Musings of a Deconverting Mind
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-07-2015, 05:41 AM
RE: Musings of a Deconverting Mind
(25-07-2015 08:12 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(25-07-2015 03:05 PM)Octapulse Wrote:  If god did in fact exist, he would be an immoral god evidenced by his murder of countless innocent babies in the old testament.
What is moral?
Who decides what is moral?
Why is it immoral for God to kill babies? Please, explain.
(25-07-2015 03:05 PM)Octapulse Wrote:  Christians will argue that god was different then, which is complete bullshit because the bible states that god is the same yesterday, today and forever.

True. God was not different then.

Moral is not exercising your freewill in a way that imposes on the freewill of others. As a society, a human race, WE decide what is moral and what is not. As a collective mind. The alleged babies and children in Egypt and Israel did not impose their will upon an alleged god, yet this alleged god felt it was necessary to have them butchered? But you don't have a problem with that? I bet you are quick to pop off about your view on abortion, completely missing the irony
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Octapulse's post
26-07-2015, 06:02 AM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2015 07:23 AM by unfogged.)
RE: Musings of a Deconverting Mind
(25-07-2015 10:20 PM)Alla Wrote:  Hmm.. No one answered my questions.
Is it moral or immoral to take away a child/children from his/their parents?

There is not enough contextual information.

Quote:What is moral?

Like the definition of pornography, it is hard to define but I know it when I see it.

Quote:Who decides what is moral?

We all do, both individually and collectively

Quote:Why is it immoral for God to kill babies? Please, explain.

The question is meaningless until you define god and show that it exists.

(25-07-2015 10:41 PM)Alla Wrote:  Hmm, to kill an animal to save a man from sins. is it moral or immoral?

The question is meaningless until you define sin and show that it is a valid concept.

Quote:To kill radical muslim to save another Muslim or Christian. is it moral or immoral?

More context is needed.

Quote:Go figure...

Please. Thinking is good.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like unfogged's post
26-07-2015, 06:02 AM
RE: Musings of a Deconverting Mind
(25-07-2015 03:05 PM)Octapulse Wrote:  Since the existence of god cannot be proven or disproven just as the creation of the universe cannot be proven, the existence of Jesus must therefore be proven in order to give Christianity any further thought, as the bible claims that Jesus was god. The evidence prsented for the existence of Jesus is erroneous and calls for blind faith. If god did in fact exist, he would be an immoral god evidenced by his murder of countless innocent babies in the old testament. Christians will argue that god was different then, which is complete bullshit because the bible states that god is the same yesterday, today and forever. Some calvanists will go so far as to say that we humans have no right to gripe about what our creator does with us just as a hammer has no rebuttal towards the one that weilds it. This argument is flawed in that hammers cannot feel pain nor do they have emotions. Furthermore, this view of god reduces him to the level of a snotty nosed kid kneeling in front of an ant hill with a magnifying glass on a hot summer day. Not at all like the god of love painted by those who love Kool-aid.

I agree with all your points but one. I don't particularly think Jesus had to be historical for christianity to hold up or be given further thought as you mentioned. I may not be interpreting your words correctly though and please let me know if that is the case. I'm assuming by "further thought" you mean "succeed."

There were many gods and sons of gods that were not historical (well, all of them really) but still flourished in their day. Even if Jesus was not historical (as I strongly suspect) and started out as a sky god that died not on earth but in the lower heavens as alluded to in the Ascension of Isaiah, it would have still been possible for the religion to be successful. The humanization of the gospels merely added to the chances that it would succeed as a religion.

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 06:31 AM
RE: Musings of a Deconverting Mind
(26-07-2015 06:02 AM)Tonechaser77 Wrote:  
(25-07-2015 03:05 PM)Octapulse Wrote:  Since the existence of god cannot be proven or disproven just as the creation of the universe cannot be proven, the existence of Jesus must therefore be proven in order to give Christianity any further thought, as the bible claims that Jesus was god. The evidence prsented for the existence of Jesus is erroneous and calls for blind faith. If god did in fact exist, he would be an immoral god evidenced by his murder of countless innocent babies in the old testament. Christians will argue that god was different then, which is complete bullshit because the bible states that god is the same yesterday, today and forever. Some calvanists will go so far as to say that we humans have no right to gripe about what our creator does with us just as a hammer has no rebuttal towards the one that weilds it. This argument is flawed in that hammers cannot feel pain nor do they have emotions. Furthermore, this view of god reduces him to the level of a snotty nosed kid kneeling in front of an ant hill with a magnifying glass on a hot summer day. Not at all like the god of love painted by those who love Kool-aid.

I agree with all your points but one. I don't particularly think Jesus had to be historical for christianity to hold up or be given further thought as you mentioned. I may not be interpreting your words correctly though and please let me know if that is the case. I'm assuming by "further thought" you mean "succeed."

There were many gods and sons of gods that were not historical (well, all of them really) but still flourished in their day. Even if Jesus was not historical (as I strongly suspect) and started out as a sky god that died not on earth but in the lower heavens as alluded to in the Ascension of Isaiah, it would have still been possible for the religion to be successful. The humanization of the gospels merely added to the chances that it would succeed as a religion.

Thanks for asking for clarification as I did not mean succeed but rather given further consideration as truth
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Octapulse's post
26-07-2015, 06:50 AM
RE: Musings of a Deconverting Mind
(25-07-2015 10:41 PM)Alla Wrote:  Hmm, to kill an animal to save a man from sins. is it moral or immoral?
Immoral. You're not actually doing anything except killing an animal.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like LostLocke's post
26-07-2015, 07:04 AM
RE: Musings of a Deconverting Mind
The problem of evil is truly one of my favorite. It's one of the easiest to talk about and debate since it requires very little knowledge of both philosophy and science. Since we are all faced with moral choices has human being living in complex society, even the most idiots of us can present a correct case of what is right and what is wrong and judge others accordingly. It's also the biggest problem of monotheistic religion. Today, very few people would like to obey, exalt, trust and sacrifice some of their comfort to a creature that isn't omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent. The problem is that it's so easy to see that those three characteristics cannot coexist in a single being in our universe because of the problem of evil (amongst other things). Our ancestor revered gods that were just like kings. They were wise, but sometime foolish. They were kind, but capable of great act of cruelty and injustice. They were arrogant and proud. They were the both protector of mankind, but also its bane. To paraphrase God on Trial: «God was never good. He was simply stronger. He was on our side. ». That used to be the extent of gods morality; it came from their strength and authority and didn't extend anywhere else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
26-07-2015, 07:53 AM
RE: Musings of a Deconverting Mind
(26-07-2015 07:04 AM)epronovost Wrote:  The problem of evil is truly one of my favorite. It's one of the easiest to talk about and debate since it requires very little knowledge of both philosophy and science. Since we are all faced with moral choices has human being living in complex society, even the most idiots of us can present a correct case of what is right and what is wrong and judge others accordingly. It's also the biggest problem of monotheistic religion. Today, very few people would like to obey, exalt, trust and sacrifice some of their comfort to a creature that isn't omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent. The problem is that it's so easy to see that those three characteristics cannot coexist in a single being in our universe because of the problem of evil (amongst other things). Our ancestor revered gods that were just like kings. They were wise, but sometime foolish. They were kind, but capable of great act of cruelty and injustice. They were arrogant and proud. They were the both protector of mankind, but also its bane. To paraphrase God on Trial: «God was never good. He was simply stronger. He was on our side. ». That used to be the extent of gods morality; it came from their strength and authority and didn't extend anywhere else.

Well stated! This is why there are gods like Shiva and Loki. Man created god in his own image because that's all that was known. Then man propagated the myth that it was god who created man in his image in order to give the illusion that there is control over the natural world in which man is subject to. A psychological crutch
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Octapulse's post
26-07-2015, 10:30 AM
RE: Musings of a Deconverting Mind
(25-07-2015 08:46 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(25-07-2015 08:42 PM)Alla Wrote:  I didn't say I think this.
Not yet.

Not yet? Please explain under what circumstances you will start thinking this.
Sure, I will explain to you.
When I know what God' true intention was/is/will be.
Until I do not know His true motif I can not rush into any judgement.

When you know what was the intention of God Jehovah to kill babies then you can tell me if it was immoral or moral.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 10:36 AM
RE: Musings of a Deconverting Mind
(26-07-2015 06:02 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(25-07-2015 10:20 PM)Alla Wrote:  Hmm.. No one answered my questions.
Is it moral or immoral to take away a child/children from his/their parents?

There is not enough contextual information.
Yes, and this is exactly my point.
There is no enough contextual information in the Bible why God killed babies.

Is this moral for a woman to kill her innocent unborn baby?
depends.
If she is running away from her responsibility then it is immoral.
But if she is victim of rape or incest or if she may die then it is moral for her
to make this kind of decision.
Is it moral for a doctor to kill innocent unborn baby boy or baby girl and then sell his/her organs?
You tell me, plesae

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2015, 10:44 AM
RE: Musings of a Deconverting Mind
(26-07-2015 10:36 AM)Alla Wrote:  
(26-07-2015 06:02 AM)unfogged Wrote:  There is not enough contextual information.
Yes, and this is exactly my point.
There is no enough contextual information in the Bible why God killed babies.

Is this moral for a woman to kill her innocent unborn baby?
depends.
If she is running away from her responsibility then it is immoral.
But if she is victim of rape or incest or if she may die then it is moral for her
to make this kind of decision.
Is it moral for a doctor to kill innocent unborn baby boy or baby girl and then sell his/her organs?
You tell me, plesae

You can't kill what is unborn. It's an oxymoron. It's like destroying what's not created yet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: