responding to common objections to bible part 5

[Ironside]

This should be Abraham of course, as Abel was killed by Kain before he could reproduce with one of his sisters.
Doesn't exactly strengthen the argument of Ironside to mix up the story... gives indications of lack of understanding of the texts in question.
Abraham was tested in his faith - and was rewarded abundantly. Either way he chose he would not have been permitted to kill his son.

Ironside's post does seem "drunken" somewhat.

Bah, I did remember wrong with Abel first, said wait a minute that's wrong. It was Abraham? Checks. Ah, it was Abraham. And then I still write the wrong name. I'll post my point in my response to tr. In retrospect, some arguments weren't that coherent, although I still like my fotball anology.

I think distracted is more correct. I post very rarely while drunk and was sober posting that one.

and? first what unpunished crime are you referring to you have not said, second i see no problem with absolute morals with this at all. Absolute morals says to do something say rape is wrong. It does not say nothing good can come out of moral wrongs, in fact bible uses that alot. joseph was taken by his brothers and sold into slavery [bad] yet god used that bad, for good.

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people[a] should be kept alive, as they are today.
genesis 50.20.

not sure what your saying,i was simply saying you tried to make it out like some kind of relativism needed, that is not the case at all as i showed.

The crime is done by Lot's daughters.

I'll be brief and make a huge reformulation. Absolute morals are rigid. That's what makes them absolutes.

Yet the Bible consists of plenty of exceptions where you need to ask God for the answer.

Don't murder. I'll tell who's ok to kill.
Don't steal. I'll grand you stuff, but you need to take it from someone else first.
Don't worship anyone or anything else, because that makes me jealous.
Don't covet someone else's stuff, because only I can do that.

It undermines the rules and rather become a "father knows best" situation, where you don't have the real answer without asking father first. You could guess it, but it still would make you wrong because this time it was one exception.

? no idea what your saying.

The police and judges are organisations are making relative justice. They can be corrupt, power abusing and their judgement will depend on the person judging, the defendant and what time and place in history. They are a very poor example on absolute justice.

abel murder his son? not sure what your referring to here.

you ask how i tell a message from god. its pretty easy, read the bible. I dont care at all what someone says today, i care what the bible says.

We can run with the slaugther of the Midianites instead of Abraham (who it was supposed to be). It's supposed to be just, because God ordered it. The problem is that such means are no longer possible since God no longer speaks that way today.

do you think it possible you misunderstood my argument you did not read on my op?.

hmm still not sure your getting it, your naming a bunch of culture right and wrongs we have decided on today. That has nothing to do with what i said. I will repost what my op said so as to fix your confusion.

this is what was posted on my op.

My point is that humanity are fully capable of deciding on complex matters and maintain a fairly stable decision without any divine guidance. That means that the social morals are also stable enough to function without any absolute moral guidance.

does not matter,as you said and dawkins all that matters is to pass on genes [score goal] .

so what your basically saying is, because society as set up rules against straight passing on genes [rape basement etc] we have to play by those rules and as easily pass on genes. Ok no problem here. that does not make anything morally right or wrong, it makes it socially right or wrong by some random chemical reactions that decided. As even your futbul analogy shows,all that matters is passing on genes [scoring]. You prove my statement yet again,while thinking we disagree.

Think it as a force of nature. Is gravity morally right or wrong? It is the way it is, no morals involved. Now people living in gravity can and will tempory reject it (walking jumping etc) but it's always there and will always matter in the end. That's what they talk about. In that context morals make little sense.

In the context of our lives, our genes has found out that it spreads better following certain behaviors. That creates a bias towards those behaviors and we've codified those because we think they give us a better life. That's the space where you find morals. The fundamental flaw Richard Taylor makes, is that he says that morals are the judgement of an moral arbiter, while morals without the arbiter rather is an attempt to answer the question of what society you want to live in.

And you still persist with random chemical reactions. Skip the random at least.

not according to you or dawkins, what does this free will come from?

your last post,we are no different or special as humans in atheistic/evolution worldview.

btw, i clearly reject we are just robots to our genes, i do think we have freewill, the bible makes sense of that,atheism/evolution does not.

The genes didn't teach me English. What they did was giving me a brain and body capable of learning a language and speak it. Seen those nature vs nurture debates? With 100,0% nature would be slaves under our genes, but none argues that. They are a starting point, that continues to follow you throughout your life, but they don't have the final word.

Seriously, are you rejecting the notion of genetics since it's connected to evolution now? They aren't the same thing.