How is Yahweh not immoral?

[The Grand Nudger]

Then it should be really easy for you to explain how it matters. And for that matter please explain how God as your final judge will be "taken off the bench?"

I already explained why it matters in my last post. Just because a tyrant is mighty, just because they may be out of reach, doesn't mean that I'm going to roll over, and doesn't change whether or not they are a tyrant. I simply wont accept tyranny as the ultimate authority of the cosmos. I may be powerless in the face of any given tyrant but this only strengthens my assessment of precisely how tyranny is achieved.

I said the only way you could do this is to appeal to the other 'power' in creation that apposes God. Is this your plan? Or again do you just hope to appeal to God's 'fairness' to step down even after you have judged Him to be unfair?

Firstly, just to get this out of the way yet again...I'm not looking to have a god step down..because no god stepped up in the first place Drich. I'm addressing the weakness of your analogies, and the contrast between the tyranny you propose and the way in which we go about a similar process.

What you still do not understand is the trivial perspective in which YOU have judge God a tyrant. I have asked and asked for you to provide some kind of standard in which you or anyone else can judge God. The best you have been able to do is simply will God a tyrant because You do not agree with Him.

By the same standard with which we would judge a man, as I've already explained to you. Not because I disagree, but because -WE-, yes, you too Drich, would disagree.

It this really, the petty crap you hope to build your 'tyrant' arguement on? Or are you holding on to an Ace that waiting to spring on me?

I didn't build the tyrant argument, you did. Personally, if I were going to go about imagining a god it wouldn't be a tyrant, and I wouldn't have to make excuses for it's tyranny that equally excuse myself or anyone else - because I wouldn't propose tyranny in the first fucking place. I certainly wouldn't propose it and then call it righteousness, or justice, or fairness. If I wanted to imagine a tyrannical god..I'd just own the results of my imagination. I'd say hey, he's a fucking tyrant, so what..what you gonna do about it. Now, it seems to me that our various imaginings of a god twist us in knots, and here's an opportunity to elaborate on that. You -do- propose the tyrant, and you do say "hey, what're you gonna do about it weakling?" - the ultimate expression of tyranny....but you refuse to then own what you have created because you positively -need- this concept of a god to be fair and just and righteous..even if your explanation of it is not.

Because if this is all you have, then I do agree (based on what you have said here) that one has to be weary about who he follows or the morals he ascribes himself to. Why? Because in your anti might makes right arguement, you appeal to" might makes right." In that you look to align yourself and your moral values to the larger group of people who just happen to think as you do, (even if it appeals to another goup of people) but as with all morality it is constantly changing and as such will change from soceity to soceity and even generation to generation, so again you are right. When your morality is based on nothing more than might makes right, one has to contantly be aware of who is currently in the 'right,'and then change his morality to fit the pack when it suits him.

Not so fast Drich..you've smuggled in your own opinions and presented them as mine. Lets take a nice close look at where that occurred (because this explains exactly why I take the time to argue these points with you in the first place...not because they relate to a god or an afterlife..but because they lead to bullshit here in this life). I do appeal to our agreement when establishing my standard, but I don't consider that standard to be absolutely and ultimately "right" - that is your territory, I'm not looking to impose my standards as a function of the cosmos, I'm just applying them as is....and I recognize the value of dissent in preventing "the tyranny of the mob". When I ask you why a human tyrant cannot excuse himself on the same grounds (of might) I ask you this because I suspect that you do not actually feel that he can, that you do not actually support the argument you offer in defense of a god.

You have failed to submit a plan on how you are going to bring God to your sense of justice. So Yes what is the point of judging someone when you have no power or ablity to do anything about it?

Am I required to, and if there were a god would that even be possible? I doubt it, but that has nothing to do with whether or not this gods will and decrees and judgement amounts to tyranny. Again, what would the point in opposing a human tyrant be if you were incapable of doing anything about it?

Again Explain How you plan to over throw God's Authority and bring Him to Justice as you see it. Feel free to use as much "history" as you like.

Again...your god doesn't exist and has no authority...but I haven't been attempting to bring any god to justice in the first place. I've been attempting to explain to you why the machinery you propose would be incapable of bringing -me- to justice..even if it was perfectly capable of punishing me or extracting a fine or penalty from me.

Red Herring.
You have changed the focous of this discussion. We were Speaking about God and the Authority of God to Judge. If you were engauged in this discussion(You Were Btw) then for the sake of this discussion, you have acknoweledged the existance of God. To just now appeal to the existance of God is intellectually dishonest of you. Your arguement in it's orginal form has failed, and now you want to change the arguement into something you think you can win. Which Unless you can provide a standard of Proof, (What the prameters of proof of God would look like) that arguement fails as well.

You're as bad at identifying fallacies in this thread as you are in the other. I'll humor you. It matters very little whether or not god exists. Rocks exist, but their existence doesn't confer any authority...now does it? My argument, in it's original form..is that I don't recognize the right of tyrants to rule (and I'm going to go so far at this point as to openly state that I don't think you recognize an authority such as this either). What about that argument has failed, and when did it fail? I keep reminding you that your god doesn't exist because you keep responding as though it did, and as though it's existence and claimed power had some bearing on my refusal to acknowledge justice or authority by means of tyranny. It doesn't.

Now....with regards to slavery, I'm afraid that you and I will never come to any agreement on this subject or anything derived from it. We have absolutely no common ground on this issue, and we never will. To be completely blunt, I think you're being more than a little dishonest with me. Again this reinforces what I said above about how we imagine god tying us into knots. Your fantasies of god have left you in the position where you feel that you must argue in favor of the ownership of a human being, and even though I don't actually think you would put your money where your mouth is - that you even had the nuts to do so is both admirable on the one hand..and disturbing on the other. If you're so willing to become a slave, to lower yourself to the status of property..then what value does the opinion of a piece of property have weighed against the opinion of a man? Property has no power, no authority, and since you seem to think that power is so important, my standards count, and yours don't. I don't have too many conversations about justice with my shoes Drich. Let me just take a stab in the dark here and guess that you, for some reason, feel that I should take you - a piece of property- seriously. You expect me to consider you my equal...don't you...at least enough to address your comments as an equal might........