Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

What would I Do

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 1:08:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Epley asked different groups of volunteers to rate their own beliefs about important issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, the death penalty, the Iraq War, and the legalization of marijuana. The volunteers also had to speculate about God's take on these issues, as well as the stances of an "average American", Bill Gates (a celebrity with relatively unknown beliefs) and George Bush (a celebrity whose positions are well-known).

For many religious people, the popular question "What would Jesus do?" is essentially the same as "What would I do?" Through a combination of surveys, psychological manipulation and brain-scanning, he has found that when religious Americans try to infer the will of God, they mainly draw on their own personal beliefs.

Epley surveyed commuters at a Boston train station, university undergraduates, and 1,000 adults from a nationally representative database. In every case, he found that people's own attitudes and beliefs matched those they suggested for God more precisely than those they suggested for the other humans.


If this study shows us anything at all it should make believers less certain of what they pontificate about. In fact, this study falsifies faith itself, for there is no independent way to determine what God thinks, if he exists at all. Believers simply create their own religion, their own Gospel, and their own God in their own image.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com...
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 1:17:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 1:08:25 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Epley asked different groups of volunteers to rate their own beliefs about important issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, the death penalty, the Iraq War, and the legalization of marijuana. The volunteers also had to speculate about God's take on these issues, as well as the stances of an "average American", Bill Gates (a celebrity with relatively unknown beliefs) and George Bush (a celebrity whose positions are well-known).

For many religious people, the popular question "What would Jesus do?" is essentially the same as "What would I do?" Through a combination of surveys, psychological manipulation and brain-scanning, he has found that when religious Americans try to infer the will of God, they mainly draw on their own personal beliefs.

Epley surveyed commuters at a Boston train station, university undergraduates, and 1,000 adults from a nationally representative database. In every case, he found that people's own attitudes and beliefs matched those they suggested for God more precisely than those they suggested for the other humans.


If this study shows us anything at all it should make believers less certain of what they pontificate about. In fact, this study falsifies faith itself, for there is no independent way to determine what God thinks, if he exists at all. Believers simply create their own religion, their own Gospel, and their own God in their own image.


http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com...

You havent debunked nothing but in YOUR own mind.....Again you show your true intentions...mockery for others and thier faith. Just for your own pleasure....You are a nobody and that is clearly shown by the way you act concerning others.
TheAsylum
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 2:07:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In my opinion this study has really accomplished nothing. I didn't read the whole article, just the part you posted. But if what I'm getting out of it is correct is that they are basically saying if God exists there is no way to know what he is thinking unless he somehow reveals himself. But isn't that what everyone already believes?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 2:36:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think, in general, people warp their God to fit there world view. People who think gays are gross, think God hates gays. People who think blacks are inferior, think God thinks blacks are inferior (like the original Book of Mormon). People who think women are subservient, think God thinks women are subservient (like most Abraham faiths). George Bush felt that God endorsed his war on Iraq.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 2:39:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 1:17:17 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

You havent debunked nothing but in YOUR own mind.....Again you show your true intentions...mockery for others and thier faith. Just for your own pleasure....You are a nobody and that is clearly shown by the way you act concerning others.

Would Jesus want you insulting others? WWJD?
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 2:41:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 2:36:13 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I think, in general, people warp their God to fit there world view. People who think gays are gross, think God hates gays. People who think blacks are inferior, think God thinks blacks are inferior (like the original Book of Mormon). People who think women are subservient, think God thinks women are subservient (like most Abraham faiths). George Bush felt that God endorsed his war on Iraq.

It's funny because I'm religious and everything you said here is exactly the opposite of what I believe. Also, I know of at least one atheist who is homophobic and racist so those are not exclusively religious positions.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 2:51:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

It's funny because I'm religious and everything you said here is exactly the opposite of what I believe. Also, I know of at least one atheist who is homophobic and racist so those are not exclusively religious positions.

Does your God agree with you on these issues?
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 2:52:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 2:51:45 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

It's funny because I'm religious and everything you said here is exactly the opposite of what I believe. Also, I know of at least one atheist who is homophobic and racist so those are not exclusively religious positions.

Does your God agree with you on these issues?

On homosexuality, probably not. However, on the issue of race he does.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 3:01:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

On homosexuality, probably not. However, on the issue of race he does.

Cool, I agree with you on those issues too:) However, I believe most people's God hold the same position as them on issues. It seems weird you would worship a God who holds a position you disagree with. How do you justify holding a different position then your God? Do you think God is all good?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 5:09:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 3:01:11 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

On homosexuality, probably not. However, on the issue of race he does.

Cool, I agree with you on those issues too:) However, I believe most people's God hold the same position as them on issues. It seems weird you would worship a God who holds a position you disagree with. How do you justify holding a different position then your God? Do you think God is all good?

God could rape ten babies and it would necessarily good according to the Christian faith.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 5:22:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 5:09:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

God could rape ten babies and it would necessarily good according to the Christian faith.

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘". . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ":,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:". . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . ."~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . "~,_. . . .."~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . ."=,_. . . ."-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~"; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . ."=-._. . .";,,./`. . /" . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . .."~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-"
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`
TheAsylum
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 5:30:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 3:01:11 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

On homosexuality, probably not. However, on the issue of race he does.

Cool, I agree with you on those issues too:) However, I believe most people's God hold the same position as them on issues. It seems weird you would worship a God who holds a position you disagree with. How do you justify holding a different position then your God? Do you think God is all good?

Well the Qur'an talks of sodomy rather than homosexuality itself. With that said I don't have an issue with homosexuality. Love is love. Besides, it's not really any of my business what other people do in the bedroom and only God can judge people. I despise people trying to force their own religious laws on others who don't even follow their religion.
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 6:23:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 5:22:34 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/31/2012 5:09:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

God could rape ten babies and it would necessarily good according to the Christian faith.


. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘". . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ":,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:". . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . ."~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . "~,_. . . .."~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . ."=,_. . . ."-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~"; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . ."=-._. . .";,,./`. . /" . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . .."~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-"
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`

Actually he is right.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 6:25:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘". . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ":,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:". . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . ."~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . "~,_. . . .."~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . ."=,_. . . ."-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~"; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . ."=-._. . .";,,./`. . /" . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . .."~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-"
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`


Actually he is right.

He mite be if God would do such a thing. So actually he is just wrong to imply it.^
TheAsylum
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 6:30:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Instead of thinking "religious post by Microsuck, therefore it's about proving God", I'm going to say what I took from the article. It shows quite clearly that many Christians are cultural Christians: that is, they claim to be Christians and yet they do not follow Christianity too accurately. Or, it means that many Christians follow what Jesus say to a tee, and they have shaped their moral system to be the same as it. The more valuable information would be taking the case of liberal Christians comparing to conservative Christians and see how their views line up. But again, it would not be surprising to see them line up, as liberal Christians probably view God as a liberal, and thus they act liberal.

In short, it's a matter of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 7:02:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 6:23:33 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 8/31/2012 5:22:34 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/31/2012 5:09:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

God could rape ten babies and it would necessarily good according to the Christian faith.


. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘". . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ":,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:". . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . ."~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . "~,_. . . .."~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . ."=,_. . . ."-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~"; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . ."=-._. . .";,,./`. . /" . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . .."~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-"
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`


Actually he is right.

Actually he isn't. I've corrected his erroneous and implausible radical voluntarist view of theistic ethics (as a whole) before and then noted that DCT isn't the only theistic ethical system in the first place and those systems wouldn't allow that situation in the first place; it'd be a counterpossible...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 7:31:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 7:02:55 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/31/2012 6:23:33 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 8/31/2012 5:22:34 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/31/2012 5:09:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

God could rape ten babies and it would necessarily good according to the Christian faith.


. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘". . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ":,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:". . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . ."~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . "~,_. . . .."~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . ."=,_. . . ."-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~"; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . ."=-._. . .";,,./`. . /" . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . .."~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-"
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`


Actually he is right.

Actually he isn't.
I've corrected his erroneous and implausible radical voluntarist view of theistic ethics (as a whole) before

In your mind, possibly.

and then noted that DCT isn't the only theistic ethical system in the first place

Fair enough, however it's the one I've encountered the most.

and those systems wouldn't allow that situation in the first place; it'd be a counterpossible...

To say killing babies is bad for example, and that God's nature would not be that of a baby killer, you would have to be using your personal opinion to say that. This is because, someone else could just say that killing babies is good, thus God would do that.

Your only bet is to quote The Bible, but even God killed the first born children of the Egyptians, so, someone could just use that to say that killing babies is good if the parents are considered sinners.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 7:33:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 5:22:34 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/31/2012 5:09:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

God could rape ten babies and it would necessarily good according to the Christian faith.


. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘". . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ":,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:". . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . ."~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . "~,_. . . .."~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . ."=,_. . . ."-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~"; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . ."=-._. . .";,,./`. . /" . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . .."~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-"
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`

Great rebuttal...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 7:59:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 7:31:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/31/2012 7:02:55 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/31/2012 6:23:33 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 8/31/2012 5:22:34 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/31/2012 5:09:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

God could rape ten babies and it would necessarily good according to the Christian faith.


. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘". . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ":,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:". . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . ."~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . "~,_. . . .."~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . ."=,_. . . ."-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~"; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . ."=-._. . .";,,./`. . /" . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . .."~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-"
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`


Actually he is right.

Actually he isn't.
I've corrected his erroneous and implausible radical voluntarist view of theistic ethics (as a whole) before

In your mind, possibly.


Actually, you never responded, IIRC.


and then noted that DCT isn't the only theistic ethical system in the first place

Fair enough, however it's the one I've encountered the most.

and those systems wouldn't allow that situation in the first place; it'd be a counterpossible...

To say killing babies is bad for example, and that God's nature would not be that of a baby killer, you would have to be using your personal opinion to say that. This is because, someone else could just say that killing babies is good, thus God would do that.


Yeah, but they'd be wrong; their opinion notwithstanding. That's the whole premise of moral realism, dude...

Your only bet is to quote The Bible, but even God killed the first born children of the Egyptians, so, someone could just use that to say that killing babies is good if the parents are considered sinners.

You do realize that the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived haven't/don't endorse a (modern) fundamentalistic, flat reading of the bible, right?

Origen (184/185 – 253/254): "As for the command given to the Jews to slay their enemies, it may be answered that anyone who looks carefully into the meaning of the passage will find that it is impossible to interpret it literally"

Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 395) writes in this treatise The Life of Moses about the story: "How would a concept worthy of God be preserved in the description of what happened if one looked only to the history? The Egyptian (Pharaoh) acts unjustly, and in his place is punished his newborn child, who in his infancy cannot discern what is good and what is not. His life has no experience of evil, for infancy is not capable of passion. He does not know to distinguish between his right and his left. The infant lifts his eyes only to his mother's nipple, and tears are the sole perceptible sign of his sadness. And if he obtains anything which his nature desires, he signifies pleasure by smiling. If such a one now pays the penalty of his father's wickedness, where is justice? Where is piety? Where is holiness? Where is Ezekiel, who cries: The man who has sinned is the man who must die and a son is not to suffer for the sins of his father? How can the history so contradict reason?"
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 8:07:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 7:59:35 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/31/2012 7:31:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/31/2012 7:02:55 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/31/2012 6:23:33 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 8/31/2012 5:22:34 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/31/2012 5:09:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

God could rape ten babies and it would necessarily good according to the Christian faith.


. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘". . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ":,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:". . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . ."~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . "~,_. . . .."~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . ."=,_. . . ."-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~"; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . ."=-._. . .";,,./`. . /" . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . .."~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-"
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`


Actually he is right.

Actually he isn't.
I've corrected his erroneous and implausible radical voluntarist view of theistic ethics (as a whole) before

In your mind, possibly.


Actually, you never responded, IIRC.


and then noted that DCT isn't the only theistic ethical system in the first place

Fair enough, however it's the one I've encountered the most.

and those systems wouldn't allow that situation in the first place; it'd be a counterpossible...

To say killing babies is bad for example, and that God's nature would not be that of a baby killer, you would have to be using your personal opinion to say that. This is because, someone else could just say that killing babies is good, thus God would do that.


Yeah, but they'd be wrong; their opinion notwithstanding. That's the whole premise of moral realism, dude...

My whole point is, how can you demonstrate that it's not just your opinion they are wrong? Dude.

Your only bet is to quote The Bible, but even God killed the first born children of the Egyptians, so, someone could just use that to say that killing babies is good if the parents are considered sinners.

You do realize that the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived haven't/don't endorse a (modern) fundamentalistic, flat reading of the bible, right?

By who's standards do we judge what verses to take literally, and which ones not to? It seems purely subjective to me. I've read pretty explicit passages that Christians just brush off.


Origen (184/185 – 253/254): "As for the command given to the Jews to slay their enemies, it may be answered that anyone who looks carefully into the meaning of the passage will find that it is impossible to interpret it literally"

Really, and why is this impossible exactly?


Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 395) writes in this treatise The Life of Moses about the story: "How would a concept worthy of God be preserved in the description of what happened if one looked only to the history? The Egyptian (Pharaoh) acts unjustly, and in his place is punished his newborn child, who in his infancy cannot discern what is good and what is not. His life has no experience of evil, for infancy is not capable of passion. He does not know to distinguish between his right and his left. The infant lifts his eyes only to his mother's nipple, and tears are the sole perceptible sign of his sadness. And if he obtains anything which his nature desires, he signifies pleasure by smiling. If such a one now pays the penalty of his father's wickedness, where is justice? Where is piety? Where is holiness? Where is Ezekiel, who cries: The man who has sinned is the man who must die and a son is not to suffer for the sins of his father? How can the history so contradict reason?"
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 8:21:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 8:07:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Yeah, but they'd be wrong; their opinion notwithstanding. That's the whole premise of moral realism, dude...

My whole point is, how can you demonstrate that it's not just your opinion they are wrong? Dude.


Ethical reasoning helps.

Your only bet is to quote The Bible, but even God killed the first born children of the Egyptians, so, someone could just use that to say that killing babies is good if the parents are considered sinners.

You do realize that the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived haven't/don't endorse a (modern) fundamentalistic, flat reading of the bible, right?

By who's standards do we judge what verses to take literally, and which ones not to? It seems purely subjective to me. I've read pretty explicit passages that Christians just brush off.


Taking into view literary conventions (like grammatical constructions, genre, and literary theory, language), historical, philosophy, theology, etc helps.

Is there an "objective" way to read any language?

It'd be like if a woman called a man a "dog". No one would think she was literally calling him a mammal.

I'm sure if I told you it was raining cats and dogs you'd insist on taking me literally, right?


Origen (184/185 – 253/254): "As for the command given to the Jews to slay their enemies, it may be answered that anyone who looks carefully into the meaning of the passage will find that it is impossible to interpret it literally"

Really, and why is this impossible exactly?


Because it would be immoral otherwise and Origen knows that if God is all-good then he can't be immoral. The early christians were big fans of allegorical interpretations of scripture.


Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 395) writes in this treatise The Life of Moses about the story: "How would a concept worthy of God be preserved in the description of what happened if one looked only to the history? The Egyptian (Pharaoh) acts unjustly, and in his place is punished his newborn child, who in his infancy cannot discern what is good and what is not. His life has no experience of evil, for infancy is not capable of passion. He does not know to distinguish between his right and his left. The infant lifts his eyes only to his mother's nipple, and tears are the sole perceptible sign of his sadness. And if he obtains anything which his nature desires, he signifies pleasure by smiling. If such a one now pays the penalty of his father's wickedness, where is justice? Where is piety? Where is holiness? Where is Ezekiel, who cries: The man who has sinned is the man who must die and a son is not to suffer for the sins of his father? How can the history so contradict reason?"
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 8:40:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 8:21:52 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/31/2012 8:07:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Yeah, but they'd be wrong; their opinion notwithstanding. That's the whole premise of moral realism, dude...

My whole point is, how can you demonstrate that it's not just your opinion they are wrong? Dude.


Ethical reasoning helps.

I can reason that The Godfather is a better movie than Freddie Got Fingered, does that make it any less of a subjective claim?


Your only bet is to quote The Bible, but even God killed the first born children of the Egyptians, so, someone could just use that to say that killing babies is good if the parents are considered sinners.

You do realize that the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived haven't/don't endorse a (modern) fundamentalistic, flat reading of the bible, right?

By who's standards do we judge what verses to take literally, and which ones not to? It seems purely subjective to me. I've read pretty explicit passages that Christians just brush off.


Taking into view literary conventions (like grammatical constructions, genre, and literary theory, language), historical, philosophy, theology, etc helps.

It's not always as clear cut as you make it seem, there are even debates within the religion with regards to these issues.

Is there an "objective" way to read any language?

It'd be like if a woman called a man a "dog". No one would think she was literally calling him a mammal.

Sure, in that case. But of course, that's a false-analogy. However if you read "At midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt", it's not so obvious that it's not supposed to be taken literally. It seems like pretty clear cut story telling.


I'm sure if I told you it was raining cats and dogs you'd insist on taking me literally, right?

False-analogy. In reality, it's more like if I said I went to the store to grab milk, and you insisted it was just a parable or a metaphor lol



Origen (184/185 – 253/254): "As for the command given to the Jews to slay their enemies, it may be answered that anyone who looks carefully into the meaning of the passage will find that it is impossible to interpret it literally"

Really, and why is this impossible exactly?


Because it would be immoral otherwise and Origen knows that if God is all-good then he can't be immoral. The early christians were big fans of allegorical interpretations of scripture.

How do you know it's not just your opinion it's immoral though? You are rejecting verses which may have been written to be taken as is, based on subjective preferences.


Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 395) writes in this treatise The Life of Moses about the story: "How would a concept worthy of God be preserved in the description of what happened if one looked only to the history? The Egyptian (Pharaoh) acts unjustly, and in his place is punished his newborn child, who in his infancy cannot discern what is good and what is not. His life has no experience of evil, for infancy is not capable of passion. He does not know to distinguish between his right and his left. The infant lifts his eyes only to his mother's nipple, and tears are the sole perceptible sign of his sadness. And if he obtains anything which his nature desires, he signifies pleasure by smiling. If such a one now pays the penalty of his father's wickedness, where is justice? Where is piety? Where is holiness? Where is Ezekiel, who cries: The man who has sinned is the man who must die and a son is not to suffer for the sins of his father? How can the history so contradict reason?"
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 11:04:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 8:40:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/31/2012 8:21:52 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

I can reason that The Godfather is a better movie than Freddie Got Fingered, does that make it any less of a subjective claim?


You could also presume that ethical facts are more like "facts" about The Godfather being better, or in other words, you appear to be begging the question. Why wouldn't ethical facts be more like mathematical facts?


Your only bet is to quote The Bible, but even God killed the first born children of the Egyptians, so, someone could just use that to say that killing babies is good if the parents are considered sinners.

You do realize that the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived haven't/don't endorse a (modern) fundamentalistic, flat reading of the bible, right?

By who's standards do we judge what verses to take literally, and which ones not to? It seems purely subjective to me. I've read pretty explicit passages that Christians just brush off.


Taking into view literary conventions (like grammatical constructions, genre, and literary theory, language), historical, philosophy, theology, etc helps.

It's not always as clear cut as you make it seem, there are even debates within the religion with regards to these issues.


I never said it is always clear cut and, yes, there are debates within religious; it's like that in any domain of reasoning (science, philosophy, literature, etc) where there are some clear cut cases of x and there are some not so clear cut cases of x. That doesn't make it the case that there is no x. The best you can do is take in all the relevant information and make a considered judgement. No one (not even Jesus) ever promised that all religious truths (if you want to call it that) would be equally as certain and humans are fallible creatures.

Is there an "objective" way to read any language?

It'd be like if a woman called a man a "dog". No one would think she was literally calling him a mammal.

Sure, in that case. But of course, that's a false-analogy. However if you read "At midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt", it's not so obvious that it's not supposed to be taken literally. It seems like pretty clear cut story telling.


That presumes that the story is meant to relay the historical facts. Now, suppose I were to write down the sentence: "Sarcellus saved Esmenet from being stoned. "(This is from a fantasy book I'm reading.) If one didn't know the genre of the book one might actually think that this is intended to relay history...it's not of course once you take a look at authorial intent and the literary genre. Now, if you insisted that that this was meant to be taken literally because it's not obvious that it isn't there'd be something wrong here....

Surprisingly enough, ancient Jews weren't as obsessed with historical precision as we moderns are.


I'm sure if I told you it was raining cats and dogs you'd insist on taking me literally, right?

False-analogy. In reality, it's more like if I said I went to the store to grab milk, and you insisted it was just a parable or a metaphor lol


Depends on the context.



Origen (184/185 – 253/254): "As for the command given to the Jews to slay their enemies, it may be answered that anyone who looks carefully into the meaning of the passage will find that it is impossible to interpret it literally"

Really, and why is this impossible exactly?


Because it would be immoral otherwise and Origen knows that if God is all-good then he can't be immoral. The early christians were big fans of allegorical interpretations of scripture.

How do you know it's not just your opinion it's immoral though? You are rejecting verses which may have been written to be taken as is, based on subjective preferences.


Because I think ethical realism is true? I guess it's possible that moral subjectivism is true but I see no reason to believe so. Heck other writers in the bible reject the views of other biblical writers compare: Jonah vs Joshua or Ezekiel vs Exodus or Ezra vs Amos, etc... I (or Origen, or Gregory of Nyssa, or C.S. Lewis) have pretty good biblical precedent for "rejecting" some verses (although I wouldn't really call it that).


Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 395) writes in this treatise The Life of Moses about the story: "How would a concept worthy of God be preserved in the description of what happened if one looked only to the history? The Egyptian (Pharaoh) acts unjustly, and in his place is punished his newborn child, who in his infancy cannot discern what is good and what is not. His life has no experience of evil, for infancy is not capable of passion. He does not know to distinguish between his right and his left. The infant lifts his eyes only to his mother's nipple, and tears are the sole perceptible sign of his sadness. And if he obtains anything which his nature desires, he signifies pleasure by smiling. If such a one now pays the penalty of his father's wickedness, where is justice? Where is piety? Where is holiness? Where is Ezekiel, who cries: The man who has sinned is the man who must die and a son is not to suffer for the sins of his father? How can the history so contradict reason?"
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 11:55:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 11:04:43 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/31/2012 8:40:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/31/2012 8:21:52 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

I can reason that The Godfather is a better movie than Freddie Got Fingered, does that make it any less of a subjective claim?


You could also presume that ethical facts are more like "facts" about The Godfather being better, or in other words, you appear to be begging the question.

I thought it was self-evident that movie preferences were subjective. So are you saying that The Godfather being better than Freddie Got Fingered, could be a fact? If so, does there need to be a transcendent, movie authority to ground this "film standard" in?

Why wouldn't ethical facts be more like mathematical facts?

This is begging the question. Who says they are fact?


Your only bet is to quote The Bible, but even God killed the first born children of the Egyptians, so, someone could just use that to say that killing babies is good if the parents are considered sinners.

You do realize that the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived haven't/don't endorse a (modern) fundamentalistic, flat reading of the bible, right?

By who's standards do we judge what verses to take literally, and which ones not to? It seems purely subjective to me. I've read pretty explicit passages that Christians just brush off.


Taking into view literary conventions (like grammatical constructions, genre, and literary theory, language), historical, philosophy, theology, etc helps.

It's not always as clear cut as you make it seem, there are even debates within the religion with regards to these issues.


I never said it is always clear cut and, yes, there are debates within religious; it's like that in any domain of reasoning (science, philosophy, literature, etc) where there are some clear cut cases of x and there are some not so clear cut cases of x. That doesn't make it the case that there is no x.

I didn't say it was the case that there is no x, so you are picking at a man made of straw here. I was making the case that interpretations can be subjective, so there is no way to know for sure what the people who wrote The Bible were really trying to say.

The best you can do is take in all the relevant information and make a considered judgement. No one (not even Jesus) ever promised that all religious truths (if you want to call it that) would be equally as certain and humans are fallible creatures.

Is there an "objective" way to read any language?

It'd be like if a woman called a man a "dog". No one would think she was literally calling him a mammal.

Sure, in that case. But of course, that's a false-analogy. However if you read "At midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt", it's not so obvious that it's not supposed to be taken literally. It seems like pretty clear cut story telling.


That presumes that the story is meant to relay the historical facts. Now, suppose I were to write down the sentence: "Sarcellus saved Esmenet from being stoned. "(This is from a fantasy book I'm reading.) If one didn't know the genre of the book one might actually think that this is intended to relay history...it's not of course once you take a look at authorial intent and the literary genre. Now, if you insisted that that this was meant to be taken literally because it's not obvious that it isn't there'd be something wrong here....

Straw-man. When did I insist it was supposed to be taken literally? I was just claiming that there is no objective standard with regards what to take literally, and what not to. There is no reason why that story couldn't have been literal, is what I'm claiming. I'm not insisting that they are to be taken literally. These are two different logical spheres.

Surprisingly enough, ancient Jews weren't as obsessed with historical precision as we moderns are.



I'm sure if I told you it was raining cats and dogs you'd insist on taking me literally, right?

False-analogy. In reality, it's more like if I said I went to the store to grab milk, and you insisted it was just a parable or a metaphor lol


Depends on the context.



Origen (184/185 – 253/254): "As for the command given to the Jews to slay their enemies, it may be answered that anyone who looks carefully into the meaning of the passage will find that it is impossible to interpret it literally"

Really, and why is this impossible exactly?


Because it would be immoral otherwise and Origen knows that if God is all-good then he can't be immoral. The early christians were big fans of allegorical interpretations of scripture.

How do you know it's not just your opinion it's immoral though? You are rejecting verses which may have been written to be taken as is, based on subjective preferences.


Because I think ethical realism is true? I guess it's possible that moral subjectivism is true but I see no reason to believe so.

Of course you think it's true, but of course, saying stealing is morally bad is like saying that the soda you drank yesterday was bad, even though our taste buds are relatively the same (most people may agree, that the same soda was bad) and are brains are relatively the same (most people may agree, that stealing is bad), I fail to see how one could demonstrate that morality has objective truths associate it with it, like mathematical conclusions

Heck other writers in the bible reject the views of other biblical writers compare: Jonah vs Joshua or Ezekiel vs Exodus or Ezra vs Amos, etc... I (or Origen, or Gregory of Nyssa, or C.S. Lewis) have pretty good biblical precedent for "rejecting" some verses (although I wouldn't really call it that).

That is interesting, I did not know that.



Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 395) writes in this treatise The Life of Moses about the story: "How would a concept worthy of God be preserved in the description of what happened if one looked only to the history? The Egyptian (Pharaoh) acts unjustly, and in his place is punished his newborn child, who in his infancy cannot discern what is good and what is not. His life has no experience of evil, for infancy is not capable of passion. He does not know to distinguish between his right and his left. The infant lifts his eyes only to his mother's nipple, and tears are the sole perceptible sign of his sadness. And if he obtains anything which his nature desires, he signifies pleasure by smiling. If such a one now pays the penalty of his father's wickedness, where is justice? Where is piety? Where is holiness? Where is Ezekiel, who cries: The man who has sinned is the man who must die and a son is not to suffer for the sins of his father? How can the history so contradict reason?"