It’s called Divine Command Theory.

And it’s…

“…the view that morality is somehow dependent upon God, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s commands. Divine Command Theory includes the claim that morality is ultimately based on the commands or character of God, and that the morally right action is the one that God commands or requires.”

And it’s…complicated.

But that’s not a surprise, really.

I expect God to be a bit complex.

He’s not a ‘bearded old man in the sky’.

Any God capable of whipping up a Universe from scratch can’t be a cartoon.

He’s not a feathered snake either.

That’s important.

Divine Command Theory changes dramatically depending on your concept of God.

God is revealed differently in the Bible than in the books of other religions.

Jesus taught a different ethic from Quetzalcoatl.

It’s difficult to think about, I know.

There’s an easier way to deal with morality.

Reject the idea of God altogether.

If there is no God, then ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are simple to understand.

They don’t exist.

“Divine Command Theory” becomes “Mortal Command Theory”

I would summarize it sorta like this:

“…the view that morality is brought about by the enlightened self-interest of individuals, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to evolved societal norms. Mortal Command Theory includes the claim that morality is ultimately based on human opinion, and that the morally right action is anything that is allowed by law.”

And I can’t simplify it much more for you.

If you’re going to try and tell people how they ‘ought to’ behave…

…you need God.

But not just any god.

A God who is bigger and smarter than the person to whom you are preaching.

A God who has a little bit of mystery about Him.

So choose wisely.

I recommend you avoid flying snakes and bearded old men in the sky.

 

 

You gonna keep lurking forever or are you gonna join this exclusive clique?
Stop procrastinating. Click This.

Leave a comment

394 Responses

  1. God is revealed differently in the Bible than in the books of other religions.

    Jesus taught a different ethic from Quetzalcoatl.

    As a fuller answer to this statement from MrsMcmommy: ”Also: this entire post was about the philosophy of morality. ”
    it is important to expose the disingenuous nature of John’s quote.

    According to gospel tradition (gJohn is as good an example as any), Jesus is merely Yahweh made flesh.
    Thus, Jesus is as much the genocidal monster as Yahweh.

    If we are obliged to accept the Trinity then of course Jesus/Yahweh is the same deity.

    The genocidal monster that Yahweh is shown to be in the Old Testament is one of the major defining characteristic of the Christian god, and this is why the doctrine of Divine Command Theory ( with its unique Christian spin) had to be devised.

    And also why indoctrination is required to offset the chronic cognitive dissonance that often sets in when Christians begin to ask questions along the lines of:
    ”If God is all about love, how come he murdered millions upon millions of people throughout the Old Testament?”

    Marcion fully realised the juxtaposition of Yahweh and Jesus and thus claimed Yahweh was exactly as he was portrayed in the Old Testament – a god of/for the Jews – but this had nothing to do with Jesus and Christianity; there being a more powerful, higher god above Yahweh.

    The Church did not like having its ideas usurped and declared Marcion and his doctrine heretical, thus opening the door for the likes of Augustine and co. to lay the foundation for such gems of doctrine as Original Sin and, of course, Divine Command Theory.

    1. The above comment reflects steps #3 and #4:

      1. Ark comments on a post he doesn’t understand.
      2. Ark is asked to summarize the original post and/or make a point. (He doesn’t.)
      3. Ark finds a way to bring up Yahweh despite being told “Yahweh has almost nothing to do with the post.”
      4. Ark feels embarrassed that his terrible reading skills are being exposed, so he tells everyone else they are unstable or indoctrinated or incapable of critical thought. Or all three.
      5. The Dishonorable Judge Ark completely takes over the thread, demanding everyone else answer HIS questions. (In his court, defendants are guilty until proven innocent.)
      6. Everyone tries all day to get Ark back on topic, until they finally get tired of him and start clicking “like” on all of his gibberish.
      7. Ark feels lonely and comments on a NEW post he doesn’t understand, even though he won’t understand any of it until someone takes pity and offers a summary.

  2. I have a question: should societies decide the legality of an action based on the morality of that action?

    1. Sorry, Matthew. This comment got buried. Feel free to jump back in below, if you feel like having your questions INTENTIONALLY avoided by Ark. 🙂

      1. Ah, let’s have fun with my question and see if it becomes noticed: If you found John’s MCT reasonable, how would you answer my question above?

        1. Honestly, it’s hard for me to even imagine finding MCT reasonable… 🙂

          When I went down this line of thinking–and whether we were evolved mindlessly, for no reason–then the very first thing that occurred to me is “anything goes!” Laws are just stupid ways of making us feel like “good” people, even though “good” is a meaningless term.

          1. Without a transcendent morality, there is no basis for establishing any laws. If objective morality doesn’t exist, laws are merely the whims of human beings.

      2. Basically, at the start, you have two options: yes or no.
        If you say “yes, we should base the legality of actions on the morality of those actions” I would ask, “where does morality come from?” If you say “evolving societal norms” you are in an infinite loop.
        If you say ” No, we should not base the legality of actions on the morality of those actions.” I would ask “on what basis should we base our laws?”
        But thanks for the answers from a MCT follower’s point of view. They are the first on this thread.

  3. Don’t mind Ark… He’s just demonstrating how little of his day is spent thinking about you… 😉

    I finished work and I was bored.
    And as your old man probably wrote this post as an extension to the comment I made about that fuckwit William Lane Craig, I think he was bored as well.

      1. Well, those of us of a non delusional persuasion do try to enlighten you and your pa.
        It’s often a coin-toss between watching videos of how they trained Coco or commenting on your blogs.
        The former are more educational but this place is ”a hoot an’ a half” ( apologies to Sheldon Cooper)

        1. When your hooting subsides, you might ‘enlighten’ me about what I’ve gotten wrong in this post. Do you have a point or are you just reasserting your general disdain for me?

          1. The general disdain is a given, based on your continual assertion the god you genuflect to is real.
            This is what you keep getting wrong.
            Enlightened people fully realise that, Yahweh is simply made-up.
            I cannot think of any other way to put that?
            What in particular are you having difficulty understanding, John?

          2. I understand everything you say, Ahk.
            You don’t seem to grasp what I say.

            Summarize the point of this post or I’ll assume I’ve gone over your head (again) and we’ll end the dialogue here.

          3. God is revealed differently in the Bible than in the books of other religions.

            Your god is Yahweh.
            Yahweh is a make-believe Canaanite deity.
            Thus, anything you attribute to this deity can be dismissed with impunity.

            Satisfied?

          4. Oh, it was close enough, John. And certainly close enough for you.
            Although, you haven’t the integrity to acknowledge the truth in my previous comment, even though you know it is the truth.

          5. I fully understand what DCT is thanks awfully. I explained it very well in answer to one of Mike’s comments.

            However, I reiterate, attributing this in regard to (in particular) your god, Yahweh is as pointless as claiming the sun had the moral right to melt Frosty the Snowman.
            There is only ever a debate over the morality issue surrounding the heinous actions of your made-up god,
            as described in the Pentateuch ( historical fiction), because people have always questioned how an all-loving, omniscient god could possibly behave in such an all too human manner.

            Thus DCT had to be devised to placate poor indoctrinated halfwits – like you and your dad -and keep their arses firmly parked in the pews and ensure the coffers remained full.

          6. Nobody brought up Yahweh until you showed up (as usual.)

            So–no–you haven’t summarized THE ORIGINAL POST. And your comment to Mike was that Divine Command Theory is “…about humans making shit up, writing it down and claiming it is all about a god. Then, afterwards, using this to justify their own heinous behaviour.”

            Again, if you think that would get you anything other than an “F” from a philosophy professor, I can only laugh.

          7. Oh, I am terribly sorry.
            This post is about DCT.
            I automatically presumed it was about gods, seeing as thee Aztecs were represented by their god, and the post then went on to talk about your god. As you and your old man are Christian I presumed the other god references were to the Christian god. Your god. Yahweh.

            Please tell me where I went wrong in that presumption?

          8. “Divine Command Theory changes dramatically depending on your concept of God. God is revealed differently in the Bible than in the books of other religions. Jesus taught a different ethic from Quetzalcoatl.It’s difficult to think about, I know. There’s an easier way to deal with morality. Reject the idea of God altogether. If there is no God, then ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are simple to understand. They don’t exist. ‘Divine Command Theory” becomes “Mortal Command Theory'” –from the Original Post.

            You went wrong when you stopped reading after the word “Jesus.” This post is about what happens if you DON’T subscribe to DCT. So…would you say you believe in Mortal Command Theory?

          9. No, it makes no difference how you try to package DCT.
            Your god is Yahweh.
            He enacted genocide.
            He commanded genocide.

            DCT was invented in an attempt to justify these immoral actions and Christians have followed suit ever since.
            As a rather famous Crusader line goes.

            ”God wills it!”

          10. Sorry, I must have missed your answer to my question.

            This post is about the difference between Divine Command Theory and Mortal Command Theory.

            Would you say you subscribe to Mortal Command Theory?

          11. That’s also not an answer to my question…

            An acceptable answer would be, “I have no idea what I believe, unless others dumb it down for me.”

          12. You don’t see any potential problems with letting the law dictate right and wrong?

          13. So there’s a problem when society isn’t democratic. Do you see what that problem is?

          14. So, you understand the problem. Good!

            Now, your turn.
            Are you able to name one society throughout human history where religion held sway ( your religion, for argument’s sake) that was a better, more just society than any fully democratic secular society?

          15. Of course not. Can you name one Democratic society that was totally devoid of religion?

          16. Of course not.

            And there is your answer to a healthier happier, more just society.

            Can you name one Democratic society that was totally devoid of religion?

            Not yet, but the more socially advanced societies – not your country, of course – are demonstrating that less religion equals a better society.

          17. You admit that, not a single society where religion held sway has ever been better than a secular democratic society then you say the whole statement is nonsense?

            Are you and your daughter struggling with basic comprehension or is it something more profound?

          18. No. You struggle with comprehension.

            I did not admit anything akin to the idea that “not a single society where religion held sway has ever been better than a secular democratic society”. Reason being, no democratic society has ever been completely secular.

            Your statement is nonsense.

          19. Actually, I have pretty good comprehension skills.

            Every society that has ditched religion as the primary base of governance and accepted democracy has improved.
            Even your country where approximately 40% of the population still believe Jesus will return.

            As a mark of the levels of tolerance, those who wish to practice their religion are extended the opportunity to do so.

            And surprise surprise, when all restrictions are lifted and a truly open society prevails people begin to walk away from religion.

            Why is that do you think, John?
            One would think that if Christianity was the be all and end all people would be flocking to religious institutions.
            But they are not are they?

          20. Actually, you have terrible comprehension skills.
            Repeating baseless claims doesn’t magically make them viable.
            Democracy is the result of theism, not secularism. Specifically in my country, Christianity shaped the thinking of the founders.

            You have, thus far, offered nothing but the ill-informed opinions of Ark.

          21. I never said it wasn’t.
            Ever society that abandoned theocracy and adopted secular democracy improved immediately.

            You have a problem with this?

          22. Philosophy is not your bag, Ark.

            There is no such thing as ‘secular democracy’. You couldn’t list a single example of a religion free democracy.

            Philosophy is not your bag.

          23. From the first Google entry.

            ”One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people.”

            I think this just about covers the bilk of western democracy.

          24. Philosophy is not your bag, Ark. But since you seem hell-bent on showing off your ignorance:

            The state is NEUTRAL on matters of belief. Christianity lends itself perfectly to this type of government. People are free to choose whether or not they’ll participate in religious practices.

            Was secular Russia NEUTRAL toward religion under Lenin’s leadership?

            How about secular Cambodia under Pol Pot?

          25. I don’t consider this a problem in the least.

            Your problem is you are require a
            a presuppositional worldview and cannot function without invoking philosophy and /or your god.

          26. Does that feel like a victory to you?
            Does it feel like you’re speaking some type of truth or making some kind of case?

            I’m honestly asking.

            Because I can listen to “you’re ignorant” all day long. It doesn’t phase me. I’m only bothered when someone who is an enlightened thinker can explain to me how/why I’m wrong about something…and you’re literally not able to do that.

            Every, single comment thread devolves into you swearing and calling names. Every time. That’s not intelligence, Ark. That’s the raw hatred you claim not to possess, and it doesn’t make you look very smart.

          27. Victory?
            What are you talking about?
            I have no need to ”point score” as I have evidence on my side.
            If I am unable to formulate a cogent argument that is a failing on my part, not the part of truth/fact.

            You have to make stuff up and effectively lie on occasion to arrive at a place where your beliefs hold water.

            As has been proved time and time again, religions and religious tolerance can only thrive in a secular democracy.
            Something you have to face up to and be very grateful for.
            Eventually, religion will not even be an issue but rather a quaint but somewhat nasty little reminder of what we were once like.

            Unfortunately you are ignorant. This is a fact. It is not really a slur but a genuine observation.
            And sadly, you are also willfully ignorant, which is potentially harmful and destructive.

            I reiterate. I hate nothing.
            If you want straight talk without the invective then accept fact and desist from always being disingenuous.

          28. Round you go Amanda.

            As with your religion, your worldview and your arguments to support it are all circular and all stagnant.

            Divine Command Theory is a perfect example of humans being forced to invent a doctrine to justify the barbarism of your make-believe deity.
            And you neither have the integrity to admit this or the intellect to understand why such manipulation is disgusting and immoral.

          29. You can go as fast as you like Amanda.
            It is not the speed that trips you up but your indoctrination, presupposition and willful ignorance.

            If you wish to at least attempt to demonstrate the veracity of the argument then first demonstrate the veracity of the Christian god.

            That is your biggest hurdle.
            See if you have the integrity and stamina to put put an honest post for a change?

          30. “If you wish to at least attempt to demonstrate the veracity of the argument…”

            That’s just it, Ark. I don’t wish to demonstrate anything, and I haven’t for many weeks now. Somehow you’ve missed that.

            You’re so prideful that you actually think I’m trying to make arguments FOR YOU. You think you’re the jury, and I’m the defense attorney who needs to make my case TO YOU.

            That’s not reality.

            In fact, I actually think you’re hopeless–and I need to spend some time mustering up some compassion for your sorry state.

            Right now, I’m kind of looking forward to watching the “genocidal maniac” side of God let you have what you’ve always wanted: to be left alone, to your own fractured mind…
            So, if I’m enjoying the idea of you staying in the Hell you’ve created for yourself, it’s best we call it a day.

          31. All of your father’s religious post(s) attempt to justify Christianity.
            And quite naturally you support them.
            However, every single one fails.

            We know they fail because evidence tells us.

            And societry reacts to this evidence in a positive way bu walking Away from religion.
            The destructive aspects still endure as we witness by such actions as the war in Syria for example.

            You have not once presented a valid argument for a single religious claim. Not one.

            Yet you believe you must show me compassion for your failures?

            Well, that’s very nice an’all but I think you may have that backwards.

          32. I believe I must show you compassion for your obvious mental illness.

            And I can’t.

            You’ve never once offered evidence for anything, ever.

            You can’t even summarize a post when asked.

            All of your comments are some version of the same speech, no matter what the rest of the conversation is about. Listening to you talk about “arguments” and “evidence” on into eternity must be close to the definition of Hell.

          33. Ah, the …. ”You’re more mental than me, Mwahahahahahahah!!!!”

            Well, if pointing a finger at me keeps you away from guns and any abnormal thoughts in that direction, I consider I have done a good job.
            Though you really ought to seek professional help. Or more professional help.

            You’ve never once offered evidence for anything, ever.

            The settlement pattern of Palestine as demonstrated buy the likes f Israel Finkelstein.

            The Ugaratic Texts regarding the Canaanite deity , Yahweh.

            The theory of Evolution as demonstrated by pretty much every biologist on the planet who is not a damn Creationist.

            What more do you require, Amanda?

          34. I require you to demonstrate you’ve read and understood anything you’ve read in your life. (My dad ordered one of the books on Ancient Israel, recommended by one of the “Enlightened Thinkers” you mentioned by name. And, guess what? It doesn’t say what you claim it says.) You Fundamentalists are terrible, terrible scholars–always needing people to dumb down an article into a bumper-sticker “fact” so you can repeat it over and over.

            Also: this entire post was about the philosophy of morality.

            So I require you to stop speaking on topics you don’t understand.

            But I know better than to expect that will happen.

          35. And, guess what? It doesn’t say what you claim it saysblockquote>
            Name the book.
            Identify the passage and specific claim that you state is false.
            Otherwise you are piddling in the wind, and have no idea whatsoever what the term evidence means.

            Also: this entire post was about the philosophy of morality.

            It is about justifying Divine Command Theory in relation to how it was utilized by the ”correct god”
            So, first, demonstrate with evidence which is the correct god.
            Then we can indulge your little post Augustine fantasy.

          36. How bout this…you name the book and identify the passage and specific claim that gives you reason to dismiss the entire Bible as fiction.

            Then we can indulge your little medication induced fantasy.

          37. Smile.
            And here we go with presuppositional apologetics.

            Let’s all of us accept Creation, the Exodus, and people coming back from the dead as a given then , shall we, John?

            Er… no, I don’t think so.

          38. Smile.
            And here we go with presuppositional atheism.
            Let’s all of us accept the Bible is fiction and the Universe has no first cause as a given then, shall we Ark?
            Er…no, I don’t think so.

          39. I’m reading an actual textbook (on recommendation of William G. Dever) that suggests you are incorrect.

          40. You’ve already commented.
            Go ahead and support your claim that the Bible is fiction.

          41. Right.
            So when I give you the title of my textbook, you’ll accept that as evidence of Talking Donkeys?

            You’re not a scholar, Ark. Your expertise is a series of YouTube videos and a couple of Wikipedia articles.

            I thought William G. Dever was your go-to guy?

          42. So when I give you the title of my textbook, you’ll accept that as evidence of Talking Donkeys?

            Unlikely, but if it is written by a secular biologist who can explain how it was possible that a single donkey in the past was able to talk and demonstrate this with evidence, well who knows?

            I thought William G. Dever was your go-to guy?

            Really? And where did I say this?

            So, the name of the book Dever recommended you should read that disproves all the evidence-backed claims by professionals?

          43. It wouldn’t help you one bit.
            You haven’t read it.
            You won’t read it.

            And it flies in the face of your “most scholars admit the Pentateuch is total fiction”.

          44. Give me the title of the book that is the basis for your confident assertion that ‘the Bible is fiction’.

            You’ve got more than a YouTube video, right?

          45. Yes.
            You asserted ‘the Bible is fiction’ and alluded to the majority of scholars believe this.
            Cite your source.

            (You don’t actually have one, do you?)

          46. “Historical Fiction” means you heard someone else use that term, so now you repeat it like a parrot.

            If not, then YOU explain what YOU mean by that term?

          47. Just like you heard terms such as serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI)

            Yes, I read the term, of course.
            There was a time I believed much of the bible to be true, certainly characters such as Moses.

            I would have thought you would consider it an even poorer show if I, a non-scholar, had simply dreamed the term up myself?

            Can we please get back on topic?
            We are supposed to be talking Divine Command Theory, are we not?

          48. Your Dishonor, the original post talks about Divine Command Theory.
            But you have yet to explain where morality comes from, when it doesn’t come from some sort of Divine source. You claimed “laws” determine what’s right and wrong. But then you said that specifically DEMOCRATIC laws determine what’s right and wrong. But you haven’t explained where you think democracy came from.

          49. I have explained where morality comes from:it has been demonstrated to be be a product of evolution.

            So, the veracity of your god, Yahweh.

          50. Finally, step #6! “I have demonstrated it. I have, I have, I have, I have! So there!”

            Remind me: how did you demonstrate that morality comes from evolution?

            1. Ark comments on a post he doesn’t understand.
            2. Ark is asked to summarize the original post and/or make a point. (He doesn’t.)
            3. Ark finds a way to bring up Yahweh despite being told “Yahweh has almost nothing to do with the post.”
            4. Ark feels embarrassed that his terrible reading skills are being exposed, so he tells everyone else they are unstable or indoctrinated or incapable of critical thought. Or all three.
            5. The Dishonorable Judge Ark completely takes over the thread, demanding everyone else answer HIS questions. (Defendants are guilty until proven innocent.)
            6. Everyone tries repeatedly to get Ark back on topic, but he keeps saying: “I’ve given you evidence! Science! Evolution! I’ve answered your questions! What was the question I missed?”
            7. Finally, everyone gets tired of him and just clicks “like” on all of his gibberish.
            8. Ark feels lonely and comments on a NEW post he doesn’t understand, hoping someone eventually takes pity and offers a summary.

          51. It’s explained in the op-ed.

            This isn’t your courtroom, Judge. YOU have to make the points. YOU have to provide the evidence. And the word “evolution” by itself isn’t an answer or an explanation.

            Do you believe laws should be written according to the morality which has mindlessly evolved in all of us?

          52. The post is about Divine Command Theory.
            This is the only point that requires addressing, surely?
            To do this we either have to assume the veracity of a god -in this case your god, Yahweh, or first establish the veracity of this god.

            I say DCT is utter bullshit as there is no evidence to demonstrate the veracity of your, or any other god.

          53. This post is about Mortal Command Theory. This is the only point that requires addressing.
            To do this, we have to assume there is no God.

            I say MCT is utter bullshit, as all of us knows instinctively that certain things are right and certain things are wrong, regardless of majority rules. Even if everyone on earth evolved to believe that it was okay to murder puppies, they would be wrong… because right and wrong is bigger than humans.

            Your response?

          54. To do this, we have to assume there is no God.

            Wrong. All we have to do is acknowledge that based on the evidence presented so far for your god, and (every other) can be dismissed with impunity. Which I believe it can be. And, not surprisingly, so do the majority of humans on the planet .

            However, you obviously disagree with this statement, please demonstrate the veracity of your god, Yahweh. and then we can move right along to discussing the merits or lack thereof , of DCT.
            Thanks.

          55. Wrong.

            If you acknowledge that the evidence for all gods is wanting, then it’s the same as assuming there is no God. Do you assume there is no God or do you assume there is a God, when you think about morality? You can’t assume both at the same time. Do you assume “God” or “no God” when you think about moral questions?

          56. No, I am stating that to date, based on the evidence presented so far, we can dismiss their existence.
            If you have evidence – specifically for your gofd, Yaheweh, then please present it.
            That way we can move beyond this apparent insurmountable hurdle and discuss Divine Command Theory,.
            So,once again.
            Please present your evidence to support your claim of veracity for your god, Yahweh.
            Thanks.

          57. So…if you assume there is no God, then humans are the ones who ultimately decide what’s right and what’s wrong. If the next generation of humans evolved in such a way they FELT that it was okay to kill puppies, then killing puppies would suddenly be moral. Correct?

          58. So…if you assume there is no God, then humans are the ones who ultimately decide what’s right and what’s wrong.

            Correct! Well done , Amanda.

            If the next generation of humans evolved in such a way they FELT that it was okay to kill puppies, then killing puppies would suddenly be moral. Correct?

            And if the next generation of humans all became Christian and took the bible as literally God’s Inspired Word and killed every homosexual that would suddenly be moral. Because your god commanded it. Correct?

          59. Wait…

            That wasn’t an answer.

            Let’s try again: If humans decide what’s right and wrong, then humans could suddenly decide that killing puppies was moral, correct? If the next generation evolves with the instinct to kill puppies, then that would suddenly be moral, correct?

          60. Still not an answer.

            Okay, you finally got me laughing OUT LOUD this morning…

            Of course I don’t think Hitler was moral. But I believe that God made me that way, remember? If I believed that everything evolved mindlessly, for no reason, then I would have no right to tell the next generation how to behave.

            If the next generation believed it was okay to kill puppies, that would be moral, correct?

          61. What could possibly motivate evolution to turn out an entire race of puppy-killers?
            And would we also have evolved to kill the parent dog as well, ( as this would soon see the extinction of all dogs) or will we simply be puppy killers and wait until each new little dog is born and then kill it?

            I ask these questions in order to have some context so as to be able to formulate a more intelligent response.

            And may I ask, would it be okay if Yahweh was a puppy killer? Does he get special dispensation?

          62. What could motivate evolution? What a silly question. I thought evolution was mindless! Nothing motivates evolution…it just IS. So–who knows? The context of the puppy-killing shouldn’t matter. If there is no such thing as right and wrong apart from what humans believe, then it will be totally moral if/when humans believe it’s okay to kill or steal or rape. It all depends on what humans believe, correct?

          63. It all depends on what humans believe, correct?

            Correct! And while there are glitches, history has demonstrated that ,while seemingly slow art times, in simple terms, cooperation for the betterment of us all generally wins the day.

          64. Nonsense. “Betterment” is a relative term. If the next generation believes society is “better” without puppies/dogs, then killing puppies/dogs, to them, will be moral, correct?

          65. That’s not an answer.
            IF the next generation believes it would be better–regardless of their reasoning–then puppy-killing will be moral, correct?

          66. Yes, but why would they believe such a thing? There has to be a basis for everything no matter how nuts it might seem.
            So , give me an example of why killing puppies would be necessary.

          67. If people evolved to believe that the puppy-killing would better society–REGARDLESS OF THEIR REASONING–then it would be moral, correct?

            Was your “yes” an answer to my question?

          68. Hitler evolved to consider killing Jews a good idea.
            Genghis Khan also thought slaughtering untold millions a good idea.
            I don’t consider either of these a good idea at all.
            Do you?

          69. (Slaughtering untold millions is a bad idea because someone said it in a YouTube video.)

          70. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION, ARK!!!!

            We’re not talking about MY beliefs. I’m asking about YOURS. If we assume there is no God, then what happens? This is what happens every time we have this conversation. You say “evolution,” but then you won’t answer what-if questions. What if evolution takes us in a different direction? You said there has to be a basis for everything. But why? The basis YOU always give is evolution.

            So: what if evolution made us believe that puppy-killing is okay. That would be our definition of moral then, wouldn’t it? If the next generation evolves to believe it’s okay to kill puppies, then it will be moral, correct?

          71. We are talking about Divine Command Theory. This is the topic of the post.

            People do horrible nasty things all the time.
            This does not mean it is morally acceptable and society is evolving all the time to ensure we commit less and less of such acts.
            By accepting the morality of Divine Command Theory, providing one accepts there is a god, in this case your god, Yahweh, then he has carte blanche to do what ever the frak he wants, right?

            I do not accept this and until you can demonstrate the veracity of your god Yahweh,then your argument for DCT is absolute nonsense.

            Can you demonstrate the veracity of your god, Yahweh, yes or no?

          72. Now I see why you didn’t want to summarize the post earlier. You still don’t get it, even though I’ve told you twice.

            The topic is about DCT versus MCT. It’s not about Yahweh. It’s not about the Bible. It’s about where morality comes from.

            If it comes from a Divine source, then (as John said) it’s complicated. It depends on what kind of God we imagine. BUT, if you believe that humans decide what’s right and wrong, it’s very simple. It’s majority rules. Right and wrong changes according to the way our chemicals evolve, with no goal and no purpose.

            You admitted you believe humans determine morality. But now you don’t want to deal with the consequences of that obviously stupid answer.

            If we evolve another way, will puppy killing be moral?

            The answer you can’t bring yourself to say is: yes.

          73. If it comes from a Divine source, then (as John said) it’s complicated. It depends on what kind of God we imagine.

            So what type of god do you imagine it comes from?
            Please describe it for me and where you derive your source material.
            (I presume, unlike me, of course, it is not YouTube?)

          74. EVOLUTION!!

            The God you call Evolution.

            The one that is good. The one trying to move all of us, slowly, toward perfection. The one who “selects” and has “motives” and is reasonable and logical and can be studied through science.

            That’s my God.

          75. I do not ”have” a god, Amanda. I am not religious.

            So not Yahweh then?
            As he is simply a man-made Canaanite deity found in the Historical Fiction known as the Pentateuch.
            Therefore, please tell me the name that you call this god and the factually historical (presumably) written source material you derive your belief from?
            Thanks.

          76. Yes, you do have a god. Because every time I ask where morality comes from, you make Evolution sound like it has goals and purpose. You believe Evolution is good and must be obeyed… Unless, of course, evolution starts moving toward puppy-killing.

            And THEN you abandon Evolution and start appealing to another source of morality. What source do you use, if evolution starts causing evil things?

          77. As you nod to DCT, and this is what your dad’s rather disingenuous post is all about, which god do you nod to , Amanda, if not Yahweh, the baby killing,( and puppy-killing presumably) genocidal monster of the Bible?
            After all, you do claim to be a Christian (sic) gag am I right?

            Or is it that you simply too afraid or embarrassed to admit you worship him … oops, sorry, Him, and he is the source of you supposed morality?

            Are you so insecure in your beliefs?

          78. So, it is Yahweh after all. Therefore you accept the morality of Divine Command Theory.
            I am glad we cleared this up. Took a while, though didn’t it?
            Why do you struggle so much to admit these things?

            How does it feel to worship a fictional monster and base one’s entire life on the nonsense called the bible?

            Don’t you feel rather silly or has indoctrination taken care of the cognitive dissonance?

            Out of curiosity, did your acceptance of this monster, Yahweh, being your ultimate source of life (sic) come after or before your little incident?
            As my grandfather used to say:”I don’t want to know, I’m Just asking.”

          79. I’ve never brought him up in one of our conversations. Ever. That’s always you. Call the Creator whatever you want. That’s what I’ve ALWAYS said.

            And you insist on calling him Yahweh.

            It’s weird how stuck on a Canaanite god you are. We all know that puppy killing is always wrong–but only one of us can recognize that Morality is one of God’s names.

            🙂

            Poor thing.

          80. Call the Creator whatever you want. That’s what I’ve ALWAYS said.

            Correct!
            But here’s the teeny weeny problem. you claim to be a Christian(sic) and therefore, you believe the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth to be the creator god of the universe.

            Now, to really be a Christian you have to accept the Trinity and one third of the Trinity is Yahweh.
            So if you do not believe in Yahweh then you are not a Christian but merely some sort of weird deist who has no ”personal god” and who does not believe in the need for Salvation.

            So which is it Amanda, are you a Christian yes or no?

          81. I always LOL when Atheists have to tell me what I believe before they can tell me how dumb it is…

            You’re done, Judge Ark. As always, you’re stuck by the fact that you won’t claim ANY God. As long as you’re an Atheist, your views will always be more stupid than even the Ancient Jews…

          82. I am quite capable, and willing, of telling you how dumb such belief is before demonstrating how dumb you are for believing it if you prefer?
            Just say the word, Amanda.

            By ”more stupid than even the Ancient Jews ” I presume you include the smelly little shit of a prophet, one third of the Trinity, you genuflect to, yes?

          83. Yes.
            Your views are more stupid than the smelly little shit of a prophet to whom anyone genuflects.
            Your views are maximally stupid.

          84. Really? Well at least we can both agree that you genuflect to a smelly little shit of a prophet, so some truth came out this extended, nonsensical post on Divine Command Theory.
            It baffles me why Christians such as you, John go to such great lengths to try to prove the veracity of a humongous lie?

            Are you that insecure you are simply unable to be honest and either produce evidence or simply admit that your beliefs are based on faith, period?

          85. Thus far, you have not specified any ‘humongous lie’ that I’ve perpetrated.

            I’ve always admitted that my beliefs are based on faith. You have yet to admit the same.

          86. I’ve always admitted that my beliefs are based on faith.

            If this admission is true, then I apologise for suggesting in any way that you claim to base your beliefs upon any sort of verifiable evidence.

            It would be really great if you would do a post stating as much.

            In all seriousness,John, such a post would go a very long way in clearing up any misunderstanding.

            My beliefs are not based upon faith but are backed by evidence.
            Where no evidence is available I generally try to hold a more neutral approach.

          87. The only progress worth incrementally achieving is wisdom. Without that goal, then you cannot live (in the Enlightenment sense) a good life, cannot understand, appreciate, and accept your allotment of suffering, of loss, of death. This willingness to attain wisdom is all part of growing up…

          88. We give the terms meaning by association. I think if one doesn’t come to respect learning to appreciate what is the case independent of ourselves (truth), what can be understood independent of ourselves (knowledge), then one denies any meaning to life itself (and becomes an automaton). I think it’s a terrible thing to do to ‘teach’ the credulous and gullible to replace this pursuit with pat pseudo-answers that are borrowed…

          89. I agree.
            So why do you stubbornly hold on to a belief that there is any veracity in the claim that Yahweh is anything but a man-made Canaanite deity found in the Historical Fiction that is the Pentateuch?
            Why do you also insist in perpetuating the unsubstantiated belief that a 1st century Jewish prophet rose from the dead and its the creator of the universe?

          90. Sorry, you don’t get to tell me what to say or not. And you dont get to define it either for me. That is as good as telling people to be quiet unless they follow your rules.

          91. I am not telling you what to believe or not to believe. I asked why do you stubbornly hold on to such a belief when it is plainly false with no evidence to support it?

          92. I explained in detail why they were terribly poor questions you asked that had nothing to do with going after ‘truth and knowledge’ and everything to do with diverting… I already said this was the motivation for your questions, and you haven’t disappointed. I notice you staying true to form. Nothing I have said, or can say, will stop you…

          93. Okay, so let’s go after truth and knowledge shall we?
            1. Are you a Christian?
            2. Do you base your faith/ worldview on the belief that Jesus of Nazareth is a divine saviour?

          94. I believe all ethics and morality were/are part of the evolutionary process.
            This is a belief based in the qualified work of the relevant experts in the field.
            I am not a scientist so do not ask me to qualify this statement. You have the internet, same as me.

          95. I agree.
            That is a very good start.
            So…
            1. Are you a Christian?
            2. Do you base your faith/ worldview on the belief that Jesus of Nazareth is a divine saviour?

          96. It matters that you understand how the theory explains how evolution is applied to and informs your daily life, informs how industries like mining and forestry utilize it, informs how animal husbandry and crop science is advanced, informs how medicine and healthcare improves over time, informs how biology actually works (which is why the theory is the central pillar of all the biological sciences)–and how the understanding we have derived from it matters. Understanding how evolution works matters.

            Do you understand evolution?

          97. You enjoy quoting your dad I see?
            I have a basic understanding of evolution.
            1. Are you a Christian?
            2. Do you base your faith/ worldview on the belief that Jesus of Nazareth is a divine saviour?

          98. I haven’t quoted my dad at all.

            I’ll take that as a “no, I don’t understand Evolution,” which everyone figured out about you a loooooong time ago.

          99. Odd, the first example that appears on a google search says comedy sojourn.

            So who are you quoting if I may ask?

            You can take my previous response any way you like. I was in fact, trying to be as truthful and honest as possible.
            Something you have struggled with since the off.
            So you are not a Christian then?
            Is this why you are reluctant to say?

          100. It doesn’t matter what I say–you think you have the right to tell me whether I’m a Christian or not. When I say I’m not, you say “YES YOU ARE!” When I say, “Okay, I’m a Christian” then you try to tell me all the things I HAVE to believe in order to be a Christian.

            KIA says I’m not a Christian.

            Some Christians say I’m not a Christian.

            I don’t really care.

            I’m a Theist–and if you understood Evolution, you would be one, too.

            Do you understand how Evolution works?

          101. My understanding of what a Christian is is solely based on the description by other Christians.
            This is why I am trying to determine what exactly it is you believe.

            So, firstly, do you accept that Yahweh is a man made Canaanite deity?

            I have a basic understanding of evolution, yes.
            I am not a theist.

          102. We are biologically hardwired to find God. It’s an evolutionary trick–a skill that served us very well not that very long ago. It is the root of all our religions. It’s why we sometimes shout at the computer.
            That’s why you believe killing puppies is wrong.

          103. The difference is, you attribute it to an anthropomorphism you call ”God”, or in your case, Jesus of Nazareth.

            I don’t.

          104. LOL. Yes, you do. You were the one who asked, “Why would evolution be motivated to do that?”

            That’s talking about Evolution like a mind, isn’t it?

          105. I was being rhetorical.I assumed you would have realised.
            I forget who I am dealing with sometimes.
            So, do you finally accept that Yahweh is a man-made Canaanite deity?

          106. HAHAHAHAHA! I have no response to that, Ark.

            You were not being rhetorical. There’s literally no way to talk about “Evolution” without (oops!) accidentally anthropomorphizing. It can’t be done, because mindless things can’t “select.” They can’t move toward goals, like goodness and perfection.

            LOL!

            You don’t understand Evolution at all.

          107. I have stated I have a basic understanding of evolution.
            Tell me, what exactly has this to do with Divine Command Theory?
            Why have you no response to whether Yahweh is a man made deity, Amanda?
            Are you a fraud or a liar ?
            How can you be a theist if you do not accept that Yahweh is real?

          108. Lol. Rhetorical.

            I’m still cracking up about that…

            Okay–so without being rhetorical–will you answer the puppy-killing question? You said “everything has to have a basis, no matter how nuts.” Can you explain WHY mindless evolution has to have a basis? And can you answer “If the next generation evolves to believe puppy-killing is moral, then it WILL be moral by definition, correct?”

          109. As your dad’s post is about Divine Command Theory, let’s settle this first shall we?

            Do you accept that Yahweh is a man made Canaanite deity who appeared in the Pentateuch?

          110. We’re settling it through you answering questions. That’s it. I’m not answering questions.
            Can you explain WHY mindless evolution has to have a basis? And can you answer “If the next generation evolves to believe puppy-killing is moral, then it WILL be moral by definition, correct?”

          111. Poor thing. lol.

            Questions have always been your Kryptonite.

            LOL. “We’re talking about Divine Command Theory…so let’s settle it…by focusing on Yahweh again.” HAHAHAHAHA!
            You are just too funny.

            But, whenever YOU’RE ready to answer questions about your God, Evolution, I’d be glad to hear the answers.

          112. And when your ready to admit you are a fraud and suffering from indoctrination you will be ready to join the real world.
            Meantime …. watch out for a general warming in the trouser region and a lengthening of your nose.

            Christian! Hilarious.

          113. (*snicker*)
            Tell me more about why I need to act like a Christian. BAHAHAHAHA! That would be awesome!

            Tell me about why being a liar is wrong…. go ahead. Tell me!

          114. I was hoping that for once you would tell the truth. Alas, you can’t face it or are unable to recognise it, hence you behave the way you do.

            It is unfortunate.
            A great many Christians have come to the realization that what you still hold on to is simply false and have given up on this delusion.
            A great many professional theologians, including Priests, Parsons and Vicars have admitted that Christianity is based on nothing but myth and historical fiction. They have walked away from the religion.

            Again, the question remains:
            Why do you continue to pursue a religion based on falsehood?
            A religion whose foundational tenets were largely created by the Roman Catholic Church.

          115. LOL, no the question remains:

            If morality comes from Evolution, then what would happen if the next generation evolves to believe it’s okay to kill puppies?

            That question still remains.

          116. OOPS! You’re trying to turn the question around, you silly boy.

            If you want to talk about Yahweh, you have to admit that Divine Command Theory makes the most sense in our world.

            OR we can keep talking about Mortal Command Theory, and you can answer this question: Would puppy-killing be moral, if we evolved to believe puppy-killing is moral?

          117. No–that’s not a rephrase. That’s trying to turn the question around on me again.

            When YOU have to answer questions, it becomes obvious that Atheism is stupid and Theism is the only thing that makes sense.

            Where does your belief that rape is wrong come from–if it doesn’t come from Frank?

          118. Not at all. You are asserting theism is the only alternative that makes sense. Deism does not necessarily specify a particular god.
            Theism generally does.
            So which god are you specifying?

          119. You’re confused. Deism refers to an impersonal creator God who no longer interacts with the world. Theism refers to a God who is personal and still interacts with the world. But a Theist doesn’t have to tell you what God’s name is. When you ask “which God are you specifying” the answer is: I’m not. I’m not specifying.

            Where does your belief that rape is wrong come from, if it doesn’t come from Truth?

          120. When you ask “which God are you specifying” the answer is: I’m not. I’m not specifying.

            This is an eye opener.
            I’m serious. I always assumed you believed that the character Jesus of Nazareth to be your god?

            Now I am simply confused.
            You are going to have to explain it to me again. I’m sorry for seeming dense.
            Are you saying you are NOT a Christian after all?

          121. You’re not confused. We’ve had this conversation a hundred times. You’re stalling. And STILL trying to ask the questions!

            Where does your belief in rape come from–if not from the transcendent, objective Truth?

            You will answer: “Evolution.”

            And I will ask: Do you believe in Evolution Command Theory? We HAVE to do whatever Evolution says?

            You will answer: No, we can choose to do whatever we want.

            But I will ask: Why do we write laws? Do our laws reflect the Truth, or do we create truth by writing laws?

            That will probably go over your head.

            But whatever. I’m pretty sick of this meandering, circular conversation.

          122. So you claim you are a theist, yet refuse to give me the name of the god you worship: the personal savior god you genuflect to.
            You claim you are a Christian but refuse to state openly that you believe the character Jesus of Nazareth is your personal Savior god.

            You either believe Jesus is divine: the Creator of the universe and the god from whence all morality etc derives or you do not.
            Which is it?

          123. I really have to insist that you read the article I found in order to understand why “Jesus of Nazareth, yes or no” is a stupid, black-and-white question that people like you only use to try and trap or corner Theists rather than actually learn something new.

          124. And if I read it will you answer whether you believe Jesus of Nazareth is the divine deity you genuflect to whom you believe is also the source of all morality and the Creator of the Universe, yes or no?

          125. Well, you either believe Jesus of Nazareth was /is divine or you don’t.
            How much further must the question be reduced before you are happy?

            Why don’t you simply tell me what you believe about Jesus of Nazareth as it relates to your faith?

          126. “As Edward Herbert understood it, any conception of God worthy of worship had to embody honesty, and it was inconceivable that an honest God would conceal himself from human knowledge entirely. After all, if God hadn’t told us to worship Him, how could there be any demerit in not doing it? And if there is no evidence that God exists, then how could there be any virtue in worshiping Him? The usual priestly answer to this was that God had revealed Himself to humanity somehow, through the existence of a church, and scriptural tradition, and perhaps a priesthood. To Herbert, all that seemed clumsy and unparsimonious, and, considering that it was taught by the church, self-serving. A God who was capable of creating humans in His own image would not need such clumsy and corruptible mechanisms but would have left his revelation somewhere close, where it could never be lost and was less likely to be corrupted.

            He therefore concluded that God’s self-revelation resided in us, not in any scripture. Rather than being blank slates, Herbert claimed that humans are born with innate ideas. Those ideas may at first be latent or dormant, but by introspection, logical thinking, and life experience, we could extract those ideas and learn from them. He believed that knowledge of God was one of these innate ideas, and that currently existing religions were falsely claiming credit for teaching people about God, which was giving people a difficult and misleading choice between religionism and atheism.

            This idea, that God had left internal messages inscribed on the human heart, had already existed in Christianity, to an extent. Thomas Aquinas had significantly developed the idea of Natural Law, which is that God’s moral commandments were revealed internally, so that the conscience of the individual was a factor in determining what was right or wrong. Herbert just took that further…” –from the article

            So there you have it. Everywhere you look for Truth, you find Christianity in there somewhere. That’s why I’m a Christian.

          127. “I didn’t understand a word of that last comment, Amanda.”

            That’s what you should have said.

            Again, I don’t know how to help you, when you’re this much of a simpleton. The only thing I can say to someone with a genuine mental illness who can’t do philosophy and hates Christians is this:
            surrender.

            Stop being a jackass and admit what’s obvious to EVERYONE. There is a God. You don’t have to like him. But that doesn’t have to keep you from talking to him. Ask Frank to speak to your heart. It’s your only hope.

          128. I’m a Theist, Ark. This post is about Divine Command Theory, which ALL THEISTS hold to.

            I am a THEIST.

            My beliefs about Jesus have NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC and are only being used by a mentally challenged insomniac to try and trap me. The closest to what I believe is in the article that you wouldn’t even bother to read. That proves you’re not really interested in getting answers to your questions. You’re utterly obsessed with Jesus–as more than one mad man has been.

          129. Well, what a good boy you are!

            Too bad you apparently didn’t understand it. Or else I can’t figure out why you’re still trying to talk about Jesus…

            “Either way, theism is a big tent. It describes a category of beliefs, not a specific belief, and a theological perspective, not a single religion, or even any religion in particular. For instance, Muslims, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, worshipers of the Norse gods, and Wiccans are all associated with theism. While there have been minority religions which are atheistic, the majority of the major Western religions have been theistic.”

            So there you have it. MOST people understand that morality comes from God. They realize that your answer “Evolution” is a really stupid one.

          130. I referred this quote which seem more in line with what I am familiar with.

            ”Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.”

            Therefore we are back to JC and your completely unsubstantiated belief he is divine and the creator of the universe.

            I think that is game set and match my dear?
            Anything else you want to talk about?

          131. I believe that God exists and is personal and Creator of the world. Yes.

            It may be Jesus.
            It may be Frank.
            It may be both of those, because God reveals himself to different people in different ways.

            HOW ARE YOU STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING THIS?

          132. Oh I am understanding. I am waiting for you to acknowledge that you are a Christian and that you do believe Jesus of Nazareth is the creator of the universe.
            How has he revealed himself to you and who was it, Jesus or Yahweh?

            Maybe does not cut it as this might be construed as you being agnostic.

          133. You’re right—you are understanding. But none of you Atheists know when to quit.

            You’re in the minority. Theists against Atheists. And this is why your side is losing.

          134. Actually you are in a dwindling majority.

            Maybe you should quit, take your daddy by the hand and both go visit your therapist?
            At least that would be a positive move and would benefit the pair of you.

            Bye bye , Amanda.
            I sincerely hope you and your dad get better soon.

          135. Your beliefs are based upon faith too.
            You’ve spent this day demonstrating that you have no evidence.

          136. Example: There is evidence that the settlement of Canaan as described in the bible is fallacious. Archaeological evidence supports this as per Finkelstein and acknowledged by almost the entire archaeological community.
            If you regard this as an example of my ”faith” then so be it.

          137. Yes. You have ‘Finkelstein Faith’.

            Your dogma includes fantastical statements like ‘acknowledged by almost the entire archaeological community’. I’ve asked, repeatedly, for your scholarly sources.

            You need to understand that ‘fallacious’ is not the same as ‘unproven’. Biblical scholars overwhelmingly agree that much of ancient history will never be proven. That doesn’t mean the history is fictitious.

            “In contrast to the confident scholars of an earlier generation, today’s historians of ancient Israel approach prehistory of Israel with extreme caution. Most remain convinced that the stories about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob contain a kernel of authentic history…however, they are reluctant designate individual features as historically authentic.” – P. Kyle McCarter, Jr.

          138. I’ve asked, repeatedly, for your scholarly sources.

            For what exactly ? Concerning the claim that the majority of archaeologists acknowledge there is no evidence for the Exodus as described in the bible?

            Wiki will give you enough basic details to satisfy this.

            Finkelstein’s own work will demonstrate the alternative history of the settlement of Canaan.
            An alternative history that is, in the main supported by the consensus of archaeologists.
            This was not known until relatively recently and thus the old adage, Absence of evidence etc etc….

            If you do not have access to any of his literature watch a video, he uses his own material.
            Hector Avalos is another excellent source.

            There is something you must understand.
            If you cling to the bible account you are only going to get into serious trouble trying to juggle the evidence to suit your own agenda.
            The timeline, the settlement at Kadesh Barnea, radio metric dating at Jericho etc etc.
            Nothing matches up to the biblical claims. Not a thing.

            It just cannot be done.

            But if you accept that the settlement pattern was by and large internal which does have evidence to support it,that the area was controlled by the Egyptians, that we have the evidence of the Armana letters etc etc that Kadesh Barnia was nothing but a small settlement… then it becomes fairly straightforward.

            I truly struggle to understand why you are so very afraid to accept where the evidence leads?

          139. Your Finklestein Faith has boxed you in. You’ll doubtless be unimpressed with contrary opinions.

            I’m willing to go wherever the evidence leads. That’s why I’m still reading things written by experts.

            “How large the Exodus was is another matter. Surely the biblical claim of six-hundred thousand able-bodied men (and their families, for a total of approximately two million) is a gross exaggeration (a few hundred is a better figure), but the historical core of an Exodus of some sort seems highly likely. If they were slaves in Egypt, they must have gotten out somehow.” – Nahum M. Sarna

          140. but the historical core of an Exodus of some sort seems highly likely. If they were slaves in Egypt,

            If this is true, then you would expect to find some evidence in Egypt . Now you have to find an Egyptologist who can provide the evidence that confirms they were not only in Egypt but were also slaves.

            Let me know what you come up with , I will be very interested in reading what ever you find.
            I would offer this word of caution. Kitchen is an evangelical Christian so you might be circumspect if you are thinking of quoting him. Just a friendly heads up.
            I look forward to the results of your search.

          141. Merneptah Stele.

            Don’t bother looking it up. Just reject it as insufficient evidence.

            Praise Finklestein!

          142. Yes, I know about the Stele, thanks.

            I specifically asked for an Egyptologist to support your claims.
            Please tell me which one/s you have found?

          143. Please specify gender, height, weight and eye color for this Egyptologist. As long as you’re demanding specific evidence let’s go all out!

          144. The more we talk to these internet Atheists, the more evidence I have that godlessness is a mental disorder. If I were you, I would demand that HE provide evidence from only Theistic scholars. (Jews and Muslims would be acceptable….really, anyone but the biased, unstable Atheists ought to be able to give you some solid facts.) If he can reject all Christian sources, I can reject all Atheist ones, right?

          145. True– I’m saying IF he ever gets around to giving the name of some scholar, then always ask, “Is that a THEIST? If it’s an Atheist, then they are biased and unreliable….”

            It doesn’t have to be a Christian, but it ought to be a Theist. 🙂

          146. Before he gets around to giving a name, he’s going to have to read something. That’s a big “IF” you’ve spoken there.

          147. I’m really, actually, seriously torn about how to handle people like Ark. As you know, I worked with people with disabilities for several years. They weren’t able to “do” philosophy either–just like Ark can’t–because their bodies were limited.

            But their hearts were still beautiful. They had a childlike joy about them, which has to come from God.

            People like Ark? Who are BOTH mentally limited and full of hate and pride? I really don’t know how to help them.

            I guess it would take a miracle.

          148. I will leave those details to your discretion.
            Are you truly struggling to find just one single Egyptologist, John?
            Oh, dear ….

          149. I’ve found several.
            They are among those who claim Jesus is fiction. So you already have the list.

          150. Give me the name of a Ornithologist who supports your claim that Jesus is fiction.

          151. So you have no name. You are a fraud.
            Good bye John.

            Why don’t you rather devote your time to looking after your daughter’ s well being instead of trying to be a clever apologist?
            Seriously, you are utterly lousy at it.

          152. I’m flattered . 19000 followers and you write posts just with me in mind?
            Aw, that’s so sweet.
            Stay away from firearms , John,okay?

          153. Oops! You forgot to turn off your phone or computer when you said “goodbye.”

            Did you mean “goodbye for the next three seconds, while I write another comment?”

          154. Just “summarize it for me.” 😉

            Lol–no, seriously. I totally agree that nature selects and moves toward making things better. That’s why only an idiot would say it does so “mindlessly” or “unguided.” And that’s why the vast majority of humans are Theists.

          155. I’m still not convinced until I hear it from a Transgender Brazilian Linguist.

          156. Well, that’s fine.
            But I was already convinced that natural selection happened, long before I skimmed that article…

            Poor Atheists never seem to realize when they’re making MY case for me.

          157. Absolutely.
            100%
            Only a mind “selects.”

            Scientists who hate the idea of God can’t even come up with a way to describe nature without accidentally giving Him credit…

          158. Men can’t “make” something which made them.

            As for the Canaanites–the fact that they were Theistic also strengthens my case. Not Ark’s. 🙂

          159. Probably not the best way to phrase the question. My apologizes. Let me try again.

            How do you imagine the entity behind the mind you call your god?

          160. The way you phrased it was fine. You can’t “imagine” or “see” a mind. It’s not a thing, that you can pin down and describe easily.

            Humans have minds and make choices because we were made in God’s image. The human mind is a reflection of God.

            So, if you can describe how you “imagine” your own mind, then you’ll have answered your own question. The mind of God is similar to that.

          161. Sorry, once again I am not making myself clear enough.
            A mind cannot be a separate entity, as you pointed out, so how do you imagine/envisage you god?

          162. Yes–a mind CAN be a separate entity. I didn’t point out anything contrary. I said your mind is similar. The difference is that you have a body–and God doesn’t.

          163. My mind has a body.
            We are now discussing your god, who you claim does not have a body.
            Can you explain how this works and explain how you can know this about your god.

          164. I don’t. Although evidence suggests it does need one.
            But I am not a god.
            So how do you know your god does not need a body?

          165. No, lots of evidence suggests that people are MORE than matter/chemicals. When you say “evidence suggests” you mean “my Atheist sources have told me brain matter explains it all.”
            They lied. No one knows what consciousness and thoughts and mind ARE…

          166. No.
            I can’t describe him any better.

            Just like the best scientists in the world can’t describe the HUMAN mind. I can’t describe God.

          167. Because you claim to know that your god exists, is the right god out of all the thousands of gods that abound in human culture, whose proponents also claim is the right ( and only ) god yet you are unable to describe this god or I venture the source from where you ”discovered ” this god, yet you also claim to be a Christian.
            Sorry, Amanda, you are a fraud.

          168. Ah… “that he is the right god out of all the thousands of gods.”

            Never said that.
            Ever.
            You keep ASSIGNING that belief to me, and trying to MAKE ME give you a very specific, closed-minded definition of God, so that you can trap me. But I’ve never said my God is “the right god out of all the thousands of gods.” I’ve actually suggested that all of those thousands of gods are the same God. All humans are searching for the same God, and we’ve all got him a little bit right, and we’ve ALL got him a little bit wrong. Myself included.

          169. Yet you claim to be a Christian, and thus your god is a personal god and that personal is supposed to be the character , Jesus of Nazareth, who Christians believe was Yahweh manifested in the flesh.
            So no, Amanda, your personal god (sic) is not the same as the thousands upon thousand of other gods that abound in human culture.
            And to say this suggests you are either lying or are simply delusional.
            Only you know which one, and if I were you I’d opt for liar.

          170. No. You can believe whatever you like as long as you don’t pass such beliefs on as truth/fact to children.
            Little can be done for adults who are prepared to accept such tripe, they will either reject or accept depending on their emotional condition at the time. Very much like you.

            What you are doing , in fact, is cherry picking your religious belief to suit how you feel about such beliefs and stubbornly flipping the bird to anyone who dares suggest you aren’t a Proper Christian.

            Hence, your feeble attempts at dismissing Yahweh, claiming you have ”evolved past this”, ( I must admit I hosed myself laughing at that. )

            You show little understanding of the history of your religion or how the bible was put together, rather deriding any sort of criticism as atheist nonsense.
            Yet, when confronted by archaeological, let alone historical evidence that flatly refutes biblical claims, regarding such nonsense as the Exodus etc, you then divert with gibberish or refuse to answer direct questions.
            Let’s remind ourselves that it is you who has the turmoil of the inner struggle to contend with.
            A feature of almost all reborn christians. So much so one might be tempted to say it is cliche.

            In the end you have tailored a cherry picked version to specifically cater to your own emotional and intellectual shortcomings that has absolutely no evidential worth whatsoever, because the evidence you choose to disregard refutes every foundational claim of your Christian faith.

            You may not be delusional, but what you believe most certainly is a delusion.

            Fortunately, you live in a society that respects your right to do so, and provides plenty of outlets for you to express yourself.

            You should consider yourself fortunate that this same society recognizes that many people realise what you hold on to is a delusion and provides infrastructure to help you cope once you are prepared to acknowledge this fact.

          171. Humanity HAS evolved past your childish idea of who Yahweh was/is. Obviously.
            Everyone knows being a genocidal maniac would be wrong. Everyone knows that the character of Jesus is a great role model. (Even though Atheists can’t explain WHY. Poor things.) That’s evolution for you!

            But, goodness gracious, you feel very passionate about what you think I believe, don’t you? Wow. 🙂

            I told you, I’m a Theist. Like BILLIONS of people have been and still are. Any one of those Theists can feel free to explain to me if/why I’m wrong about God’s character. They can try to convince me that they understand God’s will better than I do; and I would be happy to listen. Theists have the common ground necessary to have those discussions.

            I’m trying to do as Cuthbert did, which was “isolate an element or a tradition of thought that was at the heart of Christianity (as well as Judaism and Greek philosophy), but was not itself synonymous with any of these things. What he identified, and what he called theism, was, basically, the idea that it was possible for such a thing as a disembodied mind to exist, and for mind to precede matter, rather than the other way around.”

            It’s not my fault that everything humans know by instinct–and everything the Greek Philosophers reasoned toward–and everything that scientists have discovered–happens to correspond perfectly with the character of God that the Ancient Jews recorded. They discovered what Thomas Aquinas also described…and Sir Isaac Newton…and Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei and Blaise Pascal and Francis Bacon…
            And they all happen to be Christians. It’s not my fault that every time someone seeks “Truth” they get very, very close to Christianity.

          172. Everyone knows that the character of Jesus is a great role model

            Aside from being a narrative construct and the fact you have absolutely no way of ascertaining whether what the smelly little Jewish prophet this character may be based upon said anything at all that is recorded in the anonymous gospels, much of what is recorded is simply ridiculous tripe and quite frankly bad advice; ethically, morally and from the perspective of simple common sense. Furthermore, what positive things that are recorded are unoriginal and such sayings or home truths if you prefer, existed long before this bloke arrived on the scene. And we have plenty of evidence to back this up. If Yeshua existed, he was by and large, an irresponsible dick.

            Theists have the common ground necessary to have those discussions.

            Hilarious! Common ground? Are you kidding? What a thoroughly ignorant and bloody stupid thing to say. Theists have been slaughtering each other over doctrine since man climbed down from the trees and ascribed agency (god – sic ) to thunder and smouldering volcanoes.

            What he identified, and what he called theism, was, basically, the idea that it was possible for such a thing as a disembodied mind to exist, and for mind to precede matter, rather than the other way around.”

            Based on a false premise. A premise that has no verifiable evidence, as every foundational claim of Christianity is unsubstantiated man made rubbish . And thus he, like every Christian, he got it wrong.

          173. “…much of what is recorded is simply ridiculous tripe and quite frankly bad advice; ethically, morally and from the perspective of simple common sense.”

            Fabulous. I’ll remember that the next time you or another angry Atheist yells, “You’re supposed to be a Christian! What would Jesus do???”

            Lol. Poor thing.

          174. Would her answer be more palatable if she was an Egyptian Optometrist who plays accordion?

          175. And this is why you are a Dickhead, John. Keep it up.
            With gags like that you’ll have your audience falling over themselves.
            One can hope nobody gets hurt as they fight for the exit.

          176. No, because evolution explains everything I need.
            You need a god and chtistianity because you believe (mistakenly) you are unable to function without your blood sacrifice cult.

          177. No! Evolution doesn’t explain everything you need.

            You also need FINKELSTEIN!

          178. A little of all of those.
            Plus a persistent streak of selfish rebellion. I care more about myself than I do others. I’m careless and mean. I don’t always tell the truth.

            I could go on and on.

            You got any sins, Ark?

          179. Yay! Another addition to my collection of comments. I have a category of screenshots called, “Times creepy Atheists asked personal questions for no reason.”

          180. That was creepy? Really?
            Along with Homosexuality, these three ”sins” are almost regarded as ubiquitous,the creme de la creme when it comes to confessionals and reason why such halfwits ”Found the Lawd.” and got saved. One might regard it as almost cliche.

            ‘Scuse me, I need to gag.

          181. Old?

            Why creepy? The ”sins” expressed by christians should often be prosecuted by law.

            The Catholic church is guilty of such heinous predatory behaviour against women and children and this has, by and large, been covered up in the name of ”confession and repentance”.
            Religious people have continued to perpetuate such behaviour and believe they can be ”right with their god” if they simply acknowledge and confess. Such sins inclusde child abuse to adult rape,infidelity to drunken driving , corruption etc etc ad nauseum.
            So don’t you dare suggest such questions are creepy, because if less of this vile shit was protected by religious privilege we would probably have a more honest and healthier society.,

          182. You’re way off topic now, dude.

            Morality is just OPINION, remember? It’s just a trick of Evolution. Remember?

            That’s why you’re perfect. EVERYBODY is perfect. Remember?

            No…you must have forgotten.

          183. Do you think he really believes that sin is just for religious people?

            Remember how outraged the atheists were when they thought we had accused ALL atheists of being immoral?

          184. They play word games. They don’t like the word “sin,” but they’re comfortable with “imperfection.”

            …usually…

            ….right now he’s avoiding even that word, because he knows where this is going.

          185. What’s funny is your calling me a Dickhead when I start talking like you.

          186. I am flattered that you believe you sound like me . However,I just don’t think you have the off-the -cuff repartee, John. This lack makes your delivery style sound so terribly strained. Constipated even. Or simply full of shit, perhaps?

            Perhaps you should consider a career as a speech write for Donald Trump?

          187. No. I only sound like you when I’m a Dickhead.

            When I sound like me, I sell DVDs and attract thousands of readers to my blog.

          188. I only sound like you when I’m a Dickhead.

            Really? In actual fact you generally sound like Dickhead when you are being a christian.

          189. You mean you haven’t actually read the Pentateuch, John?
            Although, I understand why you might not have.
            It is one of the surest ways to set you on the path to deconversion.

            I’ll bet you’re just a bit of a scaredy-cat when it comes to confronting what a nasty piece of work your god truly is eh, John?

          190. ATTENTION READERS – Ark’s comments are simply his personal opinions. They are unsubstantiated and can be dismissed with impunity.

          191. He indirectly answered your question from earlier. How can we know which parts of Jesus’ character are fact and which are fiction? Well, anything that sounds Divine MUST be fictional. Performing miracles, raising from the dead, etc. (Also the talking donkey thing.) There are no YouTube videos that show those things. Therefore, they never happened. lol.

          192. YES! Lets do that!
            Please don’t ‘forget’ you were asked these questions:

            Was secular Russia NEUTRAL toward religion under Lenin’s leadership?

            How about secular Cambodia under Pol Pot?

          193. Now,now. Don’t be naughty, John
            The term used was secular democracy, I think you will find.

            Most secular readers already realise you are a devious little shit so for your own sake let’s not add fuel to the fires shall we?

          194. Now, now. Don’t be naughty, Ark.
            You couldn’t give a single example of a ‘secular democracy’. There is no such thing.

            You’re no philosopher.

            Either answer the questions or assume the title of ‘devious little shit’ yourself.

          195. I already gave you an example if secular democracy. Here it is again …
            One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people.

            You can insert any country you deem fits the bill.

          196. You’re completely lost.

            The point I made, one million years ago, is that democracy exists because of theism, specifically Christianity. You cannot have religious NEUTRALITY in a purely secular society. Every secular regime has OUTLAWED religion. That is NOT neutral.

            Your argument that democratic society improves without religion is false. Russia, Cambodia are just two historical examples of what happens when religion is removed from society.

          197. In a form you will instantly grasp …
            Putting a fictional character, say, Jesus of Nazareth, in a genuine geographical/historical setting, such as 1st century Palestine some time before Titus and the Tenth Legion marched on Jerusalem.

          198. Got it.
            Can I pick and choose which parts of the ‘Jesus of Nazareth character’ are historical and which are fiction?

          199. Really?
            Give me the names of a couple of biblical scholars who believe that.

          200. No. I can’t be more specific.
            You’re stalling.
            Give me a couple of bible scholars who claim Jesus of Nazareth is fiction.

          201. Names.
            The names of biblical scholars who give you the authority to declare Jesus of Nazareth is fiction.

            You’re not arguing based on YouTube videos, are you?

          202. I have already stated, that the character, Jesus of Nazareth, as portrayed in the bible, is a narrative construct.

            This is the view of every non-Christian biblical scholar I am aware of.

            Which non-Christian biblical scholars are you suggesting consider he was anything but?

          203. NAMES!!!!!
            For the love of all things holy, provide a name and a quote that says that!!!!

            It should be easy if “every non-Christian biblical scholar” holds that view.

            Give a name and a quote!!!!

          204. Give me the names of a couple of these ‘non-Christian biblical scholars’.

            (Or just admit that you only watch YouTube videos.)

          205. Let me get this straight:
            You are asking for … ”’a couple of these ‘non-Christian biblical scholars”, who do not believe the character, Jesus of Nazareth, as portrayed in the bible, was a bona fide historical person?

          206. You rascal.
            You said:
            “The character, Jesus of Nazareth, is fiction.”

            I want the names of scholars who convinced you of that. Maybe they will convince me.

            (Or just admit that you only watch YouTube videos and end this charade.)

          207. I automatically presumed we were talking about the biblical character?
            The one who supposedly performed miracles, died and came back to life?
            Is this not the Jesus of Nazareth to whom you refer, John?

          208. Right.
            YouTube videos, then.

            ATTENTION READERS: Ark’s statements are reflections of his personal opinions. They should not be taken as fact.

          209. Ah.. as I thought. No real scholars after all.
            You really must try to focus on reality a little more. Oh, and telling the truth as well.

            So, divine command theory.
            Do YOU want to have a go at demonstrating the veracity of your god, Yahweh, as your daughter is making such a pig’s ear of it as usual, I’m afraid.

          210. ATTENTION READERS – Ark has forgotten that HE was asked to provide the names of scholars to support his claim. Apparently, he has suffered a stroke in the last 10 minutes.

          211. I literally laughed out loud at his “…as I thought…no real scholars” statement.

            What a maroon.

          212. Also…I don’t know if you’re following my conversation with him, but he can’t bring himself to say that the next generation could, theoretically, evolve to think puppy-killing is moral.

            He’s not as honest as Richard Dawkins, who said our belief that rape is wrong is “arbitrary.”

          213. Yes. Hitler was evil… and Ark has so much Christianity and Godliness wired into him that he just KNOWS Hitler was evil.
            He can’t explain why.

          214. EVOLUTION!!!!
            That’s why!
            Evolution demonstrates that Hitler was evil. How can you be so dense?

            And what do you have against puppies?

          215. There are no scholars – besides Christians – who believe the character Jesus of Nazareth, as portrayed in the bible, was a genuine historical figure.

          216. Brilliant!
            You say Jesus is fiction and you’re alone in that claim.
            There are no scholars backing you up.
            You’re dismissed.

          217. No, there are no scholars, besides Christians who consider the character, Jesus of Nazareth as portrayed in the bible as historical.
            Do you need me to spell it out even more succinctly or have you finally managed to grasp the truth of what I have written?

          218. Heavens no! I understand exactly what you’re saying!

            There are no scholars claiming that Jesus was fiction. It is only YOU making that claim. You made it up.

            Dismissed.

          219. No scholar – besides those of a Christian bent – accepts that the biblical Character, Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, performed miracles, was divine etc etc ad nauseum.

          220. To whom were you referring when you said:
            “…Jesus of Nazareth, as portrayed in the bible, is a narrative construct.
            This is the view of every non-Christian biblical scholar I am aware of.”

            Dismissed.
            You’re a joke.

          221. No.
            Who were you referring to with the “non-Christian biblical scholar I am aware of.” statement?

            Ark.
            You’re done.
            It’s over.

          222. Yes, this is factually correct.There are no non-Christian bible scholars who accept the character, Jesus of Nazareth as portrayed in the bible, to be historical.

          223. The Dishonorable Judge Ark, presiding…

            Please take your oath by placing your right hand on whatever book your Atheist friend summarized for you.
            Lol

          224. Ah .. and here comes Ignorant Daughter Dear to the rescue.

            Tell, me, are you able to actually demonstrate you are capable of critical thought, or do you simply assume Jesus was your god and build your sandcastle from this presuppositional standpoint?

          225. That whole thing where someone “demonstrates they are capable of critical thought” was what you were supposed to be doing. You can’t just assign your homework back to me. Lol

            And, I just noticed you posted another long, rambling speech about Yahweh at the bottom of this thread–using one of my summary lines! HAHAHA! You literally don’t understand what’s happening until someone explains it to you. Poor thing.

            So, our pattern goes like this:

            1. Ark comments on a post he doesn’t understand.
            2. Ark is asked to summarize the original post and/or make a point. (He doesn’t.)
            3. Ark finds a way to bring up Yahweh despite being told “Yahweh has almost nothing to do with the post.”
            4. Ark feels embarrassed that his terrible reading skills are being exposed, so he tells everyone else they are unstable or indoctrinated or incapable of critical thought. Or all three.
            5. The Dishonorable Judge Ark completely takes over the thread, demanding everyone else answer HIS questions. (In his court, defendants are guilty until proven innocent.)
            6. Everyone tries all day to get Ark back on topic, until they finally get tired of him and start clicking “like” on all of his gibberish.
            7. Ark feels lonely and comments on a NEW post he doesn’t understand, even though he won’t understand any of it until someone takes pity and offers a summary.

          226. You left out the ”Mwaahahahahah!! ”

            Slipping, Amanda. Tsk, Tsk.

            Which reminds me. I need to give one of my dogs her tablets.
            Ecuse me for five minutes, please….

          227. You’re right.

            And step #8 could be, “Oh, I have this show to watch, or this other thing at home to do, which no one cares about and only serves as a diversion.”

            And also Step #9, “What was the question again? I’ve answered all questions and provided loads of evidence! I have! I really, really have!”

          228. So, if we are to talk about Divine Command Theory we have to establish the veracity of the Divinity in question, surely?

            Pick a god… any god.

          229. Nope.
            You are supposed to be offering an alternative to Divine Command Theory as it relates to ANY God.

            I’m not answering your questions, Dis. Judge Ark.

            (For those following along, we’re now on Step #5, as the Judge begins his interrogation.)

            1. Ark comments on a post he doesn’t understand.
            2. Ark is asked to summarize the original post and/or make a point. (He doesn’t.)
            3. Ark finds a way to bring up Yahweh despite being told “Yahweh has almost nothing to do with the post.”
            4. Ark feels embarrassed that his terrible reading skills are being exposed, so he tells everyone else they are unstable or indoctrinated or incapable of critical thought. Or all three.
            5. The Dishonorable Judge Ark completely takes over the thread, demanding everyone else answer HIS questions. (In his court, defendants are guilty until proven innocent.)
            6. Everyone tries all day to get Ark back on topic, until they finally get tired of him and start clicking “like” on all of his gibberish.
            7. Ark feels lonely and comments on a NEW post he doesn’t understand, even though he won’t understand any of it until someone takes pity and offers a summary.

          230. Actually if you read the post carefully, you will see it is, in essence, about justifying DCT on the basis that the christian god is real and the right god to worship.

            Therefore, the onus is on you to demonstrate that not only is your god real and the right one, but what is written in the bible is true concerning DCT ( where it involves Yahweh in his original form, as a make-believe Canaanite deity and also, as the New Testament character, Jesus of Nazareth.

            I will bet anything you care to mention you are unable to effectively do this.

          231. The last comment was Step #3 AND Step #5. (He skipped Step #4, it seems.)

            1. Ark comments on a post he doesn’t understand.
            2. Ark is asked to summarize the original post and/or make a point. (He doesn’t.)
            3. Ark finds a way to bring up Yahweh despite being told “Yahweh has almost nothing to do with the post.”
            4. Ark feels embarrassed that his terrible reading skills are being exposed, so he tells everyone else they are unstable or indoctrinated or incapable of critical thought. Or all three.
            5. The Dishonorable Judge Ark completely takes over the thread, demanding everyone else answer HIS questions. (Defendants are guilty until proven innocent.)
            6. Everyone tries repeatedly to get Ark back on topic, but he keeps saying: “I’ve given you evidence! Science! Evolution! I’ve answered your questions! What was the question I missed?”
            7. Finally, everyone gets tired of him and just clicks “like” on all of his gibberish.
            8. Ark feels lonely and comments on a NEW post he doesn’t understand, hoping someone eventually takes pity and offers a summary.

          232. Aha, THERE’S step #4, folks. I knew we couldn’t get too far without it…

            1. Ark comments on a post he doesn’t understand.
            2. Ark is asked to summarize the original post and/or make a point. (He doesn’t.)
            3. Ark finds a way to bring up Yahweh despite being told “Yahweh has almost nothing to do with the post.”
            4. Ark feels embarrassed that his terrible reading skills are being exposed, so he tells everyone else they are unstable or indoctrinated or incapable of critical thought. Or all three.
            5. The Dishonorable Judge Ark completely takes over the thread, demanding everyone else answer HIS questions. (Defendants are guilty until proven innocent.)
            6. Everyone tries repeatedly to get Ark back on topic, but he keeps saying: “I’ve given you evidence! Science! Evolution! I’ve answered your questions! What was the question I missed?”
            7. Finally, everyone gets tired of him and just clicks “like” on all of his gibberish.
            8. Ark feels lonely and comments on a NEW post he doesn’t understand, hoping someone eventually takes pity and offers a summary.

          233. Before you wander further along the path of absurdity, could you please demonstrate the veracity of your god, Yahweh, or in his human man-god form , Jesus of Nazareth, and then we can have a genuine discussion about DCT.

          234. Aaaaaaand, back to Judge Ark, asking the off-topic questions about Yahweh. (Steps #3 and #5)

            1. Ark comments on a post he doesn’t understand.
            2. Ark is asked to summarize the original post and/or make a point. (He doesn’t.)
            3. Ark finds a way to bring up Yahweh despite being told “Yahweh has almost nothing to do with the post.”
            4. Ark feels embarrassed that his terrible reading skills are being exposed, so he tells everyone else they are unstable or indoctrinated or incapable of critical thought. Or all three.
            5. The Dishonorable Judge Ark completely takes over the thread, demanding everyone else answer HIS questions. (Defendants are guilty until proven innocent.)
            6. Everyone tries repeatedly to get Ark back on topic, but he keeps saying: “I’ve given you evidence! Science! Evolution! I’ve answered your questions! What was the question I missed?”
            7. Finally, everyone gets tired of him and just clicks “like” on all of his gibberish.
            8. Ark feels lonely and comments on a NEW post he doesn’t understand, hoping someone eventually takes pity and offers a summary.

  4. And there’s the rub. Most anti-theists and agnostics I know see Divine Command Theory as simply Mortal Command Theory dressed up in the snake oil salesmen garb of religion, and refuse to look much further. It takes effort to see the true character of God through the Bible, and it is much easier to dismiss the whole thing the second it starts to make one uncomfortable. With most people, even believers sometimes, that usually kicks in about the same time God starts making demands on one’s behavior.

    1. It takes effort to see the true character of God through the Bible,

      Not really. He is a self-serving, capricious egotistical, meglomaniacal arsehole.
      Thank the gods he is a narrative construct.

        1. I thought you might appreciate that.

          For you, John, truth is like a big fat pill you can’t swallow, eh?
          Or maybe a Wish Sandwich.
          (That’s two slices of bread wishing there was something in between)

          1. We haven’t been paying him much attention the past few days. I’ll click ‘like’ a few times to assure him that we haven’t forgotten all about him.

  5. Divine command theory (also known as theological voluntarism) is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action’s status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God.

  6. Divine command theory is actually about gods morality, not ours.
    Is what god does good because it is good (even god is subject to a standard of morality and ethics outside of himself)
    Or is what God does good because he does it (does God doing it make it good by definition)
    The second is dtc

    1. I think it is about humans making shit up, writing it down and claiming it is all about a god. Then, afterwards, using this to justify their own heinous behaviour.

      1. Here’s how to footnote that comment in future scholarly publications:
        “Something that Ark thinks”., Blog Commentary, 2016.

Dive into the discussion...

Archives
Subscribe to Blog via Email

Get my blog in your inbox!

Follow

Get the latest posts delivered to your mailbox:

Your Cart