Psalm 82

Originally posted by divegeester
How many saviours have you got?

Answer 2 Jehovah and Jesus.

Jesus is "mighty God" as Isaiah says in "for unto us a child is born."

You have two gods and two saviours.

Now get your shoe-shine box out...

No one is disputing that Jesus is a mighty god and as the Bible clearly demonstrates there are many instances of entities being termed gods as in Psalm 82 posted above. Are we then to carry your logic to its conclusion and state that these are also God? no? well then what are you trying to say?

I have no idea what the reference to shoe shine box is meant to be nor for that matter do I really care for its enough for me to point out the absurdity of your logic.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
morally sound according to you, thankyou for illustrating the point.

Aren't there things that are morally sound and morally unsound according to you as well?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Instinct as opposed to reason. The evolutionary hypothesis dictates that the fittest outstrip the weakest and you want that to form a basis for your morality, ouch. Socialization you mean the shifting sands of social convention, whats morally fashionable? experience, you mean your own limited human experience, prone to aberration, imperfect. Yes in ...[text shortened]... s.

If the light that is in you is really darkness, how great that darkness is! - Matthew 6:23

Like I said, if the things stopping you from engaging in immoral behaviour is a set of ancient texts and your superstitions about supernatural beings, then I welcome that affect it has on your actions.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes indeed when it all comes down to it, we are left with vague references to vague concepts which produce a muddy moral ambiguity which might be termed a moral morass.

And yet, when it came right down to discussions of moral issues, here on this forum, you have on several occasions been clearly stranded in your own "muddy moral ambiguity which might be termed a moral morass" ~ you have even condemned people for seeing issues through a moral lens ~ so where has your preference for ancient Hebrew mythology got you... 'when it all comes down to it'?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The evolutionary hypothesis dictates that the fittest outstrip the weakest and you want that to form a basis for your morality, ouch.

Perhaps you have not given morality - and how 'evolution' might affect it - too much thought. I am not talking about "fit" and "weak" physicality and survival in that sense; it's odd that you'd assume that I was.

Morals govern human interactions and behaviour. Being social creatures, and living in communities and societies, humans have developed as moral beings because that is how those communities become strong and survive, and, indeed, the weak can be cared for or protected from stuff like "the fittest outstripping the weakest".

Originally posted by FMF
And yet, when it came right down to discussions of moral issues, here on this forum, you have on several occasions been clearly stranded in your own "muddy moral ambiguity which might be termed a moral morass" ~ you have even condemned people for seeing issues through a moral lens ~ so where has your preference for ancient Hebrew mythology got you... 'when it all comes down to it'?

The text is unworthy of serious comment because its simply the same old drivel, 'you're this' and 'you're that'. See how easy it was to make a clean, crisp and precise moral judgement concerning its content. A useful thing this ancient Hebrew mythology.

Originally posted by FMF
Perhaps you have not given morality - and how 'evolution' might affect it - too much thought. I am not talking about "fit" and "weak" physicality and survival in that sense; it's odd that you'd assume that I was.

Morals govern human interactions and behaviour. Being social creatures, and living in communities and societies, humans have developed as moral bei ...[text shortened]... , the weak can be cared for or protected from stuff like "the fittest outstripping the weakest".

Really then lets test your claim. How has this evolution of society and morality helped communities and societies like the aborigines of Australia become stronger?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The text is unworthy of serious comment because its simply the same old drivel, 'you're this' and 'you're that'. See how easy it was to make a clean, crisp and precise moral judgement concerning its content. A useful thing this ancient Hebrew mythology.

This is just evasion.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Really then lets test your claim. How has this evolution of society and morality helped communities and societies like the aborigines of Australia become stronger and to survive?

The fact that were communities and societies at all demonstrates that they were held together by mores, standards and rules ~ the substance of morality ~ and the example you have chosen demonstrates that there is no need for an ancient Hebrew mythology element as you seem to think.

Originally posted by FMF
This is just evasion.

On the contrary its the direct application of ancient Hebrew mythology, 2 Timothy 2:16, 'But shun empty chatter'.

Originally posted by FMF
The fact that were communities and societies at all demonstrates that they were held together by mores, standards and rules ~ the substance of morality ~ and the example you have chosen demonstrates that there is no need for an ancient Hebrew mythology element as you seem to think.

you have not answered the question, we shall ask it AGAIN, how has this evolution of society and morality helped the natives of Australia to become stronger.

Here is your claim. Humans have developed as moral beings because that is how those communities become strong and survive. How has it helped aborigines to survive?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you have not answered the question, we shall ask it AGAIN, how has this evolution of society and morality helped the natives of Australia to become stronger.

Aborigines had a moral code that knit their communities together for 40,000 years. I don't know what point you think you have to make. Their collectivized efforts enabled them to survive and perpetuate themselves, often in extremely harsh conditions for 40 millennia.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
On the contrary its the direct application of ancient Hebrew mythology, 2 Timothy 2:16, 'But shun empty chatter'.

And this is nothing more than just trying to avoid discussing something properly.

Originally posted by FMF
Aborigines had a moral code that knit their communities together for 40,000 years. I don't know what point you think you have to make. Their collectivized efforts enabled them to survive and perpetuate themselves, often in extremely harsh conditions for 40 millennia.

and yet they were wiped out in Tasmania and went form an estimated 500,000 in mainland Australia down to a few tens of thousand in a relatively short period of time. So how has morality helped them to survive and become stronger as you have claimed? for either it has not or you are quite frankly talking pants.

Here is your claim. That is how those communities become strong and survive,

Originally posted by FMF
And this is nothing more than just trying to avoid discussing something properly.

sorry but your empty chatter of 'you're this' and 'you're that' has no interest for me.