Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   King David found guilty on all counts.
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 91 of 174 (377546)
01-17-2007 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Brian
01-17-2007 10:02 AM


Re: Let Those Without Sin Cast the First Stone
Brian writes:
Well you have been proven wrong there mate.
He probably openned up a chinese fortune cookie and the message inside was something like "morality do not change" or something like that.

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.
George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Brian, posted 01-17-2007 10:02 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by joshua221, posted 01-17-2007 3:38 PM Taz has replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 174 (377587)
01-17-2007 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Taz
01-17-2007 1:10 PM


Re: Let Those Without Sin Cast the First Stone
Actually, I seem to have won the debate here quite easily.
The last messsage dealing with the actual discussion was mine. Then Brian and Tazmanian Devil resorted to using insults and chatting about how they are martyrs for this intelligent cause instead of attempting to refute my argument.
Here's the final post to end the argument.
EvC Forum: King David found guilty on all counts.
I figure since none of you replied to it, it is simply because you can't. I don't understand how you think you won the argument when the only evidence that you have posted is anecdotal and equally opposed with millions of other examples on the other side of the debate. I never represented that side. I told you both that the argument was dead because it is.
Your Evidence: No country would declare genocide or reinstate slavery. Thus, human morality has increased.
My Evidence: Iraq War, Sweatshops, Corporations, Rwandan Genocide.
And that was just to show your mistakes. I took the argument to another level entirely by describing how human morality cannot change because human nature cannot change because humans cannot be GOD.
That is overly simplified but totally destroys any reason for any of you to debate the matter. It seems that your evidence is a result of ignorance to the human condition and to current historical events.
So again, "I think it's over now".
Unless that is, you wish to type up some long post of insults or references to my age. That was pretty funny by the way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Taz, posted 01-17-2007 1:10 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 01-17-2007 3:48 PM joshua221 has not replied
 Message 95 by Taz, posted 01-17-2007 5:52 PM joshua221 has not replied
 Message 96 by jar, posted 01-17-2007 6:04 PM joshua221 has replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 174 (377589)
01-17-2007 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Brian
01-17-2007 10:02 AM


Re: Let Those Without Sin Cast the First Stone
I always wanted to be a teacher, so I studied and earned an honours degree in religious studies/History, and a Diploma in Education, then achieved a Masters Degree in Theology, currently working on a Master of Letters in Archaeological Studies (due to finish September 2008), so I think I have achieved quite a bit so far.
It is clear that we do not share the same standards as to what "accomplishing something" means. I respect your choices as I respect those of many people who I care about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Brian, posted 01-17-2007 10:02 AM Brian has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 94 of 174 (377591)
01-17-2007 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by joshua221
01-17-2007 3:38 PM


Re: Let Those Without Sin Cast the First Stone
ultrahireebok writes:
I seem to have won the debate here quite easily.
It's easy to "win" the debate since we all set our own winning conditions. The standard of challenge that you set for yourself seems to be very low.
Actually, you're completely off topic.
FYI, the topic title is "King David found guilty on all counts" and the OP asks the question, "So was Bathsheba just a Good Jewish Mother looking out for the interests of her son?"
Where did you even come close to addressing either of those?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by joshua221, posted 01-17-2007 3:38 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 95 of 174 (377623)
01-17-2007 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by joshua221
01-17-2007 3:38 PM


Re: Let Those Without Sin Cast the First Stone
I said
quote:
He probably openned up a chinese fortune cookie and the message inside was something like "morality do not change" or something like that.
In which you replied
quote:
Then Brian and Tazmanian Devil resorted to using insults...
Are you racist against Chinese people? What do you have against chinese fortune cookies? Chinese people are people, you know. Shouldn't be racist like that.
See? I can be just as childish, if not more. Don't think your attitude is special.
For the rest, has ultra always been like this? I know I should be ignoring him, but it's like trying to ignore a train wreck... just can't look away.

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.
George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by joshua221, posted 01-17-2007 3:38 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 96 of 174 (377625)
01-17-2007 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by joshua221
01-17-2007 3:38 PM


Re: Let Those Without Sin Cast the First Stone
I took the argument to another level entirely by describing how human morality cannot change because human nature cannot change because humans cannot be GOD.
Totally irrelevant nonsense and classic kiddie bullshit.
No thinking person would ever see that bald assertion as anything but the rantings of someone who is totally clueless.
You have taken three unrelated items and strung them together as though they were related.
You said bananas cannot change because elephants cannot change because they are not cod liver oil.
Now granted, your post is funny (not as great as the new Volvo ad of the Dad putting his preschooler in the child safety seat while she tells him of her day), but was humor what you intended?
First your mention of God. Unrelated, irrelevant and and assuming facts not in evidence.
Second, your mention of human nature. Undefined and frankly undefinable. Not supported by any evidence. To even consider that there is some entity called "Human Nature" is to ignore ALL evidence and to create a handy little copout for your own weaknesses and failure.
Third to assert morality cannot change. How absurd. Not only does morality change, it is constantly changing. There is no universal and absolute morality and no one has ever been able to show such a thing exists.
Even your own post shows that morality does change. You quote others claiming:
Your Evidence: No country would declare genocide or reinstate slavery. Thus, human morality has increased.
My Evidence: Iraq War, Sweatshops, Corporations, Rwandan Genocide.
Yes, look at those. And EVERY single example there shows morality changing.
Of course you also throw in some totally unrelated items like Corporations which just shows you have no idea what a Corporation is.
But other than your tossing in nonsense examples, let's look at the list.
Many folk believe the Iraq War immoral.
Many folk believe sweatshops immoral.
Many folk believe Rwandan Genocide (and the fact that you brought up Rwandan Genocide simply shows how pathetically ignorant of current events you are) immoral.
The fact that there are folk who consider such things immoral proves that morality does change.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by joshua221, posted 01-17-2007 3:38 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by joshua221, posted 01-17-2007 11:10 PM jar has replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 174 (377685)
01-17-2007 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by jar
01-17-2007 6:04 PM


Re: Let Those Without Sin Cast the First Stone
quote:
Your Evidence: No country would declare genocide or reinstate slavery. Thus, human morality has increased.
My Evidence: Iraq War, Sweatshops, Corporations, Rwandan Genocide.
Yes, look at those. And EVERY single example there shows morality changing.
Of course you also throw in some totally unrelated items like Corporations which just shows you have no idea what a Corporation is.
But other than your tossing in nonsense examples, let's look at the list.
Many folk believe the Iraq War immoral.
Many folk believe sweatshops immoral.
Many folk believe Rwandan Genocide (and the fact that you brought up Rwandan Genocide simply shows how pathetically ignorant of current events you are) immoral.
The fact that there are folk who consider such things immoral proves that morality does change.
Those pieces of evidence were to expose the still immoral action of humankind today. I included those pieces to show Brian and Tazmanian Devil examples of the very things that they are saying don't exist, or are limited.
I included the word "Corporations" because they are behind much of modern day slavery today in "poor" areas of the world. I did not feel that an explanation was needed but it seems that your love for capitalism caused you to be outraged by that inclusion. It seems as if you don't want to believe that humans are no more moral than they were, as if you would like to remain ignorant to the fact that the world's popuation (majority) supports sweatshops, a lifestyle of wealthiness, etc.. For themselves to benefit. Humans are as unjust as they have ever been because human nature does not change.
The Rwandan genocide was included as well because Tazmanian Devil claimed genocide to be more limited today than it was years ago.
Of course little of this has to do with my real argument but were examples of how a simple counter-argument would run using historical examples to refute the historical examples given by those who believe morality has increased in the world. My real argument was that human morality cannot change.
You have taken three unrelated items and strung them together as though they were related.
Third to assert morality cannot change. How absurd. Not only does morality change, it is constantly changing. There is no universal and absolute morality and no one has ever been able to show such a thing exists.
There is a universal and absolute morality. You sir, are a Sophist! But don't worry, Plato warned me of you.
You are saying that no universal morality exists but fail to realize that if this is true then there is no "right" and there is no "wrong", and if that is true then there are no standards and humans would never feel guilt in living an unjust life. There would be no reason to act justly. There instead seems to be an absolute moral sense that is ingrained in all of us. A perfect morality. What is right and what is good. CS Lewis has demonstrated in "Mere Christianity" that an absolute morality exists. Plato's "Republic" is based on the premise that there is a perfect model for what is just and therefore moral.
This is the most important element to your post for me as it addresses my argument directly. First I will try to detail why Human Morality cannot change and why speaking of it and arguing in that way is absurd.
I never believed that humans were pre-disposed to a certain "nature", rather I had believed that humans were never to be defined and always moving in their thoughts and decisions. But it seems that the nature of humans has not changed, and will never change. Therefore I am attempting to prove that this nature cannot change. This would lead me to a restriction that would inevitably entrap all humans into a meaningless sphere, a creation that is unable to escape itself. An absurdity at that. Humans have not one simple nature though. Humans can be good, they can also be unjust. The term "human nature" is itself a term of ignorance and oversimplification to the point of stupidity. I can see why you have disagreed with my points.
A man believes that men deserve to be put into slavery for his benefit as they would do all of his work for him.
Upon setting this into motion, he befriends the people whom he was enslaved.
He now believes slavery, in all aspects, is wrong.
His sense of morality has changed.
This brief story shows that a humans sense of morality can change.
But then why has human morality not changed? Why are there the same elements in an unjust society as there were in all societies to date? Why are humans the same?
Humans do not have a "nature". They are complex and have many natures. But the ridiculousness of this argument which I at first rejected (the argument between the likes of those who believe that morality has decreased and those who believe that morality has increased) is in it's ignorance to the way human morality has simply not changed. Humans are still mostly out for themselves, selfish creatures.
I apologize. The basis for my argument was not rooted in truth. I started with this absurd argument where I purported that human beings could not change their nature. They don't normally change their nature, but they certainly can. Sorry to all of you, you were all right.
While I still believe that human morality has remained the same, it was very stupid to say that it cannot ever change.
Ah I am left utterly confused at my own beliefs on what humans are. I will have to think this one over a great deal. It turns out that my argument was the one without thought.
So lame to admit defeat like this but its true, my argument was absurd. It defeats the plausibility of a Utopia which is disgusting. I went too far accidentally.
I guess the chatroom stuff was just some awkward crap. I don't get it, I thought I was on to something great.
Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 01-17-2007 6:04 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 01-17-2007 11:25 PM joshua221 has replied
 Message 102 by Brian, posted 01-18-2007 10:42 AM joshua221 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 98 of 174 (377690)
01-17-2007 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by joshua221
01-17-2007 11:10 PM


more nonsense
There is a universal and absolute morality.
Yeah, others have made such a claim. However no one has yet presented an example of such a critter.
You are saying that no universal morality exists but fail to realize that if this is true then there is no "right" and there is no "wrong", and if that is true then there are no standards and humans would never feel guilt in living an unjust life.
How silly. Of course there is right and wrong. Don't post nonsense.
Right and wrong are determined by each culture in each age. Morality is like all other knowledge, something learned, something agreed upon by society and also based on the individual's experience.
But then why has human morality not changed?
Again just plain silly. Of course morality has changed. Stop posting just plain nonsense.
Is it monolithic? No, of course not.
Does it vary between individuals and cultures? Of course. It is always evolving.
Those pieces of evidence were to expose the still immoral action of humankind today.
And there is the basic fallacy of your argument. There is no such thing as humankind morality. Humankind is a collection of individuals, cultures, societies and communities. Morality is something involving an individual.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by joshua221, posted 01-17-2007 11:10 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by joshua221, posted 01-20-2007 2:02 PM jar has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 99 of 174 (377756)
01-18-2007 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Brian
01-17-2007 9:46 AM


Re: model of morality?
I suppose it is better than answering the question, but you are getting really good at dodging issues.
Or maybe I am getting at the heart of the issue.
I care because I share a world with fruitloops who do believe in God. I care because some of these fruitloops' actions affect my life. One fruitloop in particular has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, and he is about to do the same in Iran.
Is that God's fault, or some fruitloop named Bush?
I care because I hear asshole fundies on street corners condemning homosexuals, single parents, and people who live together without being married.
Is that God's fault, or some fuitloop fundie?
I believe in God, and I believe God considers homosexuality a sin, but I find no need to go around telling people that, or hate anyone for it, since we are all sinners. I believe Jesus came to save not judge.
I am not saying God did anything, I am making a statement that a God who murders innocent children is a barbarian.
Did God do it, or did people do it?
Is anyone really innocent?
However, many morons believe that there is a God and that He sent the angel of death at the first passover to slaughter all the innocent first born Egyptian children.
Now, if you believe in that God then you are sick in the head.
It is very hard for me to picture the life of the Old testament, being that Jesus has changed that way of life for us. I do believe it is possible. I think if your God, and you kill people, you obviously know where they are going afterwards, and I hope that is heaven, or who knows, maybe even hell for a short visit. Is it so bad to leave this life, and travel to the next? Only for those that are left behind. Your problem is that you approach all this without even remotely believing in the afterlife. Even the Son of God had to suffer immensly, so obviously there is a point to it all. You always approach suffering as bad, as do a few others, which is a topic spawned from this story about David. But we always seem to find some good that happens from the bad.
So, I am not saying that God did anything, I am saying if you think God exists then you have to deal with the shit that you BELIEVE He has done.
I can deal with the shit He has done, but I won't pretend to know why, and call judgement on it. The God I believe in, ultimately is a good God, even though He puts us through what we think are bad things. You do not get a "get out of bad things in life on earth card" if you start believing in God. I didn't, and neither did Jesus, His son.
I have seen it in my own life, and all the bad things that God has put through has ultimately brought me to God, and has wound up to make me a better person. I actually thank Him for the bad things that have come to pass, and I have learned from.
But Taz is correct, you will find some embarrassing excuse to justify God slaughtering innocent children. It keeps your wee fantasy intact.
There is no embarassing exuse. God is tough, and you will learn things the hard way from Him wether you accept Him or not, that's life. Fortunately for us, Jesus came, and God is not as tough on us as He was in the OT. That is why we should be thankful.
How can you pretend to understand the meaning of life the universe and everything (42) and say that what God has done, and is doing is wrong?
You only have your narrow minded, unfinshed, unproven opinion of life.
How can you say that God simply does not exist because you feel it is impossible based on your opinions of what life should be, or because God killed "innocent" babies, and 20,000 people under King David?
If you were truely scientifcal, and logical, then you would be agnostic by nature. You would be open to the possibility that your opinions of life, are not what they appear to be. Just like I am open to the possibility that God does not exist, and I am just crazy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Brian, posted 01-17-2007 9:46 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Brian, posted 01-18-2007 1:12 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 100 of 174 (377757)
01-18-2007 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by ringo
01-17-2007 12:33 PM


Re: model of morality?
Uriah was clearly David's neighbour - he could see right into Uriah's house - so you can't define away the obvious bad that he did.
When did I say what David did isn't bad? I totally agree that David is guilty. When I talk about good and bad, I am speaking through the eyes of God, and what He does, and how we percieve it.
If a leader is elected by the people and he kills (with the tacit blessing of the electorate), aren't the people responsible for their actions?
No the people are not responsible if their leader doesn't follow the law. Are you saying they are? Nobody votes for a leader with the hopes that they will break the law. Leaders are supposed to be a model of the law, not be breaking it.
I think you are trying to equivocate God picking an imperfect leader with God being perfect. I think that is a mistake. We always have free will, and free choices, and no-one is perfect.
Again, how do we know that David wasn't the best choice?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ringo, posted 01-17-2007 12:33 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by ringo, posted 01-18-2007 10:56 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 101 of 174 (377760)
01-18-2007 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Taz
01-17-2007 1:02 PM


Re: model of morality?
So, if I piss my father off, I guess he has the right to beat my brother, his children, his wife, my wife, and my cousins?
See, this statement is misrepresenting of how it happens.
For now, I am not arguing with you on this point at all, if you've noticed. All I have been doing is asking a simple question, and all you have been doing is being overly defensive.
I am not being defensive at all. I have explained how I feel, that David was guilty, and that I do not pretend to know God's ways. So I won't even attempt to call it wrong or right. I remain in the middle. To me everyone else that is one either side is an extremist of sorts.
The question is quite simple. Did god punish a lot of people for david's crime, or betrayal, whatever you want to call it?
God allowed it to happen.
and that god was suppose to be all good and all of that.
You have to be careful when you try to understand God's goodness. It is not always easily understandable by us. God did good by sending Jesus, and look what Jesus had to go through.
That's not you and others have been saying. You and others have been saying all along that all the mishaps both old and new were of man's doing. Now, it seems, you have changed your story.
At the time of the flood, God did it, but it was because of how man decided to live.
God is always involved with everything, since He created everything, but the blame does not always fall directly on God, since He has given us the gift of decision, and responsibility. Your trying to put it all on God, and then say God can't exist, because God is supposed to be good. That is an ignorant position to have.
I'm sorry, riverrat, but you are showing more and more to me that perhaps you are better off living in ancient times because you agree so much with what they did back then.
Never once have I said that I agree with it. I have said that I agree with David being guilty. It is impossible for me to agree with it, since I do not fully understand it, or do I fully understand God.
I can only understand what God has revealed to me about my own life, and try to learn lessons from what has happened to others. I will forever be seeking God, even though I think He found me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Taz, posted 01-17-2007 1:02 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Taz, posted 01-18-2007 12:38 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 102 of 174 (377778)
01-18-2007 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by joshua221
01-17-2007 11:10 PM


Re: Let Those Without Sin Cast the First Stone
I included those pieces to show Brian and Tazmanian Devil examples of the very things that they are saying don't exist, or are limited.
I never said they didn't exist, I know that they exist to a lesser degree.
You seem to think that just because a few areas still have slavery that peoples' opinions towards slavery havent changed at all.
My point, and I think it is Taz's too, is that many countries have abolished slavery, thus deeming it immoral, hence morality has changed in these groups.
The prevailing attitude of the vast majority of the US and Europe is that slavery is wrong, contrast that to the situation say 3 or 400 years ago and you see a vast difference in attitude. Therefore, this proves that human morality can change.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by joshua221, posted 01-17-2007 11:10 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 103 of 174 (377781)
01-18-2007 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by riVeRraT
01-18-2007 9:08 AM


Re: model of morality?
riVeRraT writes:
When I talk about good and bad, I am speaking through the eyes of God, and what He does, and how we percieve it.
That's the problem. You're assuming that if God did it, "He must have had a good reason", even if we don't understand the reason. You're assuming that God made a "good" decision in choosing David, even if we can't see the good in it.
What I'm saying is that it was a bad choice and therefore God probably didn't make it.
No the people are not responsible if their leader doesn't follow the law. Are you saying they are?
Of course. In a democracy, you're responsible for who you elect.
If you elect somebody you know is going to repress blacks, homosexuals, etc., then that repression is your responsibility. If he does what you don't expect, then you certainly have a reponsibility to not elect him to a second term.
Leaders are supposed to be a model of the law, not be breaking it.
That's exactly what we're talking about. David was not supposed to be breaking the law. If God knew he would break the law, He shouldn't have chosen him. If He didn't know, He wouldn't be God.
The sensible conclusion is that God didn't choose David.
I think you are trying to equivocate God picking an imperfect leader with God being perfect.
No. I am trying to say that God would have made the best passible choice from a pool of imperfect humans. Do you seriously believe that David was the best possible choice? Do you seriously believe there was nobody in Israel who would not commit adultery and murder?
Again, how do we know that David wasn't the best choice?
More important, how do you know he was?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by riVeRraT, posted 01-18-2007 9:08 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by riVeRraT, posted 01-18-2007 11:36 PM ringo has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 104 of 174 (377800)
01-18-2007 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by riVeRraT
01-18-2007 9:20 AM


Re: model of morality?
RR writes:
Me writes:
The question is quite simple. Did god punish a lot of people for david's crime, or betrayal, whatever you want to call it?
God allowed it to happen.
Good god, riverrat. For the fucking last time, here is the exact text from the freaking bible.
2 Samuel 12:11
quote:
"This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' "
Isn't there some kind of forum rule against continuing dodging and lying?
Added by edit.
PS Is there some kind of mental block that's preventing you from reading the bible? Or is this one of those lying for jesus?
Anyway, this will be my last post to you in this thread. If you want to keep lying, you can go ahead. I'm done.
Fucking sakes, and they ask me why I think christians are liars.
Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.
George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by riVeRraT, posted 01-18-2007 9:20 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by riVeRraT, posted 01-18-2007 11:42 PM Taz has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 105 of 174 (377811)
01-18-2007 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by riVeRraT
01-18-2007 9:02 AM


Re: model of morality?
Is that God's fault, or some fruitloop named Bush?
According to Bush, God told him to invade Iraq!
I believe in God, and I believe God considers homosexuality a sin, but I find no need to go around telling people that, or hate anyone for it, since we are all sinners. I believe Jesus came to save not judge.
So, where do the people that preach on the street about homosexuality, single parents etc. get their ideas from?
Where do Christians get the idea from that homosexuality is wrong?
Did God do it, or did people do it? Is anyone really innocent? ( re innocent Egyptian children)
Well your Holy Book tells us that He did.
Also, what crime would a baby that is a few minutes old have committed?
It is very hard for me to picture the life of the Old testament,
Really, I find it quite easy, maybe you should read a bit more about it.
I think if your God, and you kill people, you obviously know where they are going afterwards, and I hope that is heaven, or who knows, maybe even hell for a short visit.
Or Hell forever.
It is a shame you have no pity for the parents whose children were taken from them by a petty barbarian.
Is it so bad to leave this life, and travel to the next? Only for those that are left behind. Your problem is that you approach all this without even remotely believing in the afterlife.
Why do I have to believe in the afterlife?
Your problem is that you have to think of excuses to justify what even you really think is abominable behaviour by Yahweh. It doesn’t matter what the afterlife is like, the reason for killing the innocent Egyptian babies is given in the Bible. Yahweh slaughtered tiny babies because the pharaoh wouldn’t let the Hebrews leave Egypt. Now if the only way God can get the Hebrews out of Egypt is to kill little babies then that God is not only sick, but is also a complete moron.
Any god worth his salt could just have blinked the Egyptians out of existence, or transported all the Hebrews out of there with a wave of his ”hand’. But to go through the histrionics of sending plagues then eventually killing countless children is ludicrous.
Even the Son of God had to suffer immensly, so obviously there is a point to it all.
A wee bit of a slap from a couple of Romans, then a few lashes is hardly immense suffering to an immortal being.
You always approach suffering as bad, as do a few others, which is a topic spawned from this story about David. But we always seem to find some good that happens from the bad.
Indeed. It is to do with the resilience of the human race, we know we have to get on with things so we do.
I can deal with the shit He has done, but I won't pretend to know why, and call judgement on it.
But by ignoring why he did things you are justifying horrendous behaviour.
Why would you want to worship a God that slaughters innocent babies? Why would anybody?
The God I believe in, ultimately is a good God,
It takes a great deal of cognitive dissonance to come to this conclusion. All you are doing is making excuses for God. You know in your heart that many of God’s actions, including the atrocities during David’s reign, are completely immoral and make any decent person sick, but are you so desperate for God to be good that you are willing to ignore the texts and make up any excuse to keep that fantasy intact?
You do not get a "get out of bad things in life on earth card" if you start believing in God.
But he intervenes in peoples lives! He brings bad things into your life, if we are to believe the Bible at least.
I didn't,
We have all had shit in our lives, I know I have had more than my fair share, but that is just life, you have to get on with things.
and neither did Jesus, His son.
As I said, a couple of hours on a cross is hardly a great sacrifice for an immortal being. Jesus sacrifice is way overestimated.
I have seen it in my own life, and all the bad things that God has put through has ultimately brought me to God,
Everything will bring you back to God, you are so determined to keep this fantasy alive that you will delude yourself at every opportunity.
and has wound up to make me a better person. I actually thank Him for the bad things that have come to pass, and I have learned from.
Seriously, have you considered therapy of any kind. Can you not see the self delusion you are perpetuating, you are going to believe in God no matter what.
There is no embarassing exuse. God is tough, and you will learn things the hard way from Him wether you accept Him or not, that's life.
No, we free thinkers do not learn anything from God, and the only thing we learn from the Bible is that it is possible to fool some of the people all of the time.
Bored now.
Brian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by riVeRraT, posted 01-18-2007 9:02 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by riVeRraT, posted 01-19-2007 12:10 AM Brian has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024