Are You More Moral Than Yahweh?

[Bolshevik]

Sabbath was made holy . . . clearly for no reason, otherwise Raf would have mention why

How to protect the Sabbath?  Fine the person?  That would imply The Sabbath is not that holy.  Chaos!

[Bolshevik]

Group identity is important for survival.

Children not falling in line to the group's basic needs are a threat to the group's survival.

So we send them to reality school?  Send them to join a competing tribe?  Let them get away with it, because, you know, that won't send any message to others.

[Bolshevik]

I love how this "More moral than Yahweh" argument is so black and white.

Cause when you see a black and white argument, you know that is something well thought out.

[Bolshevik]

"I am Yahweh, I change every ten minutes, I don't have any real power, I read a couple books about building bird houses, don't know much after that"

See.  This is the god people want.  People won't rally around that.

Like Abe Lincoln said, "A house divided is what morally matters"

[Raf]

If anyone would actually like to talk about Yahweh and whether the actions and positions attributed to him can rightly be considered moral, I'm game. But Yahweh, not whatever God you can conjure up with malleable attributes that no longer resemble the Yahweh of the Bible but fit your need for a God that "wins" the "argument."

[Bolshevik]

Yahweh committed genocide.  This is immoral by today's standards.

To think you are more moral than that, is immoral.

 

[Bolshevik]

Yahweh killed people for picking up sticks.  That is awful and immoral today.

To think you are more moral than that, is hogwash.

[Bolshevik]

etc. etc.

[Bolshevik]

Nobody here has been in Yahweh's position or in any position to commit genocide or force a marriage or kill for picking up sticks.

So how can anyone compare their morality to Yahweh?

 

[Raf]

16 minutes ago, Raf said:

If anyone would actually like to talk about Yahweh and whether the actions and positions attributed to him can rightly be considered moral, I'm game. But Yahweh, not whatever God you can conjure up with malleable attributes that no longer resemble the Yahweh of the Bible but fit your need for a God that "wins" the "argument."

Anything at all.

[Bolshevik]

Is this a change from a person being more moral than Yahweh?

Yahweh's actions are immoral, therefore a person can be more moral?

 

 

[Raf]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

 

Quote

The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity^[1]) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.

Although it takes a trivial amount of effort on the Galloper's part to make each individual point before skipping on to the next (especially if they cite from a pre-concocted list of Gallop arguments), a refutation of the same Gallop may likely take much longer and require significantly more effort (per the basic principle that it's always easier to make a mess than to clean it back up again).

The tedium inherent in untangling a Gish Gallop typically allows for very little "creative license" or vivid rhetoric (in deliberate contrast to the exciting point-dashing central to the Galloping), which in turn risks boring the audience or readers, further loosening the refuter's grip on the crowd.

 

[Bolshevik]

Fascinating.

The stoning of children used to be read at fellowships.  Good old OT.

Of course, then everyone would stare at Bolshevik, after reading the passage.

Really taught me a healthy fear of Yahweh.  Because although I was never actually stoned to death, I knew how all the people of TWI felt.  

 

[TLC]

2 hours ago, Raf said:

3 hours ago, TLC said:

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. 

Fiction? Defined your way, then do tell... which law did Saul (aka, Paul) not keep, and what was his sin?

[Raf]

Saul/Paul was after the law. Apples/oranges.

[TLC]

1 minute ago, Raf said:

Saul/Paul was after the law. Apples/oranges.

What part of the law was not in play with (and had no effect on) Saul? It was very much specifically real and applicable to him at the time.

[Raf]

Ah, yes.

And the relevance to our topic is what exactly?

 

[Bolshevik]

See TLC, you'll never be on topic.

It's just another thread to mentally separate oneself from VPW and TWI.

Cake anyone?

[TLC]

13 minutes ago, Raf said:

Ah, yes.

And the relevance to our topic is what exactly?

 

Nothing much.  Only your failure to see (much less understand) what sin, or the purpose and effect of the law, is.  

Edited August 8, 2017 by TLC

[waysider]

4 hours ago, TLC said:

   

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.   

Ahhhhhh...The old "It's spiritual" tap dance... Just need to S.I.T more and get our believing up.

[waysider]

2 hours ago, Bolshevik said:

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?

That begs for a boat load of speculation.

[Bolshevik]

9 minutes ago, waysider said:

That begs for a boat load of speculation.

Yes it does, but, we can judge Yahweh?

Yahweh said nothing would be perfect.  It wasn't.

Putting an imperfect law in place is usually better than no law at all.  How can Yahweh be judged?  

Those few examples I threw out I was trying to put myself in a tribal attitude of thousands of years ago.  Which none of us has experienced, so yes it will fall short.  But at least see the reasoning behind it a little?   

Yahweh nearly tossed out humankind completely with the flood.  He was allowing humanity to just hang in there.

How can Yahweh be judged?

 

 

 

 

[Raf]

1 hour ago, TLC said:

Nothing much.  Only your failure to see (much less understand) what sin, or the purpose and effect of the law, is.  

So you admit you're taking us on an irrelevant tangent. Thanks.

It's not a sin to follow the Law. It's preposterous to suggest otherwise. 

Mercy is also not a sin.

Glad we got that figured out 

[Raf]

Yahweh acting barbaric proves we are more moral than Yahweh.

Those of us who are not sociopaths, anyway. 

 

Edited August 8, 2017 by Raf

[Raf]

If I were responsible for coming up with a list of things to do on behalf of a rape victim, forcing the rapist to 1. pay her father for damaging his property and then 2. marry her would not make the list. Then again, I am a moral person, unlike Yahweh.

Edited August 8, 2017 by Raf