I think we can agree on the important part of this: Namely, that what we're discussing is greatly alleviated if this is a story and the events did not actually happen to real people. This would make sense on a number of levels, all of which are off topic. My points are irrelevant, except as a theoretical exercise, if no one is insisting on this as actual history.
See if you throw this into the category of "not real" it is just propaganda. Like Superman.
Propaganda is short-term. The Bible and other stories are long term. Because they are in a category of real.
You yourself used David as evidence that people today are more moral. While at the same time probably don't believe they really happened?
I can concede David existed (there probably was a King David) without believing that he killed a 10-foot gladiator with a slingshot or that he sent a soldier to the frontlines because the man wouldn't bang his wife to take credit for her baby. I can concede all of those things without believing that some all-loving, all-powerful Deity couldn't figure out a way to punish David without ripping the kingdom apart (which, it must be said, flipping happened anyway).
Nothing in your "Superman" post actually contradicts my position, so I feel no need to answer it.
I can concede David existed (there probably was a King David) without believing that he killed a 10-foot gladiator with a slingshot or that he sent a soldier to the frontlines because the man wouldn't bang his wife to take credit for her baby. I can concede all of those things without believing that some all-loving, all-powerful Deity couldn't figure out a way to punish David without ripping the kingdom apart (which, it must be said, flipping happened anyway).
Nothing in your "Superman" post actually contradicts my position, so I feel no need to answer it.
See, strawman argument.
You're taking God from the perspective of evolution, and then switching in the Fundamentalist Viewpoint to make your argument.
I never conceded your 'evolving God" point, so to accuse me of strawman and dishonestly switching from one perspective to the other makes no sense in context.
You're the one switching definitions of God, not I.
See if you throw this into the category of "not real" it is just propaganda. Like Superman.
Propaganda is short-term. The Bible and other stories are long term. Because they are in a category of real.
You yourself used David as evidence that people today are more moral. While at the same time probably don't believe they really happened?
My "Green Goblin" comment was not the argument of a child. It was my response to the argument of a child.
Implying as you did that I can't use the story of David without conceding that the story happened in history is tantamount to saying I can't call myself more moral than Lex Luthor without conceding that Lex Luthor exists in real life. It's ludicrous, and it's YOUR argument, not mine.
The stories of David are really stories. They are not history. They are folklore. Valuable lessons can be learned from folklore without adopting the premise that they reflect history.
My "Green Goblin" comment was not the argument of a child. It was my response to the argument of a child.
Implying as you did that I can't use the story of David without conceding that the story happened in history is tantamount to saying I can't call myself more moral than Lex Luthor without conceding that Lex Luthor exists in real life. It's ludicrous, and it's YOUR argument, not mine.
I believe there was mockery of theism early on.
God and all other gods are a result of and drive human evolution. So they exist and are more than just a little relevant. Superheroes and super-villains do not influence evolution.
You are moral because it's genetically built into you, along with evil. Put there by evolution. Which gods and God were apart of. Both socially/culturally and genetically.
I respect you as a poster and look forward to more discussions.
Modern day Christendom would have imprisoned David for life, and possibly had him executed. The bottom line is, it would have recognized that David needed to face justice for what he did.
For more on how people are more moral than Yahweh, see another thread...
Okay so I've found your other thread on this morality and Yahweh idea.
It's not very to the point in the beginning but I see it's a few years old and I haven't finished the thread.
I hope at some point it's realized and acknowledged that Mother Nature is a cruel bitch, and that societies and cultures take time to evolve. Also that the Bible isn't some written overnight piece of literature.
This jumping to God's super powers to deflect arguments gets old. That's probably a good topic in itself.
Do you honestly believe you cannot weigh the morality of someone's actions unless you are as rich or as powerful as that person? That's absurd!
I need to be king in order to ascertain that it's wrong to murder someone so I can bang his wife without him finding out? Seriously?
I don't understand your concern with "jumping to God's superpowers." God has superpowers (supposedly). Why can we jump to them to conclude that anything is possible yet we cannot "jump to them" about greater matters, such as fundamental decency and morality? That makes no sense.
All that said, you are working with a very different definition of "God" than the person who started this thread, which complicates this discussion beyond our ability to work it out. And that's fine, but this whole "evolving God" thing you have going here goes against the "I am the LORD, I change not" God of the Bible.
Again, that's your call. But I don't think we can have an intelligent discussion about a God whose attributes change every time he's exposed as anything other than "correct."
Do you honestly believe you cannot weigh the morality of someone's actions unless you are as rich or as powerful as that person? That's absurd!
I need to be king in order to ascertain that it's wrong to murder someone so I can bang his wife without him finding out? Seriously?
. . .
LOL. I've never been rich, highly influential, a king, a prince a president a senator a CEO.
If I were thrown into that position I would experience responsibility and pressure I had never experienced before. And temptations, exhaustion. Actively pursued by other people and forces I am likely not aware of at this time. I'd probably fight back one temptation and two more would appear.
I wonder if Bathsheba encouraged what happened? Doesn't matter, yes what David did was wrong and as someone pointed out worthy of death. As by the Bible's standards, we all are.
I'll argue some of the God stuff in the other thread.
I'd rather not. You're working from a "God" definition that is at odds with the unchanging God of the Bible. It is impossible to kick a field goal when the posts keep getting moved. Excuse me... evolving.
I'd rather not. You're working from a "God" definition that is at odds with the unchanging God of the Bible. It is impossible to kick a field goal when the posts keep getting moved. Excuse me... evolving.
I've been reading books of old The legends and the myths The testaments they told The moon and its eclipse And Superman unrolls A suit before he lifts But I'm not the kind of person that it fits
I've been reading books of old The legends and the myths The testaments they told The moon and its eclipse And Superman unrolls A suit before he lifts But I'm not the kind of person that it fits
Someone came up with the idea of Superman. Those types of stories can be thought up by and written by a single person, then given to other people. It might become popular. I think that's something like Dawkins' idea of a Meme.
God is not that. You don't arrive at that in your own head. It happens with groups of people, deciding the best course of the group, and idealizing those ideas over generations. From those ideals comes an image of a god. Those gods can fuse as groups of people do.
And yes, I think someone drew inspiration for Superman from older characters. I don't think that's the same as how gods fuse. Gods arise from the need to survive. Superman is propaganda.
Bol, I think Stan Lee came up with Superman in 1939. Perhaps I'm wrong. But, he definitely was used for propaganda during WWII, and after.
I've been reading books of old The legends and the myths The testaments they told The moon and its eclipse And Superman unrolls A suit before he lifts But I'm not the kind of person that it fits
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
30
38
10
6
Popular Days
Jul 11
47
Jul 12
10
Jul 9
9
Jul 8
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 30 posts
Bolshevik 38 posts
Grace Valerie Claire 10 posts
rrobs 6 posts
Popular Days
Jul 11 2017
47 posts
Jul 12 2017
10 posts
Jul 9 2017
9 posts
Jul 8 2017
7 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
Life in prison without parole.
waysider
"Dave's not here, man."
waysider
In the U.S., his fate (for his actions, not his beliefs) would be decided by society and governing entities, not.Christendom. If Christendom became part of the decision making process deciding David'
Bolshevik
See if you throw this into the category of "not real" it is just propaganda. Like Superman.
Propaganda is short-term. The Bible and other stories are long term. Because they are in a category of real.
You yourself used David as evidence that people today are more moral. While at the same time probably don't believe they really happened?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I am more moral than the Green Goblin. This does not mean I believe the Green Goblin actually exists.
Come on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I can concede David existed (there probably was a King David) without believing that he killed a 10-foot gladiator with a slingshot or that he sent a soldier to the frontlines because the man wouldn't bang his wife to take credit for her baby. I can concede all of those things without believing that some all-loving, all-powerful Deity couldn't figure out a way to punish David without ripping the kingdom apart (which, it must be said, flipping happened anyway).
Nothing in your "Superman" post actually contradicts my position, so I feel no need to answer it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
No, that's the argument of a child.
The green goblin served no role in human evolution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
See, strawman argument.
You're taking God from the perspective of evolution, and then switching in the Fundamentalist Viewpoint to make your argument.
That's dishonest.
Dishonesty is not moral.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I never conceded your 'evolving God" point, so to accuse me of strawman and dishonestly switching from one perspective to the other makes no sense in context.
You're the one switching definitions of God, not I.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
My "Green Goblin" comment was not the argument of a child. It was my response to the argument of a child.
Implying as you did that I can't use the story of David without conceding that the story happened in history is tantamount to saying I can't call myself more moral than Lex Luthor without conceding that Lex Luthor exists in real life. It's ludicrous, and it's YOUR argument, not mine.
The stories of David are really stories. They are not history. They are folklore. Valuable lessons can be learned from folklore without adopting the premise that they reflect history.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I believe there was mockery of theism early on.
God and all other gods are a result of and drive human evolution. So they exist and are more than just a little relevant. Superheroes and super-villains do not influence evolution.
You are moral because it's genetically built into you, along with evil. Put there by evolution. Which gods and God were apart of. Both socially/culturally and genetically.
I respect you as a poster and look forward to more discussions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Astonishing how not a word of that addresses...
never mind. not worth it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
When was the last time you were King and in the same position as David you thought, "pfft, can't understand how David could do such a thing"
Or that you have the power and resources of Lex Luther?
Unless you are implying that you are a rich and powerful man?
In which case, congrats on your restraint. I'm sure your doing as much good as Batman?
Yeah I don't follow. How are you like David and Lex Luther that you could be more moral?
Edited by Bolshevikimmoral grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Okay so I've found your other thread on this morality and Yahweh idea.
It's not very to the point in the beginning but I see it's a few years old and I haven't finished the thread.
I hope at some point it's realized and acknowledged that Mother Nature is a cruel bitch, and that societies and cultures take time to evolve. Also that the Bible isn't some written overnight piece of literature.
This jumping to God's super powers to deflect arguments gets old. That's probably a good topic in itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Do you honestly believe you cannot weigh the morality of someone's actions unless you are as rich or as powerful as that person? That's absurd!
I need to be king in order to ascertain that it's wrong to murder someone so I can bang his wife without him finding out? Seriously?
I don't understand your concern with "jumping to God's superpowers." God has superpowers (supposedly). Why can we jump to them to conclude that anything is possible yet we cannot "jump to them" about greater matters, such as fundamental decency and morality? That makes no sense.
All that said, you are working with a very different definition of "God" than the person who started this thread, which complicates this discussion beyond our ability to work it out. And that's fine, but this whole "evolving God" thing you have going here goes against the "I am the LORD, I change not" God of the Bible.
Again, that's your call. But I don't think we can have an intelligent discussion about a God whose attributes change every time he's exposed as anything other than "correct."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
LOL. I've never been rich, highly influential, a king, a prince a president a senator a CEO.
If I were thrown into that position I would experience responsibility and pressure I had never experienced before. And temptations, exhaustion. Actively pursued by other people and forces I am likely not aware of at this time. I'd probably fight back one temptation and two more would appear.
I wonder if Bathsheba encouraged what happened? Doesn't matter, yes what David did was wrong and as someone pointed out worthy of death. As by the Bible's standards, we all are.
I'll argue some of the God stuff in the other thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'd rather not. You're working from a "God" definition that is at odds with the unchanging God of the Bible. It is impossible to kick a field goal when the posts keep getting moved. Excuse me... evolving.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Science feeds minds knowledge. Understanding develops. Perceptions Change.
You're working from an unchanging viewpoint of God. Maybe it's just satire.
It's not the field goal it's the discussion. Whatever your point is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I've been reading books of old
The legends and the myths
The testaments they told
The moon and its eclipse
And Superman unrolls
A suit before he lifts
But I'm not the kind of person that it fits
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
HERE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Way, excuse me! Nuts! Wrong post!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Bol, I think Stan Lee came up with Superman in 1939. Perhaps I'm wrong. But, he definitely was used for propaganda during WWII, and after.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Chock, very clever!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I think that history is off, might be mixing that with spiderman.
Yes I agree Superman was used as propaganda.
I have not heard the argument that superheroes influence human evolution over millennia quite like a god or religion would.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Bol, you are right!! Stan Lee came up with other characters; but not Superman.
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.