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.
. . .
Last I checked taxonomy is quite difficult at times. Because organisms are not robots and don't fit into neat categories.
You're really forcing absolutes. Something does exist. Someone refuting claims only eliminates infinite possibilities of what it is not, doesn't change the fact that it is there to be dealt with.
For the sake of this discussion, it might serve our purpose best to limit the definition of God to that which is present n the sections of scripture being examined.
A book is only as good as the reader.
We can't agree there was abstract thinking involved in writing it.
.. .
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.
You'll need to explain how I'm conflating the 'isms. I'm interested to hear that.
Human beings evolve via natural selection, more importantly sexual selection. The different god concepts play a role in the sexual selection and is a driving force for human evolution. We a quite literally created in the image of God, you could say.
Are you arguing against human evolution? If not, please explain how it happened.
Longhunter: I define Yahweh according to the Bible.
TLC: I define Yahweh according to the Bible.
Mark: I define Yahweh according to the Bible.
BSvic: Yahweh is one of the god concepts that helps determine sexual evolution.
This is the root of our inability to make progress on this thread.
TLC, I apologize for lumping your posts in with his earlier. You're making coherent arguments. I don't agree with them, and I've explained why, but they're not incoherent.
Longhunter: I define Yahweh according to the Bible.
TLC: I define Yahweh according to the Bible.
Mark: I define Yahweh according to the Bible.
BSvic: Yahweh is one of the god concepts that helps determine sexual evolution.
This is the root of our inability to make progress on this thread.
TLC, I apologize for lumping your posts in with his earlier. You're making coherent arguments. I don't agree with them, and I've explained why, but they're not incoherent.
You've jumped to other gods, too.
It was a dead thread. Be honest.
2 hours ago, Bolshevik said:
A book is only as good as the reader.
We can't agree there was abstract thinking involved in writing it.
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.
Point being, the moral basis for any act is always relative to something, regardless of whether or not it involves or affects anyone other than the one acting. At best, you only have the ability (or intellect, if you prefer) to relate it to that which is, without a doubt, temporal (i.e., in your own life and/or the whole of society.)
9 hours ago, Raf said:
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!
Don't be ridiculous, raf. To do that, one would need to put themselves above, or in the place of, God Himself. And you've entirely missed any consideration for how significant something might eternally benefit the whole in lieu of what it cost a particular individual. In other words, might not be "a cookie" (to use your own crass and demeaning vocabulary) later for them, if the motive relates elsewhere.
9 hours ago, Raf said:
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.
Nice try to make the straw man switch, but I never said it was proof. However, there is empirical evidence for it. Neither is it real hidden or all that difficult to find on the Internet. But, seems you're not only ignorant of it (yet pretending to be real smart about it), you're too skeptical (or too lazy, I'm not sure which) to do even a single search for it (or it would pop you in the face.)
9 hours ago, Raf said:
Response: Actually, it is the opinion of a large number of Bible scholars that, yeah, precisely,
Think I didn't already know what some large number of them are at on it? Doesn't make you or them right, even if they outnumbered (though they don't) other Bible scholars on the matter. All you did with that is skirt the question I asked.
9 hours ago, Raf said:
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.
Yeah, you and so many others here are so f'n smart, there ought to be a badge or nametag for it. What color would you like? Green? Brown?
Oh wait... I have a few of those too from TWI.
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.
Other humans use God or other gods and that affects change. Positive change in the form of survival for most of history. Such as in The Bible. That is real. The coffee cup explained it fine.
A Liger is part Tiger. A tiger was needed to make it! There is middle ground. That's just the world.
Your "atheism is not an assertion that God does not exist, merely not accepting the claim". That is just a meaningless deflection and a disengaging tactic.
TLC, if you're going to cite evidence (I didn't call it proof) then cite it. Don't claim it exists and leave others to find it.
The ad hominem at the end of your post reveals your desperation. But for the record, I don't need no stinking badges.
The pericope of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery only reveals that even Jesus knew the Old Testament law was immoral. Stoning people for adultery. I mean really. No one ever said mercy was a sin. What you're ignoring is that Jesus could have cast the first stone and still not sinned. And you would have to call that moral, even though you know full well it is barbaric.
I'm sure when ISIS tosses gay people of rooftops, they justify it with the eternal perspective.
Here's the deal: you have repeatedly cited the "end game," big picture, eternal perspective to excuse temporal atrocity, making my point over and over again in the process. That doesn't make me smarter than you. It just means that you've surrendered your capacity to make a moral judgment. You know full well there's something inhumane and immoral about the actions and laws I've cited. But you've convinced yourself that Yahweh is more moral, wise, etc than you. He must be right. I must be wrong. Evidence be damned.
Now, temporal or eternal: there is no moral basis for forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist as HIS punishment. There is no moral basis for pelting a man with giant rocks until his skull cracks and he literally can't take it anymore as punishment for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week. That you would excuse such atrocities on the grounds of some eternal perspective (NEITHER of those victims is promised eternal life for enduring such abuses, by the way) speaks to an abdication of your moral responsibility.
Now, temporal or eternal: there is no moral basis for forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist as HIS punishment. There is no moral basis for pelting a man with giant rocks until his skull cracks and he literally can't take it anymore as punishment for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week. That you would excuse such atrocities on the grounds of some eternal perspective (NEITHER of those victims is promised eternal life for enduring such abuses, by the way) speaks to an abdication of your moral responsibility.
We obviously can't fully transport ourselves back to that world of infinite hardship to demonstrate how it helped survival, back then. Are you more moral than Yahweh is clearly saying someone could go back in time and do better than all those generations of people. Were they not trying?
Applying OT law to the modern world, you just can't.
ISIS tossing gays off a rooftop? There's something to argue against, perhaps in a practical way that action can be taken and change can be made in the world. That has nothing to do with Yahweh, other than he is part of the foundation of our superior western culture compared to something like ISIS.
Arguing Yahweh as immoral has zero productive outcome, possibly destructive only. Arguing what ISIS is, can be productive.
Positive outcomes of realizing you're more moral than Yahweh: recognizing that "it is written" doesn't justify cruelty, sexism, racism or slavery.
Other than that I can't think of anything.Seriously, how is it that some of you think I'm the arrogant one in this conversation when others just literally make s--- up as a pronouncement without the slightest bit of critical thought to challenge or support it.
No positive outcomes? I could list 30 while snoring.
Didn't want to offer links, the omission was intentional. Which allows you to remain safely within what you already know.
And my comment at the end of the post was more of a general observation than it was personal... but perhaps the closer to the truth something is the more it tends to sting.
3 hours ago, Raf said:
What you're ignoring is that Jesus could have cast the first stone and still not sinned.
Evidently you, Raf, have yet to even see (much less understand) what sin is - else you would never have said that. Which is further proof that you absolutely do not see the purpose and effect of the law.
3 hours ago, Raf said:
I'm sure when ISIS tosses gay people of rooftops, they justify it with the eternal perspective.
You rag on Bolshevik for changing the definition of god you want to stick to here, yet, you have no compunction about doing the same when it fits with your agenda.
3 hours ago, Raf said:
Here's the deal: you have repeatedly cited the "end game," big picture, eternal perspective to excuse temporal atrocity
Seriously, Raf? Even from your very sense knowledge conditioned brain you can't see that nowhere here in any of my posts did I ever (as you so blatantly claim) "excuse temporal atrocity"? The "end game" (so to speak) is directed towards spirituality, not some dumb little "cookie" that you've reduced it to. The law (given to a very limited group of people, for a very limited period of time) merely proved that no one (no matter how special, no matter how favored, no matter how many "signs, miracles, and wonders" were done for) was going to gain or add one lick of "spirituality" to their stature (and inherent nature, as a result of Adam's choice.) To "live by the law," even if perfect in every way, was to live by your senses. Hence, if Jesus would have cast a stone... the sin of it didn't reside in breaking the law, but in breaking the spirit (i.e., living by the spirit, rather than the senses.) The law was not a path to achieve spirituality or overcome death. Yet, that is precisely how Israel (and the senses oriented mind) view it. Rather, it was a pointer (or testimony) to the Messiah, who would redeem man from his corrupted (senses only) way of thinking. To use or think of the law as anything other than that (such as the only basis for morality), is a trap, resulting in defeat and death.
The omission of links was intentional because you don't have any. You know the claims you do have won't stand up to scrutiny. So you hide them and pretend that I'm not willing to look for them. Nice try. Dishonest. Sad.
"And my comment at the end of the post was more of a general observation than it was personal... but perhaps the closer to the truth something is the more it tends to sting."
Except, of course, it did not sting. The only thing it did was Reveal Your desperation, which made me pity you a little.
Didn't want to offer links, the omission was intentional. Which allows you to remain safely within what you already know.
And my comment at the end of the post was more of a general observation than it was personal... but perhaps the closer to the truth something is the more it tends to sting.
Answered.
Evidently you, Raf, have yet to even see (much less understand) what sin is - else you would never have said that. Which is further proof that you absolutely do not see the purpose and effect of the law.
This is a convenient fiction on your part. Following the law is by definition not sin. Breaking the law is. To argue that following the law would be sin is to argue that the law itself is sinful, which is my point, not yours.
You rag on Bolshevik for changing the definition of god you want to stick to here, yet, you have no compunction about doing the same when it fits with your agenda.
I did not change the definition of God. I was drawing a comparison between you justifying any atrocity as long as it is committed by your God to ISIS justifying its atrocity as long as it is sanctioned by their God. Be honest, you knew that.
Seriously, Raf? Even from your very sense knowledge conditioned brain you can't see that nowhere here in any of my posts did I ever (as you so blatantly claim) "excuse temporal atrocity"?
You did it repeatedly.
The "end game" (so to speak) is directed towards spirituality, not some dumb little "cookie" that you've reduced it to. The law (given to a very limited group of people, for a very limited period of time) He keeps saying that like it's relevant. It's not. That it was given to anyone for any amount of time is immoral. Killing ONE person for picking up sticks on a Friday night or even mandating the marriage of one woman to her rapist is immoral. Citing "eternal reward" as a justification for immorality in this life again proves my point: You will justify ANY atrocity. You keep doing it and you keep getting mad at me for pointing it out. Stop doing it, and our issue is resolved! By the way, "a cookie" is my way of saying your eternal perspective is being used to justify atrocity. If you'd rather I remained literal, I will do so. I thought a cookie would be more palatable.
...merely proved that no one (no matter how special, no matter how favored, no matter how many "signs, miracles, and wonders" were done for) was going to gain or add one lick of "spirituality" to their stature (and inherent nature, as a result of Adam's choice.) To "live by the law," even if perfect in every way, was to live by your senses. Hence, if Jesus would have cast a stone... the sin of it didn't reside in breaking the law, but in breaking the spirit (i.e., living by the spirit, rather than the senses.)
If God says "in circumstance A, perform action B," and you perform action B under circumstance A, you have not sinned. If the spirit of the law moves you to break it, then the law itself is imperfect, which AGAIN proves my point. Even Jesus knew this law was barbaric. It's a good thing it wasn't you. You would have stoned her and said "hey, eternally, this isn't that big a deal. Maintain a little perspective!"
The law was not a path to achieve spirituality or overcome death. Yet, that is precisely how Israel (and the senses oriented mind) view it. Rather, it was a pointer (or testimony) to the Messiah, who would redeem man from his corrupted (senses only) way of thinking. To use or think of the law as anything other than that (such as the only basis for morality), is a trap, resulting in defeat and death.
Tell me, how does stoning a man for violating the sabbath, or ordering a rapist to marry the woman he raped, or executing children for considering another religion... how do those atrocities point the way to the messiah? Is God so powerless that he could not point the way to the messiah without attributing moral atrocities to himself? Your argument is a non-sequitur. It does not flow logically that because the law was a pointer to the messiah, it must therefore contain moral atrocities. The opposite should be the case.
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
Last I checked taxonomy is quite difficult at times. Because organisms are not robots and don't fit into neat categories.
You're really forcing absolutes. Something does exist. Someone refuting claims only eliminates infinite possibilities of what it is not, doesn't change the fact that it is there to be dealt with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
A book is only as good as the reader.
We can't agree there was abstract thinking involved in writing it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You'll need to explain how I'm conflating the 'isms. I'm interested to hear that.
Human beings evolve via natural selection, more importantly sexual selection. The different god concepts play a role in the sexual selection and is a driving force for human evolution. We a quite literally created in the image of God, you could say.
Are you arguing against human evolution? If not, please explain how it happened.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Who is Yahweh?
Raf: I define Yahweh according to the Bible.
Waysider: I define Yahweh according to the Bible.
Longhunter: I define Yahweh according to the Bible.
TLC: I define Yahweh according to the Bible.
Mark: I define Yahweh according to the Bible.
BSvic: Yahweh is one of the god concepts that helps determine sexual evolution.
This is the root of our inability to make progress on this thread.
TLC, I apologize for lumping your posts in with his earlier. You're making coherent arguments. I don't agree with them, and I've explained why, but they're not incoherent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You've jumped to other gods, too.
It was a dead thread. Be honest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhunter
That doesn't address anything I've discussed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
It does. Please answer the evolution question?
(at its base the thread is a denial of understanding evolution)
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Longhunter, it's kind of like if someone denied evolution. They can do that. We'll still use it a as a tool to explain the world.
BSvic : Are we more moral than a screwdriver?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You're starting to catch on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
At least let him answer the evolution question. Then you two can put the block thingy on easy enough and conclude whatever it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
For what it's worth, I've never blocked anyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Point being, the moral basis for any act is always relative to something, regardless of whether or not it involves or affects anyone other than the one acting. At best, you only have the ability (or intellect, if you prefer) to relate it to that which is, without a doubt, temporal (i.e., in your own life and/or the whole of society.)
Don't be ridiculous, raf. To do that, one would need to put themselves above, or in the place of, God Himself. And you've entirely missed any consideration for how significant something might eternally benefit the whole in lieu of what it cost a particular individual. In other words, might not be "a cookie" (to use your own crass and demeaning vocabulary) later for them, if the motive relates elsewhere.
Nice try to make the straw man switch, but I never said it was proof. However, there is empirical evidence for it. Neither is it real hidden or all that difficult to find on the Internet. But, seems you're not only ignorant of it (yet pretending to be real smart about it), you're too skeptical (or too lazy, I'm not sure which) to do even a single search for it (or it would pop you in the face.)
Think I didn't already know what some large number of them are at on it? Doesn't make you or them right, even if they outnumbered (though they don't) other Bible scholars on the matter. All you did with that is skirt the question I asked.
Yeah, you and so many others here are so f'n smart, there ought to be a badge or nametag for it. What color would you like? Green? Brown?
Edited by TLCOh wait... I have a few of those too from TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Other humans use God or other gods and that affects change. Positive change in the form of survival for most of history. Such as in The Bible. That is real. The coffee cup explained it fine.
A Liger is part Tiger. A tiger was needed to make it! There is middle ground. That's just the world.
Your "atheism is not an assertion that God does not exist, merely not accepting the claim". That is just a meaningless deflection and a disengaging tactic.
My view is not unique.
--------------------------------------------------
"We are more Moral than Yahweh" a premise and conclusion all in one. Whoopie. The Word of God is The Will of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"all manner of atrocity" . . conduit for the adversary
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
TLC, if you're going to cite evidence (I didn't call it proof) then cite it. Don't claim it exists and leave others to find it.
The ad hominem at the end of your post reveals your desperation. But for the record, I don't need no stinking badges.
The pericope of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery only reveals that even Jesus knew the Old Testament law was immoral. Stoning people for adultery. I mean really. No one ever said mercy was a sin. What you're ignoring is that Jesus could have cast the first stone and still not sinned. And you would have to call that moral, even though you know full well it is barbaric.
I'm sure when ISIS tosses gay people of rooftops, they justify it with the eternal perspective.
Here's the deal: you have repeatedly cited the "end game," big picture, eternal perspective to excuse temporal atrocity, making my point over and over again in the process. That doesn't make me smarter than you. It just means that you've surrendered your capacity to make a moral judgment. You know full well there's something inhumane and immoral about the actions and laws I've cited. But you've convinced yourself that Yahweh is more moral, wise, etc than you. He must be right. I must be wrong. Evidence be damned.
Now, temporal or eternal: there is no moral basis for forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist as HIS punishment. There is no moral basis for pelting a man with giant rocks until his skull cracks and he literally can't take it anymore as punishment for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week. That you would excuse such atrocities on the grounds of some eternal perspective (NEITHER of those victims is promised eternal life for enduring such abuses, by the way) speaks to an abdication of your moral responsibility.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
We obviously can't fully transport ourselves back to that world of infinite hardship to demonstrate how it helped survival, back then. Are you more moral than Yahweh is clearly saying someone could go back in time and do better than all those generations of people. Were they not trying?
Applying OT law to the modern world, you just can't.
ISIS tossing gays off a rooftop? There's something to argue against, perhaps in a practical way that action can be taken and change can be made in the world. That has nothing to do with Yahweh, other than he is part of the foundation of our superior western culture compared to something like ISIS.
Arguing Yahweh as immoral has zero productive outcome, possibly destructive only. Arguing what ISIS is, can be productive.
Edited by Bolshevikspelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Positive outcomes of realizing you're more moral than Yahweh: recognizing that "it is written" doesn't justify cruelty, sexism, racism or slavery.
Other than that I can't think of anything.Seriously, how is it that some of you think I'm the arrogant one in this conversation when others just literally make s--- up as a pronouncement without the slightest bit of critical thought to challenge or support it.
No positive outcomes? I could list 30 while snoring.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Didn't want to offer links, the omission was intentional. Which allows you to remain safely within what you already know.
And my comment at the end of the post was more of a general observation than it was personal... but perhaps the closer to the truth something is the more it tends to sting.
Evidently you, Raf, have yet to even see (much less understand) what sin is - else you would never have said that. Which is further proof that you absolutely do not see the purpose and effect of the law.
You rag on Bolshevik for changing the definition of god you want to stick to here, yet, you have no compunction about doing the same when it fits with your agenda.
Seriously, Raf? Even from your very sense knowledge conditioned brain you can't see that nowhere here in any of my posts did I ever (as you so blatantly claim) "excuse temporal atrocity"? The "end game" (so to speak) is directed towards spirituality, not some dumb little "cookie" that you've reduced it to. The law (given to a very limited group of people, for a very limited period of time) merely proved that no one (no matter how special, no matter how favored, no matter how many "signs, miracles, and wonders" were done for) was going to gain or add one lick of "spirituality" to their stature (and inherent nature, as a result of Adam's choice.) To "live by the law," even if perfect in every way, was to live by your senses. Hence, if Jesus would have cast a stone... the sin of it didn't reside in breaking the law, but in breaking the spirit (i.e., living by the spirit, rather than the senses.) The law was not a path to achieve spirituality or overcome death. Yet, that is precisely how Israel (and the senses oriented mind) view it. Rather, it was a pointer (or testimony) to the Messiah, who would redeem man from his corrupted (senses only) way of thinking. To use or think of the law as anything other than that (such as the only basis for morality), is a trap, resulting in defeat and death.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The omission of links was intentional because you don't have any. You know the claims you do have won't stand up to scrutiny. So you hide them and pretend that I'm not willing to look for them. Nice try. Dishonest. Sad.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You excused temporal atrocity over and over and over again and then chastise me for pointing it out. Please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"And my comment at the end of the post was more of a general observation than it was personal... but perhaps the closer to the truth something is the more it tends to sting."
Except, of course, it did not sting. The only thing it did was Reveal Your desperation, which made me pity you a little.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/most-people-consider-themselves-to-be-morally-superior/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Barbarians acting barbaric proves that we are more moral than Yahweh. Okay.
We're 3000 - 4000 years ago. Man rapes a woman (not raping another man or a woman raping anyone, just man versus woman)
Let's cut the man's head off maybe?
One less soldier to fight in the army? We need bodies for defense.
What do we do with the damaged woman? What resources are available to help her without compromising the entire village? How will she survive?
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.