Is morality objective or subjective?

[Gary Childress]

Can you explain his non-involvment in perhaps the greatest life & death crises the Jews ever faced...one in which many lost their faith...and not only Jews!

Heh. Easily.

If you'd read the Tanakh itself, you'd know that the prophets all foretold the consequences of breaking the covenant with YHWH. The covenant that made Israel the nation of the Lord has privileges, you see; but also sober responsibilities. One does not come without the other. You'd be surprised how specific the warnings God gave were, and how meticulously they've been fulfilled.

But now, so too was the restoration of Israel foretold...an unprecedented national regeneration, unlike anything to be found in all of history...one might well call it a "miracle" -- except you don't believe in such things.

"Miracles" are things that can't be explained. There's nothing in the formation of Israel that cannot be explained. Jews were discriminated against and persecuted just about wherever they went, so they formed their own state in order to protect themselves. They were granted the ability to do so by the UN which was formed in the wake of the most terrible war humanity has ever faced and empathized with what happened to them. What is "miraculous" about that?

I think you'd be better off pulling your head out of that book. You're obviously playing with fire. That book is demonic from the sounds of it. It's got the whole Middle East where it originated killing each other over interpretations of it. Buddhism seems less genocidal, maybe try reading it for a while. If not, then just give up on religion. I mean, you're trying to get us all to believe a book about a "God" who kills people for disobeying commands. Most of us would prefer to live peacefully without being murdered or harming others. Trying to foist that kind of "religion" on us is outright demented. We should rename you "Freddy Kruger" or something.

Seriously, IC. Do others a favor and just buzz off with the nightmares. There's no "good news" to share with others in the Bible. People are better off not messing with it. It's like getting wrapped up in the Egyptian Book of the Dead or something. It's the twisted, demented interpretations of life of writers who lived thousands of years ago in despotic societies. Some of us want no part of it and most of us shouldn't be getting wrapped up in it. Do us all a favor and stop trying to share your nightmare. Get therapy or something.

[Harbal]

Can you explain his non-involvment in perhaps the greatest life & death crises the Jews ever faced...one in which many lost their faith...and not only Jews!

Heh. Easily.

If you'd read the Tanakh itself, you'd know that the prophets all foretold the consequences of breaking the covenant with YHWH. The covenant that made Israel the nation of the Lord has privileges, you see; but also sober responsibilities. One does not come without the other. You'd be surprised how specific the warnings God gave were, and how meticulously they've been fulfilled.

But now, so too was the restoration of Israel foretold...an unprecedented national regeneration, unlike anything to be found in all of history...one might well call it a "miracle" -- except you don't believe in such things.

"Miracles" are things that can't be explained. There's nothing in the formation of Israel that cannot be explained. Jews were discriminated against and persecuted just about wherever they went, so they formed their own state in order to protect themselves. They were granted the ability to do so by the UN which was formed in the wake of the most terrible war humanity has ever faced and empathized with what happened to them. What is "miraculous" about that?

They were granted the ability to do so by stealing the land of the people who were already there, and kicking them out. It wasn't a miracle, it was an absolute disgrace.

[Gary Childress]

Heh. Easily.

If you'd read the Tanakh itself, you'd know that the prophets all foretold the consequences of breaking the covenant with YHWH. The covenant that made Israel the nation of the Lord has privileges, you see; but also sober responsibilities. One does not come without the other. You'd be surprised how specific the warnings God gave were, and how meticulously they've been fulfilled.

But now, so too was the restoration of Israel foretold...an unprecedented national regeneration, unlike anything to be found in all of history...one might well call it a "miracle" -- except you don't believe in such things.

"Miracles" are things that can't be explained. There's nothing in the formation of Israel that cannot be explained. Jews were discriminated against and persecuted just about wherever they went, so they formed their own state in order to protect themselves. They were granted the ability to do so by the UN which was formed in the wake of the most terrible war humanity has ever faced and empathized with what happened to them. What is "miraculous" about that?

They were granted the ability to do so by stealing the land of the people who were already there, and kicking them out. It wasn't a miracle, it was an absolute disgrace.

People have been doing that to each other for thousands of years. Personally, I think backtracking through history to find "culprits" is not doing any of us much good. What needs to happen is that Israel needs to stop discriminating against Palestinians and allow them full and equal access to politics in their society. Right now my understanding is that it's practically an apartheid system over there. It'd probably be best for EVERYONE over there to discard the Bible and pull their heads into the 21st century. Of course, getting them to do so is a problem that is not easy to solve. And people like IC simply spread or reinforce the disease.

Call this "day 1" and move forward toward equality and fairness.

[Dontaskme]

Actually, it was your lack of profundity I was drawing attention to. Dam asked a reasonable question, and all you had in response was the get out of jail free card that you've granted yourself: "Whatever I say about God is true because it just is."

Thank you Harbal. I thought it was a reasonable question to ask as well.


Considering questions can only arise when there is the sense of being a separate self, aka (the named one) that can question their own position as an individual self within an infinite ocean of many other apparent individual selves, unless there really is 'NO individual self', which I hardly think IC would agree with such a claim like that.

So questions are relevant when it comes to the presupposing ideas IC comes up with, like an all knowing omiscience / ominiscient / ominpresent God.

However, the notion that "Whatever I say about God is true because it just is." is apparently all that IC can offer. But so what, are we just obliged to go along with what IC has to offer, and never ever dare question that proposition.

So yes, we can ask questions about ourself to ourself, the one we all identify with, as every one shares the same identity, known as (I)

Every single ( I ) can think for itself, that's a given for all I's, we can all decide for ourselves what subjective ideas actually mean. As subjective conscious beings, we can make our own mind up about the idea of God. And not be influenced by someone elses mind which can only be ( an object of you're own personal subjective conscious observation) anyway...an object that does not exist outside of you're own personal subjective conscious arena.

That'll give IC something to chew and ruminate on I'm sure.


.

[Immanuel Can]

Can you explain his non-involvment in perhaps the greatest life & death crises the Jews ever faced...one in which many lost their faith...and not only Jews!

Heh. Easily.

If you'd read the Tanakh itself, you'd know that the prophets all foretold the consequences of breaking the covenant with YHWH. The covenant that made Israel the nation of the Lord has privileges, you see; but also sober responsibilities. One does not come without the other. You'd be surprised how specific the warnings God gave were, and how meticulously they've been fulfilled.

But now, so too was the restoration of Israel foretold...an unprecedented national regeneration, unlike anything to be found in all of history...one might well call it a "miracle" -- except you don't believe in such things.

"Miracles" are things that can't be explained.

Well, all events can be "explained away." One can always find a way to say that some set of natural circumstances conspired to produce an unexpected outcomes, or that the incident is just coincidence, so the remarkable is actually not so remarkable after all. There's always a way to say, "Well, the Red Sea could have been the Reed Sea, and then it might be very shallow anyway, and a gust of wind could maybe make the waters seem to part, and that's the start of the legend of the escape of Israel from Egypt," or "Sure, 1948 was unprecedented, but unprecedented things can just happen," or "If events of the present day are lining up very well with Revelation, that's maybe because the world is an odd place, and odd things happen."

Yes, you can do that. Explaining away is always possible, even if you had been personally there to witness the events at the time, and certainly if the event is in the past at all. That's the nature of history. But what we choose to do with such an event may well say as much about the disposition of the speaker as about the facts of the case.

Even if a man were to rise from the dead, people would find a way to explain it away. Jesus Himself said that, apparently (Luke 16:31), although you can explain that away as a later redaction of the facts by His disciples. In any case, it has proved true.

[Gary Childress]

Actually, it was your lack of profundity I was drawing attention to. Dam asked a reasonable question, and all you had in response was the get out of jail free card that you've granted yourself: "Whatever I say about God is true because it just is."

Thank you Harbal. I thought it was a reasonable question to ask as well.


Considering questions can only arise when there is the sense of being a separate self, aka (the named one) that can question their own position as an individual self within an infinite ocean of many other apparent individual selves, unless there really is 'NO individual self', which I hardly think IC would agree with such a claim like that.

So questions are relevant when it comes to the presupposing ideas IC comes up with, like an all knowing omiscience / ominiscient / ominpresent God.

However, the notion that "Whatever I say about God is true because it just is." is apparently all that IC can offer. But so what, are we just obliged to go along with what IC has to offer, and never ever dare question that proposition.

So yes, we can ask questions about ourself to ourself, the one we all identify with, as every one shares the same identity, known as (I)

Every single ( I ) can think for itself, that's a given for all I's, we can all decide for ourselves what subjective ideas actually mean. As subjective conscious beings, we can make our own mind up about the idea of God. And not be influenced by someone elses mind which can only be ( an object of you're own personal subjective conscious observation) anyway...an object that does not exist outside of you're own personal subjective conscious arena.

That'll give IC something to chew and ruminate on I'm sure.


.

IC is not going to "chew" or "ruminate" on anything. His mind is made up. There's no way any of us are going to be able to please him other than to believe the one book that his whole life revolves around is true, which would necessarily mean that it's true for us as well. It's the human predicament. Humanity will never agree on anything. If there's a God, then God is a piss poor designer of universes as far as I'm concerned. I've had enough of this one. I'd really just like to relax and enjoy life among like-minded people. Unfortunately, that's never going to happen. So I mostly just keep to myself.

[Gary Childress]

Heh. Easily.

If you'd read the Tanakh itself, you'd know that the prophets all foretold the consequences of breaking the covenant with YHWH. The covenant that made Israel the nation of the Lord has privileges, you see; but also sober responsibilities. One does not come without the other. You'd be surprised how specific the warnings God gave were, and how meticulously they've been fulfilled.

But now, so too was the restoration of Israel foretold...an unprecedented national regeneration, unlike anything to be found in all of history...one might well call it a "miracle" -- except you don't believe in such things.

"Miracles" are things that can't be explained.

Well, all events can be "explained away."

Then there are no "miracles", full stop.

[Immanuel Can]

Then there are no "miracles", full stop.

Interesting. And how have you ascertained this?

Only by wishing. The facts are described as miraculous. They certainly look miraculous. Israel also exists, and the prophecies about her both have been and are being fulfilled. But you're going to say that's all just a coincidence.

And you can. But that's about you, not about the facts, because you've got no reason other than your wish for preferring that explanation.

Explained away...yes, just as I said.

[Gary Childress]

Then there are no "miracles", full stop.

Interesting. And how have you ascertained this?

In the same way you have ascertained that it is a "miracle" that Israel exists. I've said that God created a messed-up universe. What a miracle that is for a human being to come to that realization. Obviously, it's an act of God to give me that realization. Now go buzz off.

[Skepdick]

Then there are no "miracles", full stop.

if a miracle is something unexplained and unexplainable (by science) then rejecting all miracles amounts to believing that everything is explainable by science.

Rejecting the belief in miracles amounts to a belief in the omniscience of scientists. So you do believe in omniscient beings.

Awkward.

[Walker]

Then there are no "miracles", full stop.

if a miracle is something unexplained and unexplainable (by science) then rejecting all miracles amounts to believing that everything is explainable by science.

Rejecting the belief in miracles amounts to a belief in the omniscience of scientists. So you do believe in omniscient beings.

Awkward.

That's elegant reasoning. However, it won't make a dent in a God denier.

[Immanuel Can]

Then there are no "miracles", full stop.

Interesting. And how have you ascertained this?

What a miracle that is for a human being to come to that realization.

Not such a miracle. Bitterness, confusion and self-absorption are everywhere in the human race. The miracle is when they stop for a few seconds.

[Gary Childress]

Interesting. And how have you ascertained this?

What a miracle that is for a human being to come to that realization.

Not such a miracle. Bitterness, confusion and self-absorption are everywhere in the human race. The miracle is when they stop for a few seconds.

"They"? Maybe you should speak for yourself. You are a bag of tricks and slights of hand and nothing more. It's a dishonest use of philosophy. Your assertion that humans can't be moral without God is pure fabrication and you either know it or you don't. If you don't then consider yourself now informed.

[Immanuel Can]

Then there are no "miracles", full stop.

if a miracle is something unexplained and unexplainable (by science) then rejecting all miracles amounts to believing that everything is explainable by science.

Rejecting the belief in miracles amounts to a belief in the omniscience of scientists. So you do believe in omniscient beings.

Awkward.

That's elegant reasoning. However, it won't make a dent in a God denier.

Nothing will. The point is that it's always possible to invent an alternate explanation for anything. One can even go to lengths of appealing to the miraculous in order to deny the miraculous: as when Atheists say that this universe happened by accident.

The sort of explaining one chooses for a given case is sometimes more a reflection of one's moral disposition than of the facts.

[Gary Childress]

Then there are no "miracles", full stop.

if a miracle is something unexplained and unexplainable (by science) then rejecting all miracles amounts to believing that everything is explainable by science.

Rejecting the belief in miracles amounts to a belief in the omniscience of scientists. So you do believe in omniscient beings.

Awkward.

No, it's denying that a God is responsible for things that happen on a daily basis. Please don't confuse things.