Like I believe own of the aspects being worked out in David's story is the King's submission to God. King is the head of The State. But if he sees himself as the State, that's totalitarian rule. God serves as something above the King.
And should there be a worldwide catastrophe, would we remain as moral as we think we are? We might try. We would fail. Not because of a lack of willingness, but because that understanding can be lost.
People's understanding of morality changes, the ideal person changes, then God changes. Evolution provides the number of frames from which we draw morality.
That's why.
Societies change. What is considered moral, and what is not, changes along with those societal changes. But the Bible states that God never changes. Whether we think of God as an actual entity or as a concept, there exists that stipulation to deal with. Was society so different 2,000, 3,000 years ago that people alive during that time actually accepted the things we're discussing to be moral? If they did, I have to think our understanding of their culture is so limited that it's pointless to try to find true meaning in anything of a Biblical nature.
The moment we say "God changes," we admit that man created God and not vice versa. Or that God is not perfect and can become better over time. Neither premise is supposed to be true of Yahweh as portrayed in the Bible.
Which goes back to why stories survive better than propaganda. etc etc.
Stories that contain propaganda can have tremendous staying power. Ask the average Muslim. Staying power doesn't prove a story true, not does it prove the story is not propaganda at heart.
Stories that contain propaganda can have tremendous staying power. Ask the average Muslim. Staying power doesn't prove a story true, not does it prove the story is not propaganda at heart.
They may. But I think you're referred to Memes.
But the snake story. Our ancestors who live in trees, they were snake food and evolved the wiring to fear them. There are stories that are just more true.
Societies change. What is considered moral, and what is not, changes along with those societal changes. But the Bible states that God never changes. Whether we think of God as an actual entity or as a concept, there exists that stipulation to deal with. Was society so different 2,000, 3,000 years ago that people alive during that time actually accepted the things we're discussing to be moral? If they did, I have to think our understanding of their culture is so limited that it's pointless to try to find true meaning in anything of a Biblical nature.
I think, if the Bible does indeed says "God doesn't change" . . . I think it's relative in meaning. He may change. But over a persons lifetime or several generations? He doesn't. Not thousands of years ago.
We have better medicine today, does that make us better? We're certainly better off. It's also possible to lose that knowledge and its benefits. Same with morality.
The moment we say "God changes," we admit that man created God and not vice versa. Or that God is not perfect and can become better over time. Neither premise is supposed to be true of Yahweh as portrayed in the Bible.
God is an abstraction of an many ideals. Compared to any human, yes he is perfect. It's relative. We don't have to take everything as absolute.
Nobody is making the claims about Yahweh that Raf is in this thread. But to show the assumptions Raf made in order to come up with the Thread question are false, only proves his assertion.
Personally I think it's more important to tackle the assumptions on which the question is predicated.
The thing is, you are proving my point, but you are not proving my assertions or assumptions are false. Rather, you are demonstrating precisely why I am correct, but phrasing it in a way to make it seem like you're disproving my points. You are not disproving my points. You are proving them. If you are so committed to disagreeing with me that you can't even see that. You think your evolving God undermines my argument. Your evolving God makes my argument.
If you reject the notion that you are more moral now than Yahweh, then you will open yourself up to accepting all manner of atrocity in the name of religion.
How convenient. You get to make up whatever characteristics of God you want in order to win the argument. Would that my opponent were bound to a book.
The only assumption i made is that the Bible is the most authoritative Source on the characteristics of Yahweh. When the Bible says he does not change, and someone comes along and says he does change, I have to go with the Bible
If you reject the notion that you are more moral now than Yahweh, then you will open yourself up to accepting all manner of atrocity in the name of religion.
This is our major point of disagreement.
If you consider yourself more moral than Yahweh, you open yourself up to all manner of atrocity in the name of reaction to extremism.
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
I said understanding.
"more" implies something more significant. It's been what? Thousands of years? Not millions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
And again, God serves a function a human cannot serve. So there's an absurdness to the comparison.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Like I believe own of the aspects being worked out in David's story is the King's submission to God. King is the head of The State. But if he sees himself as the State, that's totalitarian rule. God serves as something above the King.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
And should there be a worldwide catastrophe, would we remain as moral as we think we are? We might try. We would fail. Not because of a lack of willingness, but because that understanding can be lost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Which goes back to why stories survive better than propaganda. etc etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yes, but that would not be on Yahweh. Or Superman.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I don't see superman as an expression of our evolutionary past.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Like with snakes associated with evil. If all the snake stories in the world were lost, they would re-emerge. Because we are wired to think that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Societies change. What is considered moral, and what is not, changes along with those societal changes. But the Bible states that God never changes. Whether we think of God as an actual entity or as a concept, there exists that stipulation to deal with. Was society so different 2,000, 3,000 years ago that people alive during that time actually accepted the things we're discussing to be moral? If they did, I have to think our understanding of their culture is so limited that it's pointless to try to find true meaning in anything of a Biblical nature.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The moment we say "God changes," we admit that man created God and not vice versa. Or that God is not perfect and can become better over time. Neither premise is supposed to be true of Yahweh as portrayed in the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Stories that contain propaganda can have tremendous staying power. Ask the average Muslim. Staying power doesn't prove a story true, not does it prove the story is not propaganda at heart.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
They may. But I think you're referred to Memes.
But the snake story. Our ancestors who live in trees, they were snake food and evolved the wiring to fear them. There are stories that are just more true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I think, if the Bible does indeed says "God doesn't change" . . . I think it's relative in meaning. He may change. But over a persons lifetime or several generations? He doesn't. Not thousands of years ago.
We have better medicine today, does that make us better? We're certainly better off. It's also possible to lose that knowledge and its benefits. Same with morality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
God is an abstraction of an many ideals. Compared to any human, yes he is perfect. It's relative. We don't have to take everything as absolute.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
$10 to anyone who correctly guesses my response.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Nobody is making the claims about Yahweh that Raf is in this thread. But to show the assumptions Raf made in order to come up with the Thread question are false, only proves his assertion.
Personally I think it's more important to tackle the assumptions on which the question is predicated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No assumptions. I have simply presented Yahweh as the Bible does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The thing is, you are proving my point, but you are not proving my assertions or assumptions are false. Rather, you are demonstrating precisely why I am correct, but phrasing it in a way to make it seem like you're disproving my points. You are not disproving my points. You are proving them. If you are so committed to disagreeing with me that you can't even see that. You think your evolving God undermines my argument. Your evolving God makes my argument.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You have assumptions. Lots of them.
Yahweh here is entirely Raf's literal according to Raf's usage.
It's not from a more scientific perspective. Using human and pre-human evolution and psychological interpretations.
If you accept Raf's question, that you are more moral than Yahweh, you will accept a lot of other mumbo jumbo along with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
My presentation of Yahweh is coming straight from the Bible. i've cited chapter and verse. Where are your chapters and verses?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If you reject the notion that you are more moral now than Yahweh, then you will open yourself up to accepting all manner of atrocity in the name of religion.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I don't limit myself to such a view.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
How convenient. You get to make up whatever characteristics of God you want in order to win the argument. Would that my opponent were bound to a book.
The only assumption i made is that the Bible is the most authoritative Source on the characteristics of Yahweh. When the Bible says he does not change, and someone comes along and says he does change, I have to go with the Bible
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
This is our major point of disagreement.
If you consider yourself more moral than Yahweh, you open yourself up to all manner of atrocity in the name of reaction to extremism.
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.