Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[bellenuit]

Really!
I love the fact that anti theists feel compelled to refer to scripture in pursuance of their agenda! It is the ultimate irony!

How so? And there was no compulsion, just responding to Grah's request to show those passages where God exhorted that virgins should be raped and also countering his suggestions that God only ordered the genocide of vile people.[/quote]

What is even more comical, is that those same anti-theists, regularly cite passages detailing brutal behaviours that are at complete odds to Christ's teachings, thereby undermining their very own argument/s against Christianity!

My agenda was to show that Christianity doesn't provide a moral compass that we should follow and specifically does not indicate an objective and perfect morality.

Jesus = God. There is only one God. These were exhortations to do brutal behaviour by God. On a par with ISIS.

If Christian leaders were to be forthright and say that the OT was not inspired by God and was simply a collection of stories and myths, and that the God mentioned in the OT was not in fact the God they worship and was certainly not the God who is the father of Jesus (and also one and the same as Jesus, due to the Trinity), then they would have some credibility. But no, they trip over themselves trying to pretend that the morality of the OT is no longer applicable, which proves that their morality isn't absolute, isn't objective and isn't prefect.

 

[SirRumpole]

But no, they [Christians] trip over themselves trying to pretend that the morality of the OT is no longer applicable, which proves that their morality isn't absolute, isn't objective and isn't prefect.

Well , maybe you should be attacking Judaism, because the OT is it's Bible, not the NT. Christianity revolves around the NT , and it doesn't mention the so called horrors of God. Jesus being a Jew was not likely to reject the OT in his day or he would have been lynched, but he made only a passing reference to it and branched off in another direction.

 

[Value Collector]

I wouldn't be too phased by this OT one. It's something to do with the times, and they were executing justice to some extent as well, and they were a barbarous people. will scoop some of those other verses soon enough.

Justice?

How can killing all the male children and raping the virgin females be Justice.

Man, you are a perfect example of how religion corrupts your view of what is moral

 

[Value Collector]

Well , maybe you should be attacking Judaism, because the OT is it's Bible, not the NT. Christianity revolves around the NT , and it doesn't mention the so called horrors of God. Jesus being a Jew was not likely to reject the OT in his day or he would have been lynched, but he made only a passing reference to it and branched off in another direction.

Without the OT, Christianity falls apart, they cherry pick from the OT, they use the Ten Commandments for example, the only time they distance themselves is when you quote the clearly immoral stuff

 

[cynic]

How so? And there was no compulsion, just responding to Grah's request to show those passages where God exhorted that virgins should be raped and also countering his suggestions that God only ordered the genocide of vile people.

No compulsion?! Do you seriously expect me to believe, that someone with the strength of your convictions, and desire to publicly declare same, could just as easily, have decided to sit back, and allow those postings to pass by unchallenged?

My agenda was to show that Christianity doesn't provide a moral compass that we should follow and specifically does not indicate an objective and perfect morality.

Jesus = God. There is only one God. These were exhortations to do brutal behaviour by God. On a par with ISIS.

If Christian leaders were to be forthright and say that the OT was not inspired by God and was simply a collection of stories and myths, and that the God mentioned in the OT was not in fact the God they worship and was certainly not the God who is the father of Jesus (and also one and the same as Jesus, due to the Trinity), then they would have some credibility. But no, they trip over themselves trying to pretend that the morality of the OT is no longer applicable, which proves that their morality isn't absolute, isn't objective and isn't prefect.

Firstly, given that neither you, nor I, can truly claim to know what "absolute morality" is, how did you determine, that such a concept, could somehow be discerned from scriptural writings in the first place?

Secondly, how does your argument detract from the value of Christ's teachings?

Thirdly, why are you so determined to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

 

[luutzu]

Well , maybe you should be attacking Judaism, because the OT is it's Bible, not the NT. Christianity revolves around the NT , and it doesn't mention the so called horrors of God. Jesus being a Jew was not likely to reject the OT in his day or he would have been lynched, but he made only a passing reference to it and branched off in another direction.

He got crucified. And if we follow the Mel Gibson version of it, the Jews did it.

Claiming to be the Son of God did ya. Telling the bankers not to make money. Can't have that. Better be armed when you claimed to be a prophet.

 

[bellenuit]

No compulsion?! Do you seriously expect me to believe, that someone with the strength of your convictions, and desire to publicly declare same, could just as easily, have decided to sit back, and allow those postings to pass by unchallenged?

I have done so in respect of many of your postings? Not a problem for me.

Firstly, given that neither you, nor I, can truly claim to know what "absolute morality" is, how did you determine, that such a concept, could somehow be discerned from scriptural writings in the first place?

It is the Christians (not all) that make that claim. I just show that it is nonsense.

Secondly, how does your argument detract from the value of Christ's teachings?

Only to the extent Christ is God and it was God speaking in the OT. It is just as relevant as pointing out that the morality shown and commanded by Mohammad pre Medina is almost entirely inconsistent of the same post Medina. The problem with Islam is that the good stuff was pre Medina. And Islam has the same problem as Christianity. They try to play down the post Medina teachings, instead of rejecting and condemning them outright.

Thirdly, why are you so determined to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

I threw the bathwater out because it is so polluted. It is the Christians that want to keep the bathwater but pretend to everyone that it isn't dirty and foul. I didn't throw out Christ but even if he existed his teachings are just regurgitations of the good secular morality of that time. The golden rule in its various forms preceded Christ by up to 2,000 years, just as the history of Christ is just a regurgitation of deity myths that were common in the preceding millennia (virgin birth, trinity etc.)

 

[grah33]

Justice?

How can killing all the male children and raping the virgin females be Justice.

Man, you are a perfect example of how religion corrupts your view of what is moral

I don't believe you really mean that. You and Bell subscribe to secular morality, so think it's ok to terminate unborn innocent children. So why would it be a big issue for you if , in the OT, God destroyed races that were highly immoral (not innocent), that made the planet a worse place? Think of UN population culling plans, which is worse.

Suppose there was some other justifiable reason as to also taking the lives of the innocent children, alongside the highly wicked. Could there be a good reason that we don't know about at present? You seem to out-rule this possibility.

Most Christian people don't even care since they just care about the NT. You seem way too concerned about the OT, and needing to understand God's mind perfectly.

And regards rape, there were no scriptures where God told them to rape, so you shouldn't make this claim. None mentioned were worthy to consider. In fact, if you browse that link, the OT condemns raping.

 

[Value Collector]

I don't believe you really mean that. You and Bell subscribe to secular morality, so think it's ok to terminate unborn innocent children. So why would it be a big issue for you if , in the OT, God destroyed races that were highly immoral (not innocent), that made the planet a worse place? Think of UN population culling plans, which is worse.

.

It's laughable the lengths you go to justify the god characters immorality.

Really? you can't see a difference between murdering or raping an actual child, and aborting a zygote.

Suppose there was some other justifiable reason as to also taking the lives of the innocent children, alongside the highly wicked. Could there be a good reason that we don't know about at present? You seem to out-rule this possibility.

How do you know the people are wicked, there could have just believed in a different god, and Moses wanted an excuse to take their land and rape their daughters.

And regards rape, there were no scriptures where God told them to rape, so you shouldn't make this claim.

Oh, ok so when he commanded to kill the boys but keep the virgin girls for themselves he didn't have raping them in mind, he just wanted them to take the girls away and play board games with them????


Is there anything your god could do the you would think is immoral? or is any action he does regardless of the harm it cause ok, because he is god???

 

[grah33]

(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Secular morality allows for abortions (innocent children) and population culling ideas. So you shouldn't be too phased by God destroying highly immoral races in the OT, in order to make the planet better off (as some of those verses explain). You seem to genuinely think God's actions were evil, even by your own standard of secular morality.

Secondly, regarding the innocent people destroyed alongside the highly vile, I think it's reasonable to be entirely open to the possibility that there was some acceptable reason for also taking their lives. With evolution, you don't know everything, but you know enough to take it on board.

Also, the view in the NT scriptures is that God wanted to send Christ earlier but was waiting for the right time to change the existing morality, among other things. You seem to think that this is an impossibility. That it couldn't have been part of God's plan to act like this. Again, I don't think many people will agree with you on this.

 

[cynic]

I have done so in respect of many of your postings? Not a problem for me.



It is the Christians (not all) that make that claim. I just show that it is nonsense.



Only to the extent Christ is God and it was God speaking in the OT. It is just as relevant as pointing out that the morality shown and commanded by Mohammad pre Medina is almost entirely inconsistent of the same post Medina. The problem with Islam is that the good stuff was pre Medina. And Islam has the same problem as Christianity. They try to play down the post Medina teachings, instead of rejecting and condemning them outright.



I threw the bathwater out because it is so polluted. It is the Christians that want to keep the bathwater but pretend to everyone that it isn't dirty and foul. I didn't throw out Christ but even if he existed his teachings are just regurgitations of the good secular morality of that time. The golden rule in its various forms preceded Christ by up to 2,000 years, just as the history of Christ is just a regurgitation of deity myths that were common in the preceding millennia (virgin birth, trinity etc.)

Yet again, you exploit departures from Christ's teachings, to justify your condemnation of Christianity.

Also, in reference to your argument about the preexistence of the golden rule etc., if a person has chosen to believe in something, that happens to be true, why would the source, from whence that truth was obtained, matter?

 

[luutzu]

Yet again, you exploit departures from Christ's teachings, to justify your condemnation of Christianity.

Also, in reference to your argument about the preexistence of the golden rule etc., if a person has chosen to believe in something, that happens to be true, why would the source, from whence that truth was obtained, matter?

Kerry Packer's Golden Rule: Those with the gold get to make the rule.

True story.

 

[grah33]

1)))How do you know the people are wicked, there could have just believed in a different god, and Moses wanted an excuse to take their land and rape their daughters.


2)))Oh, ok so when he commanded to kill the boys but keep the virgin girls for themselves he didn't have raping them in mind, he just wanted them to take the girls away and play board games with them????

1))
God killing the wicked then isn't a problem for you, it isn't immoral, so you question the verse. We've made progress. You don't think killing the highly immoral (detrimental to the planet) races makes Him immoral.

Regards rape in the Bible, check out that link. It offers an explanation. God told them to marry those virgins. Also, God was acting with the times, planning to bring a better morality in the future (NT view). Entirely a possibility imv, and accepted by many people.

 

[Value Collector]

1))
God killing the wicked then isn't a problem for you, it isn't immoral, so you question the verse. We've made progress. You don't think killing the highly immoral (detrimental to the planet) races makes Him immoral.

Regards rape in the Bible, check out that link. It offers an explanation. God told them to marry those virgins. Also, God was acting with the times, planning to bring a better morality in the future (NT view). Entirely a possibility imv, and accepted by many people.

I asked you this?


Is there anything your god could do that you would think is immoral? or is any action he does regardless of the harm it causes ok, because he is god???



To be honest dude, you sound like one of the North Korean puppets praising the dear leader, anything he does is amazing and perfectly moral.

You are not a moral person, you are amoral, you exercise zero brain power to try and work out what is moral, you just accept what ever your dear leader says, even justifying killing children, it’s shocking.

 

[cynic]

Kerry Packer's Golden Rule: Those with the gold get to make the rule.

True story.

That rule didn't work out too well for the creators of the golden calf!

 

[Value Collector]

Also, the view in the NT scriptures is that God wanted to send Christ earlier but was waiting for the right time to change the existing morality, among other things. You seem to think that this is an impossibility. That it couldn't have been part of God's plan to act like this. Again, I don't think many people will agree with you on this.

Hadn’t god already wiped out earths population once to fix morality issues when he flooded the earth and only saved Noah and co??

Your god seems to mess up his plans a lot.

Secondly, why wouldn’t god just wipe out these “wicked people” himself, why send Moses to do it,

It always seems all powerful gods need humans to carry out the actions for some reason.

If these events actually happened, I think Moses and his gang just wanted to take land and rape little girls.

And the fact you justify the killing of kids is disgusting.

 

[bellenuit]

Yet again, you exploit departures from Christ's teachings, to justify your condemnation of Christianity.

So you accept that God exhorted and commanded acts that were not in accordance with the morality his son was later going to preach to the world? That’s my very point. The morality of Christianity is not absolute, objective and is far from perfect.

Also, in reference to your argument about the preexistence of the golden rule etc., if a person has chosen to believe in something, that happens to be true, why would the source, from whence that truth was obtained, matter?

Only if claims are made that the morality in question could only be religiously inspired and specifically, in this case, could only have come from Christianity. This is what VC and I have been arguing. We do not need a God to be moral.

 

[cynic]

So you accept that God exhorted and commanded acts that were not in accordance with the morality his son was later going to preach to the world? That’s my very point. The morality of Christianity is not absolute, objective and is far from perfect.



Only if claims are made that the morality in question could only be religiously inspired and specifically, in this case, could only have come from Christianity. This is what VC and I have been arguing. We do not need a God to be moral.

If a manufacturer of a wonder drug, issued its products in bottles of pills, labelled with clear warnings of dangers from overdosing, accompanied by clear instructions that exactly one pill is to be taken every six hours, would one then be justified in blaming that manufacturer, when some people suffered ill health, after mistakenly taking six pills every hour?

Would it now be fair to declare the drug toxic ,irrespective of the potentially beneficial results, that one may derive from correct usage?

Is the manufacturer to be perpetually held to blame for the misunderstandings of its patrons?

Can you see how strongly this analogy relates to the key anti theistic arguments?

 

[SirRumpole]

This is what VC and I have been arguing. We do not need a God to be moral.

No you don't, but morality seems to be a moveable feast for a lot of people.

So what do consider to be immoral that is not illegal ? Sex shops ? Excessive alcohol consumption inducing road carnage ? Stranding refugees in camps with no hope of a better life ? Letting kids sleep on the street instead of giving them good homes ? Nuclear weapons ? Corrupt bank lending ?

It's all very well to profess morality and then turn blind eye to all sorts of practices that many consider would consider immoral. In fact you need to define what your morality is and then look at the world around you and make judgements on other people's actions and your own that you consider immoral, otherwise you are just pi$$ing in the wind.

Morality means nothing without judgements and action, and I don't think I'm any better than anyone else in that regard either.

 

[luutzu]

That rule didn't work out too well for the creators of the golden calf!

Can't win them all man.