”God” – Yahweh/Jesus and Morality … part Deux.

I thought readers might be interested in following this morality thread a bit further.

I next posed this particular question to the person who is, apparently, a devout Christian and is trying to champion the morality of  the Christian god , ”God” (Yahweh/Jesus)

Here’s a very simple method to determine not only your god’s morality but yours’ as well.

Mosaic ( Yahweh) Law states that:
If a man rapes a woman he must marry his victim.
Do you think this is moral,
yes or no?

And this was the reply ….

 

The Bible isn’t God, Ark.

And you told me the Bible is untrustworthy.

Therefore, why in God’s name are you talking about the Bible? It has NOTHING to do with this conversation. We’re talking about GOD–not a verse in the Jewish Torah.

 

Thought:  Aren’t the Ten Commandments in the Torah?

I want to stipulate that I do not believe I have  taken the comment out of context. What you see is what you get.

So, if the bible isn’t ”God” ( one can surely presume they mean  not representative of the  Christian god – his words and actions)   then are we to understand it isn’t Yahweh and/or Jesus of Nazareth?

If it isn’t Yahweh and/or Jesus just what god’s morality is this person actually championing?

And if the bible is not ”God” …. Yahweh/Jesus of Nazareth then how on earth can this person claim to be a Christian?

I have reread her comment a half dozen times, looking for something nuanced or more subtle that I may have missed and it still does not make sense to me.

Could someone with a greater understanding of how Christian indoctrination works please explain it …

Thanks.

Ark

Advertisements

93 thoughts on “”God” – Yahweh/Jesus and Morality … part Deux.

  1. Ark I think it is a case of moving the goal posts in order to avoid admitting that you had won the argument.

    A person who claims that ‘God’ is the basis of objective morality who then tries to distance themselves from the only objective revelation they claim ‘God’ provided has by default lost their argument. That they can’t see this shows that they lack critical thinking skills.

    There should be some sort of internet ‘law’ which explains how people who have most clearly lost an argument nevertheless claim they have won.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Probably missing the disconnect between what I meant to say and what I actually said.

        In summary Ark:
        – God is claimed to be the source of objective morality;
        – Christians agree that only the Bible contains an authoritative and trustworthy record of God’s revelation;
        – therefore a christian who distances themselves from parts of the Bible that are difficult has nothing to fall back on as they have rejected the only ‘objective’ part of the revelation.

        Like

    1. A person who claims that ‘God’ is the basis of objective morality who then tries to distance themselves from the only objective revelation they claim ‘God’ provided has by default lost their argument. That they can’t see this shows that they lack critical thinking skills.

      I am stealing that.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. @pete

      Let me correct your egregious error that sailed over the head of the regulars. You said this:

      —Ark I think it is a case of moving the goal posts in order to avoid admitting that you had won the argument.—

      Correction: It is impossible for an atheist to win an argument where the existence of God is denied. IMPOSSIBLE.

      Perhaps you never read my post about the young punk who tried to sink the submarine with a peashooter. A pathetic sight really, watching him exhaust all his breath, sapping his strength, and getting nowhere fast.

      Worth repeating: It is IMPOSSIBLE for an atheist to win an argument where the existence of God is denied.

      Even the devil must be embarrassed at the circus antics of the mentally challenged who do not give the Creator the courtesy of existing.

      Like

      1. Did you hear of the book that claims a world flood wiped out all but half a dozen people, a couple of guys walked on water, one of them healed sick people with the wave of his hand but was eventually killed and came back to life a few days later, and not to mention a talking donkey, a talkative snake, angels and devils, living inside of a whale and many other impossible events?

        Surely a boy trying to sink a submarine with a pea shooter is not as stupid as it sounds don’t you think?

        Liked by 2 people

        1. I’ve known people who had smaller living quarters than the living room of a whale. So what.

          And of course, the asses that walk with two legs are a dime a dozen. It’s amazing that the common atheist does not choke on his own words.

          Like

  2. I should add, it is invariably the case that the more dogmatic a person is, the greater likelihood that they are mistaken. The reason is simple those who are domatic are impervious to contrary arguments thus they are unable to adopt a new position, even if their position is incorrect. However those who admit they might be wrong are open to contrary arguments and thus are able to adopt new positions when their existing position has been proven untenable.

    Therefore there is little point in discussing a matter with a person who says that there is no prospect they could be incorrect. Think of the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate, when asked what would cause them to change their position, Bill Nye responded, ‘evidence’ and Ken Ham responded ‘nothing’. Based on this exchange alone it would show any logical thinker that Bill Nye by definition is more likely to hold the correct position.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I concur.

      But just for the record, though I’m sure you probably realise, I don’t enter these debates to generally try to ”win” … or point score as my old man is wont to say, but rather demonstrate ( to the lurkers who may read along) that what someone like this is trying to champion is not only nonsensical but abusive, especially when indoctrinated into kids.

      Liked by 3 people

    2. Peter, when you wrote, The reason is simple those who are dogmatic are impervious to contrary arguments thus they are unable to adopt a new position, even if their position is incorrect. … you weren’t, by any chance, referring to Colorstorm, were you? 😀

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Cannot agree more Ark. Indoctrination really has these people firmly by the nuts, just like they are being taken for every cent by a crooked bookie but think they are on a winner.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. The Branyan’s are like pathetic slippery goo. They LOVE Yhwh, until loving Yhwh becomes awkward, at which time they jettison him and dress themselves in some fluid deistic belief system. They LOVE Chrisitianity, until loving Christianity becomes awkward, at which time they jettison it and dress themselves in some fluid deistic belief system. You can’t talk rationally to wads like that.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. I’m a Queenslander, too. Where you based?

        A Branyan is a foul type of evangelical who dwells in the middle of Indiana. This creature is repulsed by facts, and believes it is funny. It’s a sad creature.

        Liked by 2 people

                1. Bi-polar, apparently.
                  Serious? lol
                  Grown men in bed sheets and pointy hats. Nice!
                  As Pratchett remarks in one of his books.
                  When some people say they want a return to traditional values what they really mean is Hang Someone!

                  Liked by 1 person

                2. Quite!
                  It actually bothers me at some deeper level that when the Mosaic rape law was presented she hand-waved it away, not least because she is a woman … I presume.
                  Her attitude sometimes goes way beyond credulous and is a tad creepy.
                  His too.

                  There was a time I truly thought the whole thing – his blog etc -was a Bot Scam by her old man, what with all those fly by non-blogging commenters, but she has stated she has similar interactions on FB.

                  I truly cannot grasp this type of mentality, other than to put it down to severe indoctrination or a mental health issue … or both.

                  Liked by 1 person

                3. What’s also odd, is that they do absolutely nothing to really defend their faith, have you noticed?
                  They merely write posts that think they are taking down anyone that doesn’t agree with their god belief and then we have a comment like the one from her on this post.
                  Just too damn weird.

                  Liked by 1 person

          1. Oh, I am a bit slow with this Ark, well slow with everything actually, but I think you commented on the young ladies site, right?

            Like

        1. John, I am on the Gold Coast, been here 10 years from NZ. I Love it here and will probably die here, when I am ready. Are you a true blue and are you in Brisbane?

          Like

  5. This looks like an Aussie takover as Peter is from somewhere over here and I think maybe NSW as he mentioned summertime that can only be daylight saving that we do not have in Queensland.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Just passing on my take on an observation from something I was reading last night, and attributed to a Nepalese hill man (he living according to the Shaiva tantra yoga tradition that has no dogma): he said that any faith founded on fear of punishment on the one hand, and the expectation of reward on the other is an indication of a very juvenile state of mind. It left me feeling that nothing else needed to be added.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. In this is love perfected with us, that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as He is so are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love.

      For I am persuaded beyond doubt (am sure) that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities, nor things impending and threatening nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

      Not understanding God’s love brings fear!
      Fear NOT!

      Like

        1. They’re the ones fearful and living a life of bondage (though they’ll ‘happily’ tell you they’re free)…
          There’s absolute freedom in surrender Ark.

          Like

            1. I believe we’ve discussed this before, Ark.
              Knowledge is eternal. So in the same manner you would not allow an unrepentant murderer to move into your home with your family, you cannot expect God to do the same – especially when He’s offered to wipe the slate clean.

              Like

                1. Having never repented or having any remorse, he lives all eternity with the knowledge of good and evil. “How he’s defined himself is eternally fixed.”

                  I’m sure you’d agree that’s hell.

                  Like

                2. I hope I never lose the knowledge of good and evil. Who would want to live with the doing acts you did not know were good or evil? Anyone who would do an action based just on someone telling them to is a situation that has produced some of the greatest horrors of our world. Hugs

                  Like

                3. A hug goes a long way Scottie, so I’ll take it.

                  Child-like faith is when we tell children what to do for their greater good. Children act before they have the capacity to understand.
                  Children who refuse to obey or would seek to understand before obeying would not survive childhood.
                  So it’s not out of malice or subjugation that we instruct them in what’s good to preserve them from harm.

                  Having knowledge of good and evil, as opposed to eternal life… one is constantly deciding an defining what’s good, what’s bad, what’s moral, what’s just… never settled.

                  Like

                4. Ancients your view is so naive. Not all children have carefree fun filled happy childhoods. Second some kids do survive childhood because they struggle through it, and in spite of parents. As to deciding what is a good act to do is called being a free person. Also an adult. I prefer being both. To not have that freedom to decide actions is called slavery. Sorry. Hugs

                  Liked by 1 person

                5. What does having a carefree, fun-filled happy childhood have to do with my comment.
                  Show me one single individual alive today who totally disregarded any and everything a parent or authoritative power instructed them to do.
                  It’s impossible.

                  You cannot be serious – “deciding what is a good act to do is called being a free person.”…. and you presume to label another as naïve.

                  Deciding to torture or abuse a child is not ‘being free’.

                  It’s quite simple actually.
                  If you’ve never seen a scissor before, and one was given to you without explanation, you could choose to use it eat with, stab a person or thing, whatever. However, the only way you’ll know that you’re using it for its intended purpose is if the maker tells you.
                  In the same way, we were made by God for His purpose, so trying to live a life outside of what He’s prescribed for us is living a life of futility. It’s not “being free”… it’s been a slave to self…a slave to the opinion of others… it’s a life of seeking purpose when the Creator already gave you purpose. It’s seeking what you already have, not knowing that you have it. That is futility… that is bondage.

                  Well, no one can accuse God of not giving us freedom or choice. It’s our choice to make Him our God… to live according to His purpose for us. We can choose to do His will, or we can choose to do our will.

                  Like

                6. What does the carefree fun childhood have to do with it? Did you forget you wrote “Child-like faith is when we tell children what to do for their greater good.”?

                  Then we moved on to children who don’t obey and understand… Sadly many children don’t obey, and few even well adjusted kids understand. So your point is naive.

                  I see you did two things on my answer to you. You seemed to equate an adult human’s relationship to a ( made up pretend ) sky god and a human offspring and its guardian / parent figure. The other mistake you made is thinking that everyone starts from the position that your god is real and applies to everyone.

                  As I don’t clearly believe in, or accept your god, I live in reality. I see that my actions have either good or bad consequence to be simplistic. So yes I have to be the one to decided and hopefully I am centered enough and moral enough to see that good acts are preferable to bad. Take away the ability to choose to do an action or not is in truth slavery. Yes it is true that freedom is the responsibility for actions you decide as a free person to make. Lastly to be forced to live and act in a situation that you had no knowledge that your actions were either good or bad is in fact a punishment, an undesirable position to be in, a detriment to being a member of the community and of course an adult. Nature help those who are this way and breed. Hugs

                  Liked by 2 people

                7. Scottie… can a 1-12 month old child fend for itself in anyway?
                  Explain to me then, how such a child survives childhood?

                  It’s odd how “grown adults” spend an inordinate amount of their time discussing a God they claim does not exist.
                  I am not dissuading you from discussing God, just that you all might want to think more deeply on why you do this – in a humble and truthful way.

                  This is the second time you’ve made the point of ‘being forced to live and act …having no knowledge that your actions were either good or bad is a punishment.
                  I have no idea what you’re talking about, so perhaps you could explain this better, if you so choose.

                  Scottie, does it make sense that one is a member of a community where no laws/rules are given (ie. clearly defined).
                  Isn’t this the topic of Ark’s post – Arbitrary Morality (not having a set or defined standard… morality is left to the whim of whoever… isn’t this what you guys are advocating).

                  I’m say this with all sincerity… it’s totally incoherent being an atheist. It’s a totally unobtainable position.
                  They don’t know what they’re arguing for or against.

                  Like

                8. I suspect this conversation will not advance or go anywhere as we don’t agree on reality. Such as your comment about discussing gods. I am replying to you actually, not beginning a conversation about gods. Thankfully I have few conversations about the silliness of worshiping make believe characters. So let’s see what you wrote I can respond to.

                  First children and survival. Well the term child covers a good amount of years. I guess you can have infants that would die if not fed, and yes some are not sheltered, but they do need food and liquids. Now in countries far more dire than our western ones I have seen extremely young children of an age barely able to walk on their own. I have also recently seen a picture of a four year old caring for another child that was too young to walk much. However neither had a relationship with a parent or guardian such as you compared to your idea of man and god. The youngest children beg and are mostly cared for by their peers which are barely older than themselves. Sadly lots of suffering and abuse go with that territory.

                  Lets see. I guess I will skip over the humble crap, because it really is crap. Before you give me advice, learn about me and let me learn about you. You may not have the same ability to reason I do and you may think walking off a cliff for an invisible friend is a great idea. I think I will get to know you before I decided if to take advice or not from you. After all you are an unknown to me. Instead give me a well reasoned argument with facts please. I enjoy that a lot more and I get more use out of it.

                  Have you ever been around a severely mentally disabled person. They understand a very little about good or bad outside their own needs, and even then it is only how they feel. This is a scary way to be, a punishment for a rational adult. Also to not know if something is a good act to do or a bad act to do leaves you forever not knowing what your actions mean. Why you should do them. What to decided, push the person off the cliff or reach out and pull them back if they stumble. One has to know what is good or bad to know how to act. We humans do and please no tripe about that being a gift from a ghost no one has been able to prove exists.

                  On community. Your comment seems to suggest that suddenly all laws and rules , social conventions will be gone. Not so in any case in history. Even the worse of societies had rules for people to follow. Throughout the evolution of mankind we have been a social animal living in packs. To do so we had to work together and develop rules, laws, accepted ways of conduct.

                  As for being an atheist being impossible again you lack reality. You clearly have a definition of atheism that needs work. However there is this simple way that Matt Dillahunty describes it. Simply not being convinced a god exists. Others such as Aron Ra describe it as not believing a god exists. One is called being either a weak and or strong atheist . Hope that simple definition shows you how easy it is to be an atheist and accept reality.

                  Wow I got it all in one go, love it. Be well. Hugs

                  Liked by 1 person

                9. On this we agree – yes, this conversation goes nowhere.

                  A 4 year old caring for a younger child is still an authoritative figure. The younger child must yield or respond to the older or caregiver.
                  The point is simply this – it’s impossible for any child (think 1 day – 1yr old) to survive childhood without childlike faith (ie. total dependence on whoever is in charge, be it a 4 year old or a 40 year old).

                  It’s easy to be anything one chooses or wishes to be. Atheism is no exception.
                  Just don’t turn around and start lamenting your lack of choice. That’s an incoherent stance.

                  Like

                10. OH I disagree. In a war torn disheveled country a child looking after a second child is not an authority figure. They child does not yield, they cling. They would cling to a warm heater and a garbage can. It has nothing to do with authority but with survival. it is basic raw animal survival. They don’t have faith, they see their peers fall or suddenly go away, they don’t have faith the other will feed them. They have hope they will. They have hope they might share. it is really different things. as to atheism do you read what you write? You said it was unattainable. I just proved it was very easy to obtain. Again I am responding to you. I don’t see I lamented any lack of choice except when you wrote “Having never repented or having any remorse, he lives all eternity with the knowledge of good and evil. “How he’s defined himself is eternally fixed.”

                  I’m sure you’d agree that’s hell.”
                  to which I replied ” I hope I never lose the knowledge of good and evil. Who would want to live with the doing acts you did not know were good or evil? Anyone who would do an action based just on someone telling them to is a situation that has produced some of the greatest horrors of our world.” We back on the same discussion yet? Hugs

                  Like

                11. You’re arguing semantics here, I have no time for that.
                  As per your example: a 4 yr old caring for and providing for a younger child is an authoritative figure!

                  The reality is, you haven’t proven anything. Yes, I accept that your an atheist – however you choose to define it.
                  The reality is – to be an atheist, one has to know all things to know that God doesn’t exist! And you simply do not know everything.

                  Your last point doesn’t say much except that we’re back to choices. Being told to do an action doesn’t mean the action is bad. It’s just as simple to choose to do good as it is to do bad.
                  In your worldview, you have no idea what is good or bad so what difference does it make what you choose 😦 (nonsense obviously! but I’ll pretend)

                  Like

                12. The reality is – to be an atheist, one has to know all things to know that God doesn’t exist! And you simply do not know everything.

                  What an ignoramus statement!

                  Liked by 3 people

                13. Is that all you could think of Nan?
                  How disappointing… then again… not so much.
                  As God said to Job:
                  “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now gird up your loins like a man, and I will ask you, and you instruct Me! Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding”

                  Where were you Nan, when the foundation of this world was being laid. Was your opinion sought in the matter… why not?

                  Like

                14. Scholarly view?
                  Ark, hearing the word ‘scholarly’ from you… okay… I’ll be nice… 🙂

                  Of course! Christ Jesus is real Ark!
                  And because He’s real, God is real.
                  I’m not asking you to believe me. This is my view.
                  Whatever you choose to believe is your business.

                  Like

                15. No, you quoted Job giving the impression you consider it is an historical piece of dialogue.
                  I stated you are unaware of the history of the book of Job.
                  And you are not or you are being willfully ignorant.
                  Which is it?

                  Like

                16. Ark, when will you get it in your head that yes, I consider writings in scripture historical. Yes, they happened!
                  I have the evidence they did!
                  You do not have the evidence they didn’t happen…. hmmm..
                  I’d rather be in my position.

                  Like

                17. Here we go again… for the many time…eyewitness testimony is evidence, Ark.
                  Just ask any judge.
                  What do you have? Nada, Zilch.

                  Like

                18. Again we disagree. A four year old is not an authoritarian figure. A child can leave the four year old if they wish. They can crawl, they can struggle, no they are more like a comfort blanket that is warm and shares food. The four year old is barely functioning in that world and may even be using the younger child for b comfort, companionship, and as a means to get more handouts.

                  As to the choice thing, again responding to you talking knowing good and bad and that being hell. I said that if you did not know if things were good or bad and instead let others tell you what to do , you could be told to do a bad act, stab someone, and you wouldn’t know it was wrong. See the point. It follows then that if you have no ability to choose an action and others are choosing them for you, you are not free, you are a slave. That should clear it all up for you. Hugs

                  Like

                19. Oh I forgot , sorry , to respond to the rest. you said “If you’ve never seen a scissor before, and one was given to you without explanation, you could choose to use it eat with, stab a person or thing, whatever. However, the only way you’ll know that you’re using it for its intended purpose is if the maker tells you” and this is incorrect. You could easily learn what it does by stabbing and cutting and using it. Remember stabbing someone to death if you could wouldn’t be a bad act because you have no knowledge of good or evil.

                  Like

                20. 🙂
                  That’s the point – you could use it to cut, stab, scrape, whatever… and while it does all those things, you still would not know its intended purpose unless the maker told you.

                  Yes, you could stumble on its intended purpose but you’d still have no assurance that was the intended purpose. Only a Creator can give purpose and assurance to that which He creates.

                  If one has no knowledge of good or evil, where does the knowledge to stab (someone to death come from?) and why would one make such a choice given that he also has the choice ‘not to stab’.

                  Like

                21. You seem to think just because we name a use for something that its use is not what ever it can do. For example I have a cane that is well designed as a club. It is not a club it is a cane used to support me, but if I wanted it is also perfect for a club. You say scissors have certain use. Not so. Their use is whatever they can do. IF I had no knowledge of good and evil ( bad ) as you suggested at the beginning of our conversation, I wouldn’t know that stabbing a person was bad. I could go along cutting and slicing and stabbing all in the same mind set no matter the material or the consequence. Does that help you understand? It has nothing to do with a creator. I do not need to know who created the scissors to know how to do anything they can do. Again, your starting point is not reality. We have no way to form a consensus as you take no responsibility for yourself and humans for the world. Everything is creator god. Two things that do not exist. Oh well. Hugs

                  Like

                22. No. My point is, you can use a thing (ex: a scissor) for many/multiple things. However, it’s really not fulfilling the purpose it was created for unless it’s being used for the purpose for which it was created.

                  A car was made to drive. If you use it to intentionally run over a person, you have perverted its purpose and will quite likely land in jail.
                  So I’m not saying a thing cannot be used for multiple purposes. It can.
                  However, it’s at its best when it’s being used in the manner for which it was created/designed. Simple.
                  It’s intended use is not whatever you choose. Yes, you can make that it’s intended use. However that was not the reason it was created/made.

                  Who is more likely not to take responsibility – the one who makes up stuff as he goes along, with no defined rules or boundaries…. or the one who has clearly defined rules and boundaries, who actually knows this and tries to adhere to them.

                  Like

                23. The scissor thing is more of a semantics and word usage problem I think. Your idea of what is written is different than I read it.

                  On scissors as that was what you mentioned. I would say their use is to cut material. SO it is not any different from cutting flesh than cutting paper if you have no knowledge of good and bad. I know it is bad for society and me personally to cut flesh so I choose not to. Hugs

                  Liked by 1 person

                24. As to “If one has no knowledge of good or evil, where does the knowledge to stab (someone to death come from?) and why would one make such a choice given that he also has the choice ‘not to stab’.” think on it. Why not stab? You have no understanding of good and bad, so you going to just stand there for eternity? You will be curious. you will move and play with this new thing. You may try to stab something or someone because why not? You have to know the act is bad or have an idea it maybe wrong to say you would never do it. Hugs

                  Like

                25. That makes no sense Scottie.
                  That’s why we’re given rules/boundaries. You can do a-y but do not do z.
                  So now you know, doing z is not a good thing, and as with all things (good and bad) choices carry consequences.

                  Like

                26. You don’t remember the start of the conversation? This was the set up to it. You and I were talking about if you did not know good or bad, and you needed a creator to tell you what to do. So it makes perfect sense to me. I wouldn’t say we are given rules and boundaries. We originally were pack animals who developed a way to live together that benefited the whole group. From there we made it to the point where we created laws and rules, and we started traditions and correct ways to act for the better good and our own good. Is this what you mean by given? Hugs

                  Liked by 1 person

                27. Well Scottie, this would be like the scissor I was talking about.
                  We have a Creator who has created us for Himself and for His pleasure.
                  If a creation decides, no, I was not created, I do not have a creator, and seeks to find purpose for his life outside of the purpose for which he was created… he’s making up rules as he goes along when set rules and boundaries were defined for him.

                  So this is what I mean by given.
                  I intentionally made the above point because you have chosen to believe we have no Creator.
                  If you have no Creator, what’s the point of searching for purpose. How will you know when you’ve found it.
                  If you throw away your manufacturer’s handbook and seek opinions of the uninformed online…what does that say about a person.

                  Like

                28. If I tell you that was silly would you be offended? You seem to have disregarded everything I told you about my worldview in favor of slotting me into yours. You totally disregarded the definitions of atheist. Why? Do you now write the dictionary or did the imaginary invisible daddy figure tell you? Oh well. I think unless we can move on to something more substantial and interesting, I will call it a night. Hugs

                  Like

  7. I on the other hand will grant her that the bible is not god but I will ask where does she get her idea of god from? Would she be a Christian without the bible and its god?
    Let’s say she able to answer that question, prohibitions always follow offences not the other way. Is it the case that her god would wait for a few generations to pass before it issues various edicts? But if she can somehow demonstrate that they really were issued before man was in the picture, is she willing to accept god knew these things would happen and did nothing in her power to ensure they don’t?
    That’s all for now.

    Liked by 2 people

        1. Sorry Mak I should have added a trigger warning about that story i linked to, the story is a bit confronting, but it does demonstrate what can happen when people think that God is speaking to them.

          Like

  8. I think there is a slippery slope involved. Christians who try to separate anything they do from scripture are essentially claiming they (and we) are dependent upon our internal pipeline to their god … aka the “Holy Spirit.” And look at what the “Apostle” Paul did with that! So, our morality is objective because little voices inside of me tell me so. How is that different from those of us who claim that morality is a social evolution of human kind?

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s