Anything Divine in the Bible?

Of course he is! That is exactly what you do too. It is relative morality rather than absolute.You say that "thou shalt not kill" is a part of your absolute morality. But you don't mean it. You mean "Thou shalt not kill unless it is justified". Then you have a ton of reasons that justify it(sometimes).So is killing wrong or not? It is both right and wrong at the same time. It is relative to context.

Ned writes:The Nedster appears at 2:00am.I knew I should not have answered this yet, as it takes us further off track.Before I answer this question, so we can stay on track, let me ask you a question. Given what we have been discussing, would you not say that if there is no absolute standard of morality, that no one has a platform to condemn the actions of others, even Gods, if morality is not absolute. What will be your platform, to say your actions are not evil and his are?. Now, notice. CD abd Brian and others did not say, well thats not in peoples best intrest, for God to do that. They classified him as Evil. What and where is your justification, if morality is relative? Actually EVIL would not even exist,it would only be a conjured term to fit a philosophy correct?Now if you answer that direct question, then i will reply to your post, agreed?DBertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

For the record, here we have the "Christian" Bertot claiming that he would stone my wife, my two young boys, and myself to death. He will now claim that this is a"joke" - this is the type of "Christian" we are dealing with here - one who jokes about stoning my family to death. You are one sad fucked-up individual.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

I have listed in this topic probably a half dozen times the specifically the attrocities commanded by your god in your Bible. If you chose to ignore them, that is your perogative. You ask what standard I use? I use the standard of what is acceptable by the majority of society. Where did they get the standard? Like I and many others on this forum and elsewhere have said, yes, morality is relative, even yours (OT morality does not match NT morality) but our morality really is a self-serving mechanism both as an individual and as a species to prevent our extenction.Morality is like a balloon in which it is pushed back and forth and up and down by the social pressures of human society however like the balloon steadily floating upwards, humans through history have become more and more educated and have learn to empathisize with other people better. This increase in education and empathy have resulted in a push for a more equal standing of ALL people (case in point women sufferage movement, abolition of slaver, civil rights, overturn of apartheid, etc.). Has this always worked? No, of course not. Are there still wars, poverty, etc. Of course. However, how many wars have we had in the last 100 years compared to the wars of 1000 years ago. The difference is that we have had less wars but have caused more destruction due to the increase in technology. No two people much less two societies have the exact same moral standards to which they ascribe too. However, the vast majority of modern societies do ascribe to a basic standard of decency even in the art of warfare i.e. the geneva convention, the Declaration of Human Rights by the UN, etc. Why because it is the most beneficial to the human species as a whole to follow standards of acceptable and somewhat benevolent behavior even in times of war. The human species moral code as a whole has evolved as people become better educated about the world around them and that people who are different themselves are really all not that different. It all really boils down to what is best for the human species. Like most animals, especially higher intelligence ones, self-destructive behavior as an individual or a group of individuals can lead to extinction of that species. I don't like using the term "wrong" because you seem to use it as an absolute which I don't. I think it is acceptable in some situations and unacceptable in others. I outlined those reasons. Again this is my own personal take on this matter.Have to go to work but will continue this later.

---

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

Cavediver writes:I knew that would get a rise out of the English duke of Dork. It was a joke moron.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Ah, so to get a rise out of me, you resort to saying you'd be quite happy stoning my children and my wife to death. And then you call ME a moron Was Jesus laughing at the joke as you wrote it? Or did he suggest that you write it in the first place?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

As a slight aside, this is wrong. The number of conflicts with 1,000 battle deaths in the 20th century is more than in the 19th century. Of course, there weren't very many wars with over 1,000 battle deaths 1000 years ago possibly due to a much smaller population (the EU today has 500 million citizens, the world 6.6 billion; 1000 years ago the pop of europe was something like 30 million iirc).That said, there have been ~230 conflicts in the 20th century (a quick count from wiki's list; my source, "Capital, Coercion, and European States" has a higher number, but I can't check it right now). Wiki has 17 wars from 1000-1099. There has not been a single year in the 20th century without some conflict somewhere.What has changed is duration. Civil and guerilla wars are increasingly longer than they were, while other conflicts have become shorter.Destructive power, as you note correctly, has indeed mushroomed. That book I can't check (had to return it...urgh) mentions something like 46 deaths per 10,000 people in the 20th century. The 19th? 9 deaths per 10,000. I can't remember if that was just counting males or if it was 10,000 or some other number, nor can I remember what specifically he was doing with the numbers. When I get another copy of the book from the library, I'll update those numbers.Point is, the 20th century has been the most violent in human history, not merely in terms of number of wars, but also percentage of death

I agree, this however doesn't mean we can't judge them, in fact it happens everyday. No I don't, because it basically isn't. It's just that more people think my way about it, and so, we get to enforce our version of it. Who says I justify it? First of all, I don't condemn anyone, I judge. Further, I don't justify this judging to anyone. It's the way I do it. Don't like it? Tough luck. What? I can't agree with you on some points? I agree. Again, I agree. I know how a debate works, I just happen to agree with you on tose points. Now, wether or not I consider this a problem is another thing.Now, you are saying there is an absolute morality, and God ingrained this in mankind. Simply looking at the world around us shows us there can be no such thing, since people all differ on what they consider moral or not. For example, I don't know how you feel about capital punishment, but in America, it's still done. I'm against it. Now, where is the absolute morality here? And, just to make matters more complicated, I'm not against killing humans either, I can think of situations where I would find it ok to kill another human being. Again, no absolute morality either.

---

I hunt for the truth

Hi Ned,I jump in here a little. When I had two toddlers in my care (who are now adults) I witnessed something which made me think. They were around two to four years old.I took the older child to the doctor. The doctor put some short flat wooden stick in her mouth and told her to say "Ahhh". He examined her throat.Shortly afterwards I saw my two kids playing. The older one had something in the mouth of the younger one. Of course I had to strictly teach her that she should not stick anything in the mouth of her little brother. Apparently she was playing doctor.Now I am not saying the analogy is exactly a parellel to something mentioned here as having occured in the Bible. But do you see a point here?For the medical doctor to put a stick in the child's mouth was Okay. For the child to do the same to her little brother was strictly forbidden.I think we have a similar situation with what God can do and what we imitate God to do. It may not always be right for us to do, though it may be right for God to do.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.

I gave you the answer to this question already. Both the reasoned answer as a basis for a working society and my own personal reasons.
Message 95I do not need to have my Mummy (or sky daddy) tell me what is right and wrong any longer. I grew up (well, a bit).I am willing and able to take responsibility for my own actions (both good and bad). I make judgments on what is a moral action based on the facts in the context at hand. I judge other individuals and myself on that basis. It is an absolute basis for judgment but it isn't a morality based on absolute rules. There isn't one.There are a very few people who accept that killing a human is absolutely wrong (and a even fewer who think that any killing is wrong). I'd guess over 99.8 % of people will find a context (that is a recognition that the rule isn't absolute) for which killing is ok. And of the remaining 0.2% a majority would, themselves, kill when faced with a specific choice. I highly doubt that you are in that group.I say God's actions are evil as described in the Bible because if someone else or I did that under the circumstances described I would call it evil. Morality is relative to the circumstances and in those circumstances my judgment is evil is shown. It is, in those circumstance, absolutely evil.In fact, for an omnipotent, omniscient being it is Evil capitalized as He has many more choices than lesser beings do. (E.g., he is never threatened with death by anyone.)It is the only basis that we have to judge if we aren't going to just shrug and say "it is for God to judge, not me". Which, of course, no one does most of the time. I see devote Christians judging all the time. They claim to base this on what God as told themIf you haven't understood all this by now I am forced to conclude that you may belong in that group described by some fundamentalists that they claim will do whatever awful things if their sky daddy isn't watching them to threaten them. I don't have that threat and still manage moral actions a lot of the time.In fact, with an omniscient, omnipotent watcher you are incapable of an actual altruistic act. You can do nothing without oversight and the possibility of huge reward or punishment (in fact, pretty well infinite reward or punishment).There are many Christians who actually follow what is written in the Bible (nothing near a majority of course but some percent). They devote time and personal resources and wealth to helping others. However, they can never be considered to be altruistic.

Cavediver writes:I thought since you were so good at dishing it out you might be able to take alittle yourself, I suppose not. You have my deepest apologies and you can take a long ROYAL pity party on me. But dont stay gone to long as we need your razor sharp insight in these issues. Not to mention your abuse, foul language, belittling and down right ridicule of others beliefs.Again, sorry from the heart of my bottom, oh I am sorry I mean, the bottom of my heart, I get those two mixed up. My suggestion is that if you cant take it, dont dish it out, eh.D Bertot

DA writes:No one is questioning whether from a persons perspective morality is relative. However, the existence of God, whether morality is relative and such matters is NOT the topic of the present discussiion. Yourself and others have already admitted that in your view it is relative. This position alone closes the door forever as to whether you or someone else has a right to call anothers actions evil. You do not and when you do it, it demonstrates the worst form of contradiction. Now if you are satisfied with that type of contradiction, that is YOUR perogative. Now this depends on who you consult correct. In our view and many others the moral code has and continues to deteriorate wtih the passing years. mYou really should get a clue as to what actually happens in the animal kingdom. Ofcourse no one is into self destruction, including animals, but this has nothing to do with the morality question. Absolute morality either exists or it does not. If it does not, then your are only going through the same motions over and over and have no platform for condemnation. If your are satisfied with this type of inconsistency, then that is your perogative.I have already demonstrated why this true over and over.D Bertot

Bertot you do need to demonstrate that an absolute standard of morality can exist if your argument that one does exist is to have any foundation.
Merely asserting that the consequences of there not being an absolute standard of morality would be tragic and terrible (your conclusion not mine) has no bearing on whether or not there actually is an absolute standard of morality.Maybe there is no absolute standard and we are in a "hopeless situation from which it cannot be retrieved or justified". Or maybe there is no absolute standard and your conclusions regarding that situation are very wrong.Either way you still need to demonstrate that this absolute standard of morality can actually exist. But who decides which is murder and which is not? Who decides when killing is justified and when it is not? In what way is this absolute? Who makes the laws? Who interprets God's pronouncements and staes God's laws? In what ways is this absolute? So according to you there is no absolute "Thou shalt not kill". There are contexts where killing is murder and unjustified and contexts where killing is not murder and is justified. But those contexts are not absolute.All you have done is progress the relativist component one step further back. Killing is killing and whethere it is justified or otherwise is based on context. Context is not not an absolute in terms of morality.So which of the commandments is universal and absolute?

Huntard writes:Huntard, doing something and being consistent when you do it are two different things. Judging has no menaing in a sea of meaningless, you do realize this correct? Your just mencing words and using them as you see fit. Its not a matter of me liking or not liking it. Its a matter or consistency, pou are not and cannot be without an absolute standard. Further, if someone wanted to push the issue, someone could say there is no such thing as consistency and they would be correct, correct. Its just animals doing stuff, or chaos being more chaotic. I know you meant to say "dont agree", but I did have a ray of hope for a moment, ha ha. Yes I am saying this, even if it is a perspective based on what I consider evidence. The intrinsic value in the human makeup is the first clue. Next the obvious existence of God, the scriptures, etc. You are not required to agree with me on these issues andlikely will not ever. Thats fine. I view the existence of Gid and his word as that absolute standard, you do not, so be it.However, it is IMO, the only way to demonstrate the reality of morality. The other says it s the survival of the fitest in a sea of meaninless chaos.Again, I dont need the Word of God to demonstrate this point however, it simply drives the point home.D Bertot

Straggler writes:No I do not.This is a strange position you adopt. It should be clear that when one acknowledges no absolute standard, they are admitting there is no REAL morality. To demonstrate this point, I will ask the question again. What SPECIFIC standard will you point to or use to justify your actions and condemn antohers as Evil. I will let you present that in a sentence or two and explain how you arrived at such an absolute standard, seeing that you do not acknowledge any absolute standard at all. But by all means please state it and when you can do this with any consistency I will be happy to discuss the other issues, agreed?D Bertot