(June 13, 2023 at 10:55 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Still fucking that gaypedo chicken huh?  Pervert.

You lost me..

Quote: You've told me that you believe morality to be relative, and that among the competing relativistic moralities you prefer your gods morality...

Actually I did not. I said all morality is relative. God's standard Identified as "righteousness" is not relative. God's righteousness is fixed. Making Morality Man's societal standard or Man's version of righteousness which allows for or incorporates what man has deemed as minor sin.

Quote:in no small measure because it claims to offer you eternal life.  Meanwhile, I've told you that I don't agree with moral relativism, and that I prefer objective moral standards to any of the competing relativistic standards. 

Any 'objective' moral standard that is not God's righteousness is just another form of moral relativism. as the inherently good or bad deeds that underline what makes object moralism 'objective' is still based on what society defines as right and or wrong. The primary difference is the points in objective morality are adopted generationally. Sometimes having around for several generations. Like murder, or rape.. but even then these lines get blurred from time to time.

Quote:This includes yours and my society's - and fwiw there's alot of overlap between those two things, since the us is still mostly christian.  If you really wanted to talk about people advocating for kiddie fucking, the elephant in the room would be evangelicals trying to get legal marrying age down to menarche.

This 'christian over lap' is a perfect example of generational/object morality as it is a diluted form of God's righteous standard. Which is eroding over time. What would never been allowed two generations back is now the social norm. Which is where my question to you came in, to determine if your morality was objective or relative. and if objective where that line is.

Quote:There are -obviously- many things that you people do that I can't cosign on?

I get that, This discussion is not about judging or calling anyone out on why they think what they do, but more of an examination on how morality is used to manipulate and control those who define themselves by it. I don't personally care no do I have any interest in what you think is right or wrong, in so far as you do not disclose anything that would be considered a crime that I would then be obligated to report.  

Quote:It doesn't matter to me that your god commanded kiddie fucking, and it won't matter to me if my country legalizes it.  I'll still think it's trash.  It's difficult for me to fathom why you believed this to be such a worthy and probative question that you would beclown yourself by asking it, and asking it in this particularly trashy way.  

kinda already answered this one in principle.

Quote:Are these supposed to be the hard moral questions?

 No.

Quote:For whom?

The Grand Nudger

Quote:...and who's narrating it......?

Narrative:
per the Merriam Wester's on-line dictionary. I took the two definitions that apply to my use of the word. that said In the definitions I do acknowledge your use of the word (a narrated story/Something that is narrated as being the primary definition for the word.)

narrative
2 of 2
adjective

1
: having the form of a story or representing a story
a narrative poem

and also as a noun:

b

: a way of presenting or understanding a situation or series of events that reflects and promotes a particular point of view or set of values

The rise of the Tea Party and the weakness of the Obama economy have fueled a Republican narrative about Big Government as a threat to liberty …—Michael Grunwald

The media narrative around Kelly's appointment had two central ideas … : He would calm and professionalize the White House, and he would provide a more measured leadership style than his boss.—Perry Bacon, Jr.

With these two definitions in mind one does not need a audible narrator for the story's relayed here in the book of Mark or the book of Matthew to be considered a narrative. That said these two accounts are attributed to the gospel writer for the book of Matthew and the Gospel writer of the book of Mark.

[/quote]

(June 13, 2023 at 3:15 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(June 13, 2023 at 3:07 pm)Aegon Wrote: Dude there are literally 8 million+ species of animal on the planet. But they're in baby form so they fit? What are you smoking?

Maybe Noah just took DNA samples from all the animal and kept them in cryotanks. When he left the Ark, he built a full-scale genetics lab and reconstituted all the species. He also - apparently - figured a workaround to prevent inbreeding from a gene pool of eight people.

It’s no sillier than any other explanation.

Boru

you know if you take a little Adam and Eve pole shifting and mix it in with Noah it's possible.

(June 13, 2023 at 12:22 pm)no one Wrote: Why is this god of Abraham so stupid?

Why would anyone with a 1/1000000000000 of a brain accept the hogwash notion that there even is a god?

You familiar with sim theory?

(June 13, 2023 at 1:29 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Magic books and magic boats, but not a shred of common sense or mundane decency.

Don't forget Human demon hybrids/demi-gods.

(June 13, 2023 at 1:46 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: Such a hot steaming pile that just keeps growing.  

The easter bunny went to ark and dropped off eggs that didn't need to be incubated.

are you familiar with how mulch is made?

In this mulching process bacteria breaks down generally plant matter and in this process the mulch pile can internally reach temps as high as 160*F the closer you get to the center of the pile. an egg only needs about 100*F to incubate.

Noah would have need quite a large amount of hay to feed whatever dairy animals he had to keep all the baby mammals alive. which also means plenty of poop/the caytlist for mulch.

So it is all very plausible, as all the resources were there to incubate said eggs.

All these baby animals spending 40 days and 40 nights on a boat. Were they milking Mrs. Noah for nourishment? Was Noah chewing up food and regurgitating it for the animals that eat like that?

Or is this one of those magic dust sorta things where god sprinkles everything and it's all good...'cause he's powerful like that?

Has to be magic dust.

My father (who was a veterinarian) and I discussed this story at length. It's a huge part of what stopped his belief, the utter impossibility of it.

And.....let's just put this out there. If god was/is able to do this fancy schmancy magical stuff, why doesn't he do it now? If he can start a flood, it follows that he can also stop one. Same with all the other catastrophic weather events.

(June 13, 2023 at 2:41 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(June 13, 2023 at 1:35 pm)R-Farmer Wrote: Noah did not gather anything God delivered it to him.
20 Two of every kind of bird, animal, and creeping thing will come to you so that you might keep them alive.

 


Or the animals came and left eggs..

Administrator Notice
Stop with the links till you reach 30/30.

What about marsupials? Is it your contention that pregnant koalas swam across the Pacific and Indian Oceans, gave birth, then swam home? Did God instruct Noah on the construction of marsupial pouches? Bear in mind that a joey stays in its mother’s pouch for six to seven months, which is hard to reconcile with five months on the ark.

Also, assuming they didn’t drown while swimming eight thousand miles, how did the koalas eat during the trip? Koalas feed primarily on eucalyptus leaves, which are famous for not growing in the middle of the ocean.

Boru

Two things I personally believe the ark story happened further back than what most people understand. far enough back that the animals on the ark may not be recognized today. Which means Noah did not need to have today's zoological catalog on board. but rather some of the ancestors to what we have today. so instead of opossums and Koalas maybe all Noah needed was whatever their common ancestor was.

If you have to make believe to support make believe, what do you get?

(June 13, 2023 at 3:00 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You continue to fail at this line of questioning because you ask an objectivist what makes one relativist morality “better” than another.

You are 100% correct. I'm failing at this line of questioning Miserably. But, probably not for the reason you think. 

As you still think these questions are about judging actual acts. When in fact the discussion is about separating man's standard of right and wrong from God's. In an effort to demonstrate that if you here now today with your object morality intact, would not question your morality now, You being the same person, would not question what society told you was moral if you were born in another time or place. I failed here because you don't seem to understand the base nature of this discussion. you want to argue irrelevant details and I'm trying to bring you into a deeper discussion. I do apologize for my short comings/ability to communicate with you more effectively.

Quote:A moral objectivist contends that -all- relativist moralities are false.   The idea…to an objectivist…that kiddie fucking is good or bad because a god says so…or good or bad because a society says so….is a complete non-starter.

again, "K/F" aside, ( you are still arguing irrelevant details) I'm asking what tells you this or any other morally objectionable act is to be considered evil behavior?

I contend objective morality is just generational form of relative morality. IE, it is wrong because your father told you it was wrong, and His father before him and so on back till at one point it for whatever reason it wasn't. 

I am also pointing out without God as a point or foundation to your moral/Righteous objectivity, if you lived in a time where "K/F" was not generationally prohibited there would be nothing to stop you from indulging in this sin or any other.

(June 13, 2023 at 3:07 pm)Aegon Wrote:

(June 13, 2023 at 1:00 pm)R-Farmer Wrote: again.. Not a logistical tale of how one man defied God and saved the world on his own by building a boat. God used Noah and his faith in god to save the world meaning Noah did not gather the animals eggs or alive. God sent them to him. Oh, and all one needs is a 100*F +\- heat source for about 3 to 6 weeks for most incubation cycles. Which is not a problem in the summer months. On top of that composting hay will get between 120 and 140*F in the center of the pile. it gets cooler towards the outside.

All I'm pointing out is if animals were loaded up in their baby form 90% of the space you think is needed isn't.

Dude there are literally 8 million+ species of animal on the planet. But they're in baby form so they fit? What are you smoking?

what makes you think Noah had access to the same animals we have now? I just pointed out to someone else that all he need do is have access to some of the common ancestors and whole genui/genuses? could be accounted for.