RE: pop morality
February 17, 2016 at 5:19 pm
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2016 at 3:42 am by Jenny A.)
@Dritch
Your premise, god equals righteousness fails initially on two counts: no one can demonstrate there is a god; and no one can agree about what god is. But your argument in this thread makes nothing of those objections. Because what you are saying is god equals righteousness and god's law is contained in the Bible. Well sorry, but the moral trash contained in the Bible is the best reason for dismissing old Yahweh I know of. That "god" is the most immoral, discriminating, arbitrary, genocidal, slavery loving, cruel, sexist, baby killing (born and unborn), sadistic a beast as I can imagine. He makes Hitler look like a piker. That, if nothing else shows him to be an invention of the people writing him.
Human morality, and it is a human concept, though some birds and mammals show similar inclinations, is an imperfect thing. Very imperfect, so imperfect that some men wrote the Bible based on it's then current precepts. But it's better than the god of the OT, who, as described by you is the ultimate justification for all moral imperfection. You use him to justify as necessary: rape, slavery, genocide. What more need be said? You can keep him, but don't follow him too far, because there's an electric chair at the end of that path. And it won't be for believing but for bloody fucking murderous actions.
So human morality is imperfect. What should we do? Say, ah well god will forgive us? Or worse yet try to carry out Christian law? No, we should do the best we can in an imperfect world. You say, the posters here are not morally perfect, and that the world is not morally perfect? Tell us something new. But, I doubt you'll find a single poster here as immoral as the god of the OT.
People learn. Slowly, three steps forward, two steps back. And we have greater ability to do harm than we did what with increased weaponry. But we also have better communication, and greater resources. I understand that people living on the edge of extinction are likely to be less "nice" than people with largess to share. But we have that largess. There's no reason to follow the rules of a people living on the edge beset at all sides by bigger stronger nations waiting to take what little they had away.
Your premise, god equals righteousness fails initially on two counts: no one can demonstrate there is a god; and no one can agree about what god is. But your argument in this thread makes nothing of those objections. Because what you are saying is god equals righteousness and god's law is contained in the Bible. Well sorry, but the moral trash contained in the Bible is the best reason for dismissing old Yahweh I know of. That "god" is the most immoral, discriminating, arbitrary, genocidal, slavery loving, cruel, sexist, baby killing (born and unborn), sadistic a beast as I can imagine. He makes Hitler look like a piker. That, if nothing else shows him to be an invention of the people writing him.
Human morality, and it is a human concept, though some birds and mammals show similar inclinations, is an imperfect thing. Very imperfect, so imperfect that some men wrote the Bible based on it's then current precepts. But it's better than the god of the OT, who, as described by you is the ultimate justification for all moral imperfection. You use him to justify as necessary: rape, slavery, genocide. What more need be said? You can keep him, but don't follow him too far, because there's an electric chair at the end of that path. And it won't be for believing but for bloody fucking murderous actions.
So human morality is imperfect. What should we do? Say, ah well god will forgive us? Or worse yet try to carry out Christian law? No, we should do the best we can in an imperfect world. You say, the posters here are not morally perfect, and that the world is not morally perfect? Tell us something new. But, I doubt you'll find a single poster here as immoral as the god of the OT.
People learn. Slowly, three steps forward, two steps back. And we have greater ability to do harm than we did what with increased weaponry. But we also have better communication, and greater resources. I understand that people living on the edge of extinction are likely to be less "nice" than people with largess to share. But we have that largess. There's no reason to follow the rules of a people living on the edge beset at all sides by bigger stronger nations waiting to take what little they had away.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.