Total posts: 3,179
-->
@3RU7AL
You used your own reasoning and moral instinct to VALIDATE "the gospel message".You have to believe that God exists before you will come to Him.You can only believe if you are CONVINCED.
And you won't be convinced if you do not first believe He exists. You first have to believe He exists before open yourself to God. God is reasonable to believe. Chance happenstance as your maker is not. So, which "God" becomes the question? That is why I am discussing this with you. I want you to show me your 'version' of God corresponds to the God that is.
Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
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.
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.
You and you alone VALIDATE "the gospel message".
The Holy Spirit, in conjunction with God's word, validates the message. As the highest authority that is possible, God speaks to our hearts and minds through the message. Outside sources confirm the message because the creation should confirm what He says if the biblical God is God.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do subjective standards meet what is necessary? If you think so, explain how.Each individual is the arbiter of their own moral instinct.Then I say what is sa[id by you] is morally wrong!Yes. For you and those you are responsible for.
Sorry, my last sentence above was poorly worded and unclear as to meaning. I corrected it.
I meant something along the lines of "Then if what I say is the opposite of what you say, then you are morally wrong. You can never be right." How do you like that?
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.
'Instinct' and 'right' can be two different things.
You never explain why your relative standard is or can be better than anyone else's?You never explain why your "objective" standard is or can be better than anyone else's?
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.
Is it because you believe it?Is it "objective" because you believe it?
No, it is objective only if it corresponds to what is the case.
Does that make something good?Does your OPINION that it is "objective" make something good?
No, once again, opinions are only valid if they correspond to what is the case.
I have asked you to show me that what you believe is good is what is necessary for it to be so. Can you do that? If so, go ahead. You are not answering my questions. You do that constantly, and I believe you do not have the answers, hence the difficulty and intentional avoidance.
Then two opposing and contrary standards (a logical absurdity) can both be right depending upon who holds what view?(IFF) you have a son, and you call this son "son" (THEN) should everyone on earth call your son "son"?
No, you are confusing what the word son means in this context and what it is associated with - a particular person. It applies to the biological or adopted offspring of a person in this case.
In another context, the use of the word son may be applicable. Here are the different meanings:
Definition of son
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: a human male offspring especially of human beings
b: a male adopted child
c: a human male descendant
2 capitalized : the second person of the Trinity
3: a person closely associated with or deriving from a formative agent (such as a nation, school, or race)
We may use the term in a more general way, such as 'the sons of confederation' or 'the sons of anarchy' to denote a particular person to a particular belief or group. But context is key, and your context has a specific meaning of son.
Is one language "objectively wrong" and another language "objectively right"?
No, not to my knowledge. They have the same or similar word equivalencies.
Without a fixed identity for a moral prescription, what makes it good/right?The exact same thing that makes your moral prescription good/right (4 U).
That does not make something right, just because I believe it unless it conforms to what is the case. It only makes it doable. You confuse a description with a prescription. Just because you can say that is morally wrong does not make it so unless there is a moral wrong that it conforms with. You can't make it up and call it morally wrong. All you are doing is stating a preference in such a case. Hitler had a preference to kill Jews. He liked to have them killed. I hope you don't think that just because he had such a preference that it was morally right?? He had the means to do so, but that did not make it right.
Your moral instinct.
Not valid. If my instinct is different than yours, which is right? How do you attach a 'right' to a descriptive and subjective action? I blink twenty times in a minute because my eyes are tired and dry. My instinct is to do so to alleviate my dry eyes. Should you do so too, even though you just woke up and your eyes are moist, and if you don't should I make you?
You confuse moral obligation with instinctive habits. Is there an actual 'right' involved with instinct? My genetic makeup and environmental conditioning make me sneeze around ragweed. Should you too?
Is it force? If you force me to believe 'it' does that make it good/right?Good luck trying to force someone to believe something.That's not how belief works.
Do you recognize that 'right' has to have a fixed value? Something that is right cannot, at the same time, be wrong. It either is the case that something is right or that something is wrong. "Right" has a specific value.
You can't say, "Torturing innocent babies for fun" is right, and "Torturing innocent babies for fun is wrong." Either it is right, or it is wrong. It cannot be both. Forcing you to believe torturing innocent babies for fun is right does not make it right just because you believe it to be. You keep blurring the meaning of 'right.'
Definition of right
(Entry 1 of 4)
(Entry 1 of 4)
If Kim Jong Un kidnaps you and forces you..., is that then good/right? He believes so. Why is your belief any 'better' than his?Because it's mine.
You are a true postmodernist. Just because it is your belief does not make it right. It just makes it preferable. "I like ice-cream" is a preference. Does that make it morally obligatory? An obligation is something we should all do because it is the correct thing to do. Kim Jong-Un's belief is not something everyone should do. It is not something anyone should do. That makes his belief wrong.
Definition of wrong
(Entry 1 of 4)
(Entry 1 of 4)
1a: an injurious, unfair, or unjust act: action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or cause
b: a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another especially: TORT
2: something wrong, immoral, or unethical especially: principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law
3: the state, position, or fact of being or doing wrong: such as
a: the state of being mistaken or incorrect
b: the state of being guilty
I am the ultimate authority over my own body and mind.
Not in Kim Jong-Un's North Korea - he is. And are you an authority on what is right and wrong? No. You fail to understand the concept.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
We are to drive out sinful practices or deeds from our lives so that they do not rule over us so we can have a close relationship with God.Sounds good.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. As for policing, what goes on behind closed doors is their business and it is between them and God unless they are hurting someone against their will and we hear of it, although every time we go against God's good for us we hurt ourselves and others. If you are a follower of Christ you know sexual immorality is wrong, such as having sex outside the boundaries of marriage (fornication) or lusting after a woman who is not your wife (adultery of the mind) or conducting a physical and sexual relationship with a woman who is not your wife (adultery), it is wrong. I believe that (generally speaking) even unbelievers know these things are wrong although the boundaries of sex before marriage are commonly accepted today.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
A dog is a dog. A dog cannot be a non-dog.What one person calls a "dog" might be a "catellus" to someone else.
'Dog' (in English) is the common term used to describe a particular animal type. It has a specific meaning because of the association we get from the word. If I say dog, I don't mean cat unless I have developed the wrong association. If a person uses a new word foreign for the meaning 'dog' 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. The point is that the thing describes is what it is, not something else. If you want to use the word "catellus" when speaking of a dog, you will not be understood unless the animal is present and you are pointing to the dog. Then the person you are communicating with is going to correct you of your misconception.
You're confusing ONTOLOGY with "objective reality".
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.
If one person measures in inches and the other measures in centimeters, which one is more "objective"?
Inches and meters have equivalencies between the two systems of measurements. We know we have to convert by using a specific measure between the two. An inch equals 2.54 cms. The same is true of some words; they have equivalencies that we call synonyms. It is like using two different languages, say French and English. We know the equivalent word for dog in French is ' le chien' for a male dog and 'la chienne' for a female dog. 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.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can't live with such a standard because as soon as the tables are turned on you and you are the victim your position changes and you realize these things are morally reprehensible and wrong. Then you no longer endorse moral relativism.When the "community" turns against you, that is EXACTLY when you endorse moral relativism.
Many subgroups or subcultures exist within any given society or nation that has different values and beliefs. Democrats and Republicans are just two examples, and within those groups, there is a huge diversity of values and beliefs.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
What is the actual right? You can't produce one. All you can say is "I like this [old book] view."
Do you think it is right to murder, to take an innocent life out of malice intentionally? Can you live without condemning murder as wrong? As soon as someone decides you are to be murdered because they hate you, you can no longer live with your condoning murder.
Do you think it is wrong to lie? What if someone defames your character and says things that are untrue of you to others. Do you think it is right for them when they are the recipient of lies?
Do you think it is okay when others steal from you? Is it okay for you to steal from others?
Is it okay when the person you love is unfaithful to you and doesn't care?
Do you think it is okay when someone wants something that does not belong to them and takes it? 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?
You have an OPINION that "the bible" is "objective".
I have what is necessary for objectivity. I question that your worldview does, and I want you to demonstrate it does. I can also justify my faith in the Biblical God as reasonable and logical. I can show evidence that confirms what the Bible says as matching history, repeatedly. I can reason with you that God provides what is necessary for the universe and humanity; chance happenstance does not. Other gods contradict the Christian God. That means both you and I cannot be right in our assessment of God. I challenge you to show me it is your god rather than the Christian God.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That man, now knowing both good and evil, passed his views onto humanity. His thinking without God influences his children with evil.So, does this mean the children of True Christians are born without sin?
No, they still need the same Saviour. Sin helps us recognize our deficiency.
His children are those who come to faith in Jesus Christ. They are classified as joint-heirs with Christ of the heavenly kingdom.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So you (also you) must show (also show) on such issues that what you believe is the objective truth.
And I point to that truth; God is truth. I have continually argued for what is necessary for objective moral truth. I have invited you and others to show me otherwise. You have not been able to do that because you do not have what is necessary and that can be demonstrated because it is not livable or experientially seen.
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?
As a subjective person, do you know what is the actual case?
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.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you plan on avoiding Naraka?He/she/it does not exist. He/she/it is a false god. Sorry to break your bubble. Sorry, I am not trying to skirt the issue by being politically correct. Not all ideas about God are sound.Now you know how I feel when someone tells me I'm going to "hell".
That is between you and God.
Romans 10:5-7 (NASB)
5 For Moses writes of the righteousness that is [a]based on the Law, that the person who performs [b]them will live by [c]them. 6 But the righteousness [d]based on faith speaks as follows: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will go up into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).”
5 For Moses writes of the righteousness that is [a]based on the Law, that the person who performs [b]them will live by [c]them. 6 But the righteousness [d]based on faith speaks as follows: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will go up into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).”
The only thing I can do is warn you of the consequences, the rest is between you and God. I cannot judge who will go to heaven or who will go to hell. I can get an indication to an extent in what a person says whether he/she is living in faith or not. That judgment is discernable. Jesus said you would recognize them by their fruit. A good tree does not bear bad fruit and a bad tree does not bear good fruit. By their fruit, I can recognize them. But their destination is between them and God.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
There are reasons given in which divorce is permissible. That is for marital unfaithfulness.Right, but REMARRIAGE IS VERBOTEN!
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.
And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a certificate of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and prostituted herself also.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
There has to be a standard for goodness, something that is best (the ideal) to compare it against as to its merits or lack of.Is your standard of "goodness" the "ten commandments"?
My standard of goodness is God. The Ten Commandments are a standard or revelation for humanity in which the love of God is laid out. They display what love is, both love for God and love for your neighbour.
Or is your standard of "goodness" "love thy neighbor"?
God is the standard. When I read His word, He conveys to me what He is like by His interaction with Israel, His concern for them to walk in righteousness, and His provisions that enable them to do that. The Old Covenant is only a shadow of a greater covenant and truth.
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. The Spirit gives the believer a new nature, a changed nature that is no longer hostile to God but learns to love Him in ever greater degrees.
The Bible speaks of this change as being born again, regenerated, our spirits once again open to the guidance and leading of His Spirit.
Created:
-->
@Conway
I've never heard a Christian testify that one is saved by a coherent logical sequence through reason.
What are you specifically referring to?
What I have said is our faith is a reasonable and logical faith. We are saved by faith alone (not our works or how smart we are), by God alone, by His grace alone, in His Son alone.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR REVEALING QUOTE IN POST # 498 THAT MAKES A MOCKERY OF CHRISTIANITY WHEN PROVIDING THAT JESUS WAS AN ABORTIONIST!: "The most helpless are the unborn. They rely totally on the mother. They are also the most discriminated against and most put to death unjustly, in the billions (1.6 since 1980). "SILENCE 2ND CLASS BIBLE WOMAN! How many times have I told you not to rock the boat when our faith is at question? Huh? This is because your quote above is blatantly hypocritical since our Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, was the NUMBER 1 ABORTIONIST OF ALL TIME! No matter what the situation prevailed, whether Jesus murdering zygotes, fetus' or babies in His Great Flood Scenario, or where Jesus outright caused abortions in the biblical passage below in the book of Hosea, remember Bible fool?!
Only God can restore human life. You cannot. He will not take or allow the taking of an innocent life without restoring it to a better place, His presence.
“The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for their children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered oh Lord. what should I request for your people? I will ask for the wombs that don’t give birth and breast that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children. (Hosea 9:11-16)
First, the glory of Israel (God) will fly away. This is a metaphorical language. God will remove His hand of protection. When that happens, children will die in the womb. What happened at Gilgal? God will allow foreign nations to drive Israel from the land because they continually broke their covenant with Him. How does God slaughter their children? He allows foreign nations to come in and drive them out. They reaped the consequences of their disobedience. Disobedience has consequences. They knew this.
15 “But it shall come about, if you do not [a]obey the Lord your God, to be careful to [b]follow all His commandments and His statutes which I am commanding you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:
18 “Cursed will be the [d]children of your womb, the [e]produce of your ground, the newborn of your herd, and the offspring of your flock.
20 “The Lord will send against you curses, panic, and rebuke, in [f]everything you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have abandoned Me.
25 “The Lord will cause you to be defeated by your enemies; you will go out one way against them, but you will flee seven ways from their presence, and you will be an example of terror to all the kingdoms of the earth. 26 Your dead bodies will [i]serve as food for all birds of the sky and for the animals of the earth, and there will be no one to frighten them away.
30 You will [l]betroth a woman, but another man will [m]violate her; you will build a house, but you will not live in it; you will plant a vineyard, but you will not make use of its fruit. 31 Your ox will be slaughtered before your eyes, but you will not eat of it; your donkey will be snatched away from you, and will not [n]be restored to you; your [o]sheep will be given to your enemies, and you will have no one to save you. 32 Your sons and your daughters will be given to another people, while your eyes look on and long for them constantly; but there will be nothing [p]you can do.
36 The Lord will bring you and your king, whom you appoint over you, to a nation that neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you shall serve other gods, made of wood and stone. 37 And you will become an object of horror, a song of mockery, and an object of taunting among all the peoples where the Lord drives you.
And when presented with the covenant of blessings and curses, what did the people say?
Exodus 24:3 (NASB)
3 Then Moses came and reported to the people all the words of the Lord and all the [a]ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do!”
3 Then Moses came and reported to the people all the words of the Lord and all the [a]ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do!”
7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it [a]as the people listened; and they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!”
Not only this, God continually sent prophets and teachers to warn the people to come back to God and honour the covenant. They would not. They killed many of them.
“Do not touch My anointed ones, And do not harm My prophets.”
Since the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt until this day, I have sent you all My servants the prophets, sending them daily, again and again.
Thus, He withdrew His hand of protection, and other nations inflicted all kinds of cruelty as He knew they would, in the judgment of them.
Ewwwww, can you believe that when our alleged ever loving and forgiving Jesus is Yahweh God incarnate, then He did the horrific abortions above to innocent fetus' and babies, and will MURDER innocent children if they are born as a true Abortionist? :(
Jesus will never take an innocent life without restoring it to a better place, in His presence and glory.
Please refrain from blatant ad hominem attacks and mockery if you want my reply.
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. Are you capable of making such a robot? I do not believe you are able. A robot does not suggest (to me) a free moral agent. Did you program it to make moral choices and did you determine what the good was and the boundaries to which it could choose? IOW's, is there a best that the robot can use as its standard for goodness? 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? 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? 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?
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. He was influenced by two initial agents (God and Satan) 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).
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Is it " okay " to, ATTEMPT to kill someone ?
I'm not sure who you are addressing. You did not include a receiver.
It would depend on the reason, the circumstances. Generally speaking, killing is done only via the legal system for a moral wrong. Sometimes the legal system is unjust.
On a personal level, are they trying to kill you? Are they innocent or guilty of wanting to harm you? An attempt for the wrong reasons is manslaughter or murder depending on the circumstances and their motives. An 'attempt' implies intent.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Is it okay to kill innocent human beings?Doesn't original sin (as per your argument) guarantee that there are no innocent human beings?
Through the federal head, Adam, all receive a sinful nature. We are all influenced by sin as human beings. But not everyone has a chance to act on that sinful nature, so if they have done no wrong (as of yet), how can be judged for it. And in Christ becoming the Second Adam, our federal head, He died in the place of the guilty, so all those counted in Him are innocent before the judgment seat of Christ. He died for specific people that their sins would not be counted against them, and included in those people are children and those innocent yet of acting upon sin.
Perhaps it would simplify things if we simply eliminate the word innocent. That would leave us with the revised question "is it ok to kill human beings?" Now this still doesn't get to the core of what is and is not a human being (or more to the point a person which is perhaps a more important distinction) but I am interested to know how you will answer this revised question. Is it ok to kill humans?
Why? Because you cannot justify killing people who have done no wrong? You know that applies to the unborn. What wrong have they done? What wrong have others done to them???
Do you not understand the concept of innocence under the law? A person who is guilty has done something that breaks the law. A person who is not guilty should not be punished for something they did not do. How would that be just?
It is not okay for an individual to take the law into their own hands or kill someone who has done nothing wrong under the law. It is permitted under the law to defend yourself with the necessary force to defend your life.
The core of what is human??? Is a living being whose biological parents are human a human being? If not, what kind of being is that being?
A person??? Have you ever met a human being who is not a personal being? Is it not in our nature as human beings to be personal beings? Again, you appeal to development. If I am not as developed as you, does that give you grounds to kill me? If you are going to appeal to development (growth) as a reason to kill a human being, then anyone less developed than you should be grounds for you to kill them (if you like/choose), and the same goes for anyone more advanced in growth or development than you should be able to kill you, based on your reasoning. Is personhood built into our DNA structure? If you can't answer that or give conclusive proof should you not err on the side of caution???
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Once you start discriminating against one group or another of innocent human beings you are not being just and it leads to great inhumanity and dehumanization.So if for example the rules governing the ownership of, protection under the law for and killing of hebrews verses non hebrews then they are an unjust foundation?
How is it unjust in looking out for the best interest of others (the poor), or for requiring reparations for war crimes? Slavery in the ANE was either the result of warfare, exploitation, or poverty. Israel was not allowed by God to exploit foreigners as they had been exploited in Eygpt. And with non-Hebraic 'slavery' there were two escape classes, fleeing to another city or converting to Judaism.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
However, I do understand that you have a particular bias and crusade against Christianity,More the scriptures than Christianity per se. Although, Christianity and not necessarily the New Testament has been the cause of many millions innocent deaths. Matthew Hopkins leaps to mind as do the Salem witch trials , and the burning alive of the Templars, to mention a few.
You mistake what is done in the name of Christianity as the same as the teaching of Christianity.
The death toll of the Salem Witch trials: 24 people.
The death toll of the crusades: An estimated one to nine million.
Now consider the death toll in the twentieth century alone by just two communist/atheistic governments, the Soviet Union and China.
The Soviet Union, 1917-1987: 61,911,000 million.
China, 1949-1987: 76,702,000 million.
Compare the numbers.
Then there is the massacre of the Cathars and on and on you maniacs go and all in the name of Christianity, where as Jesus preached exactly the opposite and to love thy neighbour, give to the poor .
Yes, Jesus preached the opposite than people who profess the name of Jesus often do. So what?
judging from you perhaps fifty threads, many of which work on isolating biblical context,Only fifty???? I better get my finger out. There is much work to do.
IMO< you continually show your hatred of Christians and Christianity. For what? Why do you do this?
It is lacking in any proof, just hearsayYou have never read the bible then I take it particularly the Old Testament. . Why doesn't that surprise me. Most of you bible thumpers rarely do read it for yourselves..
I have read it many times. I have studied it. I have done that over a period of forty years.
Bible thumpers as opposed to atheist thumpers. How many times have you read it, and how well do you understand it? How well do you understand the unity of the Bible? How well do you understand eschatology? How often do you collapse the context? How often do you ignore the audience of address, the time frame, the culture of the times, the history of the times?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
There is nothing in the Bible that directly disallows abortion.There most certainly are. God says that He hates the shedding of innocent blood as the very first principle of respecting human life. That would directly disavow abortion. Then there is the principle of going forth and multiplying. Also, all human life is created in the image and likeness of God, therefore it is God's right to give and take life (human beings are only given a short time on this earth to come to or reject God), not ours. There are also numerous verses I could employ to show that God values the unborn human being.Already addressed: "[...] I know an indirect argument against abortion can be extricated from the Bible as well, but this can hardly stand against an explicitly pro-abortion god."
God is not pro-abortion. That is a gross misinterpretation of the biblical text. You isolate verses to make them a pretext. When you see God judging a people, you immediately believe that any innocent blood taken will not be restored to a better place, or you believe that it is wrong for God to judge evil. And often humans are the ones making the killing in obedience to God's judgment on wicked people. God uses human beings to bring judgment on the guilty, but final judgment is for Him alone.
God does not condone the killing of innocent human beings. The unborn is an innocent human being, and this is understood throughout the Bible.
1. All humanity is made in His image and likeness. The unborn is a human being.
2. Human life is sacred since we are made in His image and likeness. Only God has the right to give and take life since He created it, and He only takes life in the judgment of sin. When an innocent life is taken, God restores that life to a better place.
3. Morality does not change with God just because of location or environment. Location nor environment makes a difference to what the human being is.
4. God specifically forbids us to take an innocent life, for humans cannot restore such life.
5. God sees the unborn as a human being, a complete human organism, not just a bunch of human cells. The biblical narrative identifies the unborn as a baby and child, responding to outside the womb situations. He 'knits' the unborn together in the womb.
6. Sin affects all of us. Our wrongful actions affect other people.
7. The OT system of justice demanded life for life. The intentional or negligent death of an unborn was punishable by death, per Exodus 21:22-25.
On the moral aspect of abortion alone you have a see-saw of okay or not okay which begs the question of which is the correct position. How do you determine this, from an atheistic framework???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. That unborn contains her own DNA. The unborn is her own offspring, her own child. You see-saw, depending on which bodily autonomy is spoken of. For you, it is perfectly justifiable to kill some innocent human beings and violate their bodily autonomy if they are in their natural habitat, the womb. On the other hand, it is not okay to violate the innocent woman's fundamental right to life if she is in her natural environment, the world. Your worldview smacks of hypocrisy that you seem unaware of.
Also, I don't determine anything from an "atheistic framework" Atheism is not a moral philosophy. Your inability to understand this is an issue you need to resolve - it holds us from having a much more meaningful conversation.
Atheists view life (their worldview) as devoid of a God or gods. Therefore, they seek nature or materialism as the answer to morality rather than God or gods. That is what they build upon. You try to understand morality through behaviourism and what is. Your inability to understand what you are doing clouds your moral judgment. Your moral judgment can only be based on preferences. It has no objectivity to it, for it cannot define a fixed reference point. Everything is shifting, which begs how you can ever arrive at 'better.' Better' is only possible if in comparison or relation to something else. Without a 'best,' there is nothing fixed to base the better on for 'better' needs an ideal. Preferences make nothing right, only desirable. A preference is a description, not a prescription. "I like ice-cream" is a statement of fact, not a statement on what should be the case.
The issue is one for you to resolve. You do not have what is necessary for morality from your worldview perspective. You constantly try to turn the tables on the Christian, whereas your worldview is devoid of reason in explaining morality, for it reeks of relativism. You keep speaking of an objective standard. What is that standard? Well-being? Whose? You can't demonstrate that well-being is the normal outcome in everyday life, for we witness great inhumanity towards our fellow human beings on a grand scale. Day after day, we see people stealing, lying, committing adultery, coveting, murdering, and plotting against their fellow humans. We see governments harming their citizens in large numbers.
Although Christians are pro-life I never once used a God-centred argument against abortion in our debates. I don't need to. Abortion is wrong in most cases based on what is killed and upon the principle of justice.Some Christians are pro-choice...I wonder if you think they are operating on some "atheistic framework"? And a god-centered argument related to laws in a secular nation would easily be dismantled - I assumed you knew better than to try.
Yes, in that matter of Scripture, they are for the denial of Scripture or go against its teaching. The atheist, likewise, denies God, just on a broader scale of matters.
Even in a secular nation, there must be equality for there to be justice. But how often do you find justice in such nations? How does a secular nation determine justice? They do so on preference. That is not just.
Why are you only mentioning one side of the equation?Because the "will of god" is not being used to manipulate votes and increase political power on the other side...
God's will often is to let people see and experience what kind of hardships and turmoil their dishonest actions and poor choices result in. You have a candidate who is almost senile, rapidly deteriorating. You have a bitch, IMO (Nancy Pelosi), who is bent on Democrat power and wants to invoke the 25 Amendment to remove him once he gets into office. That will lead your nation to socialism on an even greater scale with Kamala Harris. You'll get what you want yet don't comprehend its dangers. Watch how fast your country starts to unravel because most can't discern what is good and right. Watch over the next four years how America becomes poorer based on Democrat promises that they never fulfill.
IMO, based on facts that are obscured by the media:
Downright deceit and lies are used to manipulate votes through a 'might makes right' political philosophy, where anything goes as the ends 'justify' the means. Over and over, we see compromised candidates, like Joe Biden, who lies through his teeth while Democrats rig and manipulate the system so he and his family can live high on the hog and they gain power - POWER. That is what it is all about, not the good of America. And the mainstream media is complicit in this manipulation, along with all the other gatekeepers of society, like Arts and Entertainment (Holywood), the judicial systems (which have been packed with those sharing the same deceitful philosophies), Academia (who indoctrinate the youth, just as Hitler did, because he realize the youth shape tomorrow and tomorrow after that). We see partisan overseers barred from witnessing the fair process when they represent Republicans. We see illegal votes being counted in many states, including votes from dead people being counted - ballot harvesting. In Pennsylvania, we see illegal rules to favour the Democrats, days and weeks before the election reaping the desired effects.
Then you have the political coverups over the past four years. We witness those who colluded with the Russians being the Democrats, those who manufactured crisis after crisis, the Democrats. Those who sought to impeach a President on false grounds, the Democrats. Those who set up the Muller witchhunt, the Democrats. Those who lie about peaceful protests and do nothing to stop rioting and vandalism in their cities and their controlled states (but make Trump out to be the villain), the Democrats. These people are sick, and those who vote for them are sick, IMO. They burden the American people in so many ways while pretending they are all for justice, for minorities, for the downtrodden. Secretly they exploit them just for their votes. And these downtrodden people continually fall for their political ploys and deceptions. Their neighbourhoods are in disrepair while the Democrats promise everything will be better, election after election, as long as they are in power. They are demagogues. They are the racists. They are the party of the KKK. They promise taxes increased, which will drive out your industries while the rich, those bastard billionaires, line their pockets with Chinese money and cater to China, selling the USA's intellectual property and technology to those who are seeking to harm them. The fate of the free world is in the hands of these fools, and the American people continually vote for them. They endanger the whole world. They want open borders to increase their vote counts, promising healthcare and schooling for all who come across. That will bankrupt your healthcare system while the average American picks up the cost.
I don't understand how people who have been lied to, and the proof is out there, continue to vote these dishonest people in based on their dislike and hatred for a President who has put their interests first. Now, these elected officials will once again put their own interests first with more gerrymandering and fixing the system by changing the voting system never again to be a Republican elected president. Your country is losing its sense of justice and what is right and good.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Secondly, the basis of your morality is subjective not objective. From "God is" you derive God's will. This is a subjective standard. You value this and think everyone else should as well. God's will, as you understand it, disallows abortion (for instance). With God's will as the (subjective) standard, abortion is objectively wrong. If I agree to your interpretation of God's will, then you and I could objectively determine moral views.
The point is not 'God is' but 'God has revealed' that makes the standard. 'God is' does not give us a standard. God reveals does. The standard is not of ourselves, so it is not from a subjective standpoint. The Ten Commandments are very clear. Nine of the Ten are carried over from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. The Sabbath Rest has already been obtained in Christ, as have all the other commandments for Christians. In AD 70, the Law of Moses was fulfilled completely for Christians. Now, only one covenant remained. Before that point in time, two covenants existed, and there was a transition taking place. Unbelievers show from the way they live that they are conscious of the wrong of breaking these commandments, so they will be judged outside of Christ's provision.
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). Your whole argument goes out of the window by such an admission, but not only that, communication would be impossible if there was no objective understanding between people. Thus, you are inconsistent in two counts. Communication only takes place when both parties understand each other. The 'author' is not understood until the reader gets his/her meaning (objectively understood). Reading a foreign meaning into the author's statements is not objective but subjective.
Obviously, if God decrees that men shall not shed innocent blood (the life of a person, just like that of an animal, is in the blood), that would most definitely include the unborn's life. If such an innocent life is destroyed on earth, God will restore it to a better place, His presence, but that is beside the point. The point is that the penalty for sin is death (separation from God), and taking innocent human life is sinful. You only agree to a point that taking innocent life is wrong. You separate the wrongness before birth or viability. It is still an innocent human being that is killed, whether before or after birth. Another double standard by you.
Unfortunately, we don't agree to this standard because, for me, there is insufficient evidence for belief in god.
You do exactly what the Bible claims you would. There is plenty of evidence in the Bible and in the universe (since God created it, it will show His 'handiwork').
On the other hand, a moral basis of human well-being is something generally accepted.
It begs the question of whose and why are they right in their assessment.
This too is a subjective standard.
Yet you have stated elsewhere, and below that, you believe morality has an objective standard.
With human well-being as a standard, we can objectively determine moral views which coincide with it.
It again begs the question of whose well-being is defined, and why are they right?
Fortunately, most people agree to this standard, and if they don't, well, they have no business weighing in on human morality (and I don't even think they are talking about morality).
What you find in the world is that people push their standards of 'well-being' on others to the detriment of many. Regime after regime could be named. Well-being only goes as far as competing for food or some other desired thing for many, especially in life and death situations. The Christian worldview surpasses these standards.
For instance, you think that because you believe abortion is a 'woman's right to choose,' that makes it right. You think that something can be true for one person and not another, but what is true, morally speaking, must be so for all people, or you lose sight of objectivity and universality.No, I think a 'right to choose' comes from self ownership and the right to bodily autonomy is true for all people. You're a horrible mind-reader! Maybe you should ask honest questions rather than trying to read my mind...
Again, what about the well-being you speak so much about? It does not exist for the unborn based on the selfish choice of a woman. What about the bodily rights of the unborn? They are forgotten. Who SHOULD HAVE the right to choose to kill an innocent human being? You always skirt the issue both from a moral and justice point of view. Why is this choice only applied to unborn human beings? The newborn or toddler is still dependent on a woman for its life. They still seek her body for nourishment and her for protection.
You have never shown that the unborn is not a human being (although you have likened it to a group of cells, or not as human), although you have degraded it of value by references of dehumanization and discrimination. You have never shown how there can be justice and equality when some humanity members are treated unequally or less than others by subjective laws. What makes that right?Depending on the level of development, the unborn may be a group of cells...a human group of cells, and I don't need to show the unborn is not a person to argue for bodily autonomy. Being a person doesn't give you the right to use my kidneys without my consent. Likewise, being a person wouldn't give the unborn the right to use reproductive organs without consent. Anti-abortionists advocate, not for equal rights, but for special rights. How is this not 'true for one and not another' you suggested of my view? How is this equality?
Here you go again, degrading and dehumanizing a human being. It is not a group of cells but a complete organism. You downplay its significance.
You only argue for bodily autonomy for one - the woman. With the other, it is brutally murdered. Its innocent life is taken from it.
The woman knew there was a chance of pregnancy and a moral obligation once she CONSENTED to sex (somewhere around 95% of all cases). The womb is the natural home of the unborn. It cannot survive outside the womb until it reaches a stage of development. That stage of development does not make it less human than you or me. If you think so, then you are basing judgment not on what it is and can only be (it can't be another type of being if its parents are human beings) but on its growth. That is a slippery slope. The newborn is not as developed as the toddler, the toddler not as developed as the teenager, the teenager not as developed as the adult, and so on. Based on the level of development does not give a person the right to kill another person. If it did, then the level of brain development would give one person the right to kill another less developed person. Einstein would have the right to kill you or me if he felt it was based on the development level, and the development level was the standard.
Your arguments are totally nuts. The most basic natural right of any human being is the right to life. That is where equal rights start, and anything else leads to discrimination and dehumanization, the very thing abortion advocates do. You can't face that. You ignore it just like you ignore the unborn's bodily autonomy, its natural home, its humanity as just as valuable as that of the woman's. The Supreme Court did a great disservice to humanity in the seven to two decision with a faulty interpretation of history and questioning the unborn's humanity and personhood.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Given that humanistic interests came before Christianity, it can only be that your god-based morality is fortified with humanism - not the other way around.I was a little rushed and did not have time to check over what I had written. I did not explain why I think your statement is an either/or fallacy or a false dilemma. You think that because there were humanists before there were Christians that Christianity is influenced by humanism and not the other way around, that humanism was influenced by rejecting God's moral commandments, yet choosing the same in many cases. Why does Christianity have to be centred on humanism rather than being fortified and centred on the biblical God of the OT? And why does humanism have to come before God? You first have to establish which came first.I don't hold Christianity is centered on humanism. There is undeniably humanism within Christian morality, but this is not the focus of (fundamentalistic) Christian morality. Christian morality is about doing the will of a non-human god (as determined by humans). In the OT (and throughout history), we all too often see this 'will' benefiting those who claim to speak for god and not humanity in general. This dissonance makes clear Christian morality is not interchangeable with humanism. It's not a matter of which came first, but of the two not meshing well and knowing which came first.
YOU: It is not my position humanism came before "God" - that would require me to believe the Christian god exists...which, - *surprise!* - I don't. If you think God came before humanism, well, that's your burden. Good luck. My position is merely that humanism came before the religion from which "God" is the object of worship
YOU: "It is not my position humanism came before "God" - that would require me to believe the Christian god exists...which, - *surprise!* - I don't."
Doublespeak: "Not your position" that humanism came before God, then you deny the Christian God exists (the same God of the OT), which means you think humanism comes before God because humanism is the default position in such a case. Then you confirm it with this statement:
YOU: "My position is merely that humanism came before the religion from which "God" is the object of worship."
What does that leave you with - Humanism. You have yet to propose another god exists. For once, you capitalize the word "God." So, you are speaking of the God I continually refer to here. Until you reveal another god, we can't have that discussion that there are any other gods and if they are not almighty what they derive their existence from.
If you think humanism came before God that is your burden. You can't say humanism came before the biblical God and then supply no evidence that what you say is true. Let's face it; you work from a particular presuppositional point of view.
YOU: "My position is merely that humanism came before the religion from which "God" is the object of worship and that it was conscripted into a tortured marriage to said religion."
"Conscripted into a tortured marriage"? What are you saying, Skone?
ME: You fail to state how humanism, which works on natural explanations and human reasoning alone, can explain the ought from the is. Your moral basis continues to be shown to work on subjectivism and the subjectivist fallacy (relativism), or from borrowing from another worldview that can justify morality because it has what is necessary.First, let me squash the notion that you can overcome the Hume's guillotine by appealing to "God is". You can't. Ought from "God is" is still an ought from an is, and there is no getting around that.
You have an unclear idea of what 'is' and what 'ought to be' and why God transverses that divide. An 'is' is purely descriptive, not obligatory. It doesn't have the means to make an 'ought' distinction. That stone on the ground doesn't have the means to reason, to say why you 'should not' crush it into dust with a hammer. It just is. We as human beings do. The question is how we got to that position. A behaviour, a function is something that just is, a description of what is done and becomes automatic - I do this in reaction to that, I seek food when I am hungry, is the way I respond to a particular situation. It DESCRIBES what is.
A stone just is. It is not good or bad because it does not have an INTENT or agency to do things. It does not ponder how things are or ought to be. It has no means of acquiring intention. A mind does. The question from the 'what is' is how we get to the 'what ought to be?' How do we get consciousness from something that just is? How does something that 'is' acquire consciousness? What gives it this ability? Does it pick up the ability from nothing, just not having then suddenly having - poof, magic?
Hume begins with the is, the descriptive from an empirical standard. We, as Christians do not. We begin with a non-physical moral being, a being who is conscious, who is capable of reason and who is prescriptive. Hume begins with the 'is,' and can't understand how to get an ought from it. For Hume, the ought cannot be observed or explained from what is, the descriptive. HUMANISM derives the ought from what is. Christianity does not. It has what is necessary, a conscious, mindful, reasoning Being who knows all things. Thus, how can you describe Him as subjective?
Preferences are descriptions. "I like ice-cream" is describing what I like. There is nothing morally prescriptive or obligatory about that. What is morally prescriptive is when you say, "I like ice-cream and you MUST like it too." You imply a penalty for not liking it and that it is morally wrong. But why, based on your preference?
Hume, a humanist/secularist as well as an empiricist, is looking at the origin of our ideas and our very nature. He reduced everything, including the mind and senses to empiricism and the physical universe, IMO (from what I glean). He is looking at this from his human reason, his thesis of human nature. From such a position it is difficult to come up with an ought from an is. Yet notice how he smuggles in the very ought he argues against from the is:
I have already shewn, that the relation of cause and effectcan never afford us any just conclusion from the existence or qualities of our perceptions to the existence of external continu’d objects: And I shall farther add, that even tho’ they cou’d afford such aconclusion, we shou’d never have any reason to infer, that our objects resemble our perceptions...I begun this subject with premising, that we ought to have an implicit faith in oursenses, and that this wou’d be the conclusion, I shou’d draw from the whole of my reasoning. But tobe ingenuous, I feel myself at present of a quite contrary sentiment, and am more inclin’d to reposeno faith at all in my senses, or rather imagination, than to place in it such an implicit confidence. Icannot conceive how such trivial qualities of the fancy, conducted by such false suppositions, canever lead to any solid and rational system. P. 116
He continually uses moral imperatives (should, must, ought) while preaching against their possibility from the senses along in his premises.
’Tis one thing to know virtue, and anotherto conform the will to it. In order, therefore, to prove, that the measures of right and wrong are eternal laws, obligatory on every rational mind, ’tis not sufficient to shew the relations upon which theyare founded: We must also point out the connexion betwixt the relation and the will; and must provethat this connexion is so necessary, that in every well-disposed mind, it must take place and have itsinfluence; tho’ the difference betwixt these minds be in other respects immense and infinite. Nowbesides what I have already prov’d, that even in human nature no relation can ever alone produceany action; besides this, I say, it has been shewn, in treating of the understanding, that there is noconnexion of cause and effect, such as this is suppos’d to be, which is discoverable otherwise thanby experience, and of which we can pretend to have any security by the simple consideration of theobjects. All beings in the universe, consider’d in themselves, appear entirely loose and independentof each other. ’Tis only by experience we learn their influence and connexion; and this influence we ought never to extend beyond experience. Thus it will be impossible to fulfil the first condition required to the system of eternal rational measures of right and wrong; because it is impossible to shew those relations, upon which such a distinction may be founded: And ’tis as impossible to fulfil the second condition; because we cannotprove a priori, that these relations, if they really existed and were perceiv’d, wou’d be universallyforcible and obligatory. P. 243
That is why I asked you for a necessary connexion existing between the is and the ought. Once you exclude a necessary mindful being - God (abstract and non-physical), as that necessary agent of morality, you are left with what 'is,' the purely descriptive since humans would derive their existence from the physical too. How do you get values from facts? A fact is what is; a value is what ought to be. So, you need to explain how.
To be continued with your second point after some chores.
Secondly, the basis of your morality is subjective not objective. From "God is" you derive God's will. This is a subjective standard. You value this and think everyone else should as well. God's will, as you understand it, disallows abortion (for instance). With God's will as the (subjective) standard, abortion is objectively wrong. If I agree to your interpretation of God's will, then you and I could objectively determine moral views. Unfortunately, we don't agree to this standard because, for me, there is insufficient evidence for belief in god.
To be continued.
On the other hand, a moral basis of human well-being is something generally accepted. This too is a subjective standard. With human well-being as a standard, we can objectively determine moral views which coincide with it. Fortunately, most people agree to this standard, and if they don't, well, they have no business weighing in on human morality (and I don't even think they are talking about morality).
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. A compass doesn't use a fixed reference point, yet the world can be successfully navigated with it.
"What is true north?
True north is the direction that points directly towards the geographic North Pole. This is a fixed point on the Earth’s globe.
True north is the direction that points directly towards the geographic North Pole. This is a fixed point on the Earth’s globe.
True north is a fixed point on the globe. Magnetic north is quite different."
There has to be a true north to reference the magnetic north with. You have the same problem with moral views. There is nothing more than preference unless there is something true to fix morality with. You have to have a 'best' to compare 'good' and 'better' to, or else you have better concerning nothing. Thus, you can never be sure that your 'better' is actually so because it is always shifting and changing. Better in relation to what??? Shifting and changing begs the question of why it is better. No fixed reference point begs the question of why your relative opinion is better than mine. Says how? Opinions become fighting words if there is no moral good, just opinion.
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, 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 changing. Atheists (like you) sometimes try to attach morality to universals and objective values, but they do not have the means to do so. Christians do. You try to attach morality to 'well-being.' The problem is whose well-being? You say humanities, but who decides for humanity - you?
...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.
It is just a fact that atheists during the 20th-century killed more people than all Christian conflicts through the ages, as the data points to and you ignore. Instead, you try to suggest dogmatism, not recognizing your own, for you go against the facts.
As an atheist, Mao did not value human life to the same degree that most Christians do. Life was expendable to him just like it is to Qi Jiping or in communist influence countries like Russia with Putin, a holdover from the Soviet Union's grand days. In those two countries alone, some estimates put 100 million dead at Stalin and Mao's hands. Mao let a huge percentage of his population starve to death during the Cultural Revolution. He eradicated opposition from Christianity and other views that opposed his philosophy of life during the great purge. With all Leninist philosophy, religion is the opiate of the people and needs to be purged. Qi Jiping is doing this with his cultural retraining centers in our day.
Again, your suggestion that my reasoning is non-existent is another attempt to poison the well. I recover by pointing to data. Under an atheist leader, mass numbers were either put to death or left to die of starvation. His atheistic values did not hold human life as valuable as those who understand we are created in God's image and likeness.
Democide by atheist leaders in atheist countries:
Morality is about the well-being of humans,Whose well-being?...humans.
Which ones? There are many conflicting views of morality in every culture during every age. Why is yours, THE one?
Your one-word answers have zero explainability.
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...
You ignored my charge. Do you think that Mao's China was beneficial to those who opposed his thinking? Do you think that those who oppose Kim Jung-Un think the way you do? How about those who oppose Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela? Do you think that it is beneficial to 1.6 billion unborns whose life is snuffed out on women's choice?
Christianity is different; it looks out not only for self but also for everyone, denying oneself for others' benefit.That is revisionistic. 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!)
It is not revisionist but the teaching of Scripture. The problem is that many only give lip service to teaching and doctrines.
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.
It is like an employee/employer relationship, except the employment is a life-long one. I have given you the reasons why and you keep ignoring them. You are talking past me.
With Christianity, there is no slave, no free, no male, no female. We are all one in Jesus Christ. The barriers are taken down imposed by the world.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
We are brothers and sisters in Christ, joint-heirs with Him in our heavenly family.
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!
No, I believe humanity is made in the image and likeness of God. They understand (deep down) these things are wrong (their consciences bear witness to each), but because they are naturally inclined to sin, they ignore God and His standards and try to justify their own. The problem is, without an ultimate, absolute, objective, unchanging reference point, anything goes. It just depends on who holds power.
I'm having real difficulty finding anything compelling in your assertions here.
And I have difficulty in finding anything compelling in yours. You can't explain why your view is anything other than an opinion and preference.
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 if I take his view as the gospel truth. He is a subjective human being. Truth is Hitchen's view is just a mascarade for deception. He is selling books with his vain concept, IMO. Again, I do not bow to your atheist gods!
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.
I do not discount them. I look at them and question why one opinion wins out over another and what that opinion is fixed on? It is fixed upon relativism and subjective preferences. How does that make anything good? Hilter, Mao, Stalin, Maduro, Castro, Idi Amin, Tito, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Jung-Un, and a host of others teach me just what can happen when someone thinks their good is the good.
Again, another ad hom attack. I do not deny dignity for humanity. I fight for it. I question how you get 'goodness' as a value if morality is a shifting standard.
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Even the current resistance to abortion is a manipulation of Christian theology to affect political gain.How is that?So glad you asked. There is nothing in the Bible that directly disallows abortion.
The warning, 'do not shed innocent blood' cover the unborn of which God considers alive and persons.
So innocent blood will not be shed in the midst of your land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, and guilt for bloodshed will not be on you.
Proverbs 6:16-18 (NASB)
16 There are six things that the Lord hates,
Seven that are an abomination [a]to Him:
17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
Since they have abandoned Me and have made this place foreign, and have burned sacrifices in it to other gods that neither they nor their forefathers nor the kings of Judah had ever known, and since they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent
This is what the Lord says: “Do justice and righteousness, and save one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. And do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.
saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” But they said, “What is that to us? You shall see to it yourself!”
In fact, there are many instances of the Biblical god committing or condoning the destruction of fetuses and infants (Isaiah 13:18;
God is describing or prophesying what will happen. He will remove His hand of protection on Israel because of their sin, and the Medes will shed innocent blood. Notice the GREATER context and pay attention to the pronouns of verse 18:
17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.
And here is the verse you supplied, which is the next verse:
18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.
Who does 'their' and 'they' refer to?
Hosea 9:10-16 (NASB)
10 I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness;
I saw your forefathers as the earliest fruit on the fig tree in its first season.
But they came to Baal-peor and devoted themselves to [a]shame,
And they became as detestable as that which they loved.
11 As for Ephraim, their glory will fly away like a bird—
No birth, no pregnancy, and no conception!
12 Though they bring up their children,
Yet I will bereave them of their children [b]until not a person is left.
Yes, woe to them indeed when I depart from them!
13 Ephraim, as I have seen,
Is planted in a pasture like Tyre;
But Ephraim is going to bring out his children for slaughter.
14 Give to them, Lord—what will You give?
Give them a miscarrying womb and dried-up breasts.
15 All their evil is at Gilgal;
Indeed, I came to hate them there!
Because of the wickedness of their deeds
I will drive them out of My house!
I will no longer love them;
All their leaders are rebels.
16 Ephraim is stricken, their root is dried up,
They will produce no fruit.
Even though they give birth to children,
I will put to death the precious ones of their womb.
Again, God is the giver and taker of life. If he takes an innocent life, He will restore it to a better place, with Him in glory.
The precious ones of their womb. God sees the unborn as precious. They are not yet capable of practicing sin so they are innocent of that charge. But why is this judgment happening? It is because Israel has not kept their promise to God, the promise they made in ratifying the covenant. Thus, God is being faithful to His word, He is bringing judgment on them by withdrawing His hand of protection and allowing foreign nations mastery over them, per Deuteronomy 28.
Hosea 9:1, 6-7, 9, 17
For you have been unfaithful, [c]abandoning your God.
6 You have loved the earnings of unfaithfulness on [d]every threshing floor.
For behold, they will be gone because of destruction;
Egypt will gather them together, Memphis will bury them.
Weeds will take possession of their treasures of silver;
Thorns will be in their tents.
7 The days of punishment have come,
The days of retribution have come;
[i]Let Israel know this!
The prophet is a fool,
The [j]inspired person is insane,
Because of the grossness of your wrongdoing,
And because your [k]hostility is so great.
9 They are deeply depraved
As in the days of Gibeah;
He will remember their guilt,
He will punish their sins.
17 My God will reject them
Because they have not listened to Him;
And they will be wanderers among the nations.
God is a just God. He will punish sin in His time. Israel, once they had heaped up their sins to the limit, would suffer the consequences. When they abandoned God He let them experience the consequences of disobedience, as promised in Deuteronomy 28. How does God punish His people? By removing His hand of protection and allowing foreign nations to conquer and subdue them, nations like Assyria, Eygpt, Babylon, and the Romans.
Hosea 10:1-4 (NASB)
Retribution for Israel’s Sin
10 Israel is a luxuriant vine;
He produces fruit for himself.
The more his fruit,
The more altars he made;
The [a]richer his land,
The better [b]he made the memorial stones.
2 Their heart is [c]deceitful;
Now they must suffer for their guilt.
[d]The Lord will break down their altars
And destroy their memorial stones.
3 Certainly now they will say, “We have no king,
For we do not revere the Lord.
As for the king, what can he do for us?”
4 They speak mere words,
[e]With worthless oaths they make covenants;
And judgment sprouts like poisonous weeds in the furrows of the field.
Over and over, God sends prophets and teachers to warn them to return to Him, but they will not listen. So, He gives them the consequences of their sin.
Hosea 13:!6; 2 Kings 8:12). A prescribed process to cause fetuses to be aborted as proof of adultery (Numbers 5:11-31). Life begins with "the breath of life" ie. birth (Gen 2:7). Fetuses are not persons (Ex 21:22-25). And yes, I know an indirect argument against abortion can be extricated from the Bible as well, but this can hardly stand against an explicitly pro-abortion god.
How is it indirect, because they are not mentioned specifically? Are not the unborn human beings? Did not God tell Israel not to take innocent blood? That includes the blood of the unborn. I argue the unborn are not intentionally being aborted in these descriptions but die as a result of the woman's sin because the woman dies. The women are being slaughtered due to their sin, which affects the unborn. Innocent people are always affected by sin. When we sin, others felt the consequences.
Furthermore, politician's views on abortion did not break down along party lines until the 1970's. It was Richard Nixon that first pushed a pro-abortion stance, but reversed his position specifically to attract Catholics and conservatives. Seeing his success, Republicans strategists began using an anti-abortion position to form alliances with evangelical groups and social conservatives. It was all about using an interpretation of "God's will' to attract more voters and political power.
It was during the 1970s that abortion became an issue. Before this time, it was considered wrong, just plain wrong, except when a woman's life would be lost without aborting the unborn, and it would not survive because it was not developed enough to survive. With Roe v Wade, abortion was brought to the forefront of national awareness, and the Republicans were the ones to step up and cry out against such a policy as abortion. So, when the time arose, the Democrat's, the party of slavery and segregation, promoted the taking of innocent life. Way too often, they are on the wrong side of big issues. Marget Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and arguably a racist, promoted abortion as population control for black Americans and other undesirable (in her mind) groups.
It was Roe V Wade that helped shape the view of vast numbers on the unborn. Before this, back to the early founding states, the position was that abortion was evil, that life was sacred because God gave it, and that the unborn was a person. This has been well documented by James S. Witherspoon's article, Reexamining Roe: nineteenth-century abortion statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment. Twenty-three of thirty-six states had abolished abortion before the start of the civil war (Defending Life, Francis Beckwith, p. 23). Beckwith alerted me to Witherspoon's article that I sifted through to prepare for one of our debates and quoted from. Christians who understand the issue have always been defenders of human life and the unjust taking of such life.
In the womb he took his brother by the heel, And in his mature strength he contended with God.
For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb.
When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I have always stated there is a correct interpretation of Scripture, and I point to the Scriptures as the final standard in arguing disputes. I have reasoned that the type of slavery you are suggesting as being practiced by Israel is a misinterpretation based on several arguments, one of which is God's warning not to do what was done to them in Egypt and two, the principle of loving your neighbour. I had also argued that the 'slave' was not to be treated harshly, even when punishment was required. The slave was given the same treatment that a Hebrew was in punishment. If the slave was injured in a prescribed way, they were granted freedom. The foreign slave could be acquired in two ways, through war (thus restitution) or purchasing.You have actually argued for slavery in the name of god ...today...so ..yea, you have no room to talk. Besides, this undermines the assertion that belief in the Christian god justifies morality.I have given sufficient reason for biblical slavery. You do not accept it, but the argument is logical. I have asked how a God who promotes love for our neighbours could also promote mistreatment of them? Again, you misread God's intent by not understanding the ANE or Scripture.There is no such thing as "sufficient reason for slavery". You cherry pick verses and compartmentalize arguments so as to avoid the obvious broader conclusion that the Bible (and the god of the Bible) condone forced servitude, sexual slavery, and the severe mistreatment of chattel slaves.
No, you ignore the greater context of Scripture in which God specifically warned Israel not to treat foreigners or others as they had been treated in Eygpt. Not only this, God taught both Israel and us to treat others with dignity and respect in the many examples provided in Scripture. The type of slavery you attribute to chattel slavery is not the same kind that God granted due to poverty, debt, or war reparations. What is more, I recorded some of those passages, and you passed over them. Now you are sneaking the topic back into the conversation.
'Neighbor' in the OT wasn't referring to the guy that lived next door, but those (men) who shared beliefs - 'neighbors' were Hebrews.
Jesus, who taught on the OT (and He should know being God incarnate), spoke of the Good Samaritan as looking after a man on the road. He explained who the neighbour was, and it was not just the immediate neighbour but included all people.
With this understanding, one can love their neighbors while beating their (non-Hebrew) slave just short of death, sell their daughters as sexual concubines, take virgins as the spoils of war, etc., and there be no conflict in the law. You attempt to advance the golden rule AND argue for things which no one would want for themselves. It is you who does not understand your own Bible.
And behold, a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” ...
Luke 10:29-31 (NASB)
29 But wanting to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
The Good Samaritan
30 Jesus replied and said, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he encountered robbers, and they stripped him and [a]beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. 31 And by coincidence a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
No, Hitler's antisemitism was not rooted in Christian theology.It may not be part of *your* Christian theology, but Hitler's hatred of the Jew was rooted in *his* interpretation of Christian theology - a.k.a. the will of god.
What did Hitler ever do for Christianity but misinterpret its tenants? Love became hate. The Jew became the scapegoat for Germany's woes. Hitler used his ideas of the Ayran race as an excuse to eliminate undesirables. He singled out many other groups, such as the gypsies, gays, and political opponents.
Apartheid read into Scripture because they ignored the audience of the address.The South's view on slavery was one that God explicitly warned His people (Israel) against under the Old Covenant. God made the Old Covenant obsolete in AD 70.It is so ironic you are arguing against the interpretation of god's will by others because you (apparently) have correctly interpreted the will of god. I think the point may be lost on you.
Rubbish. Abraham Lincoln understood what it meant to love your neighbour and demonstrated it during the Lincoln Douglas debate in which he showed his biblical understanding.
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others" (April 6, 1858), p. 376.
"Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature - opposition to it is his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 271.
"I believe the declara[tion] that 'all men are created equal' is the great fundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest; that negro slavery is violative of that principle; but that, by our frame of government, that principle has not been made one of legal obligation; that by our frame of government, the States which have slavery are to retain it or surrender it at their own pleasure; and that all others---individuals, free-states and national government---are constitutionally bound to leave them alone about it. I believe our government was thus framed because of the necessity springing from the actual presence of slavery when it was framed. That such necessity does not exist in the teritories[sic], where slavery is not present." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter to James N. Brown" (October 18, 1858), p. 327.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
If your argument is that morality cannot be justified without belief in the Christian god, then the fact that most people don't have that belief and act perfectly moral is a defeator (not an argument from popularity). It counters the assertion that belief in the Christian god is needed for morality.First off, they don't live perfectly moral.Agreed - poor choice of words. Non-Christians live just as morally as Christians.
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?
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. Thus, they are inconsistent with their beginning presuppositions (blind, indifferent chance happenstance and meaninglessness). In the 20th-century atheists (consistent with the origin of chance happenstance and meaninglessness) demonstrated just how self-serving and immoral they were in the vast killings of those who did not agree with their philosophy.
They sometimes act better than believers and act 'morally' despite not being able to justify why they should. What they do is borrow from another worldview in living life contrary and inconsistently within the bounds of their own worldview systemYou attribute humanism to your god and then say non-Christians borrow from your worldview, but this is demonstrably flawed.
No, I don't attribute humanism to my God. I attribute it to a rejection of God, a lack of belief or trust in God by relying on humanity (relativism) rather than God.
Morality is about the well-being of humans,
Whose well-being?
Look around you. In most nations throughout history, what you find is the 'elite' gearing society to benefit themselves and exploit those under them. The same thing is happening now with the Democrats in your country. Don't tell me they are looking out for your well-being. These people are devious and bent on POWER. They lie, manipulate data, use the mediate, academia, Holywood/Arts and Entertainment, the judicial system, the economy, healthcare, religion, evolution, science, and politics to snow job the masses.
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.
Christianity is different; it looks out not only for self but also for everyone, denying oneself for others' benefit.
Christian morality is made better by humanistic interests, but the relationship is not symbiotic - Christianity is parasitic to humanism (most especially in regards to fundamentalism).
I'm not following your thinking here. How can it be better when the standard keeps shifting. I could give you numerous examples of these changing standards. I will keep it at abortion, so we don't get into too many tangents. Not long ago, the standard was that abortion was wrong, except in very limited cases such as a tubal pregnancy where both the woman and unborn would die if the unborn were not aborted. So, it saved at least one.
Now, a woman can get an abortion for almost any reason.
Where "god's will" and humanism conflict, the former is always given dominance by the dogmatist. Case in point: attempted justification of Biblical slavery because "God".
Again, biblical slavery (and I speak of the OT law case, not what Israel experienced in Egypt) was granted by God for poverty or debt payment. In foreign slavery, it was for two reasons, reparations for war damages or because of poverty, thus a rescue. With either of these two foreign cases, if the slave converted to Judaism, the slave would be free after seven years. If the slave was mistreated, forbidden by God, or beaten for just reasons, the slave could flee to another area and be granted freedom. Thus slavery was more like an employer/employee situation in which both parties benefited from the other. With foreign slavery, it was a contract for life unless one of the two conditions was met. 'Property' did not hold the same definition to Israel that we think of it today, or as experienced in Eygpt, as I pointed out to you before.
And most through human history have believed in God or gods....an actual argument from popularity.It is just a fact.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.
No, I have stated that I only stand for and defend the biblical God. I believe all others are fake.Ah, so your fact above is irrelevant to your point?
No. Other gods are fake. I allude to morality is a mind thing and requires a necessary being that does not base morality on subjectivity but knows everything. While you could argue such a definition could be said of God or gods, I will argue against those other gods. But I did not want to get into a tangent until someone brings up a specific god other than the biblical God.
If not, then this fact couldn't help you even if it weren't logically fallacious.What is fallacious about the biblical God?You've lost the context. Argument from popularity was the context ("Most people through human history have believed in God or gods").
I.e., That means they think morality owes its existence to a personal being or beings, not blind, indifferent chance happenstance. They think there is a being or beings greater than themselves responsible for the universe and their being.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, if the law changed, then it can't be described as universal and unchanging (objective) can it?(IFF) the law explained BEFOREHAND what changes would happen after the "sacrificial lamb" arrived (THEN) you could say "the law remained unchanged"However, as far as I can tell, Jesus made apparently ad hoc modifications on the fly.
Being the God/Man and being led in His human capacity by the Holy Spirit, He further explained what it meant to murder or commit adultery. I was not just a physical thing, but spiritual, and it began when we harboured ill intent in our hearts and minds. So He explained the law in more detail.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
How can you distinguish what is better without this best?Quite easily.Start at the "worst" and take it one step at a time.Worst in comparison to what?What's the worst personal injustice that you've experienced or witnessed?
I won't explain my personal experience, but what I witness through evidence. The worst, IMO, is abortion. It is a great, great injustice, the worst in human history to date.
Try not to do that.
I won't. I will defend the unborn!
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
What is good is so whether you believe so or not.So, after all that.We're back to "I'm right and you're wrong"?
No, you do not understand. If something is morally good or right it cannot at the same time be morally bad and wrong. There has to be a standard for goodness, something that is best (the ideal) to compare it against as to its merits or lack of. Show me what you believe has what is necessary for morality.
What you are suggesting once again with your comment is moral relativism which can never be lived, only thought. You can't live it. As soon as the standard it turned on you is when you will find that out.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It doesn't and as soon as you lose or deny the 'best' that you compare morals against (as necessary) you have disagreements that contradict each other.The decalogue doesn't resolve these disagreements.Sure it does. An omniscient, unchanging, eternal, objective being who has revealed most certainly does.Why do some Christians believe it's ok to divorce your husband and others believe divorce is adultery?
There are reasons given in which divorce is permissible. That is for marital unfaithfulness.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Thus, the penalty is death - spiritual separation from God.I think I can handle it, anything else?
That is your choice.
How do you plan on avoiding Naraka?
He/she/it does not exist. He/she/it is a false god. Sorry to break your bubble. Sorry, I am not trying to skirt the issue by being politically correct. Not all ideas about God are sound.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you suggesting that the whole of the Levitical Law was modified between the OT and the NT?No, what I am suggesting is the Jesus met or fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law of Moses and the Law of God in His human capacity (alone) on behalf of believers. It (the Law) was nailed to the cross and covered by His death, for He died on behalf of those who would believe, not only the living a righteous life aspect (satisfying God's righteousness), but also taking the penalty for sins of the believer upon Himself (satisfying God's justice and the penalty for sin). Thus God was fully satisfied in His Son.You start out by saying "NO", but then you go on to explain how it WAS CHANGED.
The covenant was changed in that the OT required the believer or 'people of God' to sacrifice for their sins, for every time they broke the law (summed up in the Ten). In the NT, Jesus establishes a New Covenant in meeting the Law in Himself for the believer, or 'His people.'
So, the covenant changed, not the Law.
God showed the reader (of His word) that these OT believers failed to live up to the letter of the law, something they agreed to follow. They kept having to offer an animal sacrifice to atone for their sins, over, and over, and over. And they only offered Him lip service while in practice they worshiped idols and made their own gods. Thus He judged that covenant, AS HE PROMISED He would in Deuteronomy 28. There were blessings and curses, depending on whether they obeyed or disobeyed.
The difference (i.e., change) is that the Old Covenant people demonstrated they could not meet God's righteous requirements. Therefore, God set a new day in which He would provide a better sacrifice for sin, one that was capable of meeting all the righteous requirements of the law for all times by ONE sacrifice for His people. We, both OT and NT, are held hostage by the law. We know what is right - do not murder, do not steal, do not covet - yet we find we are incapable of meeting that standard because of our natures. Therefore, God provides a better sacrifice to free us from the PENALTY of the law. The law is still just, still right, still good. Now the difference is that we have an Advocate, a Sacrificial Lamb that has fulfilled the law for us. He has put us right with God because of what He has done.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no such thing MORE purely OBJECTIVE than NOUMENON.How has this been revealed to you?By examining the definition of "objective".
But your mind is subjective. Why is your reference valid? Let's face it, we are of different opinions on probably hundreds of issues. That begs the question of who is actually right, if either. So you must show on such issues that what you believe is the objective truth. How do you do that? Take, for instance, abortion. I come back to that moral issue because it is so divisive. How do you determine it is right or wrong? You still have to demonstrate you have a standard that does not change. You come up with all these theoretical, abstract concepts (noumenon/objective) without demonstrating the standard is reasonable without God. You can't show moral values as anything other than shifting in which you also have no best, just a shifting standard that you label as 'better.' Better than what? Abortion, before 1973, was considered a moral wrong. Now it is up to the woman to decide whether it is right or wrong. Some choose right, others choose wrong. Who is actually right? If both then right loses its identity. (Right=Right)
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
...thus we need a personal Being to reveal the truth to us.Soooo, NOT a book?
The writings are Him speaking to humanity. God has left us a physical record of His dealings with a particular people and the problem we face in a relationship with Him, our sin and His purity and holiness. He has revealed the problem and the solution in these writings. They speak to us. When we read them we sense God speaking to us. Whether we choose to deny that is another matter.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Something that just is, without mind, without personhood, is incapable of revealing anything.Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord.9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,so are my ways higher than your waysand my thoughts than your thoughts.It sounds like "YHWH" is "beyond comprehension".Our minds are like the minds of ants.
He is comprehensible in as much as He has revealed Himself to us and in as much as we are able to comprehend that revelation and His interaction in our life. But in a complete understanding, He is incomprehensible for our minds are limited while He is infinitely knowledgeable and wise.
We learn of His thoughts in the Bible and His Spirit leads us to an understanding of them.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The critical conceit here is your claim that you follow a universal, unchanging moral code.The decalogue is NOT unchanging. It is interpreted in different ways at different times.It is [unchanging], except for the Sabbath Day. Jesus reiterated the Ten Commandments in the NT, so do the apostles.You just admitted that it changed. Not universal. Not unchanging.
Perhaps I should have been more clear. See the [added] wording. IOW's it is the same as spoken of in the OT. The difference is the although the NT believer recognizes the law, or Ten Commandments, are good, Jesus has met the standard of the law on our behalf. Thus, we are no longer condemned when we break the law. He took our condemnation upon Himself. The judgment for breaking the law is now satisfied in Jesus Christ!
Still universal! Still unchanging, except we as Christians find our Sabbath rest in Jesus Christ, not in a physical day. He has secured it for us. We are now at peace with God. In honour of this security, we choose to worship Him (Jesus/Yeshua) on the Lord's Day, the resurrection day, a Sunday, in remembrance of what He has done.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
These moral instincts predate the "discovery" of "YHWH" by Abraham.That is your assumption and presumption that comes from your worldview bias.There is ample evidence that people were protecting themselves long before Abraham was ever born.
Sure, but what or who influenced such thinking in the first place is the underlying issue here.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not only this, there is an internal unity and consistency in the 66 'books' or writings in which particular themes are laced throughout - God, sin, Israel, judgment, redemption, the Messiah, heaven.Do you believe that heaven is a golden cube, measuring 12,000 furlongs (1,400 miles or 2,200 kilometers) each side?
Heaven is a living relationship with God that I believe changes somewhat after physical death by our increased knowledge of Him. Heaven is a spiritual kingdom, not of this world. It does not have the same values or the corruption of this world. As Christians, we are now a part of that kingdom, living as ambassadors of that kingdom on earth until we physically die. Since much of Revelation is a spiritual truth that sometimes uses the physical and, at other times, uses apocalyptic language, I am not sure how to treat the description. I have not studied the passages enough to make a sound evaluation yet. I am still of two minds on the subject. I'm still unsure if the spiritual country is metaphoric and symbolic of our relationship and fellowship with God or heaven is a spiritual realm apart from this world that has a physicality to it. That part may be fully revealed only after my physical body dies. I doubt the heaven country is physical since God Himself is a Spirit and my relationship with Him now is a spiritual one. I see the concept of a spiritual body mentioned in Scripture. The Church is the body of Christ here on earth.
Whether our exiting physical bodies are translated to spiritual bodies at death and experience another physical realm is something I have not investigated enough to make a firm decision on yet. I have concentrated more on understanding other aspects of eschatology. These areas are still open for His teaching and will happen when He chooses. There have been times when I struggled with understanding a doctrine for years and years. In one instant, after years of inquiry, His word made it crystal clear to me in one night. His word spoke to my spirit by reading the NT from cover to cover once again during that night. In that reading, God's word made me aware of who was doing the action (Him) and who was receiving it (the believer) regarding salvation. In passage after passage, I became more and more aware of that relationship concerning salvation. In other doctrinal issues, it took years of study. Slowly His Spirt made me aware of the audience of address and time statements. When that happened, I began to understand the great significance of prophecy. I began to investigate how the Bible prophecy is related to external historical sources. I looked for the earliest evidence of OT Scripture writing and found the said events were prophesied before the historical event happened. I did the same with the NT. I looked at each writing in its clues as to when it was written. Every NT writing treats the coming judgment as soon and quickly approaching for a 1st-century Old Covenant people. Each writing still contains the OT sacrificial system as operational, which is impossible after AD 70.
God interacts with my life here on earth as a believer (heaven on earth, thus although we are in the world, we are not of this world - our outlook is different). I witness this interaction in prayer and with what happens in my life. He does not speak to me in an audible voice, but through His word and by the circumstances I experience. His word is alive to me. God teaches me through His word. He continually confirms His word as truth. People and places I interact with are in His control. I see His goodness even as I experience the evil that is a result of sin. I see it in what is made as well as in catastrophic events. Good comes from such events, even though such events bring much sadness to us as well.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I see every letter of the law met or fulfilled in Jesus Christ by AD 70.What does this mean in practical terms?
It means that those who truly put their faith/trust in God find forgiveness for their sin and peace in a right relationship with God. It means that in AD 70 God ended the OT system of sacrifice and replaced it with another for His people. His people now live by His grace rather than their own merit in obtaining that right relationship with God. Those who do not will stand before Him under their own merit rather than Christ's.
Is it perhaps something like, "Love Jesus, read the bible and do what you think is right"?
It is more than that. It is trusting in His merit and righteousness in meeting God's righteous requirements rather than your own merit. It is repenting before God and asking for His forgiveness in Jesus Christ. It is identifying yourself in Jesus Christ and seeking Him out to change your life. It is a daily communion with God, asking for His guidance and mercy in dealing with your life. It is reading His word to find out more about Him and what is right. You are not capable of yourself to meet God's righteousness. If you don't recognize this why would you need a Saviour? But I believe each of us does. We see our flaws. We know our shortcomings. Some seek Him out and beg for His forgiveness. Repentance is being sorrowful for our wrongs against Him and a willingness to change by seeking Him instead of hiding from Him. Others dig in and resist even more.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
How does that meet the requirements of justice?How would the death of another person (Jesus or Nathaniel or Tom) "meet the requirements for justice"?
In the case of God, a man sinned against Him, which caused humanity to know both good and evil. That man rejected God's command to refrain from eating of the tree of knowledge. That man was representing humanity as our federal head. He determined whether we would live at peace with God in the Garden (paradise) or be separate from Him because of evil. That man, now knowing both good and evil, passed his views onto humanity. His thinking without God influences his children with evil. Now they no longer have a fixed standard for righteousness. Without God as the constant moderator and teacher, humans now became the relative standard. Thus evil increased. Each generation passed more evil onto their offspring, so the influence waxed greater and greater to a point in time where God chose to judge the inhabitants of the earth with a flood. He selected eight to continue humanity because one (Noah) had chosen to believe or listen to God. One man's belief was the umbrella for the other seven to have life. Noah did what God required. Thus, he too is a typology or picture of what Jesus would do and Noah pointed ahead to Jesus. That is the case throughout the OT. Everything points to Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ, the Second Adam, also represented us before God as our federal head. The Son became a man to live a life pleasing to God. This time, instead of being tempted, He overcame temptation, satisfying God's righteousness. Thus, those who believe in Him find their justification before God. He meets the standard they could not. Not only this, He pays for their sin (the penalty for sin is death - separation from God spiritually) by dying in their place. Thus, both God's justice is met in a righteous life, but also, His wrath is appeased for wrong. It is satisfied in Christ's substitutionary death. The OT sacrificial system, typologically speaking, points to a substitution for Israel's sin to have fellowship with God. The lamb had to be perfect, without any blemishes because it represented Israel in its death as her substitute. The other lamb was released into the wilderness, symbolizing it being cut off from God, rather than Israel. The same is true of Christ's sacrifice, except it does not have to be performed year after year because, as a human originally sinned against God, a Man does not sin and is righteous before God.
[ Results of Justification ] Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Then some things do matter and become absolutely morally wrong [TO YOU PERSONALLY], even though the majority think otherwise.Moral instinct is a GNOSTIC phenomenon (not empirically demonstrable).(IFF) you agree with the CONSENSUS (THEN) you believe the majority is moral (the law is true and just).
This is moral relativism. It still begs the question of why a majority is right.
(IFF) you disagree with the CONSENSUS (THEN) you believe the majority is immoral (the law is false and corrupt).
What is the actual right? You can't produce one. All you can say is "I like this view." You are in the same boat as Nazi Germany. How can you say they were wrong? It tears apart morality and replaces it with preference, whoever has the most power gets to do what they want to. There is nothing right about that. The only way it could be right is if there is an actual standard of rightness that does not change and your position agrees with it. This kind of moral relativism is something that cannot be lived. As soon as you become the minority and are persecuted to death it becomes unlivable.
(IFF) I believe I am "right" (THEN) that doesn't necessarily make you "wrong"
Why?
(IFF) you believe you are "right" (THEN) that doesn't necessarily make me "wrong"
It is EITHER right or it is not. It can't logically be both. Thus, your view is totally inconsistent. It can't explain why something should be done because it is right. All it can do is say, "You do this or I will kill you." You can't live with such a system because as soon as someone else comes along and is stronger than you are then the opposite of what you believe now becomes the norm of standard. It contravenes the law of identity which states that A=A, a thing is what it is. A dog is a dog. A dog cannot be a non-dog.
Right=Right; good=good.
What you have is a shifting standard. Good can equal whatever you want it to. YOU do not have what is necessary for morality. All you have is what is preferable. How does that make anything right? It does not. If it does make something right then Nazi Germany and the killing of over six million Jews becomes right for anyone who agrees.
It's exactly the same as law. Different territories have different laws. It's exactly the same for people. What's appropriate behavior in front of your parents is not always the same as what's considered appropriate behavior in front of your friends. What's appropriate behavior in one friend's house is not always what's appropriate behavior at another friends house.
So at one house, it is 'morally' permissible to rape your neighbour for fun???? At another, it is 'morally' permissible to kill your neighbour for fun. That is the implication of this stupid moral relativism idea. You throw away justice because justice needs a fixed moral good, something that is actually so. And that is why a large number of people in the USA support abortion as a woman's choice because they are moral relativists. Greg Koukle lists seven things you cannot do and remain consistent as a moral relativist. You can't live with such a standard because as soon as the tables are turned on you and you are the victim your position changes and you realize these things are morally reprehensible and wrong. Then you no longer endorse moral relativism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you be in favor of adding a "self-moderated" debate option?As long as it is an option, sure.What exactly would that look like?It would look exactly like the current "judicial decision" style of unranked debate currently available, except instead of selecting a "judge", only the participants in the debate would be allowed to vote (not for themselves, but optionally for their opponents).
Why would they want to do that again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you want your posts censored?Never.I'm not advocating any changes to the existing format or rules.I'm merely proposing an option be added to allow "self-moderated" debates.Would you be in favor of adding a "self-moderated" debate option?
As long as it is an option, sure.
What exactly would that look like?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come about that those whom you let remain of them will become as pricks in your eyes and as thorns in your sides, and they will trouble you in the land in which you live.Does this universal and unchanging principle still apply today?
Not physically. That physical application was for OT Israel during the taking of the Promised Land. It was during the time of the Old Covenant. There is a greater spiritual principle of God (the universal truth to both covenants) intended for us to learn from the physical example. We are to drive out sinful practices or deeds from our lives so that they do not rule over us so we can have a close relationship with God. Our Promised Land is the heavenly country, where we come into the presence of God and learn from and relate to Him.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
And the difference is, he has the means to do it. Kim Jong Un is an example, so is Xi Jiping and many more dictators around the world.Your examples should include some biblical references,
Love your neighbour as yourself.
15 And Moses said to them, “Have you [a]spared all the women? 16 Behold, these [b]caused the sons of Israel, through the [c]counsel of Balaam, to [d]trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man [e]intimately. 18 But all the [f]girls who have not known man [g]intimately, [h]spare for yourselves. [LINK]
Already explained previously and in detail.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do subjective standards meet what is necessary? If you think so, explain how.Each individual is the arbiter of their own moral instinct.
Then I say what is say is morally wrong!
You never explain why your relative standard is or can be better than anyone else's? Is it because you believe it? Does that make something good? Then two opposing and contrary standards (a logical absurdity) can both be right depending upon who holds what view? Without a fixed identity for a moral prescription, what makes it good/right? Is it force? If you force me to believe 'it' does that make it good/right? If Kim Jong Un kidnaps you and forces you to live in a concentration camp while he physically tortures you as he did with poor Otto, is that then good/right? He believes so. Why is your belief any 'better' than his?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Then, in hearing the gospel message, I came to believe.You used your own reasoning and moral instinct to VALIDATE "the gospel message".
You have to believe that God exists before you will come to Him. Why would you trust Someone you do not believe in, even if what they say is true?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
They can justify what is necessary for morality,Did morality exist before Abraham?
Yes.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
What is relevant is whether there is a truth that is discernable.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.
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.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I believed in Santa who was my standard of gift giving. He first chose me to wrap Christmas gifts. Then, in watching the Miracle on 34th Street's message, I came to believe. My standard does not originate from or in myself. It is the revelation of Someone else who is logically necessary for receiving Xmas gifts . Then I turned 7.
Well done! Seven was a big year for you.
Created: