There is nothing false about the premise I laid out.
If God is the source of objective morality, then his law should be objectively moral. Any argument to the contrary proves my point (namely, that he's NOT the source of objective morality, and therefore the imperfection of the law is no surprise).
There was never a time in history when it was an objectively moral punishment for a rapist to "have to" marry his victim and pay her father 50 shekels. An omniscient God would know that. So either he's not omniscient, he's not moral, or both.
It makes sense that a society's laws and understanding of morality would evolve with time. It makes no sense that a God's understanding of morality would evolve unless he were imperfect and immoral (or at least imperfectly moral) to begin with.
If God were the source of objective morality . . . then his law should be objectively moral
You are moving goalposts, misrepresenting my positions, deliberately obfuscating from the points being made, distorting the logical premises of the discussion....
Honestly, to expect me to come up with rational responses to arguments that do not accept reason as a rhetorical value is too much to ask of anyone.
The best I can say is that you guys have proved my point by being so transparently dishonest in your efforts to refute it.
You are reading a non-relevant purpose into the law.
It's supposed to be unachievable BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE THAT MORAL.
It's not supposed to be some random list of immoral edicts just for the sake of demonstrating disobedience.
Honestly, the pretzel you have to twist yourself into to justify the morality of a God who straight up murdered someone for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week is baffling.
You can use your "Thus saith Raf" quip all you want, but the fact remains that you are defending a moral structure that's not defensible. And you should be embarrassed about it, honestly.
It was possible for Jesus Christ, who lived without sin. Seems you're missing the fact that his morality (or goodness) was not a product or result of the law, nor any obedience to it. Evidently you choose not to (or can't) make any distinction between righteous which is of the law and the righteousness which is of God. (A distinction which is rather plainly made in Romans 9:30-10:5.) But, I'm quite done with this issue. You can make whatever case you want for it directly with Him.
You are moving goalposts, misrepresenting my positions, deliberately obfuscating from the points being made, distorting the logical premises of the discussion....
Honestly, to expect me to come up with rational responses to arguments that do not accept reason as a rhetorical value is too much to ask of anyone.
The best I can say is that you guys have proved my point by being so transparently dishonest in your efforts to refute it.
No. I am not being dishonest.
The Yahweh question here insists that everyone take a fundamentalist viewpoint when thinking on God.
It does nothing but insist everyone view this question through a very narrow strip of reality to come to a preconceived conclusion.
Maybe if the opening post had more explanation of the specificity of the question. It clearly does not hold in all cases.
Only under a narrow strip of conditions does this work.
Let's make this a little simple. Do you believe there is anything morally wrong with executing a man for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? This is a simple yes or no question. Do you think there is anything morally wrong with killing a man for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week. Answer either yes or no. Anything else is dishonest.
Next, does the bible present Yahweh as having executed a man for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? The answer, of course, is objectively yes. He did order that man's execution for that crime.
Was that order immoral?
My position is, if you're honest, you have to admit that it was immoral for Yahweh to execute a man for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week. It was immoral for Yahweh to order a rapist to marry the woman he raped as punishment for his crime.
In my opinion, Yahweh is a fictional character who is not actually guilty of any of these things. But one cannot say that Yahweh is the author and determiner of objective morality without excusing moral atrocities that he authored and authorized.
This is not a "fundamentalist view." Missing my argument on that basis admits that my argument is correct. Namely that Yahweh, as depicted in the Bible is less moral than you and I are today. And that would not be the case if he were the author and determiner of objective morality.
Let's make this a little simple. Do you believe there is anything morally wrong with executing a man for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? This is a simple yes or no question. Do you think there is anything morally wrong with killing a man for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week. Answer either yes or no. Anything else is dishonest.
Next, does the bible present Yahweh as having executed a man for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? The answer, of course, is objectively yes. He did order that man's execution for that crime.
Was that order immoral?
My position is, if you're honest, you have to admit that it was immoral for Yahweh to execute a man for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week. It was immoral for Yahweh to order a rapist to marry the woman he raped as punishment for his crime.
In my opinion, Yahweh is a fictional character who is not actually guilty of any of these things. But one cannot say that Yahweh is the author and determiner of objective morality without excusing moral atrocities that he authored and authorized.
This is not a "fundamentalist view." Missing my argument on that basis admits that my argument is correct. Namely that Yahweh, as depicted in the Bible is less moral than you and I are today. And that would not be the case if he were the author and determiner of objective morality.
You're the guy who started "acual errors in PFAL. So I have a lot of respect for you.
I don't know if you really believe your own reasoning or if you're staying in character as an exercise.
My honest self can't submit to this reasoning. A former form of me could.
Pondering your question has opened up a lot of ideas for me though.
Your latest post here, mind blown. Why did God confound language in the Tower of Babel story? If we all communicated and collectively submitted to one ideology, what would happen? Not a higher morality. There is a reason that reason cannot flow from reason itself.
The depths to which you'll sink to avoid simple answers to simple questions demonstrates that I am correct in asserting that you are more moral than Yahweh.
Oh, but you want specifics.
Fine: You are more moral than Yahweh as he is depicted in the Bible.
"But that's fundamentalist!" No, that's what the Bible depicts. And really, it's revisionist for you to come along thousands of years later and say that the originators of this mythology didn't really think this way.
We today are more moral than Yahweh for oodles of rational reasons. We know more. We have challenged the assumptions of the past (allowing slavery and demeaning women). Society has indeed evolved.
God is not supposed to evolve, and if He existed as depicted in the Bible, he would not evolve. He is the Lord. He changes not.
Can God grow in wisdom? Can his morality improve over time?
True, the Law was never designed to be kept on every point. But it was designed to be the expression of His will. Paul called the law "holy just and good." But it's not. Sure, it's got some good points. Hooray, don't murder! (Literally every society came up with the same rule, some with Yahweh's guidance, most without).
Showing that there was morality in the Old Testament does not negate the point I'm making.
The point I'm making is that Yahweh as he is depicted in the Bible cannot possibly be the author and determiner of objective morality. To criticize my position as relying on a fundamentalist interpretation is to admit I am correct: Fundamentally, if you take the Bible at its word, Yahweh is a moral monster. The two things that absolve him are the unreliability of the fundamentalist position (the Bible doesn't really mean what it says when it says God ordered a man to be executed for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week) and the non-existence of its central character.
The depths to which you'll sink to avoid simple answers to simple questions demonstrates that I am correct in asserting that you are more moral than Yahweh.
Oh, but you want specifics.
Fine: You are more moral than Yahweh as he is depicted in the Bible.
"But that's fundamentalist!" No, that's what the Bible depicts. And really, it's revisionist for you to come along thousands of years later and say that the originators of this mythology didn't really think this way.
We today are more moral than Yahweh for oodles of rational reasons. We know more. We have challenged the assumptions of the past (allowing slavery and demeaning women). Society has indeed evolved.
God is not supposed to evolve, and if He existed as depicted in the Bible, he would not evolve. He is the Lord. He changes not.
Can God grow in wisdom? Can his morality improve over time?
True, the Law was never designed to be kept on every point. But it was designed to be the expression of His will. Paul called the law "holy just and good." But it's not. Sure, it's got some good points. Hooray, don't murder! (Literally every society came up with the same rule, some with Yahweh's guidance, most without).
Showing that there was morality in the Old Testament does not negate the point I'm making.
The point I'm making is that Yahweh as he is depicted in the Bible cannot possibly be the author and determiner of objective morality. To criticize my position as relying on a fundamentalist interpretation is to admit I am correct: Fundamentally, if you take the Bible at its word, Yahweh is a moral monster. The two things that absolve him are the unreliability of the fundamentalist position (the Bible doesn't really mean what it says when it says God ordered a man to be executed for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week) and the non-existence of its central character.
One, this reasoning is reductionist. Oversimplify and draw conclusions from that. Destined for error.
Two, fundamentalism and atheism are two peas in a pod.
Three, You haven't demonstrated an understanding of where God is indeed real and how evolution affects that.
Four, a human killing a person and Yahweh killing a person, from a Fundy perspective . . . a human can't raise the dead.
Five, The modern world is still prone to the problems of 5000 - 10000 years ago.
Six, Your view of "originators of the mythology" is a misunderstanding. Propaganda does not survive. Definitely not thousands of years. Don't think of the Bible that way.
Two: The false equivalency between "fundamentalism" and "atheism" should embarrass you. That it doesn't tells me the quality of this dialogue.
Three: Why would I demonstrate an understanding of that which is not true?
Four: Glad to see you can acknowledge a fundy perspective without adopting it. So you're saying it's okay for God to kill because he can raise. It's actually the best point you've made. I'll give you credit for that. The problem is, the killing was not done as some kind of favor, ushering him into a pleasant afterlife (whenever that would commence). It was done as a punishment. And as a punishment, it is still ridiculous to think death fits the crime of sabbath breaking.
Five: The modern world is still prone to the problems of 5,000 years ago. Thanks. This literally has nothing to do with what we were discussing.
Six: "originators of the mythology" is not a misunderstanding, and propaganda DOES survive. What made you think otherwise? "Definitely not thousands of years"? Where did you come up with that rule? By what standard do you conclude propaganda does not survive thousands of years? Of course it does! The existence of all religions save one is a testament to the fact that propaganda can and does survive years, centuries and millenia. (I say "save one" as an oversimplification: most religions are mutually exclusive, and while one may accommodate the other, the feeling usually is not mutual. As such, both cannot be right).
Seven: What is an ultimate morality? You need to read more carefully. You're assuming I said there is such a thing.
It appears we don't agree on one point because you are constantly shifting the premise to something untenable.
The Bible tells us the qualities of God. I explore them. BAM! I'm a fundy who doesn't understand how religion evolves.
Of COURSE I understand how religion evolves. It's my flipping point! If religion didn't evolve, and people's definition of their Gods with them, then there would be nothing to discuss because either the religion would have gotten morality right on the first try or I would not be arguing that you are more moral than an ancient war God because you would NOT be.
But honestly, it just seems to me, based on how you trolled this theme from one thread to another, that you are not actually interested in a real dialogue or discussion, You're just interested in saying "Raf is wrong" on as many threads as you can.
Which would be DELIGHTFUL if you had a real point, but you don't. That's why you have to shift all the definitions to post anything. That's why you have to ask, sorry, STUPID questions like whether I think we're more moral than the devil or whether there are any laws in the Old Testament I like. These are bad-faith questions that expose your approach as insincere, and I'm tired of addressing them.
It appears we don't agree on one point because you are constantly shifting the premise to something untenable.
The Bible tells us the qualities of God. I explore them. BAM! I'm a fundy who doesn't understand how religion evolves.
Of COURSE I understand how religion evolves. It's my flipping point! If religion didn't evolve, and people's definition of their Gods with them, then there would be nothing to discuss because either the religion would have gotten morality right on the first try or I would not be arguing that you are more moral than an ancient war God because you would NOT be.
But honestly, it just seems to me, based on how you trolled this theme from one thread to another, that you are not actually interested in a real dialogue or discussion, You're just interested in saying "Raf is wrong" on as many threads as you can.
Which would be DELIGHTFUL if you had a real point, but you don't. That's why you have to shift all the definitions to post anything. That's why you have to ask, sorry, STUPID questions like whether I think we're more moral than the devil or whether there are any laws in the Old Testament I like. These are bad-faith questions that expose your approach as insincere, and I'm tired of addressing them.
If you understand how religion evolves why not include that somewhere in the thread? That way the question can relate to the real world.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
266
38
32
188
Popular Days
Aug 7
50
Aug 8
46
Aug 2
42
Aug 1
33
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 266 posts
waysider 38 posts
TrustAndObey 32 posts
Bolshevik 188 posts
Popular Days
Aug 7 2017
50 posts
Aug 8 2017
46 posts
Aug 2 2017
42 posts
Aug 1 2017
33 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
Raf.......YES! And so are you! TY!
TrustAndObey
I can understand where you are coming from Raf. However, if you honestly are inviting a discussion on these topics, could you be clear on what you consider is dodging. Because, to myself, you make it
TLC
It's not just people that say it. Scripture itself says that God is good. But simply equating morality to that which is "good" and attributing the cause (or source) of it to the law (and then equati
Posted Images
Bolshevik
So we're less evil than the devil?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If God were the source of objective morality . . . then his law should be objectively moral
Like The Word is above his name?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm no longer answering non sequiturs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
this is a stupid question.
This is the kind of bad faith question that leads me to believe you guys are trolling the thread and not interested in a real dialogue.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Goes back to I, Robot.
Don't see why that is a non sequitur.
It's the same old argument. Look for imperfection outside of God.
Use The Bible. Use The Law. Use the Human Eye having blood vessels in stupid spot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
How can there be dialogue if you have an open and shut case? Why ask something that silly?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Your dishonest approach to this thread, and to this conversation across several threads, should embarrass you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Explain
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I shouldn't have to.
You are moving goalposts, misrepresenting my positions, deliberately obfuscating from the points being made, distorting the logical premises of the discussion....
Honestly, to expect me to come up with rational responses to arguments that do not accept reason as a rhetorical value is too much to ask of anyone.
The best I can say is that you guys have proved my point by being so transparently dishonest in your efforts to refute it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
It was possible for Jesus Christ, who lived without sin. Seems you're missing the fact that his morality (or goodness) was not a product or result of the law, nor any obedience to it. Evidently you choose not to (or can't) make any distinction between righteous which is of the law and the righteousness which is of God. (A distinction which is rather plainly made in Romans 9:30-10:5.) But, I'm quite done with this issue. You can make whatever case you want for it directly with Him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Did Jesus Christ execute someone for picking up sticks on tge,wrong day of the week? No. Because to do so would have been immoral.
Thus saith Raf, and if thus doth not say ye, then ye are immoral
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Are you really done with the issue, TLC? Please?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Telling an atheist to take it up with Jesus...
Seriously people. Take it up with Javert.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You need to get Jesus on the main line. Tell him what you want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
No. I am not being dishonest.
The Yahweh question here insists that everyone take a fundamentalist viewpoint when thinking on God.
It does nothing but insist everyone view this question through a very narrow strip of reality to come to a preconceived conclusion.
Maybe if the opening post had more explanation of the specificity of the question. It clearly does not hold in all cases.
Only under a narrow strip of conditions does this work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
only by dishonestly distorting what I say and what the bible says can you present your position. I'm over it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Let's make this a little simple. Do you believe there is anything morally wrong with executing a man for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? This is a simple yes or no question. Do you think there is anything morally wrong with killing a man for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week. Answer either yes or no. Anything else is dishonest.
Next, does the bible present Yahweh as having executed a man for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? The answer, of course, is objectively yes. He did order that man's execution for that crime.
Was that order immoral?
My position is, if you're honest, you have to admit that it was immoral for Yahweh to execute a man for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week. It was immoral for Yahweh to order a rapist to marry the woman he raped as punishment for his crime.
In my opinion, Yahweh is a fictional character who is not actually guilty of any of these things. But one cannot say that Yahweh is the author and determiner of objective morality without excusing moral atrocities that he authored and authorized.
This is not a "fundamentalist view." Missing my argument on that basis admits that my argument is correct. Namely that Yahweh, as depicted in the Bible is less moral than you and I are today. And that would not be the case if he were the author and determiner of objective morality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You're the guy who started "acual errors in PFAL. So I have a lot of respect for you.
I don't know if you really believe your own reasoning or if you're staying in character as an exercise.
My honest self can't submit to this reasoning. A former form of me could.
Pondering your question has opened up a lot of ideas for me though.
Your latest post here, mind blown. Why did God confound language in the Tower of Babel story? If we all communicated and collectively submitted to one ideology, what would happen? Not a higher morality. There is a reason that reason cannot flow from reason itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The depths to which you'll sink to avoid simple answers to simple questions demonstrates that I am correct in asserting that you are more moral than Yahweh.
Oh, but you want specifics.
Fine: You are more moral than Yahweh as he is depicted in the Bible.
"But that's fundamentalist!" No, that's what the Bible depicts. And really, it's revisionist for you to come along thousands of years later and say that the originators of this mythology didn't really think this way.
We today are more moral than Yahweh for oodles of rational reasons. We know more. We have challenged the assumptions of the past (allowing slavery and demeaning women). Society has indeed evolved.
God is not supposed to evolve, and if He existed as depicted in the Bible, he would not evolve. He is the Lord. He changes not.
Can God grow in wisdom? Can his morality improve over time?
True, the Law was never designed to be kept on every point. But it was designed to be the expression of His will. Paul called the law "holy just and good." But it's not. Sure, it's got some good points. Hooray, don't murder! (Literally every society came up with the same rule, some with Yahweh's guidance, most without).
Showing that there was morality in the Old Testament does not negate the point I'm making.
The point I'm making is that Yahweh as he is depicted in the Bible cannot possibly be the author and determiner of objective morality. To criticize my position as relying on a fundamentalist interpretation is to admit I am correct: Fundamentally, if you take the Bible at its word, Yahweh is a moral monster. The two things that absolve him are the unreliability of the fundamentalist position (the Bible doesn't really mean what it says when it says God ordered a man to be executed for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week) and the non-existence of its central character.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
One,
One, this reasoning is reductionist. Oversimplify and draw conclusions from that. Destined for error.
Two, fundamentalism and atheism are two peas in a pod.
Three, You haven't demonstrated an understanding of where God is indeed real and how evolution affects that.
Four, a human killing a person and Yahweh killing a person, from a Fundy perspective . . . a human can't raise the dead.
Five, The modern world is still prone to the problems of 5000 - 10000 years ago.
Six, Your view of "originators of the mythology" is a misunderstanding. Propaganda does not survive. Definitely not thousands of years. Don't think of the Bible that way.
Seven, What's an ultimate morality?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
One: your declaration does not make it so.
Two: The false equivalency between "fundamentalism" and "atheism" should embarrass you. That it doesn't tells me the quality of this dialogue.
Three: Why would I demonstrate an understanding of that which is not true?
Four: Glad to see you can acknowledge a fundy perspective without adopting it. So you're saying it's okay for God to kill because he can raise. It's actually the best point you've made. I'll give you credit for that. The problem is, the killing was not done as some kind of favor, ushering him into a pleasant afterlife (whenever that would commence). It was done as a punishment. And as a punishment, it is still ridiculous to think death fits the crime of sabbath breaking.
Five: The modern world is still prone to the problems of 5,000 years ago. Thanks. This literally has nothing to do with what we were discussing.
Six: "originators of the mythology" is not a misunderstanding, and propaganda DOES survive. What made you think otherwise? "Definitely not thousands of years"? Where did you come up with that rule? By what standard do you conclude propaganda does not survive thousands of years? Of course it does! The existence of all religions save one is a testament to the fact that propaganda can and does survive years, centuries and millenia. (I say "save one" as an oversimplification: most religions are mutually exclusive, and while one may accommodate the other, the feeling usually is not mutual. As such, both cannot be right).
Seven: What is an ultimate morality? You need to read more carefully. You're assuming I said there is such a thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I posted seven ideas but there's probably a lot more.
It appears we don't agree on one point because we don't agree on a lot of others.
Edited by Bolshevikwording
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It appears we don't agree on one point because you are constantly shifting the premise to something untenable.
The Bible tells us the qualities of God. I explore them. BAM! I'm a fundy who doesn't understand how religion evolves.
Of COURSE I understand how religion evolves. It's my flipping point! If religion didn't evolve, and people's definition of their Gods with them, then there would be nothing to discuss because either the religion would have gotten morality right on the first try or I would not be arguing that you are more moral than an ancient war God because you would NOT be.
But honestly, it just seems to me, based on how you trolled this theme from one thread to another, that you are not actually interested in a real dialogue or discussion, You're just interested in saying "Raf is wrong" on as many threads as you can.
Which would be DELIGHTFUL if you had a real point, but you don't. That's why you have to shift all the definitions to post anything. That's why you have to ask, sorry, STUPID questions like whether I think we're more moral than the devil or whether there are any laws in the Old Testament I like. These are bad-faith questions that expose your approach as insincere, and I'm tired of addressing them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If you understand how religion evolves why not include that somewhere in the thread? That way the question can relate to the real world.
Edited by Bolshevikspelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.