Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OT Yahweh is far more violent than NT Yahweh. He kills tons of people. He orders the killing of tons of people. Literally, he kills more people in the OT than Satan does.
Satan is a created being. Is it possible for Satan to kill anyone without the authorization of a sovereign God?
All humans are on death row. Why do we all die? Do we all deserve to die?
Also, you appear to be throwing down a moral judgment here. If there is no God, and all morality is relative, what makes your view of morality any better than the moral view of anyone else? Who are you to impose your idea of morality on anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
And how is God's orders for the destruction of 60 cities, and to kill everyone in them,including women and children, just? All so the Israelites can live there. For a God that supposedly loves all of his creation, he certainly appreciates the Israelites more than any other.
Again, upon what moral basis are you indicting God?
If all morality is relative and one person views killing woman and children as moral, by what basis, beyond your own opinion, would you indict anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
When you play thought terminating cliches like "It's God's creation, he can do what he wants (which I know you will eventually do, so don't bother) it's hard to have a serious discussion about the (lack of) morality of God.
If you or I were able to understand all of God's intentions and purposes - well, God wouldn't be God would he.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Any simple reading of the OT will reveal that God is a violent Creator. An actual understanding of why is much more beneficial: Faith empowers, and believing that there is this guy in the sky that is watching of you and your nation as you fight wars and conquer, it's pretty uplifting and induces quite a bit of morale in the forces. Believing that God tells you to destroy 60 cities is much more reason to fight than some overarching commander telling you to do so, especially considering, well, it's God, creator of all things! You can't argue against that kind of authority.
Anyone can jump onto a web forum and spout off opinions about this or that. If you're trying to make a sensible and reasonable case against Christianity, you're doing a very poor job of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Frequently they do. Sacrifice is a common practice.
We were talking about old 'Uncle Joe' Stalin. I just wanted to be sure that I understood whether or not you were advocating his utilitarian murder of millions (the means) as justified due to what he viewed as an appreciable end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
God's Word?! Are you sure about that? Are you following OT law or NT law? Because there is a very specific difference, notably that the later you're following the Religion of Paul.
The God I believe in, is the same God in both the Old and New Testaments.
Are you going somewhere with all this?
You apparently have a very different view of scripture than I do. So what's your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Would you like me to reiterate? CLEARLY MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. That's why citizens have guns, to defend what society,the masses, finds right. 300 million people armed and revolting is more than a government could handle. If the government overstepped its bounds (like, disavowed freedom of press or some such), the people could rise up and violently overthrow those in power. The Society determines what is right, and we agree to what is right.
Which is why we have rights and laws in the first place: we all agree to follow them. When it comes time to change them, somebody disagrees, leads a movement, and overthrows (thankfully peacefully) the incumbent laws,rights, and "morals" of the society. That isn't too difficult to understand.
Interesting viewpoint.
Knowing what I know about human history I would not be able to share your confidence and optimism in the "rightness" of 300 million people - even if I were to become an atheist.
What makes you so all fire sure that what happened in Germany in the 1930's couldn't as well happen here in the United States?
You're the one making the absurd assertion that Christian teaching advocates slavery.
Make the case - in your own words. I'm well acquainted with the endless number of varying viewpoints available through on-line search engines.
I suggest that you either put up or shut up.
Anyway...
"You're the one making the absurd assertion that Christian teaching advocates slavery." tigetmax24 #104
The only absurdity is how you got, Christianity advocates slavery out of "...they [Christian slave owning apologist] found support for slavery in the teachings of Christ."
And to think that I delayed going out to dinner with my wife, so that I could respond to your pm thinking that your "question" actually deserved an immediate response.
Satan is a created being. Is it possible for Satan to kill anyone without the authorization of a sovereign God?
Depends on where you stand on the entire omniscience versus free-will argument. The two are mutually exclusive. If created beings have free-will, than they can do anything without the authorization or knowledge of God. If God is omniscient, than nothing happens without His say so, and as such, everything that happens is for God's purpose, be it amusement or otherwise.
Quote:
All humans are on death row. Why do we all die? Do we all deserve to die?
Death is part of entropy. What does that have to do with morality?
Quote:
Also, you appear to be throwing down a moral judgment here. If there is no God, and all morality is relative, what makes your view of morality any better than the moral view of anyone else? Who are you to impose your idea of morality on anyone?
Morality is a socially constructed set of rules that we all agree to live by. Being socially constructed, any member and all members weigh in on those constructs. The powerful of society that decide what is right sets the rules. If we all agree to live by the rules, society continues to function. Observed in other animals.
Quote:
Again, upon what moral basis are you indicting God?
Human morals, obviously. God is a construct of humans, and reflects the morals and needs of humans at the time.
If all morality is relative and one person views killing woman and children as moral, by what basis, beyond your own opinion, would you indict anyone?[/quote]
I can take this two ways. Biologically, the death of any one member of a species can be detrimental to the survival of that species. In this case, your "transcendental" law giver is merely biological survival. However, morals are a social construct. Someone living entirely on their own has no need for morals. Someone living in a large city has plenty of need for morality.
Outside of that, because morality is a social construct, all members in that society have weigh on what constitutes moral behavior and what doesn't, however, only those in power generally have the ability to determine for the society what constitutes moral behavior. The sheep just follow the shepherd.
Quote:
If you or I were able to understand all of God's intentions and purposes - well, God wouldn't be God would he.
Tautology? God's intentions are not hard to understand, but you have to place yourself in 1500BCE in order to do so.
Quote:
Anyone can jump onto a web forum and spout off opinions about this or that. If you're trying to make a sensible and reasonable case against Christianity, you're doing a very poor job of it.
Just showing that people have gods because they prefer to externalize their responsibility. "God said so, so it must be right." Now lets sacrifice a virgin. Children do the same thing.
Quote:
We were talking about old 'Uncle Joe' Stalin. I just wanted to be sure that I understood whether or not you were advocating his utilitarian murder of millions (the means) as justified due to what he viewed as an appreciable end.
Ah, I wasn't aware you referring specifically to Stalin. Do I think that killing millions was an effective means of maintaining power? Yes. Clearly he kept power until his death. Do I think it was ethical to do such? No. Killing people is bad because it (usually) detrimental to the species.
Do I think that the ends justify the means? Frequently this is the case. Cutting open the skin to remove a splinter is certainly more violent than a more passive method of removing wood from flesh, but it gets the job done quickly and allows work to resume.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigeTmax24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
God's Word?! Are you sure about that? Are you following OT law or NT law? Because there is a very specific difference, notably that the later you're following the Religion of Paul.
The God I believe in, is the same God in both the Old and New Testaments.
Are you going somewhere with all this?
You apparently have a very different view of scripture than I do. So what's your point?
The gods are very much different. The God of the OT is a warmongering violent homicidal bully. The NT God is just Jesus' version of love-and-peace, likely the result of a temporal lobe seizure in the amygdala.
The "Religion of Paul" as Thomas Jefferson put it, is what Christians today follow. Paul invented Christianity. Quite possibly it was based on a thinker of the time, or maybe Paul really didn't like Judaism. Whatever it is, Jesus' Paul and the Jesus of the Gospels are two different characters. The Gospels were written well after Paul and well after the death of Jesus. Stories invented to further the veracity of the religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Would you like me to reiterate? CLEARLY MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. That's why citizens have guns, to defend what society,the masses, finds right. 300 million people armed and revolting is more than a government could handle. If the government overstepped its bounds (like, disavowed freedom of press or some such), the people could rise up and violently overthrow those in power. The Society determines what is right, and we agree to what is right.
Which is why we have rights and laws in the first place: we all agree to follow them. When it comes time to change them, somebody disagrees, leads a movement, and overthrows (thankfully peacefully) the incumbent laws,rights, and "morals" of the society. That isn't too difficult to understand.
Interesting viewpoint.
Knowing what I know about human history I would not be able to share your confidence and optimism in the "rightness" of 300 million people - even if I were to become an atheist.
Except, even as a Christian, you still participate in constructed morals, you just prefer to externalize the responsibility to a higher authority.
Quote:
What makes you so all fire sure that what happened in Germany in the 1930's couldn't as well happen here in the United States?
We might not have killed some 11 million minorities, but the persecution of a group of people (and no, Christians, you are not being persecuted) is the externalization of a nations social ills. Mothers blame rock music, conservatives are now blaming the gays, liberals are blaming the conservatives, etc. Blame something, anything but the real problem, and nobody will talk about the real problem. /mini-rant
The powerful of society that decide what is right sets the rules.
I might add that there is another dimension to the might makes right postulate. Might , or power, can derive from more than arms or position. It can be derived from superior intellect and the power of persuasion. Clearly African Americans were not "powerful" in the 1960's, but the power of the argument, rationality, brought about a moral and subsequently a legislative change in American society. The same can be said for the Women's movement and not with gays and lesbians. These are just a few of the examples whereby the seemingly "powerless" were able to exert power on a more "powerful" social fabric.
Depends on where you stand on the entire omniscience versus free-will argument. The two are mutually exclusive. If created beings have free-will, than they can do anything without the authorization or knowledge of God. If God is omniscient, than nothing happens without His say so, and as such, everything that happens is for God's purpose, be it amusement or otherwise.
Totally missing the point. If God is sovereign (...you do know what the definition of sovereignty is, don't you?) and Satan is created (...and you do know what a created being is, don't you?) can Satan do anything without the authorization of a sovereign God. In other words, if A, then B would logically follow.
Where you stand on the issue of "omniscience versus free will" matters not one wit with respect to the question at hand. But, when you can't give a reasonable answer - just deflect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Death is part of entropy. What does that have to do with morality?
If you are unable to recall what the discussion was about, why bother to respond?
In a previous post you were throwing down moral judgments on God for killing people. My basic response was to state that, in a sense, God kills everyone in that all people eventually die. Further, I asked you whether or not we all deserve to die i.e., is God's judgment to cause everyone to die a just judgment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Morality is a socially constructed set of rules that we all agree to live by. Being socially constructed, any member and all members weigh in on those constructs. The powerful of society that decide what is right sets the rules. If we all agree to live by the rules, society continues to function. Observed in other animals.
Once again, you've lost track of the discussion. We're not arguing whether morality is absolute or relative. I've been trying to get you to explain how it is possible to make moral judgments in the absence of a transcendent law. How would the morality of one (person, nation, society) be superior to the morality of another? You stated that the one with the most power gets to make the rules. Fine. Does might then make right?
You won't respond to the point presumably, because you have no reasonable answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Human morals, obviously. God is a construct of humans, and reflects the morals and needs of humans at the time.
Look, I totally get that you don't believe in God and that you believe that the whole thing is a human "construct." You're perfectly entitled to your opinion but you continue to miss the point.
Again, if all morality is relative, what basis do you have for passing down any moral indictments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
I can take this two ways. Biologically, the death of any one member of a species can be detrimental to the survival of that species.
LOOK, YOU'RE TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT!
Aren't there times when death can be helpful to the survival of a species? Just because you say it's "detrimental," so what? It's relative. It's simply your own personal opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
In this case, your "transcendental" law giver is merely biological survival. However, morals are a social construct. Someone living entirely on their own has no need for morals. Someone living in a large city has plenty of need for morality.
If morality is relative, why does anyone need morality?
...and why do I bother to ask the question when I know very well you won't answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Outside of that, because morality is a social construct, all members in that society have weigh on what constitutes moral behavior and what doesn't, however, only those in power generally have the ability to determine for the society what constitutes moral behavior. The sheep just follow the shepherd.
...and so might makes right, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Tautology? God's intentions are not hard to understand, but you have to place yourself in 1500BCE in order to do so.
I suppose that when one presumes himself to be God, then God's intentions naturally become easy to know and understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Just showing that people have gods because they prefer to externalize their responsibility. "God said so, so it must be right." Now lets sacrifice a virgin. Children do the same thing.
Nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Ah, I wasn't aware you referring specifically to Stalin. Do I think that killing millions was an effective means of maintaining power? Yes. Clearly he kept power until his death. Do I think it was ethical to do such? No. Killing people is bad because it (usually) detrimental to the species.
Do I think that the ends justify the means? Frequently this is the case. Cutting open the skin to remove a splinter is certainly more violent than a more passive method of removing wood from flesh, but it gets the job done quickly and allows work to resume.
Stalin says it's right. You say it's wrong. So what?
Is murdering millions of people right or is murdering millions of people wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
The gods are very much different. The God of the OT is a warmongering violent homicidal bully. The NT God is just Jesus' version of love-and-peace, likely the result of a temporal lobe seizure in the amygdala.
Again, we obviously disagree about these things. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
The "Religion of Paul" as Thomas Jefferson put it, is what Christians today follow. Paul invented Christianity. Quite possibly it was based on a thinker of the time, or maybe Paul really didn't like Judaism. Whatever it is, Jesus' Paul and the Jesus of the Gospels are two different characters. The Gospels were written well after Paul and well after the death of Jesus. Stories invented to further the veracity of the religion.
That's your opinion. So what? We're not in a thread discussion that would concern any of this - so why bring it up?
We might not have killed some 11 million minorities, but the persecution of a group of people (and no, Christians, you are not being persecuted) is the externalization of a nations social ills. Mothers blame rock music, conservatives are now blaming the gays, liberals are blaming the conservatives, etc. Blame something, anything but the real problem, and nobody will talk about the real problem. /mini-rant
You basically stated that 300 million people can't be wrong. Now you appear to be saying it is possible for the majority to get it wrong.
Tigetmax, Morality is a social construct. You can't expect a yes-no answer on such a complex issue. There is no absolute morality. We make it up as we go along to fit our needs. I've answered twice now that "might makes right," but, as Ovcatto pointed out (and I agree with), might can be defined in any number of ways.
I've also explained to you why, as a member of society, I have a voice in what constitutes moral behavior and what does not. I've answered all your questions, and I have no doubt anyone else can see that. What exactly are you having trouble comprehending?
Buddhism is one of the most ethical philosophies on the planet, predates Christianity and is one of the earliest rejections of priest, and deities.
In his first sermon, given in the 6th Century BCE, encapsulates the morality of the 10 Commandments, and the Sermon on the Mount without a need for fealty to any god. And, frankly, I think goes a few steps further for the development of a rational moral society.
Right Belief [understanding the truth about the universality of suffering and knowing the path to its extinction],
Right Aspiration [a mind free of ill will, sensuous desire and cruelty],
Right Speech [abstaining from lying, harsh language and gossip],
Right Conduct [avoiding killing, stealing and unlawful sexual intercourse],
Right Means of Livelihood [avoiding any occupation taht brings harm directly or indirectly to any other living being],
Right Endeavor [avoiding unwholsome and evil things],
Right Memory [awareness in contemplation],
Right Meditation. [concentration that ultimately reaches the level of a trance],
I just don't buy the reincarnation thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
