How can Christians believe that the Bible is a good source of morality when it contains such barbaric practices condoned and ordered by their god?
>Inb4 the old testament doesn't count
It absolutely does, Jesus did not come to overturn any of the laws
But Jesus overturned a shit-ton of laws, not least of all including the conditions required to count as a messiah.
"I need to destroy all death, famine and war? Not today, bitch."
>>768406230
Then Jesus is a liar or the Bible is wrong, which one is it? Jesus said he was not to overturn any of the laws until the coming of the kingdom of God, so he's a hypocrite or the kingdom had already come
>>768406078
He who has no sin cast the first stone. Jesus demonstrated that the point of the laws were to show that humans are incapable of pleasing God through our actions and so need redemption.
>>768406078
The fun part is that even the New Testament isn't a good source of morality.
>>768406469
You do realise that means that nobody should be able to punish her because everyone is a sinner but still deserves punishment
Modern day Christians are very selective about the rules they follow. For example they used to be cool with the examples of slavery in the Bible. Now they just pretend it's not there.
>>768406630
Wow it's almost as if you got it. Reserve your judgment for that is God's place.
>>768406630
Are you dumb? That's what I said.
I really like the Religion of Science. It is a fact that all life on earth came from rocks. Abiogenesis is real. It is prove. You came from rocks.
>>768406788
Not him, but I've always found that bizarre. Why is it God's place to judge people? By what right does he have any say?
>>768406855
Define rocks. Because scientifically, they have a narrower definition than you're thinking.
>>768406855
>>768406907
Obvious troll is obvious.
We came from rocks everyone! Science is real and proven. We know for a fact that you came from rocks. All life came from rocks. You came from rocks.
>>768406883
Well... being "all knowing" and such would probably give you that right.
Abiogenisis is real folks. We all know where life on planet earth came from because science tells us. It is a fact guys. How is that trolling? You came from rocks.
>>768406954
How?
You came from rocks.
Big bang. Magma planet. It cooled. Rocks. Water. Soup. Life. Us. You came from rocks.
>>768406951
>>768407026
>Being this much butthurt christianfag.
>>768407037
Why is there even a debate? We know from science that you come from rocks. It is a fact backed by science. You came from rocks.
>>768407075
What religion do you believe in? I believe in science which says that all life came from abiogenesis. Seriously it is not fake we all know how life started. You came from rocks.
>>768406342
He didn't come to overturn them, but to fulfil them.
The old testiment was about a nation though, its laws and practices. Christ was teaching people how they should behave as individuals within other's nations.
>>768407075
Isnt he for science? He really believes in abiogenesis. Is science wrong? Do you not believe in science? Does all the research from legitimate scientists not count for anything? You came from rocks.
>>768406078
OP do you really want to know about Christianity? If you do we can tell you about it. All can be explained man. It is not rocket science or abiogenisis lol. It is all very simple. You came from rocks.
>>768406469
>He who has no sin cast the first stone.
That was added sometime in the 4th or 5th century, it's not an original part.
>>768406883
Objectivity vs subjectivity.
Human experience is subjective, because we only have a small amount of knowledge individually. God's experience is objective, since he sees and knows all.
As creator, he would know exactly what standards we should have and when and how we fail those standards.
>>768406818
Jesus isn't saying her getting stoned is wrong, he's saying that only God gets to do it, the stoning isn't the bad part
>>768406951
Please don't tell me you listen to Hovind with this "we come from rocks" nonsense?
>>768407231
So human sacrifice is still fine according to god as long as it's with his chosen people?
>>768406078
Because that's how they built the civilization you are enjoying, so stfu.
>>768406677
Still cool with. You are still a slave too.
>>768407567
It's built now, why do you have to cling from it when it's clearly outdated in terms of science and in terms of morality
>>768407474
>God's experience is objective, since he sees and knows all.
How would God seeing and knowing all make his opinions on what standards we should have any less subjective than a humans? If God says that vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream, is that objectively true or God's subjective opinion?
>>768407561
God never asked for human sacrifice. Although plenty of armies certainly got slaughtered. Unless you're talking about that one time that still didn't have anyone actually be sacrificed.
>>768407682
Because he made you and therefore is the only true empath.
>>768407661
because scientific and moral beings do not defend themselves by nature that's why scientists, as priests, did their work hiding behind these fuckers.
>>768407797
What?
>>768407757
Judges 11, god sits back and allows a man to sacrifice his child to him as "payment" for helping him win a war. But even that aside, is it fine for the Israelites to slaughter their way through the middle east?
>>768407852
What?
>>768407682
Your hypothetical is flawed, because you want me to explain something based on something you made up.
Anyway, God is more likely to tell you that vanilla is simply a chemical and taste is merely receptors on your tongue sending signals to your brain.
>>768407981
a good hearted man of science with a gun to his head will try to debate his combatant, he'll be shot and die. Priests were the scientists of Medieval Christian society, your trying to do your research and don't want to die.. You're going to attach fucked up people to defend you while you work..... Man, that's all I got for you.. I respect them still.
>>768408090
It's an analogy. You're trying to tell me that God's opinions are objective on the basis that he sees and knows all. If that was the case, then if God preferred vanilla, then vanilla would objectively be the best flavor and you would be wrong for liking chocolate. That seems absurd to me.
Why would God be more likely to explain the physical process behind one subjective thing (taste) and not another subjective thing (standards)?
>>768407888
The old testament/Israelites were brutal because if they weren't they would not have survived the time period. If you can't understand that you're no better than the creationists who try to read Genesis literally.
>>768408337
Any sort of excuse like that fails as soon as you introduce the idea of an all-powerful God. God could have made the Old Testament any which way he wanted and had the Israelites survive the time period, because God.
>>768408337
God told them to do this, why couldn't god protect his chosen people? Why would you need all the bloodshed? God's perfectly fine with murdering nearly everyone anyway
so...the guys on the cross no one tellls them what they really were doing....thats why alot of people dont believe in the bible. they just make it up...oh the guy, he is a liar, he is a sell out, he is a thief, he is a swindler...and what about jesus what was he, just an outspoken fag who suffered for the human abortion that still killed him.
>>768408280
All opinions are subjective. Anon said god's experience was objective. Not their opinions (which wouldn't need to even be made because God is omniscient)
>>768408467
>>768408595
That's a very simplistic understanding of what it means to be all-powerful. I think you know better.
Is this Insecure Christian Shitposting Day?
>>768408280
It's flawed because it's not about "liking" things, it's about codes of conduct and behaviour.
>>768407231
Then how come it's still a sin to be a fag, but not a sin to eat shrimp? It's from the same list of sins.
>>768408751
>Anon said god's experience was objective.
Which would be irrelevant to the topic under discussion.
The moment we find life in other planets, Christians are gonna be like:
> hurr durr! I knew it all along! If you reinterpret this chapter, it's all the proof you need. Our God is their God too. They just don't realize it!
>>768408866
Codes of conduct and behavior fundamentally boil down to "liking" things.
>>768408830
I think /b/ has been getting raided. I've been seeing them too. Not necessarily for Christianity though. Tons of threads about religion and atheism in general today.
>>768406078
How can you be such a loser as to sit on /b/ all day and waste your life?
>>768406078
Obviously, the only things in the bible that are true are the things I agree with.
>>768408767
Not an argument.
>>768408767
How is it not though? Again, he's fine with killing others to allow his chosen people to live, why doesn't he just kill all his people enemies, it literally takes zero effort for him
>>768406078
All the answers you ever need: https://youtu.be/5Wx0bp7G90k
>>768408875
“It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”
>Inb4 bj jokes
>>768408877
When you ask why does good get to judge, that is exactly why. Just because it's not the answer you were anticipating does not mean it's not pertinent top whatever the fuck you're trying to discuss.
Jesus Christ there's no point trying to make this clear. I don't even believe in good but I can understand how an "all knowing" being is in a hell of a better to judge and dole out punishment, over the very limiting mind of the parisitic worms we call humans.
>>768408907
Only because we have subjective experience.
>>768409122
So all Christians go to hell? Because there's a lot of shit coming out of their mouths. Enough to defile a whole planet.
>>768409185
No, even if you had objective experience, codes of conduct and behavior would still fundamentally be based on subjective preference.
>>768409157
So if I know more than you, that gives me the right to judge you and dole out punishment?
>>768409359
Unless you were the creator of the universe. I'm pretty sure they would have the final say on what is good and bad.
>>768409189
Meh, hell is mostly something that was invented later on. It doesn't feature in the Old testament or Christ's teachings, at least when properly translated, and was mostly an invention of the churches to scare people into submission.
>>768409514
Why?
>>768409488
Only if you were omniscient. Holy fucking shit reading comprehension. Work on it.
Creating something doesn't mean you know what's best for it. If you're omniscient, it's your own fault for making a shitty species.
>>768409638
Why only if I was omniscient? If you say that an all-knowing being is in a better position to judge and dole out punishment over us because we are very limited, that seems to suggest that a less limited being would be in a better position to judge a more limited being. If I am less limited than you, then I am in a better position to judge you. No?
>>768409545
They're the creator. They can therefore be the destroyer. It wouldn't matter of you felt their judgement was subjective or not, they are immutable.
Let me ask you some questions now. What is subjectivity? What is objectivity? Can something be both, or strictly one or the other? If God isn't objective, can ANYTHING be?
>>768409638
Considering that God is often surprised by things in the Bible, can be bargained with and also tricked, I doubt he's omniscient, and even so, he shouldn't have the right to do so, veil of ignorance my man
>>768409079
You're taking it all as literally as fundamentalists do. Why even create us in the first place if he's just going to run the entire thing like a puppet show?
>>768409826
You merely asked the same question again. The answer is NO because omniscience isn't relative and neither is judgement. There is no sliding scale where you can be in a slightly better position to judge because you can't be slightly omniscient.
>>768409359
Look at it like this.
You build a robot, you give it certain functions to perform and then it does this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzlsvFN_5HI
From the robot's perspective, it "thinks" it did everything right.
But from your perspective, you know that it didn't.
>>768409830
So might makes right?
Subjective (adj) based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Objective (adj) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Vanilla is the best flavor: subjective.
Hydrogen has one proton: objective.
>>768409519
(citation needed)
>>768409977
Why not though? Why does knowing everything suddenly put you in a better position when knowing more does not?
>>768409978
Hence your perspective is subjective.
>>768409857
Given that the Bible was written by a group of men who never met Jesus or God, and that to know God is supposedly to know the impossible, and to say you know God wold be considered blasphemy. Why would anyone believe a man's interpretation of a being he has never come in contact with?
>>768410016
I didn't ask you to copy and paste from the dictionary.
>>768410084
Because when you know more, you still don't have the full story.
>>768410323
But when you know more, you are in a better position to understand "the story" than someone who knows less.
>>768410269
You didn't say I couldn't either.
>>768410038
1: The Bible
Seriously though, the King James Version is a terrible translation and it's where most misconceptions come from. And 90% of everything relating to hell is just cripped from various priests, popes and people like Dante.
As a good example the word "Gehenna" is often mistranslated as "hell" even though Gehenna was a real place when they use to throw and burn their rubbish and the dead bodies of criminals.
It came to symbolise utter destruction, complete oblivion as anything that was thrown there would soon vanish.
>>768410168
It's skill at stacking boxes is objective, regardless of whether it thinks it's doing a good job.
>>768410715
>It's skill at stacking boxes is objective, regardless of whether it thinks it's doing a good job.
Sure, but the idea that being skilled at stacking boxes is what is right for the robot is subjective. You could say that we objective fail to meet whatever subjective standards God has for us, but those standards are still subjective.
>>768410901
>Sure, but the idea that being skilled at stacking boxes is what is right for the robot is subjective.
Not for the person who made it to stack boxes.
It's like if you buy a wheel for your car and is breaks apart 15 minutes down the road. The wheel failed at being a wheel.
You can't say that it's still a good wheel.
>>768410715
>The Bible
wow. great source. so if i just look at any page in the bible it should verify your claim? or do i have to read it all right here and now? will you keep the thread going while i READ THE ENTIRE FUCKING BIBLE? learn to cite references, you uneducated cunt.
>>768411248
>Not for the person who made it to stack boxes.
Yes for the person who made it to stack boxes. That's what makes it subjective: it's based on personal feelings, tastes, or opinion. It's the person who made its opinion that it should be good at stacking boxes.
>The wheel failed at being a wheel.
The wheel failed at doing what you wanted it to do. Someone else could pick up the wheel and use for an entirely different purpose and find that it's great at it.
>>768411512
There is no "other person" in the analogy. You are the sole being in existence at that level.
What someone else might do with it assumes that there is someone else equal to God.
Basically, you're still looking at the situation from an incredibly human perspective.
>>768411864
>There is no "other person" in the analogy.
It wouldn't actually matter. What you wanted the wheel to do would still be based on personal opinion.
>You are the sole being in existence at that level.
How does it matter at all what "level" something exists at?
>Basically, you're still looking at the situation from an incredibly human perspective.
Considering I am human, that is to be expected. Are you trying to tell me that you can look at the situation from God's perspective?
>>768412084
>It wouldn't actually matter. What you wanted the wheel to do would still be based on personal opinion.
You're missing the point. If it no longer works, then it is no longer a wheel.
It might be a broken or bent wheel, but it is no longer an actual wheel. This is objective fact, not subjective.
>How does it matter at all what "level" something exists at?
Because that's the entire argument. When you're the highest being in existence that created everything that exists, then you're the one who decides how everything should function.
>Are you trying to tell me that you can look at the situation from God's perspective?
I'm trying to get you to understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity and why being "above" something gives you that level of objectivity that something "below" doesn't have.
>>768406078
Go be a retarded faggot somewhere else
>>768413039
>You're missing the point. If it no longer works, then it is no longer a wheel.
According to your subjective standards of what makes something a wheel.
>It might be a broken or bent wheel, but it is no longer an actual wheel. This is objective fact, not subjective.
Is it? If I say that a broken / bent wheel is still a wheel, how am I objectively wrong?
>Because that's the entire argument
It isn't an argument though, it's an assertion that I've been pressing you on.
>When you're the highest being in existence that created everything that exists, then you're the one who decides how everything should function.
Why?
>I'm trying to get you to understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity and why being "above" something gives you that level of objectivity that something "below" doesn't have.
And I'm trying to get you to understand why that is not the case, that being "above" (which would involve subjective criteria itself funnily enough) does not magically eliminate subjectivity.
>>768413039
>>768413541
I think you're both being pedantic about the meaning of "objective." The basic point is that God's decisions supersede ours because by definition he has authority over us all. It's not complicated.
>>768414116
>The basic point is that God's decisions supersede ours because by definition he has authority over us all
And if I reject that definition?
>>768413541
>According to your subjective standards of what makes something a wheel.
It's only subjective because I am actually a human, and you're viewing yourself in the analogies as human.
Objectivity comes from the fact that any object you create did not exist before you created it. Therefore its usefulness, its perfection, can only be judged by you.
Subjectivity only exists if there is someone else exists with comparable insight, knowledge or experience.
This isn't even about God or religion at this point, it's just about you understanding what objectivity is.
Unfortunately, you're being incredibly pedantic, because you're asking me to explain objectivity knowing full well that humans cannot be truly objective.
Understanding the concept is not the same as knowing it. So, it's up to you whether you chose to understand the concept of objectivity or not. If not, maybe you'll find a better explanation somewhere else.
Your ignorant
>>768414116
>I think you're both being pedantic about the meaning of "objective."
Probably, I just got hung up on him not understanding what true objectivity is.
>>768406078
>Jesus did not come to overturn any of the laws
What else did Jesus tell you, other than he’d be back to mow your lawn in two weeks you glorious winged faggot?
>>768414462
>It's only subjective because I am actually a human
It's subjective because it's based on your opinion.
>Objectivity comes from the fact that any object you create did not exist before you created it.
I'm sorry, but no.
>Therefore its usefulness, its perfection, can only be judged by you.
Any sort of use you assign to an object would be subjective, by definition.
>Subjectivity only exists if there is someone else exists with comparable insight, knowledge or experience.
Imagine that you were the only thinking entity in existence. Now let's say that vanilla is your favorite flavor of ice cream. Is vanilla objectively the best flavor of ice cream? What happens if another thinking entity appears and prefers chocolate? Did something just go from objective to subjective or is the second thinking entity objectively wrong?
>This isn't even about God or religion at this point, it's just about you understanding what objectivity is.
I disagree.
>Unfortunately, you're being incredibly pedantic, because you're asking me to explain objectivity knowing full well that humans cannot be truly objective.
What I'm trying to convey to you is that preference cannot be objective.
>>768414283
The question isn't whether you believe there's a God. If there is, then by definition he does have authority over you, whether you believe he does or even exists or not.
>>768414565
>Your
>>768414603
Fair enough
>>768415201
>The question isn't whether you believe there's a God. If there is, then by definition he does have authority over you
Only if you define God such that he does. For instance, you could say "God is the entity which has authority over all humans" thus, by definition, if God existed then it would have authority over me as a human. That isn't terribly helpful though as it's begging the question. It just means that an all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the universe could exist without being God.
>>768415552
I'm not begging the question, you're changing the question. We weren't debating whether such a God exists, we were debating whether such a God's opinion took precedence (or was more "objective") over ours.
>>768416683
Which you 'resolved' by merely including "having authority over us" in the definition, which doesn't actually accomplish anything. I'm not debating whether such a god exists either, what I'm debating is the idea that being an all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the universe would give an entity authority over us.
>>768416965
How could an all-knowing, all-powerful creator not have authority over us? You think you could thwart such a being?
>>768417687
I speak of authority in the sense of having the right to, not having the ability. A mighty tyrant might be able to rule by force, but does he have the right to do so?
>>768417914
It's not the same. The idea of the "right" to govern needed for human rulers relates to the governed needing to consent to that rule. A creator God does not need such consent because he created the subjects to begin with. He didn't find us and assert his rule over us, he created us into it. Again you're applying human analogies that fall apart for such a being.
>>768418314
I fail to see how being the creator makes God an exception to the consent of the governed rule. Do parents have absolute authority over children if they procreate for the purpose of creating slaves?
>>768406078
God is true love and you are just jealous because you have never experienced true love.
>>768418695
Parent's have some authority, but even procreation is only possible as a process within the universe as created by the creator God. By definition there is no analogy that can adequately articulate the relation of the creator to us because such an analogy would just end up describing God again.
>>768419024
>By definition there is no analogy that can adequately articulate the relation of the creator to us because such an analogy would just end up describing God again.
Then all you are doing is asserting that God would have authority over us without providing justification, using special pleading when I give analogies to say that this one case is different from all others.
I reject your assertion as unfounded.
>>768419226
It's not special pleading when the relation is legitimately different. Welcome to philosophy, where we discuss such fundamental ideas that there is no equivalent. I'd challenge you to find one.
>>768420195
There is no such thing as a perfect analogy, as a perfect analogy would just be a repeat of the original subject. In any case, the core objection remains: all you have done is asserted that God would have authority over us. Your argument is essentially "the creator of the universe would have authority over us because it created it."
>>768420582
Yes. If you create some object out of play doh, you have "authority" over it and can do whatever you want with it. If God creates a universe, he has authority over it. Of course, that's also not a perfect analogy, but you seem chill with that.
>>768421042
>If you create some object out of play doh, you have "authority" over it and can do whatever you want with it.
Do you? What happens if I create a race of beings macroscopically indistinguishable from humans, yet not human? Can I do whatever I want with them?
>>768421368
>macroscopically indistinguishable from humans, yet not human
What does that mean? If you could create something truly equivalent to humans, then you would be a kind of god yourself.
>>768422004
>What does that mean?
It means a race of beings that look and act human, capable of human level thought and feeling, yet not genetically human.
>then you would be a kind of god yourself
Are you saying then that the answer to the question is yes, as a kind of god I could do whatever I wanted with them?
>>768419024
>Parent's have some authority
no they don't. parents have absolutely no authority over their children, at least not in a moral sense. the children were made to be slaves, that's why they were born, so they have no moral obligation to their parents at all, while the parents do have a moral obligation to provide for all of their children's needs, but parents don't do that because they were selfish enough to have children so they won't be selfless enough to provide for their children's needs, for the child's whole lifetime, like they really should
