Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WILLOWTREE · 12-02-2004, 07:16 PM

Concerning the OP:

I would like to substitute the perceived outrage of its Biblical content and claims with the passage beneath.

Quote:

2Kings 2:23,24

And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Lets assume the claim of Holy Text that it contains the word of God.

In regards to the above verses I will argue in behalf of God if anyone wants to use the same text to say God is immoral.

I enter a plea of not guilty in behalf of my Client.

Any takers ?

WT

dannyh44 · 12-02-2004, 07:37 PM

Willlowtree,
I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you subscribe to the notion that whatever God proclaims is automatically moral, that's your decision. However, if you still recognize the rules of logic and rationality, then you must concede that God's morals are not absolute, they are situational.

And if you are an honest person, you will never again agree with your Christian peers when they look to you for affirmation that God's morals are absolute. If you are intellectually honest with yourself, you will realize you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Thanks

WILLOWTREE · 12-02-2004, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannyh44

Willlowtree,
I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you subscribe to the notion that whatever God proclaims is automatically moral, that's your decision. However, if you still recognize the rules of logic and rationality, then you must concede that God's morals are not absolute, they are situational.

And if you are an honest person, you will never again agree with your Christian peers when they look to you for affirmation that God's morals are absolute. If you are intellectually honest with yourself, you will realize you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Thanks

Your OP and its simpleton rage against the Bible is pure ignorance.

You have elevated inflammatory rhetoric to be falsification of Biblical inerrancy.

You assume a God would not kill children therefore the Biblical events where that happens must evidence against the source speaking for God.

Righteousness: whatever God does.

WILLOWTREE · 12-02-2004, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannyh44

If you are intellectually honest with yourself, you will realize you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

IOW, intellectualism is synonymous with morality.

I guess abortion doesn't apply. Convenient.

Nazi Germany were intellectuals and highly educated .

They fully embraced ToE and used it against Jews.

Your alleged intellectualism is not the cause for rejecting the Bible and its God - it is hatred of a Boss and being accountable to Him.

Romans says atheism is a penalty from God, therefore God causes atheism and not intellectualism.

dannyh44 · 12-02-2004, 08:12 PM

WillowTree,
I put forth to you an honest question: Are you high?
I am not saying that "intellectualism" is synonymous with morals.
All I'm saying is that if you follow the laws of commonly agreed upon logic, you will have to concede that the Bible contains situational ethics (Examples given in my initial post).

Do you agree? If not why?

thanks

dannyh44 · 12-02-2004, 08:55 PM

Willowtree,

After reading your brief and incoherent posts, and witnessing the way in which you refuse to explain your answers in any well-reasoned fashion, I conclude that you are not willing to open yourself to any sort of fair discourse.

You do have the freedom to bounce around and make your claims, but unless you get serious about adhering to the rules of logical discourse, no one will take you seriously.

With the way you engage in debate, you could call up Hank Hannegraaf, Norm Geisler, and Jerry Falwell, and even they'd all think you were a flake.

Just some thoughts.

Chris Weimer · 12-03-2004, 12:52 AM

Nazis didn't apply ToE to kill the Jews, they applied eugenics, a wholly different field altogether. ToE is a natural selection, eugenics is institutionalised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

Your OP and its simpleton rage against the Bible is pure ignorance.

It seems that you are the ignorant one in this case. The OP wasn't even a rant, but an explanation. :down:

Toto · 12-03-2004, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

. . .
Romans says atheism is a penalty from God, therefore God causes atheism and not intellectualism.

GOD CAUSES ATHEISM.

Thank you, Jesus.

If I moved a post inappropriately, please PM me.

Chris Weimer · 12-03-2004, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

GOD CAUSES ATHEISM.

Thank you, Jesus.

If I moved a post inappropriately, please PM me.

:rolling: :thumbs:

I think asajoseph's post should belong with the other one's, or not with WILLOWTREE's digression.

Jack the Bodiless · 12-03-2004, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

Nazi Germany were intellectuals and highly educated .

They fully embraced ToE and used it against Jews.

Adolf Hitler was a Christian creationist:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adolf Hitler

Even the most superficial observation shows that Nature's restricted form of propagation and increase is an almost rigid basic law of all the innumerable forms of expression of her vital urge. Every animal mates only with a member of the same species. The titmouse seeks the titmouse, the finch the finch, the stork the stork, the field mouse the field mouse, the dormouse the dormouse, the wolf the she-wolf, etc...

...The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice...

...From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.

He also claimed to have been "doing the Lord's work" in perscuting the Jews. You shouldn't have a problem with that, because:

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

Righteousness: whatever God does.

...Which would include sending Hitler as an agent of his will, yes?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-02-2004, 07:37 PM	#2
dannyh44 Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 30	Willlowtree, I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you subscribe to the notion that whatever God proclaims is automatically moral, that's your decision. However, if you still recognize the rules of logic and rationality, then you must concede that God's morals are not absolute, they are situational. And if you are an honest person, you will never again agree with your Christian peers when they look to you for affirmation that God's morals are absolute. If you are intellectually honest with yourself, you will realize you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Thanks

12-02-2004, 08:12 PM	#5
dannyh44 Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 30	WillowTree, I put forth to you an honest question: Are you high? I am not saying that "intellectualism" is synonymous with morals. All I'm saying is that if you follow the laws of commonly agreed upon logic, you will have to concede that the Bible contains situational ethics (Examples given in my initial post). Do you agree? If not why? thanks

12-02-2004, 08:55 PM	#6
dannyh44 Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 30	Willowtree, After reading your brief and incoherent posts, and witnessing the way in which you refuse to explain your answers in any well-reasoned fashion, I conclude that you are not willing to open yourself to any sort of fair discourse. You do have the freedom to bounce around and make your claims, but unless you get serious about adhering to the rules of logical discourse, no one will take you seriously. With the way you engage in debate, you could call up Hank Hannegraaf, Norm Geisler, and Jerry Falwell, and even they'd all think you were a flake. Just some thoughts.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.