Should God be replaced? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (21063)	7/9/2005 10:37:01 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (3) of 28931

"Only a fool or an arrogant, dishonest builder of straw men would read, out of context, ancient and no doubt dramatized accounts of even more ancient events; judge the acts of these ancient men from a modern moral perspective; and then assert that anyone professing belief in God must, therefore, think those acts morally acceptable or else disclaim God and the bible because of them." I am not on my own computer so I will answer just this incredibly ignorant post of yours for today--and try to stomach some of the others. My quotes about rape and moral depravity were cited by the web site as being from the bible. I recognize those quotes attributed to the bible as indeed being from the bible. For you to talk about "no doubt dramatized accounts" (while in the same breath mocking the "disdain" for the bible which this suggests) is to show the fool and the "arrogant, dishonest builder of straw men" as being the person glaring at you from your own mirror. In case you were unaware of it--the bible claims to be the inerrant account of a Morally Perfect Being--revealed by that Morally Perfect Being through men. On the one hand you wish to assume the arrogance of a "no doubt" leeway--which is the mark in trade of such as yourself--while on the other hand you state or imply that these direct quotes of moral depravity are merely anachronistic and say nothing of value to those rational people among us whom make sincere attempt to judge the value of primitive literature and primitive CLAIMS (and, in particular, the value to morally inform our present acts and decisions) on the basis of what it exposes and what it counsels. If you were not a fool, dishonest--and an arrogant builder of straw men--you would admit that the biblical accounts of moral depravity are indeed just that, and that this fact seriously undermines any belief that these accounts are not other than the primitive accounts of a bestial and savage tribal mentality from an age before reason had ousted superstition from the forefront of human apprehension and justification. But as you apparently are unwilling or incapable of posting your sophistry without the benefit of an introduction of puerile insults--I suppose the similarity of your methodology to that of greg or e is self explanatory and self revealing--as is your agenda. If the brutal and savage acts praised in this ancient set of writings does not justify the questioning of origin or the questioning of value for you--then you apparently have neither desire nor intention to seek the truth. Your retorts are childish and thoughtless in the extreme. Your only goal is to make personal attack and to disagree with anyone who has wounded your fragile sense of self importance--prefaced by whatever puerile insults stumble across what passes in you for a brain. Perhaps "stumble" is the wrong word to describe the momentous event. I think that "crawl" might be more descriptive and accurate. Too bad you thin-skinned folk could not find a superstition thread to dribble your spittle about... Have a good day.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next