I just wrote "My penis is larger than yours" in this notebook that I have sitting by my keyboard. You can believe my words because I say so and had it written down, or we can pull down our pants and truly measure them side by side to be certain.

Certainty of God's absolute morality cannot be found in a book that promotes his actions due to the fact that there is a clear conflict of interest in doing so. Secular humanism is probably the best example of objective morality that we have right now, so if you want a standard of morality by which to judge the purported actions of your god, I suggest you start there.

What value is there in morals revealed by an alleged authority figure who constantly defies those morals through his own actions?

If god feels that he is above his own morals, then he reveals those morals to be arbitrary and worthless.

(March 3, 2014 at 5:09 pm)Tonus Wrote: So far, this topic is an excellent example of how easy it is to interpret scripture in any number of ways in order to support the view you want it to support.

Well it's obvious that since some skeptics attribute the incident to the God character at all just shows how brainwashed people really are. They claim that there is no celestial deity yet they give him credit for all sorts of acts. They are as fanatical believers as the most brainwashed fundie.

The bears in the story were Elisha's guards, who attacked the taunting kids with all of the fury of enraged sow bears defending their cubs. Modern day examples include Saddam's troops who killed his critics. The writer simply used bears as a way to convey the ferocity of their response.

Hey, do you think the kids received this stage direction?
[Exit, pursued by a bear]
Shakespeare reference! Geek points galore!

(March 4, 2014 at 4:34 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: What value is there in morals revealed by an alleged authority figure who constantly defies those morals through his own actions?

If god feels that he is above his own morals, then he reveals those morals to be arbitrary and worthless.

Jesus claimed that a person should forgive another person 7 times 70. The God character hardly forgave anyone even one time.

Wait.

Don't the idiots claim that jesus = god?

Talk about bi-polar.

Jesus seemed to act like he wasn't Yahweh at times. It's just one of many debatable things.

(March 4, 2014 at 5:40 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Wait.

Don't the idiots claim that jesus = god?

Talk about bi-polar.

Paul gave him a serious identity crises. He thought that he could be all things to all people.

(March 3, 2014 at 6:56 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: ]The excessively effuse verbiage and unnecessarily torturous extension of sentence structure may not have delivered the impression of intellectual capacity and veracity of expressive intention which one may suspect the author desired. The adage that "the medium is the message" is not one which bears close examination, the message is the message and the loquacious and needless obfuscation of a simple concept behind pretentious prose does nothing to distract from the core inadequacy of the argument.

Sometimes people accuse others of pretentiousness when their own pretensions are slighted. Every word was chosen for its meaning. If there is any expression that seems obscure to you, or if you are unused to metaphysical language, then you need only ask for clarification, and it will be provided. Defects of language are acknowledged, but the aim is always clearness and accuracy of expression. If metaphysical language sounds pretentious to you, it is only because you are unused to such language. If you don't like the choice of words then suggest alternative expressions; do not assume that people are motivated by your intellectual vanities.

Quote:The hypothesising of the alternative textual meaning in which the author indulges, even if based in sound hermeneutical principles, does nothing to detract from the moral turpitude of the core precept, that is the wanton and needlessly violent slaying of young people when equally effective and less terminal options were readily available.

Two things can be said to that. The first: to accuse God of cruelty, is like blaming nature for the law of gravity, or accusing a triangle of immorality for having four sides instead of three. It is to reduce something grounded on the ontological level, to the moral and psychological, and thus to make man the measure of reality. Justice is simply in the nature of things. It may seem 'cruel' to the effete sensibilities of late modernity, but justice is a causal operation rooted in the law of equilibrium. To say reality, is to include justice.

The second point is that God is beyond human good and evil: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things" (Isaiah 45:7). God "separated the light from the darkness" (i.e. good from evil). Jesus "came not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"; that is, he came to set good against evil. But the divine substance itself is beyond all dualism. To abolish dualism would be to destroy existence.

Quote: Furthermore the extended meaning which cognitive dissonance demands that he extrapolated to the naked and self evident meaning of the text is inconsistent with the use of language in the passage which clearly states that the youths were mocking elisha, not threatening him.

"Go up" is an idiomatic expression. As such it derives its meaning from its cultural associatioms, not the naked and literal meaning of its constituent elements. This is not a matter of controversy, but the determined atheist is so afraid of finding truth in things that he must confine his understanding to the superficial level. If he reads the Bible, it is to uncover its faults, and one of the ways he does this is by applying a mechanical and ill-intentioned literalism to every passage - even to idiomatic expressions. You should read everthing honestly and with an open heart. Do not be deceived by your own vanities; aim only for the truth, and nothing less.

The true intention of the mob is also revealed by the fact that God destroyed them, since God is justice itself, not merely an agency of justice: to say justness, is to say God. When wrong-doers are destroyed or "punished" by God, it is a symbolic illustration of immanent justice. Reality is just.

Quote:Or we can talk like normal human beings

Take no thought of appearing normal or abnormal in the eyes of man. The vanities of this world mean nothing in the light of truth.

Quote:instead of pretentious pricks who think access to Google thesaurus adds weight to a dodgy argument

The mind is the only thesaurus one ever needs. Let the truth speak and the words will come of themselves. No man can take credit for the truth. As for argument, instead ask questions. The truth can only be found in yourself. Knowledge is the reflection of the Real upon itself, which is act of interiorisation, not argument.

(March 4, 2014 at 2:43 pm)Mr. Moncrieff Wrote: It's moral equivalent of a bullying parent saying, "Because I fucking said so!" after a child asked them why they were just smacked.

It is in man's interest to believe, not God's. If we are commanded to believe in him, it is because faith cultivates an attitude of interiorisation and detachment, which unshackles the mind from the chains of worldly illusion. With this attitude of interiorisation and detachment, man can discover the saving truth within himself. In Judaism, the truth is exteriorised as Divine Law. Jesus interiorised the Law, and gave it to humanity: love thy neibour as thyself, and love God with all thy being. Christianity is the path to inner enlightenment, which has proven its efficacy by two thousand years of religious practice.