Yikes, sky dad...morals are absolute, though

[G.T.]

In apostate Israel, who but a few patriarchs and priests, spaced far and wide, might have had any connection to God?

"None are righteous. No, not one."

An idolatrous nation. Like their pagan neighbors, morally relativistic. Genocide, rape, polygamy, etc. was just the way it was in the world. So alluring were pagan ways that the Israelites even had a law for killing the unfaithful (Dt 13:6-10).

Not so now. The law has changed. The priesthood has changed. God has not. He was just absent back then.

If you're talking about the OT, not only was he not absent, but he outright commanded those exact acts.

 

[norwegen]

In apostate Israel, who but a few patriarchs and priests, spaced far and wide, might have had any connection to God?

"None are righteous. No, not one."

An idolatrous nation. Like their pagan neighbors, morally relativistic. Genocide, rape, polygamy, etc. was just the way it was in the world. So alluring were pagan ways that the Israelites even had a law for killing the unfaithful (Dt 13:6-10).

Not so now. The law has changed. The priesthood has changed. God has not. He was just absent back then.

If you're talking about the OT, not only was he not absent, but he outright commanded those exact acts.

You're saying God wrote the Old Testament?

 

[G.T.]

In apostate Israel, who but a few patriarchs and priests, spaced far and wide, might have had any connection to God?

"None are righteous. No, not one."

An idolatrous nation. Like their pagan neighbors, morally relativistic. Genocide, rape, polygamy, etc. was just the way it was in the world. So alluring were pagan ways that the Israelites even had a law for killing the unfaithful (Dt 13:6-10).

Not so now. The law has changed. The priesthood has changed. God has not. He was just absent back then.

If you're talking about the OT, not only was he not absent, but he outright commanded those exact acts.

You're saying God wrote the Old Testament?

Im saying that the OP is for folks who believe in the literal interpretation of the OT

even the new testament has some moral snafu, but thats besides the point . ..

If thats not you, a literalist of the OT.... we are simply talking past one another


if you do believe it was literally true, it says several times, including quotes in my OP, that god commanded these acts.

 

[hobelim]

In apostate Israel, who but a few patriarchs and priests, spaced far and wide, might have had any connection to God?

"None are righteous. No, not one."

An idolatrous nation. Like their pagan neighbors, morally relativistic. Genocide, rape, polygamy, etc. was just the way it was in the world. So alluring were pagan ways that the Israelites even had a law for killing the unfaithful (Dt 13:6-10).

Not so now. The law has changed. The priesthood has changed. God has not. He was just absent back then.

If you're talking about the OT, not only was he not absent, but he outright commanded those exact acts.

You're saying God wrote the Old Testament?

Im saying that the OP is for folks who believe in the literal interpretation of the OT

even the new testament has some moral snafu, but thats besides the point . ..

If thats not you, a literalist of the OT.... we are simply talking past one another


if you do believe it was literally true, it says several times, including quotes in my OP, that god commanded these acts.

Someone in a thousand years might find fragments of newspaper articles from the 1990's and conclude that God commanded the invasion of Iraq.


Maybe he did? maybe he didn't? Maybe someone was crazy? maybe they weren't?

 

[G.T.]

In apostate Israel, who but a few patriarchs and priests, spaced far and wide, might have had any connection to God?

"None are righteous. No, not one."

An idolatrous nation. Like their pagan neighbors, morally relativistic. Genocide, rape, polygamy, etc. was just the way it was in the world. So alluring were pagan ways that the Israelites even had a law for killing the unfaithful (Dt 13:6-10).

Not so now. The law has changed. The priesthood has changed. God has not. He was just absent back then.

If you're talking about the OT, not only was he not absent, but he outright commanded those exact acts.

You're saying God wrote the Old Testament?

Im saying that the OP is for folks who believe in the literal interpretation of the OT

even the new testament has some moral snafu, but thats besides the point . ..

If thats not you, a literalist of the OT.... we are simply talking past one another


if you do believe it was literally true, it says several times, including quotes in my OP, that god commanded these acts.

Someone in a thousand years might find fragments of newspaper articles from the 1990's and conclude that God commanded the invasion of Iraq.

I understand what youre implying ~ but all it means is that youre not a biblical literalist.

Me either.

 

[hobelim]

In apostate Israel, who but a few patriarchs and priests, spaced far and wide, might have had any connection to God?

"None are righteous. No, not one."

An idolatrous nation. Like their pagan neighbors, morally relativistic. Genocide, rape, polygamy, etc. was just the way it was in the world. So alluring were pagan ways that the Israelites even had a law for killing the unfaithful (Dt 13:6-10).

Not so now. The law has changed. The priesthood has changed. God has not. He was just absent back then.

If you're talking about the OT, not only was he not absent, but he outright commanded those exact acts.

You're saying God wrote the Old Testament?

Im saying that the OP is for folks who believe in the literal interpretation of the OT

even the new testament has some moral snafu, but thats besides the point . ..

If thats not you, a literalist of the OT.... we are simply talking past one another


if you do believe it was literally true, it says several times, including quotes in my OP, that god commanded these acts.

Someone in a thousand years might find fragments of newspaper articles from the 1990's and conclude that God commanded the invasion of Iraq.

I understand what youre implying ~ but all it means is that youre not a biblical literalist.

Me either.

Ok.

but don't you think the problem isn't with what was written but who is interpreting it ?

How much could someone in a thousand years really understand about the days were are living in if all our great cities were reduced to ruins and all our wisdom and knowledge was lost on digital files and all they had to go on were a few quotes on scraps of newspapers?

Some people examine the ruins of the dead sea community and conclude that it was an isolated retreat for celibate monks.

Someone else could evaluate the same evidence and conclude that it was a health resort for the wealthy run by a religious sect.

 

[TNHarley]

He created mankind and then after a few thousands years saw that they were all wicked so he drown every man woman and child except one family who then had incestual sex to repopulate the Earth with righteous people who then became wicked as the people that were drown.

This whole story sounds like something you'd do in a bad video game if you were terrible at video games.

Or a story about an actual event that was passed down for 1000's of years.

You do realize it was captured as symbols in the Chinese language 1500 years before Moses recorded it, right? The account of the tower of babel - which was an allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization - explains how it was captured as symbols in the Chinese language 1500 years before Moses penned it.

I have already told you. The very person that found and interpreted them SAID PUBLICALLY not to use that in arguments because its bullshit. I even posted their own words for you.
You are so dishonest its disgusting.
If god is real, he hates you.

 

[Taz]

It would be exceedingly strange if an omniscient being did not immeasurably exceed our grasp of such matters. William Alston

Aren't we made in it's image?

Man you trigger ding in every thread in this forum - do you not know he's just gunna copy paste the same bumper sticker crap he posted to you the last 8, 000 times?

I like to see him tap dance.

 

[G.T.]

If you're talking about the OT, not only was he not absent, but he outright commanded those exact acts.

You're saying God wrote the Old Testament?

Im saying that the OP is for folks who believe in the literal interpretation of the OT

even the new testament has some moral snafu, but thats besides the point . ..

If thats not you, a literalist of the OT.... we are simply talking past one another


if you do believe it was literally true, it says several times, including quotes in my OP, that god commanded these acts.

Someone in a thousand years might find fragments of newspaper articles from the 1990's and conclude that God commanded the invasion of Iraq.

I understand what youre implying ~ but all it means is that youre not a biblical literalist.

Me either.

Ok.

but don't you think the problem isn't with what was written but who is interpreting it ?

How much could someone in a thousand years really understand about the days were are living in if everything was reduced to ruins and lost on digital files and all they had were a few quotes on scraps of newspapers?

Some people examine the ruins of the dead sea community and conclude that it was an isolated retreat for celibate monks.

Someone else could evaluate the same evidence and conclude that it was a health resort for the wealthy run by a religious sect.

Well, that'd be a different discussion entirely. Specifically, why believe any ancient scripts period in that case....

It's not that it isn't a good point, it's that it's a separate objection to man written religions than the one being addressed - which is how a literalist squares absolute morality with a God whose morality has changed, per the scripture they literally believe.

 

[Taz]

If you're talking about the OT, not only was he not absent, but he outright commanded those exact acts.

You're saying God wrote the Old Testament?

Im saying that the OP is for folks who believe in the literal interpretation of the OT

even the new testament has some moral snafu, but thats besides the point . ..

If thats not you, a literalist of the OT.... we are simply talking past one another


if you do believe it was literally true, it says several times, including quotes in my OP, that god commanded these acts.

Someone in a thousand years might find fragments of newspaper articles from the 1990's and conclude that God commanded the invasion of Iraq.

I understand what youre implying ~ but all it means is that youre not a biblical literalist.

Me either.

Ok.

but don't you think the problem isn't with what was written but who is interpreting it ?

How much could someone in a thousand years really understand about the days were are living in if all our great cities were reduced to ruins and all our wisdom and knowledge was lost on digital files and all they had to go on were a few quotes on scraps of newspapers?

Some people examine the ruins of the dead sea community and conclude that it was an isolated retreat for celibate monks.

Someone else could evaluate the same evidence and conclude that it was a health resort for the wealthy run by a religious sect.

"How much could someone in a thousand years really understand about the days were are living in if all our great cities were reduced to ruins and all our wisdom and knowledge was lost on digital files and all they had to go on were a few quotes on scraps of newspapers?"

They'd probably turn it into a book about an invisible alien who created everyone, but then nearly drowned them all?

 

[hobelim]

You're saying God wrote the Old Testament?

Im saying that the OP is for folks who believe in the literal interpretation of the OT

even the new testament has some moral snafu, but thats besides the point . ..

If thats not you, a literalist of the OT.... we are simply talking past one another


if you do believe it was literally true, it says several times, including quotes in my OP, that god commanded these acts.

Someone in a thousand years might find fragments of newspaper articles from the 1990's and conclude that God commanded the invasion of Iraq.

I understand what youre implying ~ but all it means is that youre not a biblical literalist.

Me either.

Ok.

but don't you think the problem isn't with what was written but who is interpreting it ?

How much could someone in a thousand years really understand about the days were are living in if all our great cities were reduced to ruins and all our wisdom and knowledge was lost on digital files and all they had to go on were a few quotes on scraps of newspapers?

Some people examine the ruins of the dead sea community and conclude that it was an isolated retreat for celibate monks.

Someone else could evaluate the same evidence and conclude that it was a health resort for the wealthy run by a religious sect.

"How much could someone in a thousand years really understand about the days were are living in if all our great cities were reduced to ruins and all our wisdom and knowledge was lost on digital files and all they had to go on were a few quotes on scraps of newspapers?"

They'd probably turn it into a book about an invisible alien who created everyone, but then nearly drowned them all?

Yeah? but what about the kangaroos?

 

[TNHarley]

I like how dings religion is based off judaism, yet, they have it wrong.
They have it wrong on THEIR OWN MESSIAH too. You guys remember that shit?
Now, he admits he only worships what he wants to worship. Probably the most honest thing he has ever said. On purpose or not

 

[hobelim]

You're saying God wrote the Old Testament?

Im saying that the OP is for folks who believe in the literal interpretation of the OT

even the new testament has some moral snafu, but thats besides the point . ..

If thats not you, a literalist of the OT.... we are simply talking past one another


if you do believe it was literally true, it says several times, including quotes in my OP, that god commanded these acts.

Someone in a thousand years might find fragments of newspaper articles from the 1990's and conclude that God commanded the invasion of Iraq.

I understand what youre implying ~ but all it means is that youre not a biblical literalist.

Me either.

Ok.

but don't you think the problem isn't with what was written but who is interpreting it ?

How much could someone in a thousand years really understand about the days were are living in if everything was reduced to ruins and lost on digital files and all they had were a few quotes on scraps of newspapers?

Some people examine the ruins of the dead sea community and conclude that it was an isolated retreat for celibate monks.

Someone else could evaluate the same evidence and conclude that it was a health resort for the wealthy run by a religious sect.

Well, that'd be a different discussion entirely. Specifically, why believe any ancient scripts period in that case....

It's not that it isn't a good point, it's that it's a separate objection to man written religions than the one being addressed - which is how a literalist squares absolute morality with a God whose morality has changed, per the scripture they literally believe.

Do you think that you can be rational with people who base their faith in a belief that is completely irrational, especially when they have been led to believe that rational thinking is in and of itself an assault on their faith by the devil?

 

[G.T.]

Im saying that the OP is for folks who believe in the literal interpretation of the OT

even the new testament has some moral snafu, but thats besides the point . ..

If thats not you, a literalist of the OT.... we are simply talking past one another


if you do believe it was literally true, it says several times, including quotes in my OP, that god commanded these acts.

Someone in a thousand years might find fragments of newspaper articles from the 1990's and conclude that God commanded the invasion of Iraq.

I understand what youre implying ~ but all it means is that youre not a biblical literalist.

Me either.

Ok.

but don't you think the problem isn't with what was written but who is interpreting it ?

How much could someone in a thousand years really understand about the days were are living in if everything was reduced to ruins and lost on digital files and all they had were a few quotes on scraps of newspapers?

Some people examine the ruins of the dead sea community and conclude that it was an isolated retreat for celibate monks.

Someone else could evaluate the same evidence and conclude that it was a health resort for the wealthy run by a religious sect.

Well, that'd be a different discussion entirely. Specifically, why believe any ancient scripts period in that case....

It's not that it isn't a good point, it's that it's a separate objection to man written religions than the one being addressed - which is how a literalist squares absolute morality with a God whose morality has changed, per the scripture they literally believe.

Do you think that you can be rational with people who base their faith in a belief that is completely irrational, especially when they have been led to believe that rational thinking is in and of itself an assault on their faith by the devil?

Yes, there are many documented cases of de-converted folks who went on to write and lecture in a completely rational way.

I have hope, because I know how dogma is a simple function of cognitive dissonance ~ and dissonance is not an unsolvable dilemma.

 

[hobelim]

Someone in a thousand years might find fragments of newspaper articles from the 1990's and conclude that God commanded the invasion of Iraq.

I understand what youre implying ~ but all it means is that youre not a biblical literalist.

Me either.

Ok.

but don't you think the problem isn't with what was written but who is interpreting it ?

How much could someone in a thousand years really understand about the days were are living in if everything was reduced to ruins and lost on digital files and all they had were a few quotes on scraps of newspapers?

Some people examine the ruins of the dead sea community and conclude that it was an isolated retreat for celibate monks.

Someone else could evaluate the same evidence and conclude that it was a health resort for the wealthy run by a religious sect.

Well, that'd be a different discussion entirely. Specifically, why believe any ancient scripts period in that case....

It's not that it isn't a good point, it's that it's a separate objection to man written religions than the one being addressed - which is how a literalist squares absolute morality with a God whose morality has changed, per the scripture they literally believe.

Do you think that you can be rational with people who base their faith in a belief that is completely irrational, especially when they have been led to believe that rational thinking is in and of itself an assault on their faith by the devil?

Yes, there are many documented cases of de-converted folks who went on to write and lecture in a completely rational way.

I have hope, because I know how dogma is a simple function of cognitive dissonance ~ and dissonance is not an unsolvable dilemma.

Good news indeed.

in the meantime, why would any rational person appoint any person in a state of cognitive dissonance to a position of authority or public trust when their openly professed beliefs demonstrate a lack of morals and ethics and an inability to be honest, even with themselves, because they cannot think rationally..

How could they be expected to do anything except fuck it all up?

 

[G.T.]

I understand what youre implying ~ but all it means is that youre not a biblical literalist.

Me either.

Ok.

but don't you think the problem isn't with what was written but who is interpreting it ?

How much could someone in a thousand years really understand about the days were are living in if everything was reduced to ruins and lost on digital files and all they had were a few quotes on scraps of newspapers?

Some people examine the ruins of the dead sea community and conclude that it was an isolated retreat for celibate monks.

Someone else could evaluate the same evidence and conclude that it was a health resort for the wealthy run by a religious sect.

Well, that'd be a different discussion entirely. Specifically, why believe any ancient scripts period in that case....

It's not that it isn't a good point, it's that it's a separate objection to man written religions than the one being addressed - which is how a literalist squares absolute morality with a God whose morality has changed, per the scripture they literally believe.

Do you think that you can be rational with people who base their faith in a belief that is completely irrational, especially when they have been led to believe that rational thinking is in and of itself an assault on their faith by the devil?

Yes, there are many documented cases of de-converted folks who went on to write and lecture in a completely rational way.

I have hope, because I know how dogma is a simple function of cognitive dissonance ~ and dissonance is not an unsolvable dilemma.

Good news indeed.

in the meantime, why would any rational person appoint any person in a state of cognitive dissonance to a position of authority or public trust when their openly professed beliefs demonstrate an inability to be honest or think rationally..

How could they be expected to do anything except fuck it all up?

Because that is the exact way that many of the aforementioned de-converts came around to seeing things more rationally/reasonably. I can testify to witnessing it myself....

I'm not appointing anyone of anything - I'm simply poking holes into bad arguments and planting seeds of doubt, and whether those who profess to deny such seeds know it or not, they're in some sense cognitive beings that will then rationalize these things in their own way and there's always a chance they do-so logically.

 

[hobelim]

Ok.

but don't you think the problem isn't with what was written but who is interpreting it ?

How much could someone in a thousand years really understand about the days were are living in if everything was reduced to ruins and lost on digital files and all they had were a few quotes on scraps of newspapers?

Some people examine the ruins of the dead sea community and conclude that it was an isolated retreat for celibate monks.

Someone else could evaluate the same evidence and conclude that it was a health resort for the wealthy run by a religious sect.

Well, that'd be a different discussion entirely. Specifically, why believe any ancient scripts period in that case....

It's not that it isn't a good point, it's that it's a separate objection to man written religions than the one being addressed - which is how a literalist squares absolute morality with a God whose morality has changed, per the scripture they literally believe.

Do you think that you can be rational with people who base their faith in a belief that is completely irrational, especially when they have been led to believe that rational thinking is in and of itself an assault on their faith by the devil?

Yes, there are many documented cases of de-converted folks who went on to write and lecture in a completely rational way.

I have hope, because I know how dogma is a simple function of cognitive dissonance ~ and dissonance is not an unsolvable dilemma.

Good news indeed.

in the meantime, why would any rational person appoint any person in a state of cognitive dissonance to a position of authority or public trust when their openly professed beliefs demonstrate an inability to be honest or think rationally..

How could they be expected to do anything except fuck it all up?

Because that is the exact way that many of the aforementioned de-converts came around to seeing things more rationally/reasonably. I can testify to witnessing it myself....

I'm not appointing anyone of anything - I'm simply poking holes into bad arguments and planting seeds of doubt, and whether those who profess to deny such seeds know it or not, they're in some sense cognitive beings that will then rationalize these things in their own way and there's always a chance they do-so logically.

Planting seeds of doubt?

lol... you devil you...


I understand what you are saying and doing.. Nothing wrong with that..


I was just wondering aloud how rational people could accept being subjugated by the irrational people who openly tout what amounts to mental illness as being the best attribute on their resume that qualifies them to run things, make laws, start wars, etc....

 

[G.T.]

Well, that'd be a different discussion entirely. Specifically, why believe any ancient scripts period in that case....

It's not that it isn't a good point, it's that it's a separate objection to man written religions than the one being addressed - which is how a literalist squares absolute morality with a God whose morality has changed, per the scripture they literally believe.

Do you think that you can be rational with people who base their faith in a belief that is completely irrational, especially when they have been led to believe that rational thinking is in and of itself an assault on their faith by the devil?

Yes, there are many documented cases of de-converted folks who went on to write and lecture in a completely rational way.

I have hope, because I know how dogma is a simple function of cognitive dissonance ~ and dissonance is not an unsolvable dilemma.

Good news indeed.

in the meantime, why would any rational person appoint any person in a state of cognitive dissonance to a position of authority or public trust when their openly professed beliefs demonstrate an inability to be honest or think rationally..

How could they be expected to do anything except fuck it all up?

Because that is the exact way that many of the aforementioned de-converts came around to seeing things more rationally/reasonably. I can testify to witnessing it myself....

I'm not appointing anyone of anything - I'm simply poking holes into bad arguments and planting seeds of doubt, and whether those who profess to deny such seeds know it or not, they're in some sense cognitive beings that will then rationalize these things in their own way and there's always a chance they do-so logically.

Planting seeds of doubt?

lol... you devil you...


I understand what you are saying and doing.. Nothing wrong with that..


I was just wondering aloud how rational people could accept being subjugated by the irrational people who openly tout what amounts to mental illness as being their best quality on their resume ...

By not considering it subjugation, to start.
Boredom, to continue.
Finally, because I think it's moral to do, in and of itself. I have children, and I'd consider threatening them through exposure to the scripts of many of the man-made Religions at an impressionable age is child abuse. So the less of these literalists there are the better, in my opinion. Being dogmatic is not a virtue and it has made the world reserve some of its true potential.

 

[hobelim]

Do you think that you can be rational with people who base their faith in a belief that is completely irrational, especially when they have been led to believe that rational thinking is in and of itself an assault on their faith by the devil?

Yes, there are many documented cases of de-converted folks who went on to write and lecture in a completely rational way.

I have hope, because I know how dogma is a simple function of cognitive dissonance ~ and dissonance is not an unsolvable dilemma.

Good news indeed.

in the meantime, why would any rational person appoint any person in a state of cognitive dissonance to a position of authority or public trust when their openly professed beliefs demonstrate an inability to be honest or think rationally..

How could they be expected to do anything except fuck it all up?

Because that is the exact way that many of the aforementioned de-converts came around to seeing things more rationally/reasonably. I can testify to witnessing it myself....

I'm not appointing anyone of anything - I'm simply poking holes into bad arguments and planting seeds of doubt, and whether those who profess to deny such seeds know it or not, they're in some sense cognitive beings that will then rationalize these things in their own way and there's always a chance they do-so logically.

Planting seeds of doubt?

lol... you devil you...


I understand what you are saying and doing.. Nothing wrong with that..


I was just wondering aloud how rational people could accept being subjugated by the irrational people who openly tout what amounts to mental illness as being their best quality on their resume ...

By not considering it subjugation, to start.
Boredom, to continue.
Finally, because I think it's moral to do, in and of itself. I have children, and I'd consider threatening them through exposure to the scripts of many of the man-made Religions at an impressionable age is child abuse. So the less of these literalists there are the better, in my opinion. Being dogmatic is not a virtue and it has made the world reserve some of its true potential.

Literalists are out there in droves in a state of hysteria because Jesus is coming and all that.

You must have noticed real devils and demons taking advantage of that to usurp positions of authority even over you and your objections.

 

[G.T.]

Yes, there are many documented cases of de-converted folks who went on to write and lecture in a completely rational way.

I have hope, because I know how dogma is a simple function of cognitive dissonance ~ and dissonance is not an unsolvable dilemma.

Good news indeed.

in the meantime, why would any rational person appoint any person in a state of cognitive dissonance to a position of authority or public trust when their openly professed beliefs demonstrate an inability to be honest or think rationally..

How could they be expected to do anything except fuck it all up?

Because that is the exact way that many of the aforementioned de-converts came around to seeing things more rationally/reasonably. I can testify to witnessing it myself....

I'm not appointing anyone of anything - I'm simply poking holes into bad arguments and planting seeds of doubt, and whether those who profess to deny such seeds know it or not, they're in some sense cognitive beings that will then rationalize these things in their own way and there's always a chance they do-so logically.

Planting seeds of doubt?

lol... you devil you...


I understand what you are saying and doing.. Nothing wrong with that..


I was just wondering aloud how rational people could accept being subjugated by the irrational people who openly tout what amounts to mental illness as being their best quality on their resume ...

By not considering it subjugation, to start.
Boredom, to continue.
Finally, because I think it's moral to do, in and of itself. I have children, and I'd consider threatening them through exposure to the scripts of many of the man-made Religions at an impressionable age is child abuse. So the less of these literalists there are the better, in my opinion. Being dogmatic is not a virtue and it has made the world reserve some of its true potential.

Literalists are out there in droves in a state of hysteria because Jesus is coming and all that.

You must have noticed real devils and demons taking advantage of that to usurp positions of authority even over you and your objections.

lol well, probably not since I don't believe in devils and demons.

The bottom line is, what folks think their position is is irrelevant to how I personally consider them so there's no actual harm done, intellectually or non, to decry their bad ideas right in front of their faces to their denials and gnashing. I don't lose anything but time, which is actually something I'm here to kill