Anything Divine in the Bible?

Huntard writes:If indeed you hunt for truth, think about it, you will get it after a while.D Bertot

All you have shown is that your god requires the pain, suffering, and torture of children. I welcome chaos and meaningless drivel if it means avoiding this.You have been told time and time again that morality is a socially evolved concept, and you refuse to listen. The choas is avoided by social cohesion. But you are too stupid to understand this. That is why you keep insisting on answers to questiosn that were answered long long ago.

Yes, Huntard too may one day be sufficiently enlightened to glory in the stoning of children. I bet he can't wait...

Of course there isn't. I view stoning the entire family of a thief to death as very, very wrong, but that's my opinion. It also happens to be the opinion of nearly everyone I know. I try to avoid hanging out too much with people who think it's a Good Thing - modern societies tend to regard them as sociopaths. And shit, I might have a cousin who steals something some day.There need be no Absolute Morality for me to condemn behavior that I find offensive and disruptive to society, Bertot. I'm perfectly aware that morality depends on the society it's found in.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Will you answer my question? I answered yours, while you keep avoiding mine.
And how does anything I said point to there being an absolute standard for right and wrong. In my life I decide what that is, nobody else.

---

I hunt for the truth

Before I scoot of to work, tell me CD, whos is more evil, A God that punishes as he sees fit, based on omniscience or you that goes out an RINGS THAT CHICKENS KNECK, for your Sunday afternoon meal?Or maye its that guy that built the machine that slams the pin into the head of the cow, so you can enjoy a steak dinner at the pub.Or maybe its that alien, that is one million years advanced in intelliegence, that disects us painfully and horribily, while all the while, not percieving any of his actions as evil.Enjoy your next basket of KFC, CD.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

H writes:I promise you I will get to this this evening, its not anything that has not already been discussed, just hold tight.D Bertot

I don't use the word evil much... I don't think any on your list are evil as such, apart from your god. But your god doesn't exist, so we don't have to worry about that one. Out of your list, which is the most threat to me and my society? It would be the alien. But if you allow me to expand on your list, I would put you and your ilk at the top... for reasons obvious to most of us here

jaywill, you need to read a bit more carefully. I didn't say I was quoting you, I said I was quoting Jefferson.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

No.But there will be actions that are so destructive to human society that you are likely to find extreme abhorrance of these actions within society pretty much universally held by humans.For the same reasons you are also unfortunately likely to find a relative slackening of this abhorrance when these same actions are applied to those that are deemed to be "outsiders" or less human.Context is also a fairly key criteria in any moral judgement.Does the absolute morality that you adhere to really condone the stoning to death of children? If so that is pretty sick. By the standard of near universal (but not absolute) morality that I adhere to anyway.So this absolute morality of yours - Can you state some of these absolute morals that apply universally to all situations regardless of context? Or do your "absolutes" actually vary relative to context?Can you state some actions that are absolutely evil? Always? Regardless of context in any way shape or form?I don't think that absolute morality of the type you preach is even possible. If it is it has certainly never been successfully practiced. Perhaps least of all by your God?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You right, Sorry. You were quoting Jefferson. I'm not sure how close that would be given the things you have discribed as his belief. He may have had a mixture of personalized ideas which were difficult to pin down.Deism believes in God but that this God does not interfer or intervene in the world, especially in miraculous ways. But as I quoted the socalled Father of English Deism - they did have thier Supreme God. Since he is a sect to himself in his own words, why are you so sure you can locate him as a Deist as the closest belief? What fixation? The word "christianity" is not even a positive word for me. I never speak of my belief in "Christianity". Nor have I ever written here that I participate in Christianity. I do speak about the living Person of Jesus Christ. Are you baiting for a subject change of some kind? You want to argue about Anthomy Flew there?So Anthonty Flew finally decided that Atheism was not the best choice of a world view (whatever Flew calls himself now). People change after time. Eldredge Cleaver (a Marxist leaning Black Panther) opposed the Christian Gospel then became a Christian. And then became more sympathetic to Islam. Bob Dylon embraced the Christian Gospel for awhile. I think he latter leaned towards Judiasm.I think sometimes these celiberty types feel "used" by religious folk. So they react by distancing themselves from Christianity after having believed in Jesus as Lord.Oh John Lennon, according to one biographer, also had his time of believing in Jesus Christ.Anthony Flew can change his mind about the existence of a God too. Flexibility comes with age.And one other thing, Before you call me a Fundamentalist or a Fundy why don't you ASK me what I think is most fundamental to the Bible? You never asked me what I thought were the most fundamental issues in the Bible.I know name calling is more convenient. You have nothing better than the Gospel of Jesus or better than Jesus. If you did you'd tell us. I don't think you have any answers for the big questions of life.I question that you could even tell us why you are here in the world or what the purpose of your life is. But if I am wrong go ahead.Most people I come across like yourself will react by saying "Why does there have to be a purpose anyway?"Do you have something more precious and more valuable than Jesus Christ? What is it? Even more off vien was your failed attempt to portray him as Anti - Theist.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : Flew changed his mind about the existence of a God.

Huntard writes:I am not sure which question it is that you think I have not answered so I will respond to both.The human existence and experience point to there being a objective right and wrong. Human ethics and morality are simple nonexistent without it. Calling something objective morality, when there is no standard ABSOLUTE standard of right nd wrong is contradictory. The human makeup points to there beign not only the existence of God but a standard of right and wrong.Its not a god, but God. Yes I would do anything God the supreme judge asked me. However, in those instances as i the case of Moses and Noah, etc, God always gave direct proof to those individuals that he was in direct contact with them. In other words I will not be responding to voices in my head concerning such matters.I believe you are still missing the point here though. It is not whether God exists or not. It is does the human have a platform to stand on, which allows him to condemn anothers actions, when he admits there is no absolute standard of right or wrong. This the single most contradictory position one could accept. Please try and stay on track at where we are at in the discussion, so I dont have to keep repeating these same answers.D Bertot

Bertot writes:CD writes:You responded exacally as I thought you would.Here is your postion as I see it thus far. Pain and death as result of pain, are only evil, when we apply it to humans doing things to humans. But it is ok for the hunter to slam a arrow through the neck of deer at 50 yards, with no problem, if we need to eat. Or it is ok to kill and put to death any animal, for our purposes of consumption. In other words evil and death as a result of pain are only evil when humans are doing to each other and not to another species. This is ofcourse contradictory and subjective.You only recongnize what you call inhuman, when it it done to eachother and not another species.If as you have suggested, pain and morality is determined by our INTTELLIGENCE, then it would follow that the alien and God are so far above ours that we have no hope of understanding there reasons for doing such things. But one thing is certain, you have no PLATFORM from which to condemn thier action, as I have now forceably demonstrated. By your remarks you have implicated yourself in a contradiction from which you cannot extricate yourself.Again, watch your responses when I say, what is the standard that constitutes morality, pain, suffering and the such like. You have no leg to stand on. Because you committ and involve yourself in so many accross the board with so many species, correct.D Bertot

CD writes:No what I have done is demonstrate that without God morality is non-existent for all intents and purposes. Your platform is termite eaten and going to fall at any time. Rehtoric does not change objective reality CD. Again, why is it ok for you to apply pain and suffering to another species and call it ok, then when humans do it to eachother it some how becomes inhuman. You have to proceed in this fashion becuse you logic, ehtic and morality are contradictory without God.Tell me cavediver, why is it ok to inflict pain on another species but not to another human? If it is wrong in both then you are contradictory in your actions and your morality is subjective and really non-existent. At any rate you have no platform from which to proceed.You certainly have no means of saying God is unjust of this or that.Perhaps CD, you stay in the science forums, where you have suffiecient knowledge to discuss issues, like Quarks and multiverses. Here you are falling into a black hole.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Straggler writes:OK fair enough. Nearly universal but not absolute is not morality, it is pretending at moralityBut now watch what you do. You turn right around and condemn an action of a God with omniscience, simply because it is not palatable to you and your understanding of reality. The ten commandments are a good starter.IN the words of Solomom. All is vainity our only purpose is to love and obey God, because he is God. How could I know what morality is without God explaining it to me? He has done this in his Word.Our present discussion however, is whether without a standard of absoluteness, one can condemn anothers actions, without being contradictory.D Bertot