Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[BPPLEE]

So anything that He would ask you to do, you'd obey His command and do it. And that would include anything that you might think was evil. It wouldn't be your position to challenge God. I'm glad we got there.

Now it only remains for us to know how you actually know that God has commanded you to do something. Bearing in mind that you have lost the excuse to say 'Well, He wouldn't ask me to do that' because you've just said that He could command you to do literally everything. Nothing is off the table.

Any suggestions?

As I said he only commands me to do two things. Not only do you take my words out of context you put words in my mouth. And your hypothetical nonsense is annoying

 

[BPPLEE]

More hypothetical scenarios, ay, Bradskii? You're sophistry is getting annoying. So is your form of questioning. As for names, I'll drop whatever names I so feel pleased to drop ... you can do the same. And I really don't care what you think or don't think about my paltry credentials.

Here is a real question for you to fathom, hopefully one that you consider very soon since your years are getting on in time: Do you personally think a Transcendent, Holy, Eternal God, Lord God Almighty, Maker of all Creation-- who gives life and takes it away --is in any way accountable to you or to me or even to the rest of the world for His clear judgments upon us? If so, by what absolute, moral criteria above and beyond God Himself do you call Him to account?

As far as I can dally about in the realm of axiology, I see NO criteria above and beyond God Himself. I'd be surprised you do IF we're going to play the hypothetical that God exists within your chosen make-shift scenario.

See? I'm not playing your game. If you don't believe in God, in Jesus, then drop the hypothetical act and start being honest with what you're really trying to imply---that religious people bother you and you're concerned because you think they're deluded. Just be honest and stop the mind games!

He selects part of what you say and quotes it totally out of context puts words in your mouth then adds some hypothetical nonsense just for good measure

 

[Bradskii]

Here is a real question for you to fathom, hopefully one that you consider very soon since your years are getting on in time: Do you personally think a Transcendent, Holy, Eternal God, Lord God Almighty, Maker of all Creation-- who gives life and takes it away --is in any way accountable to you or to me or even to the rest of the world for His clear judgments upon us? If so, by what absolute, moral criteria above and beyond God Himself do you call Him to account? stop the mind games!

If I truly believed in God? I wouldn't believe the Sunday School stories that I was told as a child. Parting seas, global floods and animals two by two. I didn't even believe them when I was a child. And I might well be on this forum trying to explain to others that they didn't happen. That they were stories meant to make a point about God. To explain how we should consider our relationship with Him. That they are no more meant to taken literally than the stories of King Arthur or the Olympic gods are meant to be treated as factual.

I would then go on to tell anyone who suggests 'whether the flood happened or not, God could have killed everyone and it's entirely acceptable for Him to do it', that He is omnipotent and so to choose to do that would be cruel and capricious. And further, that it is exceptionally dangerous to consider what we deem to be evil acts to be divinely acceptable. For what I would sincerely hope would be very obvious reasons indeed.

That wouldn't be the God I believed in. But it's the God that you believe in.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Correct. The question we now have to ask (ignoring any post-Hegelian strictures on divine morality as proposed by Farnham - or if that's too dense for you then vide Barnes' critique of that very point in his deconstructionalist essay on the burning bush et al: 'Flametree'*) is the following:

Why would it be too dense for me? Do you honestly think I haven't read a bit of Hegel, as convoluted as he is? If you want me to read Farnham, just cite the book and page.

If any given act by God must be deemed morally correct, then would it be morally correct for you to perform that act if commanded by God?

Yes, any given act by Jesus must be deemed morally correct (assuming He existed and was who He implied He was). And yes, if the theological contingencies are in place, it would be morally correct for me to perform that act if commanded by Jesus.

Are you expecting Jesus to show up soon and ask Christians to begin going on a rampage? If so, I'm going to have to question you about your eisegesis of the Bible.

*I made that up. Does it make me sound smart or pretentious?

In a certain kind of way, it does actually.

 

[Occams Barber]

We're talking and have ONLY been talking in reference to the Great Flood. Would you like to requalify your concerns here?

The entire first paragraph of my post IS about the flood and the specific consequences of accepting the flood as moral:

If you place this statement in the context of God wiping out most of the human race then it's easy to see where fanaticism comes from. To suggest that genocide is OK because God said so, indicates the abdication of normal moral judgement. It's a short step from here to "I was only following orders".

The second paragraph deals with the broader implications of this type of thinking including expanding a little on the 'morally vacuous' statement I made upthread:

This is what I mean when I say that Christianity is morally vacuous. Anything is allowable as long as you can claim God's acquiescence. Thinking becomes unnecessary.

In this context I have no idea what you mean by 'requalify my concerns'.

OB

 

[Bradskii]

As I said he only commands me to do two things. Not only do you take my words out of context you put words in my mouth. And your hypothetical nonsense is annoying

So He wouldn't ask you to do anything immoral. But I guess what we're trying to decide is whose sense of morality would govern the decision as to whether it was actually was immoral. Yours or God's.

 

[BPPLEE]

If I truly believed in God? I wouldn't believe the Sunday School stories that I was told as a child. Parting seas, global floods and animals two by two. I didn't even believe them when I was a child. And I might well be on this forum trying to explain to others that they didn't happen. That they were stories meant to make a point about God. To explain how we should consider our relationship with Him. That they are no more meant to taken literally than the stories of King Arthur or the Olympic gods are meant to be treated as factual.

I would then go on to tell anyone who suggests 'whether the flood happened or not, God could have killed everyone and it's entirely acceptable for Him to do it', that He is omnipotent and so to choose to do that would be cruel and capricious. And further, that it is exceptionally dangerous to consider what we deem to be evil acts to be divinely acceptable. For what I would sincerely hope would be very obvious reasons indeed.

That wouldn't be the God I believed in. But it's the God that you believe in.

God could've killed everyone and it's totally acceptable? Is this your position ? See how that works?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If I truly believed in God? I wouldn't believe the Sunday School stories that I was told as a child. Parting seas, global floods and animals two by two. I didn't even believe them when I was a child. And I might well be on this forum trying to explain to others that they didn't happen. That they were stories meant to make a point about God. To explain how we should consider our relationship with Him. That they are no more meant to taken literally than the stories of King Arthur or the Olympic gods are meant to be treated as factual.

I would then go on to tell anyone who suggests 'whether the flood happened or not, God could have killed everyone and it's entirely acceptable for Him to do it', that He is omnipotent and so to choose to do that would be cruel and capricious. And further, that it is exceptionally dangerous to consider what we deem to be evil acts to be divinely acceptable. For what I would sincerely hope would be very obvious reasons indeed.

That wouldn't be the God I believed in. But it's the God that you believe in.

I see you're going with the "honest" route now rather than continue with the hypothetical route.

Ok. Thanks for playing! You'd still be committing a non-sequitur by assuming that simply because a text contains a Flood story where God is depicted as wiping out people that that directly culminates in a psychological and social causation of potential violence on the part of 'the faithful.'

Please pull the lever to try the second pin-ball play. You're first one went right down the side alley.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The entire first paragraph of my post IS about the flood and the specific consequences of accepting the flood as moral:


The second paragraph deals with the broader implications of this type of thinking including expanding a little on the 'morally vacuous' statement I made upthread:


In this context I have no idea what you mean by 'requalify my concerns'.

OB

Would you like to present EVIDENCE that there are people who are all too easily applying eisegesis to the biblical text when they read about the flood and think that implies a license "to go and do likewise."

I'm not seeing that it automatically follows. It'd be great if you have some studies in social psychology that you think present evidence that this is indeed the BIG concern that you think it is. Do you have any, or is your concern a form of blowing smoke?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So He wouldn't ask you to do anything immoral. But I guess what we're trying to decide is whose sense of morality would govern the decision as to whether it was actually was immoral. Yours or God's.

It'd be God's. You didn't think it'd be Alexander Dugin's, did you?

 

[Bradskii]

Why would it be too dense for me? Do you honestly think I haven't read a bit of Hegel, as convoluted as he is? If you want me to read Farnham, just cite the book and page.

Yes, any given act by Jesus must be deemed morally correct (assuming He existed and said He was who He implied He was). And yes, if the theological contingencies are in place, it would be morally correct for me to perform that act if commanded by Jesus.

Are you expecting Jesus to show up soon and ask Christians to begin going on a rampage? If so, I'm going to have to question you about your eisegesis of the Bible.

In a certain kind of way, it does actually.

Jesus? Who brought Jesus into the discussion? I can't recall Jesus killing anyone. In fact, He was instrumental in saving a few lives. Let's stick with God drowning the planet and God giving you the commands.

I haven't read any Farnsy either. But I've read a couple of books by Barnsie. He lives opposite my daughter by the way. Nice guy.

 

[Bradskii]

God could've killed everyone and it's totally acceptable? Is this your position ?

You might have to re-read my post. It says just the opposite.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Jesus? Who brought Jesus into the discussion? I can't recall Jesus killing anyone. In fact, He was instrumental in saving a few lives. Let's stick with God drowning the planet and God giving you the commands.

Let's not. You see, that's part of the game, my hermeneutic game. And my game is that if we're talking about the Biblical God this side of Jesus, then we're talking about Jesus too.

I haven't read any Farnsy either. But I've read a couple of books by Barnsie. He lives opposite my daughter by the way. Nice guy.

ok. That's funny. You get a bonus pin-ball play.

And I'm going to bed. Nighty-night!

 

[Bradskii]

I see you're going with the "honest" route now rather than continue with the hypothetical route.

Ok. Thanks for playing! You'd still be committing a non-sequitur by assuming that simply because a text contains a Flood story where God is depicted as wiping out people that that directly culminates in a psychological and social causation of potential violence on the part of 'the faithful.'

Why is this so difficult to grasp? It's not that God could have wiped out everyone that's the problem. The problem is maintaining that it would have been acceptable by an omnipotent God.

Are you not reading the posts?

 

[Bradskii]

Let's not. You see, that's part of the game, my hermeneutic game.

The point is about what the OT said God did. Not what the NT said Jesus did. Accepting the former is a problem. Accepting the latter is not. Please try to stay focussed.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It'd be God's. You didn't think it'd be Alexander Dugin's, did you?

Is it possible to tell the difference?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't treat anyone harshly just because I don't agree. I take pot shots on here but so do you.

Does my behavior justify your own?

 

[AV1611VET]

That wouldn't be the God I believed in.

Cupid?

 

[Occams Barber]

Would you like to present EVIDENCE that there are people who are all too easily applying eisegesis to the biblical text when they read about the flood and think that implies a license "to go and do likewise."

I'm not seeing that it automatically follows. It'd be great if you have some studies in social psychology that you think present evidence that this is indeed the BIG concern that you think it is. Do you have any, or is your concern a form of blowing smoke?

Why do a survey when all I need to do is quote you?

'Cause if God is God, then He knows best. It's pretty obvious.

This isn't news. Christians have been killing each other (and everyone else) in the name of God for centuries.

OB

 

[BPPLEE]

You might have to re-read my post. It says just the opposite.

I was demonstrating what you do with my posrs