To our atheist friends

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i not only took the time to read them, i basically had to filter out the irrelevant details,
for you seem to be to be a man given to many words to express rather simple
concepts the result being a rather pretentious attempt to produce irrelevancies, the
question is and was very simple, is it reasonable for God to ask the Israelites to refrain ...[text shortened]... ality , simply because you think that
its not immoral, that is the gist of what you have said.

And on another point you said on page 1 of this thread

"its irrelevant whether they [atheists] subscribe to it or not, after all, i am not asking them to live
under its ordinances, am I. If they have an opinion that its [mosaic law] barbaric, they should also
certainly form an opinion as to why its unreasonable for God to expect a person to live
by its tenets, regardless of whether they themselves ascribe to it or not."


Which clearly indicates that the debate was NOT just confined to simply answering your one very
narrow question but was open to discuss the entirety of mosaic law, which was what the OP implied anyway.

Claiming that expanding out to questions regarding more than those three mosaic crimes was beyond the
scope of the thread, or unreasonable is thus deeply disingenuous at best.
And deeply insulting to both my, and everyone else's intelligence to expect us to believe that.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well you evidently didn't read it because I specifically and clearly said it
was none of god's f***ing business.

So my answer was clearly NO it is not reasonable.

Read it again and this time DON'T filter out what I actually say.

yes i understand that, but stating that something is moral or immoral on the basis that the act is private is justifiable, how?

Originally posted by FMF
robbie, please stop this clumsy attempted sleight of word. googlefudge has never , ever suggested in any shape or form that he believes "God" has communicated with the Israelites. googlefudge did not reply "yes... [...] it [is] reasonable for God to ask the Israelites to refrain from sexual immorality."

I pulled you up for this deceitful nonsense before and you retracted. And here you are at it again.

its not about me FMF.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its not about me FMF.

It is you who is using furtively deceptive language to project your superstitions onto people trying to discuss the moral relevance of your superstition. You are being deceitful. You are deliberately making it about you.

Originally posted by googlefudge
nd on another point you said on page 1 of this thread

irrelevant whether they [atheists] subscribe to it or not, after all, i am not asking them to live
under its ordinances, am I. If they have an opinion that its [mosaic law] barbaric, they should also
certainly form an opinion as to why its unreasonable for God to expect a person to li d deeply insulting to both my, and everyone else's intelligence to expect us to believe that.

I dont think it was implied, however if you have interpreted it as such, what can I do, its your evaluation, not mine.

Originally posted by FMF
It is you who is using furtively deceptive language to project your superstitions onto people trying to discuss the moral relevance of your superstition. You are being deceitful. You are deliberately making it about you.

its still not about me FMF

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i understand that, but stating that something is moral or immoral on the basis that the act is private is justifiable, how?

I didn't say it was moral because it was private. Again read what I say, don't make things up.

I said it was nobody's business what two consenting adults got up to in private (in terms of who
they chose as sexual partners and what kinds of sex they had)

You present a false dichotomy.

Not all acts ARE moral or immoral... some are amoral.

Having consensual adult sex is not a moral act, it isn't an immoral act, it's amoral, it has no moral dimension.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its still not about me FMF

Your lack of good faith when you create these caricatures of other people's statement is about you and only you. You are the only one doing it here. I called you on it, and you retracted. Now you are trying the same deceptions on someone else.

Originally posted by FMF
Your lack of good faith when you create these caricatures of other people's statement is about you and only you. You are the only one doing it here. I called you on it, and you retracted. Now you are trying the same deceptions on someone else.

Someone who isn't going to stand for it I might add.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I didn't say it was moral because it was private. Again read what I say, don't make things up.

I said it was nobody's business what two consenting adults got up to in private (in terms of who
they chose as sexual partners and what kinds of sex they had)

You present a false dichotomy.

Not all acts ARE moral or immoral... some are amoral.

Hav ...[text shortened]... lt sex is not a moral act, it isn't an immoral act, it's amoral, it has no moral dimension.

Yet your justification for asserting its morality or otherwise is on the basis that its
consensual and or private.

Its rather interesting case where a German man advertised for someone to help him
die, certainly his act was consensual, yet, if my memory serves me correctly, the
court did not judge that his participant in his death could claim that he did not
murder him simply because the act was consensual, I suspect that this is still the
case in the United Kingdom, that aiding someone to die still is a criminal offence,
regardless of whether the persons consent was ascertained or otherwise. Thus
consent has no more moral justification than that which we seek to give it.

Again, whether an act is done in private or public is neither here nor there and is no
justification for anything.

Originally posted by FMF
Your lack of good faith when you create these caricatures of other people's statement is about you and only you. You are the only one doing it here. I called you on it, and you retracted. Now you are trying the same deceptions on someone else.

Its not about me.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its not about me.

Where did googlefudge state that "it is reasonable for God to ask the Israelites to refrain from sexual immorality" in the case of adultery and in the case of bestiality? Be specific.

Originally posted by JS357
Here we are. I thought you would like to hear the rest of a typical non-theistic (and non-hostile) story; then you and I are done here and you can continue the hostile stuff with the others.

I said:

[quote]Why do I think it is reasonable to ask me to refrain from doing something? Because a reasonable way for them to let me know that they do not want me ival. This seems like a natural phase of cultural evolution. Reasonable, even. 😉

sorry for the delay, other fish to fry,

yes the request, mandate, law, call it what we will, was given by God , through the
patriarchal system to be administered by the judiciary. I dont think that it subverts 'the
request', for we are still free moral agents to comply or be coerced, although,
admittedly the consequences were severe to the extreme.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, i think it was a reasonable request. citing that the punishment was severe is a real no goer FMF, the punishment for bestiality and adultery was also severe yet you have no problem stating that it was reasonable for God to ask the Israelites to desist from them.

...you have no problem stating that it was reasonable for God to ask the Israelites to desist from them.

I did not state "that it was reasonable for God to ask the Israelites to desist from them". I said no such thing. You are attempting to project your superstition on to me just as we are discussing the validity of your superstition. In which post do you claim I stated a belief that God and the Israelites communicated in any way whatsoever? Be specific.

Originally posted by FMF
Where did googlefudge state that "it is reasonable for God to ask the Israelites to refrain from sexual immorality" in the case of adultery and in the case of bestiality? Be specific.

he stated that he thought that adultery was immoral, and as we have been discussing,
at some length, its place within the context of the mosaic law and as my question was
specific to that law, and he answered my question specifically, then what other reason
could he have for discussing it out with those parameters, just a casual generic
response, erm, i dunno, i was just thinking that adultery and bestiality was immoral but
homosexuality was ok, its what i think about and just chanced to proffer some
comments in cyber space, feel you bum FMF and get a grip.