Man's morality

[Drich]

God's standard doesn't change because the bible is not open to edit.

actually it is. When the dead sea scrolls were found there were several key passages that were subject to edit. the primary was the command You shall not Murder. It is my understanding prior to the dead sea scrolls the command was you shall not kill. there is a big difference between Murdering and killing another person. that being the taking of human life with or without justification.

It's the bible's greatest weakness. It remains stagnant and therefore archaic.

Which again points to the nature of self righteousness. If a culture is given the flexablity to change the very nature of right and wrong then eventually all that was deemed wrong will be considered to be right or ok.

As man evolves and moves past our savage past (slowly but surely) we begin to see the Yahweh character for the joke he is.

History says otherwise. we are on the same path the greeks and romans were before those two great soceities fell. The evolution of man's morality is an every downward spiral.

LMAO... I see, so God was still lookin after Job...

Indeed satan wanted to kill him.

even though he turned the most power being outside of the trinity loose on him. And all to settle a wager.

The wadger was a way to get satan to help reveal to all of us the nature of God and to satan himself.

Do you not see how flawed God is in the passage.

I see the simple man's goto flaw is that what you mean?

Satan punked God in Job. He goaded him and God went for it.

I guess so. For the simple man see a wager like a shell game or three card monte and assumes there is no way for the dealer to fix the outcome.

And in the end... Satan was right. Job turned on God to the point that he had to come down and bully Job back into fearing him. Satan made a fool of God in Job.

Job did not turn on God what are you talking about? Job asked God for an explaination. To turn on God would be to curse God and die like his wife suggested.

BTW... did you know that Satan means "Truth" in Sanskrit? A language that predates the Hebrew culture.

This is a great example of you being a mindless anti-god sheep who has done very little thinking for yourself, and the reson why i said most of what you believe to be true about God/Atheism comes from websites and people in whom you think are smarter than you.

If one googles "satan sanskrit meaning" you get 10 pages of anti God websites telling you the meaning of the word satan in sanskrit is truth. This like satan is not anywhere near the truth.

If you want the truth and actually goto a sanskrit lexicon and type in the word satan you get "pizAca" as the transliteration for the word satan. Btw if you goto a Hebrew lexicon "Satan" is the transliteration for the word evil one or devil meaning 'satan' is the Hebrew pronounciation that we have adopted in the english.
http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/l...7854&t=KJV

http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?scrip...rection=AU

If you type in the word truth you get: tathya, yAthArthya, and Satya are the core words that the 140 'variations' of the word 'truth' in sanskrit. None of which are 'satan.'

http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?scrip...rection=AU

It is with the level of scrutiny that I have examined every aspect of the bible and the various doctrine of men concerning God and other religions. I have done what you have only claim to do, that is why i see through your arguements and reasoning.

First Job only submitted when God shook his fist at him...

You've never read Job have you? I read through it with in this last week to answer a question one of your peers asked, and i can tell you with out a waviering doubt Job remain faith to God throughout His ordeal. In the end God only question God on why he was not allowed to die. He lemented and wished He had never been born. God's rebuke was not to admonish Job for the questions, but to instill him with respect he needed to not waiver in the face of hardship and trials. Fore everything Job was goinf through served a far greater purpose than job could ever understand.

Third, if you admit that God can protect people... what about the child in the picture? Why does God ignore him?

God put that child's condition on your heart and in your mind. You and people like you are God's first responders. You have been equiped with everything you need to help that kid. The question is why haven't you done anything except blame God for not giving everyone the same over abundance you feel you are entitled to?

It's like calling the fire depatement to come put out your house fire, and them asking you why don't you have a fire truck of your own?

We as a community buy fire trucks and strategically place them in parts of our communities, and then pay people to train themselves and man them incase a fire happens.. How then does it become the communities responsiablity to buy everyone their own fire truck, just because the ones who have the training and equipment only want to look after themselves?

You and the rest of us in the west have been put in a position to put out the fire of hunger in the bellies of all the starving babies of the world. So again why haven't we? we can not site the lack of money or resources. there is food going bad by the metric ton every year. We have so much food we want to turn it into energy, and yet people starve. why haven't we used the resources God has given us to help these people? instead we pay farmers to not grow crops because of our over abundance, in fear it causes our grain markets/prices to fall.

If he wasn't indifferent... why'd he let it down knowing the horrors Satan was going to deliver upon him?

Revelation, Wisdom and knoweledge. All of these things were gained by the billions who came after Job.

Let's break this down to our level. I have a puppy that I love and care for. The puppy loves me. You say... "That puppy wouldn't love you anymore if you bring him outside and let me kick him in the head a few times." And then to see if you're right... I let my beloved little puppy outside to be submitted to your ruthlessness. What kind of master am I? Pretty bad one. Sure... it's my puppy and I can do what I like with it. But that still makes me an inhuman piece of shit doesn't it? That's what God show's himself to be in Job. He is the one that allows the brutalization of Job and the murder of his family.

If this is where you need to be to understand... then may I ask what makes you think this story is just about you me and the puppy if you knew i was going to kick him?

Really? So if a man comes in your home and kills you and rapes your wife and kills your kids... He's right? Just simply because he's stronger? Interesting if not misguided view of what is right.

did God rape your wife and daughter?

I didn't say that he's supposed to be the best of man.

Infact you did, You said He was supposed to be a 'Superman.'

He is supposed to be morally perfect and righteous. But his actions show him not to be.

I agree if man created God then yes morally perfect would be the goal. So the question again is why isn't he?

EXACTLY!!!, So why is the God of the bible 'flawed' by your understanding of morality if He were indeed created by man?

Because he was invented by savages who's value system is archaic...

Then why wasn't it changed when the church controlled the bible? (the same church mind you who changed the religion of christianity but not the document that defines it? Change was on their minds and hearts, but yet even though they had complete control over the bible and morality the bible doesnot reflect the changes the church made in the dark ages.

what about this aren't you getting?

Again, I point back to the church of the dark ages. They are the ones who set into motion the idea of maintaining a set 'moral standard.' (the same basic principle we live by today) Not content but a works based form of righteousness. These guys had complete control of the bible. They even translated it into a dead language so as to keep it out of the hands of the common man. this allowed them to make all sorts of changes and completely control all aspects of this religion without anyone having the ablity to question their authority.

The bible isn't open to edit. Sure there are off shoots and other religions. The mormons believe Joseph Smith was inspired to write his nonsense. But the original Greek and Hebrew texts are what I'm talking about.

Again durning the darkages the Chruch completely controled the bible. They took it out of the hands of the common man and even most of the preists when it was translated to latin. These same men are the ones who changed the nature of 'morality' from being attonement/works of Christ based to being works of man based as you currently understand them.

The men had no issue in changing christianity to reflect their own morality (they created a version of God to worship) as you said. their God kept them in power for a very long time, and it made people work and earn forgiveness, which is the total oppsite of what the bible says do. again if Man created God then why wasn't the bible edited to suit this paradyme shift in morality?

I'm not sure I understand your question. We have ancient texts that have survived that show us much of what is contained in the bible.

But why do we? Why weren't they 'lost or destroyed' and replaced by versions that supported the catholic docrines being taught from the pulpits?

And some of it has been lost. Some of it is guess work. And a good deal of it has been mistranslated. But it's core isn't open to edit. To do so would be heresy.

There is another non biblically based 'doctrinal' word.

Something that could get you killed up until a few hundred years ago.

By whom? the pope's men right? Ok, now take a step back and try and see the big picture.

The 'pope' was the guy who was primarly responsiable for all of these doctrinal changes that was not biblically founded.. (All the stuff you've been spouting that I've pointed out is not biblically based.) All of that and everything else that seperates catholics and reformists.

Now my question is if the popes rewrote the christian religion so completely, and had complete control over the bible for 1500+ years, then why doesn't the bible reflect the changes made by 1500+ years of catholic rule? You do know the bible is responsiable for Martin luther's split from the church and subsequently the destruction of catholic world domination right? If the pope had complete control and did not fear hersey (as he and his fellow popes made up that word, because they could not answer questions concerning their version of christianity) they why wasn't the 'god' man supposedly made up changed at that time to reflect his new direction?

Much of those things probably were manufactured. As far as why no changes during the dark ages... there was no need... the church had ultimate power... why mess up a good thing? Plus the people truly believed it. It wasn't like the knew it a was BS and so were just using it as a gimmick. Like you... the truly believed it and felt they were serving God.

but they made all sorts of changes in the religion verses the content of the bible. again why not have the bible support the religion they created? As you said if Man made up God then why not have the word of God support what man wants to do?

[Tonus]

My evidence for the lack of a Santa Claus is the complete and total lack of proof that he is real. There are stories, songs, paintings, and propaganda... and yet no Santa. You know it... and I know it. Same is true for God. There are stories, songs, paintings, and propaganda... but when you get right down to it... NOTHING of the divine has EVER been substantiated.

This reminds me of the exchanges I had with jstrodel, where I used the example of the reality of the Tooth Fairy in the eyes of a child versus his belief in god's existence. It's not as easy with Santa Claus, at least in those places where his live presence is so ubiquitous (the Santa on the street corner, the Santa in the mall, etc). It's not difficult for a child to get the impression that there's something very suspicious about this Santa character, and when he is told that the old fellow doesn't exist the pieces probably just fall into place.

But the Tooth Fairy is different. You don't sit on her lap at the mall and ask for presents or see her standing on a street corner ringing a bell (well, outside of Las Vegas I suppose). All the child knows is the story, and that when he wakes up in the morning his tooth has been replaced by a shiny coin (or perhaps even more). The child has physical evidence backed by the testimony of his parents! Like Santa, at some point the parents confess and the child learns that it's just a bit of fantasy meant to make life seem a bit more magical for a short time.

Santa and the Tooth Fairy seem to differ from god in two ways: the child has less evidence for god, but is never told that he's fake. Imagine if we did that with those other icons? In light of religious beliefs and attitudes today, does it seem such a stretch to think that grown-ups would believe in them, even as they took over the task of delivering presents and slipping quarters under the pillows of sleeping children?

[I am God]

actually it is. When the dead sea scrolls were found there were several key passages that were subject to edit. the primary was the command You shall not Murder. It is my understanding prior to the dead sea scrolls the command was you shall not kill.

That's because the Jewish law was taken from the Code of Hammurabi. But that's what I meant at all. Sure there are translation differences... Kill to Murder... Hedes to Hell (which by the way are two different things). But the bible isn't open to edit as far as it's dogma. What would you say if someone wanted to change the bible to say homosexuality wasn't a sin any longer? God still hates mostly the same people today that he did 2000 years ago.

Which again points to the nature of self righteousness. If a culture is given the flexablity to change the very nature of right and wrong then eventually all that was deemed wrong will be considered to be right or ok.

Ahh the good ole christian fear mongering approach. The old slippery slope. Morality will change from culture to culture. This isn't a slippery slope... it's just the nature of man. Murder has always and will always be a crime in civilized societies with laws designed to protect person and property (Which is what laws are supposed to do... not enforce morality).

History says otherwise. we are on the same path the greeks and romans were before those two great soceities fell. The evolution of man's morality is an every downward spiral.

LOL you're silly. Such a poor opinion of man. See that's the problem with Christianity. It only seeks to paint man as a hopeless sinner than cannot be redeemed without magical help. It's poison to mankind. Societies come and go. This one will be no different. Nothing lasts forever. But Man will grow. He will progress. There won't be any judgement from an invisible man in the clouds and we will be ok.

The wadger was a way to get satan to help reveal to all of us the nature of God and to satan himself.

No, the wager was to see if Job would lose faith if God removed all his blessings. And he did. He told God to go away. To leave him. To just let him die so that when God cam looking for him he would not find him. That's pretty much denouncing God. You can try and twist it any way you like to mean what you want it too. But the words are right their one the page. Job denounced God for making him suffer. He accused God of targeting him unfairly and told God to go away. Satan was right about Job and he made God look like a fool.

I see the simple man's goto flaw is that what you mean?

I have no idea what you're saying here.

I guess so. For the simple man see a wager like a shell game or three card monte and assumes there is no way for the dealer to fix the outcome.

Does God do that? What about free will?

Job did not turn on God what are you talking about? Job asked God for an explaination. To turn on God would be to curse God and die like his wife suggested.

Yes he did. He told God to leave him alone. To go away and let him die so that God couldn't find him. He wanted to be separated from God entirely and just die. To an ancient to just die meant to be apart from God forever. They didn't have this born again, jesus nonsense. To die and be apart from God was their idea of the worst outcome for a soul. And THAT is what Job was asking for. You don't even understand the Israelite culture do you?

This is a great example of you being a mindless anti-god sheep who has done very little thinking for yourself, and the reson why i said most of what you believe to be true about God/Atheism comes from websites and people in whom you think are smarter than you.

So you accuse me getting my argument from websites and then you defend your point... with a bunch of websites? Nice.

If one googles "satan sanskrit meaning" you get 10 pages of anti God websites telling you the meaning of the word satan in sanskrit is truth. This like satan is not anywhere near the truth.

If you want the truth and actually goto a sanskrit lexicon and type in the word satan you get "pizAca" as the transliteration for the word satan.

No you don't. PizAca is a demon or malevolent one. It's modern interpretation would be Satan based on OUR languange. Piz Aca was an evil spirit. The hebrew word Satan comes from the Sanskrit word Satya.

Look up Satya Satanu It means Truth from within (Or literally Truth is together with the body).

If you type in the word truth you get: tathya, yAthArthya, and Satya are the core words that the 140 'variations' of the word 'truth' in sanskrit. None of which are 'satan.'

You're so dumb you don't even know it. Satan derives from Satya. Did you think the Hebrews spoke the same language?

http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?scrip...rection=AU

It is with the level of scrutiny that I have examined every aspect of the bible and the various doctrine of men concerning God and other religions. I have done what you have only claim to do, that is why i see through your arguements and reasoning.

And that's why you look like a fool. You have your argument prepared for you by christian apologists that can only distort facts and use dishonestly or misdirection to attempt to validate their claims. Just look at any creationist's argument. Smoke and mirrors. Smoke and mirrors. I wouldn't mind Christians all the much if they weren't so damned dishonest.

You've never read Job have you?

Yep... and I actually understand it. I don't just insist it mean what my pastor says.

Job remain faith to God throughout His ordeal.

No he didn't. He told God to go away. For an ancient Israelite this was denouncing God. Leave me alone, let me die so that you may not find me. That's denouncing God. Keep pounding those puzzle pieces for force them to fit the way you want them too. It's what you guys do best.

God's rebuke was not to admonish Job for the questions, but to instill him with respect he needed to not waiver in the face of hardship and trials. Fore everything Job was goinf through served a far greater purpose than job could ever understand.

No, it was God basically saying he was more powerful so he could be as big an asshole as he wanted and no one could stop him. And that he demands the ants still love him even while he burns them with his magnifying glass. God is a douche bag.

God put that child's condition on your heart and in your mind. You and people like you are God's first responders. You have been equiped with everything you need to help that kid.

But we're flawed and failed and broken sinners. Why in hell would God trust us with such an important task? Seems God is either indifferent to suffering or just a dumb ass. You just admitted that God CAN put a protective shield over people like he did with Job. Yet WE are somehow responsible for a child's suffering. Why does a being that CAN protect the child choose not to. Why does God withhold his mercy from a dying little child? What about the children in the cancer ward? I can't help them. I can't cure cancer. God can... why does he allow them to suffer and die in agony? They pray every night. They beg God "Please God... don't let me die. I love you and I'm scared. Please help me God. All I want to do is play like the other kids." And yet your piece of trash God does nothing. He sits their in judgement of us while (HAVING THE POWER TO HELP) doing NOTHING to help these poor suffering little beings that he claims to love so damn much. Where is your God when they need him?

The question is why haven't you done anything except blame God for not giving everyone the same over abundance you feel you are entitled to?

1. You have no idea what I do or what I feel. 2. I personally don't blame God for anything. He isn't real. That'd be like blaming cookie monster or the Thundercats for something.

It's like calling the fire depatement to come put out your house fire, and them asking you why don't you have a fire truck of your own?

Yeah, God is the fire department. He has unlimited trucks and water and can be their in an instant. Yet he expects me to put out a fire in another nation. What a dickhead.

We as a community buy fire trucks and strategically place them in parts of our communities, and then pay people to train themselves and man them incase a fire happens.. How then does it become the communities responsiablity to buy everyone their own fire truck, just because the ones who have the training and equipment only want to look after themselves?

None of that makes sense. It's all things made by people for people. It has nothing to do with God. Your analogy is flawed beyond belief. In your delusion, God has unlimited power and ability. And yet he allows people to suffer. Let's not even talk about the ones we can help. let's talk about the ones we can't. People dying with cancer. People dying with genetic diseases that they were born with (God's Mistake?). He just sits their like an ass and does nothing. What a loser this God fella is.

Revelation, Wisdom and knoweledge. All of these things were gained by the billions who came after Job.

And death, torture, rape, slavery, and all that good church stuff.

If this is where you need to be to understand... then may I ask what makes you think this story is just about you me and the puppy if you knew i was going to kick him?

I guess... what... we wanted to teach the world that I can let you kick a puppy and I'm right to do so cause I'm his owner? That's the lesson of Job. You guys love to polish a turd and make into something else. But that's the lesson in Job.

did God rape your wife and daughter?

But I thought might makes right.

Infact you did, You said He was supposed to be a 'Superman.'

No I didn't. I used Superman as an analogy. If you want to get technical superman is an alien and not human. That's why he has non-human abilities. But that's why he was invented that way... to be better than us. Not the best of us... but better than our best. Perfect and pure... like God is supposed to be. Different from us failed and weak beings. Better. Yet Superman actually delivers. God on the other hand... not so much. He tortures use to win bets and ignores our cries for help.

I agree if man created God then yes morally perfect would be the goal. So the question again is why isn't he?

He was at the time he was created. For the Ancient Israelites he was perfectly moral. But their ways are outdated... and so is their God. And you guys are left having to make excuses for him.

EXACTLY!!!, So why is the God of the bible 'flawed' by your understanding of morality if He were indeed created by man?

Then why wasn't it changed when the church controlled the bible? (the same church mind you who changed the religion of christianity but not the document that defines it? Change was on their minds and hearts, but yet even though they had complete control over the bible and morality the bible doesnot reflect the changes the church made in the dark ages.

I'm not really sure what you're rambling on about here. You're going to have to make your argument more clearly and more detailed if you want me to educate you.

what about this aren't you getting?

Again, I point back to the church of the dark ages. They are the ones who set into motion the idea of maintaining a set 'moral standard.' (the same basic principle we live by today) Not content but a works based form of righteousness. These guys had complete control of the bible. They even translated it into a dead language so as to keep it out of the hands of the common man. this allowed them to make all sorts of changes and completely control all aspects of this religion without anyone having the ablity to question their authority.

They translated it into the language of scholars. They didn't need to keep it out of the hands of the people... only like 3% of the populous could read in the Dark Ages. It was a skill only the wealthy could afford to learn. Everyone else was trying not to starve to death and die from plague. Do you really fancy the early Church as people that didn't believe and were just using the bible as a means of control? They were barely educated savages that were doing what they thought was correct by the God they worshiped. They felt works mattered because the damn bible says they do.

Again durning the darkages the Chruch completely controled the bible. They took it out of the hands of the common man and even most of the preists when it was translated to latin. These same men are the ones who changed the nature of 'morality' from being attonement/works of Christ based to being works of man based as you currently understand them.

It was that way even during the final years of Rome. The holy roman church was a works based ideology. You seem to be confused on the history of your religion. The very first Christians (The Gnostics) didn't read your bible. They read the dozens if not hundreds of Gnostic Gospels. Then the Romans took it over, destroyed most of the gospels of Jesus Christ except the for the 4 you worship, and only a handful survived to show us that this is a fact. The very first Christians didn't believe anything resembling what you believe today. Your religion was choosen for you by the Romans. And they had many political reasons for doing that... none of which was to serve Christ.

The men had no issue in changing christianity to reflect their own morality (they created a version of God to worship) as you said. their God kept them in power for a very long time, and it made people work and earn forgiveness, which is the total oppsite of what the bible says do. again if Man created God then why wasn't the bible edited to suit this paradyme shift in morality?

Well tell me... what would you do if the Church decided that it was no longer a sin to be a homosexual? Would you go along with it? Or would you resist it? I feel like you're trying to make a case for something but you aren't really stating it well. I'm not really getting what you're after here.

But why do we? Why weren't they 'lost or destroyed' and replaced by versions that supported the catholic docrines being taught from the pulpits?

For the same reason that Gnostic Gospels survived. People hid them, saved them, protected them. Or in some cases just out them up and they were lost to time until found. Are you suggesting that their is a magic behind this? Why was the Odyssey saved? The Iliad? Beowulf?

There is another non biblically based 'doctrinal' word.

Are you talking about the Talmud or what?

By whom? the pope's men right? Ok, now take a step back and try and see the big picture.

By christians in general. Remember Salem?

The 'pope' was the guy who was primarly responsiable for all of these doctrinal changes that was not biblically founded.. (All the stuff you've been spouting that I've pointed out is not biblically based.) All of that and everything else that seperates catholics and reformists.

I don't remember spouting about anything Catholic centric. Specify please.

Now my question is if the popes rewrote the christian religion so completely, and had complete control over the bible for 1500+ years, then why doesn't the bible reflect the changes made by 1500+ years of catholic rule? You do know the bible is responsiable for Martin luther's split from the church and subsequently the destruction of catholic world domination right? If the pope had complete control and did not fear hersey (as he and his fellow popes made up that word, because they could not answer questions concerning their version of christianity) they why wasn't the 'god' man supposedly made up changed at that time to reflect his new direction?

Why would they? They believe it's the word of God just like you do. And they interpret things in the way they feel is correct... just like you do. That's why there's a million different branches of Christianity. Because all you assholes think your take on the bible is the right one and everyone else has it wrong.

but they made all sorts of changes in the religion verses the content of the bible. again why not have the bible support the religion they created? As you said if Man made up God then why not have the word of God support what man wants to do?

You're going to have to be more specific than "They changed a bunch of stuff". Try and make you argument more clear.

[Ksa]

When even the moon is not bright, and the stars are impure in his sight...what is man...an eternal sinner that has to eat, drink and kill his own God to redeem his sins, through the blood of Jesus Christ! In the name of Jesus Christ this and that.

Fucking abomination.

[Drich]

When even the moon is not bright, and the stars are impure in his sight...what is man...an eternal sinner that has to eat, drink and kill his own God to redeem his sins, through the blood of Jesus Christ! In the name of Jesus Christ this and that.

Fucking abomination.

maybe to a devoute muslim.

[Ksa]

When even the moon is not bright, and the stars are impure in his sight...what is man...an eternal sinner that has to eat, drink and kill his own God to redeem his sins, through the blood of Jesus Christ! In the name of Jesus Christ this and that.

Fucking abomination.

maybe to a devoute muslim.

Your life wouldn't be easier if you were a Muslim either, I would still prove you wrong, the only difference is that you would be a bit more consistent and you would worship 1 God rather then 3 Gods among which is a man born of a woman, saying her mother Mary is the MOTHER of God. That God is begotten and Mary is a saintly womaaaan, Mary the MOTHER of God.

[Drich]

maybe to a devoute muslim.

Your life wouldn't be easier if you were a Muslim either, I would still prove you wrong, the only difference is that you would be a bit more consistent and you would worship 1 God rather then 3 Gods among which is a man born of a woman, saying her mother Mary is the MOTHER of God. That God is begotten and Mary is a saintly womaaaan, Mary the MOTHER of God.

No sport I am saying you are a Muslim, pretending to be an atheist.

[Bob Kelso]

Telling another person what they are, Classic Christian attitude there Drich. Got any more from the classics?