Judge Upholds Firing of Fundie Fuckhead

[Cyberman]

What if the "don't kill" injunction conflicted with biblical principles? Would you still stand by your position of "submit[ting] to authority unless it conflicts with Biblical truth"?

You're talking about the euthyphro dilemma.

No I'm not, I'm not keen on herrings at the best of times and red ones even less. I'll restate the question:

What if what is commanded in your holy book is in direct conflict with societal considerations? Specifically with regard to the original question, suppose your god via your book commanded you to kill for whatever reason, say stoning adulteres to death, yet society didn't let you (which it doesn't). To whom do you pledge your allegiance?

[Drich]

So since your god is a "perfect moral being"

God's "perfect morality" is call Righteousness. Righteousness is NOT 'Morality.'Morality is man standard of or attempt at Righteousness with the sin he is willing to incorperate or live with mixed into God's Righteous Standard. This personal sense of righteousness or as Christ Identifies it this Self Righteousness often time over values certain areas of the Law to try make up for the over looked areas. In essence 'Morality' is whatever we want it to be, because it is a failed attempt at True Righteousness that has been justified through a strong sense of Self Righteousness.

i would like you to explain how the things above can be seen as "moraly ok"

It can't because God does not yield to Man's self Righteous Standard.

Capitol Punishment can be deemed a Righteous Act because putting someone to Death in of itself is not a sin. Only The unsanctioned taking of life is a sin.
In the resources you left along with the bible verses you quoted are sanctioned events when putting one to Death is allowed by God. Therefore a Righteous act, even if soceity deems it 'Immoral.'

These Acts we know as sin (the actual act) have no intrinsic value in of themselves. It is commiting these acts outside the perscribed path that God has made allowances for, that makes any of these acts a sin.

[genkaus]

God's "perfect morality" is call Righteousness. Righteousness is NOT 'Morality.'Morality is man standard of or attempt at Righteousness with the sin he is willing to incorperate or live with mixed into God's Righteous Standard. This personal sense of righteousness or as Christ Identifies it this Self Righteousness often time over values certain areas of the Law to try make up for the over looked areas. In essence 'Morality' is whatever we want it to be, because it is a failed attempt at True Righteousness that has been justified through a strong sense of Self Righteousness.

Not this bullshit argument again!

Your Christ or god can say what they like - but at the end of the day their 'righteousness' is nothing but their own moral standard - their own 'self-righteousness'. There is nothing true or perfect about it. In fact, your god's moral standard - his righteousness - is about as corrupt as it gets. Your god's morality is whatever he wants it to be. There is not an iota of consistency and objectivity in it. The human moral standards - the human righteousness - has grown and evolved and is now far superior to your god's.

It can't because God does not yield to Man's self Righteous Standard.

And, thankfully, rational men no longer yield to god's self-righteous standard.

Capitol Punishment can be deemed a Righteous Act because putting someone to Death in of itself is not a sin. Only The unsanctioned taking of life is a sin.

Righteous by whose sanction? God's? I cannot imagine a more worthless basis for sanction.

[Minimalist]

God's "perfect morality" is call Righteousness.

Um, 2 Samuel 24

15 So the Lord sent a plague on Israel from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died.

This because "David" fucked up taking a census.

This makes your god a first class cunt.

(Of course, the story is total horseshit but it does show the mindset of the assholes who wrote it.)

[Something completely different]

Response to "Reasonable"_Jeff:

---

Those are great questions, unfortunately, I am not the one best equipped to tackle your objections.

Now that is a reasonable statement! If not your first!

However I do recommend this book to help answer your questions

"Is God a Moral Monster" by Paul Copan
http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monst...0801072751

from wiki:

Paul Copan (Ukrainian Cyrillic: Павло Валерійович Копань) is a Ukrainian-American Christian theologian, analytic philosopher, apologist, and author.

ok

He is currently a professor at the Palm Beach Atlantic University and holds the Pledger Family Endowed Chair of Philosophy and Ethics.

aha

Palm Beach Atlantic University (PBA) is a comprehensive interdenominational (26 denominations represented in the student body) faith-based university with a core emphasis on character formation by integrating a Christian worldview with the liberal arts and selected professional studies.

Ok, he`s not a professor and Palm Beach Atlantic University, is more of a indocrinational facility than a serious university in which experiments are conducted by objective participants.

That you recomend this book by that person pritty much explains your stance on science and rational inquiry.
You prefer the babble of a person who prefers to create a institution out of reach from reasonable intelectual debates conducted in unis by professionals, so he can give his talking points to his audience without fearing rational inquiry.

Dont you think, that that pritty much is the core problem arround which the main issue of this thread centers, only that in this specific case, it is not a irrational individual ignoring the rational inquiry of the scientific world: creating a parallel-sociaty, but a person ignoring the rational inquiry of the scientific world - intruding into the scientific world.

---

Response to Drich:

---

God's "perfect morality" is call Righteousness. Righteousness is NOT 'Morality.'Morality is man standard of or attempt at Righteousness with the sin he is willing to incorperate or live with mixed into God's Righteous Standard. This personal sense of righteousness or as Christ Identifies it this Self Righteousness often time over values certain areas of the Law to try make up for the over looked areas. In essence 'Morality' is whatever we want it to be, because it is a failed attempt at True Righteousness that has been justified through a strong sense of Self Righteousness.

google translator:
Righteousness - Gerechtigkeit

Langenscheits Deutsch - Englisch Wörterbuch:

Gerechtigkeit - justice, fairness, justness, legitimacy

Leo, online german - english dictonary:
http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de...hteousness

Righteousness - Rechtschaffenheit

Langenscheits Deutsch - Englisch Wörterbuch:

Rechtschaffenheit -uprightness, probity

As far as I can say, Rightousness means - to obey the laws - being a lawobiding person.
Morality is the basis for a netwerk of laws for a sociaty.
So a "rightous person lives up to the laws on which basis stands a moral code."

And as far as I can say these "laws" I have quoted before are not "demands", "incouragements" or whatever to live up to the deities rightous behavior, but fundermantal, unchangeable laws (comandments) up to which the deities subjects have to live and follow.
A rightous christian therefor is someone who follows these laws.

Your useless babble about "Rightousness", "Sin" (wtf) and how "morality should follow the standerds of gods "Rightousness" although it will never be perfect becuase it`s human" (that`s how I got it). Doesn`t make any point and makes you look like a child trying to find a excuse for why it stole the sweets.
You are doing nothing but playing arround with words, desperatly trying to find an excuse for why your deity is making such babaric comandments but jet is infalible.
You can eigther accept that these babaric comandments are gods word and therefor infalible and therefor have to be followed eaven today, or you can reject them as outdated.
There is no grey erea. The wording of these comandments, and eaven the actual meaning of laws and comandments make grey ereas impossible.
Dont make a fool out of yourself by trying to justify what is injustifyable or trying to talk your way out of something unjustifyable.

I never saw a neo-nazi sticking a smily sticker on the gates of Ausschwitz nore a banker painting the 2008 recession in bright lovely colors.

It can't because God does not yield to Man's self Righteous Standard.

Well then, fuck him! If he consideres barbaric things for "Rightous" which we as humans have came to conclude as being babaric, inmoral, inhuman and to have negative effects on sociaty, then he can stay in lala-land.
My moral codes, the constitution and laws under which I live and obey - laws which were created under the observation of human failure and history and which still are changing to make sociaty more human nd productive - follow a moral code much more human than the codes of your deity.

Capitol Punishment can be deemed a Righteous Act because putting someone to Death in of itself is not a sin.

1. Murdering someone for being a homosexual is not a "righteous act"! and your deity clearly demands such!

2.Your deity clearly states "thou shalt not kill", but yeah soon after that he orderes his "chosen people" to commit genocide and gives them laws which have a ton of offenses which are punishable by death.
So I understand that you might be confused by your deities double standerds.

3.But if your confusion should ever go away, you will have to face the choice, of eighter seeing this as "correct" or "wrong".

Only The unsanctioned taking of life is a sin.
In the resources you left along with the bible verses you quoted are sanctioned events when putting one to Death is allowed by God. Therefore a Righteous act, even if soceity deems it 'Immoral.'

Your deity, who would put to death people who are homosexual, from another faith, non believers, work on a saturday and much more...
should be the high judge deciding who can be put to death and not?

NO!

These Acts we know as sin (the actual act) have no intrinsic value in of themselves. It is commiting these acts outside the perscribed path that God has made allowances for, that makes any of these acts a sin.

"actual act" do you mean sex?

intrinsic - eigentlich, imminent

Homosexual releationships have no value as "sin" in itself???????????????? Only sex? Anal Sex? Sex between men?
Why does this debate have to come down to sex?
So it is only sex which should be punishable?????
Is a pedophile who watches child porn without masturbating not "sinning" (word in the real legal world: commiting a criminal offense)

This sexobsessed nonsence! eighter your deity is a very frustrated man or a closet gay

---

[Annik]

In regards to this current morality debate:


Murders who think their justified in wiping out whole peoples on a whim should not be worshiped, but condemned.


Question to Min: Is there any evidence in the archeological record of people dying in this fashion? Surely, history must have the bodies, if it occurred. You'd think that you're come across the site and just find bones EVERYWHERE. Is there anything like that out there that is not easily explained (such as Pompeii's fall to the volcano)?

[pocaracas]

You ARE aware that bones are biological tissue and decay in a relatively short time, right?
Only those that fossilize or are otherwise preserved can be observed after more than a few hundred years.

[Annik]

You ARE aware that bones are biological tissue and decay in a relatively short time, right?
Only those that fossilize or are otherwise preserved can be observed after more than a few hundred years.

I'm not talking about full skeletons, but bone fragments are certainly likely, yes? Maybe?

[pocaracas]

Maybe... depends on what those people did with the bodies... If they burned them, you can forget about finding any of them.

[Annik]

Maybe... depends on what those people did with the bodies... If they burned them, you can forget about finding any of them.

Wouldn't fires have to be extraordinarily hot to burn bone? I guess it would be easy to argue that a god could have produced a flame of that kind.