Reply With Quote
For others, it's a daily youtube.
Is what it is.
I don't believe in it either. Why wouldn't that same condescending tone you used towards RG be directed at anyone who lacks that belief?
For others, it's a daily youtube.
Is what it is.
You will have all your earthly desires removed......but you'll still have free will to...I think the common belief is that we all stop caring about sex, vice, looks... you know, pretty much everything that currently motivates a human being.
....sing? I guess?
K everyone, I'm out of here!
Peace!
As an individual raised as a biblical literalist myself, how on Earth can you make a claim as to what God will or will not do? It's pretty damn explicit over and over in the Bible that you are not able to comprehend the mind of God. You need to go serve some penance for your prideful blasphemy.
Don't dodge the question. How would you respond if God came to you and told you to go kill some children?
K, I'm back!
New Covenant!
What the kind of place is that? All you do is sit around and kiss god's ass or something? Sounds like a boring existence if one can't go out and get some ghost pussy.I think the common belief is that we all stop caring about sex, vice, looks... you know, pretty much everything that currently motivates a human being.
All I am saying is that if you are going to be a Biblical literalist then you need to be a Biblical literalist. The Bible is very explicit over and over again: submit to the Will of God; Do not question God's Will. They even capitalize it in most texts.
The entire notion of New Covenant is just an excuse to pick and choose. He spits that out.
If you didn't feel any cognitive dissonance, you would be able to answer a yes or no question with a yes or no answer, instead of tap dancing around it.
IS IT MORAL TO HACK CHILDREN TO DEATH OR DELIBERATELY DROWN THEM?
This is not a difficult question, if you are a moral person.
"Yes" or "no" will do.
All I did was copy/paste from another link and didn't say a word.Give me some time. I'll find some of your ”first punches”.
I think those in your camp would see this as a first punch:
Then you threw one at Mono:
lol det was funnymono's reaction is a cowardly act of frustration that shows us all what the spirit of discourse means to him.
It's like a little boy yelling "blah blah blah blah blah!!!!!!!" when being asked to behave in a civil manner.
At this point we shouldn't expect more from him...
"Since they oppose my viewpoint and don't believe as I do... I will simply wipeout any semblance of discourse on their part with my childish antics..."
LAME
RG copped to it more or less. More than can be said for you. Do your notes reflect that?
If you didn't feel any cognitive dissonance, you would be able to answer a yes or no question with a yes or no answer, instead of tap dancing around it.
IS IT MORAL TO HACK CHILDREN TO DEATH OR DELIBERATELY DROWN THEM?
This is not a difficult question, if you are a moral person.
"Yes" or "no" would do.
Your answer is: Yes it is moral, *if* God did it. It is not moral if people do it. You have to rationalize this story as presented to you. You have to say "yes" to that question. I don't.
You have an omnipotent, inifite, out of time God. This God cannot conceive of any better solution than to hack children to death or drown them to fix things.
This God would have the power to simply kill off the adults in any city he didn't like with a simple disruption of their hearts, send an angel, and lead the children of that city/country away. This would be far more moral than drowning the children. Lead them to Noah, and have him build barracks and buildings for them, over an ark.
This God would not have needed a world-wide flood, then for some inexplicable reason, hide the evidence of that world-wide flood from us, and make it look like it never happened. This God would structure DNA and genetic drift so that it would be really clear and consistent with every human being annihilated except one family a few thousand years ago. God didn't do this.
God would not need to hide the evidence of this, or fake it.
An infinite, omnipotent, out of time God would be able to simply make His word as a kind of hard-wired program that hooks into every human brain. Why have a book with text and language?
Simply have something akin to a computer program, with the concepts directly input into our brains, sorted by chapter, verse, and story. You could simply wire every human to be able to access this, and every seven days, have people spend a couple of hours in a lucid trance akin to dreaming thinking about it.
This access would be available to those without sight, who couldn't read or hear, and would be independent of the physical brain. If you get your brain injured, you still have God's word.
People would still have free will to reject it, but it would be there, and a lot clearer than a translation of a translation of a copy of a translation. If you really loved people, and cared for their souls, WHY LIMIT YOURSELF TO A BOOK?
Instead, this infinite, omnipotent God has chosen to use a method of communicating with us that is no different than that which we ourselves would have chosen, had we chosen to make up stories to explain things we didn't understand. This is what all mythology boils down to. Filling the gaps in our knowledge with supernatural, unfalsifiable fantasy.
The obvious answer is that the Bible isn't the word of God. It is a work of ancient peoples, who made up stories, and were completely ignorant of how the universe worked. This story was used by groups of priests for their own benefit at the expense of the people who believed it to be true.
This is far, far simpler an explanation than an infinite, unfalsifiable God. It fits the available evidence, and doesn't require rationalizing the mass murder children or slavery. That becomes the act of blood-thirsty tyrants and natural disasters.
Why is your God hiding all this evidence from you?
Why does he ask to you overlook His mass murder?
Why does an infinite God need a book to communicate with us?
Why is this God faking the physical universe to make it inconsistent with this book?
The mental gymnastics needed to answer these questions with "because", makes you vulnerable to all sorts of flawed thinking, and charlatans claiming to do/say things in the name of God.
I get to find out about God in the same way I find out about Harry Potter. Seems like a shabby vehicle to me, when other options are available.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-16-2012 at 10:13 AM. Reason: grammar
Good article. He makes some good points.
Sometimes, big government is the answer and solution. We need big government to react to large problems that individual states can't, and fight wars.
Multi-billion dollar drug cartels, massive corporations with hundreds of billions of dollars in yearly revenue, natural disasters, all require something big enough to take them on.
If you consistently push the narrative that this is never the case, when it is obvious to enough people that is exactly the case, you start to lose credibility. That makes you weak as a national party. I think people sense this at some level, for all the flaws of the Democratic party, the Republicans can't offer a viable alternative.
You are going to propose a binary solution set in a discussion of morality and ethics?
Ooookkk then.
Copped to what?
RG has never whined like you have about me being mean to the board's religious martyrs. No notes on him.
I considered that it might be an artificial dichotomy imposed by my own limited imagination.
One can expand the question a bit, if you like:
When *would* it be moral to drown millions of children, if you could easily avoid doing so?
A bit more open ended, but I was unable to really think of anything. Certainly not within the constraints of the story as it was presented.
I can only conclude that action is one of incalculable cruelty, and inherently immoral by any reasonable definition, if true.
If not, then I would guess it is as moot as whether Thor could morally drink the ocean if tricked into doing so. That would certainly be immoral for the harm it would cause others as well.
Morality just sits in a chair against the wall and watches us talk about it.
The Greater Good serves us coffee then excuses itself until called upon again.
Here's Phenomenaul's kind of people, always doing God's work:
Bryan Fischer: Singing ‘God Bless America’ prevents terrorist attacks
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/1...orist-attacks/
And 10Ms of CBN-watching Americans belief Fischer's bull .
STFU bot. The grownups are talking.
TB"mama, make Boutons stop!"
Related Krugman
November 19, 2012, 1:44 PM
Views Differ on Age of Planet
Quite a few bloggers are having fun with Marco Rubio’s bobbing and weaving in response to a question from GQ:
GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?
Marco Rubio: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.
As I like to say, the GOP doesn’t just want to roll back the New Deal; it wants to roll back the Enlightenment.
But here’s what you should realize: when Rubio says that the question of the Earth’s age “has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow”, he’s dead wrong. For one thing, science and technology education has a lot to do with our future productivity — and how are you going to have effective science education if schools have to give equal time to the views of fundamentalist Christians?
More broadly, the at ude that discounts any amount of evidence — and boy, do we have lots of evidence on the age of the planet! — if it conflicts with prejudices is not an at ude consistent with effective policy. If you’re going to ignore what geologists say if you don’t like its implications, what are the chances that you’ll take sensible advice on monetary and fiscal policy? After all, we’ve just seen how Republicans deal with research reports that undermine their faith in the magic of tax cuts: they try to suppress the reports.
I’m belatedly reading Chris Mooney’s The Republican Brain; if truth be told, I was afraid that the book would be too much red meat for my own predispositions, and wanted to keep my cool. But Mooney actually makes a very good point: the personality traits we associate with modern conservatism, above all a lack of openness, make the modern GOP fundamentally hostile to the very idea of objective inquiry. If they want your opinion, they’ll tell you what it is; doubters of orthodoxy need not apply, and will in fact be persecuted.
So don’t laugh over Rubio’s young-earth apologetics. If he, or anyone else from his party, wins in 2016, the joke will be on us.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
