) it is done as a capital punishment for a capital crime (ohh, like murder is
"the wages of sin is death"
That's about as succinctly as I can put it--
or in contemporary parlance
"if you can't do the time , don't do the crime"
Even If I set aside my belief system about a pre-existence
The rest of LDS doctrine is supported by most of Christendom--Namely this life is a testing/proving/ refining ground Those who endure and remain faithful to the end spend eternity with God and His Son Jesus Christ
Christians disagree about many things -but that is core doctrine
Jesus died for all, including those of the old testamenat and those of the old are with him now. Same for those in the new that have died. And we which are alive and remain are caught up together with them in the air.
13But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
I'm sorry, CM, I don't read it the same way. Mainly because the part that says "even so them also which sleep IN JESUS will God bring with him." That and the "will" part of that statement implys the future, not past tense. But we are getting into "are the dead alive now territory with that part of it.
So, are you implying with this statement that you are a Universalist ? (Sorry didn't pay too much attention to that old thread) God brings everyone back from the dead for eternal life? That would make much more sense IMO, not total sense, but more. So killing them and bringing them back latter is like sending your kid to their room for a while? It is ok as long as you let them out at some point?
I stand corrected it seems. It wasn't just a real estate hostile takeover. Apparently it was an extreme version of Pat Buchanan's 'culture wars', and I do mean extreme.
Hhmmmm, I wonder. Would the word for 'abomination' mentioned in the verses dealing with those umm, 'not-murdered' heathen and their unspeakable practices be the same word for 'abomination' when eating certain kinds of unkosher fish and other such forbidden foods? Could it be referring to the same kind of eschewing of being in the same room with a woman going thru her period, a forbiddance plainly written in the scriptures as well? A lot of things were mentioned as 'abominations' that we take for granted today.
Hhmmm, maybe that's why our society is headed for the toilet.
(Back to serious mode) In any event, ... it is still murder. People were still slaughtered, no matter what kind of Calvinist spin and dance is given to it, complete with college level wording to make it sound 'spurchal'.
<_<
Templelady,
"the wages of sin is death"
That's about as succinctly as I can put it--
or in contemporary parlance
"if you can't do the time , don't do the crime"
Ahh but you see, according to most Christians, including the Mormons if I'm not mistaken, we humans were born dead in trespasses and sins, all thanks to what Adam and Eve did in the garden. So basically, that means that we are condemned to 'do the time', even *before* we did the crime.
Now _that_ makes a lotta sense -- NOT!
Ooopsie! I fergit. Its one of them 'spiritual' things.
<_< Ahhhh, ... no. I don't think so. That coupon expired with me a long time ago.
sigh --------- :( ---------I really don't care of other persons in their life choose not to follow God
That is their business
But it would be refreshing to have someone just come out and say --"I am not going to obey God" and be done with it-- instead of trying to explain all the reasons why it's God's or some denominations belief systems fault that they have chosen this path
And if the capital crime is worshipping another God, then there is something seriously wrong with the laws. This is were I see the God you are talking about as a dictator not a father. Being killed for worshipping a god or the wrong god is a classic dictatorial punishment.
Basically what I'm saying is that if your going to have a 'God' worth obeying, then let Him *be* worth following. Let Him *prove to be* that perfect one, rather than called 'perfect' simply because we're told to believe it and be done with it. Ie., if I'm going to believe in a Superior Being, then he needs to be Superior, both in attitude, words, and actions. And from the examples that I have been shown to me here and elsewhere of what/how people describe God, particularly when it comes to the killing of unbelievers, and this attitude of approval of doing so, and it isn't called murder?
... Sorry, but I'm not going there anymore. And its basically that I've recently gotten more and more courage to express it openly like this, ... which doesn't say much for a belief system that instills that kind of inhibiting fear in people.
Or, in the words of the 'immortal' ;) George Carlin, who puts it in his own succinct and straight forward style:
"This isn't what you would expect from a Supreme Being. This is more the kind of s**t you'd get from an office temp with a bad attitude."
And frankly, I think that he's being quite charitable with that kind of description.
Maybe if you learned why some people leave their faith instead of being so offended on that they do, maybe you'd get a more clear picture of where we are coming from. You don't want to agree? Fine. Believe it or not, none of the 'infidels' here is trying to make you agree or walk away from your faith. Apparently it is serving you well.
We're just showing you another side of the coin, as it were.
But it would be refreshing to have someone just come out and say --"I am not going to obey God" and be done with it-- instead of trying to explain all the reasons why it's God's or some denominations belief systems fault that they have chosen this path
Don't hurt yourself there TL. I don't really understand what you're saying there, but here it goes....
I am not going to obey God.
Ah! that was refreshing. Like taking an antacid.
Unless you know me better than I know myself, I would say the last part of what you said is utterly false and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Actually, haven't I already more or less said that by saying "I don't believe in God." At least not in the sense you are talking about. Ok, I usually say, " I doubt God's existence," but that still means I don't believe in one. I really don't want that to make you feel unfresh or parched... that is just my view...not blaming anyone or non-existent entity...just how I see it.
By all means though, have a refreshing beverage on me.
If the God of the Bible is as represented in the Bible, then He had a perfect right to order the killing of the people in question and killing them was not murder. My only point in my earlier comments about those people was that the Biblical God's acceptance is not unconditional.
if I'm going to believe in a Superior Being, then he needs to be Superior, both in attitude, words, and actions
For the purposes of this next question, we'll assume God doesn't get to define what constitutes "superior"
Who defines what is "Superior" when it comes to God??
Oh, And BTW LDS DO NOT believe that man is responsible or accountable for any sins but the ones he himself commits-- Adam and Eve's actions brought physical death and spiritual separation from God
For the purposes of this next question, we'll assume God doesn't get to define what constitutes "superior"
Who defines what is "Superior" when it comes to God??
Good question.
How about this for a start:
Acting better than, more moral than, more consistant than, and the like, than human beings. It's kind of similar to when a spiritual leader wants to lead people. We hold that individual to a higher standard, don't we?
Well, wouldn't it follow that the same (at the very least) would/should be practiced by God? He would be better than we are. More moral. More consistant. Not so given to malvolent anger as He is often portrayed, even as portrayed by a few individuals here. <_< In other words, according to claims made about Him that He is pure and perfect.
Let me put it another way. Let's suppose that a fundamentalist Muslim came up to you and was telling you about why Allah is so superior and is worthy of worship. No doubt you would have questions as to if Allah is so perfect & so worhty of worship, why would he expect countries to be conquered in his name like they were soon after Mohammed's death? Or questions regarding more recent events related to fundamentalist Islam; like 9/11, terrorist bombings in Isreal, and other related activities, all being done supposedly with the approval of Allah.
Now, what if he was using some of the same kind of 'who are you to question Allah' or 'Allah has his own superior spiritual reasons for these things' responses that are similar to that which have been bandied about here? You wouldn't accept that kind of response w/o challenging it, right? Ie., you would use your own reasoning to scrutinize the Muslim religious arguments cast in your direction, right?
That's similar (but I realize, not identical) to when people expect me to accept their arguments about God, a God regarding some of His supposed actions that I read in the OT, and even in the New causes me pause. It's not that I'm simply 'shaking my fist against any higher authority' as it were. But when it comes to a belief, any belief that basically boils down to expecting me to accept what is taught about God, or anything else for that matter, from a standpoint of "Your's is not to question why. Your's is but to do or die!" I've undergone that kind of exposure in TWI. I've undergone that kind of exposure in various other churches of similar mindset. ... And I will undergo that no more.
And frankly, here is another aspect that I will brazenly expect of that selfsame Superior Being: Any being that is superior to we humans ought to have the self-assuredness and maturity to not go ape-s**t when someone has the 'mitigated gaul' to dare to ask questions, doubt, or request proof of said truths. I've known certain human beings themselves who are mature enough to rise above such angst. Why then can't a superior god do the same? At the very least?
Truth, by its very nature, is self-evident, and will come through in the end, and any real superior being's existance will be shown in any event.
Any being that is superior to we humans ought to have the self-assuredness and maturity to not go ape-s**t when someone has the 'mitigated gaul' to dare to ask questions, doubt, or request proof of said truths.
We're not talking about doubts, questions or proof here in the OT we are talking about people who knew the answer to the question, knew about God, had the proofs and CHOSE TO DISOBEY ANYWAY.
A far different cry from the picture some here would paint -namely a group of "innocents" who knew nothing and were just merrily going about their lives when ---BAM
If in fact the case were the latter I would be forced to agree that God was unjust--but since we are talking about the former -- while the consequences were deadly they were in no way unexpected ---except in the sense that those who chose to disobey probably disobeyed with the mindset of "oh, it won't happen to me" --
If there is no God-no eternity-no afterlife why morality?
I mean morality isn't necessary for survival
In fact a pretty good case can be made that the "me and Mine" philosophy is far better for survival
Make sure you have the best of everything in abundance-- so that your societal group has the best chance to survive and reproduce.
Morality, in fact often is contraindicated if your concern is the best life for yourself and your societal group
Worrying about others outside your group having enough takes valuable time and resources away from fortifying your position and making sure you have not only adequate but more than adequate goods for you to live the life you desire and need.
Morality by its very nature calls for sacrifice. Sacrifice for those outside the group is wasteful not to mention often dangerous in the long run. So "morality would be best confined to parameters of what ever social group you espouse.
Oh-- that's exactly the problem you have with God---------
If there is no God-no eternity-no afterlife why morality?
I mean morality isn't necessary for survival
In fact a pretty good case can be made that the "me and Mine" philosophy is far better for survival
Make sure you have the best of everything in abundance-- so that your societal group has the best chance to survive and reproduce.
Morality, in fact often is contraindicated if your concern is the best life for yourself and your societal group
Worrying about others outside your group having enough takes valuable time and resources away from fortifying your position and making sure you have not only adequate but more than adequate goods for you to live the life you desire and need.
Morality by its very nature calls for sacrifice. Sacrifice for those outside the group is wasteful not to mention often dangerous in the long run. So "morality would be best confined to parameters of what ever social group you espouse.
Oh-- that's exactly the problem you have with God---------
Making quite a number of assumptions there, aren't you, Mo? Reading a lot into what I posted?
Read what I said again. Exactly what I said. Because what I posted comes nowhere *near* what you have here. Nowhere near.
But presumptions like that have to be made about unbelievers, doesn't it? So that they come off looking like selfish bastards and having a 'nobody else but me' attitude. ??? And you got all of that out of what I said? Heck, we might as well be speaking two different languages here with no translator. <_<
Believe it or not, my take on morality is that morals do indeed have absolute and intrinsic values. And that any superior being, a moral one that is, that expects us to follow a moral code, would be bound by those moral rules. Not because *we* dictate so perse, but because *they* are honorable enough to foloow their own rules. A lot like a spiritual leader being enough of an example for us to live his creed, thus being a leader w/ integrity. Why, I believe that there is a bible verse somewhere (I forget where its at right now) that says that God cannot lie about Himself.
Look, this is the same standard that most of us here at Greasespot, having been burned by con artist 'leaders' and their lies, now apply to anyone coming down the pike claiming to be spiritual and proclaiming the 'Word of God'. Ie., they have to prove to us that what they are saying is true, and a good number of us (including yours truly) don't go by the 'cuz the Bible sez so' standard. Now we put apply an even stricter standard of having the so-called leader prove that what he says is indeed a spiritual benefit, and that the spirituality is valid.
Ie., simple claims that just appeal to authority, even if the authority that they appeal to is God Himself, just doesn't cut it anymore. Ie., No $ale!
Hope that doesn't sound too selfish and 'its just ME and MINE' for ya.
Hate to tell you this, Garth, but your arguments are even weaker than theistic arguments. You come across much like the theistic God-denier (disobeyer, if you prefer) Mo describes. Any argument based on human moral judgment of a supposed superior or supreme supernatureal entity to determiine the existence of such an entity is even more flawed than arguments that such an entiy must exist in order to validate moral standards. If such a being exists, He (it?) is far superior to us, is not subject to any morality we might thik to be proper, and has every right to annihilate anyone He (it?) may choose.
I don't believe the Biblical God exists, but if He does, about the most any of us are qualified to say is that we don't acknowlege His supremacy. That seems to be your position. If so, then Zixar's "I'm mad because I didn't get my pony, so I'm going to deny His existence and hold my breath until I turn blue" representation of such a position seems valid. Neither your arguments nor Zixar's characterization of non-theistic thinking accurately reflect my thinking.
BTW, it's "unmitgated gall," not "mitigated gaul."
But presumptions like that have to be made about unbelievers, doesn't it? So that they come off looking like selfish bastards and having a 'nobody else but me' attitude. ??? And you got all of that out of what I said? Heck, we might as well be speaking two different languages here with no translator. <_<
Never said that is what you thought nor did I ascribe said thoughts to any other poster here
I approached the question of morality strictly from a "Why if there is no God do we need it?" point of view-
Nowhere at any time have I said or inferred that this was your or any other non-believers moral stance
I would suggest as "someone" put it so excellently
Read what I said again. Exactly what I said. Because what I posted comes nowhere *near* what you have here. Nowhere near.
"The word Deity imports exercise of dominion over subordinate beings and the word God most frequently signifies Lord. Every lord is not God. The exercise of dominion in a spiritual being constitutes a God. If that dominion be real that being is the real God; if it be fictitious, a false God; if it be supreme, a supreme God."
Hate to tell you this, Garth, but your arguments are even weaker than theistic arguments. You come across much like the theistic God-denier (disobeyer, if you prefer) Mo describes. Any argument based on human moral judgment of a supposed superior or supreme supernatureal entity to determiine the existence of such an entity is even more flawed than arguments that such an entiy must exist in order to validate moral standards. If such a being exists, He (it?) is far superior to us, is not subject to any morality we might thik to be proper, and has every right to annihilate anyone He (it?) may choose.
Hate to tell you this, my friend, but the 'human moral standard' that I use in my arguments, is the same moral standard as exhibited straight from the Bible and other compatible standards that God supposedly authored. Ie., His own rules. And that He might be superior either 1) makes no difference in this respect, or 2) even more to the point of demonstrating His superiority, He would be more compatible to His rules than we are. Unless the superiority that you are referring to is one based on power, rather than on moral rightness. Which in that case, boils down to 'who has the biggest gun', as it were. Which would boil down even further to 'might makes right'. You think?
Plus your reasoning of since this (supposed) God is superior, He "has every right to annihilate anyone He (it?) may choose." invariably (whether you intended it or not) results in giving a valid excuse for a god to, say, Allah (for one example) to have His people inflict terrorist attacks against infidels in His name. And logically, if what you say is a valid point, nobody can really challenge it. Indeed, such 'logic' has been used for centuries as an excuse for all kinds of heinous, immoral things to be done to humanity.
And your likening of Zix's point of "I'm mad cause I didn't get my pony" (which would illustrate someone mad at God because he didn't get all the things that he asked for from his God-genie) to my point of questioning God's behavior (or more accurately, what/how people portray God's behavior to be) in relation to moral standards that are portrayed as superior moral standards intrinsically that portray the nature of God, ... is no comparison. They portray two totally different things.
So why do you not believe in this 'superior being' then?
I just realized. This is a topic that is going to round and round with no resolution in sight. And I really don't have the time to waste on it anymore. So with that in mind, I shall bow out here. And my apologies to any toes I invariably stepped on, be it LG, Mo, or anybody else.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
40
51
31
Popular Days
Dec 31
38
Jan 5
23
Jan 21
18
Jan 4
18
Top Posters In This Topic
GarthP2000 32 posts
CM 40 posts
templelady 51 posts
markomalley 31 posts
Popular Days
Dec 31 2005
38 posts
Jan 5 2006
23 posts
Jan 21 2006
18 posts
Jan 4 2006
18 posts
templelady
"the wages of sin is death"
That's about as succinctly as I can put it--
or in contemporary parlance
"if you can't do the time , don't do the crime"
Even If I set aside my belief system about a pre-existence
The rest of LDS doctrine is supported by most of Christendom--Namely this life is a testing/proving/ refining ground Those who endure and remain faithful to the end spend eternity with God and His Son Jesus Christ
Christians disagree about many things -but that is core doctrine
elsewise there is no purpose for this life
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I'm sorry, CM, I don't read it the same way. Mainly because the part that says "even so them also which sleep IN JESUS will God bring with him." That and the "will" part of that statement implys the future, not past tense. But we are getting into "are the dead alive now territory with that part of it.
So, are you implying with this statement that you are a Universalist ? (Sorry didn't pay too much attention to that old thread) God brings everyone back from the dead for eternal life? That would make much more sense IMO, not total sense, but more. So killing them and bringing them back latter is like sending your kid to their room for a while? It is ok as long as you let them out at some point?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Lindyhopper,
I stand corrected it seems. It wasn't just a real estate hostile takeover. Apparently it was an extreme version of Pat Buchanan's 'culture wars', and I do mean extreme.
Hhmmmm, I wonder. Would the word for 'abomination' mentioned in the verses dealing with those umm, 'not-murdered' heathen and their unspeakable practices be the same word for 'abomination' when eating certain kinds of unkosher fish and other such forbidden foods? Could it be referring to the same kind of eschewing of being in the same room with a woman going thru her period, a forbiddance plainly written in the scriptures as well? A lot of things were mentioned as 'abominations' that we take for granted today.
Hhmmm, maybe that's why our society is headed for the toilet.
(Back to serious mode) In any event, ... it is still murder. People were still slaughtered, no matter what kind of Calvinist spin and dance is given to it, complete with college level wording to make it sound 'spurchal'.
<_<
Templelady,
Ahh but you see, according to most Christians, including the Mormons if I'm not mistaken, we humans were born dead in trespasses and sins, all thanks to what Adam and Eve did in the garden. So basically, that means that we are condemned to 'do the time', even *before* we did the crime.
Now _that_ makes a lotta sense -- NOT!
Ooopsie! I fergit. Its one of them 'spiritual' things.
<_< Ahhhh, ... no. I don't think so. That coupon expired with me a long time ago.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
sigh --------- :( ---------I really don't care of other persons in their life choose not to follow God
That is their business
But it would be refreshing to have someone just come out and say --"I am not going to obey God" and be done with it-- instead of trying to explain all the reasons why it's God's or some denominations belief systems fault that they have chosen this path
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
TL,
And if the capital crime is worshipping another God, then there is something seriously wrong with the laws. This is were I see the God you are talking about as a dictator not a father. Being killed for worshipping a god or the wrong god is a classic dictatorial punishment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Basically what I'm saying is that if your going to have a 'God' worth obeying, then let Him *be* worth following. Let Him *prove to be* that perfect one, rather than called 'perfect' simply because we're told to believe it and be done with it. Ie., if I'm going to believe in a Superior Being, then he needs to be Superior, both in attitude, words, and actions. And from the examples that I have been shown to me here and elsewhere of what/how people describe God, particularly when it comes to the killing of unbelievers, and this attitude of approval of doing so, and it isn't called murder?
... Sorry, but I'm not going there anymore. And its basically that I've recently gotten more and more courage to express it openly like this, ... which doesn't say much for a belief system that instills that kind of inhibiting fear in people.
Or, in the words of the 'immortal' ;) George Carlin, who puts it in his own succinct and straight forward style:
"This isn't what you would expect from a Supreme Being. This is more the kind of s**t you'd get from an office temp with a bad attitude."
And frankly, I think that he's being quite charitable with that kind of description.
Maybe if you learned why some people leave their faith instead of being so offended on that they do, maybe you'd get a more clear picture of where we are coming from. You don't want to agree? Fine. Believe it or not, none of the 'infidels' here is trying to make you agree or walk away from your faith. Apparently it is serving you well.
We're just showing you another side of the coin, as it were.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Don't hurt yourself there TL. I don't really understand what you're saying there, but here it goes....
I am not going to obey God.
Ah! that was refreshing. Like taking an antacid.
Unless you know me better than I know myself, I would say the last part of what you said is utterly false and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Actually, haven't I already more or less said that by saying "I don't believe in God." At least not in the sense you are talking about. Ok, I usually say, " I doubt God's existence," but that still means I don't believe in one. I really don't want that to make you feel unfresh or parched... that is just my view...not blaming anyone or non-existent entity...just how I see it.
By all means though, have a refreshing beverage on me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
If the God of the Bible is as represented in the Bible, then He had a perfect right to order the killing of the people in question and killing them was not murder. My only point in my earlier comments about those people was that the Biblical God's acceptance is not unconditional.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
i don't expect many to understand lindy
unto the coming of the Lord
will god bring with Him
if this coming is something that happens today
it will keep coming and coming and coming
if we let it
and can you see those that he brings with him?
as John says, even so Lord come
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
"The wages of sin is death, but with inflation, it's just a tired feeling."
Paula Poundstone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
For the purposes of this next question, we'll assume God doesn't get to define what constitutes "superior"
Who defines what is "Superior" when it comes to God??
Oh, And BTW LDS DO NOT believe that man is responsible or accountable for any sins but the ones he himself commits-- Adam and Eve's actions brought physical death and spiritual separation from God
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Good question.
How about this for a start:
Acting better than, more moral than, more consistant than, and the like, than human beings. It's kind of similar to when a spiritual leader wants to lead people. We hold that individual to a higher standard, don't we?
Well, wouldn't it follow that the same (at the very least) would/should be practiced by God? He would be better than we are. More moral. More consistant. Not so given to malvolent anger as He is often portrayed, even as portrayed by a few individuals here. <_< In other words, according to claims made about Him that He is pure and perfect.
Let me put it another way. Let's suppose that a fundamentalist Muslim came up to you and was telling you about why Allah is so superior and is worthy of worship. No doubt you would have questions as to if Allah is so perfect & so worhty of worship, why would he expect countries to be conquered in his name like they were soon after Mohammed's death? Or questions regarding more recent events related to fundamentalist Islam; like 9/11, terrorist bombings in Isreal, and other related activities, all being done supposedly with the approval of Allah.
Now, what if he was using some of the same kind of 'who are you to question Allah' or 'Allah has his own superior spiritual reasons for these things' responses that are similar to that which have been bandied about here? You wouldn't accept that kind of response w/o challenging it, right? Ie., you would use your own reasoning to scrutinize the Muslim religious arguments cast in your direction, right?
That's similar (but I realize, not identical) to when people expect me to accept their arguments about God, a God regarding some of His supposed actions that I read in the OT, and even in the New causes me pause. It's not that I'm simply 'shaking my fist against any higher authority' as it were. But when it comes to a belief, any belief that basically boils down to expecting me to accept what is taught about God, or anything else for that matter, from a standpoint of "Your's is not to question why. Your's is but to do or die!" I've undergone that kind of exposure in TWI. I've undergone that kind of exposure in various other churches of similar mindset. ... And I will undergo that no more.
And frankly, here is another aspect that I will brazenly expect of that selfsame Superior Being: Any being that is superior to we humans ought to have the self-assuredness and maturity to not go ape-s**t when someone has the 'mitigated gaul' to dare to ask questions, doubt, or request proof of said truths. I've known certain human beings themselves who are mature enough to rise above such angst. Why then can't a superior god do the same? At the very least?
Truth, by its very nature, is self-evident, and will come through in the end, and any real superior being's existance will be shown in any event.
Does that help clear things up in that respect?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
We're not talking about doubts, questions or proof here in the OT we are talking about people who knew the answer to the question, knew about God, had the proofs and CHOSE TO DISOBEY ANYWAY.
A far different cry from the picture some here would paint -namely a group of "innocents" who knew nothing and were just merrily going about their lives when ---BAM
If in fact the case were the latter I would be forced to agree that God was unjust--but since we are talking about the former -- while the consequences were deadly they were in no way unexpected ---except in the sense that those who chose to disobey probably disobeyed with the mindset of "oh, it won't happen to me" --
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
And while we are on the subject of Morality--
If there is no God-no eternity-no afterlife why morality?
I mean morality isn't necessary for survival
In fact a pretty good case can be made that the "me and Mine" philosophy is far better for survival
Make sure you have the best of everything in abundance-- so that your societal group has the best chance to survive and reproduce.
Morality, in fact often is contraindicated if your concern is the best life for yourself and your societal group
Worrying about others outside your group having enough takes valuable time and resources away from fortifying your position and making sure you have not only adequate but more than adequate goods for you to live the life you desire and need.
Morality by its very nature calls for sacrifice. Sacrifice for those outside the group is wasteful not to mention often dangerous in the long run. So "morality would be best confined to parameters of what ever social group you espouse.
Oh-- that's exactly the problem you have with God---------
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
sick of hearing the word God
and the word religion or religions
let's call it something else
i mean really, who is he?
where is he?
why is he invisable?
the only wise?
doesn't this sound an awful lot like thoughts?
if someone is worshiping other gods
what are they actually doing?
is it even known what is being talked about here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Making quite a number of assumptions there, aren't you, Mo? Reading a lot into what I posted?
Read what I said again. Exactly what I said. Because what I posted comes nowhere *near* what you have here. Nowhere near.
But presumptions like that have to be made about unbelievers, doesn't it? So that they come off looking like selfish bastards and having a 'nobody else but me' attitude. ??? And you got all of that out of what I said? Heck, we might as well be speaking two different languages here with no translator. <_<
Believe it or not, my take on morality is that morals do indeed have absolute and intrinsic values. And that any superior being, a moral one that is, that expects us to follow a moral code, would be bound by those moral rules. Not because *we* dictate so perse, but because *they* are honorable enough to foloow their own rules. A lot like a spiritual leader being enough of an example for us to live his creed, thus being a leader w/ integrity. Why, I believe that there is a bible verse somewhere (I forget where its at right now) that says that God cannot lie about Himself.
Look, this is the same standard that most of us here at Greasespot, having been burned by con artist 'leaders' and their lies, now apply to anyone coming down the pike claiming to be spiritual and proclaiming the 'Word of God'. Ie., they have to prove to us that what they are saying is true, and a good number of us (including yours truly) don't go by the 'cuz the Bible sez so' standard. Now we put apply an even stricter standard of having the so-called leader prove that what he says is indeed a spiritual benefit, and that the spirituality is valid.
Ie., simple claims that just appeal to authority, even if the authority that they appeal to is God Himself, just doesn't cut it anymore. Ie., No $ale!
Hope that doesn't sound too selfish and 'its just ME and MINE' for ya.
B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Hate to tell you this, Garth, but your arguments are even weaker than theistic arguments. You come across much like the theistic God-denier (disobeyer, if you prefer) Mo describes. Any argument based on human moral judgment of a supposed superior or supreme supernatureal entity to determiine the existence of such an entity is even more flawed than arguments that such an entiy must exist in order to validate moral standards. If such a being exists, He (it?) is far superior to us, is not subject to any morality we might thik to be proper, and has every right to annihilate anyone He (it?) may choose.
I don't believe the Biblical God exists, but if He does, about the most any of us are qualified to say is that we don't acknowlege His supremacy. That seems to be your position. If so, then Zixar's "I'm mad because I didn't get my pony, so I'm going to deny His existence and hold my breath until I turn blue" representation of such a position seems valid. Neither your arguments nor Zixar's characterization of non-theistic thinking accurately reflect my thinking.
BTW, it's "unmitgated gall," not "mitigated gaul."
Edited by LGLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
I approached the question of morality strictly from a "Why if there is no God do we need it?" point of view-
Nowhere at any time have I said or inferred that this was your or any other non-believers moral stance
I would suggest as "someone" put it so excellently
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
"The word Deity imports exercise of dominion over subordinate beings and the word God most frequently signifies Lord. Every lord is not God. The exercise of dominion in a spiritual being constitutes a God. If that dominion be real that being is the real God; if it be fictitious, a false God; if it be supreme, a supreme God."
Sir Isaac Newton
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
LG,
Hate to tell you this, my friend, but the 'human moral standard' that I use in my arguments, is the same moral standard as exhibited straight from the Bible and other compatible standards that God supposedly authored. Ie., His own rules. And that He might be superior either 1) makes no difference in this respect, or 2) even more to the point of demonstrating His superiority, He would be more compatible to His rules than we are. Unless the superiority that you are referring to is one based on power, rather than on moral rightness. Which in that case, boils down to 'who has the biggest gun', as it were. Which would boil down even further to 'might makes right'. You think?
Plus your reasoning of since this (supposed) God is superior, He "has every right to annihilate anyone He (it?) may choose." invariably (whether you intended it or not) results in giving a valid excuse for a god to, say, Allah (for one example) to have His people inflict terrorist attacks against infidels in His name. And logically, if what you say is a valid point, nobody can really challenge it. Indeed, such 'logic' has been used for centuries as an excuse for all kinds of heinous, immoral things to be done to humanity.
And your likening of Zix's point of "I'm mad cause I didn't get my pony" (which would illustrate someone mad at God because he didn't get all the things that he asked for from his God-genie) to my point of questioning God's behavior (or more accurately, what/how people portray God's behavior to be) in relation to moral standards that are portrayed as superior moral standards intrinsically that portray the nature of God, ... is no comparison. They portray two totally different things.
So why do you not believe in this 'superior being' then?
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I just realized. This is a topic that is going to round and round with no resolution in sight. And I really don't have the time to waste on it anymore. So with that in mind, I shall bow out here. And my apologies to any toes I invariably stepped on, be it LG, Mo, or anybody else.
So peace to all, ... and you guys are the best!
...... JUST kidding on that last one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
for some, probably true
some of it is just silly
a my god is bigger then your god battle..lol
can't you see that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
The ultimate pi**ing contest, ehh?
Oh well, we've all presented our arguments, and like the free society we live in, we can get to pick and choose.
Freedom, it's great, isn't it?
Edited by GarthP2000Link 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.