The Reasons why "Just Following Jesus" Doesn't work

[Silver]

Thank you for asking.  As the creator, everything has its/their source in/from God. In order to judge God, I would have to be over God in every aspect or Have a knowledge from someone who is over Him. Since I do not I am not in a position in which to judge Him. So, if you don't mind would you help me understand how you come to know what is "good"?  I would then like to tell you how I have come to understand what is "good", so that we then would have together a better foundation onto which we can discuss morality and its implications upon humanity.

Since you have such a high ideal toward judging, I hope that you are of the logical sort that does not judge anyone else and rather leaves the judging to a higher authority.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

The rules of my society don't condone genocide, rape, or slavery, which means that my society causes objectively less harm than the Jews did during Bible times, which makes my society's morality objectively better by a measurable standard (human rights and quality of life).

Based on your world view, that we have been discussing for a while, Why are these things wrong? If I am getting your view point correct. Man is a result of evolution over a long period of time. In some way life came from non-life. Humans are just products of unguided undersigned purposeless chance or evolved single celled organisms. Even if people, as evolved organisms, treat another evolved organism in a way that causes life or death the only value to these actions are a construct of a complex organism's personal value system. Justice or injustice is only constructed by a the evolved organism. If the human organism, as a whole, ever ceases to exist then all it's constructed values will end with it. So on a cosmic level it doesn't matter. The life and death of a single human organism is meaningless and will be forgotten in a few decades even if there is lore attached to that organism.

 
Now in my worldview I have a bases as to say genocide, rape or slavery are wrong because it is based in the creator of all thingswho cherishes His creation. He also protects and is righteously jealous of His people.  In protecting His people, only He would know what was a right and just action (knowing all and perceiving every intention of the heart). Both His protective and jealous actions have also allowed some actions as you stated above to happen to His own people.  But they are always preceded with warnings, and specific instructions on how not to be "wiped of the face of the earth".  I may have failed at completely revealing to you the "Fullness" of God, like how Him just being the creator of all things would allow Him to do whatever He wished at the time, whether it was perceived as good or bad.  I also know that no one can know God without a revelation from Him, and He is generous with His revelations.  I could share some scripture with you as to how God is merciful even in these situations. I think we would create a less contemptuous discussion, and be able to work together at understanding what we both truly believe. 

No. Some view points are aligned with the facts of reality, and some are contrary to them. View points that go against the facts have objectively less merit than view points that agree with them.

Based on your definition of the world not having a purpose or function. So someone's viewpoint is just a human construct, and someone evaluating how closely that view point is to reality, is also a human construct. If so there is not merit to either view; in fact there wouldn't even be a value on which to base "merit" upon.

I know you're not speaking to me here, Rekeisha, but I feel obliged to respond to this.

First, thank you for having moderated your tone and way of speaking toward us. We are not an enemy, just people who disagree and who insist on sticking to testable reality as our basis of forming opinions about things. I had stopped paying attention to this thread in large part because of my disgust over people who think they are personally or morally superior to us, and who won't actually listen to us.

Yes, morality is a human construct. We determine what is good and bad; that's why it varies so much from society to society. Even things like murder, which you'd think would be objectively the same across all societies, turns out to be variably defined. To adopt the biblical version for all mankind, and call it objective, is ludicrous to us because we can see clearly that the values of the Bible are the values of one small tribe of Bronze/Iron-Age tribal sheepherders, and that many of the "values" contained within are reprehensible by modern standards, like genocide and slavery, both of which are affirmed in that book as moral actions, even ones commanded by God. It is clear to all of us that it is really humans claiming to speak for God, not God actually speaking.

So when you tell us that we have "no basis" for moral judgment, to say that one thing is wrong while another is right, you're writing off the entirety of human civilization. We DO make such judgment calls, and we do it all the time, in many different ways. Even the Christians don't base their morals on some "objective" standard, as can be shown clearly by even a casual look at history. In my above example, for instance, the entire US Civil War was fought because Southerners believed that the Bible clearly condoned race-based slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46, as permanent, inheritable servitude for those who were not of your own people. The Southern Baptist Convention exists, today, literally because they split off from the mainline Baptist church over the issue, when northern Baptists started to adopt anti-slavery positions. Now you cannot find a Christian who will defend slavery... their moral values have changed, and for the better.

What is their basis for saying slavery is wrong, then? It's certainly not biblical!

[Redbeard The Pink]

I see angels, heaven and hell as physical places and things. Still thinking about it now, angels may be immaterial. I haven't given much thought to what angels are made of. Still, I was saying that God is not subject to change. Now that I look back at your past post that wasn't what you were speaking about so that is my mistake.  

Noted.

The short answer is Heaven is where God resides and where there can be no evil.

Then I'm gonna need the long answer because that is not a description of a physical place.
 

The long answer is, beyond us. We do not even know the full extent of our own "perceivable reality" so then the idea that "these things don't exist, because we see them not" would be leaving out all that we haven't seen. Also, many people have concluded, there are possibly many other "facets" or "dimensions" that we don't know anything about.  

 

Ah. The long answer is back to argument from ignorance. Thought so.


While there may be dimensions to reality that we don't currently detect or understand, we do have some level of evidence that consciousness of any sort is entirely dependent on the existence of a particular type of matter called brains. If parts of the brain are turned off or destroyed, those parts of the consciousness cease to function properly or at all. Through a singular injury or imbalance, humans can lose the ability to form words, remember faces, retain a sense of identity, or even form new memories at all.


In order to believe that conscious, potent beings could exist in undiscovered dimensions of reality, we'd need to start with at least some evidence that consciousness can exist without brains. As it turns out, all evidence indicates that the phenomenon described as "consciousness" is actually a natural process of brains, so it stands to reason that consciousness is dependent on brains (or at least some form of conventional living matter).


That's not to say that a brainless consciousness does not exist, but until evidence is produced for it there is no reason to believe that one does.

God will create heaven on earth when He judges everyone and brings His kingdom on earth; Hell will be were everyone goes that choose their own way apart from Him.  There then will be two physical places. As for angels I don't know where they are but there are some that are with God, where/how/whenever that might be.

Angels are in the same place Gaud is (storybooks).

Foreknowledge does not mean He makes every decision for you. Knowing that you will sin is the reason that He died on the cross for you. He knew that you needed a savior and made the provision of salvation through Christ for you. Your rejection of that is still your decision. You are not without options.

You're leaving out part of the problem. He isn't just omniscient about everything that will happen; he's also responsible for creating all the agents that make things happen.


I've covered this example in other threads, but since you brought it up I'll summarize it here.


If I build a robot with the foreknowledge that its code can or will one day glitch out and cause it to murder a bunch of humans, then I am responsible when the robot glitches out and kills people, even if I didn't technically design it to do that. Because I knew the glitch could happen and didn't change the code or refrain from building the robot, I assume responsibility for its murderous actions if the glitch activates.


It is the same with Gaud. If Gaud knows everything that will happen as his Universe unfolds, beginning to end, then the only decision is the decision to create the Universe, and the only one with any agency is Gaud; literally everything and everyone else is just the fallout of that one action.


Now, you say that he meant to solve the problem by sacrificing a human version of himself to himself, but there are various problems with that. For one thing, it's a fucking human sacrifice, which is barbaric and immoral. For another, if he's really omniscient and omnipotent, this is the most inefficient way to go about solving the problem of sin. In his knowledge and power, he should have had the option of changing the design of the system before creating it once he foresaw there would be problems with it.

You believe that all people who believe that there is a God or a supernatural element to the world is wrong.  That is a large number of people getting it wrong. (There is also those who are card carrying scientists that either believe in God, or at least acknowledge that there "must" be some "outside" force other than what we can fully understand or know.  Yet I know that these individuals are few, mostly out of self preservation because of the "societal constraints" in today's scientific community.)

 
Here's the problem with that line of logic; regardless of which god you believe in or if you believe in no gods, that still has to mean that a LOT of people have to be wrong for you to be right.


If we just presume that all Christians are right somehow (even though most of the denominations contradict each other's doctrine), that still means that 70-some-odd percent of people are wrong. That's the vast majority.


If Islam happens to be right, that's still 70- to 80-something percent of the globe that's wrong.


Beyond that the numbers get even more extreme. Regardless of who's right on this one, it's a relatively small number of people. As it turns out, the people with the greatest amount of religious and scientific knowledge tend to have higher concentrations of atheism, whereas less educated and/or less intelligent members of the population tend to have higher concentrations of superstition and religiosity. Why do you suppose that is?

I believe that God is the only God, which there are still quite a few who would agree with me.  I may be getting your point wrong, or I may have expressed mine incorrectly earlier, but would you help me understand why is it hard to believe that scientist may have gotten it wrong? We do see in history where a great deal of other people throughout time have consistently gotten this crucial item wrong.

Sure, but as I already mentioned, there are even more people who disagree with you: over 70% of humans, in fact.


Science (unlike religion) is a self-correcting medium. Science is constantly trying to disprove its own findings, and when it does it changes its stance. The whole point of science is to have the most complete and current picture of the truth. If the scientific community has reached a consensus on a body of empirical evidence, that's usually (but not always) a pretty good indicator that what they're saying is well-supported by evidence and reason.


For the Wholly Babble to be true, science would have to be wrong about a LOT of things (not just one). Right now, the generally accepted scientific position on Gaud is that there is no reason to positively believe that any of humanity's gods exist because there is no evidence to show that any of them does exist. None. If even one scrap of evidence ever did surface, science would have to change its position because that's what science does when confronted with actual evidence. The reason science is picky about what gets accepted as evidence and what doesn't is that science (go figure) has found that certain kinds of "evidence" consistently yield shit results when it comes to accurately determining truth. Eyewitness testimony, personal experience, and human perception/memory are rated amongst the lowest possible forms of evidence. Why do you suppose that is?

I understand that how man perceives what God says can be confusing even seeming in opposition to who God truly is.  The issue here, however, is not what God says, but rather how man perceived its implications, and stole some of God's authority when applying it. You see God forbidding some behavior "for no apparent reason, other than personal preference..."  Could you please explain why you see men dressed in women's clothes, wool mixed with linen and God's dietary law as arbitrary?

Nonsense is always confusing, but confusing things are not always nonsense. Your Bible, however, is nonsense.

Based on your world view, that we have been discussing for a while, Why are these things wrong? If I am getting your view point correct. Man is a result of evolution over a long period of time. In some way life came from non-life. Humans are just products of unguided undersigned purposeless chance or evolved single celled organisms. Even if people, as evolved organisms, treat another evolved organism in a way that causes life or death the only value to these actions are a construct of a complex organism's personal value system. Justice or injustice is only constructed by a the evolved organism. If the human organism, as a whole, ever ceases to exist then all it's constructed values will end with it. So on a cosmic level it doesn't matter. The life and death of a single human organism is meaningless and will be forgotten in a few decades even if there is lore attached to that organism.

While morality is always subjective, there are objective "oughts" and "ought nots" depending on what an individual's or a society's goals are. If my goal is to cause minimal suffering in myself and others and produce maximum quality of life in myself and others, then there are things that I objectively should do and things I objectively should not do.


Now, incidentally, I do agree with a lot of what you're saying in this paragraph. It is indeed true that justice and injustice are merely ideas that are constructed by evolved organisms (humans). If we died off, our ideas would presumably die off with us, except in the form of written and/or digital information we might leave behind, which would also likely be finite and difficult to decipher for anyone who found them later. On a cosmic level, once we die, we're gone and we don't matter.


This is the exact and only reason human life is so precious. Our time is a finite resource, and it stands to reason that we should make the most of it while we're here. What does it actually matter what happens on a cosmic scale? We don't have any control over that, and there's nothing we can do about it. What we can do is work to lead positive, fruitful, enjoyable lives that don't infringe on the rights of others.
 

Now in my worldview I have a bases as to say genocide, rape or slavery are wrong because it is based in the creator of all thingswho cherishes His creation. He also protects and is righteously jealous of His people.  In protecting His people, only He would know what was a right and just action (knowing all and perceiving every intention of the heart). Both His protective and jealous actions have also allowed some actions as you stated above to happen to His own people.  But they are always preceded with warnings, and specific instructions on how not to be "wiped of the face of the earth".  I may have failed at completely revealing to you the "Fullness" of God, like how Him just being the creator of all things would allow Him to do whatever He wished at the time, whether it was perceived as good or bad.  I also know that no one can know God without a revelation from Him, and He is generous with His revelations.  I could share some scripture with you as to how God is merciful even in these situations. I think we would create a less contemptuous discussion, and be able to work together at understanding what we both truly believe. 

No, you really don't have any basis to say that genocide, rape, or slavery are universally wrong because your Gaud is supposedly based on the Bible, and the Bible makes no universal admonitions against these things. According to both testaments of the Bible, slavery is a Gaud-sanctioned institute, and both genocide and rape are often sanctioned by Gaud as well (check out the Bible stories of Israel conquering the surrounding nations if you don't believe me). If you're really being biblical, you could at best say that rape and genocide are maybe sometimes wrong and slavery is never wrong, and in fact slaves should obey their earthly masters as they would Christ.


I, on the other hand, might describe those things as being "wrong," but what I generally mean is that they go against my personal goals of minimizing suffering in myself and others and so are objectively counterproductive to my aims.

Based on your definition of the world not having a purpose or function. So someone's viewpoint is just a human construct, and someone evaluating how closely that view point is to reality, is also a human construct. If so there is not merit to either view; in fact there wouldn't even be a value on which to base "merit" upon.

No...you keep leaving out reality. Reality is not a human construct. Reality (in the ways it can be quantified) is an objective norm against which we can judge ideas, perceptions, and assertions.

As you know I don't hold the same view and I hope that  I have not been disrespectful. I know that at times I can seek to push my side and forget that I am speaking to a person. I know You are worthy of respect, even if we disagree with your views, because you are an image bearer of God. I will practice respecting you and everyone.

For all I know, you're a fine human being. What I really lack respect for is the ideology you adhere to.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

Jesus does act better than Yahweh. Which really isn't saying a whole lot. It's like saying guy A is an asshole, but at least he's not a complete psychopath like guy B is. Although you still have people saying guy A is guy B showing his nicer side. Which in the end still isn't all that great.

---

jesus told everyone to love each other and not judge whats wrong with that ?

That damn Jesus wants all of your love.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...;MEV;VOICE

[Rekeisha]

Thank you for asking.  As the creator, everything has its/their source in/from God. In order to judge God, I would have to be over God in every aspect or Have a knowledge from someone who is over Him. Since I do not I am not in a position in which to judge Him. So, if you don't mind would you help me understand how you come to know what is "good"?  I would then like to tell you how I have come to understand what is "good", so that we then would have together a better foundation onto which we can discuss morality and its implications upon humanity.

Since you have such a high ideal toward judging, I hope that you are of the logical sort that does not judge anyone else and rather leaves the judging to a higher authority.

I apologize if my statement seemed as though I disavowed judging, that was not the purpose behind that statement. (My previous statement was more about God's superiority over everything and my inability to judge Him from my position) Judgment is not something that should be done lightly, as you seem to recognize. One thing I don't have the inherent power to condemn anyone. Still, to make a judgment about a person's actions or mine can be done. Even that must be done with caution and experience. Many places in the Bible it tells us to judge correctly. If you condemn someone for something that you yourself do then that is being a hypocrite. Although if you recognize your sin, repent and fix the problem then when you judge someone then you come in humility and not in superiority. When you see someone struggling like you once did then in kindness, patience and love you can correct them. You come at them as person seeking the best for someone else. 

We all make judgments even your signature is a judgement. The question I ask you is what are your motives behind making judgements like your signature and why you trust your judgment. 

( 

[TheRocketSurgeon]

We all make judgments even your signature is a judgement. The question I ask you is what are your motives behind making judgements like your signature and why you trust your judgment. 
 

That is an excellent point, Rekeisha. Why should we trust any judgment is the fundamental question of all skepticism.

Learning how to think, in order to avoid common thinking errors that can easily fool our human brains, is at least as important as learning facts, or what to think about them. 

I recommend to everyone that they read The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark  by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, which goes into a lot of detail about why people believe in silly things like alien abductions and tarot readings, and how to learn to spot flaws in thinking that lead people to such conclusions. The most important chapter is probably "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection", and gives this advice:

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
   
   
2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
   
   
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
   
   
4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
   
   
5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
   
   
6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
   
   
7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
   
   
8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
   
   
9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03...arl-sagan/

[Edwardo Piet]

I just had a random thought, if RedBeard The Pink ever wished to join a Mafia game here on AF - which he is welcome to of course - and the game mod wanted to use his pink font, then he'd have to change his pink font, or they would, or he'd have to not play over wanting to keep his pink font.

Lol, sorry I have random thoughts sometimes

[Rekeisha]

Yes, morality is a human construct. We determine what is good and bad; that's why it varies so much from society to society. 

I will agree with you that there are a variety of moral structures but I don't think that equates to morality being a human construct or subjective. The answer to 2+2 is 4 but there is an infinite amount of answers that would be wrong. Some answers would be closer to but the variety of wrong answers doesn't make the right not exist. All societies are is a group of people living together and what people believe create the rules of a society. It wasn't just people say we need to get along so lets do this, this and this. People have these question that they consciously or unconsciously ask themselves and the answers to these questions shape the society they are now. Who am I, Why am I here, What is wrong with the world and how can that be made right.  From what I have listen to you believe we are evolved. There is no reason we a basically an amazing accident. So our purpose would be to squeeze as much happiness out of our life as possible. If you agree with your friend then there is nothing wrong with the world because it too has not purpose. So you really don't need to do anything about it. So the laws that you would agree with and support would be different then mine. If a woman's unborn baby is inconvenient to her life our will cause her hardship then to kill this child would not be wrong. The baby has no purpose so the mother ending that babies life is not wrong.
 
I answer these questions differently. I believe I am made in the image of God. So the reason I am here it to use my body and life to glorify God. I believe what is wrong with this world is me and everyone else. We are sin filled and rebellious against a good God. So the only solution is that we either are removed from this earth or God give us a new heart. 

To adopt the biblical version for all mankind, and call it objective, is ludicrous to us because we can see clearly that the values of the Bible are the values of one small tribe of Bronze/Iron-Age tribal sheepherders, and that many of the "values" contained within are reprehensible by modern standards

If these values were from man then I would agree with you. There would be no need for use to follow them unless they were good for me and my family but they are not just from man. It doesn't matter how long ago it has been or what avenue God choose to send his word because it is true and relevant to every person. What is amazing about how he conveyed his truth is that he used 66 different books with 40 different writer over the span of 1000 years. When they are all read they are cohesive and consistent. This is a testament to the fact that God was direct each writer to convey his truth.

 
The values of the Israelite nation as outlined in Numbers, Deuteronomy, Leviticus
In these books you will find three types of laws
moral laws-everybody (ten commandments)
civil laws-nation of Israel (dietary and how one should dress)
ceremonial laws- separate as special people and point to the work of Christ (sacrifices and festivals)
 
The moral law is for all people and as it says in Romans 2:14-15 "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them," 
So what are the things of the law that Paul is speaking about
i am just going to look at 5 and show you that most people expect this.
12 “Honor your father and your mother.13 “You shall not murder.14 “You shall not commit adultery.15 “You shall not steal.16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. (don't lie)
 
My I ask you what society in your studies have you found that  do not have a law or a moral standard that says that these should not be prohibited?
 
In your discussion about societies and the varieties  you spoke about slavery being sanctioned in the bible. As I have stated before the bible doesn't sanction the slavery that we saw in America or Europe and even now what we see in the sex trade. So lets talk about slavery.
 
 
How did a the Americans get slaves

• Africans were kidnapped by other Africans and sold to Europeans/Americans for their gain.
  
• they were born into slavery
  
• they were kidnapped as free African Americans and put into slavery
  

How could American Slaves be released

• by the will of the slave master
  
• if they were able to make enough money on the side, which is capped by the slave owner, to purchase their own freedom
  
• changing of the law
  

 
What was the status of American Slaves

• only 3/5 human
  
• chattel (in general use) a personal possession
  
• no rights under American law, so in whatever way the slave owner chooses to treat thier slave they had the right under the law to do so.
  

 
What the bible says about humans
 
How did a they get slaves

• there were a criminal Ex. 22:3
  
• they were destitute or indebt Prov. 22:7 II Kings 4:1 Isa. 50:1
  
• they were prisoner of war Numbers 31:26–27 Deuteronomy 20:10–11
  
• born into slavery Lev. 22:11
  
• foreigner Lev. 25:44–45
  

 
Who could be released

• Hebrew Slaves only served as slaves for 6 years and on the 7th they were released(Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12). Some times slaves didn't want to go so they would get there ears pierced with an awl and become a slave for their entire life. (Ex. 21:5–6; Deut. 15:16–17) Any Hebrew that was sold to a foreigner could be redeemed at once. When he/she is redeemed then he enters into the redeemer's service, which terminates with the jubilee year (Lev. 25:47–54)
  
• Foreigner Alien slaves were not released(Lev. 25:46)
  
• The Debtor, no matter the amount of the debt, must be freed on the first after the year of jubilee (Lev. 25:40). The same is true of a destitute person. In that year the freed slave regains his lands and holdings (Lev. 25:10, 13) and can go back to his/her family and ancestral home (Lev. 25:41).
  
• Female slaves sold into bondage by their fathers go free if their master's sons deny them their matrimonial rights (Ex. 21:11)
  
• Slaves must be released for grievous bodily injury caused to them: the master must let the slave go free "for his eye's sake" or "for his tooth's sake" (Ex. 21:26–27), if either be gouged out or knocked out by him.
  

 
Status of Slaves
.

• Image bearers of God so they should be treated as humans. We are all of equal value no matter race, age, inside or out side of the womb, knowledge, background, sex, clout, physical or mental capacities Gen 1:26
  
• Slaves were members of the master's household, and enjoyed the benefits and are expected to keep the Sabbath (the day of rest) (Ex. 20:10, 23:12; Deut. 5:14–15) and holidays (Deut. 16:11–14, 12:18). They must be circumcised (Gen. 17:12–13); partake of Passover sacrifices when circumcised (Ex. 12:44), unlike those who are just a day wager (Ex. 12:45); and could inherit the master's estate (Gen. 15:3, Prov. 17:2). Although slaves are the master's property (Lev. 22:11, etc.), they may acquire and hold property of their own; a slave who "prospers," i.e., can afford it, may redeem himself (Lev. 25:29; instances of property held by slaves are to be found in II Sam. 9:10; 16:4; 19:18, 30; I Sam. 9:8). If a slave is killed the punishment is in the same as any freeman, even if it was  the master (Ex. 21:20).
  
• In the case of a person who is destitute and sells himself into slavery or a man who is redeemed from bondage to a stranger, no distinction may be made between a slave and a hired laborer (Lev. 25:40, 53). A master may not rule ruthlessly over these slaves (Lev. 25:43, 46, 53) nor ill-treat them (Deut. 23:17); A master may not wound him (Ex. 21:26–27) A fugitive slave must not be turned over to his master but given refuge (Deut. 23:16) The abduction of a person for sale into bondage is put to death and should not expect to be consider one of God's people (Ex. 21:16; Deut. 24:7, 1 Tim 1:10)
  

 
From these facts outlined above, you can see the different definition of "slavery" held by the Bible, and that of those who perpetuated "slavery" during the colonial era. (These people who supported slavery and owned slaves have a hard time by the scriptures to actually claim Christianity. In 1 Tim. 1:10  it explicitly speaks about those who have abducted people to be sold into bondage do not inherit the kingdom of heaven. These people were deceived by their own greed and gain. They attempted to twist the scriptures to satisfy their position and it will not be an excuse for them on the day of judgment.) Here is where we find one divide between Biblical Values, and the understanding of them. For its more than a fact of definition, it is a mind set, it is a reaction, it is "baggage" modern society holds.  Think about it, why do we now stand so firmly upon the idea that slavery (as we can only know it in "modern times") is wrong?  Was it an epiphany so that we could see the evil before us?  Or is it because we knew all along that it was wrong?.
This is one example where the world has allowed truth to be covered up in a lie.  One that has left society wondering "who is man "; "What is Man worth?" Not just our monetary value, but what value do we hold to our existence? We all are willing to say that "slavery is bad, and that holding the life and livelihood of an individual in  debase subjugation is wrong because they are human. On the other hand we find society saying "life is a choice" and if a new life comes in the way of one's own personal goals then lets call them tissue. The mother is the master of her own body and my choose to treat the person in her body as less than human and in any manner she chooses.   The same standards are at work here. The stronger person is taking advantage over the weaker individual. If you say slavery is wrong do you say abortion and the infanticide that is legally happening daily in America is moral acceptable?

[Rekeisha]

Ah. The long answer is back to argument from ignorance. Thought so.


While there may be dimensions to reality that we don't currently detect or understand, we do have some level of evidence that consciousness of any sort is entirely dependent on the existence of a particular type of matter called brains. If parts of the brain are turned off or destroyed, those parts of the consciousness cease to function properly or at all. Through a singular injury or imbalance, humans can lose the ability to form words, remember faces, retain a sense of identity, or even form new memories at all.


In order to believe that conscious, potent beings could exist in undiscovered dimensions of reality, we'd need to start with at least some evidence that consciousness can exist without brains. As it turns out, all evidence indicates that the phenomenon described as "consciousness" is actually a natural process of brains, so it stands to reason that consciousness is dependent on brains (or at least some form of conventional living matter).


That's not to say that a brainless consciousness does not exist, but until evidence is produced for it there is no reason to believe that one does.

There are a few things in your story you that I see are not consistent with what God has done. Some of the reasons why I say this is first off  people are not robots and we have not been programmed to react to things in a certain way. God does control every situation you are in, but He does not control how you will react in that situation. Secondly, free will isn't a glitch but like most things you can use it for good or evil. Thirdly a robot does not have the same worth as a human being. Lastly, God has no equal so there is no one for Him to answer to So, in your story your robot harmed beings that where superior in worth than it was. So as a result in your story the only recourse would be to deactivate the robot and since you have equals they will have a moral obligation to judge you.
 
As I continue to study the bible I find that a closer story about God's actions would be like you making replicating robots that have the capacity to stay uncorrupted or corrupt themselves. You warn them of the dangers of corruptions but they chose to corrupt themselves. So instead of junking the lot of them, which wouldn't be wrong, you made a fix and made it available to your robots. They just have to come to you to upload the patch in order to reset their system to function properly. You watch and control the level of corruption in the robots and you know at a certain time you are going to junk the robots without the fix and then give a major upgrade to the ones that choose the fix. Since you created them and know their purpose and how they should function you aren't wrong. You made them fully aware of your fix and you even put in their code that you were their owner. This isn't a perfect story but there will never be one that can fully depict what God has and is doing.

Now, you say that he meant to solve the problem by sacrificing a human version of himself to himself, but there are various problems with that. For one thing, it's a fucking human sacrifice, which is barbaric

I see that you seem to hate this idea of Humans sacrifice. So I would like to know do you find that is it wrong to abort a baby? Isn't the woman sacrificing her child so that she can live without the burden of this child? Is it wrong to kill yourself if you are sick and this sickness is going to be painful, costly both emotionally and financially? Like the woman who killed herself when she found out she was going to go through a terminal sickness. Another question I have is, why do you have a problem with human sacrifice? 

For another, if he's really omniscient and omnipotent, this is the most inefficient way to go about solving the problem of sin.

My problem with this objection is the God you are describing is the God of the Bible so you would have to accept that Bible is the world of God. So how do you see him as being inefficient? The only way I can see you making this statement is to be God. I say this because you would have to know why humans are here, what our purpose is, what is wrong with the world and the solution to the problem. How can you know what the most efficient way to fix us would be? Not just that but you would have to know every person's mind, what they need and why. As you have said God is omniscient so he knows the best way to do a thing. If He choose not to do it in a way you think is best, there is a reason for that.

In his knowledge and power, he should have had the option of changing the design of the system before creating it once he foresaw there would be problems with it.

Loving people cost and is risky, and allowing people to love you is also risky and costly. This is the way He chose and this is the right way to do it in order to achieve the outcome He is looking for. 

Here's the problem with that line of logic; regardless of which god you believe in or if you believe in no gods, that still has to mean that a LOT of people have to be wrong for you to be right.

When I was answering the last time I didn't answer you correctly. I was trying to show the parallels of our points of view where a lot of people would be wrong. So yes I agree with you here.

science (unlike religion) is a self-correcting medium. Science is constantly trying to disprove its own findings, and when it does it changes its stance.

Science is knowledge and also a practice of collecting knowledge by using the scientific method. I feel like in a way your are personifying it. Religion (and I agree with this definition of religion as

an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods ) and Science are used by people to meet their own goals. Both can be used for noble reasons and selfish reasons. Also science and religion are not the same because one is self correcting and the other isn't. There are a lot of religions that change with the time to fit the culture they are in. I would say they are different because science is collecting knowledge while religion attempts to shows a person what to do with knowledge, the origin of knowledge and what is the right thing and the wrong thing to do. It is not religion that is wrong or science that is right it is that people are wrong or right. Religion isn't what is wrong with the world (I understand you don't believe that there is a problem with the world) because in your worldview there is no God so all religion has to be made up by men. In my worldview God is all good and man is in rebellion. So it is not religion that is wrong rather people are wrong. 

The whole point of science is to have the most complete and current picture of the truth

I have a few question about this statements. How do you know that the brain has evolved enough to be able to fully understand the universe? As you spoke of above many people can get it wrong. How can you trust your thinking? Also just to get to the foundation of things why does truth matter? Truth matters to me because it is the very nature of God, but in a world without purpose or function why does it matter to you? Lastly, do you think that science can explain everything?

For the Wholly Babble to be true, science would have to be wrong about a LOT of things (not just one). Right now, the generally accepted scientific position on Gaud is that there is no reason to positively believe that any of humanity's gods exist because there is no evidence to show that any of them does exist.

Again I would say that science just collects fact and it is people who get it wrong. Also I would find it hard to disprove God with science. I think the only way you can do science is because there is a God who is keeping everything together and keeping things consistent and predictable. This is no me trying to be snarky but in your worldview without purpose or function I don't see how you could trust that thing will always be the same. Just because it has always happened in the past doesn't mean it always will. Not just that but we are able to interpret the universe. So the question is why? Why are our brains able to take in information from what we observed and then draw conclusion and why does everything stay in order? Not how but why?

Eyewitness testimony, personal experience, and human perception/memory are rated amongst the lowest possible forms of evidence. Why do you suppose that is?

Don't we value scientist's personal experience, eyewitness testimony and perception/memory of a certain experiment ending in a certain way. Everything that we go through is our personal experience. In my worldview I can get revelation from God and if a person's personal experience lines up with the word of God it can be trusted. In your worldview there is no God so you must rely upon a person's testimony and their/ your personal experience. If you are lucky you get to receive an eye witness testimony but mostly you receive it from a filtered source. Now there will be others who are willing to test a scientist's theory but then we would have to trust them on the same grounds. See it is when a large number of people testify to the same thing that an event becomes creditable.

 

1 Corinthians 15 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

 
The bible isn't just a collection of unconnected documents or even for one person. It is a reliable collection of historical documents. There have been over 23,00 archeological dig based on these documents and none have the dig have refuted the bible. They are written by eyewitnesses or from eyewitness account. Just looking at the new testament, these accounts were written during the life time of eye witnesses (not just a few but at least 300 concerning 1 Corinthians). There are 5,600 manuscripts, that include at the least portions of the new testament and the earliest being 120 A.D., 2 decades from the originals. We have less than 12 copies of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, which is the only way we know anything about Julius Caesar (which are written 1000 years after the originals). As for Aristotle's Poetics we have less than 10 copies these documents, which tell us what we know about him (having been written 1400 years after the originals). We have no surviving writings of Socrates only those which were written by Plato. The Bible is the most preserved ancient document that we have. It is full of dates names and places with a consistency between new testament documents being 99.5%. If you can't trust the new testament you can't trust a great number of ancient writings. 

Nonsense is always confusing, but confusing things are not always nonsense. Your Bible, however, is nonsense.

Could you please explain why you see men dressed in women's clothes, wool mixed with linen and God's dietary law as arbitrary?

While morality is always subjective, there are objective "oughts" and "ought nots" depending on what an individual's or a society's goals are.  

I don't understand. Would you please explain how this is possible?

If my goal is to cause minimal suffering in myself and others and produce maximum quality of life in myself and others, then there are things that I objectively should do and things I objectively should not do.

How do you define suffering and how do you measure what will produce a quality life?

On a cosmic level, once we die, we're gone and we don't matter.

This is the exact and only reason human life is so precious. Our time is a finite resource, and it stands to reason that we should make the most of it while we're here.

Why does a thing being finite give it worth isn't everything, based on your worldview, finite in the universe? 

We don't have any control over that, and there's nothing we can do about it. What we can do is work to lead positive, fruitful, enjoyable lives that don't infringe on the rights of others.

What is a positive an fruitful life to you? 

[Redbeard The Pink]

There are a few things in your story you that I see are not consistent with what God has done. Some of the reasons why I say this is first off  people are not robots and we have not been programmed to react to things in a certain way. God does control every situation you are in, but He does not control how you will react in that situation. Secondly, free will isn't a glitch but like most things you can use it for good or evil. Thirdly a robot does not have the same worth as a human being. Lastly, God has no equal so there is no one for Him to answer to So, in your story your robot harmed beings that where superior in worth than it was. So as a result in your story the only recourse would be to deactivate the robot and since you have equals they will have a moral obligation to judge you.
 
As I continue to study the bible I find that a closer story about God's actions would be like you making replicating robots that have the capacity to stay uncorrupted or corrupt themselves. You warn them of the dangers of corruptions but they chose to corrupt themselves. So instead of junking the lot of them, which wouldn't be wrong, you made a fix and made it available to your robots. They just have to come to you to upload the patch in order to reset their system to function properly. You watch and control the level of corruption in the robots and you know at a certain time you are going to junk the robots without the fix and then give a major upgrade to the ones that choose the fix. Since you created them and know their purpose and how they should function you aren't wrong. You made them fully aware of your fix and you even put in their code that you were their owner. This isn't a perfect story but there will never be one that can fully depict what God has and is doing.

The robot thing is a fictional construct I put together as an analogy to illustrate the fact that if Gaud is omniscient, his act of creating the Universe precludes any other being in the Universe from responsibility for its actions. Naturally, you took the analogy entirely too literally and have missed the point by a mile (unsurprising, considering you believe the Bible). If we replace the robot with a live thing (say, a genetically engineered animal or even a sentient being, for example), the principle is the same; if I knew in advance my creation would do X, and I do nothing to the design and create the animal anyway, then I am responsible and have no right to be surprised or angry when my creation does X, and I certainly have no right to punish it, even if I'm the supreme ruler of the Universe.

I see that you seem to hate this idea of Humans sacrifice. So I would like to know do you find that is it wrong to abort a baby? Isn't the woman sacrificing her child so that she can live without the burden of this child? Is it wrong to kill yourself if you are sick and this sickness is going to be painful, costly both emotionally and financially? Like the woman who killed herself when she found out she was going to go through a terminal sickness. Another question I have is, why do you have a problem with human sacrifice? 

If you're against abortion, how can you support the Bible? Haven't you read Numbers? If your wife becomes pregnant, and you think the baby might not be yours, you're supposed to have the priest make a potion by soaking scripture/prayer scrolls and some other shit in water. You give the wife the potion, and if the baby isn't yours, then Gaud himself will smite the child in her womb, aborting the baby and causing the wife to become horrendously, vomitously sick (usually resulting in her death).


Haven't you read the story of David and Bathsheba? Gaud punishes David for killing Uriah the Hittite and stealing his wife by killing the first baby David and Bathsheba made together.


There's also all those times that he commands the Israelites to do things like dash and rend their enemies' babies on the stones of the ground.


The point is, if you're offended by abortion and/or the killing of babies, Jehovah is not your friend, and the Bible should horrify you.


To answer your questions, I think abortion is unfortunate, but I also think that extant human life is more valuable than impending human life at virtually any stage. I support medically necessary abortions, and I support a woman's right to choose voluntary, non-essential abortion if that's what she wants. The overwhelming majority of non-essential abortions are performed in the first trimester, when the organism is still a zygote and contains systems no more complex than those found in a prawn. Medically essential abortions are usually performed to save lives. I see nothing immoral about either circumstance. I don't think a zygote or a fetus should have any rights to speak of, and I certainly don't think they should have rights that interfere with or super-cede the rights of actual humans.


Religious human sacrifice is wrong because it's murder, and because gods don't exist, making it totally pointless. There is nothing moral about the pointless slaughter of humans or animals. Nothing.

My problem with this objection is the God you are describing is the God of the Bible so you would have to accept that Bible is the world of God. So how do you see him as being inefficient? The only way I can see you making this statement is to be God. I say this because you would have to know why humans are here, what our purpose is, what is wrong with the world and the solution to the problem. How can you know what the most efficient way to fix us would be? Not just that but you would have to know every person's mind, what they need and why. As you have said God is omniscient so he knows the best way to do a thing. If He choose not to do it in a way you think is best, there is a reason for that.

It's inefficient because it just is, kid. I really don't know how to make this more plain to you. You claim omnipotence and omniscience for your deity. That means he had the power to make reality any way he wanted, he knew in advance that the current design would result in massive amounts of sin, and yet he still went with that design without changing anything about it. Instead of patching things together after the fact with all this blood and death, he supposedly had the power and knowledge to adjust the design at the outset so those things wouldn't happen. What about the sacrifice system is more efficient than adjusting the design prior to beginning to create anything?

Loving people cost and is risky, and allowing people to love you is also risky and costly. This is the way He chose and this is the right way to do it in order to achieve the outcome He is looking for. 

If you already know the outcome of everything, risk is not a thing. If you already know what will happen, then you already know the result of any "risk" you could take. Part of what makes something a "risk" is not knowing what will happen, so omniscience makes it impossible to assume any risk. Gaud already knows the outcome of all his decisions, which means if he makes a decision and gets an outcome that angers him, it's because he wanted to be angry. Otherwise he would have made another choice.

Science is knowledge and also a practice of collecting knowledge by using the scientific method. I feel like in a way your are personifying it. Religion (and I agree with this definition of religion as an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods ) and Science are used by people to meet their own goals. Both can be used for noble reasons and selfish reasons. Also science and religion are not the same because one is self correcting and the other isn't. There are a lot of religions that change with the time to fit the culture they are in. I would say they are different because science is collecting knowledge while religion attempts to shows a person what to do with knowledge, the origin of knowledge and what is the right thing and the wrong thing to do. It is not religion that is wrong or science that is right it is that people are wrong or right. Religion isn't what is wrong with the world (I understand you don't believe that there is a problem with the world) because in your worldview there is no God so all religion has to be made up by men. In my worldview God is all good and man is in rebellion. So it is not religion that is wrong rather people are wrong. 

Science is and always has been a human invention for meeting human goals, and in that regard it actually does a much better job than religion. Longer lives, healthier bodies, healing from sickness and injury, the secrets to the origins of life and the Universe...science has routinely delivered on the failures of religion. Why do you suppose that is?

I have a few question about this statements. How do you know that the brain has evolved enough to be able to fully understand the universe? As you spoke of above many people can get it wrong. How can you trust your thinking? Also just to get to the foundation of things why does truth matter? Truth matters to me because it is the very nature of God, but in a world without purpose or function why does it matter to you? Lastly, do you think that science can explain everything?

Again I would say that science just collects fact and it is people who get it wrong. Also I would find it hard to disprove God with science. I think the only way you can do science is because there is a God who is keeping everything together and keeping things consistent and predictable. This is no me trying to be snarky but in your worldview without purpose or function I don't see how you could trust that thing will always be the same. Just because it has always happened in the past doesn't mean it always will. Not just that but we are able to interpret the universe. So the question is why? Why are our brains able to take in information from what we observed and then draw conclusion and why does everything stay in order? Not how but why?

You would also find it hard to disprove Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny with science, but you don't believe in those things, do you?


Furthermore, your assertion does not follow. There is no reason to believe the laws of physics would fluctuate all the time with no Gaud to govern them, and the presence of a Gaud wouldn't make it any more or less likely for those laws to stay the same. In fact, it seems more likely that they would change if someone were around to change them and less likely that they would change if there were nothing overseeing them.

Don't we value scientist's personal experience, eyewitness testimony and perception/memory of a certain experiment ending in a certain way. Everything that we go through is our personal experience. In my worldview I can get revelation from God and if a person's personal experience lines up with the word of God it can be trusted. In your worldview there is no God so you must rely upon a person's testimony and their/ your personal experience. If you are lucky you get to receive an eye witness testimony but mostly you receive it from a filtered source. Now there will be others who are willing to test a scientist's theory but then we would have to trust them on the same grounds. See it is when a large number of people testify to the same thing that an event becomes creditable.

 
No. We value on the evidence they collect. Personal testimony is practically worthless to science. We value the conclusions of science because they are testable and repeatable by different people with different opinions, and the observed result will still be the same.


Now, compare that with Gaud, where everyone can be looking at the same book and the same world and still come to vastly different conclusions about what Gaud wants, what he approves of, and who he likes or doesn't like. The fact that nobody can agree what they're looking at when it comes to Gaud is a pretty good indicator that Gaud is not as reliable as science (due to the whole not existing thing).
 

The bible isn't just a collection of unconnected documents or even for one person. It is a reliable collection of historical documents. There have been over 23,00 archeological dig based on these documents and none have the dig have refuted the bible. They are written by eyewitnesses or from eyewitness account. Just looking at the new testament, these accounts were written during the life time of eye witnesses (not just a few but at least 300 concerning 1 Corinthians). There are 5,600 manuscripts, that include at the least portions of the new testament and the earliest being 120 A.D., 2 decades from the originals. We have less than 12 copies of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, which is the only way we know anything about Julius Caesar (which are written 1000 years after the originals). As for Aristotle's Poetics we have less than 10 copies these documents, which tell us what we know about him (having been written 1400 years after the originals). We have no surviving writings of Socrates only those which were written by Plato. The Bible is the most preserved ancient document that we have. It is full of dates names and places with a consistency between new testament documents being 99.5%. If you can't trust the new testament you can't trust a great number of ancient writings. 

The Bible is not a collection of historical documents. It's a compilation of folklore, peppered with historical fiction. Also, there is virtually no archaeological evidence to support anything the Bible says. Archaeology tells us that the Flood didn't happen, the Jewish Enslavement and the Exodus from Egypt didn't happen, and that the town of Nazareth probably didn't even exist until Jesus would have been gone already.


I've heard that line of Josh McDowell apologetics from McDowell himself. The number of copies and all that crap is NOT an indicator of how historically accurate a document is. Nice try. What that measures is how similar the document is to the original versions of the text. Even if you have enough copies to prove that the story you have now is remarkably similar to the story they had then, that still doesn't prove the story is historical. It could still be fiction (really prolific, well-copied fiction).

Could you please explain why you see men dressed in women's clothes, wool mixed with linen and God's dietary law as arbitrary?

Arbitrary: based on random chance or personal whim rather than any reason or system; (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.


Because Gaud is unrestrained and autocratic in the making of his rules, and because his rules stem primarily from his personal whim without any reason or system, Gaud's laws are arbitrary. I don't know how much more plain I can make that.

While morality is always subjective, there are objective "oughts" and "ought nots" depending on what an individual's or a society's goals are.  

I don't understand. Would you please explain how this is possible?

I already explained that. Even though morality is subjective and there's no standard on what my goals should be, if I have goals then certain actions will objectively move me toward those goals and others will move me objectively away from it. If my goal is to make others happy, there are things I should and shouldn't do if I actually want to reach that goal. If I want to gain more power for myself, there are things I objectively should and shouldn't do.

If my goal is to cause minimal suffering in myself and others and produce maximum quality of life in myself and others, then there are things that I objectively should do and things I objectively should not do.

How do you define suffering and how do you measure what will produce a quality life?

I define suffering the same way most humans do: suffering is the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship. Really, though, I don't know why I'm being nice enough to define my terms for you, when your only standard for reality is the Bible.

Why does a thing being finite give it worth isn't everything, based on your worldview, finite in the universe? 

Ummm...what?

What is a positive an fruitful life to you? 

To me? One in which I succeed at my aforementioned goals.