if not evolution

[ding]

And if you looked at Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Athenian philosophy, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, they universally espouse the value of virtue. Without exception.

And what we are discussing is virtue versus no virtue. Not different flavors or perceptions of virtue, but virtue against the lack of virtue. The antithesis. The diametric opposition to this behavior.

honest vs dishonest
caring vs cruel
loving vs hateful
selfless vs selfish
humble vs arrogant
thankful vs thankless

Given these two extremes the outcomes of these behaviors should be pretty self evident. Even to you two.

I still haven’t found you making any connection to virtue=success.

I’ll require more cutting and pasting. On with it.

I thought it was obvious.

Which description do you think would have more success in life.

A people who were dishonest, cruel, hateful, selfish, arrogant, thankless assholes.

or

A people who were honest, caring, loving, selfless and thankful?

 

[G.T.]

Or do I need to do the same damn thing with each religion to show you how stupid you two are looking?

humans, people, humans...



amazing!!

Why would you expect anything different anywhere else? I wouldn't. Maybe it is just because you have never really given it any thought. Do you think the laws of nature are different over there?

I think that I said that virtues are a human construct ages ago...and to prove me wrong, you point to human examples of virtues


its because you are stupid ding, if youre wondering.

 

[ding]

All of a sudden GT thinks he has been saying the same thing as me.

 

[G.T.]

All of a sudden GT thinks he has been saying the same thing as me.

No, you said virtues are universal

i said theyre human


to prove theyre universal, you point to humans



its cuz youre an idiot.

its purdy blatant

 

[Hollie]

And if you looked at Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Athenian philosophy, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, they universally espouse the value of virtue. Without exception.

And what we are discussing is virtue versus no virtue. Not different flavors or perceptions of virtue, but virtue against the lack of virtue. The antithesis. The diametric opposition to this behavior.

honest vs dishonest
caring vs cruel
loving vs hateful
selfless vs selfish
humble vs arrogant
thankful vs thankless

Given these two extremes the outcomes of these behaviors should be pretty self evident. Even to you two.

I still haven’t found you making any connection to virtue=success.

I’ll require more cutting and pasting. On with it.

I thought it was obvious.

Which description do you think would have more success in life.

A people who were dishonest, cruel, hateful, selfish, arrogant, thankless assholes.

or

A people who were honest, caring, loving, selfless and thankful?

That was quite the backstroke. You should try-out for the Olympic swim team.

or

Try to support your earlier claim.

Nah, just spam the thread with more “quotes”.

Off you go, Laddie.

 

[ding]

So it appears that virtue is universal after all.

 

[G.T.]

So it appears that virtue is universal after all.

if by universal, you mean subjective to the human experience

You've fallen quite short of your task, aww

 

[ding]

Because that is surprisingly what history shows and why our Founding Fathers were so adamant about it.

 

[ding]

Because the antithesis to nations of virtue would be nations devoid of God, and we all know how those places turned out, amirite?

 

[G.T.]

Because the antithesis to nations of virtue would be nations devoid of God, and we all know how those places turned out, amirite?

No, god has not a thing to do with Virtue, just another dumb as fuck dingsertion

 

[ding]

Maybe the Founding Fathers were right. The Khmer Rouge abolished all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. These policies had been implemented in less severe forms for many years prior to the Khmer Rouge's taking power.

 

[ding]

And Karl Marx said that communism was naturalized humanism.

 

[Hollie]

Because the antithesis to nations of virtue would be nations devoid of God, and we all know how those places turned out, amirite?

No, god has not a thing to do with Virtue, just another dumb as fuck dingsertion

dingsertion

 

[ding]

And if you looked at Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Athenian philosophy, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, they universally espouse the value of virtue. Without exception.

And what we are discussing is virtue versus no virtue. Not different flavors or perceptions of virtue, but virtue against the lack of virtue. The antithesis. The diametric opposition to this behavior.

honest vs dishonest
caring vs cruel
loving vs hateful
selfless vs selfish
humble vs arrogant
thankful vs thankless

Given these two extremes the outcomes of these behaviors should be pretty self evident. Even to you two.

I still haven’t found you making any connection to virtue=success.

I’ll require more cutting and pasting. On with it.

I thought it was obvious.

Which description do you think would have more success in life.

A people who were dishonest, cruel, hateful, selfish, arrogant, thankless assholes.

or

A people who were honest, caring, loving, selfless and thankful?

That was quite the backstroke. You should try-out for the Olympic swim team.

or

Try to support your earlier claim.

Nah, just spam the thread with more “quotes”.

Off you go, Laddie.

You aren't making any sense.

 

[ding]

Because the antithesis to nations of virtue would be nations devoid of God, and we all know how those places turned out, amirite?

No, god has not a thing to do with Virtue, just another dumb as fuck dingsertion

dingsertion

"...virtue is not hereditary."
Thomas Paine

 

[Hollie]

And if you looked at Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Athenian philosophy, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, they universally espouse the value of virtue. Without exception.

And what we are discussing is virtue versus no virtue. Not different flavors or perceptions of virtue, but virtue against the lack of virtue. The antithesis. The diametric opposition to this behavior.

honest vs dishonest
caring vs cruel
loving vs hateful
selfless vs selfish
humble vs arrogant
thankful vs thankless

Given these two extremes the outcomes of these behaviors should be pretty self evident. Even to you two.

I still haven’t found you making any connection to virtue=success.

I’ll require more cutting and pasting. On with it.

I thought it was obvious.

Which description do you think would have more success in life.

A people who were dishonest, cruel, hateful, selfish, arrogant, thankless assholes.

or

A people who were honest, caring, loving, selfless and thankful?

That was quite the backstroke. You should try-out for the Olympic swim team.

or

Try to support your earlier claim.

Nah, just spam the thread with more “quotes”.

Off you go, Laddie.

You aren't making any sense.

Actually, after pages and pages of sweaty, feverish cutting and pasting, you’re a little bit loopy.

 

[Hollie]

Because the antithesis to nations of virtue would be nations devoid of God, and we all know how those places turned out, amirite?

No, god has not a thing to do with Virtue, just another dumb as fuck dingsertion

dingsertion

"...virtue is not hereditary."
Thomas Paine

You’re not done yet. Your homework assignment is not yet complete.

 

[ding]

Every single communist state was a militant atheistic state and is the antithesis of a virtuous state.

Failed behaviors lead to failure QED.

 

[Indeependent]

No single verse or even a single event but all events in genesis.

Your insistence that genesis is allegorical vs. literal is a discussion to be had between you and other Christians. Just bring a large cache of weapons and ammo for that discussion.

However, the events and timelines as described in the bibles are a mess whether you believe them to be literally true or not. Let's take a critical, objective, shall we?


Well, let's look at the source material, why don't we (KJV):


Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

[Commentary] God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

[Commentary] Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice.




Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are any of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly who (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness"). For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is not evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way, and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God.

He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

The serpent didn't lie.

Talking serpents aside, no, the serpent didn’t lie. "ye shall eat of all things but not of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge -- for on that day, ye shall die".

A&E didn't die, as the serpent pointed out, they lived; God lied, Satan told the truth-- how ironic.

All this fuss over fruit theft.

For on that day you shall surely die.
All that means is that before the trespass they were immortal.
After the trespass they would surely face die eventually.
Every takes that verse the wrong way.

You may scoff, but if someone gave you something of enormous value and told you there's one thing you can't do with it, I'm sure you'd comply.

I don’t necessarily agree with that interpretation. It simply means that once again, we’re left to question why a god of love and mercy would condemn his children, and their children, and their children, etc. for an act by A&E when they had no knowledge of good or evil.

"why a god of love and mercy would condemn"
You just answered your own question...
There is a Talmudic dictum that a good promise God always happens, a punishment...not so much if you fess up.
God tells Adam and Eve they will surely die if they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil.
They eat...and God does not cause them to die on that very day.
Is God not merciful?

 

[Hollie]

Every single communist state was a militant atheistic state and is the antithesis of a virtuous state.

Failed behaviors lead to failure QED.

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?