.
"The character of God in the Bible" is my definition for Yahweh, as I've said repeatedly. Dismiss that as "the fundy viewpoint" if you wish, but it's Yahweh as opposed to the conveniently shifting, goalpost-moving evolving God that some people keep trying to make this thread about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Longhunter,
The word you changed from "oral" to "immoral" SHOULD have been changed from "oral" to "MORAL."
You're welcome.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Pffft
You get to characterize my view with "evolving God", than you set the precedent.
"be honest"
"be honest"
"be honest"
after repeated "evolving God" mis-characterizations
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I am neither theist nor am I atheist nor am I agnostic.
I made my claims based on scientific research.
God is real like numbers are real and serve a function in reality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhunter
You can't be neither. They are a true dichotomy. You either accept the claim that a god exists or you do not accept it. There is no middle ground.
Also, if you are not agnostic, that is a claim that you do know weather a god exists or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
False.
Think of those definitions as absolutes on a non-linear spectrum, if you are able at this time.
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Longhunter
No, that's what a true dichotomy is, by definition. This is basic logic.
There is no middle ground between accepting a claim and not accepting a claim.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Interesting.
I used to see it that way as a Wayfer and as Atheist.
I disagree with the lack of middle ground.
Do you agree at least God served a role in building our present society?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhunter
What's the 3rd option between accepting a claims as true and not accepting a claim as true?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Not being a robot?
One option is partly true and the other option is partly true? By definition there's more options.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhunter
This is a basic fact of logic. You are claiming a middle ground in a dichotomy, that's a logical violation.
Law of Identity
Law of Non-Contradiction
Law of Excluded Middle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhunter
No, something is either A or Not A.
You either accept a claim or you do not. That's a direct negation of the statement. It is by necessity and by definition a true dichotomy. To deny that is a formal logical fallacy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Let's go with sense in the non-contradiction.
The god that is being insisted i s nonsensical and is a red-herring.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Like a Liger is not a Tiger?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhunter
that may be an example, but the direct analogy would be" Something is either a Tiger or not a tiger".
There is no middle ground.
You are either a theist or not a theist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
A liger is genetically part tiger. You would need more description to say it is not a full tiger, whatever that is.
I think I already posted about the problems with Laws. The I, Robot example?
You are insisting in absolutes that I will not agree to because I know alternatives exist. God is an abstraction of many ideals over many generations. That exists. To insist God does not exist is to voluntarily put blinders on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhunter
Several problems:
A liger may share some properties with a tiger, but is not a Tiger. There is no middle ground. Similarly with a God. You can define it how you want, but it is either A or not A.
Please demonstrate an alternative to A or not A.
Atheism is not an assertion that God does not exist, merely not accepting the claim. You are conflating theism/atheism with gnosticism/agnosticism.
I'm using the true dichotomy of accepting the claim and not accepting the claim. There is no middle ground. There may be diferent concepts of God, but far any of them, you either accept it or do not accept it, without middle ground.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
For the sake of this discussion, it might serve our purpose best to limit the definition of God to that which is present in the sections of scripture being examined.
Edited by waysiderspelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If I look at this cup in front of me and someone refutes my claim that it exists, I'm still getting a cup of coffee.
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.