Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2019 4:31 PM
28 online now:
Coragyps, JonF, PaulK, Stile, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (7 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,316 Year: 9,352/19,786 Month: 1,774/2,119 Week: 534/576 Day: 129/80 Hour: 8/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Author Topic:   King David found guilty on all counts.
jar
Member
Posts: 30988
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 121 of 174 (378399)
01-20-2007 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by joshua221
01-20-2007 2:54 PM


Re: more nonsense
This argument has been given by those who think morality to be on the rise. Nations who purportedly would never be involved with genocide and slavery. Usually referring to the United States and other industrialized and "more advanced" nations.

To deny slavery's existence is ignorance to the sweatshops which manufacture all of your clothing.

And no this does not do a disservice to "real" slavery as they are both atrocious and both should not exist but human morality has NOT changed and still allows such behavior. Self-service.

I'm sorry but that is simply nonsense. First, not all clothing is made in a sweatshop. Second, a sweatshop is not slavery. Third, I do not even condone sweatshops.

You said morality is learned and I argue that it is an attribute which all humans are born with in their nature, the ability to discern right from wrong; the nature of humans becomes something which is morally unjust when individuals decide to act wrongly for their own benefit.

LOL

Sorry but that simply supports my position that morality is learned.

Therefore a mankind standard for morality must exist for we each have the ability to discern what is right and what is wrong.

Again, simply wrong. I consider certain behaviors as immoral where others may consider them moral. The fact that there are disagreements as to what is moral shows that there is no mankind standard for morality.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by joshua221, posted 01-20-2007 2:54 PM joshua221 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by joshua221, posted 01-20-2007 3:20 PM jar has responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 122 of 174 (378409)
01-20-2007 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by jar
01-20-2007 3:00 PM


Re: more nonsense
Again, simply wrong. I consider certain behaviors as immoral where others may consider them moral. The fact that there are disagreements as to what is moral shows that there is no mankind standard for morality.

But there exists what is truly and absolutely right and we can discern what that is, there is a standard and the standard is what is perfectly right and good. If we were unable to know what was right and good then we there would be little reason for us to exist as we could not live a good life or even know what that entails, everything dealing with morality and conscience would be a subjective absurdity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by jar, posted 01-20-2007 3:00 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 01-20-2007 3:23 PM joshua221 has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30988
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 123 of 174 (378411)
01-20-2007 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by joshua221
01-20-2007 3:20 PM


Re: more nonsense
But there exists what is truly and absolutely right and we can discern what that is, there is a standard and the standard is what is perfectly right and good.

So many claim. But that is all they do, make unsupported claims.


If we were unable to know what was right and good then we there would be little reason for us to exist as we could not live a good life or even know what that entails, everything dealing with morality and conscience would be a subjective absurdity.

WHAT????????????????


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by joshua221, posted 01-20-2007 3:20 PM joshua221 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by joshua221, posted 01-20-2007 3:45 PM jar has responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 124 of 174 (378414)
01-20-2007 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by jar
01-20-2007 3:23 PM


Without this "standard" so to speak, the choice between right and wrong would be subjective. So any action from murder to theft would be acceptable in this world. Nothing would matter.

That was what I was trying to describe.

We know that such a model or standard exists because we trust that God did not create some sort of silly and simple-minded game for humans to take part in.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 01-20-2007 3:23 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 01-20-2007 3:48 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30988
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 125 of 174 (378415)
01-20-2007 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by joshua221
01-20-2007 3:45 PM


really heading way off topic.
Without this "standard" so to speak, the choice between right and wrong would be subjective. So any action from murder to theft would be acceptable in this world. Nothing would matter.

Absolute nonsense. But if you would like to discuss why it is totally false please start a thread.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by joshua221, posted 01-20-2007 3:45 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 126 of 174 (379435)
01-24-2007 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by ringo
01-19-2007 5:08 PM


Re: model of morality?
If you believe the stories did happen and only a few details are missing, you are a literalist.

I believe they could have happened, but it really doesn't matter because the point of the story is what is most important.

No. I'm talking about David taking the crown.

I don't believe for a split second that God chose David.

If your not a literalist, then you don't even believe that David was a king, right?

And if you think David was king, I still don't see a problem with God chosing him, and then David screwing up.

If you believe in God, then you must believe He created us all, and we are all screw ups, so David screwing up is just normalism.

I still say, big responsibility, big mistakes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by ringo, posted 01-19-2007 5:08 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by ringo, posted 01-24-2007 9:57 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 127 of 174 (379436)
01-24-2007 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Taz
01-19-2007 5:42 PM


Re: model of morality?
here is the passage I have been trying to get through your thick skull.

Insulting me, makes you look stupid.
I know the verse, I have provided commentary on the verse. If there are any other verses you would like to discuss, and stop speculating about things, I will. I told you, I am not a bible expert.

God said he was going to cause great "calamity". The civil war, which god admitted to have caused, killed 20 thousand people.

So provide the verse then. I am not denying anything, although you seem to think I am, and that I am playing dumb. Playing dumb is discussing the bible without including the actual verses.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Taz, posted 01-19-2007 5:42 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Taz, posted 01-24-2007 11:47 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16651
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 128 of 174 (379467)
01-24-2007 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by riVeRraT
01-24-2007 5:42 AM


Re: model of morality?
riVeRraT writes:

If your not a literalist, then you don't even believe that David was a king, right?

I don't have enough evidence to believe that David even existed.

If you believe in God, then you must believe He created us all, and we are all screw ups, so David screwing up is just normalism.

That's the point - God should/would have picked the best of a bad bunch. It doesn't look like David was even close to the best, so it doesn't look like God chose him.

Why is it so hard to accept that maybe God didn't choose David?

I still say, big responsibility, big mistakes.

God had the big responsibility. According to you, He made the big mistake.

I'm just saying He probably didn't. It was all David.


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 126 by riVeRraT, posted 01-24-2007 5:42 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by riVeRraT, posted 01-24-2007 12:43 PM ringo has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1458 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 129 of 174 (379481)
01-24-2007 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by riVeRraT
01-24-2007 5:46 AM


Re: model of morality?
Ok rat, you win. Forget the 20 thousand people who died.

Do you agree or not agree that god made david's son rape david's wives as an act of punishment upon david? The verse in question I have cited many times with pretty colors and bigger fonts.

Added by edit.

By the way, you win meaning your lies finally won. I'm not going to waste anymore time with you or your lies. You keep asking why people like me have a negative toward christians. You are the reason why. The commentary you posted has almost nothing to do with the verse I used to question you. But who cares, right? As long as you persist enough with a lie, it becomes real, even to you.

Rat, you may think you are doing good by playing dumb for god and posting nonsensical commentaries to excuse his acts, but you are doing yourself a great disservice. I have posted the verse in question many times with pretty colors to outline the words in question. Yet, you've lied over and over claiming I need to provide the verse.

I know it is against forum rule to call someone a liar, and I agree. But there is no other way to put this. You intentionally "lie" over and over about this. You then posted a commentary that has almost nothing to do with the verse. And then you again claim that I haven't provided the verse.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to my suspension.

Have a good life, riverrat. May you be able to get to heaven.

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 127 by riVeRraT, posted 01-24-2007 5:46 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by riVeRraT, posted 01-24-2007 12:54 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 130 of 174 (379504)
01-24-2007 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by ringo
01-24-2007 9:57 AM


Re: model of morality?
That's the point - God should/would have picked the best of a bad bunch. It doesn't look like David was even close to the best, so it doesn't look like God chose him.

What you haven't explained is how there could have been someone better, and who that person might have been.

Why is it so hard to accept that maybe God didn't choose David?

I already told you, I could accept that, but thats not what I think currently.

God had the big responsibility. According to you, He made the big mistake.

But then your missing my whole point. It may not have been a mistake at all. There is a line of reasoning, according to bible teachings that can explain all that. Sure, what happened was bad, and wrong, but it may not have been a mistake.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by ringo, posted 01-24-2007 9:57 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by ringo, posted 01-24-2007 1:08 PM riVeRraT has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 131 of 174 (379506)
01-24-2007 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Taz
01-24-2007 11:47 AM


Re: model of morality?
Do you agree or not agree that god made david's son rape david's wives as an act of punishment upon david? The verse in question I have cited many times with pretty colors and bigger fonts.

I never disagreed with that, what's your problem?

By the way, you win meaning your lies finally won.

Ok, I am sick of it. You've called me a liar how many times in this thread? You so full of shit. You have to show how I am lying, and not just call me names.

I'm not going to waste anymore time with you or your lies.

You'll have to show exactly where I lied first, then you can call me a liar.

You keep asking why people like me have a negative toward christians. You are the reason why.

I am not Christian. Don't blame me for your own short comings.
If you don't get what I am saying, ask me to explain it, and stop calling me names. 4 year olds do that.

Rat, you may think you are doing good by playing dumb for god

I only do one thing in God's name, and that is try to love others, period.

I know it is against forum rule to call someone a liar, and I agree. But there is no other way to put this.

Funny, I guess that makes you a liar of sorts. Not only have you called me a liar, you tried to start an entire thread devoted to calling people who lie for Jesus. I think you should be suspended. If I was admin, I would do it in a heart beat. Luckily I am not, and I do have a heart, so I ignore what you say about me, and forgive you for saying it. Because maybe you do not know what you do. Maybe your so ignorant that you have no choice but to call me a liar. Otherwise you have to admit to something else.

You then posted a commentary that has almost nothing to do with the verse.

No that's a lie. I can prove that it is a lie. Should I call you a liar now? Would you like the link to where I got that commentary? It is the commentary for that exact verse. If you don't accept it, then maybe you should study more, or don't and live your life as you are. But don't call people liars based on your ignorance, that's just bullshit.

http://bible.cc/2_samuel/12-11.htm
Click on the comm tab.

Have a good life, riverrat. May you be able to get to heaven.

If I go, then you'll be there to. But then we won't have all this baggage that is the world in our heads, and it will just our spirits, as we were when we were children, and we will get along, and have a good time. Peace.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Taz, posted 01-24-2007 11:47 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16651
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 132 of 174 (379510)
01-24-2007 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by riVeRraT
01-24-2007 12:43 PM


Re: model of morality?
riVeRraT writes:

What you haven't explained is how there could have been someone better, and who that person might have been.

Why should I explain that?

We all know people today who don't commit adultery. We all know people today who don't murder their lovers' husbands. We all know people today who would be a better choice than David.

Do you think the people were so much more depraved back then that there was not one single solitary person who could have reigned as king (or queen) without committing adultery and murder? Do you really need the names of David's contemporaries who didn't commit adultery and murder?

All you have said is that God might have had some woo-woo reason for choosing David in spite of his faults - but you haven't given us any indication of what that woo-woo reason might be.

Why is it so hard to accept that maybe God didn't choose David?

I already told you, I could accept that, but thats not what I think currently.

The trouble is you haven't given any reason for thinking that the far-less-likely scenario happened.

But then your missing my whole point. It may not have been a mistake at all.

How am I missing your point? You're claiming that God made the right decision in choosing David as king - that He chose the lesser of two evils.

I'm saying the same thing - that it wasn't a mistake at all. But my reasoning is different - I say it wasn't a wrong decision on God's part because it wasn't a decision on God's part at all.

You're bringing in a there-might-not-have-been-anybody-better scenario without any reasoning to back it up - pure speculation.

There is a line of reasoning, according to bible teachings that can explain all that.

Feel free to roll out that line of resoning.


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 130 by riVeRraT, posted 01-24-2007 12:43 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by riVeRraT, posted 01-24-2007 4:37 PM ringo has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 133 of 174 (379559)
01-24-2007 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by ringo
01-24-2007 1:08 PM


Re: model of morality?
We all know people today who don't commit adultery. We all know people today who don't murder their lovers' husbands. We all know people today who would be a better choice than David.

What do people today have to do with people of thousands of years ago.

The bible never says that we won't grow, and become more mature. People today are far more intellectually advanced in most areas, than then. It is plainly obvious how barbaric things where then. God seems to me, the only thing that tried to take us out of that barbaric thinking process was God.

Do you think the people were so much more depraved back then that there was not one single solitary person who could have reigned as king (or queen) without committing adultery and murder?

I really couldn't answer that with any authority. Judging by stories of some of the other Kings, David was a sweetheart.

Do you really need the names of David's contemporaries who didn't commit adultery and murder?

Not unless they were kings, then it wouldn't be a fair comparison. Let's compare apples to apples.

All you have said is that God might have had some woo-woo reason for choosing David in spite of his faults - but you haven't given us any indication of what that woo-woo reason might be.

Of course I did, way back in Message 37

You can't say, or think that everything God chooses for us, is going to be so perfect by our standards. God created this whole life, and it is difficult. So unless you can explain the complexities of life to me, and why bad things happen to everyone, then you can't say that it was a bad choice. Everyone in power, including Hitler is there by God.
The bible says it, but I am going to have to look for the verse. I think it is linked to psalm 82.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by ringo, posted 01-24-2007 1:08 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by ringo, posted 01-24-2007 5:15 PM riVeRraT has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16651
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 134 of 174 (379568)
01-24-2007 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by riVeRraT
01-24-2007 4:37 PM


Re: model of morality?
riVeRraT writes:

What do people today have to do with people of thousands of years ago.

Everything. People today are the only standard we have for comparison. They're the only people we know personally.

... the only thing that tried to take us out of that barbaric thinking process was God.

But you're the one who's saying that that "barbaric thinking process" was chosen by God.

Do you really need the names of David's contemporaries who didn't commit adultery and murder?

Not unless they were kings, then it wouldn't be a fair comparison.

But we're talking about people that God might have chosen to be king. They could not be kings. The only comparison we can make is with candidates for king - non-kings.

You can't say, or think that everything God chooses for us, is going to be so perfect by our standards.

I didn't say anything about "perfection". I said that it's reasonable to assume that God would make the best possible choice if He was the one making the choice. I also said that it doesn't seem plausible that David was the best possible choice. Therefore, I conclude that it is most probable that God did not choose David.

It's much more probable that David chose David. Have you never heard of another case in history where a king seized the throne of his own volition, for his own sake? I didn't think anybody believed in the Divine Right of Kings any more.

So unless you can explain the complexities of life to me, and why bad things happen to everyone, then you can't say that it was a bad choice.

Sure I can. Watch me:

It was a bad choice.

Or rather, it would have been a bad choice, if God had made it.

I don't have to be able to explain every bad thing that happens to every good person to know that George W. Bush was a bad choice. Ditto for David.

Everyone in power, including Hitler is there by God.

Bullshit. Don't blame God for Hitler. Blame Hitler.

And don't blame God for David. Blame David.

The bible says it, but I am going to have to look for the verse. I think it is linked to psalm 82.

Don't you hear the alarm bells going off?

Who wrote the psalms? Wasn't it (supposedly) David? Do you really think David would write a psalm that said, "David stole the throne"?


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 133 by riVeRraT, posted 01-24-2007 4:37 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by riVeRraT, posted 01-25-2007 8:17 AM ringo has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 86 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 135 of 174 (379697)
01-25-2007 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by ringo
01-24-2007 5:15 PM


Re: model of morality?
Everything. People today are the only standard we have for comparison. They're the only people we know personally.

You sure you want to stand by that statement? Your telling me it is a logical thing to compare people of today, with the way we are taught, to people of long ago, and the way they were brought up? The knowledge base is mostly different.

But you're the one who's saying that that "barbaric thinking process" was chosen by God.

It was made by God, we do the choosing. It is apparent all around you, there is no denying that we are barbaric, and continue to be. Two thousand years from now, they will look back at us, and call us barbaric.

But we're talking about people that God might have chosen to be king. They could not be kings. The only comparison we can make is with candidates for king - non-kings.

Then we just really don't know how they would have faired as kings then, would we. Thats just speculation. I am not saying they wouldn't have done better, but I am not going to say they would have either.

I also said that it doesn't seem plausible that David was the best possible choice.

I think your not comparing apples to apples, that is the problem here. You want to compare David to us today, and to people who were not king. Why don't you compare David to the other kings in the bible.
Seems like most of the kings did not have a problem with killing thousands for personal gains.

It's much more probable that David chose David.

Now that I do not see as probable. How can someone just choose to be king?

I don't have to be able to explain every bad thing that happens to every good person to know that George W. Bush was a bad choice. Ditto for David.

Yes you do, because you are implying that God only makes good choices, or would have only made a good choice (in our eyes) and not a bad choice (in our eyes).
So your going to have to explain this theory of God making good choices all the time, and not letting bad things happen, when he makes a choice.
Otherwise, it is perfectly reasonable to say that God makes choices that appear bad to us. So choosing David, was not only entirely reasonable, it was probable.

Bullshit. Don't blame God for Hitler. Blame Hitler.

And don't blame God for David. Blame David.

Well I am glad you think that way. At least you believe in free will. However there are those that think God is to blame for everything, since He created everything. I am happy to know that you are not one of them, and appreciate the gift of life that God has given us.

Who wrote the psalms? Wasn't it (supposedly) David? Do you really think David would write a psalm that said, "David stole the throne"?

Oh great, so now all the psalms are worth nothing. Obviously a man who commits murder can not hear from God? Is that it?

In psalms 82:
6 "I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'

7 But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."

The NIV study notes explain that those who rule (or judge) do so by God's appointment and thus they are his representatives-whether they acknowledge him or not.

Then there is a bunch of verses to back up that line of thought.
Such as:
Daniel 2:
21 He changes times and seasons;
he sets up kings and deposes them.
He gives wisdom to the wise
and knowledge to the discerning.

If this is true, then clearly all leaders are there by God's appoinment, and many of them are not perfect, why does David have to be?

We are all gods (little "g") and we are all lords (little "l"), and God is the King of kings, Lord of lords. We all have great responsibility, and we all screw up.

There was only one that didn't screw up, and that was His Son.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by ringo, posted 01-24-2007 5:15 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-25-2007 8:40 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 137 by ringo, posted 01-25-2007 11:28 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019