Obedience vs Disobedience

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
It must be difficult to rationalise one's logic and reason if one holds scripture as sacred. I would imagine that the more intellectual religionists (and Robbie, for all his faults, is clearly one of those) must frequently find themselves morally obliged to defend positions which their reason finds indefensible, and the converse too. It's no surprise that some of them seem to lose a cog or two now and again.

robbie's defence of his organization's appalling record of covering up child sex abuse (sometimes - fumbling - he argued bizarrely and without a scrap of evidence that it resulted in less child abuse, other times - fumbling - he just denied that there was any cover up despite mountains of evidence and victim testimony) was sheer unprincipled partisan groupism and morally unsound loyalty to an authoritarian dissent crushing corporation, and was thoroughly corrupt in a mundane way, and not something spiritual or religious per se.

Originally posted by @fmf

robbie's defence of his organization's appalling record of covering up child sex abuse (sometimes - fumbling - he argued bizarrely and without a scrap of evidence that it resulted in less child abuse, other times - fumbling - he just denied that there was any cover up despite mountains of evidence and victim testimony) was sheer unprincipled partisan groupism and morally unsound loyalty to an authoritarian dissent crushing corporation, and was thoroughly corrupt in a mundane way, and not something spiritual or religious per se.

TL;DR version:

robbie's defence of covering up of ~ and/or denial of ~ child sex abuse, for example, had nothing to do with him "holding scripture as sacred".

Originally posted by @divegeester
Is that the best you can come up with. Effectively My God is bigger than me so I better do as I'm told and he can do anything because he's err... bigger than me.

I don't see how being more powerful than you is a justifiable rational for you to accept that you have to do one thing while it's ok for your God to do another. But if you are happy ...[text shortened]... y coherence from the one version of morality perspective which you seem obsessed with promoting.

A:Is it morally justifiable for God to take a life when He sees fit?
B:Is it morally justifiable for you to take a life when you see fit?

We both know it's yes for A and no for B, because A, God is the creator and B, you are the creation. This is not rocket science.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
A:Is it morally justifiable for God to take a life when He sees fit?
B:Is it morally justifiable for you to take a life when you see fit?

We both know it's yes for A and no for B, because A, God is the creator and B, you are the creation. This is not rocket science.

You are the person claiming things about yourself and that there is a universal objective moral code which you claim to follow because its from your version of god, and which your god doesn't have to follow because he is more powerful and bigger than you.

Presumably this is how you cope with your god torturing people in hell for eternity when you know it's the wrong thing to do.

So the onus is on you to explain how you reconcile this in a way that readers can understand and perhaps identify with. Can you?

Originally posted by @divegeester
You are the person claiming things about yourself and that there is a universal objective moral code which you claim to follow because its from god, it which your version of god doesn't have to follow because he is more powerful and bigger than you.

So the onus is on you to explain how you reconcile this in a way that readers can understand and perhaps identify with. Can you?

Tell me which of these premises you reject and why:

A) God exists.
B) God created the universe.
C) God put laws in place that govern the universe.
D) God's creation is subject to the laws of the universe because they are part of the universe that God created.
E) God is not subject to the laws of the universe because he is not part of the universe.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Tell me which of these premises you reject and why:

A) God exists.
B) God created the universe.
C) God put laws in place that govern the universe.
D) God's creation is subject to the laws of the universe because they are part of the universe that God created.
E) God is not subject to the laws of the universe because he is not part of the universe.

This is just a list of assertions. What makes you think they constitute any kind of moral reasoning?

Originally posted by @fmf
This is just a list of assertions. What makes you think they constitute any kind of moral reasoning?

These are premises that I think any Christian would agree with, Dive is a Christian the last time I checked. I think they demonstrate that God is not subject to the laws of the universe like we His creation are.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
These are premises that I think any Christian would agree with, Dive is a Christian the last time I checked. I think they demonstrate that God is not subject to the laws of the universe like we His creation are.

I am asking you about what moral content you think these Christian beliefs have. I know you think what you are saying is true. But why do think the things are moral?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I think they demonstrate that God is not subject to the laws of the universe like we His creation are.

You are not demonstrating anything. Just asserting things does not demonstrate anything other than the fact that you can simply assert whatever you want.

Originally posted by @fmf
You are not demonstrating anything. Just asserting things does not demonstrate anything other than the fact that you can simply assert whatever you want.

Anyone can make assertions, if they are illogical and don't follow they can be rejected. Assuming the Bible is an accurate revelation of God which of the premises would you reject and why. This conversation is with Dive whom I believe also assumes that the Bible is an accurate revelation of God. If I am wrong he can correct me. What do you think you have demonstrated about your moral sensibilities?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Tell me which of these premises you reject and why:

A) God exists.
B) God created the universe.
C) God put laws in place that govern the universe.
D) God's creation is subject to the laws of the universe because they are part of the universe that God created.
E) God is not subject to the laws of the universe because he is not part of the universe.

Is this, in your view, a moral argument...?

A) God exists and created other beings that exist..
B) God put laws in place that apply to everything that exists.
C) God is subject to those laws because he exists.

Three assertions about god being subject to his own laws. As a sequence, do they have moral content, do you think?

Originally posted by @fmf
I am asking you about what moral content you think these Christian beliefs have. I know you think what you are saying is true. But why do think the things are moral?

You haven't been following the conversation. The conversation is currently with Dive about why God's laws for us don't apply to Him.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Anyone can make assertions, if they are illogical and don't follow they can be rejected. Assuming the Bible is an accurate revelation of God which of the premises would you reject and why. This conversation is with Dive whom I believe also assumes that the Bible is an accurate revelation of God. If I am wrong he can correct me. What do you think you have demonstrated about your moral sensibilities?

If your "logic" and assertions are only for the consumption of people with exactly the same set of convoluted superstitions that you just so happen to have, how on earth can you claim that you are coming up with a "universal" morality for all humans?

Originally posted by @fmf
Is this, in your view, a moral argument...?

A) God exists and created other beings that exist..
B) God put laws in place that apply to everything that exists.
C) God is subject to those laws because he exists.

Three assertions about god being subject to his own laws. As a sequence, do they have moral content, do you think?

Let's test your assertions.

God created the law of gravity, if Jesus is God and is subject to the law of gravity, would He have been able to ascend into Heaven?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What do you think you have demonstrated about your moral sensibilities?

I believe I have demonstrated that moral sensibilities can and do develop without any need for ancient Hebrew mythology and stories about demons and angels and a central god figure who is himself morally incoherent.