Of course , resistence to the ancient past history , is expected . Not surprised . Enki and enlil did exist , in the past .
Ref: posts 18-19, saying that if someone is talking about reality then the history of the philosophy of reality is important, because reality is a subjective notion (somewhat) impacted by that history. Sama said reality wins, but Sama's idea of reality may be completely different from someone else's. Sama also said, God is only as good as the beings that create Him. Typically, when God is capitalized there is the idea that God is an eternal spirit, but I'm not sure Sama is offering a context for that post.
Not allowed to walk away from a post for an hour (this one would not let me delete it). Pretty inconvenient admins. Please give us control of our content.
^^^ Yes. Christians say humans cannot have good morals without a source but they require no source for god's morals. They say humans should try to be like god yet most of what scripture claims god does/did would be seen as immoral if humans do. <>
So, you can go back to a post a month old, and edit it? What happens if someone responds to your post and then you change it? What if, on Monday, you post "I like babies", and then on Tuesday someone says "Me Too!" And then on Wednesday, you return and edit your post to say "I like to eat kittens!" Now, the poor hapless respondent likes to eat kittens. Can you go back and change your prediction of the 2106 election to say "50 bucks says Trump wins!"
Actually you can do that on many forums. You rarely can delete a post and certainly not a thread but there are many forums where you can always edit a post. I understand forums that don't allow that and I understand forums that do allow that. I, obviously, don't go back and change the argument after someone has responded. I do frequently go back to correct typos anytime that is allowed. Sometimes I don't notice it the first time and it's only later that I catch it. I'm not arguing which way is best, but it does commonly exist on many forums.
Quora - which might not exactly qualify as it is more giving answers to questions asked But you can go back anytime to edit/revise anything you post Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Editing all the posts in a thread would make it unreadable, I think. Editing a post to prevent oneself from looking like an utter loon? Where's the entertainment value in that?
"In the beginning there was the word..." I believe "The Word" is the duality of morality (Good and evil.) Goodness is natural and remains, however evil is neccessary because only evil can be regretted and "undone." This is called a conscience.
Is God good? Who else gets CREDIT for killing nearly every living thing on the planet? God's righteous man, Lot, offers his virgin daughters to the mob if they'll leave his angels alone. Then God kills his wife for looking back at everything she's ever known, everyone she's ever cared about, being destroyed because God can't make a human that works like He wants them to.
Why even discuss the character of an entity that has yet to be established as a fact. Its like kids sitting around discussing ghosts, after a while they seem real simply because there has been a lot of chat but in both cases the proposition needs a basis before it can be discussed something that shows the discussion is about something real. Is is God good or bad...who cares unless we have something real to be the object of discussion. May as well discuss the grazing habits of unicorns before we have established that unicorns are real. But theists like kids discussing ghosts believe by discussing their God it makes him real but sadly for them it does not. Alex
And please dont hold back. Why does a God need to be worshipped I just dont get that part. Can you imagine a father expecting the kids to worship him because he fathered them...stupid. The whole thing does not add up and given the whole thing is made up you would think they would at least construct a plausible story. Alex
We determine the guilt and innocence of other people all the time. We do so based on human moral judgements, no matter where anyone claims they come from. So can humans be good? How do we know? We have nothing else to compare our own standard against. Therefore humans cannot judge other humans to be good. Or if God is a necessary existence, its necessity makes it good to all contingent existences. Otherwise, denying the goodness of God also denies the goodness of your own existence.
My own existence is real so I can not understand why my goodness is dependant on an entity that has yet to be shown to exist. Would my goodness not be a judgement made by others, real people, based on their values of what may or may not be good and based upon their values ... hopefully without reference to a morality made up thousands of years ago. Alex
