Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(November 21, 2012 at 4:53 am)Daniel Wrote: A pretty weak straw man argument...
Really? I've heard all of those arguments on this forum a number of times.
Daniel Wrote:No, Paul said that and his scribe wrote it down, Jesus didn't say what you just quoted.
After searching the chapter, I have discovered that you are correct. Paul begins his speech with this:
Ephesians 3:1-6
For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles—
2 Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. 6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
He later says
Ephesians 4:17-24
So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed.
20 That, however, is not the way of life you learned 21 when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
as a lead in to the decrees he made, including the one about slavery.
Apparently what he said in the chapter was revealed to him by god.
Daniel Wrote:Picking and choosing the parts of the Bible when God is angry is not going to help your argument. Consider John 14:6-11 (Jesus did say this one FYI):
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
(John 14:6-11)
If the character of God is as immoral as you claim, then you would be able to prove it by showing everyone that the character of Jesus is immoral. But if, on the other hand, you find that the character of Jesus is moral then it can only mean that the character of God is moral. I look forward to seeing you address this specifically.
I have pointed out that Jesus's and Yahweh's conflicting moralities suggest that they aren't really the same person. You assume that they must be. When god is in a good mood, he massacres people he doesn't like. When god is angry, he massacres...people who annoy him. Jesus preaches forgiveness and non-violence, whereas Yahweh leads brutal military campaigns and commands his followers to show no mercy. How do you reconcile this? Also
John 8:1-11 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
this passage is unusual. It isn't unusual for Jesus's merciful character, but isn't Jesus explicitly contradicting Yahweh here?
(November 21, 2012 at 10:09 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: But that doesn't mean he was God. Even if the evidence for someone whose life roughly corresponded with the accounts in the Gospel, that's still no guarantee that he's God. Remember that people (even centuries after his birth) claimed that Alexander the Great was also literally the son of a God.
All Greek rules were "gods". None of the previous Biblical prophets were "gods".
And this is where the Gospels would have been fabricated.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.
I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
November 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm (This post was last modified: November 21, 2012 at 12:25 pm by Drich.)
[quote='Darkstar' pid='364949' dateline='1353469759']
[quote]How is it that the god of the bible (Yahweh) is called a moral being? [/quote]Morality is a subjective term. It seem we have to have this discussion once a week here. As I said before our 'moralities' vary from person to person culture, to culture and even generation to generation within the same culture.
[quote]Sometimes I have heard theists (mainly Drich) say he is 'righteous'. From how the word has been used, one can only draw the conclusion that 'righteous' = objectively moral.[/quote]Righteousness is an unchanging absolute standard.
[quote] Whenever a story of god's immorality surfaces, one of the following apologetic arguments is used as a retort:
That was the OT.
You just don't understand the customs of the day.
Who are you to judge god?
[/quote]Actually no. The predominate apologetic states as follows: Man's morality and self righteousness are one. Meaning self righteousness is a standard man creates to be 'righteous' or 'moral' apart from God's righteousness. So to judge God immoral is the logical conclusion of having a standard apart from God. The only problem is 'we' do not have the power or authority to impliment our standard beyond our social groupings. Meaning our 'morality' is the crap standard and will mean nothing on the day of our final judgement.
[quote]Let's look at the first one. What did Jesus really say?
Matthew 5:17-20
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
He does not appear to have made any attempt to overturn them. Now, what if he did overturn them? This could only mean that god had made imperfect laws before.
Now, we will examine the second defense. This defense hurts its own argument more than it helps. If the laws of the OT coincide with the inferior moral views of the day (i.e. slavery permitted, semi-regular mass murders, etc.) then this is more evidence that they were created by human minds. After all, Jesus said
Ephesians 6:5-8
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
[/quote]What does 'full fill the law mean?
[quote]Who are we to question his infalliable wisdom? [/quote]Indeed.
[quote]Oh, by total coincidence (seriously) that leads us into the final defense. Saying that we are simply not allowed to be critical of something god does is simply more evidence that his actions could not actually be defended if they were ever questioned. In order for this to be a valid argument, one would first have to prove that god was a perfectly moral being. [/quote]This is a fallacy of logic. I have already demonstrated that morality is an ever changing standard. No one can ever be deemed 'perfectly moral' if every generation has a different understanding of what 'morality is.' For if one culture says 1, 2 ,3 is morality and another says no A, B, C is moral then how can anyone ever be considered "perfectly moral?"
[quote]Using the bible (it's true because it said it's true) isn't a very good method, but it seems to be the only method at all. [/quote]
Agreed. If one does not wish to align himself with the righteousness of God then the bible has no authority in that persons life. For the bible does not feed the self righteous behaivor that morality springs up from.
[quote]Feel free to bring up particular examples of god's immorality for the theists to challenge (or ignore). The first immoral act of god's was his punishing Adam and Eve for commiting an act he deemed immoral.[/quote]No God deemed it a sin. At this point 'morality' was not an issue.
[quote] As god created them to be amoral, and even forbid them from eating the fruit that would allow them to understand morality, they could not possibly have known that god had commanded them not to eat it for any reason other thanit killing them. When the snake told them it wouldn't kill them, they no longer had any reason not to eat it.[/quote]
It seems you are bent in claiming a term (morality) that Christ described as a failure of man to obtain God's righteousness, and turn it to mean something more than what it is. Despite what you might say to me or anyone else know in your heart of hearts that your 'morality' means nothing. That your 'morality' is like "Used menstral rags" to God. And whether you like it or not it is to this God and his standard that you will be judged, Not whatever 'morality' you decide for yourself.
(November 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm)Drich Wrote: Righteousness is an unchanging absolute standard.
Nope. Since it only refers to your god's self0righteousness, it is neither unchanging nor absolute.
(November 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm)Drich Wrote: Actually no. The predominate apologetic states as follows: Man's morality and self righteousness are one. Meaning self righteousness is a standard man creates to be 'righteous' or 'moral' apart from God's righteousness. So to judge God immoral is the logical conclusion of having a standard apart from God. The only problem is 'we' do not have the power or authority to impliment our standard beyond our social groupings. Meaning our 'morality' is the crap standard and will mean nothing on the day of our final judgement.
So, do you agree that if god was bound by human morality, he should receive the death penalty?
(November 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm)Drich Wrote: This is a fallacy of logic. I have already demonstrated that morality is an ever changing standard. No one can ever be deemed 'perfectly moral' if every generation has a different understanding of what 'morality is.' For if one culture says 1, 2 ,3 is morality and another says no A, B, C is moral then how can anyone ever be considered "perfectly moral?"
Then we can establish that not even your god is perfectly moral. Further, since you have proven that morality is an ever changing standard, then you cannot claim that only your god's morality is unchanging.
And by the way, saying "fallacy of logic" is insufficient, you have to point out which fallacy is it.
(November 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm)Drich Wrote: Agreed. If one does not wish to align himself with the righteousness of God then the bible has no authority in that persons life. For the bible does not feed the self righteous behaivor that morality springs up from.
So why would god have any authority?
(November 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm)Drich Wrote: No God deemed it a sin. At this point 'morality' was not an issue.
Sin without morality? How is that even possible?
(November 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm)Drich Wrote: It seems you are bent in claiming a term (morality) that Christ described as a failure of man to obtain God's righteousness, and turn it to mean something more than what it is. Despite what you might say to me or anyone else know in your heart of hearts that your 'morality' means nothing. That your 'morality' is like "Used menstral rags" to God. And whether you like it or not it is to this God and his standard that you will be judged, Not whatever 'morality' you decide for yourself.
Sounds about right - since god's morality is akin to "Used toilet paper" to me. And what exactly gives your god the right to judge me?
(November 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm)Drich Wrote: [quote='Darkstar' pid='364949' dateline='1353469759']
Quote:Sometimes I have heard theists (mainly Drich) say he is 'righteous'. From how the word has been used, one can only draw the conclusion that 'righteous' = objectively moral.
Righteousness is an unchanging absolute standard.
Oops, I keep forgetting that one. You are right, there is a fourth argument.
There is just one [major] problem: Righteousness being objective does not make it objectively good.
Scratch that, there are two problems. The one where Jesus contradicts one of Yahweh's laws. (as in my previous post) If the law was objectively good, then why would Jesus prevent it from being carried out? (Note: I'm going to be gone for a few days, so I'll get back to this later).
(November 20, 2012 at 11:49 pm)Darkstar Wrote: How is it that the god of the bible (Yahweh) is called a moral being?
1. Short answer: Some people think he’s moral, so they call him that. You disagree. That’s the nature of morality.
2. Christians tend to accept that God has rights over us which we don’t have over each other.
3. Christians tend to accept that God is the ultimate judge, and see things like the flood or military conquests as acts of just judgment, not murder.
4. Christians tend to accept that God has higher standards than we do. God equates the thought with the deed. This is shown in several well-known places: the flood, the ten commandments, and the sermon on the mount. By that standard, most every person is guilty of crimes greatly exceeding those of what we consider to be the worst criminals.
5. Christians put God’s actions into the perspective of eternity. With an age of accountability doctrine, the young in those judgments went on to eternal happiness.
You can disagree all you want. Heck, plenty of prisoners think their treatment was unfair and gripe about it. That generally doesn’t get them out of prison though.
(November 21, 2012 at 2:36 pm)John V Wrote: 3. Christians tend to accept that God is the ultimate judge, and see things like the flood or military conquests as acts of just judgment, not murder.
Just judgement would target only the specific offenders. If you decide to just kill them all (animals included) and sort the bodies out, you are not being just. If you punish the rules of Egypt by targeting, specifically, innocent firstborn children, you are a callous murderer. It says a lot about Christians that they think genocide of innocent children is 'just judgement'.
Quote:4. Christians tend to accept that God has higher standards than we do. God equates the thought with the deed. This is shown in several well-known places: the flood, the ten commandments, and the sermon on the mount. By that standard, most every person is guilty of crimes greatly exceeding those of what we consider to be the worst criminals.
The Ten Commandments prioritizes slavish devotion to God over refraining from theft and murder. Those are not 'higher standards' from a just and righteous God. Those are 'fucked-up priorities' of a selfish and insecure God.
Quote:5. Christians put God’s actions into the perspective of eternity. With an age of accountability doctrine, the young in those judgments went on to eternal happiness.
It also says a lot about Christians that they will always bend over backwards to justify the mass murder of children, all the while ignorant to how shallow it makes their 'pro-life' positions look to everyone else.
Quote:You can disagree all you want. Heck, plenty of prisoners think their treatment was unfair and gripe about it. That generally doesn’t get them out of prison though.
God doesn't run prisons. He runs extermination camps.
(November 21, 2012 at 2:52 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Just judgement would target only the specific offenders. If you decide to just kill them all (animals included) and sort the bodies out, you are not being just. If you punish the rules of Egypt by targeting, specifically, innocent firstborn children, you are a callous murderer. It says a lot about Christians that they think genocide of innocent children is 'just judgement'.
These objections were addressed in points 4 & 5.
Quote: The Ten Commandments prioritizes slavish devotion to God over refraining from theft and murder. Those are not 'higher standards' from a just and righteous God. Those are 'fucked-up priorities' of a selfish and insecure God.
This complaint is a red herring. The prohibition of coveting places thoughts on par with deeds, as does the sermon on the mount. By his standards, we’re all murderers, thieves, etc. many times over.
Quote: It also says a lot about Christians that they will always bend over backwards to justify the mass murder of children, all the while ignorant to how shallow it makes their 'pro-life' positions look to everyone else.
This complaint is addressed in point 2, which you failed to address.
I'll address point 1 after you answer, rather than evade, the question Darkstar asked which prompted you to make point 1.
Quote:These objections were addressed in points 4 & 5.
As I objected directly to both points, you have not actually addressed a single thing.
Quote:This complaint is a red herring. The prohibition of coveting places thoughts on par with deeds, as does the sermon on the mount. By his standards, we’re all murderers, thieves, etc. many times over.
And by our standards, he is worse than any of us, individually, and all of us, combined. Wiping out almost all life on earth on a whim is a crime unequaled by humanity.
There is no reason whatsoever to view God's standards as higher than our own, or even to admit that his standards are valid.
Quote:This complaint is addressed in point 2, which you failed to address.
November 21, 2012 at 5:34 pm (This post was last modified: November 21, 2012 at 5:35 pm by John V.)
(November 21, 2012 at 5:18 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Actually, I have addressed point 2 in considerable detail.
Then it should be easy to give a concise response in the thread we're actually in at the moment. We could probably point to dozens of threads which charge that God is immoral.
Quote:I'll address point 1 after you answer, rather than evade, the question Darkstar asked which prompted you to make point 1.
Which question is that?
Quote:As I objected directly to both points, you have not actually addressed a single thing.
You posted red herrings after those points. That's not addressing them.
Quote:And by our standards, he is worse than any of us, individually, and all of us, combined. Wiping out almost all life on earth on a whim is a crime unequaled by humanity.
Not our standards, your standards.
Quote:There's no reason whatsoever to view God's standards as higher than our own,
Equating thoughts with deeds is a higher standard than most humans hold.
Quote:or even to admit that his standards are valid.
Yes, as previously noted, Christians tend to accept that God has rights which humans don't, and critics tend to reject that. I would just suggest that such rejection is ad hoc, considering humans' treatment of each other and other species.
![[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/yxR97P23/harmlesskitchen.png)
Oops, I keep forgetting that one. You are right, there is a fourth argument. 
