The "Cultural Context" Excuse

[Thumpalumpacus]

(underlining mine -- I think you're arguing from a personal theology here.  It isn't clear to me that the God of Christianity has this right except by interpretation.)

Nowhere in the bible is there a rational defense of God having the right to do what he wants.  The closest you get is Job.  The clay / potter analogy is a lousy analogy.  Clay isn't an autonomous being so the analogy doesn't address relevant moral points.  It would be a closer analogy to say that a parent doesn't have to ask the son or daughter for permission; they can treat them however they like.  And this analogy points up the flaw in the argument that God "has the right" to do whatever he wants, because no parent has cart blanche to do what they want to their children regardless of age.   Where did he acquire this right?  How are you defining a 'right'?  These are valid questions which you're just sweeping under the rug with an analogy and some bare assertions.  How do you know God has this right?

Following is the clearest statement among many that declare this:

Psalm 115:3New International Version (NIV)

3 Our God is in heaven;
   he does whatever pleases him.

This verse refers to his right to do so:

Romans 9:21New International Version (NIV)

21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

God has existed infinitely.  There was no one else to give him his rights.  He is the creator of all things.

Revelation 22:13New International Version (NIV)

13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

This is the God of christianity.  You may disagree with what the bible says, but if you are discussing the God of the bible, this is part of how he is defined. In this case, it is a valid point for me to say that God has the right the right to do what he wants.  It is clearly one of his attributes.  It is a facet of who God is.

Simply because you buy that load of horseshit doesn't mean that speaking in such terms regarding morality is apt. You've yet to address the fact which I brought up earlier that most Christians regard your god as the author of objective morality, and yet here you are definitely basing your argument here on subjective morality.

If morality is objective, the your god must abide by it too.

If there are different moral codes based on who you are, then morality is not objective.

You cannot have it both ways ... which is clearly what you're trying to do here.

[robvalue]

I'm surprised how willing some people are to accept a single tyrant accountable to no one.

Yahweh might be given the right by other gods to do whatever he wants with this reality. That doesn't mean humans have given him the same right. Rights are granted, not taken, and can't be granted by one's self. Nor are they inherent, it doesn't even make any sense.

[Nihilist Virus]

If I successfully created a sentient being capable of experiencing joy and pain, I think it only follows that I should hide my existence from it and indirectly express my desire to torture it endlessly if it does not accept certain propositions which I could make plainly known if only I had the desire.

[Excited Penguin]

I'm surprised how willing some people are to accept a single tyrant accountable to no one.

Yahweh might be given the right by other gods to do whatever he wants with this reality. That doesn't mean humans have given him the same right. Rights are granted, not taken, and can't be granted by one's self. Nor are they inherent, it doesn't even make any sense.

What do you mean rights aren't taken? Of course they are. That's literally how everyone got their rights a couple centuries ago, because of violent revolutions to shake the old system's foundations. You could say Napoleon had a hand in it, but it was such a multifaceted historical event that you can't attribute it to any one person or group of people and you certainly can't say they were granted by anyone in particular. People care for their rights now. You go ahead and try and take some of them away from them for no good reason at all and see how it goes.

I do agree they aren't inherent though, nor are they "self-evident" as some ridiculous notions would have it. Rights are definitely not natural. They are the outcomes of a particular system of living we came up with historically, is all. Rights might change dramatically in nature and scope in the future, even though some presumably will always stay the same, like the most basic ones everyone needs. But that still doesn't make them anything but an enforced human creation, a particular philosophy forcefully shoved down people's throats. And this ties back to what I've said again and again in the past, laws protect our rights and laws, in their turn, are part of an enforced morality of the society focusing on the individual and the lesser group. It is the only form of "objective" morality there is. Inb4, stupid remarks again, that makes it neither the only available morality, nor the only possible one, nor does it make it the best possible one. But it is objective since everyone has to abide by it.

[Huggy Bear]

(underlining mine -- I think you're arguing from a personal theology here.  It isn't clear to me that the God of Christianity has this right except by interpretation.)

Nowhere in the bible is there a rational defense of God having the right to do what he wants.  The closest you get is Job.  The clay / potter analogy is a lousy analogy.  Clay isn't an autonomous being so the analogy doesn't address relevant moral points.  It would be a closer analogy to say that a parent doesn't have to ask the son or daughter for permission; they can treat them however they like. And this analogy points up the flaw in the argument that God "has the right" to do whatever he wants, because no parent has cart blanche to do what they want to their children regardless of age.   Where did he acquire this right?  How are you defining a 'right'?  These are valid questions which you're just sweeping under the rug with an analogy and some bare assertions.  How do you know God has this right?

*emphasis mine*

And herein lies the hypocrisy. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you are pro choice. In being pro choice you agree with giving women carte blanche to terminate a life simply because "it's her body", yet when someone says that God has supreme authority over his creation, THAT is somehow evil...

So which is it?

[LadyForCamus]

It's not a red herring if you consider nation states like ISIS. It is true individuals when given the chance would set the world ablaze and watch it burn... but the same is true with nations. take a step back if you can acknoweledge this and apply it to nations like Nazi germany, Or the Islamic STATE.

And I wonder why it is that nation states like ISIS are happy to set the world ablaze, Drich? Might it have something to do with religious extremism? Might it have something to do with blindly following the instructions of a thousand-year-old book that oppresses those who don't fall into the "IN" crowd, and insists people die and kill for their God like mindless drones? 'Do as I say and don't think too much about it.' Boy, that sounds familiar, doesn't it? But the hypocrisy in your implication is that killing and subjugation in the name of Allah makes people "murderous monsters," but killing and subjugation in the name of Yahweh is righteous, because that's just the way it is. Cuz God says so. Of course people like you -I mean- "them" must be stopped.

Not all 'men are crated equal.' Do you really think you can take an entire race of people living in a 'modern' bronze age and fast forward them to the line of thought and thinkng, a philosphy that took literally thousands of years to develop from the time these people are currently living in?

Okay, so you admit that some degree of idealistic moral evolution is necessary for humans to minimize violence against each other, and co-exist at least semi-peacefully with one another. Good. I'm going to remember that for later in your response when you contradict yourself in order to justify yahweh's violent and murderous temperament.

So if the answer is no, (and it is) and these people are hell bent on killing everyone like you, or enslaving you, I want you to honestly take the time and give me 5 no 3 realistic alternatives that is consistent with your every life is precious and everyone deserves to be free mentality, and list out how to deal with these murderous monsters.

Any "free" person can forfeit their right to live freely; that is why most civilized societies have laws and legal punishments in place to protect people. That's why most civilized societies have some sense of cultural, moral goals which serve to protect the innocent, and minimize violence. That doesn't mean we aren't all born as beings with an inherent right to the opportunity for autonomous life. Some people toss that right away themselves. Others are born into cultures where they, sadly, were never afforded that right to begin with, but doesn't mean they never deserved it in the first place. Thanks for pitching straw at me, though. I mean, are you seriously implying that I think terrorists should roam the earth free? Are you seriously asking me to put forth my ultimate strategy for solving world-wide terrorism? You grossly oversimplify a deeply complex issue so that you can turn around and tell people they're naive for caring about human rights. In other words, you're being willfully manipulative in order to detract from my point. But you know that already. [emoji6]

But you are only talking about how the US views or see people. God never said all people were equal. He said we all have roles to play and each one is different. The self absorbed are the ones who put value on said roles thus mandating a need for the sense of equality. or the elimination of said roles.

Here it is again. It's okay to use violence and subjugation to keep people in their place, so long as it's in the name of Yahweh and not any other God. Any non-Christian behaving in the exact same way is a murderous monster living in a "modern Bronze Age" that hasn't caught up yet. There's that contradiction I have been waiting for. Oh, the cognitive dissonance is palpable! [emoji57]

Don't own people. That's crap, and if you were honest you could admit to that... Or would you allow you child to go with someone who promised them a trip to disney world? Your authority to deny your child's decision to go with a stranger to 'disney' COMES from a place of ownership even if you do not like that word. It is ok to own our children even if it is not ok to phrase it that way. So then what other forms of 'ownership' are accepting of minus the phrasing?

Wow. I mean, wow. Conflating parenthood with being a slave owner? Did you honestly think that was sneaky, Drich? So, either your arguing dishonestly, or you actually view your children as your slaves, which is wholly terrifying. Yes...parents have full authority over their children because, ya know, their CHILDREN, and not physically or developmentally capable of keeping themselves...ya know...alive. [emoji849]

If you want to speak on a national level I'd say the government 'owns' those on government assistance. Is that not ok? Vote for this party and we will give you more/we will include you in our giveaways.. Or vote for the other party and they will take away your health care, and send you back to your own country... Do what we say or we will cut your livelihood.. That is ownership, if you roll in government housing, now there is nothing the individual cant be made to do, less he is willing to be clad in chains and raped in prison.

More poorly disguised conflation and oversimplification of complex sociopolitical issues entirely separate from points being made in the OP about the nature your all-powerful God. (Just to play along though: I'm pregnant and my husband works for himself. Because of this, I qualify for Medicaid, and he qualifies for a pretty significant tax break on his health insurance. Without it, our premiums would be almost undoable. You're right! That is EXACTLY like being an African American slave in the south! Wow. I never knew the slaves and I had so much in common! Thanks for pointing that out to me, Drich! I shall find this new shared experience quite useful going forward. [emoji57])

You seem awfully desperate to water down human beings so that they will fit into your binary world view. I suppose that's easier than considering you might be wrong about something, eh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o70G8oZBkHU

What people like you fail to understand is there is the philosophy in which you live, then there is the rest of the world. THE VAST Majority of the rest of the world does not hold to your hippy system of values. Because of this they have to be met on equal terms. If you hide your war efforts behind women and children they become targets. simple as that.

This scene depicted an actual event according to chris kyle in his book. That happened just a few years ago. Meaning women and children are currently being used to fight us. Now imagine an unrefined (no allah to put the brakes on the few times he does) That is what the Jews faced 4000 years ago, but not across an ocean, but just miles down the road. (A more savage version of the people we are currently facing, and a whole heck of a lot closer) So then why would they be commanded to hold to your current standard of douche bag hippy morality when the country you live in today does not?

Yes, I saw the movie. And I'll give you this one by saying that in situations like the scene depicted above, I do believe Kyle's actions were necessary in that moment. But, you've taken it out of the context of the rest of the movie which focused heavily on how deeply disturbed Kyle became after having to repeatedly commit such horrific acts of violence. Just because it had to happen doesn't make it not fucked up. Things get truly scary when people (like you) stop feeling disturbed by it, or accept it as the status quo.

Again women, like men played a role

Lol. Yeah, women were dealt the Role of the Used and Abused, and we should just accept these various role cards God dealt us, right? I bet you feel pretty comfortable proselytizing on that, being a MAN and all. [emoji849]

What you failed again to understand in that culture a wife had far more control over the man and the house hold than you seem to give credit to. Telling a man who wanted 'free sex/rape' that he was going to have to marry/buy/pay or be enslaved or sold into slavery to pay for a woman he wanted a few mins of fun with was the ultimate deterrent. nothing like paying with 7 years of your life for something you only got to use once maybe for a few mins.. You kinda missed the whole point of that law.

Um, no. YOU miss the point that the law fails to acknowledge the woman as a victim, because she is not considered a full person in the eyes of your god's moral law. The law punishes the rapist for victimizing the woman's father by corrupting his merchandise. In what twisted way do you see a woman as being "in control" when she is forced to live with the man who raped her, and most likely will continue to be raped for the rest of her life? I mean...what?! It's okay though, God dealt you the good role, and if He says it's totally morally cool, why should you care?

"Never kill children as punishment for anything." That's just stupid. What if you Really don't want them right now? what if you are planning to be a doctor and only have one more year and then.. but instead you got pregnant.. which would ruin your life plan?!?!? I guess it's ok then huh?? Just not when they threaten a society's way of life.

Oh, I think you forgot one: Testing the faithfulness of your wife, right? That one came from YOUR book, remember? [emoji45] Because, better for an unborn baby to die than for a precious man's pride to suffer wondering if he's been cuckolded by his shrew of a wife. Also, you have no idea where I personally stand on abortion, but thanks for broad brushing me into your "hippy douchebag" stereotype. Appreciate it.

Maybe go back a little further in your reading.. The land belonged to Abraham and his son Isaac and g-son Jacob and his families first.

Well, no, it didn't belong to them at all in that they did not possess or even earn it. God, like the bullying tyrant he is, just said, 'I like you guys best so I'm giving it you no matter what it takes or how many people who already live there have to die.' It was completely ARBITRARY. I mean, God in all his omniscience must have foreseen that other people would be inhabiting these lands, but rather than teach his people how to fucking share, or blink into existence a new piece of special land they could have, he just went ahead and told them to slaughter everyone and take it for themselves. But that's okay with you because...it's Yahweh, and Yahweh is the REAL God, and what he says goes!

IF you are not currently standing against society now, that means you have been conditioned/indoctrinated to accept society warts and all, which potentially means you being a lemming can be programmed to accept anything if the training starts when your did.

So...if I'm not a tireless activist against everything that bothers me about my modern society, than I'm a mindless, programmable robot? Um, holy false dichotomy, lol.

then if you were born in 1920's Germany you would be marching jews into ovens if directed to do so. It does not take an evil person to do that, it just takes someone willing to believe they are the 'good guy' while they are doing it. That is the core message of my last big morality thread. Without God being a foundation point of out 'morality' we are subject to society's whims or wishes of society, and again if you do not buck the current system (because their is indeed much evil in it) you would not buck Hitler's Germany if you were brought up under that system of propaganda and indoctrination.

Maybe I would have marched Jews into the oven; society is a powerful force. But maybe not. You need to make up your mind about which choice in your false dichotomy you think is correct. Are ALL people brainwashed by society and hence incapable of bucking the system, or can some people think for themselves and fight back? It can't be both, according to you, so which is it?

But more to my original point: if we are to be taking lessons from your bible, why didn't we just leave nazi Germany alone? The major theme throughout the entire OT is, "we are the elite, best people of ALL the people, and all the lessers are getting taken down one way or the other." Not a whole lot different from Hitler's world view, is it? And while we're at it, considering god's laxidasical feelings toward slavery, why did the US even bother with that pesky civil war? I mean, if you want to talk about your "pop morality," I guess we moved in a wrong and unrighteous direction by abolishing slavery in the U.S., yeah?

All of these atrocities fall perfectly well within your God's moral compass, so why the hell do people fight back, Drich?

But again without God how do we know what is good? AND if you mind is not blown yet, ask yourself if God IS good and you see Him as evil, then is it God who is really evil? Why? because pop morality/hippy douche bag moral logic says so? God is/was also evil to the real woman and boy Chris Kyle had to shoot to save those marines. Meaning are you currently living a 'moral code' that makes you a 'good guy' like the nazi jew/death chamber gaurds were 'good guys?'

This is so twisted I don't even know where to begin. Why do you assume that I'd ever categorize having to kill people in warfare as a "good" thing? What is it with you objectifying and caricaturing human beings (I wonder where you got that from? Oh yeah, the Israelites were a pretty good example of a one-dimensional hive mind) so that you can shove us all to one or the other side of your binary worldview?Because, it's the only way you can make your oversimplified argument work.

Unfortunately, it's not an accurate depiction of humans, or the world. Despite your twisted perspective, people are capable of thinking for themselves. People are capable of reeling against violent, oppressive, tyrannical cultures including your precious yahweh's. But the long and short of it is that your good god could have prevented it ALL, being omnipotent/omniscient. But...nah. Where's the fun in that, right? [emoji6]

A 1. Geese how does a guy expect to be married if not for raping the woman you've been stalking, and then as I'm sure you would imagine, if she had to be raped the first time.. (It's not like I get better looking with age.)

I'm going to assume by the sarcasm your answer is no. Why not? Don't give me more cultural conditioning BS, because up until the 70's 'martial privilege' was considered a legitimate legal defense against rape accusations. And since your God obviously wouldn't give a crap about it...why should you? Dare I suggest evolutionarily driven feelings of empathy toward another human being that were neither arbitrarily commanded to you by Yahweh nor the result of societal brainwashing? Something smack-dab in the middle of your false dichotomy, perhaps?

A 2. again it would depend on soceity I like you (because there would be no hang up here with God) would follow societal rules.

Not everyone blindly follows societal rules; some people fight against them as you said yourself. Can you pick a position and stick with it?

Oh, and it depends on the car. I know not every girl will bring a porche or BMW M7, but dude better not show up with a broken down dump truck.

Did you even bother to consider the scenario, or are you going to avoid answering honestly by tossing snark back at me? No biological, paternal instinct to protect your young and vulnerable female offspring, and no God who gives a crap either, huh? Boy, your kids are lucky they live in the 21st century.

Again it depends on soceity. if no then no. if yes, I'd probably beat them if grounding/time out did not work first.

Again, your false dichotomy fails. Not everyone blindly owned and beat slaves, otherwise nothing would have ever changed in this country. People fought back, and it was certainly NOT in the name of yaweh's morals considering his casual sanctioning of human ownership. So, where do those people fit into your binary world view?

Well here there's the whole "thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house wife or 'back yard.' however I am now and shall ever be willing to vote in someone willing to fight/take land for cheap oil. oh, and democracy or whatever it is we are selling. (unless the majority are IS Muslims.)

Except that God didn't throw that little gem of a commandment in until AFTER the Jews took everything that lay in front of them. How convenient, eh? We'll call coveting and stealing "wrong" once we get everything we want. Just another example of your God making shit up as he goes along with zero justification for any of it.

If i were you/no god then I would be a soulless hippy douche bag in this society hypocritically spreading my 'morality' all over the place, then going back on it when ever it suited me.
If I were born in Nazi Germany with no God I'd march jews into ovens. If I were born under the ISIS god I fly planes into buildings. Again, I don't pretend to be able to rise above, nor can I pull myself up by my moral boot straps, because I understand that without God ALL MORALITY COMES FROM SOCIETY AND POP CULTURE!!!

But this is the sum and total of my point, Drich. You're saying people need god's morals because society's morals are malleable, but the problem is that god's morals are ARBITRARY. Malleable morals are a luxury we are afforded as humans because we can always improve using reason and empathy (thanks evolutionary biology!)

God offers NO reasons for his immutable, barbaric moral code, and every shot you took at justifying them involved logical fallacies, oversimplification, and hypocrisy to make sense.

I was one of the elect and was born in a place where the Knowledge of God was easily accessible. I found Him right where He said he'd be and I follow his precepts first and buck society's morality where ever they cross paths.

And what the hell kind of universe-creating, all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful God, who wants every being in existence to know the depth and power of his love and be saved, would create an entire earth full of people but only make his word accessible to one elect group of people in one elite geographic location?


Talk. about. sick.

[Edwardo Piet]

And herein lies the hypocrisy. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you are pro choice. In being pro choice you agree with giving women carte blanche to terminate a life simply because "it's her body", yet when someone says that God has supreme authority over his creation, THAT is somehow evil...

So which is it?

Fetuses aren't children.

[LadyForCamus]

And herein lies the hypocrisy. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you are pro choice. In being pro choice you agree with giving women carte blanche to terminate a life simply because "it's her body", yet when someone says that God has supreme authority over his creation, THAT is somehow evil...

So which is it?

Fetuses aren't children.

#thingsyoushouldn'thavetoexplaintoadults

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah.... like "There isn't a dude in the sky watching over everyone and doing fuck all."

[Huggy Bear]

Fetuses aren't children.

So you're going to try to argue semantics? A fetus is commonly referred to as an "unborn child", but that isn't even the point, read my post again.

What's interesting is that it seems you think that a fetus has no right to live, by what authority are you able to make that determination?

*edit*

Oh I forgot, I wouldn't be in proper form if I didn't include a definition.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...lish/fetus

fetus
Pronunciation: /ˈfēdəs/  
(British (in nontechnical use) also foetus)
NOUN (plural fetuses)

An unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def.../offspring

offspring
Pronunciation: /ˈôfˌspriNG/   Pronunciation: /ˈäfˌspriNG/  
NOUN (plural same)

1 A person’s child or children: