Yahweh is immoral

[Kenny]

I think you'll find that people, regardless of their beliefs, are inclined towards sin.
It is important to know what sins are, particularly the major ones.
i.e. the law

I agree with this statement.

If it wasn't necessary, G-d would not have bothered giving the Israelites the law.
Naturally, the Romans had their own laws, and were not going to promote Jewish law. What better than to corrupt religion and accuse others of heresy.

I agree here to. In the Christian understanding, the law was simply to point out that we all sin so that we would understand that we aren't good enough to achieve perfection or commune with a Holy God.

The very purpose was to point that there is a better way. Faith and grace through the gift that Jesus purchased with the word of redemption. (Redeeming the unrighteous man - as compared to a perfect and holy God)

Now we live by faith in the grace of being united in Christ

 

[ppp]

not really. you can sin against the community, your family or, in some people's view, sin against yourself.

If there were no god, would 'sin' mean exactly the same as if there was a god?

 

[Kenny]

If there were no god, would 'sin' mean exactly the same as if there was a god?

In certain cases. Obviously not in all since you eliminated one factor.

 

[ppp]

In certain cases. Obviously not in all since you eliminated one factor.

In which cases? I am asking because I suspect that you are equivocating definitions of sin. In Christianity sin is always an offense against God, correct? Even if someone else is the target of the offense. No?

 

[Kenny]

In which cases? I am asking because I suspect that you are equivocating definitions of sin. In Christianity sin is always an offense against God, correct? Even if someone else is the target of the offense. No?

No... it isn't just against God. If you murder your neighbor, it is a sin in pretty much any religious or non-religious context. Unless you are a cannibal... then, maybe, it is acceptable.

 

[ppp]

No... it isn't just against God.

I didn't say just against God. I said always against God. In Christianity sin always involves Gods opinion. Whereas in my view, any god would be a kibitzer with no standing in human affairs. If such a being existed, I could not stop him from poking his nose in, but his opinion would be irrelevant as to the actual morality or immorality of the action.

 

[Kenny]

I didn't say just against God. I said always against God. In Christianity sin always involves Gods opinion. Whereas in my view, any god would be a kibitzer with no standing in human affairs. If such a being existed, I could not stop him from poking his nose in, but his opinion would be irrelevant as to the actual morality or immorality of the action.

OK... we are dealing with two different subjects here... the definition of sin and the involvement of God.

But whether His opinion is irrelevant... it depends on whether there is a God or not. But if He does exist, I think like any earthly judge, our opinions become irrelevant.

EDITTED

 

[ppp]

OK... we are dealing with two different subjects here... the definition of sin and the involvement of God.

I would go further and say that we are dealing with two entirely different definitions of sin here. For you sin is a god dependent real thing. For me, if I were to use the the word, it would be an intensifier to express how strongly I feel about the action on a purely natural basis.

So my point in bring this is up is that when I say that I do not sin, I am saying that I do not commit offenses against any gods, including your own conceptions of a god..

But whether His opinion is irrelevant... it depends on whether there is a God or not. But if He doesn't exist, I think like any earthly judge, our opinions become irrelevant.

I think his opinions are irrelevant to the subject of morality, whether he exists or not. I accept that if your god existed that his opinions would become relevant because of the force he could bring to bear. But I would make that same concession for a mob boss.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I didn't say just against God. I said always against God. In Christianity sin always involves Gods opinion. Whereas in my view, any god would be a kibitzer with no standing in human affairs. If such a being existed, I could not stop him from poking his nose in, but his opinion would be irrelevant as to the actual morality or immorality of the action.

..and that is the whole point.
You wish to define morality on your own terms.
It is about your likes and dislikes.

 

[Kenny]

I would go further and say that we are dealing with two entirely different definitions of sin here. For you sin is a god dependent real thing. For me, if I were to use the the word, it would be an intensifier to express how strongly I feel about the action on a purely natural basis.

So my point in bring this is up is that when I say that I do not sin, I am saying that I do not commit offenses against any gods, including your own conceptions of a god..

Now I understand what you were saying. Yet, as I was saying, you still sin.

I think his opinions are irrelevant to the subject of morality, whether he exists or not. I accept that if your god existed that his opinions would become relevant because of the force he could bring to bear. But I would make that same concession for a mob boss.

OK... like I said, you can bring that up to Him when you see Him.

 

[ppp]

..and that is the whole point.
You wish to define morality on your own terms.
It is about your likes and dislikes.

If that is actually your whole point then you have an egocentric point that's disconnected from reality.

 

[ppp]

Now I understand what you were saying. Yet, as I was saying, you still sin.

And as I was saying you are incorrect.

OK... like I said, you can bring that up to Him when you see Him.

You certainly said that. However, that is just a bit of meaningless snark that has no value. Other than to give yourself a sense of unearned satisfaction.

 

[Kenny]

And as I was saying you are incorrect.

You certainly said that. However, that is just a bit of meaningless snark that has no value. Other than to give yourself a sense of unearned satisfaction.

Well, some satisfaction out of this line is better than nothing at all.

 

[joelr]

You have gone all over the map. Which laws? I have two... love your God with all of your heart, mind, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself

What do you mean which laws? What do you mean "all over the map"? I have been very clear and exact this whole time. Why would you say any of this? For whatever bizarre reason you are claiming you don't follow I'll back up - I said :
"I'm obviously pointing out passages in Deuteronomy that are immoral laws given by men in the Bronze Age pretending as if they are getting laws from a deity.
The U.S. did not follow these laws during any invasion of any Japanese territory. The Japanese did come close to following these immoral laws in Deuteronomy, further demonstrating they are terrible laws written by men or an immoral deity.
Even after stopping Japan we did not take the women and children as "plunder of war", we did not kill all the men after a surrender."

Then you said:

"
I don't agree in principle your position about Deuteronomy.
Apparently you haven't seen the effects of the rape of Nanking nor do you understand the immorality of the Japanese at than time. Japanese DID plunder women and children. Used them, abused them and many times killed them. Did you not study history?"

The 2 laws I mentioned were clear and have been the reason you responded with the Japanese plundering thing? Now you are saying you don't know which laws and are bringing up 2 completely different laws? Yes scripture may say love your neighbor as yourself. But it also says take women and children as plunder of war. "Neighbor" could mean literal fellow Israelite. Clearly since there is a separate law for war then the specific law applies in the situation of invading a city. So you cannot claim a mention of the golden rule and think this overrides a specific law to plunder women and children? If Yahweh didn't want you to plunder women and children he would not have said it? This isn't hard?

No problem... not trying to proselytize, just answering your question.

No the question was about the immoral laws in Deuteronomy 20 about murder and plunder. I think that was clear.

All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Hopefully you won't lie and say you are sinless..

There is no evidence of any God or any glory. Sin in the OT is a fictional concept used to sell the need for Gods and savior demigods who can erase the "sin-force" stuck inside you.
Greek and Hindu philosophy is rich with living a moral and virtuous life through basic golden rule type principles without the need for archaic blood sacrifices so a sky-father King will forgive your sin.

-In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Hebrews 9

The wages of sin is death. You will die physically because the ground is cursed. Hopefully you understand that you will die..

Uh, nope, people don't die because of curses or cursed ground. That is witchcraft.

We are separated from God but there is a gift, eternal life through Jesus Christ. God has deemed that His sacrifice was sufficient to satisfy all judgment against you. He paid the price so you won't.
In that Jesus was raised from the dead, He must have the power to raise you and me from the dead.
Now, if you don't want the gift of spending an eternity with Jesus, God will honor your will.

I don't see how preaching a doctrine from a myth is answering about the immoral laws in Deuteronomy 20? I already understand ancient mystery religions still believed in magic blood atonement.
Jesus wasn't raised from the dead and nor were the previous 6 other dying/rising demigods who were sons/daughters of their supreme God who went through a passion to get followers into their afterlife. Those are pagan religious myths. There is no chance that Jesus is the exception that was actually real and there is no good evidence that the gospel narratives happened.
Although what price do you feel Jesus paid?
You said he paid the price so followers won't? But then you said the price is an eternity without Jesus/God? But Jesus didn't pay that price? He didn't even die? In the tale he just comes back in a much better spirit body and has conversations with people?

What part do you want me to defend?

The inquiry was about Deuteronomy 20 to which you never answered but rather posted something about the Japanese plundering which was not related at all. Except that it demonstrated that any plundering of women and children is immoral?

But all of the concepts you mention are common mythic tropes and don't hold up as true or have any evidence whatsoever so you have a long way to go.

 

[Kenny]

What do you mean which laws? What do you mean "all over the map"? I have been very clear and exact this whole time. Why would you say any of this? For whatever bizarre reason you are claiming you don't follow I'll back up - I said :
"I'm obviously pointing out passages in Deuteronomy that are immoral laws given by men in the Bronze Age pretending as if they are getting laws from a deity.
The U.S. did not follow these laws during any invasion of any Japanese territory. The Japanese did come close to following these immoral laws in Deuteronomy, further demonstrating they are terrible laws written by men or an immoral deity.
Even after stopping Japan we did not take the women and children as "plunder of war", we did not kill all the men after a surrender."

Then you said:

"
I don't agree in principle your position about Deuteronomy.
Apparently you haven't seen the effects of the rape of Nanking nor do you understand the immorality of the Japanese at than time. Japanese DID plunder women and children. Used them, abused them and many times killed them. Did you not study history?"

The 2 laws I mentioned were clear and have been the reason you responded with the Japanese plundering thing? Now you are saying you don't know which laws and are bringing up 2 completely different laws? Yes scripture may say love your neighbor as yourself. But it also says take women and children as plunder of war. "Neighbor" could mean literal fellow Israelite. Clearly since there is a separate law for war then the specific law applies in the situation of invading a city. So you cannot claim a mention of the golden rule and think this overrides a specific law to plunder women and children? If Yahweh didn't want you to plunder women and children he would not have said it? This isn't hard?



No the question was about the immoral laws in Deuteronomy 20 about murder and plunder. I think that was clear.



There is no evidence of any God or any glory. Sin in the OT is a fictional concept used to sell the need for Gods and savior demigods who can erase the "sin-force" stuck inside you.
Greek and Hindu philosophy is rich with living a moral and virtuous life through basic golden rule type principles without the need for archaic blood sacrifices so a sky-father King will forgive your sin.

-In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Hebrews 9




Uh, nope, people don't die because of curses or cursed ground. That is witchcraft.



I don't see how preaching a doctrine from a myth is answering about the immoral laws in Deuteronomy 20? I already understand ancient mystery religions still believed in magic blood atonement.
Jesus wasn't raised from the dead and nor were the previous 6 other dying/rising demigods who were sons/daughters of their supreme God who went through a passion to get followers into their afterlife. Those are pagan religious myths. There is no chance that Jesus is the exception that was actually real and there is no good evidence that the gospel narratives happened.
Although what price do you feel Jesus paid?
You said he paid the price so followers won't? But then you said the price is an eternity without Jesus/God? But Jesus didn't pay that price? He didn't even die? In the tale he just comes back in a much better spirit body and has conversations with people?



The inquiry was about Deuteronomy 20 to which you never answered but rather posted something about the Japanese plundering which was not related at all. Except that it demonstrated that any plundering of women and children is immoral?

But all of the concepts you mention are common mythic tropes and don't hold up as true or have any evidence whatsoever so you have a long way to go.

Ok... we have done a complete circle here and apparently, since you really didn't refute it, you are ok with the rape of Nanking.

No reason to rehash the hash.

 

[joelr]

Ok... we have done a complete circle here and apparently, since you really didn't refute it, you are ok with the rape of Nanking.

No reason to rehash the hash.

Oh boy. I don't know if you are actually confused or are trying really hard to avoid answering my questions?
The Japanese plunder does not have any relationship to explaining why the laws in Deuteronomy 20 are immoral?
Even if the actual Japanese who plundered women and children wanted to ask about Deuteronomy they still could. However just because one group of humans committed an atrocity that the OT laws tell the Israelites to do doesn't mean others cannot ask about these laws?

I do not think the Japanese were morally correct in this behavior. But it also isn't moral to write a book of laws and tell people to do the same thing?

What do you mean by "refute the rape of Nanking"?? Yes, that is a terrible thing to do. Our military does not follow such practices because it's immoral. Why are there immoral laws in the OT telling people to plunder and murder when at war?

We have not gone in any circle. You just continue to avoid the subject, fail to explain why you bring up the Japanese plunder and then make cryptic statements about "since you didn't refute it"?
Please explain what the Japanese have to do with immoral laws in the OT? What does me "refuting" Japanese crimes of war have to do with this subject? Am I supposed to just know what strange ambiguous apologetic you are trying to employ here?

 

[Kenny]

Oh boy. I don't know if you are actually confused or are trying really hard to avoid answering my questions?
The Japanese plunder does not have any relationship to explaining why the laws in Deuteronomy 20 are immoral?
Even if the actual Japanese who plundered women and children wanted to ask about Deuteronomy they still could. However just because one group of humans committed an atrocity that the OT laws tell the Israelites to do doesn't mean others cannot ask about these laws?

Again... you are going back to the same circle.

Let me see if I can make it simpler.

Was the atomic bomb merited and if so, why, and if not, why not.

 

[Sand Dancer]

My argument is simple.
It is immoral to send a good person to hell for the sin of worshiping another god.

A girl is born in Pakistan into a Hindu family. Throughout her life she proves over and over again that she is the perfect archetype of a principle centered moral and just person. She has heard about other religions but practices Hindu faith becuse she was born into it.

If Yahweh is the one true God, and heaven and hell exists, then this woman's soul will be tortured in hell for all eternity?

He's a war god. Most gods in that area and time were violent.

 

[metis]

Was the atomic bomb merited and if so, why, and if not, why not.

IMO, hell no!

I can elaborate if you want.

 

[Sheldon]

You do not know what you are talking about.

Ad hominem fallacy, you're consistent fair play.

Capitalism as we know it today, started with protestants in Amsterdam, and they formed Banks, while colonising the Dutch East Indies.

Apples are very different from oranges, since we are sharing straw man non sequiturs.

The capitalist system continues to defend its interests in keeping the west in privilege from their ill-gotten gains, keeping the former colonies down.

I'm not a gambling man by nature, but let me guess which part of the world you're from...

China is no longer going to let that happen,

'Kay

so we have armageddon well on its way.

Anything that nuts should stay away from squirrels.

Evil breeds evil.

Evil is a subjective concept, like money and credit, it isn't real. No offence, but your posts suggest to me you're a very young man, who hasn't yet had a chance to examine many ideas outside of the superstations you've been indoctrinated into from childhood.

I'll ask again, with almost 7 billion people on the planet, what are you replacing the global economy with, when you destroy it by removing usury and with it the concept of credit?

Do you even care that billions would die?