Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[TLK Valentine]

God gave His reason for doing so.

And although the reason is superficial, I'm sure there's much more to it than what God documented.

Much more.

So the bottom line: neither you, nor I, were there.

Sounds like the real bottom line is that you believe that an entire race of people can be so inherently wicked that there is no possible solution but to exterminate them all down to the last man, woman, and child. The Bible says it; that settles it.

...now, go back and look at the tread title and ask yourself which side of the debate you just helped.

 

[Astrid]

Sounds like the real bottom line is that you believe that an entire race of people can be so inherently wicked that there is no possible solution but to exterminate them all down to the last man, woman, and child. The Bible says it; that settles it.

...now, go back and look at the tread title and ask yourself which side of the debate you just helped.

That aint a debate

 

[TLK Valentine]

That aint a debate

Not anymore, thanks to AV.

 

[Bradskii]

...your statement is asserted with loaded language, insinuating that anyone who doesn't agree with you in any capacity is "immoral"...

I think I found the point you were trying to make. Which seems to have missed the point of the post to which you were replying. It's not so much that anyone who doesn't agree with the terminology is immoral. It's that it is beyond comprehension that anyone accepts that it's acceptable in the first instance to drown a complete planet-load of people. For any reason whatsoever. And we have just seen that it's so hard to even contemplate it being morally justified that an argument needs to be put forward that there must be a good reason of which we are unaware ('I'm sure there's much more to it than what God documented').

Therein lies the problem. We can only judge on the facts of the matter (ignoring the obvious one that it never happened). And the facts are such that it cannot be described as anything but immoral. Can there be anything that could be termed a 'necessary evil'? I think so. It could be argued that one needs to destroy a city in order to end a war. But then we are limited in our choices. We are not omnipotent.

So people accept that a God who is omnipotent actually chose to destroy a planet. To remove every living person. And chose a means to do that which killed everyone (kids, pregnant women, elderly) in the most terrifying manner.

And that's not even the crux of the matter. Which is...that if you can accept that God is justified in doing that, then God is justified in doing anything. And if He asks you for your help in doing it, then you are likewise justified in carrying out His command. Because, hey - there must be a good reason for it. Even if you are unaware of it.

It means that any evil act can be justified.

 

[AV1611VET]

This kind of statement is exactly at the nexus of the problem I've been attempting to point out here in my last few posts. What you're are ending up with here, whether intentionally or not, is a moral affirmation extending from your own assumed Ethical framework, one that presupposes the correctness of your own moral view. The thing is, no one has to see your affirmation as an Absolute singular value expressing some essential, invariable Moral Truth that any or all of us necessarily should concede to, especially if the given exhibit or our moral interest is assumed to be a fictional, transcendent literary character.

Moreover, it's politically problematic in that your statement is asserted with loaded language, insinuating that anyone who doesn't agree with you in any capacity is "immoral" prima facie.

This is more of the obfuscated kind of rhetoric I'm referring to above, TLK, and while I don't know how AV will attempt to answer, I can do so without asserting any metaphysical necessities or having any literal reliance upon the Bible whatsoever other than to apply Hermeneutics to what may be an entirely fictional account.

Mamma mia, Philo.

Do you write books?

 

[AV1611VET]

Sounds like the real bottom line is that you believe that an entire race of people can be so inherently wicked that there is no possible solution but to exterminate them ...

Have you done any looking into as to what that "entire race of people" consisted of?

 

[Bradskii]

Mamma mia, Philo.

Do you write books?

If he wants to, I can recommend a good editor. If nothing else it will save a lot of trees.

 

[Astrid]

I think I found the point you were trying to make. Which seems to have missed the point of the post to which you were replying. It's not so much that anyone who doesn't agree with the terminology is immoral. It's that it is beyond comprehension that anyone accepts that it's acceptable in the first instance to drown a complete planet-load of people. For any reason whatsoever. And we have just seen that it's so hard to even contemplate it being morally justified that an argument needs to be put forward that there must be a good reason of which we are unaware ('I'm sure there's much more to it than what God documented').

Therein lies the problem. We can only judge on the facts of the matter (ignoring the obvious one that it never happened). And the facts are such that it cannot be described as anything but immoral. Can there be anything that could be termed a 'necessary evil'? I think so. It could be argued that one needs to destroy a city in order to end a war. But then we are limited in our choices. We are not omnipotent.

So people accept that a God who is omnipotent actually chose to destroy a planet. To remove every living person. And chose a means to do that which killed everyone (kids, pregnant women, elderly) in the most terrifying manner.

And that's not even the crux of the matter. Which is...that if you can accept that God is justified in doing that, then God is justified in doing anything. And if He asks you for your help in doing it, then you are likewise justified in carrying out His command. Because, hey - there must be a good reason for it. Even if you are unaware of it.

It means that any evil act can be justified.

Can be, has been, will again.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's that it is beyond comprehension ...

Wow.

God did something beyond comprehension.

Imagine that!?

 

[Bradskii]

Have you done any looking into as to what that "entire race of people" consisted of?

That would be everyone. Men, women, children, babies, the elderly, those yet unborn, the infirm, the sick, the dying, saints, sinners, priests, physicians, those getting married, those giving birth...everyone. And not just a reset with a snap of divine fingers. But a terrible and cruel death for each of those.

 

[Bradskii]

Wow.

God did something beyond comprehension.

Imagine that!?

Maybe you missed the point of the post. It's not that you don't understand why He did it as He did. It's that you find it acceptable.

 

[AV1611VET]

That would be everyone. Men, women, children, babies, the elderly, those yet unborn, the infirm, the sick, the dying, saints, sinners, priests, physicians, those getting married, those giving birth...everyone. And not just a reset with a snap of divine fingers. But a terrible and cruel death for each of those.

And what did everyones' DNA consist of? any idea?

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe you missed the point of the post. It's not that you don't understand why He did it as He did. It's that you find it acceptable.

Had He not done that, you wouldn't be here to accuse Him prematurely and without forethought.

Your icon shows a man concentrating, but your words are ... well ... not too cognitive.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And what did everyones' DNA consist of? any idea?

Nucleotide base pairs.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Mamma mia, Philo.

Do you write books?

The good news is---no I don't! ... I'm too wordy and I know it.

 

[Bradskii]

Had He not done that, you wouldn't be here to accuse Him prematurely and without forethought.

You keep swinging and missing. I'm not accusing Him of anything. Kinda difficult when I don't believe He exists. So why not concentrate on the point I made. Which was that you do believe that He exists and you do believe that He specifically chose a cruel and terrifying death for...I won't bother giving a list of who was killed, so let's focus on one group...all children.

As I said, if you do justify that then you could justify anything. And that's probably the most chilling statement one could make.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep swinging and missing. I'm not accusing Him of anything. Kinda difficult when I don't believe He exists. So why not concentrate on the point I made. Which was that you do believe that He exists and you do believe that He specifically chose a cruel and terrifying death for...I won't bother giving a list of who was killed, so let's focus on one group...all children.

As I said, if you do justify that then you could justify anything. And that's probably the most chilling statement one could make.

And may I add it is not a very fine man that doesn't recognize your avatar.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think I found the point you were trying to make. Which seems to have missed the point of the post to which you were replying. It's not so much that anyone who doesn't agree with the terminology is immoral. It's that it is beyond comprehension that anyone accepts that it's acceptable in the first instance to drown a complete planet-load of people. For any reason whatsoever. And we have just seen that it's so hard to even contemplate it being morally justified that an argument needs to be put forward that there must be a good reason of which we are unaware ('I'm sure there's much more to it than what God documented').

Therein lies the problem. We can only judge on the facts of the matter (ignoring the obvious one that it never happened). And the facts are such that it cannot be described as anything but immoral. Can there be anything that could be termed a 'necessary evil'? I think so. It could be argued that one needs to destroy a city in order to end a war. But then we are limited in our choices. We are not omnipotent.

So people accept that a God who is omnipotent actually chose to destroy a planet. To remove every living person. And chose a means to do that which killed everyone (kids, pregnant women, elderly) in the most terrifying manner.

And that's not even the crux of the matter. Which is...that if you can accept that God is justified in doing that, then God is justified in doing anything. And if He asks you for your help in doing it, then you are likewise justified in carrying out His command. Because, hey - there must be a good reason for it. Even if you are unaware of it.

It means that any evil act can be justified.

Nope. Try again. And thanks! Thanks for taking the time to not only counter my points [which, having been made over more than just one post you seem to have missed] with your usual adroitness, but by having done so, you show that you're willing to then not only double down in dogmatic fashion such as you atheists all too often do but to even triple down, if needed.

Yeah, I can see why you'd need to do so, as flimsy as your position is.

Do you study Ethics in any capacity, Bradskii? Or do you just want to give the impression to passerbys that your more or less 'Intuitionist' perspective on Ethics is somehow a simple, straight forward, self-evident moral tell-all to any and everyone who takes umbrage with your presumptions and your resulting moral (and psychological?) evaluations.

 

[Bradskii]

And may I add it is not a very fine man that doesn't recognize your avatar.

That reminds me of a stall I was browsing in a market a few years ago that was selling children's t-shirts. Most of them had funny comments on them such as 'What Happens In Kindy Stays In Kindy'. One that had me chucking all day had the iconic picture of Che Guevara printed on the front and underneath it said 'I have no idea who this is...'

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That reminds me of a stall I was browsing in a market a few years ago that was selling children's t-shirts. Most of them had funny comments on them such as 'What Happens In Kindy Stays In Kindy'. One that had me chucking all day had the iconic picture of Che Guevara printed on the front and underneath it said 'I have no idea who this is...'

Did they have a matching t-shirt in that series that has an iconic picture of Pierre Bourdieu? I'd buy that one if I could; although I'd probably burn the Che Guevara shirt.