Man's morality

[orogenicman]

God and Morality are both inventions of man. A collective society deems what is moral and what is not. They also deem what THEIR God says is moral and what is not. Muslims still think it's perfectly fine to bed down a 14 year old girl. We here in the States do not. Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Gods all permit the taking of a 14 year old girl as a wife. Yet our culture... sees it as immoral. Even though Yahweh himself impregnated a child. What is moral is decided upon by the social group at hand. This is why a rigid and archaic book like the Bible can never last. It's morality is ancient and much of it MUST be put aside in a modern society. We simply cannot stone our young women to death anymore just because they aren't virgins on their wedding night. This also puts Xtians in a bad spot because they have to defend how immoral their God is by modern standards. These religions have seen the beginning of their end. Every generation has a little less and less to do with them and I feel in 100 years or so they'll just be an oddity.

One would have thought 'god' would have the ablity to read or at the very least simply know what I have said here. Because I as a Christian am not defending God by 'modern standards.' I have taken moden standards and compared them to God's morality to show how far 'moden standards' have fallen, and will continue to fall. Not only that, but have shown examples of soceities in our past who avail themselves to all sorts of evil simply because they have discarded God's absolute standards for 'modern ones.'

If by modern standards, you mean where 4 billion people have deluded themselves into believing that some sort of sky daddy is watching over them, and interceding with their lives on their own behalf, yes you are right. Standards have definitely fallen.

As for your assertion that people who don't abide by your definition of your own delusional moral standards are somehow evil is simply a classic example of overestimating your own worth in the larger scheme of things.

[Drich]

Maybe you guys should just out right move to Personal attacks like alpo did. Because rehashing a defeated arguement is getting you no where. She seems to be one of the best and brightest amongest you, so maybe you should take her que and forgo the attempt for a topical discussion, and simply try and personally destroy the messenger, rather than validate a message (by responding to it) that makes you all look like hypocritical monsters. It's a page taken from the political commentators book of spinning a loosing battle. Do not address the question ask, address the question you wished they asked, if all else fails trivialize the indivisual and dismiss the attempt.

There is only one or two people on this website that can see the desperation in this act, so for the most part you will be considered a hero on the level of a John stewart, or a Bill Mahar by your peers. Then you and 'they' can declare a victory.

[Silver]

I think I hear a Waaaaaaa-mbulance in the background.

[I am God]

One would have thought 'god' would have the ablity to read or at the very least simply know what I have said here. Because I as a Christian am not defending God by 'modern standards.'

Because you can't. God is a piece of garbage morally speaking. He endorses rape, murder, slavery, and genocide. He also impregnated a little girl who wasn't his wife. God can't be bothered to follow the very laws and rules he sets up for everyone else. "Do as I say, not as I do." Yahweh is a hypocrite and a liar. Or at least that's what the writers of the bible have made him out to be.

I have taken moden standards and compared them to God's morality to show how far 'moden standards' have fallen, and will continue to fall.

By who's standards? We aren't murdering homosexuals anymore just because we feel threatened by their different sexuality. We aren't stoning our young women to death anymore for not being virgins on their wedding night. We aren't murdering everyone in a neighboring town simply because they refuse to pay us tribute. Seems like we've become a far more moral people as we've moved away from what God would deem correct.

Not only that, but have shown examples of soceities in our past who avail themselves to all sorts of evil simply because they have discarded God's absolute standards for 'modern ones.'

And we can show you cultures that have done great evil in the name of your God and his standards. What's your point? Man seems to have a great capacity for evil regardless of what God he invents to worship.

[Drich]

Because you can't. God is a piece of garbage morally speaking. He endorses rape, murder, slavery, and genocide. He also impregnated a little girl who wasn't his wife.

Do you have book Chapter and verse for any of these instances you claim?

God can't be bothered to follow the very laws and rules he sets up for everyone else. "Do as I say, not as I do."

Indeed, why should He follow our rules? Is everyone in our soceity subject to the same rule set? Of course not, do those who govern and up hold the law, bound by those same laws? Do Children have the same rights and responsiablities as adults? Not even in our most idealistic soceity is this the case. So why would God be bound by His law?

What was the purpose of His law to begin with? It was to seperate the rights and privlege of God from what man was allowed to do in God's creation.

ex. If you wanted to, you could take a dump in the middle of your living room floor. now what if you invited me over would I have this same right or privledge? After all a turd on the carpet is a turd on the carpet, so what is the difference who's butt it comes from? Or is it s imply matter of you can do what you want with what you own, while others can not do what they want with what YOU own?

Like it or not God created this world and everything in it, therefore it belongs to Him. We are guests, and therefore subject to His rules while living under His 'roof' so to speak. If God wants to take a dump on a people then who can call Him on it? By what right on who's authority? Who has the power to Hold God accountable? No power, no Authority means all you have is wishful thinking, and a meaningless standard to judge him by.

Yahweh is a hypocrite and a liar. Or at least that's what the writers of the bible have made him out to be.

again by what standard? Do you have book Chapter and Verse that says God broke His own law? Do you even have BCV that says the law of Moses applies to God? Maybe you mean to say you have a law God gave that defines or limits what God can do..(Don't look now, but if you did have that law you would have a paradox on your hands.)
Because if God was bound by this imaginary of yours He would no longer be 'All powerful.' As whomever made the law that binds God would then be more powerful than God.

I have taken moden standards and compared them to God's morality to show how far 'moden standards' have fallen, and will continue to fall.

By who's standards?

God's.

We aren't murdering homosexuals anymore just because we feel threatened by their different sexuality.

Is it murder if a taking of a life is sanctioned? (careful how you answer, and think about it alittle because you could undermine the fabric in which western soceity has been built.)

We aren't stoning our young women to death anymore for not being virgins on their wedding night.

Do you Have BCV that shows that has always been the case?

We aren't murdering everyone in a neighboring town simply because they refuse to pay us tribute.

Town no, A whole Country, yes. Otherwise why are we in afganistand? In short because we were not satasified with how they were 'paying tribute' in the way of dead taliban soldiers/terrorists. so we up armored and moved in, Killing every single Taliban-ie who could not be captured and made to rat out more of their people.

Seems like we've become a far more moral people as we've moved away from what God would deem correct.

Ah, no. Your just deluded yourself and changed the names of what you do to P/C terms in order to justify your deeds with your current version of 'morality.'

And we can show you cultures that have done great evil in the name of your God and his standards.

What's your point?

My point is going to be found in the answer to this question:

Man seems to have a great capacity for evil regardless of what God he invents to worship.

So, if man can do great evil in the presents of an absolute standard then how much more evil is now in the grasp of man with out an absolute standard to center him?

Everything we do with out an absolute standard can be justified if the right propaganda/spin is put on a given catalyst. That's my point, because History has shown this to be true over and over and over again. And yet once more into the breech we discard God in favor of our 'morality.' However this time we do so with out any way back.

To do great evil in the name of God always provides a way home as the standard of God can not be over looked indefinatly, as you seem to agree man will do evil under God's or without Him. when we march into and embrace evil now, because we are under the guiles of 'morality' there is no way to recenter ourselves. Because by the very nature of 'morality' we will simply justify what it is we are doing, no matter how depraved we get. (Killing babies is a good example.)

---

I think I hear a Waaaaaaa-mbulance in the background.

We'll Just have to wait and see how she responds, i think she can take as good as she gives.

[orogenicman]

Maybe you guys should just out right move to Personal attacks like alpo did. Because rehashing a defeated arguement is getting you no where. She seems to be one of the best and brightest amongest you, so maybe you should take her que and forgo the attempt for a topical discussion, and simply try and personally destroy the messenger, rather than validate a message (by responding to it) that makes you all look like hypocritical monsters. It's a page taken from the political commentators book of spinning a loosing battle. Do not address the question ask, address the question you wished they asked, if all else fails trivialize the indivisual and dismiss the attempt.

There is only one or two people on this website that can see the desperation in this act, so for the most part you will be considered a hero on the level of a John stewart, or a Bill Mahar by your peers. Then you and 'they' can declare a victory.

This is where we are supposed to apologize for pointing out that a ridiculous idea is ridiculous. Is stating the obvious really that insulting?

[Godlesspanther]

I think you'll find it a fair characterization that he simply doesn't understand them. He's a proof-texter, not an apologist or philosopher. His notion of whether a fallacy is committed is if the words used in the Wikipedia description of the fallacy, and the words used in the person's rhetoric, are similar. He has no concept of logical structure whatsoever.

That is actually a compliment (except for the proof texting bit.) Fore if what you call 'logic' has forced you and others like you to the conclusions you currently have about God, Not allowing you to proceed with an honest investigation about God with an open mind. I truly want nothing to with it.

You are using the term "open mind" incorrectly. "Keeping an open mind" actually means being open to all possibilities then examining the evidence and in light of that evidence one may or may not reach a firm conclusion. There is an old quote that has been attributed to numerous people -- we'll just say "anonymous" said:

"It is good to be open-minded, but not so open that your brains fall out." Being open to your bullshit, Drich, is being so open that your brains fall out. Furthermore you use the term to mean that one ought to be open to believing your bullshit, accepting that bullshit as absolute "truth," and then snap your mind shut to anyother possibility. That is not a correct use of the term "open-mind."

Case closed.

[tokutter]

That is actually a compliment (except for the proof texting bit.) Fore if what you call 'logic' has forced you and others like you to the conclusions you currently have about God, Not allowing you to proceed with an honest investigation about God with an open mind. I truly want nothing to with it.

You are using the term "open mind" incorrectly. "Keeping an open mind" actually means being open to all possibilities then examining the evidence and in light of that evidence one may or may not reach a firm conclusion. There is an old quote that has been attributed to numerous people -- we'll just say "anonymous" said:

"It is good to be open-minded, but not so open that your brains fall out." Being open to your bullshit, Drich, is being so open that your brains fall out. Furthermore you use the term to mean that one ought to be open to believing your bullshit, accepting that bullshit as absolute "truth," and then snap your mind shut to anyother possibility. That is not a correct use of the term "open-mind."

Case closed.

Drich has a whole book of his own definitions.

[I am God]

Do you have book Chapter and verse for any of these instances you claim?

Depends on if you believe that every word in the bible is inspired by God or not. If you're a cherry picker then it doesn't really matter. Do I seriously need to educate you on the bible or are you just trying to give me busy work because you can't counter my point. I really gets old dealing with Christians that expect us to tell them what's in their bible for them.

Indeed, why should He follow our rules? Is everyone in our soceity subject to the same rule set? Of course not, do those who govern and up hold the law, bound by those same laws? Do Children have the same rights and responsiablities as adults? Not even in our most idealistic soceity is this the case. So why would God be bound by His law?

So you're saying that nothing is perfect so God should also be allowed to be a hypocrite? He is supposedly a perfect being. He has deemed impregnating a woman before taking her as a wife a sin. So God sinned when he impregnated Mary with Christ. God is a sinner. It's about leading by example. And your God simply doesn't cut the mustard.

What was the purpose of His law to begin with? It was to seperate the rights and privlege of God from what man was allowed to do in God's creation.

No... it was to instruct man on what God considered wicked and sinful verses what was righteous and godly. It was Gods authority on what was wicked and what was not. For God himself to break his own law is for God to be wicked and sinful. It isn't just a set of rules for children. It was a measure of good and evil.

ex. If you wanted to, you could take a dump in the middle of your living room floor. now what if you invited me over would I have this same right or privledge? After all a turd on the carpet is a turd on the carpet, so what is the difference who's butt it comes from? Or is it s imply matter of you can do what you want with what you own, while others can not do what they want with what YOU own?

Your analogy is retarded at best. Let me fix it for you to show why you're wrong. It is as if I declared that to take a dump in the floor is evil and sinful. And that it must never be done because to do so is to be sinful and wicked. And then I turn around a do it myself. I have become wicked and sinful by my own standard. God doesn't fail by my standard. He fails by his own.

Like it or not God created this world and everything in it

No he didn't. This is a statement of what you believe... not what can actually be proven. All observance of nature seems to indicate that what you believe is false. And all investigation into biblical truths indicate the bible is full of lies and misdirection.

If God wants to take a dump on a people then who can call Him on it? By what right on who's authority? Who has the power to Hold God accountable? No power, no Authority means all you have is wishful thinking, and a meaningless standard to judge him by.

I judge him by HIS standard. And he fails to live up to it.

again by what standard?

His own.

Do you have book Chapter and Verse that says God broke His own law? Do you even have BCV that says the law of Moses applies to God?

LMAO... Moses' law? Have you even read the bible? Moses brought the law. But from where did it come? It's God's law. Either that or the bible is not the word of God and therefore is meaningless anyway. You cannot pick and choose when it's God's word and when it is not just to make your life easier.

Maybe you mean to say you have a law God gave that defines or limits what God can do..(Don't look now, but if you did have that law you would have a paradox on your hands.)
Because if God was bound by this imaginary of yours He would no longer be 'All powerful.' As whomever made the law that binds God would then be more powerful than God.

Can make a rock so big he can't move it? Can God sin? Can God destroy himself?

Is it murder if a taking of a life is sanctioned? (careful how you answer, and think about it alittle because you could undermine the fabric in which western soceity has been built.)

When it's sanctioned based on bigotry... yes... it's murder. Should we be allowed to murder black people just because we don't like them being so black?

Town no, A whole Country, yes. Otherwise why are we in afganistand? In short because we were not satasified with how they were 'paying tribute' in the way of dead taliban soldiers/terrorists. so we up armored and moved in, Killing every single Taliban-ie who could not be captured and made to rat out more of their people.

So you equate fighting known enemy combatants with moving like locusts from area to area raping and murdering because we're God's chosen people cause he told us so. You are obviously deep in your own delusion.

Ah, no. Your just deluded yourself and changed the names of what you do to P/C terms in order to justify your deeds with your current version of 'morality.'

There is no need to justify our current morality. It is agreed upon by our society at large. I'm sorry that it doesn't fit your archaic standard... but you'll just have to get used to being disappointed I guess. We are moving beyond the ramblings of bronze age savages.

So, if man can do great evil in the presents of an absolute standard then how much more evil is now in the grasp of man with out an absolute standard to center him?

The same amount. Men can justify murdering one another with or without God. You made the point yourself. Is it murder if it's sanctioned? You tell me. Abortion is legal. Is that murder to you? But I assume murdering a homosexual isn't murder since God seems to approve of it. Whether it be politics, God, race, sexuality, geography ect... man finds an excuse to murder one another. Getting rid of religion would get rid of at least one excuse I guess. I can think of no other force that has been responsible for more human deaths than religion.

Everything we do with out an absolute standard can be justified if the right propaganda/spin is put on a given catalyst.

The same is true of religion.

That's my point, because History has shown this to be true over and over and over again. And yet once more into the breech we discard God in favor of our 'morality.' However this time we do so with out any way back.

That statement makes no sense.

To do great evil in the name of God always provides a way home as the standard of God can not be over looked indefinatly, as you seem to agree man will do evil under God's or without Him. when we march into and embrace evil now, because we are under the guiles of 'morality' there is no way to recenter ourselves. Because by the very nature of 'morality' we will simply justify what it is we are doing, no matter how depraved we get.

You just described religion.

(Killing babies is a good example.)

What if the baby is a homosexual?

[Drich]

Maybe you guys should just out right move to Personal attacks like alpo did. Because rehashing a defeated arguement is getting you no where. She seems to be one of the best and brightest amongest you, so maybe you should take her que and forgo the attempt for a topical discussion, and simply try and personally destroy the messenger, rather than validate a message (by responding to it) that makes you all look like hypocritical monsters. It's a page taken from the political commentators book of spinning a loosing battle. Do not address the question ask, address the question you wished they asked, if all else fails trivialize the indivisual and dismiss the attempt.

There is only one or two people on this website that can see the desperation in this act, so for the most part you will be considered a hero on the level of a John stewart, or a Bill Mahar by your peers. Then you and 'they' can declare a victory.

This is where we are supposed to apologize for pointing out that a ridiculous idea is ridiculous. Is stating the obvious really that insulting?

Actually none of you has done this yet. Most of you have tried by saying God killed unborn babies by the thousands. Then i pointed out in your 'morality' You/Your perfered liberal soceity kills millions of these babies every year. You point out God kills an entire people, then i point out we did or currently doing our best to do the same with the taliban, again all of this while protected under the flag of morality. The acts don't change only the P/C term justifying the act changes and this soceity licenses itself to do 100x's more evil than what God has done.

What is insulting is that you johnny come latlys' think your the first person to come up with the very same arguement that the previous 10 was about.

That is why i suggested that you simply give up your current arguement. Because if your arguement spouted by a peer did not work on page 1-9 what makes you think it would work on page 10? Then I directed your attention to what Alpo was doing. I said because she is way smarter than you, maybe you should follow her on her approach, and that is to attack me personally, rather than try and address a topic that i am beating all of you in. She knows it is a lost cause that is why she is trying to kill the message by attacking the messenger first.

Are you so dense as to not understand all of this?

Maybe you should go back and read where your peers have failed and left the conversation, then maybe change your failed approach to something that works.