God vs Human Rights

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
Why are you making that argument ? You don't believe God exists. You have to show me how morality evolved when morality has not changed in your scenario.
Morality evolved by individuals who could not get along, being exiled to become lion chow.
Those who had the trait for cooperating with the group, lived to reproduce.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Why are you making that argument ? You don't believe God exists. You have to show me how morality evolved when morality has not changed in your scenario.
I am making the argument because it undermines yours.

As far as morality changing... you offer me the opportunity to post again....

As far as what we have done for ourselves, we realized that human want and need, when ignored, leads to the suffering of self promotion. This is where we humans become desperate and we find those conflicts arising which then leads to the violations of self protection. . Over the eons we have done much better, just ourselves, at providing for local and global want - keeping want at bay. God is not present in that human phenomenon. Where starvation and disease exists manna does not fall from the sky and Jesus does not rub mud on the wound. We come over in boats and planes, with food and medicine we made and paid for ourselves. Where subjugation/slavery exists, we do our best to free them and influence a better model, sometimes through force. Where violations happen, we enact laws, far more and better defined than Moses brought down from the mount to ensure that only his jealous God gets our worship and we curtail our sassy kids. Big stuff there. We already experienced the personal outcome of stealing and murder. Didn't need the mighty pen of God for that. God's stamp is impotent against the power of a human will in the throes of want as a result of His neglect, so we do the best we can... without Him.

This is all us... evolving morally. You can't count on Christians for this. They follow a fiat of God that would crush the skulls of the children of a conquered nation and take the young women as their own and justify slavery with scripture. God would hold the skirts of His chosen over their heads to expose their shame that they be raped by the conqueror because He's mad at them. There is no moral compass to your God.
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Well-known member
No, I take the view that someone who says God does not exist, saying Sorry, I should have said that the God that Christianity posits only cares about whether he gets his ego flattered. Exalt him, go to heaven. Fail to exalt him, go to hell. I must admit that I felt it was implicit in what I said.
So what is your view? No need to be shy. Just say it.

You have admitted God exists because he has been presented to you
Can you talk me through the logic here?

First, in what sense has God been "presented" to me? Do you mean Christians have told me he exists? That seems to stretch the word to breaking point. And yet I see no more than that.

Secondly, let us suppose God has been "presented"... How does it necessarily follow that I admitted he exists?

Thirdly, your argument with me seems to be founded on my supposedly pretending to believe God exists, and yet now you are saying I have admitted he exists. If I admit he exists, I cannot be pretending to believe he exists. Think it through, Newbirth.

Your faulty reasoning is not a good sign for reasoned debate. You said God only cares about whether he gets his ego flattered.
So where is the faulty reasoning? All I see is a difference in opinion.

Sure, I have no problem with that. I have a problem with you saying he does not exist, then saying he cares about his ego.
You think he does not care about his ego?

Why then is God supposedly so clear that his greatest command is for us to love him with all our hearts, minds and souls?

The fact that he supposedly stated it is the greatest command shows - if this is true - that this is his the overriding concern with regards to mankind.

That is their choice, but you cannot say that he does not exist then argue that he is sending people to hell. That makes no sense.
Of course not.

My arguments on CARM usually come down to pointing out that Christianity is not internally consistent, and therefore it is wrong.

In this particular case it is the dichotomy between a God who says we should have no religious freedom, which stands opposed to the moral belief that all humans have a right to freedom of religion.

Nope, you are very clear. You believe God does not exist. And you are arguing that God only cares about his ego and he is sending people to hell for not worshipping him
I believe God does not exist.

The claim that "God is love" is not consistent with a God who only cares about his ego and he is sending people to hell for not worshipping him, and therefore Christianity is wrong.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Morality evolved by individuals who could not get along, being exiled to become lion chow.
Those who had the trait for cooperating with the group, lived to reproduce.
The "I no kill you, you no kill me" method of moral development. It sounds so, so not persuasive.
 

5wize

Well-known member
The "I no kill you, you no kill me" method of moral development. It sounds so, so not persuasive.
It is. If respect for the learning of past experience and consequence doesn't do it, try it out for yourself. Go rob a bank. Break into my house.... Threaten someone else's intrinsic reflex for self protection.

You won't need more convincing beyond that.... Make sure you pick on someone your own size or bigger.... The small ones either have big brothers or have learned to pack - knowing that God ain't gonna save them in that alley..
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
As far as what we have done for ourselves, we realized that human want and need, when ignored, leads to the suffering of self promotion.
You have that backwards...Some humans self-promotion leads to ignoring other humans wants and needs. That would be signs of immorality
This is where we humans become desperate and we find those conflicts arising which then leads to the violations of self protection.
You mean the self-promoted humans riding on the backs of less fortunate in order to protect their own interest.
. Over the eons we have done much better, just ourselves, at providing for local and global want.
Where? Did the Europeans travel to the Americas to feed the hungry suffering Amerindians?
God is not present in that human phenomenon.
I suppose not, the Amerindians were doing fine until the Europeans came.
Where starvation and disease exists manna does not fall from the sky and Jesus does not rub mud on the wound.
Mostly starvation and diseases came with the Europeans
We come over in boats and planes, with food and medicine we made.
Yep give the hungry people food in exchange for the land and riches.
Where subjugation/slavery exists, we do our best to free them and influence a better model, sometimes through force.
After enslaving in the first place. Then promoting a new model of slavery by force if necessary.
Where violations happen, we enact laws, far more and better defined than Moses brought down from the mount to stop idol worship and curtail sassy kids.
Yep laws that enable certain people and suppress others
We already experienced the personal outcome of stealing and murder. Didn't need the mighty pen of God for that.
Now it is legal to murder if you are wealthy
This is all us... evolving morally.
That is the justification of evil not evolving morally.
You can't count on Christians for this. They follow a fiat of God that would crush the skulls of the children of a conquered nation and take the young women as their own.
Do you see believers of Christ doing that today?
God would hold the skirts of His chosen over their heads to expose their shame that they be raped by the conqueror because He's mad at them.
You are not making sense here. You don't believe God exist...so how could he do that? That would be moral evolution.
There is no moral compass to your God.
Then you are admitting God does exist. If not you are admitting moral evolution is responsible for the same.
 

5wize

Well-known member
You have that backwards...Some humans self-promotion leads to ignoring other humans wants and needs. That would be signs of immorality

You mean the self-promoted humans riding on the backs of less fortunate in order to protect their own interest.

Where? Did the Europeans travel to the Americas to feed the hungry suffering Amerindians?

I suppose not, the Amerindians were doing fine until the Europeans came.
No they weren't. There was much starvation and war, conquering and enslavement and torture of captives and rape. You need a better history book. Study the Iroquois nations impact on the Algonquin and the Cherokee, and that pushed them into the Seminole, the Fox, and the Sioux.
It was not pretty...
Mostly starvation and diseases came with the Europeans
It's global.
That is the justification of evil not evolving morally.

Do you see believers of Christ doing that today?
Wow... what happened over time...? Did they somehow "evolve" away from biblical allowances? How would God's objective morality ever change over time?

- checkmate.
You are not making sense here. You don't believe God exist...so how could he do that? That would be moral evolution.

Then you are admitting God does exist. If not you are admitting moral evolution is responsible for the same.
No. You need to become familiar with the argument style of internal critique.
 
Last edited:

Furion

Well-known member
It is. If respect for the learning of past experience and consequence doesn't do it, try it out for yourself. Go rob a bank. Break into my house.... Threaten someone else's intrinsic reflex for self protection.

You won't need more convincing beyond that.... Make sure you pick on someone your own size or bigger.... The small ones either have big brothers or have learned to pack - knowing that God ain't gonna save them in that alley..
Then it is not moral development, it is simply detente.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
No they weren't. There was much starvation and war, conquering and enslavement and torture of captives and rape.
By whom? You seem to be advocating those to be immoral and a great nation comes to save them from their immorality.
You need a better history book. Study the Iroquois nations impact on the Algonquin and the Cherokee, and that pushed them into the Seminole, the Fox, and the Sioux.
It was not pretty...
neither was it pretty in Europe much the same.
It's global.
we know the source.
Wow... what happened over time...?
what do you mean? people decide to follow or not follow rules.
Did they somehow "evolve" away from biblical allowances?
That is not evolution, that is people deciding to follow or not follow rules.
How would God's objective morality ever change over time?
It does not, people sometimes follow rules and sometimes they don't
- checkmate.
where?
No. You need to become familiar with the argument style of internal critique.
you are not making any sense if you are not sure of what you believe.
 

5wize

Well-known member
By whom? You seem to be advocating those to be immoral and a great nation comes to save them from their immorality.
Not advocating that at all. Just correcting your error in believing all was fine for the Amerindians until we got here. That's historical bunk.
neither was it pretty in Europe much the same.

we know the source.
I'm convinced I do... not so sure about you as you entertain other-worldly supernatural explanations for common social evolution.
what do you mean? people decide to follow or not follow rules.

That is not evolution, that is people deciding to follow or not follow rules.

It does not, people sometimes follow rules and sometimes they don't
Scripture is a Christian's guide to the rules. What God allows scripturally is moral by fiat, like genocide and enslavement for a *promised* land and owning slaves as scripture outlines their proper treatment as opposed to just saying it is as wrong as murder and stealing.

The Christian argument surrounding slavery allowances in scripture is that it took what?......... Time? Time to what? Evolve social morality?
In your newly discovered knowledge that time evolves the moral landscape away from bad social action even for Christians with a supposedly divine stamp in their hearts and a scripture to follow that allows for immoral acts that they no longer follow. Yeah, yeah, I know... the new covenant and all. Convenient as well as strained apologetic is all that is.... God is immutable.
you are not making any sense if you are not sure of what you believe.
I am sure of what an internal critique entails. Are you?
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
You said "Humans (all of us), because of our SIN, are already under a death sentence, and condemned to HELL." I took that to mean, well, all humans.
ALL Humans - with only one exception.
We are condemned by an unforgiving God who reserves his mercy only for those who worship him. He chose for the slightest sin to result in us being condemned to hell without any hope of reprieve unless we worship him.
"Worship" isn't the issue. The thing that makes the difference is whether or not we're "Born again" of the Holy Spirit. I.e. Repented under conviction of SIN, surrender to HIS LOrdship, and call out to HIM in FAITH that He gives us to apply the SIN OFFERING of Jesus to our lives, which cleanses us from all sin, and makes us perfect in HIS SIGH in Jesus.
Agreed. It is something most people recognise as morally right, but that God ignores.
Simply because Human "Morals" don't mean SPIT, since (along with human "ethics")they're 100% Situational and governed by human opinion du jour. The Bible doesn't concern itself with "Morals" - but with RIGHEOUSNESS, and SIN.
So in your view you are free to murder and steal in the US. If you get caught there will be a JUDGEMENT based on national laws and a sentence. But you are free to murder and steal, right?
Absolutely!!! we do it all the time, so OBVIOUSLY we're "Free" to do it.
I would disagree. I would say you are not free to murder and steal, but I guess it is a different way of looking at it.
(chuckle!!) watch the evening news sometime, and witness how FREE we are - particularly in our Cities.
I get that God does not give a hoot about our opinion, but it does matter when we are discussing if God is good or evil.
God, of course, being sole creater of "it all" also gets to define in the absolute sense what is "Good", or "Evil". After all, shall the thing created say to HIM who created it: "Why hast thou made me thus?".

SO- there IS NO "discussion", and your (and my) opinion doesn't mean SPIT.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
morality evolved by people who became lion chow? Guess they are all dead with their morality

These would not be a moral bunch, would they?
Wow. Way to spin it to say the exact opposite of what was said. Morality made people able to NOT become lion chow.


They would indeed. Morality is the ability to live in cooperation with others. So yes, they would be a moral "bunch".
 

Algor

Well-known member
ALL Humans - with only one exception.

"Worship" isn't the issue. The thing that makes the difference is whether or not we're "Born again" of the Holy Spirit. I.e. Repented under conviction of SIN, surrender to HIS LOrdship, and call out to HIM in FAITH that He gives us to apply the SIN OFFERING of Jesus to our lives, which cleanses us from all sin, and makes us perfect in HIS SIGH in Jesus.

Simply because Human "Morals" don't mean SPIT, since (along with human "ethics")they're 100% Situational and governed by human opinion du jour. The Bible doesn't concern itself with "Morals" - but with RIGHEOUSNESS, and SIN.

Absolutely!!! we do it all the time, so OBVIOUSLY we're "Free" to do it.

(chuckle!!) watch the evening news sometime, and witness how FREE we are - particularly in our Cities.

God, of course, being sole creater of "it all" also gets to define in the absolute sense what is "Good", or "Evil". After all, shall the thing created say to HIM who created it: "Why hast thou made me thus?".

SO- there IS NO "discussion", and your (and my) opinion doesn't mean SPIT.
I think the idea that morals are 100% situational (outside of Christian righteousness) is not well supported. How would you demonstrate that?
 

Furion

Well-known member
Détente is pragmatism.... morality is the understanding and respecting (the internalizing) of why it works.
I see you don't view morality as anything objective.

So ya, I can see you just don't want to get caught in what you do and then call it "pragmatic"
 
Top