Anything Divine in the Bible?

NedNed I will try and pick up with yours this evening, Im off to work. Thaks for your reply.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Thank you for the exchange. The present opinion finds this quite agreeable.For the record, the God is incompetent in this area and He (aka sky daddy) has never killed.
He is able to turn the other cheek while allowing His opponents to inflict damage and tire themselves out.This is not to imply His groupies and other wannabees have not done so, and sacraficed the credit.One Love

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

If I can't take threats to my wife and children??? Bertot, you casually mentioned how you would gleefully slaughter my family. This is what you "give" is it, as a Christian, when you feel you have been slighted? And then you give a two-faced "apology". Bertot, you really need to have that sick mind of yours medically checked. It's no wonder your intellect is so stunted with all that shit you're carrying around up there...

Why would it need to have meaning? We judge as we see fit according to our laws, why would there need to be any meaning to this? Well, I see condemning as something far more final then judging. When i condemn someone I am branding them for all time, when I judge someone, that judgement is not at all final, it might have a duration, but it certainly isn't for all time. That sort of absoluteness is impossible, as there are no absolute right and wrong. That wasn't specifically aimed at you, it was a general you. I am entirely consistent to my own standard (though that standard does change). There is no absolute standard, so I can't be consistent with it. Yes, they might very well be. They'd need to use some sort of logic to point that out though. Animals are entirely consistent with their instincts, they can do nothing else. No, I actually meant I agree with you when you say there is no absolute standard, and no one can claim to be "right". Ok, let's see this evidence. There is no "intrinsic value" in humans, look around you, people hold different opinions on everything. God's existence is far from obvious. First of all there is absolutely NO evidence for his existence, second of all, there is no absolute standard, everybody disagrees on at least something. Hell, even Christians bicker among themselves which interpretation of the bible is right. True. Cool. Correct. In fact I say no such standard exists AT ALL. Oh, and I fixed that little Gid/God typo for you, wouldn't want him to get mad for misspelling his name, now would we. Reality of morality? Why does morality need a reality? It's an absolutely subjective concept. In fact that's the only thing absolute about it, it will always be just subjective relative to the observer. Yes, that's basically what our existence is. What point are you trying to make anyway, I'm sorry, you got me confused. Is it that without an absolute morality, there is no absolute morality?{ABE}As for the question you asked Straggler, here's my answer to it. MY standard. Well, since it's not an absolute standard, I don't see why I should explain why it is. Well, there you have it, can we move on now?Edited by Huntard, : Added a bit

---

I hunt for the truth

CD writes:Ill leave you to your delusional little world. If you are unable to see the differnce in a joke and being serious then there is no hope that you will understand anything. Have fun in yiur fantasy world.D Bertot

Huntard writes:That the whole point Huntard,there is no meaning in anything if there is no absolute standard. Its just matter in motion, your judging is nothing but concepts with definitions you apply to them from your perspective.. One hundred years from now, it could be totally different.To condemn God as evil is as irrelevant as the action which motivated that assertion in the first place. Neither of the matters in motion, in this instance have real moral meaning. Its just things happening. An absolute standard gives the action meaning against an absolute principle.If intelligence is the only standard by which people or a group of people establish a rule then it would follow that Gods eternal perspective must take presidence over ours.D Bertot

Yes. Yes. Yes once more.That's pretty much what I've been saying all along. Yes, it's irrelevant in the larger picture, but to me it is relevant, because I don't want to live my life that way. Yes, but since neither exists, it IS meaningless. Then you'd first have to show your god exists, then show he indeed HAS eternal perspective. Only then can you make such a claim, until then, I say there is no such thing, and thus no absolute right and wrong. And intelligence IS the only thing that allows us to make rules. Do you see animals behaving to rules they themselves set up? No, because they have no intelligence with which to conceive these rules.

---

I hunt for the truth

Well if you cannot demonstrate that a standard of absolute morality can viably exist there is absolutely no reason to listen to anything you have to say regarding one actually existing is there?Case closed? A rationally derived standard of morality that facilitates the function and advancement of humanity as a social species. A standard of morality very broadly based on the concept of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". As previously stated.But this is not "absolute". It is just practical.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The question posed here is, "Is there anything divine in the Bible?"But along with that I pose a few other questions:1.) Do we have a gaurantee that everyone would recognize the divine if they met it?2.) Do we have the assurance that everyone would admit the divine if they detected it ?I have some doubts about some people's ability to detect the Divine.I have some doubts about some people willingness to admit the Divine that they may detect.Is the Divine desired by all men? What about people who want nothing to do with the Divine?It seems there are more facets to the problem.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You don't seem to understand, Bertot. What I am doing is simply drawing out your sick pathetic behaviour for all to see. And you seem to be the willing puppet to this. The question is, is there anything divine in the bible? Well, you seem to be the end result of someone who takes the bible literally, and as we can all see, this result is none too pretty...

Jaywill, what exactly is "The Divine"? How would I recognize it if it were to come into contact with me?

---

I hunt for the truth

I think a combination of two things might cause you to know the Divine.1.) Something illuminates your conscience and convicts you of a wrong which you previously had no sense of. Perhaps for years a person talked to his spouse a certain way, habitually, automatically, without effort. This manner of speaking was hurtful to the spouse. But the speaker had not the slightest sense of having wronged anyone.Then one day as a result of reading something in the Bible it seems a kind of light goes on deep in the conscience. One feels the wrongness of what they previously did. One senses the offense and has a desire to make it right. One has the sensation that the speaker in the Bible has eyes that have always known what one was doing. One has the sense that Someone has been watching them.Where previously, they had not the slightest sense of wrong doing, now there is the uncomfortable feeling of having commited a sin a trespass before some all watching eyes.2.) The second accompanying step is being empowered beyond one's automatic reaction to break this pattern of behavior. A higher power flows into the contrite heart. A enabling ability supplies the weak one to rise and meet the demand. Before the negative behavior was so automatic that one could not stop it. It came naturally. Now while being empowered by a higher life energy one rises above that negative behavior and is victorious over it.The first step is deep conviction. The second step is deep empowerment to change. That is an empowering which one knows is not from the self but nonetheless flows through the self.After a few graduated experiences like this one might suspect that they are dealing with the Divine.This feeling of having touched the Divine is reinforceded when it becomes reliable and dependable. For example, when I confess my sin to God, when I simply agree with God that I have sinned, when I admit that I cannot change myself but I at least confess that I have sinned. And then having humbled my self, reliably, dependably this power flows through me to rise up to the level of life that I previously transgressed, I suspect that I am dealing with the Divine.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Why is that? If the global majority votes a certain action or behavior to be unacceptable i.e. unjustified homicide (because it harms the species as a whole) why can we not label this action "evil"? Can you give me specific examples? Should we compare the moral code of the United States today and 100 years ago and see if it indeed has deteriorated as you say? Why the personal attacks? I am well aware of what happens in the animal kingdom. Yes, the behavior of animals does have a lot to do with the morality question. In fact, I venture much of what we see in human ethics derives from our evolutionary past as animals. Today I was listening to NPR and they were interviewing a scientific researcher conducting an experiment of how higher intelligence animals i.e. monkeys, elephants, etc. can empathise with other animals. They also show a range of emotions not unlike human beings i.e. jealosy, anger, sadness, hapiness, etc.Researches conducted an experiment in which they gave one dog a treat for putting out their paw and another dog no treat no matter how much they put their paw out. After doing this over and over and observing the other dog get the treat, the dog who never got a treat eventually stopped trying to perform the trick and then would avoid eye contact with the person performing the trick all together. Thus it is seen that even dogs have a wide range of emotional response. Human emotions derive from the evolution of our species and our interactions with each other and other species.Emotions play alot into our moral code. Our sense of empathy has resulted in more complex behavior and eventually to a code of ethics which we hold each other too. Over times these along with our attempt to explain the world around us evolved into religion and methods of governing ourselves as a society. What inconsistency? Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.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

From post 85:Ned writes:This only applies to your mind. It is a way that you have found to reason things out. It is relative and subjective, it is matter in motion, atoms bouncing against eachtoher, nothing more. If you want to call it morality you are free to do sothat does not make it real, when there is no standard. Therefore you have failed to establish why you have a right to judge others or call thier action evil, bad or wrong, especially Gods. Saying that God is evil for an act and agreeing that there is no standard of morality is the height of contradiction. You dont have a platform to say Gods actions are evil, because you also say morality is relative. This is the height of contradiction and silliness. If someone else thinks Gods action are just who are you to say otherwise? Now starts the relative rationalization process. Do you have other options than killing and eating of animals? Why is it ok to kill an animal but not a person. Again, you cannot judge anothers actions as evil if morality is subjective. Even if God were limited in power to do thus and so, you are contradictory for assuming his actions as evil, because you have NO STANDARD, no absolute standard from which to judge his actions. Your swiming in contradiction. The ONLY basis from which you have to judge is no judgement at all. The word judgement is not a vaild concept when REAL morality does not exist and it does not exist if everything is realative. You are swiming in a sea of contradiction from which you cannot excape and which you cannot pass judgement. This is what is amussing to me. You fellas scream for subjectivity and relativism in the real worldand when I show you from your own positions of subjectivity that everything is relative and there is no real objectivity, you fight for the other side almost and say well there is some objectivity. No there is not. You have no way to proceed to condemn anothers actions. You are involving yourself in the worst form of contradiction imaginable. Your rationalization about this or that does not help your case. If right, wrong, good or bad do not really exist, then neither do your human conclusions. I dont see how this could be any clearer.D Bertot

Huntard writes:I guess you have not been doing this very long as is indicated by your above statement. Huntard, relativism and subjectivity are not a platform to do anything muchless judge anothers action or call them evil. If things are all relative and subjective, right, wrong, good bad and evil do not really exist, then it would follow that no conclusion in opposition to these terms is real, objective, moral or valid. Therefore, no action of anyone even Gods could be described as evil. It woulod be that you dont like it, because the way you have been raised. Its just matter in motion, things doing stuff. NOw do you see? My friend, you do not have a way to do this if everything is subjective and right and wrong do not exist. You are expressing what YOU believe is right and wrong, when in fact those concepts are not even real. You cannot condemn anything or anyone anymore than a duck could condemn a bear for his actions. The appeal to intelligence will not assist you either. Intelligence would simply be a higher form of matter in motion, with no view or perspective of objective morality.To demonstrate this point all I need to do is ask two question.Are, good, bad, right and wrong real things. Do they really exist?If so, what is your platform to say that they are real and not subjective? I responded to this question, knowing it was not necessary to answer it, to demonstrate that a persons actions are inconsistent or subjective, where there is no absolute standard..Imagine for a moment that I do not believe in God I do not believe in objective absolute morality. Why would I need to do so to know that if morality (which does not exist in reality) is not absolute, that no conclusion from another human being is valid as morality or a platform to condemn anothers action. This would be plain silliness.The existence of God and those questions can be completley seprate from this issue. No I do not. Subjectivity and relative are self-explanatroy without anyother concepts involved.Your intelligence that you choose to imploy is relative to someone elses. The Nazi's thought they were perfectly jutified in thier actions, correct? By what standard fo you condemn thier actions. You have no plat form.Reference the Warren-Flew debate on the existence of God,in this matter at TheBible.net. (Scroll to the bottom of the page to watch the debate. This matter is discussed in detail.Intelligence like everything else is subjective without an absolute standard.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.