God is real

[ghoulslime]

ubs wrote

Thomastwo, what is your position on cannibalism. I ask because it's never mentioned in the OT nor the NT (from a moral perspective) and yet I would consider eating your neighbor to be a larger moral violation than enjoying the UPS guy.

T2 has already been violated by the UPS guy. Some neighbors might like to be eaten from time to time, but my guess is that T2 is a pole smoker hiding in the pews.

[thomastwo]

Irreligious wrote

I want to know why thomastwo is talking to us about some nonexistent thing he's calling "Christian morals." Does he really think we are stupid?

All Christians do not share the exact same moral code. They vary from sect to sect and from the conscience of one individual Christian to another.That much is clearly impirical. There are no absolute morals, thomastwo, just yours and other people's. Snap out of it, dude.

Do you know a Christian that would deny that, for example, stealing and lying are absolute morals laid down by God for all people ?

[ghoulslime]

thomastwo wrote

It's not specifically mentioned but I'm pretty sure that between "don't murder" and "treat your neighbour the way you want to be treated" that it's covered.

BTW - I assume it's the human killing that you object to in Cannabilism - or do you think there is a moral issue in eating human flesh ?

I’d take a wild guess that most of the moral atheists on this forum would have moral qualms with eating human flesh. Were you being defensive about your pseudo-cannibalism, blood drinker?

[thomastwo]

Sternwallow wrote

Many of the rules laid out in the OT instructed the Hebrews to obey God's laws, in direct contravention to the existing practices of the culture they found themselves in. The most obvious examples of this are prohibitions against worshipping the local gods. The clothing and dietary rules were contrary to the traditions that held in that time and place. God had a rule against impregnating someone to whom you weren't married so Onan was obeying God's rule by preventing the pregnancy. God was against the tradition of pretending that his brother had an unexpected son. If compassion for the widow was the issue, Onan could have taken in and cared for her so that does not apply. By the commandments of God, Onan was blameless.

I think you're confused on the timing of all this. This all happens *before* the laws are given. So, all we can do is look at the base morality in the laws and work backwards towards what appears to have happened here. It's clear from Deut 25:5 and onwards what the expected custom was for the brother-in-law of a widow. You can conjecture other reasons if you like, but I think it's necessary.

Sternwallow wrote

You say that what the author meant is more important than what he wrote, but what he meant has been unavailable to hundreds of generations who have had to rely completely on the word as written. Many people, to this day, take the words literally because, to do otherwise, is to impose man's imperfect and necessarily biased understanding on the perfect word of God. When we interpret what is written, we necessarily degrade that perfection and are left with merely a product of human imagination, no more reliable or authoritative than a dime novel. This also applies to any organized collection of men who would impose their, politically motivated, interpretation of the work on everyone else (RCC, for instance).

I think the meaning is quite straight-forwards and can be arrived at only by using internal evidence from the text itself.

[thomastwo]

ghoulslime wrote

I’d take a wild guess that most of the moral atheists on this forum would have moral qualms with eating human flesh. Were you being defensive about your pseudo-cannibalism, blood drinker?

So, tell me what are the moral issues with eating human flesh. I mean, I understand it's a societal taboo and not for a minute would I want to do it. But does that make it immoral ?

[thomastwo]

Sternwallow wrote

As has been pointed out by Bovina many times and by others who actually have some intellect, The OT was written to make the Hebrew people clearly distinct from the old time and place and traditions of their neighbors. Thus, although it was perfectly acceptable to handle and eat pork for anyone else (Jesus had no trouble finding a herd of over 2000 pigs) Hebrews were prohibited.

Therefore, Onan's sin was not masterbation and it was not failure to console the widow, which he could have done in other ways within the rules. It was an instance of God unjustly contradicting His own rules.

So, Stern, you tell me. Based on the internal evidence of the text, what was Onan's obligation towards his dead brothers wife ?

Sternwallow wrote

Your appeal to the mores of the ancient times and the traditions observed way back then contorts the clear meaning of scripture. Do not overlay your own presumptive understanding of the life and times of ancient Palestine; God's word and God's laws are eternal and unchanging.

Or, are you admitting that the Bible, lacking an actual God for its basis, is no more authoritative than a teenage girl's diary?

No, I'm using the internal evidence.

[thomastwo]

Sternwallow wrote

The Bible teaches obedience to laws that were literally written in stone and that those laws are both eternal and unchanging. This is not open to interpretation by you or me or the Vatican. Clearly, many of the commandments, given by God and so equally imperative with the other, more famous commandments, were specifically contrary to the "societal laws" of the time, for the exact purpose of making the Hebrews separate (and hence, universally hated). These laws were not rescinded, nor, in their Cosmic permanence, could they be, without God contradicting Himself yet again.

This is just wrong. No Christian is bound by the Hebrew cleanliness laws. It's clearly laid out in the NT. So, the laws are no eternal and unchanging, and the covenants are not eternal and unchanging. The morality underpinning those laws is unchanging and eternal.

Sternwallow wrote

As the detailed designer of the universe and its entire history, every single atomic interaction is not only condoned by God, it is the manifestation of His plan, hence, His responsibility. Among the things that God cannot logically do is create/invent a capability for one of His creations that is beyond His control or that can cause a deviation in His Plan. Thus free-will, the catch-all for Earthly evil (even volcanoes and tsunamis) is under God's strict and culpable control.

I agree that God is both responsible and in control of His creation.

Sternwallow wrote

I assert that, given infinite power and discernment, it is never necessary for an evil act on the part of one person to harm another. "Who shot J R?"

Can you provide an argument that proves your assertion. I'm not sure I'm convinced.

[thomastwo]

ghoulslime wrote

I am interested to hear you admit that your life view is predicated upon an archaic Bronze Age book that has no practical application in a progressive world, where science and reason have vanquished the witch burners and relegated the soothsayers to the compost pile of history. This vile book, your Christian Bible, has little value other than to serve as a cultural curiosity for future students of human folly, as a sort of measuring stick for humankind to gauge progress from a lower step in our ascent from our Darwinian past. It is utterly useless as a moral guide. In fact, it is utterly repugnant in this regard. What moral lesson are we to learn from a monstrous deity who commits the most heinous acts at his capricious whim?

How is it that I should revere and worship a being who is my moral inferior? What perverse intellect would admonish me to adhere to the dictates of a nasty and vicious beast who is the author of murder, genocide, torture, rape, and slavery? How can anyone with the slightest inclination towards integrity pretend that a book which suggests, for example, that offering one’s daughters or concubines up for gang rape to spare strangers, male strangers, the same inconvenience, is the stuff of divine love? Bashing in the brains of our fellow humans with stones for violations of manmade rules, oppressive rules, is not the substance of moral inspiration. Admonition to murder those who breach the rules of arbitrary and often nonsensical social mores is not a wholesome diet for healthy minds.

The fanatical insistence by the Christ cult drinkers of blood and consumers of ritual human flesh that there is a colossal dictator who fills the universe with his jealous presence, takes a personal interest in the most trivial actions of every human, and demands obedience to his every wish on pain of eternal torment, is beyond childish, and certainly not the sort of smut that children should be subjected to. As the Saintly Paul was alleged to have said, “When one is a child one speaks and thinks as a child. But when one becomes a man, one puts away childish things.” It’s time to put away childish things.

The “holy” book of ancient Semite nomads, upon which Christianity is partially founded, inflicts its advocates with a disease, and then offers a cure, the price of which is one’s reasoning, one’s precious time, and too often one’s very life. Desperation in attempting to torture fact to fit the wishful fiction of dogmatic religion is indicative of a mental malady worthy of the most sincere pathos.

If you are resolute in wallowing in the mires of intellectual stagnation, I am powerless to stop you. As an honest atheist, I accept the limits of my mortality.

"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." ~ Schiller

Roll on in your orgy of stupidity, T2! My agenda is not to convert you to a belief in truth. It is apparent that you are impervious to reason. My aim is to showcase your twisted apologetics for the world to see. In this end, it appears I have enjoyed a certain measure of success.

Praised be the Leprechauns!

cut-n-paste is no way to avoid answering a question. Do you have some evidence for your assertion that tying a knot on a Sunday was a crime worthy of death under the OT laws ? I'm not saying you're wrong, just asking for the reference. I mean you wouldn't make an argument without evidence would you ? Isn't that grounds for being expelled from the Big Boys Atheist Club ?

[thomastwo]

BOF wrote

"Are you claiming that you know that it is absolutely morally wrong for these things to be justified - or is it just your personal opinion ?"

Are YOU claiming there are absolute moral imperatives?

If so,what are they? And what is the basis?

Yes, I'm claiming that there are absolute moral imperatives. I've quoted several on the thread already, for example, adultery.

BOF wrote

Oh, just a hint:This is an atheist forum. Atheists do not believe in god(s) by definition.Ergo there is no such thing as "revealed truth".Citing sacred text as proof of an argument doesn't quite cut the mustard.

Neither does quoting Thomas Aquinas,who was a dogmatic theologian,not an open minded philosopher. His arguments are predicated on a positive certitude of the existence of god,and hence of limited value.[to me]

I did mange to notice this was an atheist forum, thanks for the advice. And I am quite aware of the typical range of beliefs and opinions of atheists. Thanks for the concern.

Now, as a Christian I believe in revelation as a source of knowledge, and so I do believe that the Bible is revealed knowledge from God. I'm fully aware that you don't agree with that idea, but I suspect your basis for limiting your possible sources of knowledge is fundamentally baseless (as is mine). We are all dealing with a world of probabilities.

I quoted Aquinas to provide a definition of what God was earlier in the argument because I thought the argument was going to be groundless without that. I do know that he was a Christian theologian.

[ghoulslime]

thomastwo wrote

So, tell me what are the moral issues with eating human flesh. I mean, I understand it's a societal taboo and not for a minute would I want to do it. But does that make it immoral ?

Morality is a relative thing, isn’t it?

[thomastwo]

You made the guess that most atheists would conclude it was immoral. What was the basis for that guess ? Do you think it's immoral ?

[ghoulslime]

thomastwo wrote

cut-n-paste is no way to avoid answering a question. Do you have some evidence for your assertion that tying a knot on a Sunday was a crime worthy of death under the OT laws ? I'm not saying you're wrong, just asking for the reference. I mean you wouldn't make an argument without evidence would you ? Isn't that grounds for being expelled from the Big Boys Atheist Club ?

Excuse me, asshole? Where is the cut and paste?
I’m starting to get the feeling that you actually like getting pounded in the ass like this – in a sadomasochistic sweet suffering for Jesus sort of way. Hair-splitting and measuring angels’ wings is all you’ve got, bitch?
You have absolutely nothing of substance to say, you filthy immoral Christian.

[ghoulslime]

thomastwo wrote

You made the guess that most atheists would conclude it was immoral. What was the basis for that guess ? Do you think it's immoral ?

Argument for argument’s sake, blood drinker?

Morality is a relative concept determined by social mores and memes. In light of the fact that almost every society on Earth has moral codes against cannibalism, I would presume, without any clinical studies or global polls on cannibalism ready at hand, that most people, including atheists, would be against this practice.

Yes, I consider cannibalism to be immoral. I feel it is an indignity to my fellow humans.

[ubs]

thomastwo wrote

It's not specifically mentioned but I'm pretty sure that between "don't murder" and "treat your neighbour the way you want to be treated" that it's covered.

No Cannibalism would be just the eating and actually I find it a pretty alarming omission, as is the explicit condemnation of slavery. In my opinion both of those things are much worse than an act of infidelity and reveal the Bible for what it is....a product of it's time in history.

Why not follow the teachings of the Odyssey? It's a better read, it has better lessons about traversing the rough terrain of the human psyche and doesn't get into the dangerous position of trying to lock in scientific perspectives.

thomastwo wrote

BTW - I assume it's the human killing that you object to in Cannabilism - or do you think there is a moral issue in eating human flesh ?

Like most mammals I have an strong emotional aversion to consuming my own kind and also a strong desire to reproduce. So, yes, I consider it a great wrong to knowingly eat human flesh than to violate a contract whose primary purpose is to make sure some dude is feeding the product of his own swimmers.

I would expect a man to disagree with me - not because of a book, but because he has a biological drive to make sure his harem isn't collecting other sperm.

We have evolved this way because it facilitates the survival of the species. If it suddenly became imperative for us to eat each other to survive, those who found that act least repellent would go on.

[ghoulslime]

ubs wrote

No Cannibalism would be just the eating and actually I find it a pretty alarming omission, as is the explicit condemnation of slavery. In my opinion both of those things are much worse than an act of infidelity and reveal the Bible for what it is....a product of it's time in history.

Why not follow the teachings of the Odyssey? It's a better read, it has better lessons about traversing the rough terrain of the human psyche and doesn't get into the dangerous position of trying to lock in scientific perspectives.



Like most mammals I have an strong emotional aversion to consuming my own kind and also a strong desire to reproduce. So, yes, I consider it a great wrong to knowingly eat human flesh than to violate a contract whose primary purpose is to make sure some dude is feeding the product of his own swimmers.

I would expect a man to disagree with me - not because of a book, but because he has a biological drive to make sure his harem isn't collecting other sperm.

We have evolved this way because it facilitates the survival of the species. If it suddenly became imperative for us to eat each other to survive, those who found that act least repellent would go on.

If my survival mandated eating Thomas, I am not sure I would choose survival. What a bitter and pithy meal the little worm would make!

Sweet Jesus penis! How many times does he have to be proved wrong before he starts directing his inquiry inward? What a fucking brick!