Does God Hide Himself?

[This_person]

Good people will be good and bad people will be bad, with or without religion. But when religious convictions result in burning people alive or severing their heads - as christians and muslims have done for the better part of the last millenia - then the seemingly harmless naivety of belief in an imaginary deity, has metamorphosed into an evil and deadly one.

Everyone has their naive blind spots and biases. Mythical belief systems are the greatest hindrance to eliminating them.

Please provide the objective standard which defines the actions you described as either good or evil. I would love to be taught what eternal and objective (not social norms) standards exist.

I take it you have no response....I didn't think you could or would even try.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

Please provide the objective standard which defines the actions you described as either good or evil. I would love to be taught what eternal and objective (not social norms) standards exist.

Morality is neither objective nor subjective as these words are normally defined and used. And it's a fallacy that religion-based morality, as interpreted in the Bible, the Qu'ran, or any other religious text, is objective, because objectivism relates to truths and truths must be based on facts and evidence - not religious beliefs. If anything, religious morality is subjective because it is based on faith that primitive religious texts are factual. 'Faith' is nothing more than opinion and opinion is subjective. Moreover, religious text interpretations - and the 'morality derived thereof - vary by sect and by individual interpretation.

Murder, genocide, slavery, the killing of children, the taking of virgin women as spoils of war...the God of the Bible 'divinely' and 'morally' commands all this and more. If there is a more immoral framework than the Bible, I don't know of any, except possibly the Qu'ran. Even ISIS would find it a challenging task to emulate the God of Abraham's 'morality'.

 

[Bird Dog]

Morality is neither objective nor subjective as these words are normally defined and used. And it's a fallacy that religion-based morality, as interpreted in the Bible, the Qu'ran, or any other religious text, is objective, because objectivism relates to truths and truths must be based on facts and evidence - not religious beliefs. If anything, religious morality is subjective because it is based on faith that primitive religious texts are factual. 'Faith' is nothing more than opinion and opinion is subjective. Moreover, religious text interpretations - and the 'morality derived thereof - vary by sect and by individual interpretation.

Murder, genocide, slavery, the killing of children, the taking of virgin women as spoils of war...the God of the Bible 'divinely' and 'morally' commands all this and more. If there is a more immoral framework than the Bible, I don't know of any, except possibly the Qu'ran. Even ISIS would find it a challenging task to emulate the God of Abraham's 'morality'.

Hmmmmmm.......ever heard of the New Testament?

 

[TheLibertonian]

Hmmmmmm.......ever heard of the New Testament?

A lot of the hardline anti-Christians like to ignore the theological differences because it would kill their argument.

But then we also see that behavior in anti-everything because admitting your opponent may be good in any way is a Bad Thing.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

A lot of the hardline anti-Christians like to ignore the theological differences because it would kill their argument.
But then we also see that behavior in anti-everything because admitting your opponent may be good in any way is a Bad Thing.

The god of the OT and NT are the same. Immutable. That said, with respect to morality, I consider the NTs 'moral construct', immoral with respect to slavery, homosexuality, etc., and on balance, non-value added to modern society. But perhaps you could expound on its worth to modern western society in your view.

 

[This_person]

Morality is neither objective nor subjective as these words are normally defined and used. And it's a fallacy that religion-based morality, as interpreted in the Bible, the Qu'ran, or any other religious text, is objective, because objectivism relates to truths and truths must be based on facts and evidence - not religious beliefs. If anything, religious morality is subjective because it is based on faith that primitive religious texts are factual. 'Faith' is nothing more than opinion and opinion is subjective. Moreover, religious text interpretations - and the 'morality derived thereof - vary by sect and by individual interpretation.

Murder, genocide, slavery, the killing of children, the taking of virgin women as spoils of war...the God of the Bible 'divinely' and 'morally' commands all this and more. If there is a more immoral framework than the Bible, I don't know of any, except possibly the Qu'ran. Even ISIS would find it a challenging task to emulate the God of Abraham's 'morality'.

Absolutely nothing in that post had even a fraction of something to do with what I asked.

You stated, "Good people will be good and bad people will be bad, with or without religion." I asked you to define, in an objective way, what good and bad are to show people's actions as "good" or "bad". You and I fully agree that religion provides subjective standards (though, consistent ones over the course of our lifetimes). So, I'm asking you to provide something objective, something outside of a belief-system and actually objective.

You let me know the standard by which you can judge good and evil, and we can talk.

 

[TheLibertonian]

The god of the OT and NT are the same. Immutable. That said, with respect to morality, I consider the NTs 'moral construct', immoral with respect to slavery, homosexuality, etc., and on balance, non-value added to modern society. But perhaps you could expound on its worth to modern western society in your view.

The new covenant broke the old. The Jews have a different set of rules they have to follow.

 

[Railroad]

Sometimes we get blinded by ourselves and what we're thinking and doing, so He seems hidden, but no, He doesn't hide. Probably shaking His head in exasperation or tapping His foot waiting for us to get our spiritual act together, but no, He's always right here with me. "I shall never leave you nor forsake you..." Of course, there are times when I do stuff I wish He wasn't right here to see....

 

[Bird Dog]

The god of the OT and NT are the same. Immutable. That said, with respect to morality, I consider the NTs 'moral construct', immoral with respect to slavery, homosexuality, etc., and on balance, non-value added to modern society. But perhaps you could expound on its worth to modern western society in your view.

Yes, slavery, homosexuality, prostitution, murder, drugs, human trafficking, adultery, idolatry, beastiality, theft, dishonesty, lust, gluttony, sloth, wrath, envy, pride, hate, rape, genocide, suicide and others, but you get my point, all exist because of religion.
What a beautiful world if we could just get God out of our lives. The human condition would be amazing....your an A-hole and a pompous one......

 

[ProximaCentauri]

Absolutely nothing in that post had even a fraction of something to do with what I asked.

You stated, "Good people will be good and bad people will be bad, with or without religion." I asked you to define, in an objective way, what good and bad are to show people's actions as "good" or "bad". You and I fully agree that religion provides subjective standards (though, consistent ones over the course of our lifetimes). So, I'm asking you to provide something objective, something outside of a belief-system and actually objective.

You let me know the standard by which you can judge good and evil, and we can talk.

“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”
― William Shakespeare, Hamlet

The adjectives 'good' and 'bad' can be used and/or interpreted in infinite variety and any attempt to draw rigid definitions thereof - especially as it relates to objectivity - is prudish and pointless. Don't present foolish argumentative ploys unless you want to appear foolish.

Glad you are in agreement that religion only provides subjective standards, and not objective standards as is often claimed, but take issue with your contention that they have been "consistent over the course of our lifetimes." Consider they have moderated, for example, in the way many protestant churches view homosexuality. While admittedly, the RCC remains steadfast in moral dogma such as the sinfulness of homosexual sex and the immorality of birth control, these moral precepts are rejected by the majority of US Catholics, as are many other Vatican moral teachings. Pew Polls show the majority of US Catholics support same sex marriage.

With regard to western or secular values as they relate to morality / immorality, any use of the term *objective*, is not applicable, nor relevant in my opinion. Since the renaissance and enlightenment, science, humanism, and other influences have significantly changed and moderated the dogmatic moral belief system held by Medieval Christians, and will continue to do so. And American Christian purist, literalist, and fundamentalist belief systems will continue to decline in popularity, as they have since the first Puritans landed at Plymouth Rock.

 

[Bird Dog]

With regard to western or secular values as they relate to morality / immorality, any use of the term *objective*, is not applicable, nor relevant in my opinion. Since the renaissance and enlightenment, science, humanism, and other influences have significantly changed and moderated the dogmatic moral belief system held by Medieval Christians, and will continue to do so. And American Christian purist, literalist, and fundamentalist belief systems will continue to decline in popularity, as they have since the first Puritans landed at Plymouth Rock.

So, your saying by 2525, your humanists and LGBT brethren will be in charge. Don't hold your breath. Oh you won't have to, you'll be dead.

 

[This_person]

The adjectives 'good' and 'bad' can be used and/or interpreted in infinite variety and any attempt to draw rigid definitions thereof - especially as it relates to objectivity - is prudish and pointless. Don't present foolish argumentative ploys unless you want to appear foolish.

:shrug:

It's not a foolish argument. I was pointing out that your standard of good and evil is as subjective as anyone else's - you can't support it without personal opinion, founded on - nothing but personal opinion if you have no standard bearer. You inappropriately claim some higher moral ground, against things with which you disagree. That makes you like every religious problem you have found in this area. Exactly like that.

Glad you are in agreement that religion only provides subjective standards, and not objective standards as is often claimed, but take issue with your contention that they have been "consistent over the course of our lifetimes." Consider they have moderated, for example, in the way many protestant churches view homosexuality. While admittedly, the RCC remains steadfast in moral dogma such as the sinfulness of homosexual sex and the immorality of birth control, these moral precepts are rejected by the majority of US Catholics, as are many other Vatican moral teachings. Pew Polls show the majority of US Catholics support same sex marriage.

You discuss the consistency of religious standards, and then talk about people's interpretations of them. The standards never changed. You bring up homosexuality - it IS a sin. There's no argument anyone can make that acting on homosexuality is not a sin. So is stealing. So is lying. If people want to change how they subjectively view consistent standards, that is a personal choice, not a change to the standard. If people start viewing red as a shade of yellow, that doesn't mean the standard that says it is red has changed, it means people decided to view a clear standard in a way for which there is no justification in accordance with the standard. They've merely decided to abandon the standard. In the case of homosexual acts, I have yet to see a change to the biblical standard, so social changes notwithstanding, it is still a sin.

What you may be seeing is a turn to follow Jesus' standard of loving one's neighbor as they love themselves. In all of mankind, on person has been without sin. He is the only one who may judge the rest of us. I bet you've sinned today, I know I have. But Jesus loves me, and I love you.

With regard to western or secular values as they relate to morality / immorality, any use of the term *objective*, is not applicable, nor relevant in my opinion. Since the renaissance and enlightenment, science, humanism, and other influences have significantly changed and moderated the dogmatic moral belief system held by Medieval Christians, and will continue to do so. And American Christian purist, literalist, and fundamentalist belief systems will continue to decline in popularity, as they have since the first Puritans landed at Plymouth Rock.

I'm glad to see you agree that your standards are no better nor worse than anyone else's, since there is no objective standard by which to judge each other. There's just personal opinion. Yours is no better or worse than anyone else's.

 

[TheLibertonian]

:shrug:

It's not a foolish argument. I was pointing out that your standard of good and evil is as subjective as anyone else's - you can't support it without personal opinion, founded on - nothing but personal opinion if you have no standard bearer. You inappropriately claim some higher moral ground, against things with which you disagree. That makes you like every religious problem you have found in this area. Exactly like that.



You discuss the consistency of religious standards, and then talk about people's interpretations of them. The standards never changed. You bring up homosexuality - it IS a sin. There's no argument anyone can make that acting on homosexuality is not a sin. So is stealing. So is lying. If people want to change how they subjectively view consistent standards, that is a personal choice, not a change to the standard. If people start viewing red as a shade of yellow, that doesn't mean the standard that says it is red has changed, it means people decided to view a clear standard in a way for which there is no justification in accordance with the standard. They've merely decided to abandon the standard. In the case of homosexual acts, I have yet to see a change to the biblical standard, so social changes notwithstanding, it is still a sin.

What you may be seeing is a turn to follow Jesus' standard of loving one's neighbor as they love themselves. In all of mankind, on person has been without sin. He is the only one who may judge the rest of us. I bet you've sinned today, I know I have. But Jesus loves me, and I love you.

I'm glad to see you agree that your standards are no better nor worse than anyone else's, since there is no objective standard by which to judge each other. There's just personal opinion. Yours is no better or worse than anyone else's.

And i would like to add, it doesn't matter if homosexuality is a sin, since we don't live in a theocracy. Christians can believe homosexuals are going to hell; as long as they don't make it a secular law issue, then that's their right.

 

[Bird Dog]

And i would like to add, it doesn't matter if homosexuality is a sin, since we don't live in a theocracy. Christians can believe homosexuals are going to hell; as long as they don't make it a secular law issue, then that's their right.

...and Secular Humanists aren't going anywhere.........just sayin'

 

[TheLibertonian]

...and Secular Humanists aren't going anywhere.........just sayin'

"The true atheist thinks of God constantly, but only in terms of denial".

Whereas most atheist/agnostics/non god types just want to get on with their day and don't much give a crap. It's not like I don't try to evangelize my political position, and nor do they.

 

[Bird Dog]

"The true atheist thinks of God constantly, but only in terms of denial".

Whereas most atheist/agnostics/non god types just want to get on with their day and don't much give a crap. It's not like I don't try to evangelize my political position, and nor do they.

Yes you all do, just read the posts on these forums. The Secular Humanists here are as bad as the Evangelical/Fundies in their denial, Proxima Centauri as the leader of the pack. Not to mention the "I hate religion and think its crap" bunch..........

 

[TheLibertonian]

Yes you all do, just read the posts on these forums. The Secular Humanists here are as bad as the Evangelical/Fundies in their denial, Proxima Centauri as the leader of the pack. Not to mention the "I hate religion and think its crap" bunch..........

I said it's "It's not like I DON'T try to evangelize".

And be careful with words like all. All christians are not the same; not all christians are the Westboro church.

Some christians aren't dirty heretical german scum who've rejected the holy church either.

 

[cheezgrits]

..your an A-hole and a pompous one......

*You're* And you calling someone that is a treat. Doesn't that book say something about splinters and boards or motes and boards...maybe?

 

[ProximaCentauri]

:shrug:
It's not a foolish argument. I was pointing out that your standard of good and evil is as subjective as anyone else's - you can't support it without personal opinion, founded on - nothing but personal opinion if you have no standard bearer. You inappropriately claim some higher moral ground, against things with which you disagree. That makes you like every religious problem you have found in this area. Exactly like that.

NO standard for 'good/evil' - objective, subjective, or otherwise - can be inferred by a simple colloquial statement in a prior post. And why is it that religious always feel it's an effective counter-argument to claim that the non-religious are just as irrational as they are

:You discuss the consistency of religious standards, and then talk about people's interpretations of them. The standards never changed. You bring up homosexuality - it IS a sin. There's no argument anyone can make that acting on homosexuality is not a sin. So is stealing. So is lying. If people want to change how they subjectively view consistent standards, that is a personal choice, not a change to the standard. If people start viewing red as a shade of yellow, that doesn't mean the standard that says it is red has changed, it means people decided to view a clear standard in a way for which there is no justification in accordance with the standard. They've merely decided to abandon the standard. In the case of homosexual acts, I have yet to see a change to the biblical standard, so social changes notwithstanding, it is still a sin.

Quite an assertion. Fits well with fundamentalist religious thinking, and it's a small step then to attempt to drive religious 'morality' into societal laws. In fundamentalist Christian Uganda, many were looking to impose the death penalty on homosexual act offenders. Little do they realize in that 3rd world country, that homosexuality and bisexuality is exhibited not only in humans, but in other primates, and has been documented in more than 600 animal species. Scientists have found genetic biomarkers for homosexuality in humans. Yet, Ugandans -and some Americans - still think homosexuality is a "choice". Obviously, Americans have no excuse for demonstrating the same ignorance as 3rd world illiterate societies.

:
What you may be seeing is a turn to follow Jesus' standard of loving one's neighbor as they love themselves. In all of mankind, on person has been without sin. He is the only one who may judge the rest of us. I bet you've sinned today, I know I have. But Jesus loves me, and I love you.
I'm glad to see you agree that your standards are no better nor worse than anyone else's, since there is no objective standard by which to judge each other. There's just personal opinion. Yours is no better or worse than anyone else's.

Jesus's 'love others as oneself' golden rule of ethical reciprocity is predated in the ancient philosophical writings of several civilizations. So, as it turns out, his best moral precept is not original. While unfortunately, many of his original moral precepts are immoral. Support of slavery is one example.

The 'love' offered by jesus is conditional. You must accept him on bad evidence, or, by "rejecting" his love by simply not believing, he will condemn you to eternal torture. This is consistent with the conditional 'love' of a masochistic psychopath. And the pinnacle of absurdity to agnostics, atheists, freethinkers, and intellectuals. You and jesus will do just fine without me

My personal morality is influenced primarily by a Modern Western Societal viewpoint, that is in turn, influenced by universal human rights and precepts that support the well-being and flourishing of humanity.

It's apparent to most who live in Western Nations that primitive religious texts cannot be used as a 'standard' for morality. Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims who espouse this worldview, are viewed by advanced western societies, as throwbacks to the dark ages'

Western nations realize the continued progress and well-being of humanity depends on a morality (and secularly driven government) consistent with universal human rights, not retrograde religious dogma. But the US is unfortunately an outlier, being by far the most religious of the Western countries. Religious based ignorance and stupidity is in the view of many, not only a threat to world peace and prosperity, but negatively impacts America's influence and effectiveness as the leader of the free world.

 

[littlelady]

Sheesh, y'all! Arguing and getting snarky over something no living human being knows. We might know when we are dead, but we can't tell anybody. When will it come to that we just get along and help each other while we are alive?