(December 2, 2013 at 10:22 am)Drich Wrote:

(November 30, 2013 at 5:04 pm)Godlesspanther Wrote: There is no doubt that there are people who were atheists (did not believe in any sort of gods) and had a religious conversion and are now believers. People can and do have profound changes in their thinking. I do, however, think that ex-atheists are rare. Usually I suspect that this declaration is a lie. Here are the reasons:

1. Most (but not all) of the "ex-atheists" can't provide a description of their lack of faith that seems sincere and is consistent with descriptions from current atheists.

Fallacy of composition

Quote:2. The numbers don't work. Atheists are a growing population in most countries. If all these "former atheists" were genuine, we would see the opposite trend.

Argumentum ad populum

Quote:3. Religion follows fads. I remember back in the 70s-90s there were all these "ex-satanists" -- after the satanic panic bullshit ran its course and the new atheist movement took hold all these "ex-satanists" vanished and "ex-atheists." started appearing.

This 'Base rate fallacy' is easily explained away. If there was a surge of Satanists, then there would be more people who worship satan that could potentially be converted. Likewise is there are more atheists, then that would broaden the pool of likly converts as well.

Quote:4. It's a cheap ploy "I used to be an atheist just like you so i understand where you are coming from." Bullshit.

'Appeal to probablity'

Quote:I did not say that there are no ex-atheists. But that they are extremely rare.

If one were an atheist, and were converted, then wouldn't it be plausiable that this person would have a heart for his former douche bag peers, and want to spend his ministry trying to help the one or two who may have been just angry at religion as he was?

Quote:Ex-christians, however, are becoming more and more common as the days go by thanks to people like Drich who make xtianity so repulsive that normal people will have nothing to do with that shit.

The primary problem with Christianity is that 'Christian's' are not teaching from the bible any more. They are telling people what they want to hear. The problem there is that when the people being told what they want to hear, find out what they have been told is not true, they feel betrayed and want to seperate from the church.

I am not one who will say something just because people want to hear it.

Either you have no concept of these logical fallacies or how they work or you are just playing dumb. I suspect the latter.

If you need a refresher:

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resource...Fresources

Yes, it would be good to look up a logical fallacy to get an idea as to how to apply it correctly. None of the logical fallacies that you have accused me of match up to what i was actually saying.

You have access to internet search engines just as much as I do. You are without excuse.

(November 30, 2013 at 11:10 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Might makes right, hm?

In the entire History of Man Might has always made 'right.'

Quote:That would apply to any law. Obviously someone will break the law at some point.

Which is why God provies attonement.

It's the fact that we did justify this act for more than 30 years, which made it moral
Did it? Can something go from being moral to immoral? I wouldn't think so, just our perception of it. In the case of a partial birth abortion, we would be dealing with an actual developed baby, as opposed to a fetus. I don't know why anyone ever supported it in the first place.[/quote] Seriously? If there wasn't support for PBA who performed these abortions? Who elected to have them? Why did a law have to be enacted in order to stop them in the US?

Quote:Are we dehumanizing egg cells too? What if I kill an egg cell and a spermatozoa? Then is it murder?

Are babies egg cells?

Another Example If A Man assaults a pregnet woman and the baby dies it is then refered to as a baby and the man is charged with Murder (It happened near where I live a few years ago) A baby's status/humanity has nothing to with gestation, but whether or not it is wanted by the mother. So tell me some more about this self righteous 'morality' you all use to judge God.[/quote]

Quote:Hosea 13:16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open.”

I guess this doesn't count? Or is it because the fetus has sinned?

Absolutly not. Because i asked you to explain YOUR Morality, not examine Hosea 13. Can you answer this question without appealing to a red herring?

Quote:I meant morally, not in terms of how the abortion was carried out. Removing a fetus that is undeveloped is one thing, directly killing a viable fetus is another. Killing a viable fetus that survives an abortion would, or at least should be considered infanticide.

But, it's not or wasn't till just a few years ago. Again the viablity of a baby/fetus only has to do with whether or not the mother wants the child. If the child is unwanted the person in side the mother is deemed a fetus no matter what stage of development it was in, and therefore ripe for any abortion proceedure the 'doctor' deemed nessary. Infanticide only applies to wanted pre birth babies.

Again not do get into too deep to abortion it self but I am pointing to the sliding scale of man's 'morality' and justification of Something as Henous as killing babies. This is why i say man's standard is crap, and why YOU can not use the passage in Hosea to judge God. Why? Because the moral standard you are trying to use says God is 'immoral' for killing dump truck load of babies. While the soceity who has set this 'moral standard' literally killed Millions of babies every YEAR, and continues to do so. While God killed a people before they could change the course of 'History.'

Quote:I guess you're right that they can't be aborted. I was just curious, as "heartbeat" could not work as a universal definition of life.

A Heart beat only needs to be the human standard of Life as that is the focous of our conversation.

Quote:I won't disagree with that.

(You agree with the Golden rule becoming obsolete according man's morality if given enough time)
Then you agree that with out absolutes, man's morality becomes a declining standard. If then Man's Morality can be identified as a declining standard then how can one consider it to even be a true standard at all? It's not. All 'morality' is the current level of perversion generation/current cultrue is willing to allow or restrict.

(November 30, 2013 at 2:23 pm)Drich Wrote: Or any outside source, really. Though they might be using a different yardstick to determine morality by. One must be careful when developing one.

That's just it. No matter how careful one is, without a true standard to measure by, or a fix point like a bull's eye to shoot for, your just throwing darts at a blank wall. If you play darts without a board then you can claim no matter where the dart lands it is a bullseye, and where ever my darts lands to be out of bounds.

Like it or not this is what you did when you quoted hosea 13. You ignored your own culture's standardless venture into infanticide that tallies literally into the millions, but used that same soceity's baseless standard to deem God 'immoral' when at best there was maybe a couple of hundred, lets say a couple of thousand women and their babies put to death...
Again, Death is not the 'immorality' I am discussing here. It is the right to claim the 'moral high ground' when there is not only blood on your hands, but blood enough (from dead babies) to fill lakes. Even so, this hyprocrisy does not seem to register with you or any of your peers who have tried this 'moral high ground tatic.'

(November 30, 2013 at 2:23 pm)Drich Wrote: If Abortion was immoral, then it would not be legal.

Quote:Being a douchebag isn't illegal.

We are not talking about trying to hook up with your GF's sister, or talking on your phone durning a movie. We are talking about Killing babies.
If Killing babies was not morally justified (by changing the staus of said babies to fetuses) It would not be legal.

Quote:I don't think that is what the article was saying. I am pretty sure that it was arguing for easier access to early abortions to reduce late term abortions.

that was the final spin yes, but if you read the 'facts' of the study' it points to the reasons late term abortions were needed for low income women. None of which changes with easier access. The vast majority/71% of late term (5 months or later) Simply did not know they were prego.

(November 30, 2013 at 2:23 pm)Drich Wrote: To which I will not disagree. Yet, if you continue to insist that god's righteousness is better because it is absolute (barring god's nonexistence), I will continue to argue that being absolute is not necessarily a good thing. Something that is absolute and in error can never be amended.

I whole reason for this thread is to point out that 'man's morality' is based on works, which many of you assume God's righteousness is also based on works/what you do. It's not. God's righteounsess is a standard so pure none of use can ever hope to reach it. Therefore we must seek the attonement Christ offers. When we do this then we take on the 'morality' of Christ. Meaning we become as sinless/blamless as Christ is to the Father.

I consider this better because I do not try and fool myself with the idea that I am 'basically a good person.'

---

(December 1, 2013 at 3:40 pm)ThomM Wrote: Ah - but WHERE did you get those claims about the Morality of GOD?

The bible

Quote:Certainly NOT from the bible - since the gods "morality" wavers and changes constantly.

How so?

Quote:YOU see - that is the problem. WE have actually read the bible and can clearly see the LACK of morality in many of the things the god supposedly did -

such as?

Quote:Example - it is accepted that a BABY cannot sin - they are not of age to be morally responsible.

responsiable for what?

Quote:WE also accept that killing people who have done NOTHING to deserve killing is called MURDER.

Ah, no. Killing someone for personal reasons is called Murder. If God sanctions the death then it is not murder.

Quote:So - where were all the Babies and young children taken in the fairy tale of the great flood?

They Drowned.

Quote:Or the Sodom and Gomorrah destruction?

They burned.

Quote: You cannot say that the god KNEW that all of them would sin - since they are supposed to have FREE WILL - and therefore can only be judged based on what they actually did.

If you went back in time
and had a chance to kill hitler as a baby would you? After All He does have 'free will,' but at the same time you have fore knoweledge of what he would do with his 'free will.' Now, what would you do if you had a foreknoweledge of an entire race of hitlers?

Quote:In the fairy tale of the Passover, what did the average Eldest child of the Egyptians do to deserve to be Killed?

Why do you assume they did anything? What makes you think they were being held responsiable for anything? The bible clearly states why they were being killed, and it has nothing to do with your persuposition. God Gave the power to pharroh to choose the last plague. The death of the first born was what he chose.

Quote:- regardless of age. Since they were not in control of their Pharaoh - nothing is the correct answer.

Indeed. Just wondering, do you not live in a world of consenquence? If a drunk driver slams into your car at 100 mph and no one is wearing their seat belts does no one in your car die because they did not deserve it? The leader of their country thought he could select something God could not possiably accomplish. He was wrong and all those under him paid the price for HIS 'drunk driving.' It has nothing to do with what they did or did not deserve.

Quote:And remember - some of then would have been babies and children as well.

So?

Quote:Any god who "inspires" a psalm that says
"How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
Against the rock." - is certainly not moral - of any type

AGAIN, That is what this whole thread is about. Have you read the OP yet?

God can not be judged 'moral' by the standard of man. If he were to be, then man would be judge immoral. See the above abortion post I made out to Dark star, It better answers why this whole arguement is completely invalid.

---

(November 30, 2013 at 5:04 pm)Godlesspanther Wrote: There is no doubt that there are people who were atheists (did not believe in any sort of gods) and had a religious conversion and are now believers. People can and do have profound changes in their thinking. I do, however, think that ex-atheists are rare. Usually I suspect that this declaration is a lie. Here are the reasons:

1. Most (but not all) of the "ex-atheists" can't provide a description of their lack of faith that seems sincere and is consistent with descriptions from current atheists.

Fallacy of composition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
example:If someone stands up out of his seat at a baseball game, he can see better. Therefore, if everyone stands up they can all see better.

If a runner runs faster, she can win the race. Therefore if all the runners run faster, they can all win the race.
Your saying:
If an current Atheist believes X about God, then all who were Atheist also have to believe X about God.

Quote:2. The numbers don't work. Atheists are a growing population in most countries. If all these "former atheists" were genuine, we would see the opposite trend.

Argumentum ad populum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

This on is pretty self explainatory. You took a premise and based your conclusion on what you felt the majority think/does.

Quote:3. Religion follows fads. I remember back in the 70s-90s there were all these "ex-satanists" -- after the satanic panic bullshit ran its course and the new atheist movement took hold all these "ex-satanists" vanished and "ex-atheists." started appearing.

This 'Base rate fallacy' is easily explained away. If there was a surge of Satanists, then there would be more people who worship satan that could potentially be converted. Likewise is there are more atheists, then that would broaden the pool of likly converts as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
Example: John is a man wearing outstanding goth inspired clothing with long black hair who listens to death metal. How likely is it that he is a Christian and how likely is it that he is a Satanist?
If people were asked this question, they would likely underestimate the probability of him being a Christian, and overestimate the probability of him being a Satanist. This is because they would ignore that the base rate of being a Christian (there are about 2 billion in the world) is vastly higher than that of being a Satanist (estimated to be in the thousands).[2]

You stated that Satan to Christian conversion spiked when there were more satanists, You also stated that this trend continued with Atheist to Christian conversions, then you asked how likly was this to actually to happen based on the avaiable evidence. You in asking your question underestimated the probablity of Satanist/Atheist to Christian conversions, because you ignored the popularity of these two anti-God groups and the pool of potential converts, while over estimating the probablity of people simply making things up.

Quote:4. It's a cheap ploy "I used to be an atheist just like you so i understand where you are coming from." Bullshit.

'Appeal to probablity'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability
An appeal to probability (or appeal to possibility) is the logical fallacy of taking something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might possibly be the case).[1] Inductive arguments lack deductive validity and must therefore be asserted or denied in the premises.

This one is pretty self explainatory. You simply assumed this was the case, you do not have any real evidence.

---

(December 2, 2013 at 10:36 am)apophenia Wrote:

(December 2, 2013 at 10:22 am)Drich Wrote: I am not one who will say something just because people want to hear it.

This appears to be the exact opposite of what you said earlier this week, when you stated you were here because you thought there were people who wanted to hear your message, and you were simply "pandering" to their needs.

Your statement is not accurate. I am here for those looking for answers and clarity concerning God. I am not here for those seeking me or my message.

(December 2, 2013 at 4:38 pm)Drich Wrote: In the entire History of Man Might has always made 'right.'

In the sense that the victors can do what they want, but that doesn't really make them moral by default, even if they claim they are.

(December 2, 2013 at 4:38 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:Did it? Can something go from being moral to immoral? I wouldn't think so, just our perception of it. In the case of a partial birth abortion, we would be dealing with an actual developed baby, as opposed to a fetus. I don't know why anyone ever supported it in the first place.

Seriously? If there wasn't support for PBA who performed these abortions? Who elected to have them? Why did a law have to be enacted in order to stop them in the US?

I said I didn't know why anyone would support it, I am not arguing that no one ever did.

(December 2, 2013 at 4:38 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:Are we dehumanizing egg cells too? What if I kill an egg cell and a spermatozoa? Then is it murder?

Are babies egg cells?

Nope. I wouldn't argue that a fetus (specifically one that is not yet viable) is a baby. Get one that can survive outside the womb and we'll talk.

(December 2, 2013 at 4:38 pm)Drich Wrote: Another Example If A Man assaults a pregnet woman and the baby dies it is then refered to as a baby and the man is charged with Murder (It happened near where I live a few years ago) A baby's status/humanity has nothing to with gestation, but whether or not it is wanted by the mother. So tell me some more about this self righteous 'morality' you all use to judge God.

Quote:Hosea 13:16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open.”

I guess this doesn't count? Or is it because the fetus has sinned?

Absolutly not. Because i asked you to explain YOUR Morality, not examine Hosea 13. Can you answer this question without appealing to a red herring?

In that case, sorry. But said law is irrelevant to my own morality. As for why someone else might have that morality, I cannot offer an adequate explanation.

(December 2, 2013 at 4:38 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:I meant morally, not in terms of how the abortion was carried out. Removing a fetus that is undeveloped is one thing, directly killing a viable fetus is another. Killing a viable fetus that survives an abortion would, or at least should be considered infanticide.

But, it's not or wasn't till just a few years ago. Again the viablity of a baby/fetus only has to do with whether or not the mother wants the child. If the child is unwanted the person in side the mother is deemed a fetus no matter what stage of development it was in, and therefore ripe for any abortion proceedure the 'doctor' deemed nessary. Infanticide only applies to wanted pre birth babies.

When I say 'viable' I mean a fetus that could survive outside the womb. I was making an argument that was irrespective to current or past law.

(December 2, 2013 at 4:38 pm)Drich Wrote: Again not do get into too deep to abortion it self but I am pointing to the sliding scale of man's 'morality' and justification of Something as Henous as killing babies. This is why i say man's standard is crap, and why YOU can not use the passage in Hosea to judge God. Why? Because the moral standard you are trying to use says God is 'immoral' for killing dump truck load of babies.

That doesn't validate or invalidate the moral standard, nor was it meant to. It was simply to show that god is a hypocrite.

(December 2, 2013 at 4:38 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:I guess you're right that they can't be aborted. I was just curious, as "heartbeat" could not work as a universal definition of life.

A Heart beat only needs to be the human standard of Life as that is the focous of our conversation.

That could be debated, but I think you earlier said that you hadn't intended to get this deep into an abortion debate, so I'll leave this.

(December 2, 2013 at 4:38 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:I won't disagree with that.

(You agree with the Golden rule becoming obsolete according man's morality if given enough time)

Eh, no. This is what I agreed to.

(November 30, 2013 at 2:23 pm)Drich Wrote: In a soceity with declining morals 'common sense' becomes less and less common. At some point, the 'golden rule' will also become obsolete.

I understand that you consider the moral standards of our current society to be declining, but I do not.

(December 2, 2013 at 4:38 pm)Drich Wrote: That's just it. No matter how careful one is, without a true standard to measure by, or a fix point like a bull's eye to shoot for, your just throwing darts at a blank wall. If you play darts without a board then you can claim no matter where the dart lands it is a bullseye, and where ever my darts lands to be out of bounds.

To an extent, I think you are right. But, I do not think the standard by which to gauge this is the Bible.

(December 2, 2013 at 4:38 pm)Drich Wrote:

Quote:I don't think that is what the article was saying. I am pretty sure that it was arguing for easier access to early abortions to reduce late term abortions.

that was the final spin yes, but if you read the 'facts' of the study' it points to the reasons late term abortions were needed for low income women. None of which changes with easier access. The vast majority/71% of late term (5 months or later) Simply did not know they were prego.

Then they wouldn't be done if people figured out they were pregnant sooner, I guess. Not so much a moral problem as a "people need to be smarter" problem. Would making abortions harder to get result in fewer late term abortions? Probably not.

(December 2, 2013 at 4:38 pm)Drich Wrote: I whole reason for this thread is to point out that 'man's morality' is based on works, which many of you assume God's righteousness is also based on works/what you do. It's not. God's righteounsess is a standard so pure none of use can ever hope to reach it. Therefore we must seek the attonement Christ offers. When we do this then we take on the 'morality' of Christ. Meaning we become as sinless/blamless as Christ is to the Father.

And yet I don't think this so called pure standard is all that great.

(December 2, 2013 at 3:48 pm)Godlesspanther Wrote: Either you have no concept of these logical fallacies or how they work or you are just playing dumb. I suspect the latter.

If you need a refresher:

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resource...Fresources

Yes, it would be good to look up a logical fallacy to get an idea as to how to apply it correctly. None of the logical fallacies that you have accused me of match up to what i was actually saying.

You have access to internet search engines just as much as I do. You are without excuse.

I think you'll find it a fair characterization that he simply doesn't understand them. He's a proof-texter, not an apologist or philosopher. His notion of whether a fallacy is committed is if the words used in the Wikipedia description of the fallacy, and the words used in the person's rhetoric, are similar. He has no concept of logical structure whatsoever.

[/quote]The primary problem with Christianity is that 'Christian's' are not teaching from the bible any more. They are telling people what they want to hear. The problem there is that when the people being told what they want to hear, find out what they have been told is not true, they feel betrayed and want to seperate from the church.

I am not one who will say something just because people want to hear it.
[/quote]

THe problem is that the xtians NEVER actually taught from the bible as a whole. They did and still do pick only certain passages - put a spin on those -= and ignore the fact that the bible is a terrible book

But today - there are better reasons not to teach from the bible

1 - Most people can read the bible - and clearly see ALL of the mess that is in it.

2 - WE are constantly finding more and more things in the bible are simply not true - not supportable - and/or contradictory. Since people can actually read the bible - it is hard to deny to them what they actually read for themselves -and "spin" won't help most of the problems.

3 - IT is clear that the bible is NOT the inspiration of an all knowing god - and once you accept that much of it is myth and legend - then it is easy to conclude virtually all of it is.

4 - Of course - it is also clear to thinking people that religion does not actually work. Prayer has no statistically significant effect beyond chance. Theists are NOT more moral or ethical that non theists. These are simply FACTS.

(December 2, 2013 at 4:38 pm)Drich Wrote: In the entire History of Man Might has always made 'right.'

I don't really care about the rest of your post, but I take issue with your extreme simplification here; in the history of man, might has made ease of execution, not moral rightness. I find it hugely amusing that you've boiled down morality, if it were manmade, to "the thing that happens," as if we've got no sense for determining immoral acts too.

Morality isn't based upon the actions that happen: might is the thing that allows you to act effectively, but it doesn't make the actions one takes using that might inherently moral.

(December 2, 2013 at 9:19 pm)apophenia Wrote:

(December 2, 2013 at 3:48 pm)Godlesspanther Wrote: Either you have no concept of these logical fallacies or how they work or you are just playing dumb. I suspect the latter.

If you need a refresher:

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resource...Fresources

Yes, it would be good to look up a logical fallacy to get an idea as to how to apply it correctly. None of the logical fallacies that you have accused me of match up to what i was actually saying.

You have access to internet search engines just as much as I do. You are without excuse.

I think you'll find it a fair characterization that he simply doesn't understand them. He's a proof-texter, not an apologist or philosopher. His notion of whether a fallacy is committed is if the words used in the Wikipedia description of the fallacy, and the words used in the person's rhetoric, are similar. He has no concept of logical structure whatsoever.

That is actually a compliment (except for the proof texting bit.) Fore if what you call 'logic' has forced you and others like you to the conclusions you currently have about God, Not allowing you to proceed with an honest investigation about God with an open mind. I truly want nothing to with it.

---

(December 2, 2013 at 8:02 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Nope. I wouldn't argue that a fetus (specifically one that is not yet viable) is a baby. Get one that can survive outside the womb and we'll talk.

You are missing the larger point, abortion is just the vechical I am using to discuss ever changing morality of man. Again, look at what you have done here. By simply changing the status of a baby to a 'fetus' it makes it ok to kill. Then I showed you where viable/survive outside the womb babies were still being slaughtered simple because they retained the name 'fetus.' Then i showed you where a man killed a 'baby' by attacking the mother and got life. This means the distinction between a fetus and a baby has nothing to do with gestation or how mature the baby is, but the mother desire to keep it. A mother's pre birth desire to keep a child is what classifies a baby a fetus, in this soceity's 'morality.'

If this soceity can be convinced to kill babies by the millions than literally Anything be justified and found to be 'moral' if the right propaganda is applied. Which is what is so extremely dangerous about seperating yourself from the absolute standard of God. You essenially remove your ablity to apply checks and balances in your ablity to discern right and wrong. It happened with the Nazis, in US Slavery, Manifest Destiny, Through movements like the KKK, Hippys, Acts like Abortion, and even Gay marriage, and the undermining of the Traditional Family.

I added the last bit simply to prove a point (not to start another debate) The point being you probably do not have a problem with Gay marriage or gay adoption. Most don't because soceity has said it was ok. But what if soceity starts saying other things are ok that curently not? What if it becomes ok to start segergating the population again? What if the goverments votes and passes a law mandating that a certain group of people be made to up root themselves and be placed on a reservation of sorts? What if there were a catalyst like 9/11? or several events like 9/11, waged against say gay people/families, from supposed christian groups? Would it then be ok (If soceity says it was) to put christians in these camps? Remember the same soceity that has you believe that killing babies is ok if you prelable it a fetus, and that gay marriage is ok, is the same force that is now telling you that in order to perserve your way of life, the rights of those who will not renounce their faith must be seperated from the rest of the people?

If not what would make you put on the brakes here and not any where else? Remember you would be justified in supporting this act because of several 9/11 size attacks on Gay people/families with more to come..

In truth without absolutes, you will fold whether you can admit it or not. Too many soceities have fallen to this morality of the masses, and whether you see it or not you are already aligned with the masses with no real way to oppose the mob mentality on your own. Fore if you will not stand for anything now other than what the mob deems right and wrong you will not change later. That is unless you find God.

Quote:In that case, sorry. But said law is irrelevant to my own morality. As for why someone else might have that morality, I cannot offer an adequate explanation.

See above as to why people 'share' morality.

Quote:That doesn't validate or invalidate the moral standard, nor was it meant to. It was simply to show that god is a hypocrite.

When 'we' kill babies, what is the reason? we simply do not want them.
When God killed an entire race of people what was the reason? To sculpt our history in such a way as to have the Jews survive and provide us with Jesus Christ and redemption..

Again if you could kill Hitler as a baby would you? Now what if there were several races of Hitlers? if you have the foresight and ablity wouldn't you be obligated to do so? Would you oblige God to save the world if one race of people were to 'end the world' prematurly?

So explain to me how this is hyprocrisy? You said what if an aborted baby was Zombie Zero, God is in a position to Identify those first 'Zombies.' So doesn't it stand to reason that if He wants us to be here He must eliminate those who would keep that from happening?

Quote:I understand that you consider the moral standards of our current society to be declining, but I do not.

I'm not sure how old you are, but give it time. 20 years ago TV and Movies were pushing the boundries of gay acceptance. Today I see the same push in sexualizing underage kids, and incest.

Quote:To an extent, I think you are right. But, I do not think the standard by which to gauge this is the Bible.

There is literally no other standard in which to live by. That is the point out me showing you that Man's morality is an ever changing scale.

Quote:And yet I don't think this so called pure standard is all that great.

Then you do not understand the standard. even put more simply God wants you to do the absolute best you can do, and Christ will cover the rest. If that best includes an abortion, or even a gay relationship, or beating people in a gay relationship at somepoint, if that is the best you can literally do, then it will be enough.
All we are truly tasked with is to be faithful to what we have been given.

---

(December 2, 2013 at 11:12 pm)ThomM Wrote: THe problem is that the xtians NEVER actually taught from the bible as a whole.

I am a Christian, and i would like for you to show me where I do not teach from the whole bible.

Quote:1 - Most people can read the bible - and clearly see ALL of the mess that is in it.

Not true, 'most people' dont read the bible, they read the same old websites you have read that invent a mess to try and justify what they want to believe.

Quote:2 - WE are constantly finding more and more things in the bible are simply not true - not supportable - and/or contradictory.

like? I have made this challenge to everyone who has ever made this claim and not one of you has been able to provide anything, except the same old stuff posted on the websites I just mentioned.

Quote:Since people can actually read the bible - it is hard to deny to them what they actually read for themselves -and "spin" won't help most of the problems.

are you one of these extremely rare people or are you a website person?

Quote:3 - IT is clear that the bible is NOT the inspiration of an all knowing god - and once you accept that much of it is myth and legend - then it is easy to conclude virtually all of it is.

where is it made clear?

Quote:4 - Of course - it is also clear to thinking people that religion does not actually work. Prayer has no statistically significant effect beyond chance. Theists are NOT more moral or ethical that non theists. These are simply FACTS.

and i have shown 98% of the people who 'pray' are not really praying at all. Christ gives a formula to prayer and few if any follow it. Paul later identifies what most of you call 'prayer' as petitioning God. A petition is not prayer. If you do not pray to God why would you think He would answer your petition?

(December 3, 2013 at 3:58 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(December 2, 2013 at 4:38 pm)Drich Wrote: In the entire History of Man Might has always made 'right.'

I don't really care about the rest of your post, but I take issue with your extreme simplification here; in the history of man, might has made ease of execution, not moral rightness. I find it hugely amusing that you've boiled down morality, if it were manmade, to "the thing that happens," as if we've got no sense for determining immoral acts too.

Morality isn't based upon the actions that happen: might is the thing that allows you to act effectively, but it doesn't make the actions one takes using that might inherently moral.

If you would have taken the time to actually read the rest of my post you would have noted i do not say morality is the "thing that happens.'

I clearly state that 'morality' or rather 'man's morality' is the justification of 'the things that happen, and are accepted in soceity.'

That is why I site the mass murder of babies/abortion. To make the killing of babies 'moral' in this soceity the term baby is removed and the indivisual is dehumanized, and they are given the name fetus. In this soceity killing babies is wrong, but killing fetuses we line up for and will pay thousands of dollars to have done, by the literal millions every year.

Yet because the bible does not use the term fetus when the armies of Israel does it MAYBE by the thousands, God is a monster. But again because we change one word babies are no longer human and it becomes a moral act, so much so we can do it millions of times over in a year and no one gives it a second thought..

Bottom line, the act on an indivisual bases is exactly the same. The volume is exceedingly one sided (man has far out done God) but the acts of God are condemned and the acts of man become an intrinsic right of every woman, and is upheld as a triumph of a modern and progressive soceity. (we pat ourselves on the back for this)

What is the difference? we simply justify our own sins, while we hypocritically judge God for doing the same. It boils down to want to do and justify our acts and need to persecute God.

We are told to Judge not lest we be judged by that very same measure. For those who have used that arguement/Judgement, know there maybe a day where you hear that again.

God and Morality are both inventions of man. A collective society deems what is moral and what is not. They also deem what THEIR God says is moral and what is not. Muslims still think it's perfectly fine to bed down a 14 year old girl. We here in the States do not. Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Gods all permit the taking of a 14 year old girl as a wife. Yet our culture... sees it as immoral. Even though Yahweh himself impregnated a child. What is moral is decided upon by the social group at hand. This is why a rigid and archaic book like the Bible can never last. It's morality is ancient and much of it MUST be put aside in a modern society. We simply cannot stone our young women to death anymore just because they aren't virgins on their wedding night. This also puts Xtians in a bad spot because they have to defend how immoral their God is by modern standards. These religions have seen the beginning of their end. Every generation has a little less and less to do with them and I feel in 100 years or so they'll just be an oddity.

(December 3, 2013 at 11:58 am)I am God Wrote: God and Morality are both inventions of man. A collective society deems what is moral and what is not. They also deem what THEIR God says is moral and what is not. Muslims still think it's perfectly fine to bed down a 14 year old girl. We here in the States do not. Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Gods all permit the taking of a 14 year old girl as a wife. Yet our culture... sees it as immoral. Even though Yahweh himself impregnated a child. What is moral is decided upon by the social group at hand. This is why a rigid and archaic book like the Bible can never last. It's morality is ancient and much of it MUST be put aside in a modern society. We simply cannot stone our young women to death anymore just because they aren't virgins on their wedding night. This also puts Xtians in a bad spot because they have to defend how immoral their God is by modern standards. These religions have seen the beginning of their end. Every generation has a little less and less to do with them and I feel in 100 years or so they'll just be an oddity.

One would have thought 'god' would have the ablity to read or at the very least simply know what I have said here. Because I as a Christian am not defending God by 'modern standards.' I have taken moden standards and compared them to God's morality to show how far 'moden standards' have fallen, and will continue to fall. Not only that, but have shown examples of soceities in our past who avail themselves to all sorts of evil simply because they have discarded God's absolute standards for 'modern ones.'