Anything Divine in the Bible?

C writes:Opinion of everyone you know? Do the deer and bunny rabbit agree with you concerning you actions twords them? You can view anything the way you choose, but only an eternal perspective will allow you to view things correctly.I dont understand the punishment of sin by God because I an not God, that should be simple enough for anyone. Even in society we put to death people that kill others and most of us are ok with that, or atleast we feel no shame in doing so, correct? Then you live in absolute contradiction to yourself and your life. You have no platform from which to jutify your actions. But if you are as comfortable as you look in the picture, then so be it. Ignorance is bliss as they say.D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

We are anthropic i.e. human-centered in our thinking as a species. However this does not make it any more "right" or "wrong" to apply pain and suffering to the species around us. It just means we are more dominant over the other living organisms around us. However excessive pillaging of other living organisms harms the human species in the long run and this is why most of human society considers it "wrong" (i.e. look at the UN mandates on plant and animal conservation).Even according to your Bible, God tells adam and the rest of the humans to have dominion over the life on the planet. So according to your rules is it right or wrong to inflict pain on other animals and plants?

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

DA writes:Or it is possible that we have been given by God an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. That which allows us to see that it is wrong to harm other humans, but not to consume other animals for food.To me it is ironic that most of these fellas in this discussion abhor the idea of any harm to other humans, it even makes them sick, but dont have the slightest quams about the same actions to other species. They do this based on thier so-called intelligence factor.Its ironic because they are defending and denying at the same time the very thing God has put within them, a sense of right and wrong. In the scriptures it is described this way."Having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof""Who worshipped and served the creature more than the creator"They acknowledge thier intelligence and morality but deny its source. They recognize that it is not wrong, as CD and others have mentioned (concerning animals), but get nearly violent when they apply the same principles to other human beings.However, without God there is no way to make sense of condemnation of others actions, when we cannot even justify our own. Yes, and that is why the consumption of animals and the taking of thier life is not immoral, God has authorized it from an omnipotent morality. As a human being, I do not possess ultimate knowledge or morality, therefore I am unqualified to make such decisions in the area of morality. Even if I do, it would not mean anyone else should follow my lead.But you would have to believe that God actually said what you qouted above to accept it. If you do not it is all relative.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Well, we are not all too perfect. However, on this front too, many humans seem to be a whole big lot better than your OT god.The argument was about the morality of this god that you conjecture. So far it doesn't stack up very well in comparison to the average human. In fact, even compared to the worst humans of history your OT god seems to come out looking pretty shabby.

No it doesn't, many people in the past believed what they were doing was right, while we view these actions as plain wrong. Where's the universal standard now? Yes they are, see example above, our ethics change with time. I never called anything objective morality, in fact, I say there is no such thing, there is only subjective morality. No it doesn't, again, see above, we were NEVER consistent in what we held to be right or wrong. Hell, even I changed stances on some things during my life time. So, if you had an experience, and you would be 100% convinced God spoke to you, and commanded you to rip the heads off of 100 new born babies, you would do it? That's the difference between you and me I guess, even if I was 100% convinced by this experience that it was God talking to me, I'd still tell him to go fuck himself. I agree. No, he doesn't, that doesn't stop him from doing it though. What is? That there is no absolute right and wrong, and yet we judge? Whoever said we were perfect? You're answers are very clear. I don't agree with them though.If you don;t mind, I would like to react to some of the things you said to Cavediver and Straggler.On the point you made that humans find it ok to harm animals but not other humans:
I can say that I know plenty of humans who think it is wrong to harm animals in any way. In fact in my country we have a political party who's sole purpose is to fight against animal cruelty and basically is promoting that meat is bad and shouldn't be eaten. They have 2 seats in our representative government body. Nearly 180.000 people voted for them (my country only has roughly 16 million inhabitants, so you can see that's quite a number). Again, it seems not everyone agrees. Where's the absolute morality now?

---

I hunt for the truth

And I think its ironic that you justify a pathological, homicidal, racist, bigoted, genocidal blood-thirsty maniac who orders the execution of innocent children and commands and condones slavery and ethnocide as well as a host of other atrocities. In the standards of modern society your god should be sentenced to death and by your own standards he should be condemned to hell.Case in point: and Just a few of several thousand violent and destructive scripture references in the Bible.Who is evil here? Who is not only condoning violence, advocating violence but COMMANDING it?Even if the men were guilty of "sinning against God" why are the innocent children and babies punished? If you justify this behavior why aren't you slaughtering the children of infidels? Why are you not going over to the Middle East and raising a holy war against the enemies of Israel? I thought your god was the same god of yesterday and today? Jesus said not one letter of the law is to change? Why are you not still following the law of Moses as commanded by God? Who said its not wrong what we have done to some of these animals? I think its tragic that we have nearly wiped out 1/3 of the species on this planet. I think its horrific the way some animals are treated i.e. illegal poaching, endangered animal trafficking, etc. I also am not a big proponent of hunting except for basic survival and food i.e. Inuit, etc.How does this jive with your god commanding bloody animal sacrifices? In other words, I am a mindless drone who is brainwashed by religion to do anything it tells me to do. If god told you to go kill your neighbor and his wife and children would you do it? Now you get it! Who says I accept any of it? I am just pointing out the contradictions in your own moral code.I would like a Christian to answer this question:Is slavery wrong? And if so why?Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Well first you have to demonstrate that there is a valid and viable alternative. No. I judge the alleged actions of your God in the context in which they are described to be immoral. If you do not then what exactly is it that makes your moral judgement more valid than mine? OK. Universal? Absolute? Regardless of context? Really? "Thou shalt not kill"....... Is it always a sin to kill regardless of context? For example?Pick any commandment you like and I think it can be shown that there will be contexts in which the immorality of that particular action will be ambiguous at least. You need to demonstrate that an absolute standard is even possible. So far you have just assumed and asserted that it is.If there is an absolute standard then should your God also not adhere to this absolute standard? If not how can it be considered truly absolute and universal?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In Plato's ethical dialog Euthryphro, Socrates, who was waiting for a trial against him to begin, asks Euthyphro, another man waiting for a trial who is trying to bring charges of murder against his own father: "The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods". In other words is what is moral/good commanded by God because it is moral/good, or is it moral/good because it is commanded by God??If the first case is true i.e. the concept of morality or goodness is independent of God which God embraces because of its 'goodness', than how can God be the absolute source of morality i.e. goodness? He would be on the same plane as human beings morally, would he not? He would in essense be bound by the same rules of morality that we are, and thus subject to judgment by that moral standard.If the second case is true "something is moral or good because God says it's good" than anything goes. God could commit, command and/or condone the most heinous acts (as we see in the Bible) i.e. murder, slavery, rape, torture etc and God could say these acts are good. He could also command that what most people would consider virtuous acts i.e. sanctity of life, self-giving, etc to be evil. There is no outside frame of reference. Thus no way of critiquing if his actions are considered moral/good or not.The only logical alternative is to leave god (or any supernaturally derived) source of morality out of the equation and look for a natural explanation of morality.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Ned writes:Every post since I went work from 184 to 188 has missed or not addressed the only crucial issue under discussion. That being that an Atheist or Aganostic, or that person that does not believe in an absolute morality, has no way of condemning, now notice I said CONDEMN, not "talk at or about" anothers decisions or choices. It is simply ludicrous to assume one has this right or logical way f proceeding to adopt this position.NO example or illustration will suffice to allow someone to CONDEMN anothers actions, when and if morality is subjective. Set it up and i will knock it down, by simple logical process. Ned there is no better or worse where there is no standard. What is your criteria for making such a claim. All I have to do is simply say you are incorrect in your estimation about God or your ethics to demonstrate my point and you have no logical way of proceeding.I dont think this is to hard to see, most just dont want to acknowledge the logical fallacy of that position. Take God out of the picture and the result is still the same Its just a species doing STUFF verses another species doing STUFF.These attempts to reconcile such behavior as moral or immoral are exercises in futility.D Bertot

Huntard writes:You really dont get this do you. No one said you could not DO this or that but:Your judgement is nothing more than you expressing an opinion verse someone elses. While you may impose prison on someone who does not go by your standard, you are simply inconsistent because his opinion and right to carry out that act are just as valid as yours without a standard an absolute standard or right or wrong.But hey, believe whatever you want. You simply need to demonsrtatefrom a logical consistant standpoint why yours is better or more moral than is opinion or action. In other words what will you use as you justification. You cant appeal to humand reason, it will demonstrate your inconsistencies. You cant appeal to the animal kingdom, it will certainly demonstrate your position as inconsistent. Where will you turn for your justification of CONDEMNATION? Im sure you are a really good person, but I doubt you understand how debate works. You do realize that your above examples demonstrate my point exacally.Huntard, I dont need to demonstrate the existence of absolute morality to demonstrate that without it, everything is subjective and one has no platform to condemn anothers actions. The establishing of absolute morality could be the subject of another thread. Simply your admissions that it DOES NOT exists, is enough for me and logic to demonstrate that ALL is subjective and one has no right or platform to make declarations of condemnation.Now do you see how debate works?Presently however, CD and Brian made claims that are not consistent with thier beliefs about God or morality or the lack thereof.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Would not your judgment over which religion conveys such an absolute morality be every bit as relative, logically inconsistent, and completely subjective as anyone else?Besides, why aren't you in jail for stoning Wal-Mart shoppers for working on the sabbath as commanded in Leviticus? You wouldn't be like some kind of hypocrite or something would you?

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

DA writes:Please demonstrate why God is any and all of these things. What standard will you use that I can not disagree with. Are you God? You seem to be implying that you have an absolute standard. If not I would say you are all of the things because you killed a deer or ate a deer that was killed. You are an acessory to murder. Prove you are not please. You seem to be taking a stance that it is worng and right at the same time. "except for basic survival". So is it right or wrong? I would only do this is Cavediver were that neighbor, Ha ha. I have already answered this somwhere ellse.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

AG writes:Please let me respond to these others and I will try and get to yours, thanksD Bertot

I think it would also help if you properly represented the person who actually posted that statement.Edited by anglagard, : as is proper logically

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Straggler writes:If that is the way in which you wish to proceed, and you take the WHOLE context in which it is described, then it would follow that that God is oniscient and eternal in his perspectives. You cant take part of the context and discard the rest. That being the case one must assume that same omniscient God understands and prooceeds in a way that is above our judgements.In human society when we act as judges we understand that we are not acting as individuals. What is allowed for a magistrate is not allowed for the average person. We as individuals cannot pass judgement and sentence on persons as he can. Punishment for a crime that involves death in one instance is justified, when at another time the average person does not have the right to take life, even if they are justified outside the law, correct? All taking of life is killing, but it is not murder. No person has the right to take life, kill or murder outside the law, Gods or mans. What justifies a taking of life initially is absolute rule or law. Without this it is just people doing stuff to other people. If YOU, that person that rejects absolute morality wants to describe it as murder, killing, or whatever, it still just stuff. No I dont as I pointed out to Huntard. An admission that no absolute morality or law exists, forever puts your position in a hopeless situation from which it cannot be retrieved or justified. Taking God in the WHOLE context of the scriptures will help you understand.DBertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.