Atheism Discussion Thread

[Albrenia]

First question, I would not find that punishment moral. Understandable, and not entirely immoral, but not moral.

Second question, I would fine punishment for the stealing/killing moral. Actively taking is a different kettle of fish from simply not acting selflessly.

Understandable answers, I think I would tend to agree with you. So can we say that the action of violating another's right to life is the immoral action here.

Another question, what if the food was not for you, but was for your child?

Still immoral, but extremely understandable as a reason. Perhaps a reduced sentence for circumstances, but still punished.

[Godular]

The 'golden rule' is not an exclusively Abrahamic concept. The idea of reciprocity has a deal of foundation in cultural and even biological precedent.

Awesome, how best can we apply this concept to our society? Can we define reciprocity in a concrete way?

I don't want you to punch me in the face, do you want me to punch you in the face? Let's make a rule that face-punching is bad, and set some kind of workable consequence that assists in deterring face-punching as much as possible while still giving the face-puncher a means to atone for the face they punched and provide some form of reconciliation for the owner of the punched face. Face punching is a total jerk move, but we'd still need that guy on the mammoth hunt.

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

What freedoms should people have? Should they have the freedom to govern themselves as they see fit? To commit incest? When is the age of adulthood? In what cases is killing justified, or punished? In seeking equality of opportunity, what measures should be taken? Should the very successful be made to give up their wealth? Should wealth even be controlled by individuals?

Rather above my pay grade, most of that stuff. I'm not wise enough to be a Lawgiver, but, since you ask...

People should have the freedom to live as they see fit, as long as it does not cause others harm or put them at undue risk. More nuanced matters such as property laws, taxation and the likes, are just outside of my expertise to the extent I wouldn't even try to decide what is moral and what is not.

Incest is another 'eww' case. I'm not sure if it should be outright illegal or not, but I'm comfortable it being socially unacceptable, and the dangers of it being made known.

Adulthood should be between 16-25, depending on the dictates of the culture in question.

Killing is justified in reasonable cases of self-defence and defence of others.

Equality of opportunity basically means nobody should be denied access to work or social standing based solely on who or what they are. Also no slavery, and so on.

I'm not asking you to be a Lawgiver, indeed I don't believe that any one person should wield that kind of authority. Which, actually, is part of my point here. We as a society have a responsibility to agree on what is or is not morally acceptable. And the fact is that not everyone is going to agree on what that morality should be. In other words, I don't think that the idea is as simple or as black and white as a lot of atheists seem to imply.

People being free to live as they see fit, so long as they are not harming others or putting them at risk, is a great ideal in my opinion. But in practice, it becomes much more complex. For example, you point out that the age of adulthood is dictated by the culture in question. In that case, is there a "most moral" age of adulthood? Should a sixteen year old be considered an adult in all cases? Or just some? And in that case which cases? And why sixteen? Why not fourteen, which was a common age of adulthood in most human societies for most of history?

If killing is justified in self-defense, how do we determine self-defense? Is it moral to kill someone who cutting down a tree that might fall and crush you, if it is the only way to make them stop?

[Albrenia]

Rather above my pay grade, most of that stuff. I'm not wise enough to be a Lawgiver, but, since you ask...

People should have the freedom to live as they see fit, as long as it does not cause others harm or put them at undue risk. More nuanced matters such as property laws, taxation and the likes, are just outside of my expertise to the extent I wouldn't even try to decide what is moral and what is not.

Incest is another 'eww' case. I'm not sure if it should be outright illegal or not, but I'm comfortable it being socially unacceptable, and the dangers of it being made known.

Adulthood should be between 16-25, depending on the dictates of the culture in question.

Killing is justified in reasonable cases of self-defence and defence of others.

Equality of opportunity basically means nobody should be denied access to work or social standing based solely on who or what they are. Also no slavery, and so on.

I'm not asking you to be a Lawgiver, indeed I don't believe that any one person should wield that kind of authority. Which, actually, is part of my point here. We as a society have a responsibility to agree on what is or is not morally acceptable. And the fact is that not everyone is going to agree on what that morality should be. In other words, I don't think that the idea is as simple or as black and white as a lot of atheists seem to imply.

People being free to live as they see fit, so long as they are not harming others or putting them at risk, is a great ideal in my opinion. But in practice, it becomes much more complex. For example, you point out that the age of adulthood is dictated by the culture in question. In that case, is there a "most moral" age of adulthood? Should a sixteen year old be considered an adult in all cases? Or just some? And in that case which cases? And why sixteen? Why not fourteen, which was a common age of adulthood in most human societies for most of history?

If killing is justified in self-defense, how do we determine self-defense? Is it moral to kill someone who cutting down a tree that might fall and crush you, if it is the only way to make them stop?

Yup, the law should be commonly agreed upon, even if individual morality is more personal.

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

Awesome, how best can we apply this concept to our society? Can we define reciprocity in a concrete way?

I don't want you to punch me in the face, do you want me to punch you in the face? Let's make a rule that face-punching is bad, and set some kind of workable consequence that assists in deterring face-punching as much as possible while still giving the face-puncher a means to atone for the face they punched and provide some form of reconciliation for the owner of the punched face. Face punching is a total jerk move, but we'd still need that guy on the mammoth hunt.

Alright I'm liking this so far. Is there anything that reciprocity can't cover? And what kinds of deterrents are warranted? What should happen if someone kills someone else? Should they be killed?

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

I'm not asking you to be a Lawgiver, indeed I don't believe that any one person should wield that kind of authority. Which, actually, is part of my point here. We as a society have a responsibility to agree on what is or is not morally acceptable. And the fact is that not everyone is going to agree on what that morality should be. In other words, I don't think that the idea is as simple or as black and white as a lot of atheists seem to imply.

People being free to live as they see fit, so long as they are not harming others or putting them at risk, is a great ideal in my opinion. But in practice, it becomes much more complex. For example, you point out that the age of adulthood is dictated by the culture in question. In that case, is there a "most moral" age of adulthood? Should a sixteen year old be considered an adult in all cases? Or just some? And in that case which cases? And why sixteen? Why not fourteen, which was a common age of adulthood in most human societies for most of history?

If killing is justified in self-defense, how do we determine self-defense? Is it moral to kill someone who cutting down a tree that might fall and crush you, if it is the only way to make them stop?

Yup, the law should be commonly agreed upon, even if individual morality is more personal.

So if the majority of society agrees that homosexuality is amoral, then laws prohibiting it are moral?

[Godular]

I don't want you to punch me in the face, do you want me to punch you in the face? Let's make a rule that face-punching is bad, and set some kind of workable consequence that assists in deterring face-punching as much as possible while still giving the face-puncher a means to atone for the face they punched and provide some form of reconciliation for the owner of the punched face. Face punching is a total jerk move, but we'd still need that guy on the mammoth hunt.

Alright I'm liking this so far. Is there anything that reciprocity can't cover? And what kinds of deterrents are warranted? What should happen if someone kills someone else? Should they be killed?

An apology and a wolfskin from the aggressor to the aggrieved might be all that is necessary to allay tensions. A balance must be struck between what is best for the few and what is best for the many. If a person critically jeopardizes the harmony that assists in the success of the mammoth hunt, then mayhap they should be exorcised from the group, so that they do not continue to be a drain on resources and a risk to the group's well being. Whether this involves exile or a lethal response should be a case-by-case determination incorporating any exacerbating or mitigating factors in the relevant scenario.

[Albrenia]

Yup, the law should be commonly agreed upon, even if individual morality is more personal.

So if the majority of society agrees that homosexuality is amoral, then laws prohibiting it are moral?

Not to me, but I'm sure the people in that society would disagree.

[Lower Nubia]

He sets no double standards, He is logically tempered to His other characteristics, God's omnibenevolence is not separated from that of his Justice or mercy, but it is tempered and understood within them, thus God's omnibenevolence, cannot contradict his Justice. Therefore, for God to give you bliss in life (or the next life ), go and sin no more.

False. God has plenty of double standards. He declares that we should not kill, yet slaughters all the firstborn of Egypt when he wishes to. There is no Justice in the killing of the innocent to get at a guilty regime, there is no Love in allowing people to suffer in torment for eternity.

Again, typical of the 21st century to impose our individualism onto 15th century BCE collectivism. Notice that this isn’t a cultural aspect, but a universal set of actions followed by people of varying cultures. Due in part to a universal set of qualities: poor populace, low total populace, low literacy, low food and water, and low resources. Over 60% of the modern worlds population have collectivist leanings and these countries are all poor, (Japan seems to be centerfield for this one). Egypt’s population wasn’t innocent.

The narrative placed the Egyptian nation as forcing the Israelites into slavery (a harsh slavery based on daunting manual labour, where Pharoah illustrates that the labour would hault the growth of the Israelites “lest they increase”, so in other words he worked the women and men to death, this lasted 80 years, the slavery lasted roughly 300 years) while also the Egyptians themselves were all commanded to propagate the murder of the Hebrew newborns. This irritable idea that the Egyptians were innocent is ridiculous, all members of that society were warned. From the first 9 plagues came warning, the “innocent” Egyptians had plenty of opportunity to repent and free the Israelites, Pharoah himself hardened his heart along with the entire nation of Egypt, which even the Philistines understood to be true as in Samuel 6:

“Wherefore then do ye harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? when he had wrought wonderfully among them, did they not let the people go, and they departed?”

Even While non of the Egyptian peoples sought anything against Pharoah, whose tenuous role as elected by the gods would be called into question by the plagues. Finally all first borns had a price placed upon them from Egyptian to Israelite as in Numbers 3:12:

“And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine; Because all the firstborn are mine; for on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast: mine shall they be: I am the Lord.”

What’s even more interesting that you say: “kills them when he wishes to” but in reality he only punished them after they had committed terrible crimes. As previously eluded too, God does not flip flop on this, he has cut himself off from the world due to sin and is therefore not some magic fairy where all your problems disappear even if you’re an ardent follower. The cost is high, what is given was necessary and it was sufficient to do what was needed, that’s all God needed to do, but even then, He provides more than they deserved. God’s methods specificallly play on the human weakness, to illustrate the failure of man to provide for himself, which is exactly what man wants because of his sin.

It’s ironic isn’t it? The Egyptians would not only have seen it as a just punishment, but the only necessary punishment. Yet you claim to be for the Egyptian position, even though the very qualities of your judgement, they would reject. If individual states provide legitimacy within the law, then who are we to judge the Egyptian’s own position on what is proper and true according to their law? We present ourselves as a more sophisticated and intellectual people’s, a mantle we only hold because we have more to sustain that sophistry, not because we’re a better or more noble populace today than then.

Your final objection has been dealt with on the CDT, so stop sticking to the fundamentalist canard.

[Albrenia]

False. God has plenty of double standards. He declares that we should not kill, yet slaughters all the firstborn of Egypt when he wishes to. There is no Justice in the killing of the innocent to get at a guilty regime, there is no Love in allowing people to suffer in torment for eternity.

Again, typical of the 21st century to impose our individualism onto 15th century BCE collectivism. Notice that this isn’t a cultural aspect, but a universal set of actions followed by people of varying cultures. Due in part to a universal set of qualities: poor populace, low total populace, low literacy, low food and water, and low resources. Over 60% of the modern worlds population have collectivist leanings and these countries are all poor, (Japan seems to be centerfield for this one). Egypt’s population wasn’t innocent.

The narrative placed the Egyptian nation as forcing the Israelites into slavery (a harsh slavery based on daunting manual labour, where Pharoah illustrates that the labour would hault the growth of the Israelites “lest they increase”, so in other words he worked the women and men to death, this lasted 80 years, the slavery lasted roughly 300 years) while also the Egyptians themselves were all commanded to propagate the murder of the Hebrew newborns. This irritable idea that the Egyptians were innocent is ridiculous, all members of that society were warned. From the first 9 plagues came warning, the “innocent” Egyptians had plenty of opportunity to repent and free the Israelites, Pharoah himself hardened his heart along with the entire nation of Egypt, which even the Philistines understood to be true as in Samuel 6:

“Wherefore then do ye harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? when he had wrought wonderfully among them, did they not let the people go, and they departed?”

Even While non of the Egyptian peoples sought anything against Pharoah, whose tenuous role as elected by the gods would be called into question by the plagues. Finally all first borns had a price placed upon them from Egyptian to Israelite as in Numbers 3:12:

“And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine; Because all the firstborn are mine; for on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast: mine shall they be: I am the Lord.”

What’s even more interesting that you say: “kills them when he wishes to” but in reality he only punished them after they had committed terrible crimes. As previously eluded too, God does not flip flop on this, he has cut himself off from the world due to sin and is therefore not some magic fairy where all your problems disappear even if you’re an ardent follower. The cost is high, what is given was necessary and it was sufficient to do what was needed, that’s all God needed to do, but even then, He provides more than they deserved. God’s methods specificallly play on the human weakness, to illustrate the failure of man to provide for himself, which is exactly what man wants because of his sin.

It’s ironic isn’t it? The Egyptians would not only have seen it as a just punishment, but the only necessary punishment. Yet you claim to be for the Egyptian position, even though the very qualities of your judgement, they would reject. If individual states provide legitimacy within the law, then who are we to judge the Egyptian’s own position on what is proper and true according to their law? We present ourselves as a more sophisticated and intellectual people’s, a mantle we only hold because we have more to sustain that sophistry, not because we’re a better or more noble populace today than then.

Your final objection has been dealt with on the CDT, so stop sticking to the fundamentalist canard.

So, in short, the children of Egypt had it coming because they were born into a society which committed evil. Nice. They should have repented their little baby hearts, they were warned!

Just saying "they weren't innocent' doesn't make it so. The firstborn would have included newborns and young children, as well as less well off Egyptians with zero part to play in the grand evils of the more wealthy.

I also doubt the Egyptians who lost their children would have thought "Well, it's a fair cop." so nice work putting words in the mouths of ancient people. Even if they did, being beaten into accepting an entity's will is not proof of the will being moral.

In short, just more excuses for an evil act of God. He didn't need to kill anyone, at all. Any omnipotent and all powerful God could have easily freed all of Israel without taking a single innocent life... or guilty life for that matter.

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

Alright I'm liking this so far. Is there anything that reciprocity can't cover? And what kinds of deterrents are warranted? What should happen if someone kills someone else? Should they be killed?

An apology and a wolfskin from the aggressor to the aggrieved might be all that is necessary to allay tensions. A balance must be struck between what is best for the few and what is best for the many. If a person critically jeopardizes the harmony that assists in the success of the mammoth hunt, then mayhap they should be exorcised from the group, so that they do not continue to be a drain on resources and a risk to the group's well being. Whether this involves exile or a lethal response should be a case-by-case determination incorporating any exacerbating or mitigating factors in the relevant scenario.

So, our reciprocity is not limited to individuals, but to groups, including the entire society, as well?

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

So if the majority of society agrees that homosexuality is amoral, then laws prohibiting it are moral?

Not to me, but I'm sure the people in that society would disagree.

So what laws should be we comfortable enforcing as a society? If we decide that homosexuality is morally acceptable, and enforce it that idea through law, what are we basing that decision on? Mutual consent between two adults being morally acceptable? In that case, how do we handle adult cousins, or siblings?

Let me be clear, I am honestly asking. I am personally strongly pro-LGBT rights, including marriage.

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

Again, typical of the 21st century to impose our individualism onto 15th century BCE collectivism. Notice that this isn’t a cultural aspect, but a universal set of actions followed by people of varying cultures. Due in part to a universal set of qualities: poor populace, low total populace, low literacy, low food and water, and low resources. Over 60% of the modern worlds population have collectivist leanings and these countries are all poor, (Japan seems to be centerfield for this one). Egypt’s population wasn’t innocent.

The narrative placed the Egyptian nation as forcing the Israelites into slavery (a harsh slavery based on daunting manual labour, where Pharoah illustrates that the labour would hault the growth of the Israelites “lest they increase”, so in other words he worked the women and men to death, this lasted 80 years, the slavery lasted roughly 300 years) while also the Egyptians themselves were all commanded to propagate the murder of the Hebrew newborns. This irritable idea that the Egyptians were innocent is ridiculous, all members of that society were warned. From the first 9 plagues came warning, the “innocent” Egyptians had plenty of opportunity to repent and free the Israelites, Pharoah himself hardened his heart along with the entire nation of Egypt, which even the Philistines understood to be true as in Samuel 6:

“Wherefore then do ye harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? when he had wrought wonderfully among them, did they not let the people go, and they departed?”

Even While non of the Egyptian peoples sought anything against Pharoah, whose tenuous role as elected by the gods would be called into question by the plagues. Finally all first borns had a price placed upon them from Egyptian to Israelite as in Numbers 3:12:

“And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine; Because all the firstborn are mine; for on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast: mine shall they be: I am the Lord.”

What’s even more interesting that you say: “kills them when he wishes to” but in reality he only punished them after they had committed terrible crimes. As previously eluded too, God does not flip flop on this, he has cut himself off from the world due to sin and is therefore not some magic fairy where all your problems disappear even if you’re an ardent follower. The cost is high, what is given was necessary and it was sufficient to do what was needed, that’s all God needed to do, but even then, He provides more than they deserved. God’s methods specificallly play on the human weakness, to illustrate the failure of man to provide for himself, which is exactly what man wants because of his sin.

It’s ironic isn’t it? The Egyptians would not only have seen it as a just punishment, but the only necessary punishment. Yet you claim to be for the Egyptian position, even though the very qualities of your judgement, they would reject. If individual states provide legitimacy within the law, then who are we to judge the Egyptian’s own position on what is proper and true according to their law? We present ourselves as a more sophisticated and intellectual people’s, a mantle we only hold because we have more to sustain that sophistry, not because we’re a better or more noble populace today than then.

Your final objection has been dealt with on the CDT, so stop sticking to the fundamentalist canard.

So, in short, the children of Egypt had it coming because they were born into a society which committed evil. Nice. They should have repented their little baby hearts, they were warned!

Just saying "they weren't innocent' doesn't make it so. The firstborn would have included newborns and young children, as well as less well off Egyptians with zero part to play in the grand evils of the more wealthy.

I also doubt the Egyptians who lost their children would have thought "Well, it's a fair cop." so nice work putting words in the mouths of ancient people. Even if they did, being beaten into accepting an entity's will is not proof of the will being moral.

In short, just more excuses for an evil act of God. He didn't need to kill anyone, at all. Any omnipotent and all powerful God could have easily freed all of Israel without taking a single innocent life... or guilty life for that matter.

Also, and again honestly asking here because I've heard different versions of this, did not God in this story harden the Pharoah's heart, implying that the Egyptians did not have a choice in the scenario?

[Pope Joan]

So, in short, the children of Egypt had it coming because they were born into a society which committed evil. Nice. They should have repented their little baby hearts, they were warned!

Just saying "they weren't innocent' doesn't make it so. The firstborn would have included newborns and young children, as well as less well off Egyptians with zero part to play in the grand evils of the more wealthy.

I also doubt the Egyptians who lost their children would have thought "Well, it's a fair cop." so nice work putting words in the mouths of ancient people. Even if they did, being beaten into accepting an entity's will is not proof of the will being moral.

In short, just more excuses for an evil act of God. He didn't need to kill anyone, at all. Any omnipotent and all powerful God could have easily freed all of Israel without taking a single innocent life... or guilty life for that matter.

Also, and again honestly asking here because I've heard different versions of this, did not God in this story harden the Pharaoh's heart, implying that the Egyptians did not have a choice in the scenario?

I have heard it suggested that this was the habitual state of Pharaoh's heart and God just let him have that heart , unchanged by grace.
I also heard a rabbinical tale in which Moses and his siblings and the Hebrews are rejoicing on the far shores of the Red Sea after Pharaoh's army has been destroyed. But in heaven God is weeping on his throne. The shocked angels ask him why and he whispers "alas for my poor children,the Egyptians."

[Albrenia]

Not to me, but I'm sure the people in that society would disagree.

So what laws should be we comfortable enforcing as a society? If we decide that homosexuality is morally acceptable, and enforce it that idea through law, what are we basing that decision on? Mutual consent between two adults being morally acceptable? In that case, how do we handle adult cousins, or siblings?

Let me be clear, I am honestly asking. I am personally strongly pro-LGBT rights, including marriage.

The whole 'minimise harm while maximising freedom and good' thing. Nobody is harmed by LGBT people having rights, whereas their freedom is restricted if they don't.

As for incest, I'm not sure if it should be illegal, but it should be discouraged due to the potential for harm to any offspring... and it being incest and all.

[Asherahan]

I am a mix of absurdism,nihilism and atheistic existentialism.

[Chan Island]

Secular humanist here, though with more than enough anti-theism to make sure I am not 100% sure what option to pick in the poll.

[Big Jim P]

"Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?"
2 Cor 6:14

Me and Pope Joan seem to get along just fine.

[Albrenia]

"Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?"
2 Cor 6:14

Me and Pope Joan seem to get along just fine.

The faithful and the faithless can get alone just fine, provided neither of them are dicks.

[Sovaal]

Me and Pope Joan seem to get along just fine.

The faithful and the faithless can get alone just fine, provided neither of them are dicks.

Most people are though.

[The New California Republic]

this illiterate nonsense must end and this quaint little argument continued verbatim throughout the halls of atheistic biblical thinking must be thrown into the fire of proper thought.

Wow, jeez Louise...cool your jets there...

babies do not have sexual drives, we're not freudians.

Want to continue telling me what I am and what I am not?

False. God has plenty of double standards. He declares that we should not kill, yet slaughters all the firstborn of Egypt when he wishes to. There is no Justice in the killing of the innocent to get at a guilty regime, there is no Love in allowing people to suffer in torment for eternity.

Again, typical of the 21st century to impose our individualism onto 15th century BCE collectivism. Notice that this isn’t a cultural aspect, but a universal set of actions followed by people of varying cultures. Due in part to a universal set of qualities: poor populace, low total populace, low literacy, low food and water, and low resources. Over 60% of the modern worlds population have collectivist leanings and these countries are all poor, (Japan seems to be centerfield for this one). Egypt’s population wasn’t innocent.

The narrative placed the Egyptian nation as forcing the Israelites into slavery (a harsh slavery based on daunting manual labour, where Pharoah illustrates that the labour would hault the growth of the Israelites “lest they increase”, so in other words he worked the women and men to death, this lasted 80 years, the slavery lasted roughly 300 years) while also the Egyptians themselves were all commanded to propagate the murder of the Hebrew newborns. This irritable idea that the Egyptians were innocent is ridiculous, all members of that society were warned. From the first 9 plagues came warning, the “innocent” Egyptians had plenty of opportunity to repent and free the Israelites, Pharoah himself hardened his heart along with the entire nation of Egypt, which even the Philistines understood to be true as in Samuel 6:

“Wherefore then do ye harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? when he had wrought wonderfully among them, did they not let the people go, and they departed?”

Even While non of the Egyptian peoples sought anything against Pharoah, whose tenuous role as elected by the gods would be called into question by the plagues. Finally all first borns had a price placed upon them from Egyptian to Israelite as in Numbers 3:12:

“And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine; Because all the firstborn are mine; for on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast: mine shall they be: I am the Lord.”

What’s even more interesting that you say: “kills them when he wishes to” but in reality he only punished them after they had committed terrible crimes. As previously eluded too, God does not flip flop on this, he has cut himself off from the world due to sin and is therefore not some magic fairy where all your problems disappear even if you’re an ardent follower. The cost is high, what is given was necessary and it was sufficient to do what was needed, that’s all God needed to do, but even then, He provides more than they deserved. God’s methods specificallly play on the human weakness, to illustrate the failure of man to provide for himself, which is exactly what man wants because of his sin.

It’s ironic isn’t it? The Egyptians would not only have seen it as a just punishment, but the only necessary punishment. Yet you claim to be for the Egyptian position, even though the very qualities of your judgement, they would reject. If individual states provide legitimacy within the law, then who are we to judge the Egyptian’s own position on what is proper and true according to their law? We present ourselves as a more sophisticated and intellectual people’s, a mantle we only hold because we have more to sustain that sophistry, not because we’re a better or more noble populace today than then.

Your final objection has been dealt with on the CDT, so stop sticking to the fundamentalist canard.

That has to be one of the most convoluted and snaking justifications for God's murderings that I have ever seen. It doesn't make you right though. In fact, quite the opposite. God is still a hypocrite for telling people not to kill, and then going on rage-fueled murdering sprees himself.

[Big Jim P]

The faithful and the faithless can get alone just fine, provided neither of them are dicks.

Most people are though.

We aren't.

[Albrenia]

this illiterate nonsense must end and this quaint little argument continued verbatim throughout the halls of atheistic biblical thinking must be thrown into the fire of proper thought.

Wow, jeez Louise...cool your jets there...

babies do not have sexual drives, we're not freudians.

Want to continue telling me what I am and what I am not?

Again, typical of the 21st century to impose our individualism onto 15th century BCE collectivism. Notice that this isn’t a cultural aspect, but a universal set of actions followed by people of varying cultures. Due in part to a universal set of qualities: poor populace, low total populace, low literacy, low food and water, and low resources. Over 60% of the modern worlds population have collectivist leanings and these countries are all poor, (Japan seems to be centerfield for this one). Egypt’s population wasn’t innocent.

The narrative placed the Egyptian nation as forcing the Israelites into slavery (a harsh slavery based on daunting manual labour, where Pharoah illustrates that the labour would hault the growth of the Israelites “lest they increase”, so in other words he worked the women and men to death, this lasted 80 years, the slavery lasted roughly 300 years) while also the Egyptians themselves were all commanded to propagate the murder of the Hebrew newborns. This irritable idea that the Egyptians were innocent is ridiculous, all members of that society were warned. From the first 9 plagues came warning, the “innocent” Egyptians had plenty of opportunity to repent and free the Israelites, Pharoah himself hardened his heart along with the entire nation of Egypt, which even the Philistines understood to be true as in Samuel 6:

“Wherefore then do ye harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? when he had wrought wonderfully among them, did they not let the people go, and they departed?”

Even While non of the Egyptian peoples sought anything against Pharoah, whose tenuous role as elected by the gods would be called into question by the plagues. Finally all first borns had a price placed upon them from Egyptian to Israelite as in Numbers 3:12:

“And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine; Because all the firstborn are mine; for on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast: mine shall they be: I am the Lord.”

What’s even more interesting that you say: “kills them when he wishes to” but in reality he only punished them after they had committed terrible crimes. As previously eluded too, God does not flip flop on this, he has cut himself off from the world due to sin and is therefore not some magic fairy where all your problems disappear even if you’re an ardent follower. The cost is high, what is given was necessary and it was sufficient to do what was needed, that’s all God needed to do, but even then, He provides more than they deserved. God’s methods specificallly play on the human weakness, to illustrate the failure of man to provide for himself, which is exactly what man wants because of his sin.

It’s ironic isn’t it? The Egyptians would not only have seen it as a just punishment, but the only necessary punishment. Yet you claim to be for the Egyptian position, even though the very qualities of your judgement, they would reject. If individual states provide legitimacy within the law, then who are we to judge the Egyptian’s own position on what is proper and true according to their law? We present ourselves as a more sophisticated and intellectual people’s, a mantle we only hold because we have more to sustain that sophistry, not because we’re a better or more noble populace today than then.

Your final objection has been dealt with on the CDT, so stop sticking to the fundamentalist canard.

That has to be one of the most convoluted and snaking justifications for God's murderings that I have ever seen. It doesn't make you right though. In fact, quite the opposite. God is still a hypocrite for telling people not to kill, and then going on rage-fueled murdering sprees himself.

I quite agree.

[Pope Joan]

Awesome, how best can we apply this concept to our society? Can we define reciprocity in a concrete way?

I don't want you to punch me in the face, do you want me to punch you in the face? Let's make a rule that face-punching is bad, and set some kind of workable consequence that assists in deterring face-punching as much as possible while still giving the face-puncher a means to atone for the face they punched and provide some form of reconciliation for the owner of the punched face. Face punching is a total jerk move, but we'd still need that guy on the mammoth hunt.

When I was at law school, in Constitutional Law, we did a role play in which we each wore tags on our back which outlined the strengths and deficits of our particular social niche. We were not allowed to ask direct or indirect questions to others in order to help us understand what these tags said. Then we had to get together and make alliances against one another based upon our political philosophy and our guiding principles of fairness on the one hand and self interest on the other. We came up with a rough set of rules to govern our loose confederacy. Not surprisingly, there was a strong flavor of the Bill of RIghts in that result, for since we did not know our relative power, we had to be at least somewhat fair toward the weak.

This exercise was based upon "The Original Position", posited by John Rawls https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/

[Pope Joan]

"Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?"
2 Cor 6:14

Me and Pope Joan seem to get along just fine.

Amen! Or whatever.