Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wads4 · 12-31-2004, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

No, pharoah initiated it in Exodus 7:13. God predicted that He would eventually harden his heart. Rebellion against God is similar to an addiction, once you start doing it then it becomes harder and harder to stop till eventually you cannot stop and you do lose your free will. God just sped up a natural process in order to rescue his people from slavery.

No, a pharoah would do a great deal of research on a very large minority living in his nation with a different religion. He most probably knew a great deal about Yahweh and like you he didn't like Him either.

Softening his heart would have violated his free will. Pharaoh did not like God or his people. As I stated above pharoah initiated the hardening, see above.

Just because you value human life highly does not mean that it actually has high value. Why is human life precious? Why not dog life or cow life? You feel that human life is precious but Hitler felt that only Aryan life was precious since both of you are basing your decisions on feelings your position is no more valid than his. Only Christianity provides a rational and objective basis for valuing human life. God did not kill innocent people, none of them were innocent. All humans are born with a desire to rebel against God. And the penalty for rebellion against the King of the Universe is immediate death. So actually God was being gracious to them by letting them live for a time. Actually they deserved to die the minute they were born.

Your ideas on what constitutes "innocence" in people is of course entirely Biblical in origin. No doubt you regard this as a virtue. Others might regard it as equivalent to the doings of Osama bin Laden. Take Agag, king of the Amalekites for instance, whom Samuel allegedly "hewed in pieces",- what had he done except live in his own countrry and worship his own gods?--rather like you actually.

Ed · 01-03-2005, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Yes, you've had one one of your periodic bouts of amnesia: an "Eddian reset".

I guess it's time to repost my list of reminders (from post #516) before the situation deteriorates further.

We have already established that you haven't given any more "reasons to obey the creator".

I can see three reasons:

1. FEAR. Fear of God, or fear of the police.

2. EMPATHY. "Love of God" or "love of humanity", or the evolved emotional bond that social creatures such as ourselves have for each other.

3. SELF-INTEREST. Helping others makes them more likely to help you in return.

Evolution explains all these, and you have provided no others.

But these are not OUGHTS, these are just reasons why some people do some things. I am still waiting for ONE single ought from evolution!

Jack the Bodiless · 01-04-2005, 02:23 AM

Ed, I am STILL waiting for you to provide one single OUGHT from Christian theism that has no secular equivalent.

Your bluster isn't hiding the fact that you evidently cannot do this.

Ed · 01-05-2005, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wads4

To try and derive an "ought" from an "is", is to commit the Naturalist Fallacy. I am a firm Naturalist and Evolutionist. Evolution does not tell you what you ought to do (it is not a person),-it just weeds out by natural selection, that behaviour which is not conducive to survival.

Right. Try to tell Jack the Bodiless that! Please!

Jack the Bodiless · 01-06-2005, 05:30 PM

I don't NEED telling.

I'm the one who "gets it", Ed: you are the one who does not.

Society (which DOES consist of people) provides the "oughts", and evolution explains the existence of the emotional imperatives behind those "oughts".

When are you going to admit that religion fails to provide any additional imperatives?

Ed · 01-06-2005, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wads4

Wouldn't you "harden your heart" if your country was occupied by a large overbreeding horde of foreigners who were intent on taking over your land and imposing their religion and customs on you?

Huh? There is no evidence that the ancient hebrews were trying to impose their religion and customs on the Egyptians.

Quote:

wads: If the activities of modern J-Christian fanatics are anything to go by, this is precisely what was happening at that time. The OT confirms it by recording the fulminations of Israelite priests against the Egyptians religion which as "guests" in Egypt, they had no right to do.

I don't know what J-Christians are but if you are referring to American Christians the analogy fails. American Christians are just trying to help our country get back to the original principles that our country was founded on, ie judeo-christian principles and founded by mostly Christians. Egypt was not founded by hebrews nor on biblical principles.

Ed · 01-10-2005, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wads4

Your ideas on what constitutes "innocence" in people is of course entirely Biblical in origin. No doubt you regard this as a virtue. Others might regard it as equivalent to the doings of Osama bin Laden. Take Agag, king of the Amalekites for instance, whom Samuel allegedly "hewed in pieces",- what had he done except live in his own countrry and worship his own gods?--rather like you actually.

But atheists have no moral basis for condemning bin Laden. So you have no rational basis for bringing him up. The Amalekites had attacked the representatives of the King of the Universe to go along with their general mistreatment of women and children in their own society.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-11-2005, 04:59 AM

Quote:

But atheists have no moral basis for condemning bin Laden. So you have no rational basis for bringing him up.

Yes, we do.

Quote:

The Amalekites had attacked the representatives of the King of the Universe to go along with their general mistreatment of women and children in their own society.

No, they had not. Some of their ancestors had resisted invasion.

Ed · 01-12-2005, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed, I am STILL waiting for you to provide one single OUGHT from Christian theism that has no secular equivalent.

Your bluster isn't hiding the fact that you evidently cannot do this.

How about two? You ought to: 1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind.
2. Love your enemies.

wufongtan · 01-12-2005, 10:00 PM

If God's character is the source of morality his actions will be the vehicle through which he expresses that character (or the actions he commands humans to take.)

So, let's test your ideas.

Do you feel it's moral for an invading army to round up all the virgin females of the people they have conquered, to keep for their own (to do as they wish with), but to kill everything else? Including pregnant women by ripping the unborn from their wombs?
lol@ questiong the morals of a invading army at all! lol

Do you think it is moral to publically execute a son for drunkenness?
yes.

If you had the power would it be moral of you to harden the heart of your enemy so that you could kill all the first born of his family and his neighbors in order that he give you want you want?
yes it would be moral. war is war.get over it and grow up
Is hatred a positive moral?
it can be.
heres my question is it moral for a forum full of people who spend their whole time debating ot should isay insulting a group of people for being too scared to face life, yet when soneone makes them face life with a simple question they put a gag on that person?
remember noone who is strong intheir beliefs fears questioning from anyone....and some groupsd wonder why they can't get any credibility.

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

01-04-2005, 02:23 AM	#553
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Ed, I am STILL waiting for you to provide one single OUGHT from Christian theism that has no secular equivalent. Your bluster isn't hiding the fact that you evidently cannot do this.

01-06-2005, 05:30 PM	#555
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	I don't NEED telling. I'm the one who "gets it", Ed: you are the one who does not. Society (which DOES consist of people) provides the "oughts", and evolution explains the existence of the emotional imperatives behind those "oughts". When are you going to admit that religion fails to provide any additional imperatives?

01-12-2005, 10:00 PM	#560
wufongtan Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: australia Posts: 36	If God's character is the source of morality his actions will be the vehicle through which he expresses that character (or the actions he commands humans to take.) So, let's test your ideas. Do you feel it's moral for an invading army to round up all the virgin females of the people they have conquered, to keep for their own (to do as they wish with), but to kill everything else? Including pregnant women by ripping the unborn from their wombs? lol@ questiong the morals of a invading army at all! lol Do you think it is moral to publically execute a son for drunkenness? yes. If you had the power would it be moral of you to harden the heart of your enemy so that you could kill all the first born of his family and his neighbors in order that he give you want you want? yes it would be moral. war is war.get over it and grow up Is hatred a positive moral? it can be. heres my question is it moral for a forum full of people who spend their whole time debating ot should isay insulting a group of people for being too scared to face life, yet when soneone makes them face life with a simple question they put a gag on that person? remember noone who is strong intheir beliefs fears questioning from anyone....and some groupsd wonder why they can't get any credibility.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.