The Versatile Bible

Originally posted by sonship

He didn't. Next question.

Next question ? If there is no absolute moral law then it doesn't make any difference what we do. Does it ?

That's the next question. If no God and no transcendent morality what difference does it make what I do to you ?

You really need a god to figure that one out? Are you deliberately being dense or do your really think like that?

Originally posted by sonhouse
You really need a god to figure that one out? Are you deliberately being dense or do your really think like that?

Make up your mind. Do you need God to help you figure things out or not?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Good stuff, SwissGambit.

Ironically enough, it is not a new opening at all, but the same opening as before from a slightly different angle. Same results, but props for the new tact.

But it's the thumbs, I think, that really tell the story because I think they say more than the credit we give.

Your rant is particularly one-sided with respect to pe ...[text shortened]... hat makes them seek to re-shape spirituality, when they are so emphatically in opposition to it?

"And then you move the next pawn.
Your second mark is to diminish the Bible's influence on its then-contemporary societies' morality by declaring a resistance to the very nebulous "morals of society."
Huh? "

he doesnt mention the 'strength' of the bibles influence on societies. you are arguing against a self made up point.

In your own words, you've got people who use the Bible to help shape the morality of society as they see fit, yet the Bible isn't part of it?
How does this make any sense?
How can the Bible both shape morality as well as not shape it, exactly?

powerful heads of religious groups try to set the moral agenda by dictating what the bible says. society in the past has adopted these beliefs, but over the passing of time tends to eventually ignore the religious groups and slowly sets its own its own moral agenda. the church then panics as it doesnt want to go out of business and changes its moral stance.....and it can do this so easily because the bible is so morally vague, giving them the option to pick on choose their morals.

At the time of my response, eight folks agreed enough with your post (decidedly anti-biblical in intent, albeit self-contradictory), as to inspire them to click the hyperlink associated with the thumbs-up.
On the Spirituality Forum, there are at least eight people (a pretty sizable amount, given the overall quantity of thumbs-up one sees herein) who agree with your sentiments.
What inspires their solidarity, one wonders?
What moves them to say: this is good, this is acceptable behavior, this is a reflection of my morality?
What makes them think their affirmation of your misplaced sentiments will affect the good they seek?
What makes them seek to re-shape spirituality, when they are so emphatically in opposition to it?

it was a good post.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]"And then you move the next pawn.
Your second mark is to diminish the Bible's influence on its then-contemporary societies' morality by declaring a resistance to the very nebulous "morals of society."
Huh? "

he doesnt mention the 'strength' of the bibles influence on societies. you are arguing against a self made up point.

In your ow ...[text shortened]... hape spirituality, when they are so emphatically in opposition to it?

it was a good post.[/b]

he doesnt mention the 'strength' of the bibles influence on societies.
Perhaps he didn't mean it, but this is what he wrote:

"When I look at history, I don't see religion leading the morals of society."

Not sure what to make of that other than as described.

powerful heads of religious groups try to set the moral agenda by dictating what the bible says.
This is asserted quite often, and always without support (notable exception: RCC). But the claim suggests that this type of manipulation goes on all the time by a plurality. History doesn't agree.

society in the past has adopted these beliefs...
Now you're contradicting yourself.

the church then panics as it doesnt want to go out of business and changes its moral stance...
What "church" are you imagining? The Amish?

it was a good post.
So you agree with me.
However, what you quoted from my post is speaking on another aspect completely, and your statement has no relevance to those sentences.

it was a good post.
So you agree with me.
However, what you quoted from my post is speaking on another aspect completely, and your statement has no relevance to those sentences.[/b]

okay, ill answer you questions.

What inspires their solidarity, one wonders? - its not solidarity. ive thumbed people i disagree with if they make a good point (although it sticks in my throat, ive even thumbed up robbie on a few occasions.)
What moves them to say: this is good, this is acceptable behavior, this is a reflection of my morality? - people should be told when they have done something good. its nice to hear youve done good. makes us human feel all nice inside.
What makes them think their affirmation of your misplaced sentiments will affect the good they seek? - they dont, it was a good post, hence the thumbs.
What makes them seek to re-shape spirituality, when they are so emphatically in opposition to it? whooaaa huge tangent. we were talking about thumbing posts. now we are onto the whole of spirituality, how did that happen.

society in the past has adopted these beliefs...
Now you're contradicting yourself.

no, there is no contradiction. religion attempts to set the moral agenda. people in the past and present may follow that agenda for a while. usually society eventually reaches its own morals regardless of religion.

Originally posted by sonhouse

You really need a god to figure that one out? Are you deliberately being dense or do your really think like that?

I don't think I am as intellectually gifted as the famous atheist Fredrich Nietzsche. But basically the same question he contemplated. And he was a world class atheist if there ever was one.

Basically he concluded that because of the death of God, the 20th century would be the bloodiest in history, which turned out to be true. And he also said that widespread madness would result as a problem because of the "death of God" realization.

He, of course spent the last years of his life in an insane asylum. It turned out to be personally true for him.

I also don't think I am as intellectually gifted as Dostoevsky who concluded that if there was no God then ANYTHING goes morally.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Good stuff, SwissGambit.

Ironically enough, it is not a new opening at all, but the same opening as before from a slightly different angle. Same results, but props for the new tact.

But it's the thumbs, I think, that really tell the story because I think they say more than the credit we give.

Your rant is particularly one-sided with respect to pe ...[text shortened]... hat makes them seek to re-shape spirituality, when they are so emphatically in opposition to it?

Yes, this should be all a silly magic trick, right? How can the Bible both shape and not shape societal morals?

The answer lies in the heads of the followers. The magic trick works because you think the Bible directs societal morals, when in reality it only back-fills the morals society already has.

That's the danger. So many people willing to follow the Bible just because it's the Bible, believing it to be immutable, when in fact it is malleable, interpretable and versatile. So many people thinking they are following the leader, unable to see anything in front of it.

Originally posted by sonship

[b]You really need a god to figure that one out? Are you deliberately being dense or do your really think like that?

I don't think I am as intellectually gifted as the famous atheist Fredrich Nietzsche. But basically the same question he contemplated. And he was a world class atheist if there ever was one.

Basically he concl ...[text shortened]... ectually gifted as Dostoevsky who concluded that if there was no God then ANYTHING goes morally.[/b]

I don't care how 'smart' they were.

Morality does not, and cannot, stem from gods.

Anything most certainly does not go, in the absence of gods.

Also the 20th century saw the biggest increases in life expectancy and the
greatest drop in deaths from war (as a proportion of society) than any in the
last few thousand years.

Originally posted by sonship

[b]You really need a god to figure that one out? Are you deliberately being dense or do your really think like that?

I don't think I am as intellectually gifted as the famous atheist Fredrich Nietzsche. But basically the same question he contemplated. And he was a world class atheist if there ever was one.

Basically he concl ...[text shortened]... ectually gifted as Dostoevsky who concluded that if there was no God then ANYTHING goes morally.[/b]

" Basically he concluded that because of the death of God, the 20th century would be the bloodiest in history, which turned out to be true. And he also said that widespread madness would result as a problem because of the "death of God" realization."

as your god is still effectively dead. do you think this century will be as bloody as the 20th?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]" Basically he concluded that because of the death of God, the 20th century would be the bloodiest in history, which turned out to be true. And he also said that widespread madness would result as a problem because of the "death of God" realization."

as your god is still effectively dead. do you think this century will be as bloody as the 20th?

The front end of your question is loaded, like -
" Have you stopped beating your spouse yet ? "

What I think of the 21rst Century is beside the point as far as Neitzsche's point that moral behavior would degenerate for the foreseeable future from his life - a life of trumpeting that God was dead.

I think God is alive and well and Nietzsche is dead.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Good stuff, SwissGambit.

Ironically enough, it is not a new opening at all, but the same opening as before from a slightly different angle. Same results, but props for the new tact.

But it's the thumbs, I think, that really tell the story because I think they say more than the credit we give.

Your rant is particularly one-sided with respect to pe ...[text shortened]... hat makes them seek to re-shape spirituality, when they are so emphatically in opposition to it?

...albeit self-contradictory...

SG's opening post did not assert both P & not-P, where P = the bible shapes morality. He pretty much explicitly only asserted not-P. There's no self-contradiction here -- only your bad reading comprehension. Just because you are committed to the idea that the bible shapes morality; that does not mean you are justified in projecting this commitment onto the opening post and then, upon importing and conjoining it with what the opening post actually does say, charge that the opening post is self-contradictory. That's shameful form on your part.

Also the 20th century saw the biggest increases in life expectancy and the greatest drop in deaths from war (as a proportion of society) than any in the last few thousand years.

Could you also go off and gather me some statistics on, say, how many unborn children's lives were terminated through abortions.

Just give me the last 15 years' approximate number.

Originally posted by sonship

Also the 20th century saw the biggest increases in life expectancy and the greatest drop in deaths from war (as a proportion of society) than any in the last few thousand years.

Could you also go off and gather me some statistics on, say, how many unborn children's lives were terminated through abortions.

Just give me the last 15 years' approximate number.

How is hat even remotely relevant...


Oh yes. you are an anti-choice nutjob who thinks abortion is murder...

Yeah, that line of 'reasoning' is really going to get you nowhere.

Oh yes. you are an anti-choice nutjob who thinks abortion is murder...

I am not anti-choice nutjob. You're a desperate name caller.

I believe that a choice should be made prior to the act the produces another live human being.

You might call my position "Pre-Bedroom Choice".