Total posts: 3,179
-->
@3RU7AL
Because we are subjective beings who are influenced by so many things and have so many beliefs, sometimes misconceptions in one area lead to greater misconceptions.Let's say, for the sake of argument, there really and truly is an "objective" moral standard.And let's say, for the sake of argument, this "objective" moral standard is written in some sort of code in like a really really really old book.And let's just say, for the sake of argument, that you have the one true understanding of this "objective" moral code.You figured it out.Now, if you're the only one who knows the one-true-unchanging-universal-perfect-moral-code, how do you convince other Christians that you're right and they're wrong?
First, this is hypothetical. I would never presume to believe I was the only one. That is asinine.
In the case of Elijah, God demonstrated Baal was a false god through Elijah. God demonstrates to us through His word. Thus, my appeal is to His word. As I said before, I can't make someone believe who does not want to believe.
Like the Calvinists.
I think the five tenents (TULIP) of Calvinism as sound. I believe in a sovereign God, not sovereign humans.
Or perhaps the Amish. How did they misunderstand everything in the Bible so badly for so many years?
Usually through eisegeses.
How do you convince them that you're the only one who knows the "true-truth"?
I have learned the hard way you cannot convince anyone who does not want to be convinced.
AND, iff you're unable to convince them, how can you distinguish your "true-truth" from what they're going to call it, "your personal opinion"?
To the best of my limited ability through reason and logic.
You can't simply slap a label of "objectivity" on your OPINION and then crow about how "objective" it is. It just makes you sound like you're trying to trick everyone (all the other true-Christians).
Right now, in these posts, I am arguing for a necessary objective standard that is a personal Being, and it is not you or me. Objectivity and subjectivity are mindful abstract terms that correspond to truth claims and the actual case of what is. Thus, it takes a being to think in such terms of what is objective and what is subjective. I am asking you to present what you think is necessary for objective moral values. So far, you have given me nothing but preferences. What makes preferences objective? What makes them moral?
I keep asking you (without you answering me) how you can have the 'good' or the 'right' without referencing a fixed, unchanging necessary standard. And when someone discovers that fixed, unchanging standard, that is what truth is. Truth does not change, in the sense that even what is subjectively true of you at this point in time will always be true for that point of time. Here is an example of what I mean by a subjective truth --> Ronald Reagan was the USA President from January 20, 1981, until January 20, 1989. Even though that truth applies only to Ronald Reagan, it is always true that he was president during that time frame. Truth does not change. Truth is always true, or else truth would be false, which is a logical contradiction. A logical contradiction is self-refuting. When you have two statements that are opposite and logical contradictions, it means one of the two propositions is false (the car is completely blue/the car is completely yellow). Either something is the case, or it is not. It can't be both the case and not the case simultaneously and in the same relationship. Thus, when two people or two countries both believe the opposite is true, one is wrong. I.e., Abortion is morally wrong (in most cases) as opposed to abortion is morally right (in most cases). You may wonder why I put the brackets "in most cases" into the statement? The reason is that abortion is sometimes necessary to save one of the two lives, or else both would die, such as tubal pregnancies. The unborn is not viable in such cases; it cannot survive outside the womb because it is not developed enough, and by it remaining, it will kill the woman too, which would result in its death.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Magnetic north leads you in the right direction, the general direction.So, we agree that a "fixed reference point" is not a prerequisite.
You first have to have a true north as a reference point. North means something if it is not a fixed location. If it does not have a fixed reference point, it can be anywhere. Thus, true north is the reference point that magnetic north references.
"Here comes the problem:
The magnetic north is not a clear indication of the true geographical north. The difference between the magnetic and true north can be described as magnetic declination."
The magnetic north is not a clear indication of the true geographical north. The difference between the magnetic and true north can be described as magnetic declination."
So, magnetic north with take you in the general direction of true north.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I point you to the standard, Jesus Christ - true north;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. That is why I need Him as my Messiah to save me from my sins. I recognize that I have sinned. I hate injustice, hate wrong in myself and others. I care enough about my enemies to speak with them and point out or demonstrate why their belief system is untrue. If I were indifferent or uncaring, I would not bother. I have taken a lot of time and effort to answer every post you have sent me in detail, even if I am two web pages short of catching up.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
A multitude of errors usually conceals the truth. Truth is exacting. 1+1=2.You're conflating FACT and OPINION.Mathematics =/= MEANINGFULNESS
It is just an example that the truth is very narrow, whether quantitatively or qualitatively. As with quantitative values (maths), so with qualitative values. There has to be a fixed reference for truth. It does not change, whether it applies to subjective facts (Betty has grey hair and is 98 years old) or objective facts (1+1=2; murder is wrong). The truth of the matter is that Betty is actually 98 years old and has grey hair. That statement either corresponds to what is the case, or it is not true in the first place.
You can never use an "IS" (fact) to substantiate an "OUGHT" (moral commandment).
I wasn't trying to do that. I was giving you an example you could picture as an example of truth. Truth has a specific identity, whether with empirical measures or abstract value measures.
And mathematics is meaningful or else it would not be comprehendible.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
...speaks to our hearts and minds...Your heart and your mind VALIDATE your version of "truth".
The heart is the source for it directs the will. The mind reasons and includes emotions.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are all Christians who disagree with you less moral and or less intelligent than you?It is not me who is important; it is what the Word of God actually says.You say that, and so does every other Christian.
God's word is the standard.
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.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
And you won't be convinced if you do not first believe He exists.It is impossible to believe something without first being CONVINCED.
That is the starting presupposition that Hebrews 11:6 lays out. Why would you seek God unless you believed in Him? Once you believe Him, God confirms His existence further.
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him.
Why would you come to a God you did not believe existed? You won't. So, the Christian faith begins by believing God. If you have no faith in God you will not believe in Him. You will put your faith in some other system of belief.
First, you have to hear the message. Faith/belief comes through hearing it. How you react to the message depends on what you place your highest authority in. Do you understand the Bible as God speaking to you, or do you understand it as a collection of myths and fairy tales? The one understanding puts trust in the God revealed there, the other in the opinions of human beings as a higher authority than the Bible.
Step 1: CONVINCE ME.
How could I do that if you are not willing to be convinced? It is always another "what if" or "what about?" What have I been doing all the time? I have been trying to convince you (knowing full well that it is impossible to convince someone who does not want to be convinced) that the system you put your trust in cannot make sense of existence, morality, the origin of the universe. Even though I know the likelihood of convincing you is small, I still present the case for those who may think that what I am saying is reasonable and makes sense, hoping that God will be gracious to you in bringing you to faith also.
Many people have an agenda by engaging. They are trying to undermine the Christian faith because they have turned away from it, perhaps for several reasons. Usually, they do so because of popular opinion and cultural norms that do not put it in a good light. Atheism is the flavour of the month. It is fashionable to take that stance. That is why I focused on it. I wanted atheists to justify their beliefs. They don't. They can't.
What would it take to convince you? And do you think God is obligated to give you some special revelation?
Step 2: NOW I BELIEVE YOU.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Because it has what is necessary for making sense of morality. I can point to Someone necessary for morality outside my subjectiveness in that such a necessary Person would know all things, thus being objective. Subjectivity and subjective people are limited in knowledge.On top of that, I believe I can give reasoned evidence of why this ontological Being is the biblical God that exceeds the reasoned evidence of your idea of God. So, the proof is in us laying down our ideas of God as to which is more reasonable. When two opposing ideas of the same thing (God) are held logically, one has to be false.Please show me some sort of chart I can refer to so I can know for certain if I am doing anything morally wrong.
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.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If we are all arbiters and say the opposite of the other, logically, we can't both be right since we are stating contradictory things.Which country has perfectly moral laws?
None on earth but the heavenly one.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
What is this 'see-saw' you refer to? My core position is simple and unchanging: there is no right to use the body of another without consent.The woman is violating the body of the unborn TO KILL IT and without its consent.So, if I am going to die without a kidney, I can take one of yours? OF course not. And if you want to argue responsibility, then my kidney was damaged by your actions...can I take one of yours? Of course not. By your reasoning you're killing me...but that's not true is it? You have a right to your body no matter what that control disallows to me. It's not about my consent, but yours since my needs overlaps with your bodily autonomy. There is no right to use the body of another without consent.
Your analogy falls on various points.
1) There is a difference between a kidney and a distinct living human being. Another problem: you disregard the bodily autonomy of the unborn entirely as a separate individual as you sacrifice it on the 'rights' of the woman's bodily autonomy. You try to work around the issue by causing doubt to exactly what the unborn is. You relegate it to 'a bunch of human cells,' not quite as human, instead of the unique entity/complete organism that it is.
2) The human being growing in the womb (its natural environment) should not be given the right to life if the woman chooses, per abortion advocates/pro-choice. Where else is the natural symbiotic relationship so casually tossed aside between a woman and her offspring? The person growing in her womb shares her very DNA so it is biologically connected in a special way.
3) The term of residency during pregnancy is only nine months. She can lend her body to her newborn for two years without complaint, but if she does not want to,, with this shorter period of time she can terminate the unborn's life. She can't terminate the life of the newborn if it is dependent on her milk, her body. This is a double-standard. A parent has an obligation to help their children until the child is able to look after themseves.
4) She decided to engage in sex,, knowing that the possibility of a child resulting. Thus, her consent to have sex brings with it a moral obligation, a responsibility to look after it once a life is formed and begins to grow. Where else can you neglect your moral responsibility to your family with no consequences for the death of the other?
5) I have a moral obligation to my family that exceeds my moral obligation to a stranger. An unborn human should have the right to be supported by its mother, not destroyed.
6) In the case of damage due to my negligence, the biblical rule during the OT was an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life. I think it is sound. Equal justice would be given by such laws where careless negligence caused bodily harm.
7) It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being since the most fundamental human right is the right to life. Without that right, all other rights are forfeited and become meaningless. Therefore, it is a higher right than bodily autonomy since without it every other right is undermined. The woman is denying the unborn that right because she claims her body takes preference (forgetting the body of the unborn completely).
8) The percentage of women loosing their life to pregnancy is very small in our day and age. Thus, the analogy falls on this ground too. Whereas the kidney recipient will loose their life if one is not received the mother/woman will not in most pregnancies. Thus, the situations are not equally serious.
9) Your argument fails on moral grounds with my bodily rights as opposed to that of the violinist or kidney receipent. The violinist would not be allowed to "plug in" without my consent, but in around 95-99% of pregnancies, the woman gives consent knowing there is a possibility of conception.
10) You can't hold a human being, the unborn, accountable that is not aware of its moral duties yet. The woman is fully aware. A toddler who wonders onto your property that is clearly marked, "Tresspassers will be shot" cannot be held responsible for the act since it is unable to reason yet. Your killing it would be considered murder. It has no intention of tresspassing. That is the least of its worries or intentions. It is not held to the same moral obligations an adult is because it does not yet understand these obligations. Obligations at such a young age are impossible for the unborn, newborn, or toddler to carry out.
11) The type of deaths suffered by the unborn are egregious and cruel in comparison to the person facing kidney failure. The unborn can be poisoned, its limbs ripped apart by suction, sliced and diced, or burned by chemicals. And the unborn human being can be disposed of in a garbage can. The death of the unborn does not come about through natural means.
12) The forcable kidney argument could be used in a number of ways, such as harvesting other parts of a person's body unwillingly, whereas it should be a voluntary donation. Sex, in most cases, as mentioned before, is a voluntary consentual agreement. The woman is not giving up her organs by contrast to a kidney donor but allowing her organs to be used in a natural nine month process that the womb was designed for.
13) The right to control ones own body only goes so far. It does not include the right to kill another person unless that person is threating the right to life of the one in control.
14) Killing the unborn denies it the right to experience all of life's beauty and potential that the kidney recipient has already experience.
I've really lost interest in this thread and this argumentation. It is so often 'us vs them' and you consistently attempt to put your interlocutor into an 'enemy' role and pigeonhole them per your views (and not their own).
It is the competing of two opposing worldview, Chuck, each one viaing for control or a say in what should be the case. The issues are contentious issues. The problem with the one (atheism) is that it can't justify itself yet it pretends as though it can (the Emporor has no clothes but thinks he is splendedly arrayed). Whether you are aware of it or not, there is a cultural war going on for the battle of minds. Ideas have consequences and that is why it is important to justify what you believe as real. You want to reference 'the good' without sufficiently being able to explain why it is so. Not only this, you try to convince others that your thinking is correct.
I don't view you as an enemy, Peter, and I believe these conversation aren't helpful to either and simply polarize us from each other.
I thank you for that, Chuck! For me the conversations are very helpful. You continually show me the inability of your worldview to tackle life's ultimate questions, such as with value and existence.
Perhaps, we can eventually learn to talk to each other as friends. ;-) I'll be working on this on my end. I encourage you to do the same.
I do not hold contempt for you, Chuck. I care about your moral and spiritual well being. I admit I could be more tactful but I don't want to dampen the effect of being direct. I say what I think, and I have thought about many of these issues long and hard. I think you are greatly mislead by your subjectivism. I recognize something in you that perhaps you fail to see in yourself. You can't make sense of life's most important issues. Now, whether you want to discuss it with me is your choice. I am always willing to give my two-cents worth. And I go to great pain to answer every question directed at me. I do not find atheist's doing that. I understand it is probably due to time restraints.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
You keep implying that there is no objective biblical standard because subjective people, such as Christians, cannot make objective judgments. Yet, you yourself claim there is an objective standard (double standard).I'm not saying morality is objective, I'm saying that whether your standard is well-being, god, or anything else it is a subjective standard.
You said in R4 of our first debate:
"1) the Basis for Right and Wrong
In spite of being warned away from a discussion on moral views, my opponent attempts to saddle me with what he assumes to be my view on morality. I do not subscribe to moral relativism, and all comments to that effect are an attempt to build an opponent Pro wishes to face: a strawman."
What is the opposite of moral relativism?
I'm pretty sure you flip-flopped between subjective morality and objective morality. The question is, if you do not subscribe to moral relativism, what exactly do you believe? You believe that morals have an objective grounding, as you have expressed in previous conversations. I think you stated something to the effect of objective morality even on this thread, but it could be another. After 600 posts, it would take time to find a quote. The problem with your thinking, if I recall correctly, is that you attributed moral objectivity to well-being, utilitarianism, or the 'good' of the many, as per your next statement, below:
If well-being is our standard, then we can objectively determine right and wrong against this standard. If the will of a god is defined, then we can objectively determine right and wrong against this standard. In no way am I suggesting either is an objective standard.
Now, if you have no objective standard, you run into other problems. How can you objectively determine right without an objective moral standard? Without objective morality, what makes your standard any better than any other? Nothing. It beats me how you can speak of qualitative values such as right and better without having an objective ideal in mind. The objective in relation to what - you?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So you have absolutely no concern about what consenting adults do with and or to each other in the privacy of their own homes?If it is immoral it should be a concern to everyone.Why?
Because what is wrong should not be done, even if it feels good. It may feel good/taste good to eat poison mushrooms, but the result is not desirable. Sometimes we hurt ourselves without realizing it. If I say, "Eat this fruit, it tastes good," and we both die, then the choice was not a good one from the standpoint of our survival. That is why God has given us a standard that we may know the difference, so we don't get hurt. What we do with the standard is up to us. God judges us in one of two ways, through our merits or through the merits of Jesus Christ, who met God's righteous standard completely on behalf of those who would trust Him.
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. The family unit was for the benefit of all. That is the kind of relationship that is good for us. Other relationships harm us. Sex outside of marriage (fornication) creates (in us) dissatisfaction and longings that override relationships. We can never commit to one person in an intimate or close way if we have too many partners. We are not content, and keep seeking other relationships, sabotaging the ones we have. Sex, or the feeling or our gratification, becomes more important than the person. We use others to achieve this desire disregarding the hurt we cause when we reject them for the next relationship. Pornography becomes the bondage or addiction many find ourselves in. That is why God warned against sex outside of marriage. He also wanted a man to unite with one wife for the benefits and blessings of a family. That family relationship does not happen between a man with another man. Adultery or outside sex within a marriage hurts and destroys relationships too. It breaks up families because the offended party in the relationship felts a loss of trust and a sense of betrayal.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If I were in France and wanted to express myself to a person who does not speak English, I would have to know the word 'chien/chienne' and what it means, or a synonym like “un toutou," or a French slang word that expresses the same idea of a dog.So, would you say the appropriate use of language is based on geography and the social norms and expectations of proximate observers?
Geography plays a part in isolating people who speak the same language. That explains how different languages are developed. Some words become bastardized because of geography because when a group gets cut off from the main population, the language can become altered by accent or mispronunciation or new words are acquired from surrounding influences. When I was in Mauritius, the word for 'Qui' was bastardized and sounded a little different from Parisian or Canadian French, just like Quebec French words have many slightly different connotations on Parisian French words. Even in France, different regions have some slight modifications to pronunciation.
Geography, or isolation from the main population, may produce different social values over time as the main population's control or influence is lost or altered. Some values continue to remain the same in most cultures, like murder or stealing within the culture. Deep down (we are made in the image and likeness of God), we know right and wrong to a degree (we are moral creatures), although the Fall marred the pure goodness of God. Humanity became the measure and people forgot God as the measure and source. Isolation and alienation from God caused each to seek their own ideas of what it means to be good.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Words have meaning, and "dog" is the meaning we give to a specific type of animal. You are confusing the word we identify with that type of ontology with another word. We use a particular word to describe the nature of that particular being. Failing to do so fails to communicate or jive with social norms. In societies, specific words have specific meanings.NOPE.WORDS ARE UNDEFINED VARIABLES.
Then how can we communicate? Let's look at it from your perspective.
Okay, words are undefined variables! A dog is a cat. A dog is a tree. A dog is a house. A dog is a two-legged piece of furniture. A dog is whatever you want to make it mean. How is that for an undefined variable using the word 'dog'?
If I say, 'the grass is green' as opposed to 'I am green with envy,' are the meanings undefined in the context, or do you understand the one is literal while the other is figurative?
It seems to me that you are mistaken. Words in context have specific meaning and words refer to specific things.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
'morality' (in English) is the common term used to describe a particular social normative abstract concept type. It has a specific meaning because of the association we get from the word. If I say morality, I don't mean subjective-morality unless I have developed the wrong association. If a person uses a new word foreign for the meaning 'morality' they fail to communicate or express the standard norm or common usage, but if it catches on, they can invent a new word only if it is widely accepted or communication only between people who know what the person is referring to (or fail to recognize their miscommunication). [1] The point is that the thing describes is what it is, not something else (unless the new meaning and or usage catches on, they can start using it in a novel way if it is widely accepted). If you want to use the word "morality" when speaking of subjective-morality, you will not be understood unless the idea is presented clearly and explicitly and you are pointing to the clear and explicit, rigorously defined definition. Otherwise the person you are communicating with is going to (hopefully) correct you of your misconception (if they even recognize the discrepancy).
[1] Morality is a set of social norms or conventions that have to have as their basis a fixed standard to know what is the case. Otherwise, all you have is a set of preferences or desires people in power force others to accept.
Again, what is ideal, the best? If you don't have one, then what shifting standard are you comparing the good, the right, the better against? How can you ever say, "This is better" if you have no grounded ideal as the measure in comparing the rightness of morals? It is like saying, "This is better, no wait a minute, this is better, no wait, this is better, hold on a sec, this is better." Better concerning what?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
...and within those groups, there is a huge diversity of values and beliefs.How is this even possible if one group is following universal and unchanging divinely inspired perfect moral dogma?
That is just the point, isn't it? Secular humanity is not following universal and unchanging godly standards. They are doing their own thing.
How can so many "true Christians" disagree?
Misinterpretation of Scripture. The essential doctrines are agreed upon. Those essentials cannot be compromised (either apostasy or the person was never committed to the faith in the beginning --> the seed that falls on rocky ground, starts to grow, but withers away because it was not planted on good ground or rooted like those heard the message but it does not produce fruit, or the one that gets choked out by the desires of the world) and still be in a close relationship with God, IMO.
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.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Back tomorrow.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Per the discussion on your debate comment section:
YOU: "Either challenge me to a debate or go to my actual forum about moral subjectivity, don't flood a place that's inconvenient to type on:
Also - I used the dictionary definitions of both, what gives your opinion more validity than the dictionary? Please explain that to me.
What I mean is that objective morality is something that is true as a law (like the laws of physics) regardless of a mind or anything else. That is the literal definition. Your argument is literally proving my point, morality, as is defined, can literally not be objective. That's how morality works, and that was my argument."
Also - I used the dictionary definitions of both, what gives your opinion more validity than the dictionary? Please explain that to me.
What I mean is that objective morality is something that is true as a law (like the laws of physics) regardless of a mind or anything else. That is the literal definition. Your argument is literally proving my point, morality, as is defined, can literally not be objective. That's how morality works, and that was my argument."
***
First, common sense tells me your definition of "Objective morality" does not stand the logic test. That gives me the right to question it. Next, I am willing to take this to the forum, "Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?"
The fact is that you mentioned your two debates as a badge of honour. Thus, I brought the subject up here. Do you want me to cut and paste this to the forum?
If you want a formal debate on the subject, I am willing. As I said in my first post here, you would need to change the challenge's wording. I said:
ME (Post 22): "I would have argued that objective morality is necessary for there to be such a thing as morality, rather than just subjective opinion and preference resulting in 'might makes right.' If there is nothing objectively moral, then there is no 'good' or 'right.'"
So, I do not believe objective morality exists unless God exists. If you want to argue along those lines, then we can discuss the details [of such a debate]. I.e., We would also have to agree to terms for such a debate - how many characters, how many rounds, voting format, etcetera.
***
Now, my objections to your debate logic:
Post 23: Your syllogism from Round 1:
YOU:
P1: Objective Morality is defined as a moral system true independent of a mind
P2: Values and principals are made by minds
P3: Objective Morality has Values, Principals, etc..
Con: Therefore, these systems would be made by a mind
This would lead you to conclude them not objective. It's a contradictory statement to say that objective morality is made up of concepts only existent in minds."
***
I question P1 to its validity. The premise is false. Objective morality cannot be independent of mind, since morality is a mindful thing. Morality is not possible without this thing called a mind. I would argue that objective morality is dependent on a necessary Mind (i.e., God), not contingent minds. If God did not exist then morality would be nothing more than preference. Preference is a personal taste or opinion. Thus it describes, not prescribes - "I like ice-cream describes what you like, what tastes yummy to you, not what I SHOULD do (an obligation). You are not obligated to like ice-cream although you may like it if it tastes 'good' to you.
Next, 'good' or 'right' has to be grounded to something for it to be meaningful, a fixed standard. If the standard is not fixed and universal then how can you determine whether it is good or right? Good or right in relation to what? Your personal preference? That makes nothing right. It just makes it doable.
Finally, if there is no objective standard, then life becomes unlivable. You can offer your opinion ("I don't like that") but you can never say it is wrong ("It is wrong to torture innocent children for fun"). Imagine, that would be dependent on who believes it rather than on it being wrong. You can't live by your own system because as soon as someone applies their preferences on you (that harms you) you realize without objective values life becomes unlivable.
So it does not pass the experiential test of life, let alone the logically consistent one (i.e., the law of identity, or a thing it what it is --> A=A; Right = Right). So your thinking is false in a number of ways, per above.
So, it is more reasonable to believe in objective moral values than to dismiss them.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
[1] To assume a god was what caused this is simple an assumption, [2] one would have to prove that a god exists to even be a likely candidate to cause the big bang, and the big bang also explains the universe, again, no god required. Further propositions would require evidence to presume.
[1] No more so than yours is an assumption that it can happen without a necessary being making it happen.
[2] One can not prove the existence any more than one can prove the universe's existence from mere chance happenstance, absolutely. No matter what reasons I give you will likely question them because they go against your starting presupposition that you build your worldview from. You either build on one system of thought or the other - chance or creation, being or non-being. Still, if you want a reason for the universe (literally - 'one spoken'), God is necessary. Since you keep finding reason and arguing from reason, even your own position favours God. After all, why would you expect to find reason in and from a universe devoid of it? We continually can express the way things work in the universe in a mindful way and in formulas that describe what already exists, not what we invent. We discover these laws of nature; we do not invent them. They continue to function, whether we do or not. They do not depend on your grandfather existing, nor mine, but none of us would exist without them. They continually hold together (sustainable), which brings up the questions of how and why? Why would they, if the universe is chance happenstance? No reason. How would they without intention? You have yet to explain this. Instead, you keep finding rational ways of how and why things do happen, despite the origins of such a universe without God. Nothing makes sense from such a universe. The universe is not reasoning, but you continually find a reason, design, purpose in the meaningless, non-thinking, chaotic things that exist?? Go figure. And that begs how such a being such as you or me came out of this meaninglessness???
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.
Happenstance is not a presupposition that comes from my way of thinking. I do not believe in chance as to why the universe exists or is sustainable. That would have to be your default position once you jettison God.Care to demonstrate? I have the big bang? Why is chance impossible to have created the universe? If it isn't impossible, and you do prove this, why is a god any more likely than happenstance?
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)?
God has what is necessary. From a necessary being comes other contingent beings, of which you are one. From a necessary being comes the laws of nature and explains why things hold together. From a necessary being, we understand life coming from life, consciousness coming from existing and eternal consciousness, the physical universe coming from Being, not from the universe self-creating itself. From a necessary being, there are explanations for the why. When you consider morality, God gives reason for morality. Preference does not, for it does not answer how values originate from something devoid of them or how they could (is/ought fallacy). Morality needs an ideal, a best to compare 'good,' 'right,' 'better' against. If the standard is not fixed, how would you know something is better? Better than what? And people work hard to change systems of morality - to what? To their own changing system of thought on what should be?
Cosmic inflation dating back to when? This is all guesswork on your part, and what is more, it is unreasonable.Notice the idea of a vague notion, as in it was not a hard position on my part, but simply some ideas that it may or may not have. There is no need for a dating back to when.
How is 'chance' not a vague notion? Your causal chain of events goes back to the Big Bang. What caused the Big Bang? Why would it do what it supposedly did?
It is the other way around. You assume all kinds of causes and effects are a result of mindlessness. You assume that the laws of nature are sustainable by what? Nothing? No intent, no agency. Poof, they suddenly happen and continue to substance themselves for no reason.No I substantiate that they were caused by a what, not a who.
Well, that is your presuppositional starting point. Show me that 'chance' can do anything, let alone sustain it (the universe) indefinitely.
You are assuming agency behind it, when the position that assumes less is concluding it a thing, as there already things there, whereas there is no evidence for a mind.
You assume no agency behind it, then.
The "position that assumes less?" What does that mean?
What things are you speaking of behind the Big Bang? Nothing? Is the universe self-creating, in your OPINION? How is that possible? Where have you ever witnessed self-creation?
Why should I value your opinion? It goes against what is livable and evidential/experiential by what I or anyone witnesses. For instance, I never witness beings coming from non-beings, morality coming from something amoral, or something coming from nothing. In studying the causal nature or causal tree of anything physical, you can trace the effect back to another cause until you get to the root cause. What is your root cause? Show something before the Big Bang. Suddenly the universe explodes or whimpers into existence. How? From what? I say that if the Big Bang is correct, the explanation is God. It is reasonable!!!
You make a big deal of this by suggesting only you have a reasonable explanation for the way things are. You can give me nothing more than speculation, and from where you being, the universe, there is no reason behind it without a necessary being as responsible for it. So, your explanation suffers from insufficient reason. IOW's, it can't make sense of itself. My Christian worldview can.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
First, things first:If God/gods do not exist, what is the explanation for the universe, existence, morality???I'll cover morality first: I do not believe objective morality exists. You can see this from my two negative positions regarding it within my debates.
I will look them up and have more to say once I read them.
Two questions for now. If morality is subjective, what makes your thoughts of 'good' or 'right' any better than mine; because you LIKE them more? How do your likes make something good/right?
Next, existence - are you referring to our human existence or existence in general?
I am speaking of both. Presumably, you agree the universe came first (before our human existence). Without a personal being, it would be explained strictly through naturalistic causes. From a lifeless universe, somehow and for no reason, life came about.
Simple the big bang theory, which I will provide sources to investigate below:
I have no problem with the evidence. I support it, yet I give an explanation to the Big Bang that makes sense. A willful, intelligent, omniscient, necessary Being chose to create it. Why did the Big Bang happen? You don't have a reason without such a being. First of all, what is 'chance'?
Definition of chance
(Entry 1 of 2)
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause Which cards you are dealt is simply a matter of chance.
b: the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings: LUCKan outcome decided by chance
c: the fortuitous or incalculable element in existence: CONTINGENCY… you surely have endured strange chances …— Alfred Tennyson
2: a situation favoring some purpose: OPPORTUNITYneeded a chance to relax
3: a fielding opportunity in baseball
4a: the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation What chance has he of pulling through?also: the degree of likelihood of such an outcome small chance of success
b. chances plural: the more likely indications chances are he's already gone
5a: RISK not taking any chances
b: a raffle ticket
by chance
: in the haphazard course of event s they met by chance
1a: something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause
b: the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings
c: the fortuitous or incalculable element in existence: CONTINGENCY
4a: the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation
by chance
: in the haphazard course of events
R.C. Sproul, Not a Chance, The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology, p.5-6, reasons regarding the notion of chance and what influence (none) chance has on the outcome of anything. Physically, he explains, 'chance' is nothing. Nothing is "not a thing," and "no thing" does not have the ability to do anything, it does not exist physically. "Out of nothing, nothing comes." (p. 8). You would be hard-pressed to show me that nothing is capable of doing something. Chance is a concept that can be thought of and described (in meaning or definition) in two ways concerning the universe, 1) an unguided, non-thinking, chaotic force of some kind responsible for everything that exists, or 2) mathematical possibility or the odds of something happening such as the dice analogy I used in an earlier post. In that case, there is a one in six chance that a six will arise from one die, or a two in twelve for two dice. For every roll, the probability remains the same (a one in six possibilities that six will occur).
Thus, it has no agency, no influence on how things turn out, no power, no ability to do anything because it has no being.
My opponent (in this case, Theweakeredge) may argue that chance is a thing. What exactly is that thing? His argument may go that "things happen." But what is this "thing" called chance? Again, it is nothing. Show me otherwise, Theweakeredge.
Since he proposes the universe began to exist, the question is from what?
"The Big Bang model states that space, time, energy, and matter (STEM) all began at this moment. That is, matter began at this moment. Space began. Time began. Energy began. This is agreed to by non-theists, such as Hawking."
Thus, in a closed system, the universe, space, time, energy, and matter began to exist at the moment of the Big Bang - i.e., something from nothing or self-creation. Does that make sense to you?
Since one law of thermodynamics states that energy is dissipating and running out (the universe is dying from a Heat Death). This could be argued for a beginning as well (the running down, winding down or entropy within a system).
n. pl. en·tro·pies
1. Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.
Look at the underlined definitions above.
1st Law - "In general, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed. In a closed system (i.e. there is no transfer of matter into or out of the system),..."
Now, what does a 'closed system' mean?
"A closed system is a physical system that does not allow transfer of matter in or out of the system, though, in different contexts, such as physics, chemistry or engineering, the transfer of energy is or is not allowed."
What does an 'isolated system' mean?
"In physical science, an isolated system is either of the following:
- a physical system so far removed from other systems that it does not interact with them.
- a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither mass nor energy can pass."
2nd Law - "The second law of thermodynamics indicates the irreversibility of natural processes, and, in many cases, the tendency of natural processes to lead towards spatial homogeneity of matter and energy, and especially of temperature."
"It implies the existence of a quantity called the entropy of a thermodynamic system. In terms of this quantity it implies that:
When two initially isolated systems in separate but nearby regions of space, each in thermodynamic equilibrium with itself but not necessarily with each other, are then allowed to interact, they will eventually reach a mutual thermodynamic equilibrium. The sum of the initially isolated systems' entropies is less than or equal to the total entropy of the final combination. Equality occurs just when the two original systems have all their respective intensive variables (temperature, pressure) equal; then the final system also has the same values."
Thus, things are going from order to disorder concerning energy, not the other way round within the system.
Third Law - "The third law of thermodynamics states as follows, regarding the properties of closed systems in thermodynamic equilibrium:
This constant value cannot depend on any other parameters characterizing the closed system"
***
Self-creation or something from nothing is logically impossible. It has to exist before it exists, a contradiction in terms. So, your system of thought is not more reasonable than mine. It is sheer lunacy. Sorry, but you're nuts. I have the necessary means for the universe, a Being who transcends and creates the universe that is outside of time, matter, and space.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Adam had free will. He was the only person who could choose to sin or not sin, other than Jesus Christ.If I made a robot, would that robot be "free from the influence of sin"?Its programming would depend on your moral character and what you included in the programming.In the exact same way that human programming would depend on the moral character of "YHWH".
God chose to give Adam free will, the ability to choose as God chooses and can do.
Are you capable of making such a robot?It seems likely that a robot indistinguishable from a human could be produced at some point.
It would have to be a blank slate with the ability to choose. Can you do that without programming it? Once you start to input the different responses (being a subjective person yourself who does not know what is objectively moral), your robot would be compromised.
I do not believe you are able.Please respect the hypothetical.
Find, explain how you would do it then.
A robot does not suggest (to me) a free moral agent.Why not?
Programmed by subjective and relative human beings.
Did you program it to make moral choices and did you determine what the good was and the boundaries to which it could choose?Did "YHWH" program humans to make moral choices and did "YHWH" determine what the good was and the boundaries to which humans could choose?
A program suggests a fixed outcome. God did not fix our outcome. We chose it ourselves. Nevertheless, we chose the outcome. God warned us of what would happen if we (Adam) took of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
He made us moral beings with the ability to reason and told us if we ate of the tree of knowledge, we would know both good and evil. Up to that point, Adam had only witnessed the goodness of God. Up to that point, he did not know evil. He had not decided whether to obey or disobey God. He had the ability to sin and the ability not to sin. He chose to do what was wrong, and the result is humanity knew evil.
IOW's, is there a best that the robot can use as its standard for goodness?IOW's, is there a best that the human can use as its standard for goodness?
Again, you do what you always do. YOU FAIL TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS I ASK YOU. It demonstrates how inept your system of thought is to make sense of ultimate questions and meaning.
Yes, what God (who knows all things) has said is good. In our relationship with our fellow human beings, do not steal, lie, murder, covet. Honour your parents. In our relationship to God, love Him, do not create idols or set up false gods for they are powerless, don't take His name in vain or mock Him.
What is that standard? Yourself? Is your own standard really good? Or do you just suppose so, or call it good even though it is not?What is that standard? "YHWH"? Jesus? Is the behavior of "YHWH" really good? Or do you just suppose so, or call it good even though it is not?
Again, a lack of ability on your part to answer simple questions.
You have already admitted you are the authority that determines whether something is right or wrong.
Jesus is YHWH. The Bible reveals as much. What is applied solely to God in the OT is applied to Jesus in the NT. In the OT, we are told that God alone saves. In the NT, we are told that Jesus is also Saviour. In the OT, we are told that only God deserves worship. In the NT, we see worship given to Jesus. Jesus tells the crowd that only God can forgive sin (for it is against God that we have done wrong). Then Jesus forgives sin. In the OT, we are told that every knee will bow before God. In the NT, we are told every knee will bow before Jesus Christ. In the OT, we see God leading His people into the Promised Land through the mediator, Moses. in the NT, we see that Jesus does this. Over and over, we see descriptions of Jesus as being God. We see that God will not give His glory to another, yet Jesus receives glory and honour.
Are the standard those who influence your thoughts? Since you are not almighty, nor omniscient, how could you avoid programming it without including sinful instructions or codes?Since "YHWH" is almighty and omniscient, how could it program humans with sinful instructions or codes?
God gave humans the ability to choose. They choose evil.
For freedom of choice would it not have to know all things to determine the good, or nothing at all and build from there and choose the right choice every time to avoid sin?Since "YHWH" knows all things and can presumably determine the good, wouldn't that mean that every human is acting 100% in accordance with their master plan at all times?
No, God's will is that none SHOULD sin, yet we choose to. God allows us to find out the consequences of sin so that some will seek Him and find Him.
In other words, (IFF) "YHWH" can only do good things (AND) "YHWH" makes a human (THEN) that human can only always do good things
It was good to make humans with a will. That way, they could seek to know the loving God. They chose not to. Thus God allows the consequences of that choice to play out. Good comes from allowing that choice in that some see the wickedness of lining outside God's will and turn to Him in mercy.
In other words, (IFF) a human makes a robot (AND) that robot commits a crime or an error (THEN) the crime or error of the robot is REALLY simply a second-order HUMAN ERROR
That assumes that God programmed Adam to commit a crime. If he was not programmed to commit a crime, how could he do so? Rather he was given free will. He could if he wanted to, or he could not if he wanted to. He chose to. I believe Adam was a blank tablet, and as he walked with God (had fellowship), he learned from God and saw His goodness. The day he took of the fruit, God expressly told him not to eat of his eyes were opened to evil or sin. Then he knew what evil was.
Some suggest that Adam was a blank slate, free to choose to sin or not to sin. No influence at first. He only knew the good God had made. That is what he saw. In this way, he was different from every other human being. He could choose not to sin. We can't. It is built into our nature through the Fall.So you're saying that sin is genetic?
Adam was our federal head. That means that Adam represented humanity. From what Adam did, it affected each one of us. Adam was cut off from an intimate relationship with God the day he ate the fruit of the tree. So, yes, sinful nature is passed down to each one of us. Adams's choice influenced Adams's children, and without the input from God, Adam and Eve became the relative standard they learned from.
How was Adam a "blank slate" but not Eve or Lilith?
Adam was the one who represented humanity before God. God specifically put the onus on him as to what would happen to his posterity. What he chose would alter his relationship (and ours) with God.
AND, (IFF) "YHWH" made Adam a "blank slate" (THEN) "YHWH" could have just made Adam infertile and built a new "blank slate" perhaps named "Sammy"(?)
God did. When the Son became human, He learned from the Father and the Spirit, for He too was acting in His human capacity. As a man represented us before God in Adam, so another Man, the Second Adam, also represented us before God. He, too, was tempted to what He would choose, but He was without sin. Thus, His relationship with the pure and holy God was not marred by sin (the perfect Lamb of God).
He was influenced by two initial agents (God and Satan)Hold up. Full stop.Who made "Satan"?
God.
...and then a third, Eve, repeating what Satan had said. Adam chose to sin which impacted the rest of humanity since not only did sin create a barrier between humanity and a holy and pure God but it also gave rise to humans deciding what they would accept as right and wrong (subjectivism/relativism).How did "YHWH" screw this up so badly? Was it lack of foresight? Poor planning? Or was this perhaps some sort of 12 dimensional chess game they dreamed up because they were like, super-super bored?
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 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. God allowed humanity to see what happens when humans live apart from God. All hell breaks loose. God does not get bored.
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?
Are you saying that materialism or empiricism is mindful of us? Or do things happen devoid of reason?
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"
It is the other way around. You assume all kinds of causes and effects are a result of mindlessness. You assume that the laws of nature are sustainable by what? Nothing? No intent, no agency. Poof, they suddenly happen and continue to substance themselves for no reason.
Happenstance is not a presupposition that comes from my way of thinking. I do not believe in chance as to why the universe exists or is sustainable. That would have to be your default position once you jettison God.
If God/gods do not exist, what is the explanation for the universe, existence, morality??? Please give me something to work with from your subjective atheistic viewpoint. Don't run and hide.
Cosmic inflation dating back to when? This is all guesswork on your part, and what is more, it is unreasonable.
Created:
-->
@Marko
Again, I owe you absolutely no explanation for anything, given that my stance as an atheist is tied exclusively to the proposition YOU (and like minded religious folks) make with regards to the existence of god/god, and therefore, the origins of morality, etc....
Bye-bye!
Your hypothesis is one of an infinite number of possible hypotheses out there, and I have given you my personal preference (which was supposed to be taken as a figure of speech, and not literally, aka: the most likely hypothesis) merely to direct the conversation back to a discussion on the origins of morality instead of being bogged down in a debate about absolutely everything.
Like what? I only believe in one God. It is a reasonable, logical deduction.
Here are the possibilities. Creation or chance? Mindfulness or materialism? Intention or aimlessness?
So in summary, my atheism exists only because of you. If it wasn’t for your hypothesis on god, I just wouldn’t be an atheist.Again, you consistently make the presumption that a disbelief is somehow equivalent to a belief. My disbelief in your ideas do not require me to replace your hypothesis with a competing one. In contrast, your belief requires you to prove it.
You are either unable or unwilling to take a close look at your belief system. There is no point in further discussion. I'm not interested in your excuses. I'm looking for a discussion on how you can justify your worldview. I am looking for a comparison and contrast between the two different systems of thought.
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.
Created:
-->
@Marko
1)Actually, I'm asking atheists to explain morality and give justification for it......I claim the Christian system has what is necessary for morality and that you do not.
______________________________________________________________________________
Actually, i don’t think you are. You clearly stated earlier that you believed atheists believed that they derive their morals via random processes.
I understand where you are coming from now.
I am speaking about the origins of morality without a personal necessary being - God/gods. You are not necessary for morality. I'm speaking of tracing morality to its beginnings, its root cause(s). If you do not have a conscious being behind the universe, its cause must be natural/materialistic. That means there is no intent, no agency behind the universe. That means things happen without rhyme or reason. This begs an explanation of how you get conscious living beings from inorganic matter. That is the start of the problem you face. If you have a reasonable explanation for living beings, your next problem is how they arrive at fixed objective qualitative values (morals). We witness no fixed values in the world of atheism (would you like to suggest one from an atheist standpoint), just a subjectivism that changes from culture to culture and from year to year (it is a power thing - might makes 'right.').
Are you seriously claiming that Christians are the only moral beings out there, and that morality never existed before Christianity recently came around?
That is not what I am claiming at all. I am claiming that Christians have what is necessary for morality and atheists (other worldviews) borrow from such a necessary belief system to make sense of morality. Unless you start with a theistic framework, I do not believe you can make sense of morality, only preference masquerading as morality.
Secondly, while I have [1] a personal preference for sociocultural evolution and evolutionary forces acting at the individual and group level to help explain the existence of morality in humans (and many animals), my position as an atheist has little to do with my position on morality (pls note that [2] these are anything but random processes).
[1] A personal preference makes nothing right. It just makes something desirable. There has to be 1) an ideal, a best for moral reference or else they become meaningless. If that reference point is shifting and not fixed, 'right' or 'good' loses its identity because it can mean whatever the individual or group wants it to mean (preference). 2) Preference is descriptive, not prescriptive. Morals are prescriptive. "I like ice-cream" describes what is and not only that; it is a personal taste, subjective opinion. Not everyone has to like ice-cream. Morals are prescriptive; what should/ought/must be. They must be objective, or else right and wrong is shifting and can mean whatever a person or group wants them to mean.
[2] The question is, how can they be? If there is no intentional Being that gives agency to laws and designs how the universe works, why would you expect to find sustainable patterns, information, and what makes these things happen? You presume they will—big presumption. I like the analogy of dice rolling. First, they have to be an agency that starts the process. Second, what is the chance that they will roll six repeatedly (i.e., the uniformity of nature) millions and millions of times? NO REASON. Things happen. Third, six will only be rolled by the agent if the dice are fixed.
Your position on morality has everything to do with your worldview. If there is no ultimate being responsible for existence, the universe, morality, then everything is a result of mindless, blind, indifferent chance happenstance because there is no intent behind it. Things happen without reason. But that is not what you find. You find the anthropic principle everywhere you look. You find laws of nature (i.e., constants) that are discovered (not invented), and the principles can be expressed by human thought in concise formulas because they express a greater mind. Going back to origins (the Big Bang, or whatever you want to postulate), you find reasons for the way things work and why they work that way. Reasons for a mindless process??? There is no sense there. And you can't make sense of origin from your worldview beliefs. That is because there is no sense behind the universe without a Mind creating it.
There are plenty of atheists that never ask themselves where they derive their moral values from, but also many religious individuals that admit that moral values are evolutionary and sociocultural constructs.
While either of those propositions is/can be true, the key question is how morality comes about when you take the nuts and bolts off your thinking system to find out how it is put together and WHAT IS BEHIND IT. Then you find its foundation to be faulty, and the system is not functional in and of itself but requires borrowed nuts and bolts from another system of thought to hold it together.
A disbelief in your god stems purely from the fact that [1] your arguments are unconvincing. And so my position is: I cannot believe in the existence of God/gods until you provide sufficient evidence for them (and I’m [2] not hedging any bet that you ever will).
[1] I find your arguments unconvincing too. What the atheist is guilty of as much or more than any Christian is presupposing origins through scientism, not science.
[2] Through experience, I am not holding my breath that you will either.
What would you consider sufficient? Let me see how you want to play God in deciding what you will and will not accept, then.
Most of the time, atheists will not discuss the evidence I present. I do not believe they have enough biblical knowledge to hold a reasonable conversation on some of this evidence, like prophetic evidence. Such evidence is reasonable and logical, more so than the alternatives. I have set up threads on the prophetic argument. I use this argument because it is verifiable by historical events in conjunction with the Bible. It is a funny thing that exposes just how little an atheist understands or knows the biblical teachings they pretend to know so much about. I also challenge atheists to make sense of their worldview and supply evidence of why they are right in what they believe regarding origins. I have yet to see an atheist adequately make sense of what they believe once their core beliefs are examples. In every worldview, the core beliefs are those that everything else hinges upon because minor beliefs are built on those core building blocks. If the core is rotten, the whole structure is too because it feeds off this rottenness.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Or is your standard of "goodness" "let Jesus guide your heart"?By faith in God through Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit is given to the believer that they may know Him better.So, how do you propose we resolve disputes between "true believers"?
Doing your best to prove your point through the Scriptures.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not when marital unfaithfulness is present. God even divorced Israel in OT times. Adultery is a reason given in which the offended person may divorce their spouse.Isn't the penalty for "marital unfaithfulness" death by stoning?
Yes, under OT law. Well observed! When God divorces Judah in AD 70 to make way for the Bride of Christ (the Church, or body of believers) this happens. Revelation describes Jerusalem as a whore and Josephus describes the fiery stoning by the Roman catapults (per Revelation 16:21) destroying Jerusalem. You can read the chronology (described by Josephus) of the destruction here.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, the covenant changed, not the Law.Hairsplitting.It changes for the believer because he/she is not judged by the law but by what Jesus Christ did in his/her stead. The NT tells the believer repeatedly; we live by grace, not by the works of the law. By the works of the law, no human is justified because no accountable human other than Jesus has been able to live without sin.Awesome. Does this mean you believe we should let all Christians out of jails and prisons?
No, you misunderstand the context. I thought I was being clear but I will make it plainer. 'It' speaks of the covenant. I am speaking of the Christian standing before God, no humans.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you are unable to produce a coherent definition of "objective" then your naked opinion is laid bare.Objective: That which is the actual case, to put it simply. Do you want me to expand on that?How do you personally determine and how do you personally verify "that which is the actual case"?
First, I look at what is necessary for objectively knowing what is morally right. Then I see how well the Christian system of thought answers this question, comparing it to others. I consider the system of checks and balances the Bible gives and I believe it is logical and adequate.
Do you rely on your "gut instincts"?
Sometimes. I rely on my common sense, reason and logic more so. Since I have read the Scriptures for over forty years verses come to mind readily in thinking of the answers.
As a subjective person, do you know what is the actual case?I draw the brightest possible line between FACT and OPINION.
I disagree. (^8
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
And I point to that truth; God is truth. I have continually argued for what is necessary for objective moral truth.But you have failed to demonstrate a single solitary unchanging, universal moral axiom.
What would you be willing to believe? You want to dictate things on your terms. Do you think God is answerable to you? I believe that no matter what I give as the reason, you will doubt because you are not willing to grant God His existence. But I'm in for the discussion because you are polite enough. You are set in a worldview mind-frame that can't make sense of itself, but I believe you do not want to admit it to yourself. That would be not very pleasant considering what you have invested in it. Thus, you keep giving excuse after excuse, IMO.
I am pointing out that your system of thought cannot make sense of itself when you start to examine it, removing the nuts and bolts to see what makes it tick. The Christian system can justify itself. It has what is necessary for truth regarding origins, morality, existence, truth, knowledge, etc. The analogy I see here to this challenge; you put your fingers in your ears and don't hear the validity of the questions, then when I finish given my point and raising more questions, you put another obstacle in the way. Be honest with yourself and answer my questions. I want to see how well you can justify what you believe just like you want to with me, and I am giving you my reasons while answering all your questions - all of them.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you think it is okay when someone wants something that does not belong to them and takes it?Isn't that what you call "shopping"?
No, that is called using your well-earned money to buy something for sale that no one yet owns.
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?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Is it okay when the person you love is unfaithful to you and doesn't care?(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 interaction
So 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?
Do you also believe that it is wrong to commit to another person, pledging to be faithful to them?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you think it is okay when others steal from you? Is it okay for you to steal from others?Do you consider inflation "theft"?
There is a reason it happens. It is not a good thing but often a result of greed, IMO, as with most of your questions. Greed is wrong.
Do you consider taxation "theft"?
Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. Is it fair taxes that go into maintaining and improving the state for each citizen? Or are the political elite using taxes to get rich at the expense of the taxpayer. If so, then yes to the latter.
Do you consider price gouging "theft"?
Dishonest, yes. A ripoff. Let the buyer beware.
Do you consider anti-competitive business practices "theft"?
What is stolen? Depends on the motives and situation perhaps. There may be no one else in the field to compete with such as with a new field of endeavour.
Do you consider exploitation of labor "theft"?
I consider it as mean, selfish, and disrespectful. What would be stealing?
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.
I will not attempt to intimidate or coerce you with threats of force (by the state or otherwise) or verbal counter-attack.
That is not the question here. The question is whether defaming someone and destroying their character out of malice is right or wrong?
(IFF) people are easily fooled by banal ad hominem attacks (THEN) they merely demonstrate their own deficit of critical thinking
So, you don't see it as wrong for someone to falsely accuse you of something or malign your character just because they don't like you, then?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you think it is wrong to lie?Of course (under certain circumstances).Even Christians believe it's permissible, even admirable to violate unjust laws and use subterfuge (lies by omission and or lies by commission) in order to avoid legal consequences.
I do not believe it is good to lie. We, however, live in a fallen world where we have to in order to protect innocent life, as was the case with Moses. Sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.
Like lying to the state in order to assist escaped slaves and or people persecuted by the state for their religious beliefs and or genetic composition.But I don't need to resort to a hackneyed "appeal to authority" in order to come to that conclusion.
The truth is that everyone appeals to authority. Sometimes it is fallacious. Is that what you are hinting at? The question is whether that appeal to authority is justifiable.
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Pro-life?!
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Can you live without condemning murder as wrong?Can you live without explicitly defining "an unjustified killing"?
I did—the malicious, intentional killing of an innocent human being.
I'm pretty sure you can live without explicitly defining "an unjustified killing" because I'm pretty sure you can't explicitly define "an unjustified killing" (murder).Without a fixed reference point (without an explicit, unchanging and universal definition), how can you claim to condemn "murder"?
I have a fixed reference point; a necessary revealed one - God.
Created:
-->
@Marko
This sounds like the perpetual rehash of religious argumentation strategy....where they internally consult with each other and agree amongst themselves that non-believers—because they don’t happen to agree with their particular take on God and the nature of morality, etc—somehow believe that things must have happened by chance, and that any alternative to their unusual take must immediately be offered up to them with substantial evidence.....all this while never having spoken to a true atheist.Of course, religious debaters conveniently never absorb the reality that, never in my entire of talking to atheists, have I heard them pointing to happenstance and random occurence as a explanation for anything (precisely the opposite). So why does it, as consistently as clockwork, crop up in their discussions?Similarly, they appear to ignore or obfuscate the notion of burden of proof (probably more for convenience than blatant ignorance)?I just don’t find your proposition convincing and evidence based, dude.....and this disbelief in your proposition didn’t require me propose any new proposition that is susceptible to any convincing attack on your part. All you can do is to go back to the drawing board and search for new evidence to support your proposition.
Actually, I'm asking atheists to explain morality and give justification for it. I claim the Christian system has what is necessary for morality and that you do not. Show me otherwise.
Before we get started, are you referring to the OP?
As an atheist, would you describe yourself more along the lines of a hardcore atheist (there is no God/gods - period) or a softcore atheist (agnostic/unsure because there is no evidence for God/gods)?
What presuppositions do you bring to the table? If no God or gods, you would be supporting a strictly naturalistic or materialistic process, right? If not, explain what you believe about beginnings when you follow the causal tree back to its roots. In the beginning...what?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you think it is right to murder, to take an innocent life out of malice intentionally?Of course not.But I don't need to resort to a hackneyed "appeal to authority" in order to come to that conclusion.
But you do. You appeal to your authority as if that is enough or it is of great meaning and value, without more justification. How can you come to that conclusion if there are no moral absolutes? All you can say is "I don't like it and I hope you don't either." Why should I or someone feel the same way if morality is up for grabs to whoever can make something doable by force, because without a moral absolute that is all you have, forcing your opinions on others? Yet, you know that killing/murdering innocent people is wrong and you have no hesitation in saying it is wrong because deep down you know it is an objective moral value but you can't justify why it is.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You have an OPINION that "the bible" is "objective".I have what is necessary for objectivity.You are a human who suffers from sample bias.
There is no neutrality. You are not neutral either. You suffer from the sample bias from a different standpoint.
Therefore you are biased.
Dito.
Therefore you are not "objective".
What you are saying is that I can't be objective when it comes to morality but that is not a sound conclusion. If I appeal to an objective truth I can. If I correctly interpret such a truth I can. If I have what is necessary for objectivity I can.
I question that your worldview does, and I want you to demonstrate it does.I am not "objective" and I've never claimed to be "objective".
Then you are unable to say for certain that anything is wrong, including a person torturing innocent children for fun. All you can say is, "I don't personally like it." But to those who do you have no course of objection. Hitler's killing of almost 13 million 'undesirables' maybe something you don't like, but who are you to criticize him? To each their own. And your position is unlivable when someone chooses to torture you for fun. Then you know your relativism is unsustainable and cannot be lived because with it there are no universal values. (Remember, no moral values are objective) That means they are all open to interpretation and preference.
I do my best to maintain logically coherent, fact based world view based on explicit primary axioms.
You have not demonstrated that you do maintain logical consistency, IMO. You say 'this is good' or 'this is bad' from your relative subjective viewpoint but why does that make something good or bad? If I say the opposite how can they both be right? So, you fail the test of the law of identity, the law of contradiction, and the law of middle exclusion. You can't place an objective identity on what is right, thus right can mean anything.
I very intentionally engage in exploration of opposing viewpoints in order to continuously refine and update my own perspective.
I sincerely appreciate the effort. Perhaps that will be a good thing? Forgive me for being critical but that is the whole point in examining and making sense of worldviews.
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Pro-life then?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
IMO< you continually show your hatred of Christians and Christianity. For what? Why do you do this?Like you have said above, " IMO".
Others are of the same opinion, and while that does not necessarily make it so, it is a good indication. It is an observation.
How many fkn TIMES!!!!!? I don't "hate" Christians .
Again, a rather aggressive or hostile reply.
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.
Stop stop trying to play victim.
I am just pointing out your hostility. I observe what your words convey, not only in the tone but also the meaning.
I don't care about you.
It is obvious to me.
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.
Definition of hate
(Entry 1 of 2)
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
c: a systematic and especially politically exploited expression of hatred a crime motivated by bigotry and hate—often used before another noun hate mailan organization tracking hate groups— see also HATE CRIME
2: an object of hatred a generation whose finest hate had been big business— F. L. Paxson
Your justification displays several eisegetical and inferential errors on the myriad of threads that would require a very detailed and time-consuming rebuttal.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Israel was not allowed by God to exploit foreigners as they had been exploited in Eygpt.You're technically right about that. The Israelites didn't build any pyramids with their foreign chattel slaves.
A chattel slave has no options. The foreign slave had two. Convert or flee.
The harsh treatment Israel experienced in Egypt was forbidden by God.
The foreign slave became a member of the household and was loved or supposed to be, per the Mosaic law.
A wrong was punishable by corporal punishment since they did not have the resources to incarcerate others.
If a slave was harshly treated in which they lost an eye, a tooth, a life, the same treatment was required of the master.
The slave master relationship is very similar to the employer/employee relationship. There is an exchange of value between the two. The employee works for the employer for food and shelter. The employer protects the employee with built-in provisions, such as a pension or remuneration for injury at work.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I can see how mass murderers get their morality from God.
Mass murderers show a lack of morality. God has just reason to take life. He takes the life of the wicked in judgment. If He takes an innocent life, He will restore it to a better place - in His presence. Since God is the Creator, He has the right to take life.
The same goes for stealing. God cannot steal since everything is His creation. It belongs to Him.
Many mass murderers deny God, so how could they get their 'morality' from God?
However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. You must completely destroy them – the Hethite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite …. (Deut. 20:16-18)
Why did God issue this commandment? It was because these people were 1) evil/wicked, 2) they would destroy Israel or cause her to be unfaithful to what is good (which they did), 3) destroy God's plans for the good of humanity by destroying the Messianic lineage and making His word null and void. Thus, God would be at the mercy of His creatures rather than the other way around. Those who are not wise or omniscient would thus dictate to the One who is.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Dogs, like Christians, hold to moral views that originate somewhere, the way they view the world and universe. Morality is a part of their worldview. They do not see moral values coming from an ultimate being. They try to make themselves that being in question. If there is no ultimate, necessary being, the point of reference is then self preservation and kindness. This is why they don't kill other dog's puppies.
Show me that dogs understand morality rather than being conditions by their owner to respond to particular commands. Can they reason on whether it is right to lie or steal or be unfaithful to their mates? When in heat the male will shag whatever comes their way. When hungry they will take the food given to another dog and not meant for them if they are mightier than those possessing or eating it. When scolded by their owners they understand they are getting punished because this is what they have experienced in the past and it is unpleasant to them physically.
Are you saying the same is true of human beings, that they are just responding to things that are unpleasant or things they like doing, like humping any woman in heat that is consensual?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Second, how do they arrive at the 'best' if morality has no fixed address, no fixed reference point? It is a constantly shifting standard that points to 'better' but better than what?This appeal to a "fixed reference point" has been shown unnecessary in a post you haven't caught up to yet.
Done. See Post 631.
A compass doesn't use a fixed reference point, yet the world can be successfully navigated with it.
Yes, it does in two ways. First, the needle has to line up with the N on the dial. Second, the concept of 'N/north' has to have a fixed location or pointing to N would be meaningless. That location is an actual place - true north.
While atheists can and sometimes do live more morally than many Christians do, from where their worldview starts (their most basic presuppositions), there is no reason they should.Again, atheism is not a moral philosophy.
Atheists use a philosophy that discounts God or gods in accounting for morality. Thus, they start with what is, not from what ought to be. What ought to be is derived from conscious being(s), not matter devoid of being(s), and how do conscious beings come about? Excluding God or gods leaves matter. Second, morality has to have a fixed reference point that is objective or else you have no true value for 'good' and 'right.' Without a fixed reference, it can be any direction, to use the true north analogy.
You are a relativist despite the claim that you believe in objective morality. Demonstrate that. You have not been able to through your lose reference of well-being or humans.
...and the tired old argument of the 'vast killings due to atheism' (in the name of atheism?!) is something that may work in dogmatic echo chambers, but not to any reasoning person. Mao (et al) didn't kill because of atheism - that would be like killing for a-unicornism. It is a nonsense argument.
Not as tiring as the Salem witch trials and the crusades which work in your dogmatic echo chambers.
What is done in the name of Christianity does not necessarily represent the teaching that is our reference point, but with atheism, it is consistent with its starting point and its subjectivity.
Morality is about the well-being of humans,Whose well-being?...humans.
Humans think of well-being differently. Which one(s)? Kim Jong-Un thinks of well-being from his point of view. Do you agree with his concept of well-being? Totalitarian regimes, Marxist regimes, communist regimes, fascist regimes, and democracies all think of well-being from a different perspective. So do different governments within these systems and different peoples within these systems. Much of the time, well-being is taking what you need from someone else. Within cultures, there are sub-cultures and splinted groups who disagree on what is good for the masses.
Again, you are evasive on purpose because you can't point to a universal definition of well-being unless you first start with what is necessary - God.
Humans...does not make sense of well-being, especially when you focus on the examples of different cultures and groups and individuals and ask, why are they right? Way too often, you have two different cultures, groups, or individuals disagreeing over what is morally good or right. That means the law of contradiction is contravened. Logically, your answer does not provide what is necessary. I demonstrate this by pointing to what we witness throughout the world.
and humans were concerned about what actions and attitudes ensured their survival long before Christianity came to be.To benefit themselves and ensure their own survival at the expense of others.Given that we are a social species, our survival is typically linked to others...
So what? We see others manipulating us to get their way. We manipulate others to get our way. If it comes to them or us, it is usually us. Selfishness wins out unless you adopt a biblical philosophy or serving others and thinking of their well-being before your own and sacrificing for their good.
Not only that, why are we a social 'species'? From an evolutionary perspective, why should things be the way they are? Evolution has no intent. Things happen. If one biological bag of matter reacts one way and another differently, what is moral about that? How can you condemn this bag of atoms from reacting differently to that bag? It is just the way things happen. What is wrong with that?
Christianity is different; it looks out not only for self but also for everyone, denying oneself for others' benefit.That is revisionistic.
No, it is the teaching of Scripture.
Christianity has a far from perfect track record for a moral philosophy supposedly laid down by a perfect lawgiver. On the other hand, humanism is the tide that raises all boats, and Christianity is along for the ride while it maintains a humanistic component. (That's a good thing!)
Again, putting humanism before the biblical principles of its God. That is your burden to prove. Go ahead. Who is the revisionist?
Again, biblical slavery [...]...is slavery. There is no justifiable reason or context where one human owning another is justifiable. Biblical slavery is an aspect of Christianity where it conflicts with humanism. That's problematic if Christianity really is about treating others as you would have them treat you.
You are not open to the meaning it conveys as opposed to chattel slavery. I have spoken of it until I am blue in the face. You ignore it and reiterate your dogma.
Ok, it's just a fact most people are non-Christians (and are just as moral as Christians).Because they adopt the Judeo-Christian standard - it is wrong to murder, wrong to steal, wrong to lie, wrong to covet, wrong to commit adultery....and I suppose you think murder, theft, dishonesty etc., were all considered completely acceptable before Judaism/Christianity? It's a wonder mankind made it 10,000/100,000's years until "God" decided to finally reveal himself!
You work from a different presuppositional starting point than I do. You have yet to make sense of it. You think science has all the answers, yet you engage in scientism.
I'm having real difficulty finding anything compelling in your assertions here.
Dito. You make up your own meaning. Why should I trust it? You have not demonstrated anything, factually. You are worse than that. You have not demonstrated you start from a necessary framework in your presuppositions.
No. Other gods are fake.Christopher Hitchens: "From a plurality of prime movers, the monotheists have bargained it down to a single one. They are getting ever nearer to the true, round figure."
As you bow down before him. Why should I trust Christopher Hitchens's thoughts? They have a particular bias.
That means they [believers] think morality owes its existence to a personal being or beingsI would agree morality doesn't exist without conscious beings. It makes no sense to me that you continually discount the personal beings we all know/see and appeal to one we can't. That is an ugly part of your theology, imo. You deny dignity to humanity in order to revere the undetectable.
The personal beings we are and know are relative. They have no fixed starting point for morality. They make it up on preference. How does preference (descriptive - 'I like ice-cream!') determine what should be (prescriptive - 'You must like ice-cream!') make something right?
I discount personal human beings because you, as such a being, do not have what is necessary for morality. You can't even show me the fixed reference point that right and good is derived from. You are not necessary for me to know it is wrong to murder innocent human beings. You don't even know it is wrong to kill innocent human beings for you condone, even support and argue for abortion. I discount you as necessary on that basis and many more reasons. You have no identity for right. Right = Right is a logically necessary law, the law of identity. You have no fixed value for right. You can't establish what right is because it varies from person to person and from day-to-day, year-to-year, decade-to-decade, era-to-era.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
How does your personal opinion and preference make something right if you have no objective unchanging/fixed source or reference point?How can you go north, east, west or south without an unchanging/fixed source or reference point?You are inferring and projecting again.That is not an answer.
You never answered my questions. It starts with you answering me before I can answer you. You dodged the answer with another question, which is typical of a non-answer.
P.S. Magnetic north isn't a fixed reference point - it moves.True north or the North Pole is.A compass doesn't point to "True North"...it points to the magnetic north pole which is not a fixed reference point. Yet, in spite of not being fixed, magnetic north makes a great reference point by which to navigate our world. The point being, a fixed reference point is an unnecessary requirement for navigation through space ...or morality.
The point is that there is such a point or location as true north. While the compass needle does not always point to it accurately, you can find it by using the compass. By using the compass accurately, you line up the needle with the N to get to the North Pole. To get to the moral good or right, you have to have a fixed point that actually is. If you don't have one, you have no north, no true good or right. North on the compass needs a point of reference, an actual place to line the needle up with. There has to be a relationship between magnetic north and true north. True north has to exist before the magnetic north can, or you would not know you were going north, what north meant, or what the needle was pointing to if anything. Needle in relation to what? North in relation to what? Magnetic north means nothing without a true north.
By using the compass, you get within the vicinity of the North Pole or true north. You can find it by using a compass. It points you in the right direction.
I used the analogy with 3RU7AL of Christ as true north and the Bible (God's word) and how we interpret it as magnetic north. Jesus, a personal being, is our reference point for morality - true north. Morality comes from conscious beings. We, as relative, subjective beings, need to fix onto an unchanging reference point. How we interpret His words can sometimes lead us astray if you ignore what is being said, to whom, when and in relation to the culture of the time. In the same way, the Ten Commandments provide the footing for morality. They deal with our relationship with humanity as well as with God. They reveal the true north (a revelation of His character) that we base other moral laws upon. The Mosaic laws were magnetic north in that they pointed towards true north - the principles of loving your neighbour and what that looks like, and loving God, and what that looks like. Similarly, the Son became a human being to show us God and what God is like. He said, "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father - the Father and I are one." I can give you other analogies from Scripture, such as in building a foundation, you need a cornerstone (Christ is the cornerstone). It is the reference point by which the entire foundation is built upon. That is the starting point. You have to have a starting point.
So, when it comes to morality, you say there is no fixed reference point, or such a point is unnecessary. Thus, you have no unchanging starting point to build upon. You are wrong, and where you start (subjective opinion or objective fact) depends on where you end up, either making sense of morality or not adequately explaining why it is and should be.
P.S.S. Human interpretation of the 'will of God' isn't a fixed reference point either and can be used to support atrocities and oppose equality. (Holocaust, apartheid, Transatlantic slave trade)The Holocaust, Apartheid, transatlantic slavery are not biblical or OT slavery but a misinterpretation.Says you. I'm sure the folks who believed they were justified in committing these atrocities would argue a correct interpretation on the same grounding you deny it.
Sure they would believe they are justified, just like you believe you are justified in your opinions on the Bible. There is little difference, IMO. The question is, what is the truth? Does Scripture have a true interpretation? The Bible says it does. God says to Israel never to treat others as they were treated in Eygpt. How were they treated in Eygpt? His command says to love one's neighbour, and then it goes on to explain who one's neighbour is. It describes God as love and gives a biblical definition of what love entails. God gives us all kinds of examples of love, the uttermost being His Son. Love is serving others, putting them before ourselves as God put us before Himself in becoming human and taking our punishment upon Himself. The OT picture of slavery represented two greater spiritual truths, 1) our bondage or slavery to sin and who can free us of this slavery, 2) our servitude for others and how it is rewarding. Jesus shows us what it means to love others by putting them ahead of oneself, as He (being God) humbled Himself and became a servant for us, that we might fully meet God's righteous requirements. He also provided how we would be freed from our bondage to sin, again, through Him.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I have denied from the start that biblical slavery is the same as chattel slavery.Yea, well, you're just wrong, and you squash your own denial when you argue for forced slavery for the purpose of conversion. I mean, seriously, if it's forced it can't be indentured servitude.No, you're mistaken. You are comparing the 19th-century chattel slavery to biblical slavery that God condones. [...]chattel slavery:the enslaving and owning of human beings and their offspring as property, able to be bought, sold, and forced to work without wages, as distinguished from other systems of forced, unpaid, or low-wage labor also considered to be slavery. [Link]OT slavery allowed non-Hebrews and women to be bought, sold, and forced to perform services without wages (beating was acceptable). This is stated plainly in the Bible and no amount of bad apologetics changes or mitigates this.
The keyword is 'property' and what it meant in the biblical sense by God as opposed to what it meant to the Egyptians or us today. I explained this to you, I even cited Glenn Miller's research:
Legal Status: Slaves were considered 'property' in exclusion to their humanity. That is, to fire a bullet into a slave was like firing a bullet into a pumpkin, not like firing a bullet into a human. There were no legal or ethical demands upon owners' as to how they treated their 'property'. Other than with the occasional benevolent master, only economic value was a main deterrent to abusive treatment.
OT: In keeping with the 'variableness' of notions of property in the ANE (as noted by historians and anthropologists), Israel's notion of 'property' was a severely restricted one, and one that did NOT preclude the humanity of the servant nor absolve the master from legal accountability.
§ Although Hebrew servants are mis-called 'property' in one verse (Ex 21.21), Israel's notion of 'property' in the law was severely restricted to economic output only--NOT 'ownership of a disposable good'.
The distinction is clear. Chattel slavers were considered a thing to be done with as the master chose because of his/her ownership rights. Not so with biblical slavery. Economic output is the nature of an employee/employer relationship. Slaves from foreign lands via wars were reaping what they sowed. They were responsible for reparation for all the damages done to Israel. Thus, the penalty was serving others. The penalty was lifelong UNLESS the slave converted to Judaism, then the penalty or what was owed was reduced to a seven-year term. After that, the slave was freed unless the slave wanted to stay with the master. These foreign slaves were not allowed under law to be treated harshly, although they were allowed to be disciplined for wrongs they did. In theory and by law, if the master treated them harshly, they could flee to a safe zone and escape slavery. To discourage harsh treatment, the principle of an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life was lawful. That is a big detriment. If these legal conditions were violated and the slave was still alive, they were automatically freed.
So to be clear, "Israel's notion of 'property' in the law was severely restricted to economic output only--NOT 'ownership of a disposable good.'"
'Property' is therefore seen not as 'owned disposable goods' but as economic output (including labor).'
Not only this, a Hebrew slave was capable of earning money, and when they left the employment (usually undertaken because of debt), they had money to take with them. These slaves could own land. A foreign slave who was in slavery because of debt and sold to an Israelite would live a life where their wages were their food, protection, and shelter, and in better conditions than the rest of the ANE. Thus, it is reasonable to believe such slavery was desired to that of other ANE cultures. The Hebrews were to love foreigners who were in their land and their households.
(1) "Although slaves were viewed as the property of heads of households, the latter were not free to brutalize or abuse even non-Israelite members of the household. On the contrary, explicit prohibitions of the oppression/exploitation of slaves appear repeatedly in the Mosaic legislation. In two most remarkable texts, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, Yahweh charges all Israelites to love ('aheb) aliens (gerim) who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Like Exodus 22:20 (Eng. 21), in both texts Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her slaves. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that the Israelites were to look to Yahweh himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially vulnerable persons in their communities." [HI:MFBW:60]
(2) The classic alienation of insider-outside social stratification (a major component of Western and even Roman slavery) was minimized in Israel by the inclusion of the domestics in the very heart-life of the nation: covenant and religious life. This would have created social bonds that softened much of any residual stigma associated with the servile status. This was accomplished through religious integration into the religious life of the household:
"However, domestic slavery was in all likelihood usually fairly tolerable. Slaves formed part of the family and males, if circumcised, could take part in the family Passover and other religious functions. Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household (note: allowing easier access to family bonds)" [OT:I:101]
(2) The classic alienation of insider-outside social stratification (a major component of Western and even Roman slavery) was minimized in Israel by the inclusion of the domestics in the very heart-life of the nation: covenant and religious life. This would have created social bonds that softened much of any residual stigma associated with the servile status. This was accomplished through religious integration into the religious life of the household:
"However, domestic slavery was in all likelihood usually fairly tolerable. Slaves formed part of the family and males, if circumcised, could take part in the family Passover and other religious functions. Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household (note: allowing easier access to family bonds)" [OT:I:101]
Thus, the foreign slaves were seen as part of the family and became family members, just not having the same rights as free people.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
P.S. Magnetic north isn't a fixed reference point - it moves.True north or the North Pole is.Does your compass point to "true north"?
Jesus Christ is true north. I know where true north is. Jesus is the location, metaphorically speaking.
No. It points to magnetic north.Does magnetic north change by hundreds if not thousands of miles without warning?Yes. Yes it does.Does this mean that your compass is unreliable & utterly useless?No. Of course not.
I point you to the standard, Jesus Christ - true north; the location, God's word - magnetic north. What you or I do with it or how you use it is another matter. Magnetic north leads you in the right direction, the general direction. If compasses did not work people would not use them. They take you to the desired location if you follow them correctly. God's word is our compass. Jesus Christ is our destination. His word takes us to the true north - Himself.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
What practical value is an abstract "truth" if nobody knows what it is?Why do you think no one knows and how do you know that?God is able to say what He means.(IFF) "the ("objective") truth" is so crystal clear (THEN) why are there literally thousands of flavors of Christianity?
A multitude of errors usually conceals the truth. Truth is exacting. 1+1=2. Because we are subjective beings who are influenced by so many things and have so many beliefs, sometimes misconceptions in one area lead to greater misconceptions. In an easily relatable way, Jesus put it that of two foundations that are built, one on the sand and one on a rock. When violent forces test the structure, the one resting on the sand collapses because its foundation was not solid. It did not have what was necessary to support the building when troubling forces came against it.
(IFF) theological variation is so slight & unsubstantial (THEN) why did competing denominations historically slaughter each other?
They were not following the teachings but reading into them. There are also fundamental doctrines that every Christian must believe to be a Christian rather than just a profess Christ.
Why can't the Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Unitarians, Eastern Orthodox, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Calvinists, Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, Jehova's witnesses, Anabaptists, Hussites, Quakers, Pentecostals, Messianic Jews set aside their slight & unsubstantial differences of opinion and UNITE under one cohesive and "objective" truth?
The truth is Jesus Christ; the living Word made flesh. The Son became a human being, as well as being God. God stepped into human history. As I said above there are certain fundamental doctrines you must believe to be a Christian. Jesus is the only means God has given by which humans may be saved and have a right relationship with God. I could list others but faith centers on Jesus Christ. We are only justified before God through Him, not by our own works in obtaining our salvation.
Even iff someone was actually convinced that there was an "objective" moral code, which flavor of Christianity holds the "one true and perfect interpretation"?
We can't be right on all things, but we must be right on who Jesus is, our Saviour, Lord, and God. We must be right on those, or we compromise our faith. On minor doctrines, we have the luxury of being wrong, but it is not desirable. The greater we know the real, the less we fall for the counterfeit. Thus, Paul told Timothy to study to be approved of God one who correctly handles the word of truth.
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a worker who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
There is the accurate handling or interpretation of God's word. It is our responsibility to find it. In this way, we come to understand God more fully and are not tossed about by false teachings.
Ephesians 4:14, 15
As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of people, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15 but [e]speaking the truth in love, [f]we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, that is, Christ,
The more we study His word, the more we come to know God, what He is like, what He means, for we add line to line, precept upon precept.
Isaiah 28:9-11 (NASB)
9 “To whom would He teach knowledge,
And to whom would He interpret the message?
Those just weaned from milk?
Those just taken from the breast?
10 For He says,
‘[a]Order on order, order on order,
Line on line, line on line,
A little here, a little there.’”
11 Indeed, He will speak to this people
Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue,
And there is also a difference between knowledge and wisdom. Wisdom is aptly applying knowledge.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Words convey meaning and reveal what a person is like. What they say reflects their inner nature, who they are.
1 Corinthians 2:6-16 (NASB)
6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; 9 but just as it is written:
“Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
And which have not entered the human heart,
All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”
10 [a]For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among people knows the thoughts of a person except the spirit of the person that is in him? So also the thoughts of God no one knows, except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God. 13 We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, [b]combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But [c]a natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But the one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is [d]discerned by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.
So, believers of Jesus are in a relationship with God, and as we read more and study more, we come to understand more of all that God is and all that He has in store for believers. He directs us through His word and by His Son and Spirit.
When we relate to unbelievers His words come to mind as we seek to explain things concerning God.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why can't Christians agree?First off, do you believe truth is discernable?The problem is that way too often we collapse passages, ignore context, ignore the relevant audience of address, ignore time statements, misunderstand the difference between biblical culture and our own, and a whole host of reasons. Having said that, Scripture makes it clear there is a correct way i=of interpreting God's word. You have to understand what the Author is saying to get His meaning. That means not reading into His words something He has not said or does not convey. You also have to build line upon line, precept upon precept. An isolated passage can very often lead to a pretext.If all Christians are reading the same book and speaking to the same "YHWH" shouldn't they all come to exactly the same "objective" conclusions?
They should, but they don't because they read into Scripture things it does not communicate. As I have said many times if you want to find out what someone means, understand their meaning, don't create your own.
Are all Christians who disagree with you less moral and or less intelligent than you?
It is not me who is important; it is what the Word of God actually says. If you can show me that I err then I am missing the teaching's true meaning, you have won me over. I should be able to justify what I believe is true. One of the cautions I would warn you of is to pay attention to the relevant audience in Scripture and the time indicators. We are the secondary audience, not the primary one. Jesus is speaking to a specific people He came to, OT Israel, who worshiped according to the Mosaic Law. He comes to fulfill that law to reconcile these OT people to God. He comes to redeem both Jews and Gentiles, whoever will believe.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Did morality exist before Abraham?Yes.Great.So, we don't need all this special literature in order to be moral.
Although we are created in His image and likeness and are, therefore, moral creatures, the Fall has opened up relativism since we no longer seek after God and find out the good through Him but make it up ourselves way too often. Our reflection of Him is dulled. Thus, God has left us with a moral compass, a written record. It points to true north. He ensured we understood how He created and why things are the way they are by having His servants, Moses, the prophets, His Son's disciples, record His dealings with humanity. Thus, our appeal is to a written record that contains the accounts of Abraham. We have this special revelation as a teacher to lead us back to God and show us what is right. The Ten Commandments are a blueprint for humanity.
Created: