Total posts: 3,179
-->
@3RU7AL
There is an invitation there, by God. Thus it is not a want of something that should not belong to us, but something designed for our good by God. God is for a better relationship with humanity, but it must be through His set means because that means is sufficient to meet God's standard - His righteousness. There is nothing wrong with restoring a broken relationship, but it is a two-way street. It must be the desire of both parties.So, it's "greed" to want some things, but not "greed" to want other things? How do you know which is which?
If both parties do not want the same thing, it will not happen, at least not without resentment, yet we know it is good to love one another. God knows we NEED certain things, like food, love, shelter. When we want or desire things that hurt others, the law of coveting applies, whether that someone is ourselves, another, or both.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you going to stand up for what is right is the question?What does The Bible prescribe for "defamation of character"?
Deuteronomy 19:17-19 (NASB)
17 then both people who have the dispute shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. 18 And the judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has testified against his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him just as he had planned to do to his brother. So you shall eliminate the evil from among you.
17 then both people who have the dispute shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. 18 And the judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has testified against his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him just as he had planned to do to his brother. So you shall eliminate the evil from among you.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
You either accept one or the other. The question is which is more reasonable to believe? Do you think chance happenstance (no reason involved) is??When [1] an intelligent person sees that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old, has 10 sextillion stars and 10^25 planets and the Earth has 8.7 million species and all life came from a single cell organism the lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago,, they realize it is happenstance. That is why Einstein said, 'The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weakness'.
[1] The implication is that only an intelligent person would see the universe how you have been funnelled to see it.
[2] Happenstance is not logical to believe. These beliefs are all presuppositions with lots of baggage with them. The age of the universe has changed with our knowledge and worldview models, and beliefs. The number of planets is assumed to be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 by whom? All life comes from a single-celled organism is a Darwinian worldview presupposition with all kinds of difficulties, one of those being missing links.
The fact is that Einstein also said that God does not play dice with the universe, and Einstein had a concept of God.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The fact that several massive events almost killed all life on earth (and has several times) kinda disproves even the earth was made for life, in fact, you would have to prove it was made at all to get any implications from its being there.
Fact or presupposition? You were not there. I agree that one event, the Flood, almost destroyed all life on earth. How does that event disprove the earth was made for life? Where else in the universe do you find the conditions NECESSARY for life? If the earth was not life-permitting, why is there life on it? The fact is that the earth is life-permitting, and you do find life here and so far nowhere else that we know of in the universe. Furthermore, if the conditions were not right, the universe would not even be here. If the natural laws were not precise, the universe would not exist. Regarding thermodynamics, why has it not died a heat death?
As for the theory of everything, "God is the reason" is reasonable, for a reason is a mindful process.
I am not assuming that god did not create the universe, that is not my burden to prove, but yours, and [1] whenever I said chance not having an agency was nonsense, I meant you saying it at all, clearly, it doesn't and if ou read my response honestly you would know that. Finally, [2] any god that did exist would be supernatural, literally impossible by the laws of physics
[1] What is "chance?"
Show me it has the ability to do anything.
[2] Any god that did not exist would not be God.
God, as a supernatural Being, is the Occam razor of explanations.
1. With Him, there is a reason for the universe.
2. God has what is necessary for the universe. He transcends time and space, so He is not of the physical realm, which began.
3. He is the simplest reason since the Big Bang can morph into many other scenarios, with black holes, wormholes, an expanding and contracting universe, a steady-state universe, multiverses, etc.
4. Experientially and observationally, every cause has an explanation, yet when you get to the Big Bang, you don't know? You trace the cause and effect back to a point in time, a singularity, then no further. With God, that is not the case. We can go beyond the universe.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don't know what caused the big bang, but do to the fact that no one has proven a god exists and there is evidence against a gods existence, then anything is more likely than a god causing the big bang.
Actually, the contrary of what you say is more reasonable. A necessary being is a reasonable belief; chance happenstance or physical necessity is not.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist (per your Big Bang admission).
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. (you say you don't know the cause but dismiss God)
So, you have to have a cause that is sufficient for the universe to exist - God. Now, what is that cause without God? Let's you and me determine how reasonable it is.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not only this, I have offered to give you the reasons why the biblical God is reasonable to believe, whereas other belief systems are not.Let's skip ahead.GOD is a real-true-fact and The Bible is 100% real-true-fact, now what?What does this mean to me in a real-life-practical-everyday scenario?Don't worship other gods? No problem.Don't manufacture idols? No problem.Don't say "YHWH"? No problem.Don't work on Saturday? Jesus canceled this one, we should actually make this "the 9 commandments". No problem.Honor thy parents? No problem.Don't murder? No problem.Don't adulterate? No problem.Don't steal? No problem.Don't perjure yourself? No problem.Don't desire stuff? I already find it practical to focus on contentment, so, no problem.What else?
Anything that relates to these laws/commandments, which Jesus summed up in two, to love God and to love other human beings. The point is that you will break some as an accountable human being. That means that you are guilty before God as well as hurting other human beings. Do you want to stand before God on your own merit or upon the merit of another who has met every righteous requirement of God?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I gave you a reference to the Ten Commandments when you asked before for a chart.#1, the "commandments" are not FACTS. The "commandments" are statements of DOGMA.
So, it is not wrong to murder, steal, lie, covet, practice adultery, or disrespect your parents? If you do not believe these things are wrong why would I trust you?
(People, lock up your valuables, don't believe 3BRUTAL, and watch out he does not stab you in the back)
#2, even (IFF) we accepted the "commandments" as 100% "true" (AND) we tried to follow them to the letter (THEN) we still end up with a ridiculous number of loop-holes and unanswered (perhaps unanswerable) legal (and moral) questions
What happens is we realize we cannot meet the standard because once we are guilty of breaking any commandment, we have wrongs not only our fellow human beings, beings who are also imperfect, but God who is morally good, pure, holy, and perfect.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Therefore, "morality" must be based on facts.I agree. Now, who sets these moral facts in motion? It must be a necessary being. Morality is a mindful thing.Nobody "sets facts".
Moral facts are facts based on what is mindful. Morality is a mindful thing. And God, as Creator, would also determine how the physical universe functions. He set it into motion too. Thus, any quantitative fact is based on His knowledge and how He creates it to be. We are factual in regards to the physical world when we think God's thoughts after Him. He created the object and knows every single aspect of it and how it does and is meant to function. We do not in the case of origins and many other created things. In many cases, His word explains how things are.
FACTS must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary.
Again, how do you demonstrate the laws of logic empirically? Until you can demonstrate the laws of logic are empirical and not abstract conceptual, your argument unravels on your claim that facts must be empirically demonstrated.
This means they are always VERIFIABLE.
Only the ones we can verify. (^8
Many facts are not yet verifiable by human beings. The law of gravity was not verifiable until Newton demonstrated it. That does not mean it did not exist or was not operating. We did not know it.
No "appeal to authority" needed.
"Appeal to authority" is different from an actual authority. You can appeal to anyone as an authority. Just doing that does not make them one. They have to show they understand and are an expert on the subject matter in question.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Some label or call that framework moral conventions or moral norms. With such conventions or norms where two countries or two individuals oppose each other, then who is right? What then is the actual case?THE BIBLE DOESN'T SOLVE THIS "PROBLEM".
Yes, it does, provided the biblical God exists and is who He is described as. It solves the problem in that it is a written testimony that gives a universal, ultimate, absolute, objective, unchanging, eternal, omniscient best or final measure and reference point to compare good and bad against.
IF TWO PEOPLE THINK THE BIBLE SUPPORTS THEIR CLAIM, HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHO IS "CORRECT"?
God's word is the standard, so it should be appealed to on logical grounds as to what it says.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I would agree a possible reason was that the HUMAN had a trigger mechanism built into its design, so it instinctively responded, or that response became a habit based on experience. Survival.
Yes, you may agree. And what makes that right as opposed to someone thinking the opposite? If there is no fixed, universal, unchanging standard, it becomes a matter of opinion.
"Built into its design = what is, not necessarily what ought to be.
Not only that, you are describing what someone does, not what someone should do. If I have been beaten in the past and that beating starts by someone raising their hands in a particular manner, and I associate that behaviour as leading to a beating and respond by first beating them up, what is wrong with that? My triggered mechanism is preventing what I see as harmful. Does that mean my actions are good or JUSTIFIED?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
The study is implying what you're saying is moral behavior (reducing distress in our own species) is not in any way uniquely human, and it's not even the only study to demonstrate what we'd consider' morals' in animals. If it is not uniquely human, and rats don't give a fig about Jesus or Vishnu, then morality is not contingent on any god.
You misunderstand. I am questioning how behaviour (what is descriptive) is how we derive morality (what should be, or the prescriptive). Do animals reason as we do about what is good rather than by instinct or the clan's protection mechanism? As you point out, they cannot reason and argue about Jesus or Vishnu as we can in whom was God. You don't find rat committees or forums on pointing out what is necessary for something to be morally good.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
8). You have the analogy backward. The person needing the kidney is analogous to the unborn.
The person needing the kidney is usually a stranger, not related in any way. The unborn is the woman's biological offspring. The person is not violating the kidney recipient's bodily autonomy; rather, the Judith Thomson example is the opposite. The violinist or his doctors violate the donor's bodily autonomy by touching it and hooking up tubes without consent. The donor does not touch the recipient's body directly with his/her body, so the analogy fails here. With the woman and the unborn, they share a natural connection by design. It is what every unborn child shares with their mother. You want to make it a choice by the woman whether she will allow this natural process to take place and ignore the unborn's most basic bodily autonomy and natural right, the right to life.
Without that right, we can have no other rights.
9). Sex is not consent to pregnancy - addressed above.
It is for it is indirectly understood that pregnancy may result.
10). You are arguing consent and rights in general are non existent when they cannot be understood?
I'm not sure the context once again, so I will take a stab at it. You are arguing the non-existence part. I am arguing for the existence of the unborn. What is hard about that to understand?
Can someone without the ability to understand right from wrong do whatever they like?
That someone can if they have the mental ability to do right and wrong, but they will suffer the consequences of the wrongs from those who enforce the laws.
Laws are applicable to everyone.
Laws are only as good as those making them. Hitler's laws concerning Jews were dehumanizing, as are abortion laws regarding the unborn. The problem is that you cannot admit these abortion laws are wrong because your extreme bias is not open to what is being killed. You continually degrade the unborn human being to a lesser status, as do your lawmakers.
11). Most abortions occur by medication long before the ability to [1] feel pain or awareness has developed and [2] at least half of all conceptions end *naturally*-You're [3] attempting to poison the well with emotionality built on dishonesty and/or ignorance.
[1] Perhaps. Even so, because a human being cannot feel pain, does that give you the right to kill them? You are giving the reason that the lack of pain gives human beings the right to kill other human beings. Society should be allowed to kill all congenital analgesia people (those who do not feel pain) on such thinking.
Not only this, the goalposts of abortion keep shifting as to when it is permissible to kill the unborn, right up until birth in some states. The governor of West Virginia wants to make it permissible to abort even after birth. (a sick human being).
[2] There is a difference between what happens naturally and what happens by intent. The one we can't prevent, the other (intent to do harm) we can.
[3] Anyone who can't get emotional and disgusted by such dehumanization, discrimination, and devaluation needs to examine their moral compass, IMO. If a person can't be outraged by moral injustice or can't recognize moral injustice, are they not ignorant and/or dishonest with themselves? Again, please be aware that you apply the same poisoning you criticize me. By labelling 'dishonest and/or ignorant,' you express your feelings on the issue and infuse and fuel more emotion and poison into the well. IMO, it is an attempt to shut down the discussion and win admiration by those who think similarly, and there are some things everyone should be emotionally angered by.
The question is whether what I said is true and whether you should be morally outraged or not in determining whether I poisoned the well, instead of just the label and false charge (well prisoner) to persuade others the well has indeed been poisoned when the water is still fine to drink.
12). Consenting to vaginal sex is not consent to use of spleen, liver, mind, or uterus.
Here you go again, dehumanizing the unborn by making light of what it is in comparing it to a liver, spleen or uterus. Those things are organs of the organism, the entity - a human being. Livers, spleens, and uteruses make up the entity and are distinct from the complete organism.
Consenting to sex brings the possibility of a pregnancy, and if it happens the moral responsibility or obligation of both parents is to protect the new life.
As said before, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy - it is consent to share one's body with another who exists at that moment.
That consent to share bodies may result in a pregnancy. If I consent to be a lumberjack, then I consent to the risks that may involve. It is up to me to be aware of the dangers involved.
13). If you were using my body to live, I *do* get to disconnect you - even if that means you will die. My body is my domain.
The unborn's body is its domain. In our one debate, you continually thought of the unborn as a "part of the woman's body." It is not part of her body, it is a separate body. On this misconception, you build your argument. Yes, it uses her body for a period of around nine months as its natural home, the womb. Without this home, there would be no humanity.
Next, because someone is dependent upon you does not give you the right to kill them. Your newborn and toddlers are also dependent upon you. That does not give you the right to kill them either. The mother does not have the right to neglect the newborn, nor should she the unborn. She has an obligation to protect the newborn, but not the unborn UNLESS she wants to. How is that not discrimination and devaluation?
14). The ability to experience life's beauty is what makes life valuable...and more of that experience does not devalue that life. Having the capacity to experience being alive is what makes life special. Lacking that capacity (and never having achieved it) is at best potential. Potential experience =/= experience. Potential life =/= life
The ability to experience the beauty that the woman wants to deny her living unborn. Killing the unborn is a devaluation of that life. It is expendable on the woman's whim.
As for your "capacity" argument, you support the woman not allowing some growing human beings the experiences that make life special. The unborn do have the capacity. It has not been developed yet. Lots of people have the capacity but not yet the ability to do things. The potential is a certainty if the woman will let it live and grow.
Every one of your 14 responses is a weak, weak argumentation.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
How do you define moral relativism?The short or long version?Clear and concise would be nice.
No universal, absolute moral values, but everything is open to interpretation and subjectivism. 'Good' means whatever a person, a group, a society decides it means.
A good move is one that gives you the tempo and puts your opponent on the defensive by applying pressure and exploiting weaknesses.In regards to morality, you said right could not be determined without an "objective moral standard". By that reasoning, the absence of an 'objective chess standard' would leave us unable to objectively determine 'right' chess moves. Do you have an 'objective chess standard'?
Again, you are equivocating and comparing apples to oranges.
If not, could it be you've fallen into some sort of chess relativism and you have no basis to say any move is better than another without this fixed reference point? ...Or could it be there is a third option?
In any given situation, there is the best response and then all the others. Finding the best move is always troublesome and requires a lot of thought, even with the pros. Since our minds are limited, we may never find the best response on a chessboard since we have to look ahead in our minds to a number of moves. The question with moral VALUES is what is the best the good is compared with? If there are no best values, it becomes arbitrary and can mean whatever the person or group wants to make it mean because it shifts.
For our finite minds, it depends on the opening. Some openings have a standard reply that leads to a checkmate (Fools Mate, two moves each) in a limited number of moves....why should we avoid checkmate?
It is not desirable for our egos. It ends the game and we lose.
I prefer the game of Go.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
1). This doesn't address my argument. I explained why my needs have no impact on your control over your own body. You aren't addressing that.
What argument? What is the context?
2). This is not an argument, but an assertion. Fwiw, pregnancy is not a symbiotic relationship either.
What are you speaking about not being an argument? Again, you provided no context for anyone.
Pregnancy is an interaction between the woman and her biological offspring. The following article lists the three types of symbiotic relationships and lists some of the benefits the woman shares from the unborn.
3). False equivalence. There is no requirement a newborn live off the body of a particular individual - there are many paths to survival.
The equivalence is not false. While in the USA, there are usually other avenues open for the newborn, in third world countries, in rural areas of the USA, in poverty situations, or through lack of education are reasons why the newborn may be dependent completely on the woman. Next, it is a duty or obligation of the parents to look after their children, whether born or unborn. We live in this cancel culture that denies basic human rights to the most helpless.
Even barring those examples, your bodily autonomy does not grant you the right to kill another human being who is doing you no intentional harm.
4). Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy anymore than participating in social activities is consent to contracting Covid-19.
Consent to sex carries with it the possibility of pregnancy. If that happens, there is a moral obligation to protect the human life that you and other pro-choicers deny because you and pro-choicers mistreat the unborn, using dehumanizing and discriminatory language as an excuse to do what ought not to be done. Justice Blackmun did not even understand whether or not it was a person and personal being.
5). Abortion is not killing someone anymore than you refusing to donate a kidney is killing someone else in need of one. (I think you missed the point of the analogy).
There is a moral obligation for parents to protect their children from harm. The Judith Thomson analogy is hypothetical, but a person wakes up to find they are hooked up to a stranger without their consent. The analogy fails here. Christopher Kaczor, The Ethics of Abortion, p. 158, also points out that being unplugged from the violinist does not do anything to the violinist's bodily integrity. His bodily parts are not in direct contact with yours. Here again, the analogy fails. And, again, the missing part in your rebuttal is the bodily integrity of the unborn. What about that? It seems not to count to you or pro-choicers because you are myopic in your thought process and devaluation of the unborn. You strip it of its most fundamental natural right, the right to life, and your language is seeded with dehumanization. Meanwhile, the unborn are hacked to pieces, butchered with suction, poisoned, or chemically burned inside the womb. What other human beings would you treat like this?
6). An 'eye for an eye' leaves the world blind (and without kidneys).
If you intentionally and maliciously kill someone, what would be equal justice? They no longer live, but you do.
7). Abortion is not terminating an "innocent human life" - it is terminating pregnancy. Again, if you refuse your kidney to someone who needs it, you are not killing them or denying them a right to life.
First of all, it is living. Do you deny that?
Second, it is a human being, no different in its DNA (23 pairs/46 chromosomes = human) than any other human being. IT CAN'T BE ANY OTHER BEING but human. Do you deny that?
Third, at the moment of conception, it is uniquely different from the father or mother in its genetic makeup, sharing 23 chromosomes from each. Do you deny that?
Fourth, it is not there of its own accord in that it did not place itself there. It has done nothing wrong because it has not developed intentions yet. Thus it is not the guilt of wrongdoing. Do you deny that?
***
Again (and you did this in your debates too), you dehumanize the unborn, making it a bunch of or clump of cells rather than what it is, a complete human being, a separate entity from the woman, a unique, complete organism that directs its own grow from within. The analogy again fails since you compare apples to oranges, a kidney (an organ) with an unborn (a complete individual human being with its own kidneys and organs forming and growing).
There is a difference in moral obligation between a family member and a stranger.
Additionally, I don't accept the notion of 'higher rights'.
So you are saying that the right to life is no higher a right than the right to bodily autonomy, the right to kill an innocent human being (which is what the unborn is no matter how much you want to deny it).
Rights are meant to make life the best it can be and claiming any one is more important than the others misses the point. In other words, your right to life doesn't outweigh any of my rights and vice versa. Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins...your right to live ends where my body begins.
Do swinging fists result in a lesser sentence than killing you? Cutting off your finger results in a greater penalty than killing you. Both of those tamper with your bodily rights (in some societies), but killing you ends your bodily rights forever on this earth, yet you see bodily rights as greater????
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you really and truly strive to "love thine enemy" as Jesus instructed?I do, yet I fall short like everyone other than Jesus. I realize I can never measure up to the perfect Messiah.In light of this specific teaching, do you support your nation's military?
What are you getting at and what does this have to do with the topic?
Reminder: Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you know which Christian is correct?First, you have to understand there is a correct interpretation. Then you have to pay attention to hermeneutics and exegesis.Does your understanding of "a correct interpretation" match up with any established doctrine, or is your "a correct interpretation" a "fresh-new-illumination" of "The Word"?
In reference or relation to what?
Necessary beliefs or essential doctrine is non-negotiable for the Christian faith. They are also common sense. Logic tells us they are exclusive statements, applying to only one Person - Jesus Christ.
E.g.
Acts 4:12 (NASB)
12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among mankind by which we must be saved.”
12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among mankind by which we must be saved.”
John 14:6 (NASB)
6 Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.
6 Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The truth of the matter is that Betty is actually 98 years old and has grey hair.I know Betty personally and they do not appear to be anywhere near 98 years old, and they do not have any visible grey hair.
A FACT must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary.
Demonstrate the lows of logic empirically.
(IFF) someone tells you their name is "Betty" (AND) that person tells you they are "98 years old" (AND) that person appears to have naturally grey hair on their head (THEN) you know EXACTLY ONE FACT ABOUT THEM (namely, you can empirically demonstrate that at least some of the hair on their head appears to be naturally grey at least on the side that you were able to observe in the lighting conditions available at the time the data was gathered).
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
There has to be a fixed reference for truth.There must be a "fixed reference" (EXPLICIT PRIMARY AXIOMS) for "truth" (TAUTOLOGICAL STATEMENTS).
You will have to explain yourself further.
Something certain has to be referenced for there to be the truth, so truth has a fixed standard. Therefore moral values to be true must also have a fixed reference point. That fixed reference point has to be mindful.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is just an example that the truth is very narrow, whether quantitatively or qualitatively.Mathematical "truth" is TAUTOLOGICAL.
So there is no such thing as a mathematical error? You are implying that mathematics and truth are the same things. There are both mathematical truths and errors, thus mathematical truth is not a tautology.
It is also morally wrong to deceive someone by a mathematical slight in which you short change them on purpose to rob them of their money so mathematics can enter the realm of the qualitative too because people use it.
This tautological function is only possible because mathematics is based on rigorously defined explicit primary AXIOMS.Mathematical "truth" is QUANTITATIVE.
People make many errors in mathematics too. Many mathematical concepts cannot be demonstrated in our practical everyday existence or the physical realm, such as a mathematical infinity in anything but theory and notation. ...-5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,... That is, for one, because infinity is timeless. So, you can show them in formulas but not in physical actuality.
You can't just say "quantitatively or qualitatively" and pretend they're not OPPOSITE (mutually exclusive) CONCEPTS.
You misunderstand my point. I agree they are different value standards, but both qualitative and quantitative are values. One is easier to verify by the mind in conjunction with the physical senses because the standard is empirical.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The Ten Commandments is the blueprint that morality is framed from. From those principles we derive morality. Four deal with God, six deal with humanity. The 613 Mosaic Commandments are derivatives of these. Our moral systems incorporate many of these principles.Which one of these explains how long copyright protections should last?
No idea what you mean.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
What is the opposite of moral relativism?How do you define moral relativism?
The short or long version?
Now, if you have no objective standard, you run into other problems. How can you objectively determine right without an objective moral standard?Given you're a chess player, maybe this will be an analogy you grasp: how do you determine a good move in chess? Is there an 'objective chess standard'?
A good move is one that gives you the tempo and puts your opponent on the defensive by applying pressure and exploiting weaknesses.
For our finite minds, it depends on the opening. Some openings have a standard reply that leads to a checkmate (Fools Mate, two moves each) in a limited number of moves.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Which country has perfectly moral laws?Which country do you personally believe has the "best" most moral laws?
The heavenly country.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Continuing...
Milligan wants to relegate superiority to brain size and development. I smell more elitism. He wants you to conform to what he believes, another shell game. There is no substance in what he believes. He thinks such a God as Christians worship is willing but unable to prevent evil (29:16 - 29:26). But what about Millican's god - himself and humans as the measure? How are we able to be just to a person like Hitler? Did Hitler get his just dessert? How do all those that do moral wrong and get away with it in this lifetime get judged justly? Where is the justice with atheism? And who determines what is just, once again? It is all relative to who hold control (might makes right).
Millican fails to understand that God has given humans a timeframe (their lifespan) in which they have a volition as to what they will do and decide, then judgment, so evil is answered by God. Next, how do moral relativists like Millican (who pretends to be a moral realist) distinguish evil? Evil compared to what? Compared to what he likes or those in control like? Why is that right? Again, he puts the cart before the horse.
With the evidential problem (34:09), Milligan falls into his own trap. There are so many different views on what is evil, and so many different governments vying for different ideas of what is good that the question needs to be answered by Milligan as to what is evil. From his subjective mindset, why should I believe him? And yes, the solution to the problem of who is right is inferred by presupposing God, not by presupposing relative, limited human beings. They don't have what is necessary for defining evil if they cannot produce an absolute, objective, unchanging reference point or measure. And human history evidentially shows they can't. Thus, we can INFER they do not have what is necessary to make the correct determination. God can and does.
Millican asks why does God then permit such unpleasantries (37:00)? It is so that good would/will come from them. The problem of evil (what humans do to other humans) drives many people to desire and seek a better place, a better solution. The biblical God tells of such a place and solution and what is necessary to get there. Suffering (whether inflicted by other human beings, or natural disease, or lung cancer inflicted by us) leaves many with very few alternatives and seeks God for the solution. Evil and death also remind us of our human frailties, that we only have so much time on this earth. Our time is precious, providing God exists. Otherwise, we are exiled to nothingness where nothing matters because there is no meaning. That brings me to the final point, why do we seek meaning and purpose in a meaningless universe? No ultimate reason if you are an atheist. You live inconsistently with your belief system (no ultimate meaning). Thus once again, atheism betrays living a good life because ultimately, there is no such thing. So the very illusion Millican proposes applies to himself, not the Christian, providing the Christian God is real.
And God created Adam so that he could experience the good without the evil (37:20). Adam CHOSE to partake of the tree of good and evil. His own doing had wicked ramifications for the rest of humanity, such as injustice, suffering, and death.
Millican offers "two extreme solutions" to the problem of evil (38:00); God is not omnipotent, or God's goodness is a mystery. There is another solution; God allows evil, so that good will come of it. Remember, the Bible says that God is light; in Him, there is no darkness. Thus, giving humans a will to choose is what caused the problem of evil, and God put consequences in place for the choice, as He said He would before Adam even ate from the tree. He argues that God's goodness may be completely different than what we think of goodness as being, that God's goodness may be to torture infants. That is plainly not true of the Scriptural God. He forbids child sacrifice and says that the kingdom of heaven belongs to little children. He warns His people not to mistreat little children.
And "the way God wants us to see the world" (38:56) is not how Millican implies. We must seek the good, do what is right, honour and care for others, punish wrong, not torture people or inflict evil upon them. Then he implies God is a liar (38:10) and that we are truthful.
And yes, this guy has such a poor understanding of God's justice that he continually misses the point (41:14). So far, with this guy (Millican), it has been one falsehood after another.
With Millican's point, "Conjectures and Fictions," it is not true we, as Christians, have nothing to support the biblical claims. I have gone through those reasons often enough. Prophecy, in conjunction with history, offers reasonable proofs/evidence. So does the internal consistency and unity of the Bible, and making sense of existence without God.
"The Vale of Soul-Making " John Hick's argument (43:30) neglects the warnings of the Bible that there are none (accountable) who are righteous. His argument does not wash about an omnipotent God, just creating a morally perfect being. Such a being would be a robot, not able to think anything but what the Creator programmed.
Then Millican goes on about the same tired worn out arguments about God creating a too heavy stone for Him to lift (44:55) to show that theism is intrinsically contradictory. But that is not the case. God is a logical God and cannot do that which is impossible to do, like fit a round peg into a square hole or lie, and no, no creature can act without His knowledge. That does not mean that God will not let the creature act according to its will. Eventually, Millican gets around to the admission that God can do anything logically possible (45:37).
To be continued...
Up to the 45-minute mark, IMO, the whole lecture was poorly justified. Notice how Millican escapes without explaining how any of his four criteria*** are objective is beyond me. He just asserts it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You might find this interesting,Apparently 59% of atheists subscribe to "moral realism".
What do you want me to glean from this 53-minute presentation, just the part about moral realism? If so, I would appreciate it, in the future, you reference the point in the lecture you want me to go to. That would save a lot of time. This person, Peter Millican, has very little that I have not heard before.
First, I noticed that Peter Millican constructs his worldview on the thinking of others who have the disposition to be biased against God. For instance, during his argument on Fine-tuning, Millican references Hume and Darwin (i.e., "since Hume wrote, or perhaps Darwin..." i.e., David Hume.org). Remember, if you want to find out something about someone, find out who most influences them. Thus, his whole presentation is one of confirmation bias. There is no neutrality. I don't believe there can be whether you are a theist or atheist. You either start with God or gods, or you start with chance or some non-thinking "reality." Millican speaks of 'zillions' of universes to explain why we have one that gives the requirements for life as we experience it (i.e., the fine-tuning). Still, he also speaks of how the gravitational force for this universe would have to be just right (a constant), not too weak, not too strong, to have any universe at all. So, all these other universes would have to have what is right for them to exist too. And the idea of other universes is just another way of replacing God with 'matter.' It is just another magical idea that has gained a popular following because it poses something other than God. The simple Occam's razor just got more complex and complicated. Now, with these universes, are they too finite or do they have a beginning like we believe this one did? So, on and on this speculation goes that poses as a science rather than philosophy or scientism. By excluding God, we get an array of all different explanations that no one quite agrees upon. The models keep getting more involved as objections are raised as to one or another particular aspect of the model (its inconsistencies). Millican even says, "It is hard to justify (or even make sense of) probability judgments about cosmic scenarios, when we only have our limited experience of this one universe." (@ 13:12 minutes) So, what you have is a contingent being, Millican, speculating on what might possibly have been. Why should you trust in his thinking? Why should I? He already admitted he does not have what is necessary to make sense of the universe. All he can do is guess as to what might have happened. Do I need to go further with his argument? Over and over, he presupposes.
I.e., @ 14:12 minutes: "But SUPPOSE in 1,000 years...brute facts...convincingly establish..."
Notice that @ 20:14, he thinks if God exists, He went through 13.8 billion years to produce this intelligent life - the human. Again, that is his presupposition that he has been condition to accept billions and billions of years or be shunned by "modern science." Because of the complexity, the timeframe has to be stretched to a period of time like this to meet the probability. The key assumption also has to be made that the present (where we now are) is the indicator of what happened in the past.
Why do I have to go through all these hoops and speculations when there is a simpler explanation, God is a sufficient, necessary reason and being? Why, because we have been indoctrinated and conditioned to believe this secular stuff from an early age. As Christians, we understand this principle of training our youth to think biblically, or in a particular way, one I would argue as the correct way.
Now to his ideas about morality.
He speculates on the lack of evidence of moral 'goodness' for such a divine being (20:38), but how does Millican arrive at goodness without a moral objective and fixed reference point?
First, he builds moral values into the universe. Somehow something within it (humans) contains the knowledge of what SHOULD be the case. Suddenly the universe produces things conscious, living, and intelligent that produce objective moral values (since only minds are value-conscious, thinking morally or qualitatively). Suddenly that which is limited in knowledge can determine moral objectives by their own ability.
He believes the universe could have been designed for profound suffering (20:16) rather than for profound good. But that is not what the biblical God reveals. The universe was good up until a man sinned, per such a God. Then God imposed penalties for a purpose, to show humanity its need for God in making sense of ultimately anything and so that some would reach out once again to God and find Him. (You can't make sense of things in an immoral universe, for ultimately everything in such a universe is meaningless).
He uses the word 'objective' with a particular meaning --> "independent of our own (or others) personal desires" (21:20). I agree that is necessary but does that solve the problem, or would objectivity also have to be devoid of moral biases? Are you free of moral biases? That is a significant point. You would have to be all-knowing to be free of particular biases. You would have to see the big picture, be aware of every possible scenario and whether such a scenario has underlying hurt and wrong as an outcome of such thinking.
Then he speculates on morality, implying a moral lawgiver who is a necessity because morals are mindful and personal things. You can't have them without first having a thinking, intelligent (thus, mindful and personal) being, therefore, a moral lawgiver to prescribe them. But you are not that necessary being. Millican also wrongfully points out that God would build morality into the structure of the universe rather than moral beings (21:35, 3rd bullet point). What does the structure of the universe mean? Humans are not the structure of the universe. How do you get an ought from an is? Morals are a moral obligation, something that should be done because it is good or should not be done because it is bad.
Then Millican gets into the Euthyphro Dilemma (23:23), which is either morally good before He wills it or good because God demands or wills it. This fails to consider a third possibility, that God's eternal, unchanging nature is 'the good,' that what comes from God's will reflects what God is.
Millican believes we have to work out a theory of good and evil independent of God's existence, even if we are Christians. This once again begs why what we believe is the actual good since we now, once again, have no fixed measure for goodness. He says, don't worry, without theism, people think morality falls down; it doesn't. Then he lays out some bullet points on what this would atheistic morality would look like:
1. Rationality and consistency (fairness). The point is whose? Why is what you or he believes fair? Why is his or your rationality superior to mine?
2. Logical and Moral language (e.g. universality [or as he puts it - "universalizability" - a Kantian idea]). Also, generally speaking, universal moral values are usually the same that are found in the six Ten Commandments that relate to human beings.
3. Maximization of wellbeing (e.g., Utilitarianism). Utilitarianism does not work. Again, it begs of whose well-being is the standard and why what that person believes is actually good. Kim Jong-un's idea of well-being maximized is different from yours or mine. You could point to what actually happens and whose idea of well-being is good when there are so many conflicting views of any age. Even within each society, you have sub-cultures and individuals that object to the overall social values.
4. Preservation and harmony of society. You mean like America today!!! There is a political and cultural war going on in your country. There is no harmony between these groups. Do you want everyone to think the same-mindedness as you - your mindedness? Could you give me a compelling reason to do so? ***
Then he goes onto an evolutionary account (27:57). That explains nothing morally. As I have pointed out many times before, why does what one being does as influenced by their genetic makeup, environment, and social conditioning need to be the same another being does. The DNA makeup programs one to work one way and another with a different program? Remember, a descriptive order does not prescribe what should be, only what is.
Human success, he says, is largely due to our power of cooperation (28:00). What if a Hitler authoritarian, totalitarian type figure dictates what you do, and your future depends on being obedient (slaughter 11 million undesirables as he defines undesirable). You have to concede then that killing these people is morally good for the larger group. And with China, the majority gets even bigger but again is controlled in the hands of a few, the elites. The same thing is happening in your country, America. The Democrats control the gatekeepers of society. Thus they dictate the policies, policies that hurt the average Joe. In contrast, the ruling class, the Dems, profit in every way and the average Joe loses more ground to injustices (lies, manipulations, spin).
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Okay. Which opposing social norms are the true right? Are you saying that they both are?Neither are inherently "right." They're just what we've agreed upon works for the species. As we dominate all resources on the planet, it's worked out well.
So you cannot say most definitely that a culture that torturing little children for fun is wrong. It is whatever society agrees upon. Are people who hold such a relative philosophy safe to be left alone with children?
That means that you can't really say something is wrong, just not preferable. Do you really believe that?I can absolutely say I think something is wrong.
1) First of all, your sentence is inconsistent. Notice the words 'absolutely' and 'I think' concerning what is wrong. If it is absolutely wrong you don't THINK it is wrong; you know it is wrong. You should have said: "I can absolutely say it is wrong." Or, "Relatively speaking, I think it is wrong." Once you apply an imperative tone, you state a fact, not an opinion, so your sentence does not jive. We all know you think so absolute would not modify 'I think' but what is wrong.
2) No, you can't say it is wrong, absolutely. All you can say is, I don't like it, and society does not either, so don't do it or you will be punished. An absolute is a certainty. You can't get certainty with your worldview philosophy. All you can do is get "I don't like." 'I don't like or think' makes nothing wrong; it makes it undesirable to you. Wrong is based on an ideal or best comparison. What you have is a fluctuating standard of likes and dislikes that can never get better because it does not have the means to know what best is. That means Hitler's Germany or Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields are right for the most important, those who hold power and control the society.
7 Things You Can’t Do as a Moral Relativist:
- Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing
- Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil
- Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise
- Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust
- Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality
- Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions
- Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Tolerance
So you are saying that there is no such thing as 'right'; nothing is absolutely wrong, like raping women for fun or torturing little children for fun? So, when someone chooses to torture you for fun, there is nothing wrong with that; you perhaps don't like it.When someone chooses to torture me for fun, I will defend myself, because I find that's the moral thing to do, and I feel the people acting to harm me ire in the wrong.
Here you go again, being inconsistent. You keep sneaking in moral absolutes such as something is wrong or immoral. "Wrong" or immoral in relation to what? Your changing feelings? The changing feelings of the society you live in if it holds to the same feelings/tastes? Yes! What is more, your framework does not pass the logical consistency test where two conflicting things cannot be right simultaneously and in the same relationship. It fails the laws of logic - identity, contradiction, and middle exclusion. You are a walking contradiction. On the one hand, you say you believe it is wrong; then, on the other, you say that wrong has no fixed addressed. Translation: whatever you (and perhaps the culture you live in) want to make it mean. Therefore, it means what you believe, not what it actually is the case. Thus, torturing little children for fun becomes 'right' if enough people can agree to do so or like the idea. Moral relativism is a mascarade for morality and disgusts me that people can think this is logical to believe.
So then it becomes not a moral issue, it becomes a survival issue. I suspect you're conflating "wrong" and "morally wrong" with "illegal." Keep them distinct as one has nothing to do with the other.
So someone choosing to torture you is not a moral issue but a survival issue. Thus, if someone has the means and wants to do so, then it is okay for them, too bad for you? You are the one conflating moral right and wrong with what is legal and illegal. Lots of things that are legal are wrong, such as abortion on demand. Not only that, you conflate a prescription (ought) with a description (what is liked or disliked; a taste or feeling). If it is morally wrong, it should be illegal. You are creating a dichotomy. Morality should not be separated from what is legal and illegal. The definition of wrong is unjust, dishonest, or immoral. You continually dig yourself into a hole with your moral philosophy, which is experientially unlivable. You can't say absolutely that torturing children is wrong. You can't say that torturing you, an innocent of guilt person, for fun is wrong. All you can do is react when someone does that to you if you have the power to resist. Torturing other innocent human beings for fun is morally permissible until it happens to you. That is when what you say and believe comes into conflict.
1a: an injurious, unfair, or unjust act: action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or cause
b: a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another especially: TORT
2: something wrong, immoral, or unethical especially: principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law
3: the state, position, or fact of being or doing wrong: such as
a: the state of being mistaken or incorrect
b: the state of being guilty
God designed humans with a will, volition. That means we can choose. God also told humanity what was good and what was evil in relationshipsEverything in this post is irrelevant. Why would god design homosexual people if he abhors the way he makes them? You're doing another great job of winning Wordiest Idiot.
Translation: You don't like it that the Bible says this; therefore, cancel it.
God did not design 'homosexuals' per the Bible. Romans 1 describes the process of what happens when people exchange God with human values. People are capable of designing things themselves. They are capable of shaping their own beliefs and when the filter is gone anything is possible. Moral relativism is choosing your own values without a fixed measure of a final reference point.
Romans 1:21-32
21 For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and [d]crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them up to vile impurity in the lusts of their hearts, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [e]falsehood, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed [f]forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged natural relations for that which is contrary to nature, 27 and likewise the men, too, abandoned natural relations [g]with women and burned in their desire toward one another, males with males committing [h]shameful acts and receiving in [i]their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit [j]to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a depraved mind, to do those things that are not proper, 29 people having been filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, and evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, [k]haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unfeeling, and unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.
24 Therefore God gave them up to vile impurity in the lusts of their hearts, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [e]falsehood, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed [f]forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged natural relations for that which is contrary to nature, 27 and likewise the men, too, abandoned natural relations [g]with women and burned in their desire toward one another, males with males committing [h]shameful acts and receiving in [i]their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit [j]to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a depraved mind, to do those things that are not proper, 29 people having been filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, and evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, [k]haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unfeeling, and unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.
Notice that Paul describes God as 'giving them over to' or 'up to' three times.
24 Therefore God gave them up to vile impurity in the lusts of their hearts...
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions...
28...they did not see fit [j]to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a depraved mind, to do those things that are not proper...
So, human beings choose to do things that God has said are not right. They will not listen, so God lets them find out for themselves - He gives them over to their desires/allows them to do what ought not to be done.
God designed marriage to be a relationship between a man and a woman. One of its purposes is for offspring --> being fruitful. Thus, God sanctions this relationship, not other sexual relationships. Without such a union between a man and a woman, there would be no humanity. Other relationships are not natural for this purpose of creating and raising a family for they do not provide the same security, commitment, and wellbeing of the offspring. People need the good influence of both a male and a female, not someone masquerading as one of those two roles. Thus, they are unnatural, per the biblical God. The woman was designed to bear children. The natural relationship is between a man and a woman, per God. The rear end is naturally designed to expel waste. God says other relationships outside of marriage are unnatural.
So, per the Bible, the main charge of yours is unfounded. God did not create them to be this way. He created them to have a loving relationship with Him. They chose not to; they chose the contrary until it became second nature/built into their nature. IMO, habits are created by the mind. Sometimes they are encouraged and learned from an early age through the culture/subculture we live in, IMO. Our parents teach us or show us how to live, what is and is not permissible. Therefore, IMO, some habits lack proper or good grounding for those and other reasons. Just as idol worship was assimilated in the youth through the parents, so other things would likely be assimilated.
Exodus 20:5
5 You shall not worship them nor serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, inflicting the [d]punishment of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing [e]favor to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
This commandment teaches the influences of bad practices that affect others. Through osmosis, children adopt the values and are influence by the behaviours and values of their parents. IMO, that is how God inflicts the punishment of the fathers on the children. Through the example of the fathers, the children experience and adopt wrongful thinking and practices.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Self-creation or something from nothing is logically impossible.Japanese physicists have created a string theory model that simulates the birth of the universe. In their model, the Big Bang was a "symmetry-breaking event" — a fluctuation that caused three spatial dimensions to break free from the other six dimensions of string theory, then rapidly unfurl to produce our universe's observed 3D structure.String theory — a proposed "theory of everything" that unites quantum mechanics and general relativity together in one complete picture — models elementary particles as oscillating lines ("strings") rather than dimensionless points. In order for the math to work, string theory requires that there be 10 dimensions: nine of space and one of time. Our universe only appears to have three spatial dimensions, string theorists say, because the other six are curled up in undetectably tiny bundles called Calabi-Yau manifolds, which are a minuscule 10^-33 centimeters across
Again, another speculative ideology that only takes the universe back to another level, and no one knows how that other level came about.
Notice how everything requires a mind. Scientists create—they also reason.
Notice the amount of speculation and uncertainty in the piece. They have to construct scenarios they cannot prove but theorize and pass off as likely. They can only prove three dimensions yet propose these other seven exclusive ones to create an explanation outside of God, and even then, how do they know it is outside of God?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
God made marriage a union between two people for life so that any children would be grounded with both a male and female influence in their lives every day.Why does God kill off one parent and leave the other to raise their children alone?
That is something only God knows and I could speculate on it but the fact is that we will all die a physical death. The question is whether you are ready for it?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Again, what is ideal, the best?I'M BEGGING YOU TO TELL ME.
You already know yet choose to ignore the best - the biblical God.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
...then the choice was not a good one from the standpoint of our survival.Do you know that heart disease is the #1 killer of humans worldwide?Do you know that refined sugar is the #1 contributor to heart disease?So, "from the standpoint of our survival", SUGAR = EVIL
We all die physically. Sometimes we choose to do it sooner by unhealthy lifestyles, and other times it is genetic, and the cause of our parents' sins which are carried through heredity.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Might make you wonder why god would design people so that women can fall in love with women, or men can fall in love with men, or sexual gratification could be derived from relationships like that. Kind of a shitty design if it's going to piss god off so much. It's not really all that hard, look at how electrical outlets are designed: you cant plug a plug into a plug, and you can't push two outlets together to make electricity. That's by design. IT's almost as if this grand designer with an all time plan had no real clue this would all happen!
God designed humans with a will, volition. That means we can choose. God also told humanity what was good and what was evil in relationships. He designed us with a purpose in mind that many of us would enjoy His kingdom. The marriage relationship is symbolic of a greater truth, our covenant relationship with God. Marriage is a covenant designed between two people. Sin or wrongdoing separated us from that relationship and that kingdom. Thus, it was necessary for reconciliation, which is through His Son. We are not living a life of peace with God until we find that relationship with Jesus (some never do). They want to be sovereign because they think they know better. That is an arrogant and haughty attitude that a limited being would think like this and reject God.
Like why get so mad at people for jerking off, if you didn't want them to do that why make it so easy and fun to do? Why not just make genitals non-responsive to self stimulation, then you don't have to burn a bunch of muslim kids in hell forever over it.
Anything that is not good to do leads to bondage. Sex is a sacred thing designed with two people in mind. It is the process that creates a new human being. Sex within marriage is perfectly permissible. We degrade His purpose and treat it as unholy.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That is why God has given us a standard that we may know the difference, so we don't get hurt.Why did God make so many painful and dangerous things?
Everything was 'very good' until Adam sinned. Then God helped humanity understand the consequences of living apart from Him.
This seems like a major design flaw.
God purposed it as a reminder of what we gave up, that we may seek Him out and find Him. The imperfect state of things is a result of sin and living apart from Him.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Isolation and alienation from God caused each to seek their own ideas of what it means to be good.And we'll never be able to know the "truth" until we are re-united with God in heaven.
We can in as much as God has revealed the truth to us, or we think His thoughts after Him. His thoughts would not be contradictory. When with Him, what we know in part, we will know in full. We have been made in His image and likeness so that we can think like He does, just not to the same extent. The Fall corrupted us in our thinking so that we blur the truth and create our own. That is why God's revelation is crucial for truth.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Words in context have specific meaning and words refer to specific things.NOPE.
Dog doggedly fly plate lake salt couch and grim, if you get my meaning?
"Dog" is an ontological category that is wholly shaped by your personal experience.
So, for me then, a dog is a cat. Look at that cat over there!
A specific "dog" at a specific time and a specific place (for example, your neighbor's dog) is a specific thing (quite possibly, an empirically demonstrable fact).
What do you mean by 'dog'? I don't understand what you are talking about.
Presumably some sort of generally domesticated lupine related mammal (but also quite possibly a bearded-dragon named "dog").
??? Please, what do you mean? I don't understand. Your words make no sense. They don't have any meaning. It is all nonsense.
You see, you can't be consistent in your thinking once you say words in context have no meaning, and words do not convey a specific meaning.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
WORDS ARE UNDEFINED VARIABLES.Then how can we communicate?Through a very careful process of verification.
So, now are you saying they do have specific meaning within context? Read the full context. You are contradicting yourself. You could not communicate unless words had specific meanings.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
[1] Morality is a set of social norms or conventionsAgree!
Okay. Which opposing social norms are the true right? Are you saying that they both are?
that have to have as their basis a fixed standard to know what is the case.Requires demonstration.
What is the true right when two opposing 'right's' are believed? Logically, the laws of logic (identity, contradiction, and middle exclusion) are compromised. That means there is no true identity for morals, and anything goes. That means that you can't really say something is wrong, just not preferable. Do you really believe that?
Otherwise, all you have is a set of preferences or desires people in power force others to accept.It's not people in power. It's consensus. People in power make laws, not morals or morality. Populations seem to come to a consensus on what is moral.
The consensus of preference. So you are saying that there is no such thing as 'right'; nothing is absolutely wrong, like raping women for fun or torturing little children for fun? So, when someone chooses to torture you for fun, there is nothing wrong with that; you perhaps don't like it. Hitler, Kim Jong-Un, or Stalin cannot be condemned, although perhaps you don't like it once again. The problem with such a worldview is that it is not livable. Once you become the victim, you know some things are definitely and absolutely wrong. There is such a thing as evil.
What is more, if someone holds to such a view (preference), I would never trust them with anything unless their views corresponded with what was really the case.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you the only "true Christian" on planet earth?You are mocking me. See if what I say is consistent with Scripture. Anything you have an issue with we can discuss by going to the verse and passage and even comparing it to similar verses and passages.That sounds a lot like a "YES" to me.
I have answered this hypothetical before. I have admitted the thought of being the only one is absurd. The Church is a number that no human can count. I have explained that a true Christin holds to essential doctrines that cannot be compromised, and that person still be counted a Christin. Yet it is not for us to decide but God, for a person can repent and turn to God for forgiveness, except in the case of the unforgivable sin.
So we can disagree on the non-essentials but not on the essentials. For instance, Jesus said if we deny Him, He will deny us. He said He was the only way to the Father. He said that salvation is by His grace, not by our works, as if any person could meet God's holy and righteous standard of his/her own accord.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
He did not screw up. He made a being who was capable of choosing to love Him. God knew what that being would choose (since He knows all things), yet He allowed Adam the choice. God had a plan to [re]deem humanity even though sin caused the rift. That plan was put in effect before the creation of the universe.Love is not 'love' unless it is freely given.LOVE ME (OR SUFFER ETERNITY IN THE FIRES OF HELL).
Hell is the absence of God's presence where any evil goes. The Bible invites you to reconcile with God.
God is not only loving but good and just. Justice demands a penalty for wrongful action, and since God is pure and holy, a rebel will only disrupt and spoil Paradice. If you don't want to be there, you get what you want, to live on your terms. So does every other like-minded person. Without the influence of God, the microscale of injustice you experience on earth now, I would imagine, will be increased exponentially.
This seems slightly coercive.
You have a will, and you are aware of the consequences. Are you interested in what is best, or will any standard do?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
He was influenced by two initial agents (God and Satan)Hold up. Full stop.Who made "Satan"?God.So, when you say "God and Satan" you really just mean "God and God".
Poor logical deduction on your part. They are different persons with different mindsets and wills.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
But you have failed to demonstrate a single solitary unchanging, universal moral axiom.What would you be willing to believe?I shouldn't have to "believe" anything.
Impossible not to believe anything. Ideas do not start in a vacuum. They build, one upon another, to create a worldview. You have to believe particular things to be true in starting your belief system. These core beliefs are not provable in a conventional way. You can't go back in time and witness the origin of the universe or life. You have to assume and presume the way things might have been.
If you can demonstrate the logical necessity (and specific formula) of a universal, unchanging, "objective" moral code, then, like a mathematical solution, it would become irrefutable. Just type out the code. Just the PRIMARY AXIOMS.
I gave you the 'code,' the Ten Commandments, and I also gave you a reason why a necessary Being is necessary. You are not that being. Can you point to a being that we SHOULD believe has the correct moral interpretation of right and wrong? If not, why should I believe what you say is right is so? On topic after topic, I could give you two countries with different and opposite laws on the subject. That begs to what is the proper view, the true, the right. Remember, the laws of logic state two opposite things cannot both be true at the same time and in the same manner, and a thing is what it is. It cannot be what it is and not what it is at the same time.
No faith would be required.
Not true. Faith is required in our starting presuppositions because they rest on what we cannot witness or repeat.
(IFF) you have a strong survival instinct (AND) hope for a better future (THEN) you will do anything in your power to protect yourself (AND) you will do anything in your power to protect your family and loved ones (as it serves priority #1) (AND) you will do anything in your power to protect your property (as it serves priorities #1 and #2) (AND) if you are convinced that priorities #1, #2, and #3 are secure, ONLY THEN are you capable of truly free COOPERATION with others (otherwise you are COERCED).
Where did you get those ideas from? Is it the norm??? Perhaps with the Christian framework?
Many people do not love their close families because of abuse and wrongful actions. Many family members consider suicide and taking others with them. They consider anything within their power to strike back at the family members who have hurt them. The number one broken family unit in the USA (I heard one person state on TV recently) is the black-American household. Usually, in these broken families a father is missing from the dynamic. This causes all kinds of social issues and increases the crime rate in such poor communities, where only one income source is available to support the child(ren). The child(ren) only gets one perspective on being raised. Many of these black children are raised in a dog eat dog environment where anything goes.
One of the repercussions of a moral wrong recently witnessed was the destruction of whole communities by violent anarchists who were supported in large by the Democrat party (who sat by and watched communities being vandalized and burnt) to remove the source of protection for these communities, properties, and rights enforcement. Because of one police officer's wrongful act, the whole police service was demonized, defunded in many locations, and the country had a huge price to pay. Mass violent mobs of anarchists descended on cities destroying private property and inflicting harm on these communities' residents as the mayorship watched and supported the effort as nothing more than 'peaceful protests.' That outlooked fueled an even larger mob. One injustice promoted many more, and people were unable to protect what they considered their private property. Their livelihoods, their businesses, in many cases, were destroyed, torched down. One couple had a mob break down their gate and descended on them. They came out with guns to stop the violence and were charged for defending their own property. The victims became the guilty party. That is how quickly it can be shown that anything goes if you have the numbers on your side. You can find such a mentality anywhere in the world. Where was the justice during these "peaceful protests?" And to top it off, the Democrats have lied and bullied their way into office by cheating and defrauding the American voting public. With their radical ideology, they are most likely going to be the next government to rule over the people. To think that over 73-75 million people voted for such a corrupt government. That shows you where people's heads are at. For four years, the left used propaganda on a scale never seen before to remove from office a duly elected President. Why? So their ideas could be once again pushed on a dimwitted and ignorant population. That is how easily democracy can be thwarted and replaced. Freedom, as Reagan said, is only a generation away. If the Dems win, watch what happens to your country, if you are even aware of it with the censorship by the media.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
A study published in the journal Neuropsychologia has shown that religious fundamentalism is, in part, the result of a functional impairment in a brain region known as the prefrontal cortex. The findings suggest that damage to particular areas of the prefrontal cortex indirectly promotes religious fundamentalism by diminishing cognitive flexibility and openness—a psychology term that describes a personality trait which involves dimensions like curiosity, creativity, and open-mindedness. Religious beliefs can be thought of as socially transmitted mental representations that consist of supernatural events and entities assumed to be real. Religious beliefs differ from empirical beliefs, which are based on how the world appears to be and are updated as new evidence accumulates or when new theories with better predictive power emerge.
Another attempt by modern humanity to suppress religious freedom, IMO. You have a society trying to leave what is good about itself and replace it with secularism. It is once again, "man is the measure."
Have they considered what atheism is doing to the mind in closing itself to God?
Besides, the truth is very narrow-minded! It is not open to various interpretations.
Again, the mind sciences have set up a dichotomy between religion and science, religion and truth, religion and awareness, religion and rightful thinking. That is extremely biased when all religious belief is pigeon-holed. The beginnings of these mind sciences started with people like Freud and Jung. These people had one tremendous bias, as signified by their writings (and if you want to know what someone believes, then find out who influences them. It is a very productive thing to do). Your thoughts show a bias as underlined, not being open to any truth in the area of religious belief. One thing is impossible to prove that there is no God. You would have to be God, knowing all things, to make such a claim, and it would be counter-productive and self-refuting in such a case.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Is it okay that you want something that does not belong to you and you are willing to do whatever it takes to obtain that something?Isn't that what you call "ambition"?No, greed. Do you think greed is good?Are you kidding me?What if the thing they want is "a better relationship with Jesus"? Or something like, "inner peace"? Or perhaps they want to restore a broken relationship?
There is an invitation there, by God. Thus it is not a want of something that should not belong to us, but something designed for our good by God. God is for a better relationship with humanity, but it must be through His set means because that means is sufficient to meet God's standard - His righteousness. There is nothing wrong with restoring a broken relationship, but it is a two-way street. It must be the desire of both parties.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
No, that is called using your well-earned money to buy something for sale that no one yet owns.When someone is coerced into selling something they own, even if they receive some sort of payment, I still consider it theft.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of gullible people out there, including me, at times. Many years ago (1989), we had a sale (after my mother died) of household items. It hurt because there were too many people for us to watch, and people were stealing all kinds of things.
As for buying things, there is a caution under the law, "Let the buyer beware."
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
What if someone defames your character and says things that are untrue of you to others.You can say whatever you wish.That is not my point. Do you think it is right?I think you will probably agree with the biblical view that it is wrong.Strangely enough I believe in freedom of speech.
Well, so do I, but I recognize some things are wrong. Do you?
Are you going to stand up for what is right is the question?
I don't believe it's universally immoral to say things.
Words have the power of life and death. Some have a harmful effect on others. They can be used in destroying people through bullying them. They can tear down a positive image and replace it with a negative one. I believe in speaking my mind, but if someone is bullying, there is a point where enough is enough. Some things need to be said, but it should be gentleness and respect where possible. Directness is one of my faults.
The Christian message should be like that, gentle and respectful but forceful enough to get others' attention. Jesus preached a lot about hell. He did not mince words in that respect. He wanted each of us to consider the cost of rejecting Him. We would choose something far worse. The message is a warning and plea to others to rethink things and seek the greater good, love (found in Jesus Christ).
I also don't think it's universally immoral to think things.
What you think deep down so often reflects and directs your actions.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) you are relying on a formalized social contract (and public ritual) in order to maintain a sense of security in your personal relationships (THEN) you are missing the point of human interactionSo it is okay if someone you love is secretly having sex with someone else and lying to you about it and does not care if your feelings are hurt? That is a good thing for you?Betrayal of any kind is emotionally painful.However, that betrayal is a private matter between the two (or more) people involved.I can see no reason for anyone else (including god($)) to have any strong opinions on the matter (much less prescribe any sort of mandatory "punishment").
Because God is love. Injustice concerns Him. Such betrayal hurts not only the two but the extended family also. It is not God's best for marriage. Marriage is a commitment between two people. It represents a greater union, the union between God and human beings, the Church in the NT (Israel, which divided into the two kingdoms in the OT). Because of the unfaithfulness of Israel, God issued a divorce to Israel then later, because of the unfaithfulness of Judah, God again issued a certificate of divorce in AD 70. Then He took for Himself a new faithful Bride - the Church. That too should be a faithful union for the Church because God is faithful to us.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, how do you propose we resolve disputes between "true believers"?Doing your best to prove your point through the Scriptures.And then just start your own Church flavor (abandon your original Church)?
The 'church' is not an organization or particular denomination, it is the called out body of believers.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
When I said chance I was referring to something else entirely - this entire notion of chance lacking an agency is nonsense and a misrepresentation of what I was arguing.
Really! What is the agency?
I am clear that we do not know what caused the universe, and you would have to present actual evidence to support the fact that one created the universe. On top of that, before you could even do that, you would have to present evidence that god existed. They are two separate claims, and both must be evidenced.
Everything points to a reasoning being. The anthropic principle or fine-tuning by chaotic chance happenstance is ludicrous. It makes no sense that anything would be sustainable from nonreasoning chance happenings and it does not pan out in the experiential test. You propose dice that roll themselves without agency, and the number is a constant six, millions and millions of rolls. First, such dice would have to be fixed to remain constant.
Next, in everything we investigate, we find reasons for why things do the things they do. Reasoning beings find reasons. This universe conveys information. We can intelligently deduce a pattern and information from the pattern. There are consistency and uniformity in nature. Why? From the micros to the macros, we see complexity in the things that are. We understand the symbiotic relationship between parts for the thing to operate. One does not work without the other. They are mutually dependent. Take either one away, and the other is not possible.
I never said, chance created the universe, my point there was that it is more likely for life to be present because of chance than it is to claim a super natural god created the universe which supports life.
No, it is not more likely. It is less likely, impossible. The possibility alone is incomprehensible. Explain how it is more likely then. You are making a lot of assertions. Back them up with reason and evidence.
There are only a few options, 1) God/gods, 2) Chance happenstance, 3) It is all illusion, of which the latter is not reasonable. Can you think of others?
Next onward, how is it an assumption to think agency is not required to create the universe? We have an example of a non-agent (the big bang) creating the universe, there is no evidence at all that there needed to be an agent to start the big bang.
Again, your supposition is loaded with personification. You can't but describe it with human attributes such as agency. What is 'agency?'
"Action or intervention, especially such as to produce a particular effect."
What caused the Big Bang? A thing that begins to exist cannot cause itself. That (self-creation) is a contradiction of terms.
Again, the universe we can observe was literally caused by happenstance,
Massive and biased assumption.
that the big bang expanded the way it did and such, that is literally our only example of a universe, that IS MY PROOF, that the universe is here and the aspects of it now were caused by happenstance. You haven't even demonstrated a god.
I constantly have, but you do not hear my explanation. You continually fall back on your default position; God is not possible or likely. I can purposely show how one view is reasonable, and the other is not. That is, we find reasons for the way things are. There are purposes for things. We are purposeful creatures. There are unity and diversity in the universe. Out of the one, the many. There is an order to things. There are laws of nature that we discover. We do not invent these laws. We discover them. They operate, and we can express them in concise mathematical formulas. Purpose, laws, order, and reasons require minds to think of them. Thus we seem to be discovering reason from a Mind.
Neither you nor I nor any other human being was around to witness what happened. Thus we build our models on starting propositions - God or chance. Depending on the evidence, one model seems more reasonable than another. What you assume is that God is not the reason for the Big Bang, if that indeed is the is a correct surmise from what is available to us. All evidence needs interpretation. Data does not come with the description "made 13.8 billion years ago out of nothing." So the models come from testing hypotheses. The more it corresponds to the data, the more we find such theorizing reasonable. Scientifically speaking, we can't repeat the origin. Thus the models are used to speculate on what happened.
This is the one I really want to break down because it is the most abhorent:Now, as for the evidence of God, everything that has been made "speaks" of the existence of such a Being as reasonable, from the micros to the macros, from the simplicity to the complexity, from the apparent design and information in this, from the anthropic principle to the claimed self-revelation - the Bible. On the Bible, there is much reasonable evidence, and I would defy you to show that prophecy is not more reasonable than denying it.Micros and macros don't prove anything inherently, logic is a presumed axiom to the point that one cannot point out logic as unreasonable without logic, therefore it is systematically and axiomatically true.
Logic is a self-evident truth. You can't deny it without using it. Yes, it requires reasoning being.
You are making a flaw there whenever you suggest that because something is complex is requires a creator, it obviously doesn't if you agree with the big bang.
I am saying that God is a more reasonable proposition. Show me otherwise.
Within the macros and micros, there is extreme diversity and complexity and order and patterns. Things consistently operate sustainably. Why would or should it happen by chance happenstance. Again, no reason. Yet we explain it with reason. How does chaos equal sustainability (conformity of nature) or likelihood?
"Apparent" Not actual design, as you know most of the vastness of space would be fatal for us.
Which supports the anthropic principle that the earth is designed with us in mind.
The bible? Provide evidence of it's veracity, as any historian would have to do with a document. Prophecy is based on the assumption of the divine and supernatural, where anything that breaks the laws of physics are definitionally physically impossible.
Prophecy provides evidence that what was said over and over again came about, as said. The OT system of worship was prophesied to end, and a new system begins with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple therein. The Messiah was prophesied to come to these people living under THAT covenant that does not exist after AD 70. Hundreds of specific prophecies applied to Jesus can apply to no other person. The evidence that the OT was written before the NT is well verified and most reasonable, more so than written after the fact. Countless prophecies are specific to the people of that old covenant that can be shown to come about.
Please show me what chance can do, not what you assume of it. First of all, what is it? What kind of ability does it have? How does chance sustain anything, let alone the uniformity of nature (nature's laws)?This was simply a mistyping on my part, and I have already explained it.Literally, all of your positions are based on the assumption that god created the universe.
And all of yours is based on the ASSUMPTION that He did not. The question is, what is more reasonable?
I'm sure there are better people to discuss this with, but I'll still address it.
The escape clause!!!
As for agency? The default position is there being no agency, because of the lack of evidence towards one, and then one would have to demonstrate an agency, but you kind of repeat yourself a few times. Why is that? Whenever you don't have a faulty understanding of science and copy and paste misattributions or straw men, your words have a lot less merit than you make them seem
Excuses, excuses!!! More assumptions and charges without evidence!!! No agency, nothing to act on the Big Bang. Poof, it just comes into being from nothing. It is absurd. Rather than admit God is the more reasonable explanation, you will go to any extent to deny Him.
Romans 1:18-25 (NASB)
Unbelief and Its Consequences
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and [d]crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them up to vile impurity in the lusts of their hearts, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [e]falsehood, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed [f]forever. Amen.
Unbelief and Its Consequences
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and [d]crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them up to vile impurity in the lusts of their hearts, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [e]falsehood, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed [f]forever. Amen.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Atheism can simply be, being unconvinced of an assertion, whereas theism is inherently a proposition which is often unfalsifiable. By near definition Atheism is more reasonable.It is not reasonable at all when you look at its starting presuppositions. If the universe is not a result of mindful intention and agency, it results from blind, indifferent chance happenstance.Blind and indifferent are unnecessary adjectives which describe the creation of the universe, happenstance? Perhaps, perhaps not. We have only a vague idea of what preceded the big bang (cosmic inflation) with nothing beyond that, to claim a god created a universe is a bigger assumption (because you are presuming god) then to simply accept the proposition that the universe is existent through things that "happenstance"
You either accept one or the other. The question is which is more reasonable to believe? Do you think chance happenstance (no reason involved) is???
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Others are of the same opinion, and while that does not necessarily make it so, it is a good indication. It is an observation.Millions of "others," ie Muslims are of the opinion that Jesus was not the "son of god" and " are of the opinion " that he was just a mere mouth-piece. The Mandaean sect "are of the opinion" that John the Baptist was the greater of the two between Jesus and John. So I wouldn't let a few bible ignorant scroats convince you that your own opinion about me is correct.
Again, this is an appeal or argument to popularity. Just because millions think that way does not necessarily make it so. Thus, on the evidence, the Bible, as well as other historical sources, it is reasonable to believe Jesus existed, more reasonable than denying this. Next, on the biblical testimony, it is reasonable to believe He is the God spoken of in Scripture, who took on humanity. I can give you hundreds of examples that teach this biblical truth.
Compare the evidence for Jesus as greater with that of John the Baptist as greater. You choose an obscure, little known sect as the standard.
Next, your bias once again comes clearly into the picture, as I underlined. Your immediate default position is that it is they who are wrong, not you.
How many fkn TIMES!!!!!? I don't "hate" Christians .Again, a rather aggressive or hostile reply.Emphasis,It is to emphasise! Because I am sick of having to repeat my stance on almost every fkn thread !!!! Take that however you like.
Again, the bolden-faced text suggests anger, and the tone (derogatory words and belittlement) from post after post conveys as much also. People often use such hostility to shut down discussion or intimidate.
In fact, I only recall ever hating one person that I knew personally, in the whole of my life. It is the scriptures that I have a problem with. My threads are all to do with the scriptures. And I have more threads to create highlighting the many problems that arise from the bibles contradictory nature and ambiguity. Your own faith and belief is all irrelevant to me. I don't care about your personal beliefs or that you have a faith. It is what Christians have faith in (the scriptures) that concerns me.You hate Christianity, you hate Christ. You are against the Scriptures. Your posts show an animus. Jesus likened anger to hatred, even murder.See again, you are telling me what it is I hate. You really are right up your own arse arn't you? You are no better than the Pastor , Chaplin and Lawyer #58
Your words demonstrate it in your countless threads. You insult, you slur, you degrade and belittle, you make moral judgments. When someone objects to you, they are wrong. Just pointing it out. After all, I have a right to express myself and my point of view too.
Jesus likened anger to hatred, even murder.Something he'd know all about wouldn't he? He's murdered enough men women and children hasn't he.
How can God murder? He is the creator of all life. Does He not have a right to do with it as He wishes? He made it known that there is a penalty for wrongful action, death to Him (i.e., separation from His presence). And He will never take an innocent life without restoring it to a better place, in His presence.
He gave humanity (in Adam, the federal head since he was created the first human being) the choice of everlasting life and the knowledge of good and evil. If Adam took of the tree of knowledge (which God told him not to do), Adam would know evil. Adam chose to eat it. Adam died that day to the close spiritual relationship with God. Since humans were now deciding for themselves what is good and bad (Moral relativism), God barred the man and woman from the Garden and prevented them from eating of the tree and living forever. He also provided a means by which humanity could again approach Him, His Son. He made this known by appointing a particular nation to witness to humanity this good news. They would carry the lineage of the Messiah, the Saviour. So God had a plan from before the world's foundation, the universe, to reconcile humanity to Himself. The Good News points to the solution - Jesus Christ.
He also made known to humanity that the soul that sins would die. He has the right, as the sovereign Lord, to punish sinful or wrongful actions. Death is the result, separation from Him. He also instituted physical death, which means that each human being only has so long to live on this earth, then comes judgment for our moral wrongs. So, He is not an unjust Judge in that He brushes wrong under the proverbial rug but addresses it. Therefore, justice is done.
Now you, as a finite human being, do not always see justice in this world. You make a big fuss over God's moral decrees, all the while being guilty of falling short of His standards. First, give me the standard by which you can pronounce God unjust. Do you think you know better than God? It seems that you use the standard He provided for humanity to also judge Him. Why would the Creator need to conform to a human standard? He can't covet; everything is His. He can't steal; He owns it all. He does not lie because He is pure. He owes no one an explanation for what He does, yet He never does anything wrong for that is against His nature. He cannot commit adultery, for there is nothing greater than His that He should worship or stray from. He can't murder, for we are His creation, and He has a right to do with it as He chooses. He is just and fair, and He punishes wrong by separating or removing evil from His pure and holy presence. He rewards the innocent.
I don't know you personally to care about you. Just as I don't know you to "hate you". You could be the nicest person on the planet, but that alone wouldn't convince me that the scriptures are true and flawless.You hate what I stand for and believe in. You constantly attack it and mock it and put it down.NO. I constantly scrutinize the scriptures and question them. You just don't like it and I don't care.
There is a difference between criticizing and teaching what is wrong and getting it wrong.
Your justification displays several eisegetical and inferential errors on the myriad of threads that would require a very detailed and time-consuming rebuttal.Indeed. Hence you are simply left with your unfounded opinion. AND you are more than welcome to it.
Yes, indeed! What I am left with, in your critique, is logically flawed. You read into rather than take out of the author's intended meaning. Anyone can do that. It takes talent to find out what the author means. Anyone can twist Scripture by collapsing context, adding to it things it does not say.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I've learned from the dictionary that morality is a framework of social edicts based on fundamental principles.
Some label or call that framework moral conventions or moral norms. With such conventions or norms where two countries or two individuals oppose each other, then who is right? What then is the actual case?
And directly related to this, I discovered that principles must be true. And following only the dictionary definitions again, I discovered that truth requires facts. Therefore, "morality" must be based on facts.
I agree. Now, who sets these moral facts in motion? It must be a necessary being. Morality is a mindful thing.
And I've been searching ever since then, trying to get someone to tell me exactly which facts "morality" is supposedly based on. Apparently nobody knows.
I gave you a reference to the Ten Commandments when you asked before for a chart. I spoke of how many of those principles make up moral laws in most countries.
Not only this, I have offered to give you the reasons why the biblical God is reasonable to believe, whereas other belief systems are not. I can argue from the pages of the Bible in correspondence with other historical writings why what it says concerning prophecy is reasonable to believe, more reasonable than rejecting it. If that is the case with prophecy, then why not with other aspects of the word, such as it being a revelation from God. I have also argued with you that you can't make sense of morality without first presupposing a necessary being. I argue that being can only be the biblical God, not your god. Now, if you want to get into this last point/argument more, then reveal what your god is like and how you know this. What is the written record you point to, or do you have another way of confirming God is your god?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Researchers at the Kwansei Gakuin University in Japan, devised an experimental box with two compartments divided by a transparent partition. On one side of the box, a rat was forced to swim in a pool of water, which it strongly disliked. Although not at risk of drowning—the animal could cling to a ledge—it did have to tread water for up to 5 minutes. The only way the rodent could escape its watery predicament was if a second rat—sitting safe and dry on a platform—pushed open a small round door separating the two sides, letting it climb onto dry land. Within a few days, the high-and-dry rats were regularly aiding their soaking companions by opening the door, the team reports in Animal Cognition. They did not open the door when the pool was dry, confirming that the rats were helping in response to others’ distress, rather than because they wanted company, Mason says. Rats that had previously been immersed learned how to save their cagemates much more quickly than those who had never been soaked, suggesting that empathy drove their behavior, she adds. “Not only does the rat recognize distress, but he is even more moved to act because he remembers being in that situation.”People differ from rats in many ways, but the study supports a growing body of evidence that there’s an evolutionary basis for helpful behavior, independent of culture or upbringing, . “Humans are not helping purely because mom taught us to help,” she says. “In part—and to what degree remains to be seen—we help because it’s in our biology.” says the key researcher.
Suggesting...
I would agree a possible reason was that the rat had a trigger mechanism built into its design, so it instinctively responded, or that response became a habit based on experience. Survival. What makes that good or bad?
Yes, humans learn that some things hurt us, and we don't like experiencing hurt. Thus we avoid those things. Are you saying that what is 'good' and 'right' is based on behaviour?
Created: