(December 3, 2013 at 4:53 pm)Drich Wrote: Actually none of you has done this yet. Most of you have tried by saying God killed unborn babies by the thousands. Then i pointed out in your 'morality' You/Your perfered liberal soceity kills millions of these babies every year. You point out God kills an entire people, then i point out we did or currently doing our best to do the same with the taliban, again all of this while protected under the flag of morality. The acts don't change only the P/C term justifying the act changes and this soceity licenses itself to do 100x's more evil than what God has done.

Then we agree that God has done evil.

(December 3, 2013 at 4:04 pm)Godlesspanther Wrote:

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote: 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.

You are using the term "open mind" incorrectly. "Keeping an open mind" actually means being open to all possibilities then examining the evidence and in light of that evidence one may or may not reach a firm conclusion. There is an old quote that has been attributed to numerous people -- we'll just say "anonymous" said:

"It is good to be open-minded, but not so open that your brains fall out." Being open to your bullshit, Drich, is being so open that your brains fall out. Furthermore you use the term to mean that one ought to be open to believing your bullshit, accepting that bullshit as absolute "truth," and then snap your mind shut to anyother possibility. That is not a correct use of the term "open-mind."

Case closed.

You sure like to try end a topic with "case closed." That must be the seventh or eighth time you've said that to me. I have been biding my time and waiting for you to slip up so I can use your catch phrase against you. Looks like today is that day!

i had an fat aunt that said that all the time too. She said it because she knew what she said would not hold up to scrutiny, and because she had her mind made up already about a given topic she did not want anyone to challenge her position, (because she knew she could not defend it...)

Do you see the Irony in this yet? Your 'final word' is a halmark of a closed mind.. Don't you find it a little bit hipocritical to preach to me about an 'open mind' if you are not willing to discuss the parameters of what an 'open mind' is? I guess it all goes back to what you said in the beginning, in that one does not have to 'worry about their brains falling out' when it is closed up so tight it isn't able to entertain a challenge.

Interesting direction this thread is taking. Drich is basically now talking Maltheism and that is almost impossible to argue against.

Essentially the whole Christian "loving" religion thing is a misdirection by God that allows him to do whatever the fuck he pleases whilst the religious excuse him and then praise him for it.

God gives a code of rules no-one can follow. He "sacrifices" his son to pay for our failings and we then owe him a debt that can never be repaid. All the while he demands we love him for it.

Its a fucking brilliant setup, Catch 22 has nothing on this one.

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote: 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.

Perhaps you should go learn what logic is Drich. You seem to essentially be rejecting it (which is self-refuting) or completely misunderstanding it. You've already made stupidly ignorant remarks about logical fallacies, so I'm not too surprised to see you doing it to logic in totality as well.

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote:

(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.

Okay, that explains a lot.

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote: Anything be justified and found to be 'moral' if the right propaganda is applied.

This is probably correct to some extent, but again, this wouldn't mean it was moral.

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote: 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.

Here is the recurring and fundamental disagreement I keep seeing. You keep asserting that the 'righteousness' found in the Bible is an absolutely perfect moral yardstick. If this were even remotely true, your argument would be valid. But it isn't even remotely true.

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote: It happened with the Nazis

If lying is always wrong, should you admit to knowing where Jews were hidden?

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote: in US Slavery

Jesus condoned slavery.

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote: Manifest Destiny

Seemed to be a Jewish version of this going on when they killed or enslaved just about everyone in their promised land.

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote: Through movements like the KKK, Hippys

What do you have against hippies?

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote: Acts like Abortion, and even Gay marriage, and the undermining of the Traditional Family.

Appeal to tradition

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote: 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?

Not unless literally everyone was doing it (as in, all Christians waging some sort of violent campaign against gays).

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote: 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..

If more were to come, the government might keep a closer eye on Christian groups, but putting them in camps would be too much. Are they putting American Muslims into camps now?

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote: In truth without absolutes, you will fold whether you can admit it or not.

And with flawed absolutes you have a broken system that can never be fixed.

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote: 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.

Somehow slavery was defeated, despite the Bible being used to justify it. I don't make moral judgments based on popular opinion just because I don't use your particular holy book to do so. Claiming I can't know right from wrong without god is asinine at best, bigoted at worst.

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote:

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..

Because the best plan an omniscient being can come up with is one involving genocide? You have to remember that he saw this stuff coming millennia in advance and could have changed the course of history in any way at any time if he wanted to.

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote: Again if you could kill Hitler as a baby would you?

I think this is more of a "we don't know how that would actually affect history" thing than it is a "is it moral to kill a baby to preven the holocaust".

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote: Now what if there were several races of Hitlers?

I imagine they wouldn't get along well. I don't think Hitler would accept being a follower. But again I'm thinking this through more than you had wanted.

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote: 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?

I don't think it would really matter. You speak of what god supposedly wants, but I ask this: do you think god wants people to stop having abortions? He sure hasn't done anything to stop them. Maybe he doesn't care? Or maybe these fetuses are all going to heaven early and he's happy? With these kinds of things, the best that can be done is speculation.

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote:

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.

A agree that sexualizing young kids is bad, but I don't see a lot of that. This is probably because I don't view the kind of media that would potentially show it (I honestly have no idea how prevalent it is). As for incest, I have no idea what you're talking about.

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote:

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.

Even you should know better than this.

(December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am)Drich Wrote:

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.

How vague. And I notice you haven't actually defined what this "best" is. Is the gay relationship, or the beating people is a gay relationship better? What you have presented is not the standard but the 'justification', that is, how you are supposedly allowed into heaven. Yet this doesn't say anything about what actually is right or wrong, in fact it condones the mob mentality you keep decrying.

I suppose if by 'standard' you meant 'the standard by which people are judged, post Jesus' then it would be correct. But Jesus also noted the importance of the laws. I realize that you say that following the laws is not necessary (as it is impossible), but you can still be saved if you accept Jesus. Yet, you use the laws as a standard by which to judge human morality (not that the Bible isn't technically human morality as well). And I agree with neither the laws (well, not all of them, anyway), nor the idea of an absolute standard for so many specific rules.

Bring your god out that I may examine him. No god, no moral standard.

(November 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Drich Wrote: Which is why It varies from soceity to soceity from generation to generation and from even person to person.

And god to god and religion to religion. Face it, your god's morality is no more objective than the rest.

(November 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Drich Wrote: With in the micro construct of morality itself (if there is no God) I agree. However Because God exists, God determines what true righteousness is.

Wrong - even if god existed. "True righteousness" would require a morality based on objective facts of nature and your god is not required for determining it.

(November 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Drich Wrote: The word/defination of the word would apply as stated in your arguement. I have simply seperated Righteousness and morality as a way to reduce confusion. To show there there is indeed two standards of right and wrong. God's version/Righteousness and man's version 'Morality.' I only assigned 'morality' to Man simply because of how this word is used on this site to defend the actions of Man and to judge God. If it makes you feel any better I am not opposed to switching the words when talking to you.

Why would you need to redefine anything if not to obfuscate the issue? The definitions as they stand work just fine. There are, in fact, many standards of right and wrong, all of them called morality and one of them - supposedly - is dictated by your god. There is no need to switch any words around to explain this simple concept.

(November 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Drich Wrote: How so? What do you believe the defination of sin is?

According to you, it is anything that goes against what you consider to be your god's morality.

(November 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Drich Wrote: Indeed, Man's morality is very pointless.

Do you have issues with reading comprehension? This was a pretty simple sentence. Man's morality is very significant, since it determines one's life on earth. Saying "it is not the same as god's morality" - that's pointless and trivial. Further, unless given any evidence of your god's existence, your so called god's morality is what ends up being pointless.

(November 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Drich Wrote: When I was an Atheist, I used my 'morality' as a judgement day defense strageity. In that if their was a God, and if I were a moral person (If my right doings out weighed my wrongs.) to condemn me to Hell would therefore make God immoral. I hid behind my 'works' as if they actually meant something.

You were an atheist and you believed in crap like judgement day?

And yes, by the standards of human morality, your so called god is immoral - very much so. And there doesn't need to be a judgement day for us to know that.

(November 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Drich Wrote: Nuupe. I like the rest sought 'morality' because I needed a righteousness apart from God. a righteousness I could control so I could justify whatever I wanted to do. A righteousness centered on Self, or rather a Self righteousness. Fore you see, a Self righteousness mixed in with some pride not only allows you to live apart from how God has called for you to live, but it allows demands that you speak against the way God has commanded we live. to the point the we Judge God Himself, against our own self righteousness daring Him to throw a righteous/moral person such as yourself into Hell.

Which is why I keep saying God's Righteousness is not based on the acts man's morality is founded on.

So, basically, because your god said so.

That's the gist of the garbage here.

That's what it boils down to - an imaginary threat. God has dictated that y'all should follow his orders and live like he said or he'll throw you in hell - how dare any of you think for yourself and come up with your own principles to live by?

(November 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Drich Wrote: Which is why He also provided attonement, or do you (and the people you mentined) not know of the New Testament and Christianity?

And that defeats the purpose of having morality in the first place. Irrationality cannot be corrected by more irrationality.

(November 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Drich Wrote: Indeed it is, but only if you wish to live in your own version of righteousness/morality. Because if morality is an ever sliding scale then nothing one can ever do is truly wrong. Death camps, Genocide, Abortion, Manifest Destiny, small pox blankets, etc..

And why would contextual morality be a sliding scale?

(November 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Drich Wrote: Your arguement fails here. A standard does not have to be accepted in order for it to be viable. Here we use inches feet yards and miles to measure distance. It is the standard measure of the united states whether you personally accept it or not. Like wise if you put yourself under God's standard or not It is the standard God will use to judge everyone in this realm.

That still doesn't make it a universal standard - which was my actual argument and which you failed to acknowledge. A standard does have to be accepted in order for it to be viable - the standard of measurement you mentioned is viable precisely because it is accepted.

(November 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Drich Wrote: again only in a perpetual state of self righteousness. As the indivisual 'selves' change, so too does the righteousness.

Unless, ofcourse, that particular morality is based on objective, rational principles.

(November 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Drich Wrote: Again, to point back at hitler. Popular 'morality' Changed to include genocide, which was appearently fine if you were of anglo decent, but what of everyone else? This is the ultimate end of all popular morality. The destruction of all who do not conform to the popular social model currently accepted.

And luckily, the secular morality has moved beyond your god's or Hitler's destructive morality.

(November 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Drich Wrote: Uh, no. What you are saying is God does not measure up to 'my/your' own personal version of Rightouesness/self righteousness.

Uh, no. What I am saying is that god does not measure up to his own personal version of self-righteousness. If I meant otherwise, I'd say it.

(November 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Drich Wrote: Oh, good so you do have book Chapter and verse that sets a standard of Righteousness that dictates How God is suppoed to act? If not what do you mean "By his own standard?"

No more that what Christians like you keep telling me.

(November 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Drich Wrote: Are you so naive to believe that God has to play by our rules?

Let's start with playing by his own rules first.

(November 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Drich Wrote: I am giving you the benfit of the doubt here, but just incase you do believe this, allow me to ask, does everyone in our soceity 'play' by the same rules as everyone else? Or are there people in authority that are not governed by the same laws as the rest of us? Are there people who can open carry firearms? who can run red lights, who can kick down your front door, who can detain you, imprision you, who can force their will on you, who have been given permission to hunt people down? These activities are bann by our laws for the average citizen, and yet there are those who get paid to do these very things to other people.

That's the advantage of having contextual morality over absolute morality. And yes, everyone in society has to play with same rules and operate under the same laws - ideally. And that includes people in authority. Everyone can carry open fire-arms - with proper permits. No one can kick down your door, detain you or imprison you - without just cause. These activities are not banned for average citizens.

(November 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Drich Wrote: At some point there is a division of power. God is the ultimate point of this division of power. His creation, His direction, His Authority, puts Him in a place over us. Just like our goverments and those who police us.

Except, that is not the case with government or police.

That is the difference between a tyranny and a free society. If authority is not bound by the rules they created themselves - as you claim your god to be - then the authority is a hypocrite and you are living in a tyrannical society.

Further, this proves my point regarding your god not following his own morality. It is irrelevant whether or not the government is similarly corrupt - that would not change the fact of your god's corruption.

(November 30, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Drich Wrote: I am giving you the benfit of the doubt here, but just incase you do believe this, allow me to ask, does everyone in our soceity 'play' by the same rules as everyone else? Or are there people in authority that are not governed by the same laws as the rest of us?

Sorry to jump in so late, and doubly-sorry if this was already covered. But it seems as if you are saying that god is above the standards he determines for us and is therefore not restricted by them in the same way that there are people who maintain a personal double-standard of behavior. This brings two thoughts to mind:

1- This implies that god has a double-standard. I am assuming that if I contend that this makes god a hypocrite, you would point out that god is not a lowly human and therefore is automatically above our standards. But...

2- ...the standards being discussed were his standards, not ours. Is god also not held to the standards that he himself prescribes for humans? I think this opens up a can of worms. Putting god on a level where behavior is irrelevant means that he cannot possibly serve as an example for us. When Jesus tells a crowd that they "must be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect," what does that mean?

(December 3, 2013 at 5:09 pm)max-greece Wrote: Interesting direction this thread is taking. Drich is basically now talking Maltheism and that is almost impossible to argue against.

Maybe you should look up that word or Misotheism, they mean the same thing, and i am not argueing for either.

Quote:Essentially the whole Christian "loving" religion thing is a misdirection by God that allows him to do whatever the fuck he pleases whilst the religious excuse him and then praise him for it.

How did you come to this conclusion? How is God's love 'misdirection?'

Quote:God gives a code of rules no-one can follow. He "sacrifices" his son to pay for our failings and we then owe him a debt that can never be repaid.

Yes

Quote:All the while he demands we love him for it.

No. He demands we make a choice as to whether we wish to love him for it or keep our backs turned.

(December 4, 2013 at 11:16 am)Drich Wrote:

Quote:All the while he demands we love him for it.

No. He demands we make a choice as to whether we wish to love him for it or keep our backs turned.

Actually, the only person making demands here is you, Drich. Your god is notoriously silent.