Total posts: 3,179
-->
@SkepticalOne
This claim is unfalsifiable.Not for those who are true believers.You don't seem to understand what "unfalsifiable" means.Sorry, a misunderstanding on my part.I want to compliment you, Peter. You admit fault and you've integrated some awareness of logical fallacies into your repertoire. Kudos, sir.
Thank you, Chuck! I have ten to twenty books on the subject.
I sometimes admit to errors when I am made aware of them. (^8
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
How does your personal opinion and preference make something right if you have no objective unchanging/fixed source or reference point?How can you go north, east, west or south without an unchanging/fixed source or reference point?
You are inferring and projecting again. How is God not a fixed and final reference point for morality?
What is your best? Take abortion, you believe it is permissible to slaughter innocent unborn human beings, per your debates. You have a poor sense of justice. You do not treat all human beings equally.
P.S. Magnetic north isn't a fixed reference point - it moves.
True north or the North Pole is.
P.S.S. Human interpretation of the 'will of God' isn't a fixed reference point either and can be used to support atrocities and oppose equality. (Holocaust, apartheid, Transatlantic slave trade)
The Holocaust, Apartheid, transatlantic slavery are not biblical or OT slavery but a misinterpretation.
P.S.S.S. I think you're dropping the argument: post 365. You called me out on this thread..are we done?
I have since argued that post. I am going systematically and in order down the list.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I have denied from the start that biblical slavery is the same as chattel slavery.Yea, well, you're just wrong, and you squash your own denial when you argue for forced slavery for the purpose of conversion. I mean, seriously, if it's forced it can't be indentured servitude.
No, you're mistaken. You are comparing the 19th-century chattel slavery to biblical slavery that God condones. You mistake Egyptian slavery that God specifically forbids and condemns Israel from doing as OT slavery. He forbids Israel from treating foreigners in the way they experienced treatment in Egypt. Not only this, God is continually looking out for the well-being of the poor, whether that be domestic or foreign. We constantly read passages that express the principle of loving thy neighbour. You misinterpret passages that you believe speak against those loving principles. You do not understand that when God issued the mandate to drive out the land inhabitants, He was doing that for a purpose. They were evil. They were being judged. They were unwilling to leave obediently. You don't understand that these land inhabitants were against Israel and bent on her destruction or plotting her outing from the land God gave them. These foreign nations would corrupt Israel if they remained, and, in fact, they did. You do not seem to understand His concern for the poor and the provisions for them, including when they were debt-ridden and needed help. You do not understand that God as Creator is the universe's owner, and we are His tenants. Thus, He has the right to determine where people will live.
You do not understand the principle of conversion and redemption from slavery that God offers slaves. He saves His people from slavery. You do not understand how physical slavery's typology teaches a far greater truth, that of spiritual bondage or slavery to sin. God frees His people from such bondage, just like He did in Egypt. You are a slave to whatever has control over your mind, things that you cannot overcome, things that are not true, yet you believe them anyway. So God used a nation to teach all people a greater truth through the biblical revelation.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
But you (plus those who make the laws) can tell me that all human life is not equal,Incorrect. All humans have equal right to usurp my bodily autonomy and personal sovereignty for their own benefit.
Please be serious. Do you believe all human life should be treated equally under the law, or should some groups be treated less than equal?
Simple question, right?
This is a matter of whether it is morally right to treat others differently and marginalize some groups or classes of people because we do not like or consider them of equal value to other groups of people. Or should basic human rights be considered equal to ALL, regardless of class or group?
It is a matter of justice. What does justice mean to you? It is just that others treat you as less of a human being than other human beings because of the group or class you fall into? Would you call that just? If not, why do you do that with the class of human beings called the unborn? They are not treated with the same 'equality' you give the woman. You think that her bodily rights trump the unborn's bodily rights (You exclude it from having any. How is that fair?) and give her the choice to 'usurp' the unborn body in a cruel, inhumane way.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Very revealing. It does not matter to you that innocent human beings are killed. Would it matter to you if someone chose to kill your innocent ten-year-old? If so, then you have a double-standard and you are not consistent. Consistency is a sign or indicator that something is dreadfully wrong with your logic.Very revealing. It does not matter to you that innocent human beings are allowed to die for the want of a kidney.
Yes, it is revealing. You are shifting the goalposts.
So is there an inference that the unborn are innocent and killing the unborn is wrong in your supposed equivalent analogy, since you call this a double-standard? So does it matter that innocent unborn humans are being killed in the biggest holocaust in human history to date? If so, stand up against abortion and stop supporting the woman's 'right' to kill it. It won't cost you a kidney.
And there is a stem cell harvesting going on here, too with the aborted unborn.
Yes, it matters. What do you propose I do? Are you willing to give both your kidneys to save two people? Or perhaps just one!!! Are you proposing everyone SHOULD/MUST donate a kidney to save another person? You first! Set the example! And I am aware that Jesus called His disciples to love their neighbours, the neighbour going beyond the immediately adjacent landowner. There is a blessing in helping save another person's life. Yes, I am aware of that.
The unborn in the womb is a separate human being. Don't strip it of its right to life. It has a right to bodily integrity too.
A kidney donation is just that, whereas the womb is the natural home of the unborn. All unborns require such a home. And what parent would deny their own child the right to live?
Would it matter to you if someone chose to allow your innocent ten-year-old die rather than donate a kidney?
You are talking in hypotheticals. I am talking in terms of what is really happening.
Another person is not responsible for my ten-year-old. You are placing the responsibility on them. Why are you assuming they are responsible? My ten-year-old's health in such a case may very well be beyond my control to help. I would be disappointed, even heartbroken, if they died or if someone volunteered to give a kidney, then chickened out, but I have no right to force another person to give their kidney unless that person signs a contract to do so. Usually, a money exchange takes place in such contracts.
You are borrowing from a derivative, a variation, an offshoot of a Judith Jarvis Thomson argument in the Violinist and Burglar analogies. A stranger does not share the same responsibility to look after my family that I do. If a stranger did, I could neglect my responsibility and rely on them. You do not have a duty to pay my mortgage. If you did (AOC's socialism), I would not have to work. You could become my slave!!!
Yes, I have a duty to look after my child as best as possible, but that obligation and duty are not something you share to the same degree as a stranger. That is an important point. Sure, my love for the child will be greater than yours as well. I will try to obtain the needed kidney in as much as it is within my power to do.
If so, then you have a double-standard and you are not consistent. Consistency is a sign or indicator that something is dreadfully wrong with your logic.
It is not a double-standard. It is not inconsistent. It is a woman choosing to kill her offspring. I am not choosing to do that with my hypothetical ten-year-old. I am looking out for their well-being. The woman is promoting the destruction and harm of her own unborn. The analogy fails on several fronts. In most cases, the woman consented to sexual relations, knowing full well that there is a possibility of pregnancy and a new life. The woman voluntaries to have sex. In the case of kidney failure, neither the father nor the child consent to such a reality. Second, pregnancy is not a bad thing, kidney failure is. Pregnancy is the creation of a new unique human being, not its destruction, like is the final result of kidney failure. The woman's body is designed to carry an additional human being. The womb is the natural home of the unborn. Third, the unborn shares in her DNA and is her offspring, a kidney donor is not usually, but a stranger, thus the moral responsibility is not the same. Parents have a duty, an obligation to protect their children (born or unborn) from harm. A stranger does not share the same moral responsibility/the same degree to look after a stranger. Their first responsibility is to their immediate family. Fifth, I do not have the right to kill a potential kidney recipient like the woman has the right to kill the unborn just because I don't want or like them. I can't kill a human being/person just because I don't like them. The woman can.
The right to bodily autonomy is not absolute. The natural right to life (our most basic right) is being denied for the unborn. The legal right has been stripped away to a large extent by liberal-minded people. And the way abortion right advocates question beg in regards to the humanity of the unborn disgusts me.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
It is immoral because if offends the righteousness of God.This is an unclear standard. Please either offer a reliable metric for determining why things or offensive in this manner or I will be forced to conclude that you are using a standard which yo uh do not actually understand which is not helpful to the conversation.
I wish you would provide more of the context. I have to search now to find out what it was. Here it is:
"I have told you many times. You do not listen. It is immoral because it offends the righteousness of God. It is wrong if there is an objective standard to measure values against that is fix and best. If not, nothing ultimately matters, and morality becomes nothing more than a subjective individual or group preference. Which way do you want to live? Do you want to live as if there is such a fixed standard and that right and wrong really matter, or do you want to live inconsistently, deceiving yourself, pretending that things do matter, and an actual right and an actual wrong to issues? If you want to live as though things do matter, a worldview devoid of an ultimate, absolute, universal, fixed standard is necessary. If such a standard does not exist, don't think that a sniper kills fifty in downtown Los Angeles matters. It is just a biological bag of atoms reacting to its genetics and environment. What is wrong with that?
The thing is, we are moral agents, but how did we become such agents? It depends where you start to how you justify that question."
***
I offered the reason why. God is a necessary Being. He is omniscient, knowing all things. How is such a standard unclear? How can you have something that is anything other than preference without a fixed, objective best? God fits the criterion that you do not (and cannot demonstrate that is necessary).
I can simply say that anything which offends Betty White is immoral but without some way of determining why something would be offensive to her (Betty White's primary moral axioms) this gives us no actionable data and we are right back to having to rely on our own moral intuition to determine what is and is not offensive to Betty White.
Why Betty White? How does she qualify?
Do you want to live as if there is such a fixed standardThings are not true or false according to my whims. I have no choice but to believe there is no standard unless some useful standard can be offered. Any discussion of whether this standard is objective of course would be entirely seperate.
First, tell me what your standard is and why it qualifies as moral. I have given you the Ten Commandments as universal. I have explained why it is reasonable to believe by explaining what is necessary for morality.
Show me yours is as well.
The thing is we are moral agents but how did we become such agents?That we evolved the sensibility is a sufficient explanation and the process of evolution (including behavioral evolution) is observable so that is a more reasonable hypothesis than any hypothesis which includes an undemonstrable explanation even if that explanation would be sufficient.
Evolve? How does that make anything good or better?
Behaviour - what IS. How does what is qualify as what ought to be? I observe a chimp who likes to eat bananas. Its behaviour demonstrates it like to eat some kinds of food. What is moral about that? I see a lion chasing down and killing an impala. What is moral about that. Its instinct to live triggers the behaviour.
Morality is based on His (the Yahweh's) nature.Great how do we determine his nature?
Only if He has revealed Himself in some way to humanity, which is what the Bible states.
If we examine the source material (the bible) the Yahweh appears to be a cruel, capricious, jealous, vengeful, genocidal, egomaniacal maniac whose ten most important rules deal mostly with his own vanity and do not address rape or owning people as property at all and elsewhere in the book deals with these issues very unsatisfactorilly.
How is it cruel to punish wickedness? Why is it wrong for God to jealously protect what is right and good? Why is it wrong to take vengeance (accountability for the wrong) on injustice?
Those who do not recognize the majesty and awesome glory of God put their own above Him in their boasting and puffed-up self. It is not vanity to point to Himself for guidance but wisdom.
Why do you charge God with promoting God? How is rape, loving and non-harming?
He commands that we do not killExcept when he commands that we do.
There was a reason, 1) to bring punishment to the wicked and 2) to drive them out of the land God was giving Israel. If they stayed in the land, they would have (and did) influenced Israel in worshiping idols. They were unwilling to leave but instead wanted to harm Israel. Since God owns all things (He made the universe), He can determine who lives in the land. Since they did not respect God, they would not listen to the warning. The same is true of you. You do not respect God. You think you know better. That is why I quiz you on how you know this. Why is it that you have what is necessary for determining goodness when even your neighbour may disagree?
The 613 Mosaic laws feed off the Ten Commandments and give us feedback as how the commanments work in specific situations that applied to the ANE culture.You mean like the ones in leviticus detailing the way in which one goes about owning a human being as property in perpetuity and can then pass them down to one's children as inheritance? I feel like the system you are using fails the livability test. I do not want to be next under this system and I don't think you would either if you gave it a little honest reflection but hey to each his own and if you are willing to be owned by master and obey him even if he is cruel and to give him the right to beat you as long as you don't die within a few days then I suppose to each their own.
I have explained this a dozen times and am sick of reiterating the same thing over and over.
How does it pass the livability test? A foreign war slave is reparation for the damages done. A foreign bought slave is more often than not trying to escape poverty. It is a better life than the one they came from, or it should be because Israel lives under God's requirements.
There is a difference between free will and no will. You still have a will to choose.How do you justify hairsplitting between these two concepts? It seems like you want to have your cale and eat it to (freedom to choose but no freewill).
You chose. You just are influenced by ideas and opinions in your choices and your worldview (what you have invested your outlook into, a particular frame of mind and thought that looks at life in a particular way that starts from core presuppositions).
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
We are not showing love when we harm our neighbours.What does your law say is appropriate if your neighbor is threatening you and or your family?
OT or NT?
IMO, obey the law of the land, love your neighbour, be kind, show the same grace and mercy that you have received from God, bless those who persecute you, keep no record of wrongs, leave justice or revenge to God and the law in the land, repay evil with good, turn the other cheek where you are concerned, but when others are concerned, to protect them against harm.
What does your law say is appropriate if your neighbor is storing hazardous material on the edge of your property?
IMO, ask them kindly to store them properly, on their land, or remove them. If that does not work report them to the authorities.
What does your law say is appropriate if your neighbor's dog eats several of your chickens?
I don't know.
Sure, I "love" them, but in a real-world-practical-actionable sense, how does that apply?
Since the world is not a perfect place, do as best as I can, thinking of the service and sacrifice that Christ showed me as an example of what I should do for others. When I do wrong to others, ask for forgiveness, for I remember that I too have been forgiven.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
How much have they pondered the idea of justice among cats and dogs?Are you suggesting that moral instinct is only accessible to the intellectually curious and capable?
I am saying that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God with the ability to know moral right and wrong and are able to reason with Him and each other on such a level that a dog nor a cat is capable of. Dogs do not ponder the moral significance of right and wrong or lecture on such things, ut by instinct find out whether something is safe to do and tend to avoid something that will harm them or their progeny.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Galatians 3:24 (KJV)Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.Are you suggesting that each person who "knows Christ" is suddenly qualified to abandon the letter of the law and because they found Christ, they just "know" what is morally "right" in their heart?
What I am saying is the Jesus Christ has fulfilled the laws (every letter) of God on behalf of the believer. It does not, therefore, depend on what we do but on what He has done in regards to our salvation and right standing before God. If we could (had the ability) achieve a right standing before God on our own merit and ability we would not need a Saviour. We still know what is right and wrong and we are compelled to live in love, which fulfills the Ten Commandments. We don't seek to do wrong and when we do we have the Advocate, our High Priest, who always lives to intercede for us. Not only this, God gives the true believer a new heart towards Him, that we can understand the deeper things of God. A changed heart has as its goal to seek Him out and put Him before ourselves.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
And there were reasons for some of the 613 Mosaic laws that do not apply today to our cultures, but the principles or lessons are still valid.If the law of "YHWH" has changed, or "does not apply today", then how can you insist it is "universal" and "unchanging" and or "objective"?
Both covenants contain the Ten Commandments of which Jesus summed up in two - love God and love your neighbour. The 613 Mosaic laws were instituted for the people of Israel and they agreed to them. There was a purpose for these laws, and they are met for the NT believer in Jesus Christ.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I have denied from the start that biblical slavery is the same as chattel slavery.The rules for FOREIGN SLAVES specify perpetual ownership and ownership of the children of your slaves and ownership of the grandchildren of your slaves.
Any nation that went to war with Israel would pay a price and be responsible for reparations. It is a shadow, typology, or representation of our life apart from God for we are a slave to whatever has control over us. Only in Jesus are we free.
There is the case of foreign slavery to secure a better life too.
The rules change if one converts to faith or flees. They become free.
The rules for ISRAELITE SERVANTS is only slightly more palatable (and would still not be acceptable practice in modern times).
I have explained many times by now how such servitude was usually because of debts owed. In the seventh year, the debt was considered paid in full. Thus, it was for the purpose of helping the poor and less fortunate.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
3. When the woman's life is threatened (extreme danger that she will lose it) an abortion is permissible if the unborn is too young and not at the point of viability to save it also.Which law of "YHWH" (specifically) allows for this (seemingly arbitrary) exception?
It is common sense that if both your life and the life of your unborn are threatened and the unborn is too undeveloped to survive then it is permissible to save yourself. There are clauses in the Mosaic law for manslaughter (believe it or not, sanctuary cities).
Eg.
[ Cities of Refuge ] The cities which you shall give to the Levites shall be the six cities of refuge, which you shall provide for the one who commits manslaughter to flee to; and in addition to them you shall give forty-two cities.
then you shall select for yourselves cities to be your cities of refuge, so that the one who commits manslaughter by killing a person unintentionally may flee there.
The cities shall serve you as a refuge from the avenger, so that the one who commits manslaughter does not die until he stands before the congregation for trial.
And the congregation shall save the one who committed manslaughter from the hand of the blood avenger, and the congregation shall return him to his city of refuge to which he fled; and he shall live in it until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
2. The percentage of pregnancies that are life-threatening is minimal (probably around 99% non life-threatening). So, while there are risks those risks are not usually life-threatening.Every day, roughly 10,000 babies are born in the United States, and about a third of them are born via Cesarean section.
And how many women die in those 10,000 deliveries by cesarean?
Because of cesarean birth, the danger of death is greatly reduced.
So, maybe 66% non life-threatening?
See my comment above.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The Bible tells the believer that there is great reward for someone who willingly gives their life's on behalf of others.If people follow you out of fear, they are SLAVES.
First off, let us get straight who is spoken of here - God. God is the greatest.
If they follow out of love, that is Christianity. Perfect love casts out fear.
If people follow you for reward, they are MERCENARIES.
If they follow God there is a great reward that we should not be ashamed of. Your eternal life is at stake. Is there no concern there?
If people follow you out of love and mutual respect, they are PARTNERS.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
And if there is sone all powerful all knowing being that cares about justice why doesn't he just make everything just?Because you are on the earth for a purpose, to know your God or reject Him.Oh good, so now that you "know GOD" you're done? You've accomplished your purpose?
(And enjoy Him forever!)
No, God has a further purpose for me. Knowing Him is the beginning of my journey.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nihilism demolishes morality.Nihilism is impossible.
I agree, in practice, it cannot be lived.
Any human stripped of all motive would necessarily be non-functional.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
People are routinely deported with zero regard for their life or general well-being.I don't follow your meaning.Does it bother you when people die after being deported?
Yes.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Or if your new born crawls onto my property, should I be allowed to kill it, because it did not know what it was doing and because I had signs posted, "Tresspassers will be shot on sight."Do you believe "trespassers can be shot on sight" generally?
No.
I believe you have a right to defend your home from those who wish to do you and/or your family harm. Trespassers usually fit that category of wishing to harm you in some way.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you live in an area that I control (the woman controls the unborn in the womb) do you think I should be able to choose whether you live or die?Do you believe deportation is a crime?
It depends on the situation but by-in-large - no.
Would you expel a criminal from your house?
Do you believe that someone who enters your house illegally should be permitted to stay, that you have no say, while you feed them, pay for their education, look after their medical expenses, and then feed and support their family also, once they find out how generous you are (and they are MS 13 gang members too who traffic drugs and feed them to your family members!!!)?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
- and see how you feel as they take your life in the same manner they would the unborn, sucking and tearing apart your body, or injecting poison into it, or the chemical burn to kill you. Do you want to feel that? Do you think others should be permitted to do that to you as a human being?Are you a vegetarian?
No. What does that have to do with abortion?
Are you?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If not, then why are you doing this to the most vulnerable among us?The most vulnerable are the poor, the homeless and the desperate and forgotten prisoners.
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).
While I oppose unjust incarceration crime and injustice should be punished.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you consider that just, if only the elites decide for the rest of us who lives and who dies?You are describing historical reality.
Yes, it does fit nicely into human history. Now, do you think it is just?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Now to the moral aspect. Do you believe that all humans should be treated equally under the law? If not, would you mind is you were discriminated against and dehumanized, considered worthless, a piece of trash, by those who make the law?Are you personally outraged by the treatment of immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers?
I believe all people should be treated with dignity and respect. It depends on the circumstances as to whether they stay or not. I do not believe someone who sneaks into a country illegally who is sex trafficking or a gang member should be allowed in. I do not believe we should be obligated to support mass illegal immigration. I believe all immigration should be legal unless in times of great persecution or warfare.
Do you believe someone who chooses your home to squat in without your permission should be allowed to stay? Now multiply that by ten or twenty people. Then on top of that make it that you are responsible for their education, food, medical treatment, and full rights to vote in the elections of your country if they are not a legal immigrant. (Communism at its best!) Now add in the factor of a violent or selfish person who wants what you have as their own. Where do you draw the line on accountability?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If she no longer wants her one month old newborn and it is using her milk and her breasts, on your thinking she should be allowed to kill it too.Deport, abandon, relinquish care of.
So, are you proposing a different standard for different groups of human beings? Is your position that you can kill some innocent human beings while you are not allowed to kill others?
Also, a fetus is NOT a legal entity (not a legal person, no birth-certificate) and cannot therefore be considered a victim (so there's a slight difference between your two examples).
What kind of "entity" is the fetus? Is it illegal to have a fetus? Just because someone (a human being) does not have a birth-certificate does that make them any less human? Because they are not "in the world" yet, does that exclude them from being a human being who deserves human rights? (Be careful here)
If I was never issued a birth certificate would that give you the right to kill me? You would obviously not consider me a victim if someone murdered me.
So you are discriminating against some innocent human beings because of their development??? Would it be okay to discriminate against you if your IQ was not as great as another? How about discrimination against a female toddler or infant because she is not as developed physically as a grown-up woman?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
...she should be allowed to kill another human being because she no longer wants to take responsibility?It's a lot like people who are deported back into hostile territory after fleeing for their lives.
I believe you are not being serious about what the unborn is. Let me ask you again - Is it okay to kill innocent human beings? Can you answer that simple question? Stop skirting the issue.
Is deportation "murder" when it directly leads to someone's death?
Again, you are changing the subject. It is called deflecting.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, even though she is partly responsible for creating this human being, it is made up or carries half her DNAPerhaps she should only be allowed to deport the half that matches her DNA.
I don't find that amusing. You could not do that without killing the unborn who is a unique being in its own right.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Let me get this straight, in 99% of cases sex is consensual.I'm going to guess you're counting COERCION as "consensual".
Consent meaning agreed upon by both parties. You can't have consent if only one agrees to something. I thought that would be obvious. I do not discount that there might be badgering or persuading in a lot of cases, usually by the male, to have sex. I am excluding rape or forcing the woman to have sex as being consensual. Rape is a very small percentage of the total pregnancy numbers.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Very revealing. It does not matter to you that innocent human beings are killed.I'm pretty sure "it doesn't matter" how OLD the innocent human being is.
Then you should be adamantly against abortion. Are you?
Is it a "greater" crime to kill a one year old than an infant?
No, that is my point. The unborn are just as human as the older infant or one-year-old.
Is it a "greater" crime to kill a citizen than a non-citizen?
No.
And if you think "it matters", please explain your reasoning.
I think it matters greatly that ALL human beings are treated equally. 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.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Or to you think everything you do is determined and you have no will at all but are just a robot programmed by your genetic makup and chance happenstance.i hesitate to make broad statements here, but some seem to be suggesting that nobody is arguing that a human decision is free from all previous influences. i think this is a fair statement. the best attempts at explaining free-will seem to suggest that there is some kind of influence-gap. that is to say, it has been suggested that a human decision is influenced up to some unknown point less than 100% and then there is some i-gap of unspecified quantity and free-will lives there spreading magic fairy dust, however small or improbable that i-gap might be. i have never heard anyone propose a way to measure this i-gap in order to perhaps somehow gauge how much free-will someone might have, or to figure out if children have it, and if not, when do they get it? the i-gap sounds to me more like an ignorance-of-influence gap (this would also seem like the compatibilist's opinion). if this is the case we should be able to dial up free-will by dialing up ignorance.the main problems i see with this proposal are as follows:1) there is no way to measure the influence-gap. it is in all likelihood merely a knowledge-of-influence-gap or lack-of-precision-gap.2) even if the influence-gap is considered to be a real thing, wouldn't that gap simply increase the value of the other influences? how could the influence gap possibly be considered an influence? it's a gap that is by definition non-influential.3) let's consider based on at least a small shred of logic, what could be in that pesky i-gap that might actually be an influence. well, whatever is in that i-gap can't be influenced since it is inside something defined as an influence-gap. so maybe there's an uninfluenced-influence in that i-gap; we could call it something mysterious like, an uncaused-cause, or maybe a first-cause, or better yet ex-nihilo. could that uncaused-cause be influenced or originated by anything at all? no, of course not because it's in the i-gap and it is defined as being uncaused. so could a human take credit for a decision or action that emerged from the i-gap? how could they possibly take credit or be responsible for something they had no conceivable control over? anything emerging from the i-gap would be indistinguishable from a random event. and randomness is incompatible with choice.4) but what if it's the essence of "me" that is in the i-gap. are you kidding me?! i don't care if it's your grandmother, your dead child, or your ever lovin' god. if you put them in the i-gap they are at-best indistinguishable from random noise and at worst non-existent.5) what if the gap is not an influence-gap but instead a black box? if the gap is not an influence-gap, there is no place for mr. free-will to spread his magic fairy dust because the gap instantly fills with influence and is then no longer properly described as a gap. additionally if the output of the i-gap is non-random, that is to say it emits some identifiable pattern, then whatever is happening in the i-gap must have some way of knowing what the hell is going on outside of the i-gap and this knowledge is definitely influencing its output thereby introducing influence into the i-gap which would then promptly disappear in a cute little puff of logic.......obviously george is constrained by the parameters of his confinement and is therefore incapable of offering any advice that would be requested from him.the same would be true if you put jesus, or krishna, or a unicorn, or any conceivable entity or event in the modified i-gap.ipso-facto, no free-will.
I found this post particularly difficult to understand with your concept of "kind of influence-gap," or "i-gap."
That influence we were/are all under, after the Fall, per the Bible, was/is sin. You can't escape the influence of evil because of one man's choice.
Adam had free will. He was the only person who could choose to sin or not sin, other than Jesus Christ. Adam was commanded by God what he was not to do. Eve was told by Satan the opposite of what God commanded Adam not to do.
God --> Do not eat of the Tree...
Satan --> Eat of the Tree...
When Adam ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge his mind was opened to the idea of evil. He discovered what it was to do wrong. Since he disobeyed God, God left him to his own ways instead of being there to guide him. Thus, from Adam onwards we are influenced by evil, not having the good input of God to guide us. We reject God because we think we know better or because we want to do our own thing. We have been influenced by evil and we like it until it starts to harm us. The NT describes our sinful nature as a 'natural man' someone 'in the flesh,' or 'natural person.' We lost our spiritual connection with God in the Fall. It is only renewed in the Second Adam - Jesus Christ. Thus, you have a particular bias against God. Ephesians calls it being dead to God because of our sins.
2 And [a]you [b]were dead [c]in your offenses and sins, 2 in which you previously walked according to the [d]course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the [e]sons of disobedience. 3 Among them [f]we too all previously lived in the lusts of our flesh, [g]indulging the desires of the flesh and of the [h]mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead [i]in our wrongdoings, made us alive together [j]with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
Created:
-->
@Stephen
The biblical God is reveled as three distinct Persons.Yes, now commonly known as Dissociative identity disorder (DID), previously known as multiple personality disorder (MPD), is a mental disorder characterized by the maintenance of at least two distinct and relatively enduring personality states.
I have no idea what you are asserting here. It is lacking in any proof, just hearsay. If you want to give evidence present a couple of biblical proofs and don't link wars me (i.e., I don't want to have to read through fifty pages of linked material trying to find out what your point is). However, I do understand that you have a particular bias and crusade against Christianity, judging from you perhaps fifty threads, many of which work on isolating biblical context, and I have pointed that out before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think it's an interesting idea, but it seems a bit difficult to implement maybe.If there was a "self-moderated" debate option, would you participate in a "self-moderated" debate with me?I believe there is still a benefit to the audience. I personally prefer to read convincing arguments (instead of clever ad hominem attacks)."You're a dumb lefty.""You're a dumb conservative.""You're a dumb goddist.""You're a dumb nihilist."
IMO,
While most people do not like this ad home attack, I think it shows the mentality of the poster as to all they have got in refuting a good point. I personally do not like it but I don't like censorship either. If a person posts a bad slur I think it should be left standing and the person warned. We have a resource for flagging such a post. It just shows how low some people will go to protect their cherished beliefs and when they are left with nothing the ad homs start to fly. I think it is human nature to defend what you believe in and that can get quite contentious when someone makes a good point against your belief, so you send back an emotional reply.
Would you want your posts censored?
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.
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.
I will deal with the rest later. I just happened to see your post while posting.
In fact, there are many instances of the Biblical god committing or condoning the destruction of fetuses and infants (Isaiah 13:18; Hosea 9:10-16; 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.
I will come back to the above statements and biblical verses. I am about to get groceries.
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.
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???
You state,
"...the current resistance to abortion is a manipulation of Christian theology to affect political gain."
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.
My side of the case is that currently pro-choice are manipulating the woman's right to choose as a vehicle to gain political gain also. Why are you only mentioning one side of the equation? Take the other side into consideration also. Almost every single Democrat in either the Senate or House is unified in protecting Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose. They are the party of abortion. And I would argue that most people on this forum who support the woman's rights over the unborn are Democrats or Independents. I would argue that Christianity is morally just in treating all human beings with respect and dignity based on being created in the image and likeness of God. A majority of Republicans (68%) are pro-life. A majority of Democrats (72%) are pro-choice.
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.
You are assuming 'humanists' interested were before God's interests. You automatically dismiss the idea of God. The Messiah/Christ/Anointed One was God manifest in the flesh. The teachings of Christianity would therefore be of God.
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.
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.
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.
"[T]he truth-value of an objective judgment is understood to be necessary and universal, that is to say, not relative...the true-value of a subjective judgment is understood to be neither necessary nor universal."
Bad Arguments, Wiley Blackwell, p.396.
What is the best, the objective reference, or the objective-value, or the ultimate standard of appeal in the case of Roe v. Wade? It is a seven to two philosophical vote in the Supreme Court. Blackmun could not prove what he said was true concerning the unborn as anything other than a person and human being. His opinion was subjective. His historical chronology and historical interpretation regarding Texas and abortion were misleading and wrong. If you don't know what something is about its humanity or personhood, does that give you grounds to kill it?
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?
You have stated that morality, to you, is based on objectivity. Still, you have yet to show how you arrive at objective morality from an atheist's perspective, especially from your root cause or ultimate starting point without God.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
If I try to distill your question down to something meaningful, I get something along the lines of 'How do you as a non-Christian justify morality?' This strikes me as utterly tone-deaf and arrogant given:1) most people aren't Christian.That is a fallacious argument. (argumentum ad populum)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. Have you ever stolen? Have you ever lied? 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 system. An atheist like you who denies God or gods would have to look to caused beings or natural causes for your existence when you trace the causal tree to its source or roots.
And most through human history have believed in God or gods....an actual argument from popularity.
It is just a fact.
Also, are you now arguing for ANY god whatsoever?
No, I have stated that I only stand for and defend the biblical God. I believe all others are fake. I include other gods because I am working on what atheism states. If you want to get into other gods then name which one you are referring to. Atheists do not believe in a supreme personal being(s) as creator(s) and the root cause of everything natural. They usually work strictly in terms of natural causes.
If not, then this fact couldn't help you even if it weren't logically fallacious.
What is fallacious about the biblical God? Remember, I am arguing for which worldview is more reasonable, and in terms of morality, here.
2) Christianity has been specifically used to justify things like slavery, Holy wars, etc,So what? People do all kinds of things 'in the name of.' That does not necessarily mean they follow the teachings.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.
3) what good may be recognized in its moral views come from humanistic interests which predate and can stand apart from it.That is one way of looking at it.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.
That is an either/or appeal and fallacy. Your reasoning is that.
Any moral view? So you like Hitler's moral view regarding the Jews! You like Apartheid South Africa's view of segregation and the South's moral view on slavery, and of course, I know you like the view that it is okay to kill innocent unborn human beings. You don't quite see them up to par with other human beings.I didn't say any moral view in general, but any moral view which puts people above the human interpretation of the will of god - that's pretty specific. Secondly, you've provided great examples of humans interpreting the 'will of god' causing problems. It seems Hitler's antisemitism was rooted in Christian theology, a 'god-given right' to control land was at the core to apartheid, and the South's moral view was perpetuated by a Biblical understanding.
Good, you are slowly stumbling to the heart of this thread - morality and a reasonable explanation from an atheistic as opposed to a Christian perspective!
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.
No, Hitler's antisemitism was not rooted in Christian theology. It was a fabrication and twisting of Christianity. His Ayran principle is the heresy of theology, correctly refuted at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325.
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.
Even the current resistance to abortion is a manipulation of Christian theology to affect political gain.
How is that? It is an unjust practice. Those who do not recognize that, or care, are complicit in promoting an injustice. You have argued in formal debates (two) for the woman's right to have her unborn butchered. What kind of humanity is that which kills the most helpless and most defenceless human beings, all in the name of a woman's right to choose?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
During the transitioning between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant some questioned whether it was okay to eat particular meats.Another instance would be worshiping God on the Sabbath. The NT states that if one person holds one day as more holy than another then it is permissible by God.So, if the law changed, then it can't be described as universal and unchanging (objective) can it?
The transition I speak of is where the OT law existed at the same time as NT grace in God. The Jews were still practicing the requirements of the Law while the evangelists/apostles were preaching a better way, the way of Jesus Christ.
The New Covenant believer, during the 1st-century, was on a sojourn, an exodus from sin and bondage to the new and greater Promised Land, the heavenly country, the Sabbath Rest for God's people. That believer was in transition, just like OT Israel was in its departure from Egypt en route to the promised land. Thus, it is fulfilled for those who believe. The final year of transition (it is most reasonable to believe) was AD70. After that, the OT Law can no longer be met as prescribed and agreed upon by OT Israel. The agreement between God and His people to keep the Sabbath has been met by Jesus on behalf of the believer. They can now rest as God rested from His works of creation. For the rabbinical Jew, he/she is still working to obtain the blessings and Sabbath Rest of God that He has granted in Jesus Christ!
Christianity is not works-based salvation. We do not earn our salvation as believers like other religions do, including Hinduism. Work-based religions all require the adherent to work for or towards their salvation/nirvana/paradise. We are granted rest in Christ Jesus!
The law has not changed. It is universal and unchanging. It is still wrong to murder, steal, lie/bear false witness, covet, commit adultery, etc., and the unbeliever (in his/her inner being) still knows these things are wrong, thus they will be judged on them. The difference is the unbeliever has been covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. That is, His sacrifice, His human life, His offering to God, has paid the price for sin and meet the right requirements of the Law.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
They relate to both Testamants. We find nine of ten in the NT. The Sabbath is debatable but the principle of rest is there, IMO.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.
I am suggesting the Sabbath rest is obtained in Jesus Christ, thus it needs not to be re-stated for those who believe.
For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.
(Peace with God!)
Christianity is not works-based salvation but God-based, grace-filled salvation. We rest in Jesus' sufficiency!
Were some of the laws of "YHWH" nullified in some official manner?
No, they were met in Jesus! Thus, we are not under the law but under the grace of God, as believers. He has done what we could not do.
If you think you can meet God's purity, holiness, and perfect righteousness then how have you done in meeting the Ten Commandments? Have you ever lied, ever defamed someone else, ever bore false witness against them? Have you ever stolen, even taking a pen from work home that did not belong to you? Have you ever committed adultery? Jesus expanded on that command, likening it to even lusting after a woman. Have you ever murdered, and here again, Jesus likened it to anger for a brother, and who is your brother? Have you ever coveted something that is not yours? That is envy. Have you ever disrespected your parents? They (hopefully) looked after and protected you from harm. Nevertheless, you were put under their care by God and they are reasonable for your care until you can look after yourself. Lastly, have you given God the respect He deserves as your ultimate Creator? If not you are answerable to God. You have not met His standard of righteousness. Thus, the penalty is death - spiritual separation from God.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
What I will repeat again is that there is a correct way of interpreting what someone says, get their meaning, not your own.Are you familiar with Halacha? [LINK]
I have heard of the 'Oral Torah' or 'tradition,' the rabbinical interpretation and writings regarding the OT when I have spoken with Jews, yes. I have looked into it briefly. You see, the OT had to be modified after AD 70 since the sacrificial system could no longer be followed as prescribed by law and agreed to by OT Israel. There was no more priesthood to offer the atonement before God. Thus, what could they do?
I have Jews in the 1st-century that give sufficient interpretation of the Law, the greatest of which is Jesus (God incarnate). Not only this, they bear witness to the Messiah as coming in Jesus/Yeshua, as predicted to happen to an OT people, a people living under the guidelines of the Old Covenant. I need to go no further. I see every letter of the law met or fulfilled in Jesus Christ by AD 70. Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient. Rabbinical work-related merit can never take away sin. I see the weakness of Jews and Judaism in meeting the righteous requirements of the Law by their works. That OT explains that insufficiently. Now while Rabbinical Judaism would argue that they are the new covenant people spoken of by Jeremiah, the New Covenant that is found in Jesus is far more reasonable.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If God is perfect and you have wronged God how will you meet such a God's requirements by what you have done.Wouldn't the god($) be able to forgive such a frail worm?
How does that meet the requirements of justice? Will a good judge wink at evil? Will he dismiss it as insignificant/unimportant? How would that be good? A person suffered injustice, lost their lives, and there is no penalty???
If you came before a judge knowing you murdered someone and are guilty and the judge winks and says, "You are free, don't do it again!" How would that have dealt with the wrong? What about those left behind who grieve the death of their loved one you killed? How is that just for them?
As for reformation, what is different without repentance? If you say, "I got away with that one," then go out and do the same thing thinking you will get away with murder once again, how is that good?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Some of these are restated in the Ten Commandments. Others I disagree with. Finally, who is the authority who revealed them? Is such an authority almighty? If so, let's discuss that being.Yama is the Hindu god of death, king of ancestors, and final judge on the destination of souls. He is also known as the ‘Restrainer’, Pretaraja or ‘King of Ghosts’, Dharmaraja or ‘King of Justice’, and as Daksinasapati is considered the regent of the South Quarter. Yama may also be referred to simply as ‘Death’ – Antaka, Kala or Mrtyu. Due to his responsibility for good decision-making based on records of a person’s deeds, the god is particularly associated with the rule of law. Yama is also present in Iranian mythology, traditional Chinese and Japanese mythology, and elements of Buddhism. [LINK]
Hinduism, in its many branches, with the Vadas, Upanishads, Puranas, the Epics, and a host of other literature, is a mishmash of confusion, mythology compounded on mythology. What is there in this massive body of literature that can be confirmed from the physical world and history?
I.e., The Vishnu Purana is a primary sacred text of the Vaishnava branch of Hinduism, which today probably has more adherents than any other...Like most of the other Puranas, this is a complete narrative from the creation of the current universe to its destruction. The chronology describes periods as long as a hundred trillion (1014) years! It includes extensive sections on the genealogy of the legendary kings, heroes and demigods of ancient India, including those from the epics, the Mahabharata and Ramayana.
What is known of Yama is inconsistent and contradictory.
"Like every other God in the Hindu pantheon, there are various stories associated with the origin of Yama. One story says that Yama is actually the first man ever to die, and thus, he became the preserver of the netherworlds. He is sometimes equated as dharma since he is the one who takes the decision and judges the actions of a person during his lifetime. Another origin story says that Yama is the son of Sanjana and Surya or the Sun God."
How can I believe any of this is true? So, if you want to elucidate and explain how these Hindu Scriptures are backed by actual history and reality, please go ahead.
Compare this literature with the Judeo-Christian accounts that deal with a Supreme Being. There are many specifics there regarding Israel and prophecy that are confirmed by other historical accounts. We know that history confirms many kings, people, events, places contained in the OT. We know that Jerusalem was destroyed, the OT system of worship was removed - no more priesthood, no more animal sacrifices for the atonement of sin, no more temple, no more feast days. Instead, we see a new covenant in operation that mirrors the old in many ways but is better.
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.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you know "the decalogue" is valid? Because it matches your moral intuition.First, these principles are universal and self-evident to many, not all.My moral instincts are universal and self-evident to many and exist without any endorsement.
Your moral instincts are universal and self-evident? To you! They are not to me. Please explain them further and justify that they are or could be. Again, you use the fallacious argument 'ad populum' as a justification. "Most of the passengers are jumping out of the plane without a parachute while at 20,000 feet, therefore, you should too!"
More than this, what is necessary for these principles to be true. The biblical God fits the checkoff box.The only thing that is "necessary" for moral principles to be considered true is CONSENSUS.
So Hitler was right in killing over six million Jews, correct? After all, the Germans were indoctrinated into thinking the Jew was not as human as the majority of Germans.
Torturing innocent people for fun is right as long as the majority thinks so, correct?
Voting to kill you and your family because the majority want to is right, correct?
The majority says so = must be right. No matter what is proposed, as long as you can get the majority to go along it becomes good!!!
This is the kind of non-thinking statement you can blurt out, but you can live for as soon as such a negative action is applied to you it becomes a different story. Then some things do matter and become absolutely morally wrong, even though the majority think otherwise. For you, Kim Jong Un's North Korea is perfectly justifiable as good if the majority think so. For you, the slaughter of millions in Mao's China becomes okay, such as during the 'Cultural Revolution' if a majority thinks so. For you killing innocent unborn human beings becomes okay because the majority Supreme Court vote says so and the popular opinion of the elites and those they indoctrinate agree.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The question is how you validate morality as an atheist.The same way you do. Moral instinct. Moral intuition.It is not moral instinct that I prove what is right and wrong. It is by the revelation of Another, even though we are created in His image and likeness, thus we too are moral beings.How do you know the "revelation" is moral?
It has what is necessary for morality. Subjective humans who have no fixed foundation do not. I keep inviting you to show me a standard (other than the biblical one, since you are not a believer) that does have what is necessary and we will focus on that standard. I have not heard a chirp.
Like, what would you think of a "revelation" that suggested you murder your son?
I would think you are crazy. Now, with God, who led Abraham and who had direct dealings with God, He is revealed as the giver and taker of life, and also a righteous Judge. Thus, He will not take a righteous life without restoring it. Abraham understood that.
nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.”
Hebrews 11:17-19 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; 18 it was he to whom it was said, “In Isaac your [a]descendants shall be called.” 19 [b]He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back [c]as a type.
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; 18 it was he to whom it was said, “In Isaac your [a]descendants shall be called.” 19 [b]He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back [c]as a type.
God promised that through Isaac Abraham's descendants would be named, therefore Abraham reasoned that if he took Isaac's life, God would restore it.
***
Total avoidance of any accountability on your part. Your worldview has yet to justify that what you call moral is right and good. This is almost always one-sided when you speak of morality with a non-believer. They run from revealing how they can make sense of morality.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Thus, the purpose or design of foreign slavery was first a rescue mission against harsher treatment.33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. [**]Very nice! Good point!Why would "YHWH" make special rules for foreign servants and then say that foreigners should be treated as native-born?
Special rules because God made a covenant with Israel (a special relationship) that was separate from the rest of the ANE world. His design was to showcase His holiness and purity and how impossible it was to meet His righteous requirements once they were compromised at all. The blood of bulls and goats could never take away the sin of the people, they could just cover it until the next time Israel sinned. The sacrifice had to be made every time Israel sinned. So the sacrificial system was pointing forward to the better covenant in typology. The same thing (a typology) with people outside that covenant. They did not realize their own bondage and immorality. Egypt is a representation of that bondage, just like the foreigner is who does not have a relationship with God. Nevertheless, God wanted all people treated with dignity and respect since they were created in His image and likeness (we are an extremely limited image of God in our ability to love, reason, know, create, and choose). So, God did not want Israel abusing foreigners in the same manner Israel had been abused in Egypt. That would not show respect to God.
God is not going to compromise His plan of salvation (the Messiah was chosen to come through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel's lineage) because foreigners did not respect or want to live in accordance with His decrees. Some wanted to see the destruction of the Jews. Thus, Israel was told to drive the people of the Promised Land out of it so that Israel would not compromise their relationship with God. Two people groups, the Amalekites and Canaanites were especially vile in their immorality, sacrificing their own children to Molock and other gods. God was bringing judgment upon them, not just driving them out of the land.
However, if a foreigner came into the country they were to be treated fairly, just like a Hebrew was, whether that be a foreign visitor, someone who was to take up residency in that land, or a foreign slave. They had to abide by the rules of the land. But the principle of equality is there, all human beings deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. The exception was in entering and taking the land because the inhabitants of the land would not welcome Israel settling there.
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.
Again, with foreign slaves, they were either bought or captured in warfare and thus the latter a reparation for Israel. Even so, as I have gone into lots of detail to explain, they were not to be treated harshly, for a number of reasons.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
2) Christianity has been specifically used to justify things like slavery, Holy wars, etc,So what? People do all kinds of things 'in the name of.' That does not necessarily mean they follow the teachings.It's a pretty good demonstration that not all Christians agree on the practical application of Christian moral code.
Whether that is true or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether there is a truth that is discernable.
Even if you are in a group of a thousand tourists on top of the Empire State Building, who are all hanging off the building waiting to jump on the count of three, that does not make it true that they will survive the fall even if they believe it is.
There is a standard of appeal, the Bible, and there is a correct interpretation of it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Christian beings coin biblical moral values but they cannot justify Christian morals as anything but subjective feelings or preference.
They can justify what is necessary for morality, and the biblical God fits the bill. Once you take other considerations into mind, such as biblical evidence, that too is reasonable.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
My standard is not myself.Didn't you choose your standard?
I believe in God who is my standard of righteousness. He first chose me to be in Christ. Then, in hearing the gospel 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 morality.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You claim this is because "YHWH" wrote that moral code on their hearts.This claim is unfalsifiable.Not for those who are true believers.You don't seem to understand what "unfalsifiable" means.
Sorry, a misunderstanding on my part.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
A subjective standard does not meet what is necessary.Your decalogue is indistinguishable from a (really old) personal preference or opinion.
Your assertion, not mine. Back it up.
Do subjective standards meet what is necessary? If you think so, explain how.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
But if you reject (or simply ignore) BRAHMAN (or NOUMENON), a necessary being, what is the objective standard of appeal?
An appeal to brute fact! Wow!
You keep speaking of this noumenal self as a necessary being, Brahman, an unknowable being. What exactly is Brahman like --> "Unknowable!"
You claim Brahman. How do you know this god exists and is not wishful thinking? What has this god revealed for you to know of its existence? Is this god a personal being? Not according to some Hindus.
"Brahman, a term used in Hinduism for God Almighty, creator of entire cosmos was always impersonal, a source of magnanimous primordial cosmic energy beyond human comprehension."
"The Vedas conceptualize Brahman as the Cosmic Principle.[10] In the Upanishads, it has been variously described as Sat-cit-ānanda (truth-consciousness-bliss) as well as having a form (Sakar)[11][12] and as the unchanging, permanent, highest reality.[13][14][note 1][note 2]"
Even in Hinduism, some believe Brahman is a personal being while others do not, depending on the school of thought, which again brings to mind the question of how does anyone know? But what has the Vedas or Upanishads given humanity to confirm Brahman? Far, far less evidence than the Judeo-Christian God, and a god that contradicts the God of Christianity.
And Kant's idea of the noumenon begs the question of how he knows this?
"In Kantian philosophy, the unknowable noumenon is often identified with or associated with the unknowable "thing-in-itself" (in Kant's German, Ding an sich). However, the nature of the relationship between the two is not made explicit in Kant's work, and remains a subject of debate among Kant scholars as a result."
So, what the "men of Athens" (Athenians) worshiped as the unknown God the Apostle Paul made known to them.
For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.
Starting with human thoughts as the point of reference to the noumenon gets you no closer to the truth, thus we need a personal Being to reveal the truth to us. That is, ontologically speaking, in regard to the truth about the universe, the truth about us, and the truth concerning morality. So you can think the noumenon is necessary but you are still not there unless this infinitely omniscient Being chooses to reveal what is the case to you. If this infinite Being is not conscious or personal you are left with a force or mysterious source of speculation. Something that just is, without mind, without personhood, is incapable of revealing anything. The Christian God meets the requirements of knowing like no other religious system of thought.
"Kant had to develop a philosophical perspective that destroys the intelligibility of any objective knowledge at all. This reflects the desperation of those who intellectually oppose the faith. They would rather be reduced to subjectivism (eg., the projection of the unknowable "noumenal" self) than to acknowledge their responsibility before God, whom they very well know and cannot escape."
Van Til Apologetics, Readings and Analysis, by Greg Bahnsen, p. 351.
You don't have one.There is no such thing MORE purely OBJECTIVE than NOUMENON.
How has this been revealed to you?
It becomes a preference.EXACTLY LIKE YOUR PREFERENCE IN YOUR CHOICE OF GOD($).
First, it is not based on me. I appeal to a source of revelation outside myself, a necessary personal knowing and revealing Being. What are you appealing to with your statements?
Your "justification" of your GOD($) is de facto "justification" for your ("invisible") moral code.
By necessity in making sense of morality, yes. I invite you to make sense of why what you believe, morally speaking, is any better than that of anyone else, unless you have an objective, omniscient, revelation. Go ahead!
(IFF) you are unable to convince someone that your moral code is universal and unchanging (THEN) your moral code is a de facto OPINION.
Some people cannot be convinced because it runs contrary to what they want to believe.
There is proof available in and for the Christian worldview that is most reasonable. It comes from what is necessary for there to be morality. How is yours anything other than opinion?
It becomes a preference.Just like your preference for a particular god($).
The evidence is convincing and justifiable. Christianity has what is necessary. I can make sense of morality. Show me your belief can too.
How does what you like (your subjective tastes and desires) equal what is good?Well, I certainly wouldn't trust you to tell me my likes and dislikes.
You are evading the question, trying to turn it back on me to escape explanation. It is a ploy I have witnessed for those who have nothing to offer use.
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.
(IFF) everyone agreed on the one-true-interpretation and practical application of the moral code of "YHWH" (THEN) we'd all be Orthodox Jews
Argumentum ad populum. Truth is not true just because the majority think so. What is good is so whether you believe so or not.
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?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You see, if you deny God's moral commands then life becomes unlivable.Not quite.My breath would seem to contradict your claim.You see, if you deny god($) moral commands then you are forced to THINK FOR YOURSELF AND NEGOTIATE WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS.
And what makes your limited, biased thinking any better than your neighbours if everything is relative and subjective? Why is protect yourself, your family, and your property good when your neighbour is doing the same, and he believes it is best to eliminate you and your family and take your property? And the difference is, he has the means to do it. Kim Jong Un is an example, so is Xi Jiping and many more dictators around the world.
How does your personal opinion and preference make something right if you have no objective unchanging/fixed source or reference point?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your stated intention: Discover a logically coherent non-god($) origin of moral intuition.Moral intuition?Logically coherent? Sure, go ahead. I don't believe you can without God, so prove me wrong.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, except for the Sabbath Day. Jesus reiterated the Ten Commandments in the NT, so do the apostles.
For example, if you beat your servant and they die in LESS than three days, apparently that's "murder".
That is an Old Covenant Mosaic law, and although it teaches a lesson and is related to the Ten, it is not one of the Ten, since 'killing' or murder was an intentional and malicious act; discipline was not. The ANE dealt with punishment for wrongdoing differently than we do today. Pain as a punishment was a deterrent. It taught the person right and wrong. And Israel did not have a costly prison system, a system that increases the taxpayer's debt load in supporting prisoners by the millions for years. Instead, a slave would live by the household, rules and if he broke them,, he was disciplined, just like the son was meant to be, by the rod. That was their deterrent system. That is how crimes and disobedience were dealt with. But a 'master' was not allowed to get carried away with the punishment. The law had safeguards against that, freedom for the slave. In numerous passages, we see how slaves were treated and how God wanted Israel to treat all people.
However, if you beat your servant and they die in MORE than three days, apparently that's NOT "murder".However, if you beat a fellow citizen and they die in MORE than three days, apparently that's "murder" again.Different rules for different people in different situations. Not universal. Not unchanging.
Exodus 21:20-21 (NASB): [a] 20If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. [b] 21 If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
[a] The punishment was life for life, if the 'slave' died. That would be a deterrent in preventing mistreatment. Any permament damage to the slave would also secure their freedom. It was not in the best interest of the man to mistreat a slave. But not only this, the compensation was greater than ANE standards and some would argue higher than some of our standards today in compensation.
"...typical insurance programs will pay 50% of maximum disability for 'loss of a single eye', they pay nothing for the loss of a tooth..."
As pointed out before, beating with a rod was the same punishment a free man would receive for a wrong. The penal system was far different than today in which the whole society meets the huge cost of incarceration. Thus, a rod was more practical in that respect. It just does not meet the politically correct standards of today. Where it was established, a life was required for a life. This too would decrease the cost of looking after someone for years on end, and the understanding would cause most to consider the cost of taking a life.
As stated, the rod was to be applied to the back, not the face or other parts of the body.
[b] Per Glenn Miller once again, one to two days was considered enough to determine whether the direct cause of death was the master.
'Property' had a different connotation in biblical context as it does in the terms of chattel slavery, as I have documented before. Yes, it was a job for life, but property did not mean the right to do with a person an inhumane act or dispose of as pleased. Property had economic connotations just as we, when on the grounds of the company we work for are considered part of the property.
"'Property' is therefore seen not as 'owned disposable goods' but as economic output (including labor)"
Exodus 21:26-27 (NASB): [a] 26If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. [a] 27And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.
Not to mention, the decalogue is NOT original. It cannot be the origin of morality because there are much older examples of similar codes.
The Ten are God setting the record straight for humanity, so there was to be no doubt. What code and what laws are you speaking of?
Most mammals have the following (moral) instincts,(1) PROTECT YOURSELF(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTYThese moral instincts are universal (relative to mammals anyway) and unchanging.
Are you equating animals and all mammals to human beings?
So what if they protect themselves, their families, and their property? How does that make it good? It just is.
These moral instincts predate the "discovery" of "YHWH" by Abraham.
That is your assumption and presumption that comes from your worldview bias.
Created: