Psalm 82

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry but your empty chatter of 'you're this' and 'you're that' has no interest for me.

But I was, if anything, responding to your "'you're this' and 'you're that'" post. You unilaterally declared my moral map to be a "muddy moral ambiguity which might be termed a moral morass". So is that it? You weren't inviting any further discussion of this ambiguity or of any moral ambiguity that you yourself may demonstrate? You evade proper discussion of moral matters time and time again, and do so repeatedly in exactly this way.

Originally posted by FMF
But I was, if anything, responding to your "'you're this' and 'you're that'" post. You unilaterally declared my moral map to be a "muddy moral ambiguity which might be termed a moral morass". So is that it? You weren't inviting any further discussion of this ambiguity or of any moral ambiguity that you yourself may demonstrate? You evade proper discussion of moral matters time and time again, and do so repeatedly in exactly this way.

On the contrary I have provided a clean and crisp concrete example which you seem to be having not a little trouble assimilating into the now ragged vestige of a hypothesis that you rolled out like some old dude from a nursing home seeing the light of day after many years, and there it sits fluttering in the wind on a barbed wire fence.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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.

The Aboriginals you are talking of - and you really ought to be aware of this if you're going to cite them - were killed off by disease and European immigrants. This does not mean that they did not have - through their very nature as humans - a moral code that bound them together for 40,000 years.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
on the contrary i have provided a clean and crisp concrete example which you seem to be having not a little trouble assimilating into the now ragged vestige of a hypothesis that you rolled out like some old dude in a wheelchair, and there it sits fluttering in the wind on a barbed wire fence.

This seems to be a topic you are unwilling to discuss.

Originally posted by FMF
This seems to be a topic you are unwilling to discuss.

Here is your claim, 'that is how those communities become strong and survive',

you were asked how the aborigines of Australia have benefited by this morality after being wiped out and we are still waiting for an answer and here you are attempting to deflect with your empty rhetoric. Oh dear and oh well!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Here is your claim, 'that is how those communities become strong and survive',

you were asked how the aborigines of Australia have benefited by this morality after being wiped out and we are still waiting for an answer and here you are attempting to deflect with your empty rhetoric. Oh dear and oh well!

They weren't wiped out by a lack of moral code - indeed they had a moral code that enabled their communities to be strong and survive for 400 centuries, in harsh conditions - they were wiped out by diseases and invaders with weapons superior to them. Is it that you disagree with the notion that human beings are hard wired with the capacity for communal living and the sense of morality that makes it possible?

Originally posted by FMF
They weren't wiped out by a lack of moral code - indeed they had a moral code that enabled their communities to be strong and survive for 400 centuries, in harsh conditions - they were wiped out by diseases and invaders with weapons superior to them. Is it that you disagree with the notion that human beings are hard wired with the capacity for communal living and the sense of morality that makes it possible?

No one has claimed that they were wiped out by a lack of morality, its simply a straw man argument, blatant and beaming like a purulent pimple on the end of your nose. Here is your actual claim,

that is how those communities become strong and survive

In the case of Australian aborigines and the Europeans who invaded their land, how did their morality help them to survive? because clearly in the case of Australian aborigines it did nothing of the sort and clearly in the case of the Europeans its also did nothing of the sort for they were subject to all manner of disease and hardships and were almost wiped out themselves and then proceeded to wipe out the aborigines. In neither case has their morality helped them nor made them stronger.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No one has claimed that they were wiped out by a lack of morality, its simply a straw man argument, blatant and beaming like a purulent pimple on the end of your nose. Here is your actual claim,

that is how those communities become strong and survive

In the case of Australian aborigines and the Europeans who invaded their land, how did their ...[text shortened]... wipe out the aborigines. In neither case has their morality helped them nor made them stronger.

Your riff on the Aboriginals doesn't make any sense. It comes across as a red herring. I have stated why I think they were wiped out. I have also stated what role I think their moral code had had down through history. Perhaps you could just come out and state unequivocally what you think it is that the fate of the Aboriginals 'proves' about the moral code that had stitched their society together since prehistoric times.

Originally posted by FMF
Your riff on the Aboriginals doesn't make any sense. It comes across as a red herring. I have stated why I think they were wiped out. I have also stated what role I think their moral code had had down through history. Perhaps you could just come out and state unequivocally what you think it is that the fate of the Aboriginals 'proves' about the moral code that had stitched their society together since prehistoric times.

Oh dear no one has asked you how they were wiped out nor how their morality helped them through their history which itself is unconvincing because there were inter tribal rivalries. Anyway what you were actually asked was how that morality made them stronger and more fit for survival as you claimed because clearly it did not make them fit and strong enough to withstand the onslaught of Europeans who had an altogether different morality making a complete mockery of your hypothesis. Infact it was European morality which was a contributing factor to almost wiping them out!.

How can I tell you so as not to injure your feelings? Your arguments that morality has made us fitter and stronger is just not very convincing. Lets put another scenario before you, can you tell us how the hedonism and morality of the sixties has made us more fitter and stronger?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:

“How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?

Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.

Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

“The ‘gods’ know nothing, they un ...[text shortened]... your inheritance.

- New International Version

Any comments on the use of the term 'gods'.

In the Greco-Roman religion, there were gods in heaven, such as the Olympian gods, and gods on earth, such as the forest dwelling gods, etc. Also, the word “lord” refers to human dignities as well. For example, Nero was called lord both in the Roman writings and in the Bible (Acts 25:26)
Furthermore, in the biblical languages, the word “god” was not used of only one Supreme Being, but was used of spirit beings and human beings of high rank, stature, or power. These “gods” can be high ranking good beings who serve the true God, or evil beings such as the Devil, who is called “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4). Deuteronomy 10:17 says, “God is a God of gods,” and Psalm 136:2 says to give thanks to the God of gods. So in fact there are many gods and many lords, both good and evil.
REV

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

Oh dear no one has asked you how they were wiped out nor how their morality helped them through their history which itself is unconvincing because there were inter tribal rivalries. Anyway what you were actually asked was how that morality made them stronger and more fit for survival as you claimed because clearly it did not make them fit and strong enough to withstand the onslaught of Europeans who had an altogether different morality making a complete mockery of your hypothesis. Infact it was European morality which was a contributing factor to almost wiping them out!.

Their moral code underpinned and sustained their communal existence for 40,000 years. They weren't almost wiped out by "European morality". They were almost wiped out by disease and weapons they were defenceless against.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lets put another scenario before you, can you tell us how the hedonism and morality of the sixties has made us more fitter and stronger?

My point is that the concept of right and wrong in we humans is partly a product of our social nature as it has evolved, and is partly inculcated in us through nurture, that is to say through socialization, interaction, experience and social context. This does not seek to explain or excuse any instances of what you may personally happen to perceive as being immoral behaviour by particular people at any particular time, nor does it have to.

Originally posted by FMF
[b]Oh dear no one has asked you how they were wiped out nor how their morality helped them through their history which itself is unconvincing because there were inter tribal rivalries. Anyway what you were actually asked was how that morality made them stronger and more fit for survival as you claimed because clearly it did not make them fit and strong enough t ...[text shortened]... pean morality". They were almost wiped out by disease and weapons they were defenceless against.

Oh dear what was it that sent convicts to Australia in the first place, a legal system based on a moral code. What was it that was a contributing factor in European squatters grabbing aboriginal land? a morality based on greed. What was it that influenced the Australian government to employ a white only policy? a morality based on racism and thus contrary to your rhetoric we can determine that morality was involved in every stage.

It seems that once again you have failed to grasp reality and the idea that the aborigines morality made them more fit and stronger for survival has been refuted because it made them nothing of the sort because another people came with a different moral code which superseded it and almost wiped them out as I have clearly shown. The unfounded, uncorroborated and quite frankly ludicrous hypothesis that morality evolved to make the aborigines more fitter and stronger for survival is naught but some limp secular biscuit airy fairy pie-in-the-sky notion with no empirical evidence with which to inflate it. Its a dud.

Originally posted by FMF
My point is that the concept of right and wrong in we humans is partly a product of our social nature as it has evolved, and is partly inculcated in us through nurture, that is to say through socialization, interaction, experience and social context. This does not seek to explain or excuse any instances of what you may personally happen to perceive as being immoral behaviour by particular people at any particular time, nor does it have to.

lets ask you again, how has the hedonism and self indulgence of the nineteen sixties contributed to us being more fitter and stronger for survival? second time asking.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
In the Greco-Roman religion, there were gods in heaven, such as the Olympian gods, and gods on earth, such as the forest dwelling gods, etc. Also, the word “lord” refers to human dignities as well. For example, Nero was called lord both in the Roman writings and in the Bible (Acts 25:26)
Furthermore, in the biblical languages, the word “god” was not use ...[text shortened]... anks to the God of gods. So in fact there are many gods and many lords, both good and evil.
REV

Yes thank you. I raise the point for it seems to me that certain Christians have been conditioned to believe the idea that the Bible mentions only one God and always with respect to the almighty when clearly it mentions many gods one of them being Jesus, another being Satan and others being humans.