Total posts: 3,179
-->
@secularmerlin
@SkepticalOne
Well let's look at the Yahweh's actions and pronouncements as described by the bible.Commands, condones and commits genocide.
Nope, He brings judgment on the cultures that inhabited the Promised Land for their wickedness. He tells Israel to drive out these inhabitants that live there because these people's wicked values will corrupt Israel, and He wants His people to be pure and holy before Him so He can teach them in the way of righteousness. Since they did not listen to God that is in fact what the biblical narrative reveals, they become corrupted by these people groups and so often these people groups wanted to destroy them. That would prevent the coming of the Messiah, as promised. God would have been proven impotent by not being able to fulfill His promises. Thus, God will not let this happen. How could He compromise Himself? Even though Israel is constantly shown to be disobedient to God, He continues to preserve them instead of judge them, until their sin is heaped up to the limit. Then He brings judgment on them and disperses them for a time that they will learn a lesson, then He brings them back into the Promised Land until the fulness of time is reached for Him to reveal His Son, the Saviour.
Holds people guilty until proven innocent (original sin).
God is omniscient, He knows all things. He knows that if it was you or me in the Garden we would have chosen to disobey God, just like Adam. With Adam came the corruption of what God created as good. Adam passed down his traits and influence to his progeny.
Holds people guilty for crimes committed by other individuals (original sin).
Explained above. Adam was our federal head but we would have done the same thing. Knowledge without wisdom is evil and that is what happens when human beings choose their own way rather than what is good as revealed by God.
Prefers rape of women to consensual sex between men.
Not true. This is a misrepresentation and a constant talking point of those who oppose and hate God.
Humans choose to rape.
Condones the ownership of people as property in perpetuity including being granted as inheritance.
Not the type of slavery that is inhumane. It is for the protection of the poor or those in debt, or, in the case of war, a war reparation for the damages done. With a foreign person, the person was bought with a price, for the Law forbid the kidnapping of anyone with the penalty of death. Thus, it had to be mutually agreeable. As with our employee/employer relationships, the ownership was one of advantage for both, unlike many ANE cultures. A 'slave' in Israel could own property and the 'property' clause was not like the intent witnessed in Egypt or North America, as I have pointed out with SkepticalOne. I have cited numerous passages where God commands Israel not to treat foreigners as they were treated in Egypt. I have shown that God requires of Israel and us to love our neighbour and not harm them. Thus, it could not be chattel slavery where there was mistreatment. And if the slave was mistreated I showed how in Israel there was an escape clause, as well as answerability to God for doing wrong in not loving others. As for discipline, there were consequences for wrongdoing, both for a 'slave' and owner/employer.
And what makes you think that your situation is much different from that of ancient Israel? As an employee, you AGREED to the conditions set forth by the employer. They own what you do while you are at work. You are their property while you are in their building. They have an obligation to protect you and you have an obligation to preform the duties required by the contract. They have the right to punish you for damages or wrongful actions, as stipulated in the contract you signed on commencement of employment.
Commands Capitol punishment for many transgressions.
Teaching Israel the sacredness of the covenant they had agreed to.
Punishes the very best and most loyal of his servants just to prove a point to a third party (job).
Satan, in his wickedness wanted God to show him how loyal Job was, that given the circumstance Job would disavow God. He was sure of it. God said Job would not. The trials Job went through were rewarded with a double blessing after He demonstrated that he would not forsake God. That is a typology and spiritual lesson for us as Christians. Because of the unjustness of this world we, as Christians, will be treated poorly, persecuted. Our not giving up or denying Him results in our double blessing too.
Murders children (the flood, the slaughter of many tribes in which the hebrews were commanded to kill all the livestock and babies) and even removes freewill (which I am unconvinced exists but since the biblical view of morality is predicated on choice this seems pretty telling) in order to justify killing more children (hardened Pharoah's heart so that he could kill the first born of Egypt).
I believe that free will was only present in Adam. He had the choice to sin or not to sin. Because we inherit and are influenced by Adam's choice we no longer have the option not to sin. We sin all the time, as we do not hold to the Ten Commandments. We steal, we lie, we harm our neighbours in all kinds of ways.
Don't get me wrong, it is not that we don't have a will a volition. It is that we choose to sin because of the corrupt nature we inherited in Adam. We desire things that are not right, not good. We continually see evil all around us and that influences us also. We like to do evil. It is our choice. We choose to commit adultery or lie to our fellow human beings. But there is an age of accountability, a point at which we are able to make these choices. But little children, I believe the Bible teaches, are covered by the sacrifice of Jesus. He died to save them because they were not yet guilty of doing or practicing sin or understanding the difference. That is the difference between them and adults. Adults understand wrong and yet still do it.
All of what I am saying here can be demonstrated through biblical passages. I am not taking the time to do so, but I can.
Condemns people to infinite punishment for finite transgressions including such things as having a bad attitude when one says one of the names of Yahweh, falling in love with persons who have the wrong genitals, and being skeptical of a being who purposefully cloaks itself in mystery as some sort of test of faith (a questionable virtue hinestly).
Wrongdoing is not following what is right, what is good. Since God is pure and holy, He will not accept sinful beings in His presence except for judgment of their vile deeds. Although there are decrees of judgment those who do not want to accept God and His righteous decrees will be separated from His presence because a bad person, a bad apple, will contaminate the whole flock/batch, just as a little yeast spreads through the whole loft of bread. A righteous Judge will not allow evil or wrongdoing to go unpunished. What GOOD judge would do that? There is a penalty for sin (wrongdoing). It is separation from a pure and holy God. Heaven would not be good if we had a mass of people all doing their own thing. It would be just like what we witness here on earth. Now, God created humanity for eternity, to enjoy Him forever. So, when a human being rejects God he/she is separated from the presence of God forever. That would be hell, everyone doing whatever evil is in their heart to do.
If this is your objective moral standard it isn't good enough to satisfy my moral intuition. If that is the behavior and decrees of a perfect moral being I have no interest in being moral whatsoever and instead intend to concentrate my efforts on human welfare and the betterment of quality of life.
Sure it is good enough. As an atheist how do they get to a standard that is anything but arbitrary and changing? How can good vary and fluctuate in respect to the same issue (and I picked abortion as an example in other posts)? How do we identify 'good' when two different people believe the opposite is the case? Who is right then? How does that make sense, two people with opposite views on the same thing both being right? How can it?
If there is no ideal, no best, how is good determined? What best do you have to compare it to and how do you ever get better when the standard is always fluctuating. Better in relation to what??? So, demonstrate that atheism can logically make sense of goodness. Why is what you believe good? It is because you believe it? What about me who believes the opposition? Can't what I believe be good if everything is relative and subjective? No, it can't. Why? Because it goes against the laws of logic that you cannot contravene and still make sense of ANYTHING. So, you can be an atheist, but you can't be consistent and you can't be logical as to morality. Show me otherwise by providing something objective and universally true, by necessity. I do not believe you can without God.
Thus theism and Christianity are more reasonable than atheism in this aspect and others.
It fails the test of livability. I do not want to "be next" under this system.
No, you are wrong once again. I have given reasons why it does not and they are reasonable to believe. To get honest you would have to tackle all the points I have made and refute them as unreasonable. That means we have to delve deeper into morality and justice.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Alternatively, you are having an imaginary conversation with your ultra ego because you are lonely.Why did "YHWH" create humans?Slavery."there was not a man to till the ground." Till = dig = mine.A better question I have asked hundreds of theists, is why did god create anything, at all, in the first place? and like much of the bible, I have never had a answer that couldn't easily be debunked.For His pleasure. Because He wanted to, not because He had to.So simply put then we were created for his own self serving reasons as his toys or pets, to be discarded (killed and disposed of) at will as he could make more when he got fed up and bored with his old toys. He certainly knew when to dispose of his childish things didn't he; anytime he felt like it.
No, we were created to experience a relationship with Him and learn of His love for us, that we may choose to love Him, yet we chose not to in Adam as our federal head, and we choose not to personally. Even though we have rejected God He has graciously revealed Himself to us and the problem our rejection has caused. We witness it everywhere - humanities inhumanity to each other because we think we know better. You think you know better. You, a limited, finite human being think you know yet when questioned you show how inconsistent in your thinking you are.
Yes. He gave us extremely good examples of his behavior in stories such as that of poor Job and his ten children where human life was, well, ten a penny.
Job understood the principle that you do not. He understands that God is the giver and taker of life. He understands that if God takes a life He can restore that life. We as Christians understand this principle. I understand that when an innocent human being is murdered, such as in the case of abortion, It is restored by God to a better place, within His loving presence.
Job also understood that God is just. He understood that God would not do wrong, as did his friends, and that human beings are wicked and act wickedly when they live outside of God's good decrees and commandments.
In an atheistic worldview, the atheist still has to account for evil. How do you do that as an atheist? Go ahead, explain how this is done. First, what is the standard by which you, as an atheist, judge evil? Can you answer that? I would like to tear it apart in its unreasonableness. You judge God on the standard He provided (the irony), but for you, where would such a standard originate from? You don't understand that as Creator He is not under the same standard you are, and I will explain what I mean. He says to you, "Thou shalt not steal." Can God steal? No, He created the universe and owns it. It is His right to do with it as He pleases, and He pleases to act according to His nature - justly. Would a good God allow evil to go unpunished? No, He would not be just if He did that.
Marvelous isn't it, that the bible, as do apologist , give us 'reasons' why god destroys humans including children. But has only ever given one reason for the creation of the humans species; "there was not a man to till the ground". Genesis 2:5
God never takes an innocent life without restoring it, and it is the human who takes the life in his/her immorality, except in the case of natural disasters.
Genesis 2:5, "But has only ever given one reason for the creation of the humans species..." What nonsense.
God created humanity for a relationship with them, made them in His image and likeness, just not to the limitlessness of His Being - reasoning beings who could know God - and enjoy Him forever. Adam chose not to cultivate this relationship in which God would teach him and guide him. God 'walked' with him in the Garden until the day evil was found in him (that is the day Adam chose to disobey God's good command). God's presence was with Adam until he sinned. Thus, the evil of humanity came about. Humans chose to live apart from God. Evil is living outside the light or God. Those who do not know God live in darkness, the darkness of their limited minds.
IMO, you continue to show your lack of understanding of the biblical God in your ire and countless posts in which you collapse texts from the greater context, twist words, do not understand them in the light of the ANE culture and a host of other exegetical errors.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
That's one way of looking at things.
Yes, it is.
I would suggest that humanity created gods, as a way of answering questions that couldn't be answered.
I agree with you, except for one, the biblical God.
Two valid hypotheses, though I think that mine is somewhat more logical as it doesn't rely upon super-nature to answer unanswerable questions.
Alright then, nothing supernatural. What are you left with?
Did the universe begin to exist, in your opinion? If so:
Is there intention behind the universe, or do you think there is nothing behind the universe, it is a self-creation in the sense that nothing existed and then something existed. Something came from nothing!!! Explain how this can happen if you believe it can.
Next, if there is no intention then there is no purpose for the universe being here. Intention requires mindfulness. If there is no purpose why do we as human beings keep looking for it? Are we being consistent with such a universe as that?
If there is no intention there is no meaning to the universe or behind it. Thus, there is nothing good or bad about anything ultimately. Thus, as an atheist you would be lying to yourself by acting as if there is. Sure you can make up meaning, but ultimately it means nothing.
If there is no intention behind or to the universe then where do values come from? I'm talking about the ontology or origins of values from non-living matter. I am again speaking of the transition between non-life and life. How does that come about/happen? Where do you ever witness that coming about? It goes against our experience. Morality is not logical or consistent with an atheist worldview.
Why do atheists seek meaning? Why do they understand information and order and detail and complexity that would have to come from chaos, in their worldview? Why would that happen? No reason, right? Reason requires mindfulness. Why is there uniformity of nature, these natural laws that keep sustaining the universe and things in the universe? Why are we able to do science in a universe that is operational by chance happenstance (no intent)?
Why do we discover (no intent) the laws of nature? These questions are usually left blank by atheists. Do you care to answer them, or should I expect the usual silence?
How does an atheist worldview make sense of any of this? Why is it so inconsistent with its starting points? Why? Because it is an unreasonable system of thought. Its foundation is rotten.
Also interesting that you attribute a god with a specific gender (him)....Men creating gods in their own image, for sure.
That is how the biblical God is revealed, in a masculine language that claims to be God's revelation to humanity. And it is reasonable to believe in this God for a number of reasons I have spoken of previously in other posts and on other threads, too.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Do you think the standards of evidence in a court of law are too high? Would you be willing to be found guilty of murder based on anecdote, hearsay, or spectral evidence? No? Then why should we accept such a low standard for gods...something arguably more important if true?It depends on what you are referencing.This doesn't answer my question - what I am referencing is right there in the questions.
What, the law today, or the law of the ANE? I spoke of what the law required, as laid out by Simon Greenleaf, who wrote a treasise that is still in use today. He found that the testimony of the Evangelists would stand up in a court of law today. I think that if the evidence is circumstantial or non-conclusive, the charged person should be given the benefit of the doubt - innocent until proven guilty. I think that is a good standard. If the evidence is solid or if there are two or three credible witnesses I think the person should be charged.
I also explained to you and others that with the change of covenants came a change in the law. We, as Christians, are not under the OT law but under the grace of God.
No, I would not want to be found guilty on anecdotal evidence or hearsay. I fail to see how that ties in with God. God has given all kinds of reasonable evidence, of which you are brushing off. I offered to debate you on the subject of prophecy, as to its reasonableness. That is just one of many strands of evidence in the Christian's arsenal.
Not only that, I will be glad to compare and contrast our two different worldviews, since you have stated once again you are an atheist. I actually initiated this thread for you. I am tired of hearing you and others charging Christians with believing a myth and standing in judgment of our belief when you can offer nothing BETTER.
Again, if your proof for the Christian deity is built on the unreasonableness of all other positions, then there is no way you should have come to a conclusion. It is simply not possible that you have evaluated all other positions. Your reasoning is flawed and disingenuous.I don't have to evaluate all possibilities on the impossibility of the contrary.Well, yah, actually you do. If your view is that no other view is possible, then you necessarily need to know all other views.
You are being ridiculous. One object plus another object equals two objectives. 1+1=2. It does not equal something else. If Christianity is true then all other gods and religious beliefs (of which I include atheism as a belief) are false. It is as simple as that. But it is difficult to convince and unbeliever since they have invested their whole outlook on another system of thought. Therefore, I have challenged you, based on atheism, to show yours is more reasonable than my Christian belief in the area of morality, of which you have to date avoided doing.
A single super complex "explanation" (that is 'beyond our comprehension') is not more simple than multiple sensible explanations.How is that super complex? God!God, by your own definition, is infinite. That makes god as an explanation infinitely complex. Occam's razor favors multiple explanations given that they are infinitely less complex.
You are confusing God as a person with God as an explanation. God as an explanation is simple.
A subject can be an object? If a subject is the object in your objective morality...wouldn't that make your morality subjectivev?I have already discussed this with you in previous posts on the other thread. This is a definist or equivocation fallacy. [...]So, a subject is or isn't the basis of your objective morality?
How does 'subject' apply to God? I think you are confusing two different things, that a subjective being cannot be objective. Then how does God qualify? He knows all things. How would His knowledge be subjective?
You demonstrate you do not understand atheism. For me, it is a derivation of evaluating my former beliefs and finding them wanting - not a starting place as you continue to assert. I don't reject gods as a possibility,Not true, you do reject Him by looking at the universe in a solely mechanical or m[e]tho[do]logical naturalistic way. There is not supernatural consideration involved.Mythological naturalism? I think that would describe your view better than mine!
Forgive me, a spelling mistake. I meant methodological naturalism. Never heard of myological naturalism before, have you? You ascribed to the latter view as reasonable in a previous post.
"Magic can explain anything and (because of this) nothing. That is the very reason why conclusions derived from methodological naturalism makes so much more sense."
And are you once again suggesting my views are built upon myth, but not yours?
It is your own black and white thinking that has you confused. You are conflating all gods as the one you believe in - I don't.
See above explanation.
Also, if someone can define supernatural as something other than "unexplained by our current understanding of nature" and demonstrate it, I would accept it. Spend less time pigeonholing, and you might make some progress changing a mind...perhaps your own.
Are you saying that something supernatural is not personal, like a force of nature that contains no person? How would that be reasonable? Are are you thinking of a cosmic 'consciousness' that is not personal? How could that be thinking?
I just don't view them as very probable given the sad state of evidence in their favor. I also don't discount the supernatural as a possibility, but until it can be demonstrated there is little reason to build it into an epistemology and/or a life philosophy.You keep saying that. Demonstrate is rather than assert it.I've already stated what the evidence is "anecdote, hearsay, and spectral evidence". This bring us back to the question you dodged: Would you be willing to be found guilty of murder based on anecdote, hearsay, or spectral evidence? If not, then you concede the point.
You will not accept the evidence. It is all around you. Creation speaks of the glory of God. Try and fathom how it can come about by something devoid of person. I challenge you to make a reasonable case, but first make a reasonable case that atheism is more reasonable than Christianity in obtaining moral values.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I justify God allowing Israel to experience chattel slavery in Egypt as a typological lesson on what bondage is. As pointed out, I justify the type of slavery or servitude practiced in Israel as different from New World slavery or ANE slavery, a cut above. I did this in Post # 223.That makes no sense. God allowed Israel to experience chattel slavery....
Yes, Israel experienced chattel slavery in Egypt.
Now it came about in the course of those many days that the king of Egypt died. And the sons of Israel sighed because of the bondage, and they cried out; and their cry for help because of their bondage rose up to God.
The Lord said, “I have surely seen the affliction of My people who are in Egypt, and have given heed to their cry because of their taskmasters, for I am aware of their sufferings.
Now, behold, the cry of the sons of Israel has come to Me; furthermore, I have seen the oppression with which the Egyptians are oppressing them.
Furthermore I have heard the groaning of the sons of Israel, because the Egyptians are holding them in bondage, and I have remembered My covenant.
Say, therefore, to the sons of Israel, ‘I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage. I will also redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments.
And the Egyptians treated us harshly and afflicted us, and imposed hard labor on us.
God was giving Israel an object lesson. He was instructing them never to treat others the way they had been treated in Egypt.
You shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and you shall be careful to observe these statutes.
and then codified chattel slavery into Mosaic law? If God was trying to teach Israel a lesson regarding chattel slavery..then why would it be condoned...by God?! This reasoning doesn't stand up.
No, He did not codify chattel slavery. He forbid Israel from practicing the same harsh treatment that Israel experienced in Egypt. I have explained this to you in previous posts and you keep coming back to it. You ignored my answer. Chattle slavery is about property. This is not the slavery of Israel, as I noted in a previous post. I did not notice you added another post on that thread, but I'm swamped with catch up here at the moment and I am busy tomorrow too.
“You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
“You shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt.
You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes.
The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, FOR you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God.
So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.
“You shall not detest an Edomite, for he is your brother; you shall not detest an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land.
Deuteronomy 24:17-19 (NASB)
17 “You shall not pervert the justice [a]due an alien or [b]an orphan, nor take a widow’s garment in pledge. 18 But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and that the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing.
19 “When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the alien, for the [c]orphan, and for the widow, in order that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.
17 “You shall not pervert the justice [a]due an alien or [b]an orphan, nor take a widow’s garment in pledge. 18 But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and that the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing.
19 “When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the alien, for the [c]orphan, and for the widow, in order that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.
You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing.
I have covered Exodus 21:7 and other passages that speak of slavery in a rather long couple of posts to you.
As I have said, the type of 'slavery' or servitude is not the same as chattel slavery where people are harshly mistreated. Where Israel ignored such statutes they went against God's commands to treat aliens well. I have covered the property clause and given reasons why it was not the type as experienced in Egypt or the kind we associate with the kind practiced in the USA.
God: You see, Israel, chattel slavery denies basic human dignity.Israel: Yes, God, we see. We'll never do that to anyone.God: No, No!! You've got that wrong - You'll never do that to MY people. Everyone else is fair game.Israel: Oh...uh..ok.39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
God orders the Israelites to make a distinction between the Hebrew servants and the those of foreign nations. They were:
· Allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them...
· Allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them...
· Finally, it should be noted that the passage says that they "can" make them slaves for life--not that they "were automatically" slaves for life. Somehow, freedom was the default and lifetime slavery only an 'option'.
The Great Escape Clause…?
Deut 23.15 has this fascinating passage:
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him. (Deut 23.15)...
Deut 23.15 has this fascinating passage:
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him. (Deut 23.15)...
"A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to its master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of (Deut 23:16-17). This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations and is explained as due to Israel's own history of slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution."
Remember also, Exodus 21:16 forbids kidnapping, thus a slave would have to be bought, per above, thus not against their will.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
An example of God's moral purity and holiness, 5.4 million children under the age of 5 died in 2019.
No, an example of God's witness to humanity when human beings think they know better than God and create unjust laws and practice all kinds of evil. As I have said many times, the evil you do affects others and the evil a whole system of justice does that is not just affect in some cases billions, such as in the case of abortion.
With abortion, the number of deaths this year is close to 32 million. Weigh that.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
If all I have is preference there is no moral good, just opinion based on likes, dislikes, and/or force or charisma.We are talking at cross purpose here. I don't care what you call the actual standard I use that informs me to not kill people because that isn't what I want the world to be like it has the effect of making me and most humans atheist or theist adopt some legal standard.
Well, you may not care but I do. I want justice to be equal for all and I want laws based on what is actually right, not on some subjective or collective relative opinion. But nevertheless, that is not the gist of this topic. The topic is which morality is more reasonable to believe, that proposed by Atheism or Christianity? If you do not have an objective standard why should I think your subjective opinion is better than mine? And if you do, what is that opinion on specific things such as abortion? Is it okay to kill innocent unborn human beings because you don't want them?
Then, how does such a standard originate from chance happenstance? There are many hurdles to straddle.
If this isn't morality it is still enough for me and enough for a working legal system.
Fine for you but what about those who disagree and are willing to fight you over your "opinion?" If it works for you, fine, but what about those who it does not work for because it is unjust? It only looks after the wellbeing of some.
At this point I think you may be defining morality out of existence which is fine I'll just need a word that means what I am actually trying to say which is working consensus legal/moral opinion such that it informs itself to human welfare (since I don't really care to participate in a system with other goals this works for me and I certainly don't need any god to tell me not to kill people all willy nilly.)
So it is about you! What is good is about you? Do you think your system of thought as an atheist is morally justifiable? If so, justify why your subjective opinion is better than mine and how you measure better when there is no fixed reference as a comparison???
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Although I can reason killing innocent people is wrong, if someone else thinks the opposite it becomes a battle of willsIncorrect. In a social species such as humans it is a function of consensus.
Again, that is an appeal to popularity. What makes that right? Very often there is not a consensus, such as with abortion, capital punishment, same-sex marriage, even adultery as the norms and conventions change.
A sense of fairness (proto morality) can be observed to a degree in canines and to a larger degree in apes. Humans have codified these moral consensus decisions into law. These laws tend to reflect what is in general considered to favor human wellbeing.
Fairness, in whose mind(s)? Wellbeing in whose mind(s)? Why are they right? What do they have as their fixed foundation in determining right and wrong? As TradeSecret said, they borrow from a system that can answer such questions while denying it at the same time.
This is unsurprising under the current accepted models as those tribes which did not cooperate and care for one another as well would not have survived to pass on their genes. In as much as many behaviors would seem to be at least partly determined by genetics I would expect any race of sentient social tool users to develop something we can recognize as "morality".
Until recently some of these tribes still practiced cannibalism and other atrocities by today's standards like Sati or Apartheid or segregation for the "wellbeing" of the elites. In other cultures, the elite oligarchy or dictatorship has in mind the survival of their small powerful group. China and North Korea comes to mind but I could cite many, many more elitist cultures, one being the Caste system in India. There is a lot of unfairness about such systems. Some cultures of not long ago practiced kidnapping and slavery, even exploitation of women and sex trafficing.
But with the OT Ten Commandments, even these elitist societies recognize murder as wrong, as long as it is not the murder they do. Abortion is the greatest holocaust in the history of the world to date.
The point is that it isn't a stretch that humans would object to getting killed and understand that taking measures against individuals who cannot be trusted not to kill is preferred to no such measure. What else is necessary in order for us to agree that killing people is wrong than the mutual agreement that we would not like to kill each other, be killed by each other or see each other killed?
Tell that to Kim Jong Un or Xi Jinping.
This can be applied to any given law. I would not like to be stolen from. Can we agree not to steel from one another? I would not like to be owned by another human being as their property. Can we agree not to own one another? I would not like you to violate my bodily autonomy or the sanctity of my home. Can we agree not to violate each other's bodily autonomy or the sanctity of our homes? This us actually super easy and requires no god(s) and no metaphysical codex of absolute right and wrong written into the fabric of reality. The onus therefore of proving any god(s) or any such code on the one claiming they exist. Humans agreeing to live in (relative) harmony with one another is not evidence for any such.
We can, but others can't. That is the problem. Some do not recognize some of these aforementioned things as wrong. But since you do, are you proposing an objective moral standard? If so, what is the best you derive that from since I have shown you that people do not have the same views on fairness or wellbeing? In fact, wars are fought over these very disputes. Two different countries, cultures, tribes, groups, or individuals fight over differences of opinion on such matters.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Atheism has no morality. Nor does it purport to do so. It is a non-system of individuals who share no common doctrines or dogma. They simply state they are non-faith people.Hence, it is impossible for them to argue they have morality - they don't - not as atheists. The only morality they could possibly use is morality they have borrowed from other worldviews. This is their cake - they cannot eat it as well. Either they have morality - which means they have a shared doctrine or dogma or they have no morality of their own - but borrow it from everywhere else.
I agree with you 100%. I would argue that what atheists call morality is their 'moral' preference, their likes and dislikes. They impose those on others by laws. But what is good or right they have no ideal or fixed standard for, thus you are again correct, they borrow from a system of thought that does. We as Christians have a solid foundation for right and wrong, they do not. We can justify our worldview in this area, they can't.
How of course they are able to measure whether it is good or not - is going to be interesting. They will try and say science - but this is nonsense. Not because science is nonsense - because it is not - but because science is objective - allegedly. Morality is subjective. And cannot be tested scientifically.
I agree that morality cannot be tested through empirical means that science uses. It requires a different standard. I believe there is an objective morality that comes by revelation from God. I believe the Ten Commandments deals with the objective standard. I see most countries today have laws against murder, adultery, purgery, theft, and for custody by parents for their children until they reach a certain age, which varies among cultures. These, will perhaps not universal, are largely accepted as wrong.
On that note, I agree the founding fathers of your country (USA) got it right in the Declaration of Independence, that all men (humanity) are created equal. If that aspect is ignored in the law of the land justice is not equal. Thus, abortion is wrong. Not all human beings are treated with equality or dignity. Some are horribly exploited and discriminated against to the point of dehumanization.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Again, that begs the question of what is morally right? I gave you the example of abortion. Was it right then or now??? Second, if laws are made by subjective individuals, what makes those people right in their assessment?I don't think it's got much to do with what's 'morally right," it just addresses why making laws based on morality requires those laws to be changeable with the majority view.
Majority view? Is that what you base right upon? That is an appeal to the people or argumentum ad populum. It is based on the false notion that something is true just because the majority accepts it as true. And what are such laws by the majority based upon can be an appeal to emotion? Nazi Germany's persecution of the Jews was both of those, IMO. They villainized the Jews, then passed laws expressing that bias. Were those laws just? No!
So, if you want just laws they must be based on what is actually right regardless of how many people like such laws. Abortion is just morally wrong, except were there is no choice in that the woman and unborn will die in the case of a tubal pregnancy. At least one can be saved. It should not be the woman's right to CHOOSE to kill another INNOCENT human being. If humans are to be treated equally under the law, that does not give some humans the 'right' to decide whether or not an innocent human being is killed.
Again, I question your values in respect to majority rule as to the vehicle that determines the 'good' or moral 'right.' And I question how you, if you are an atheist, gets to the good and the right without a fixed ideal best to compare values against. If they are arbitrarily made up why are your views "better" than any other view?
If you disagree with a law, there are plenty of paths of recourse. It's just democracy. If your moral objections are compelling, make the argument and convince the majority, and bang, the law now comports with your morals, but until you make the argument, you don't get to say "This is moral, therefore it's legal."
You country is a Republic but the party in power or the party that controls public opinion so often packs the courts with liberal judges that think in a particular way that legislates rather than inteprets the rules or laws. What makes them right other than force or mob rule, as witnessed by the riots under the guise of peaceful protests.
These are two separate and distinct notions . It's a pretty simple principle. You yourself make plenty of arguments like "well it was moral at the time to stone gays, but that changed when JEsus showed up somehow."
Stoning was an OT law. It is not carried through to the NT as a physical punishment. Remember, Jesus came to a people who lived under the OT Law. Jesus died to instate a new covenant. That means the old does not apply and there was a transition taking place during the 1st-century between the OT and NT.
During the Old Covenant, an if/then covenant, God illustrated His holiness and purity by laws that addressed the times they lived in (they came from a chattel slave state - Egypt). They were instructed not to adopt the same practices when they entered the Promised Land. In the case of marriage, God's decree was a contract or covenant between one man and one woman. It was a sacred bond (still is) and it was symbolic and typological of the holy union between Christ and His Bride. Thus, the covenant between God and Israel was a holy covenant not to be broken without punishment. Since the punishment of sin is death, breaking of some of the OT laws required the death penalty. God sanctioned sex only between a married man and a woman. Adultery or man with a man was forbidden under the covenant. It did not reflect the lesson God was teaching Israel directly and us as believers today indirectly. The stoning of the guilty party - the adulterer or man with a man - was the punishment. It was sanctioned by God as something that should not be done by the community of believers since they agreed to live to God.
With the New Covenant our judgment is in heaven. What is done now is answerable when we stand before God, and as Christians Christ stands before God on our behalf, as our Advocate and High Priest. Christ has taken our judgment. We are free from the penalty of the Law, but we also have a changed heart in that we do not or should not practice that which is wrong. We no longer live in a theocracy as believers, but in our hearts the law is hidden. We recognize that the Ten Commandments are just. We are not under the law as Christians, although we recognize the goodness of the Ten Commandments. They are a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ since we recognize it is still wrong to murder, steal, lie, covet, commit adultery, dishonour parents.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Are or should laws be based on what is right and wrong? How can the two not be blended?Morality shifts over time, and laws change accordingly, in a democratic society. Christians once thought it was moral to own black people. It was the better moral judgement of others, including some other Christians, that it is in fact immoral, in spite of what's in the bible on the matter. In any case, at least one group of Christians was reading the bible incorrectly.
Morals shift if there is no objective, fixed standard. Humans make laws that shift. That brings up the question of what is true to what is?
Some Christians went against the teaching of Scripture but it was also Christians who fought for the Emancipation Proclamation and the end of slavery, based on Scripture and God's best for humanity that is experienced in His kingdom.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
We are to treat others like we would want to be treated (the Golden Rule).
I can't speak for everyone who is a Christian but I see human beings regardless of their skin tone. I am to love my neighbour and Jesus defined our neighbour in the example of the Good Samaritan. Paul defined love. I stand by that definition.
Love is kind. Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
ATHEIST =/= CREEDAtheists deny God in one of a few ways. They either see no evidence for God, or they reject the evidence that is offered, or they don't care enough to seek God because they have not examined their beliefs well enough.OR, perhaps they believe "YHWH" IS REAL and just don't give a flying flip.
As I said in my statement, "they don't care enough to seek God"
(because they have not examined their beliefs well enough)
(IFF) the cosmos is controlled by a megalomaniacal lunatic who demands my fealty on pain of eternal torture (THEN) FUCK THAT GUY.
Again, a megalomaniacal lunitic is not the biblical God. I have gone in depth enough via previous posts to give reasons why that is not the case. It has to do with sin and God's purity. Why should He welcome you into His presence while your mission is to continually disrespect and disobey His good commands for your well being and accommodate your self-centered and selfish wants?
I'D RATHER BE ETERNALLY TORTURED THAN TO SHOW OBSEQUIOUS DEFERENCE TO (human) PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES "PREISTS" AND "PROPHETS" AND "TEACHERS".
You get what you give!
As you sow, so you reap.
(IFF) "YHWH" wants to speak to me (THEN) let them SPEAK.
The biblical testimony is that He has. He chose to speak through a people, Israel. What is needed for salvation and a right standing before God has been revealed.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you deny God or gods what is left but a human evaluation of life, being, origins, etc?I wouldn't say "deny".
de·ny
1. To declare untrue; assert to be false: "A senior officer denied that any sensitive documents had been stored there" (Scott Ritter).
2. To refuse to believe; reject: deny the existence of evil spirits.
3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow: The official denied any wrongdoing.
4.
a. To decline to grant or allow; refuse: deny the student's request; denied the prisoner food or water.
b. To give a refusal to; turn down or away: The protesters were determined not to be denied.
c. To restrain (oneself) especially from indulgence in pleasures.
Most of those definitions apply.
It's more like "fail to acknowledge the value or significance of".
See definition 3.
It's more like "ignore after some thorough investigation".
If you ignore God or gods you form your own opinions devoid of God. It is once again a form of denial.
Matthew 10:32-33 (NASB)
32 “Therefore everyone who [a]confesses Me before men, I will also confess [b]him before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever [c]denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
32 “Therefore everyone who [a]confesses Me before men, I will also confess [b]him before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever [c]denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
We all start with "human evaluation".
And find out its limitations. We need a greater perspective. A revelation from God would give that greater perspective.
Even you started with "human evaluation".
While I was an unbeliever before I believed, I now have a different perspective. I look to God for understanding, and even though I have to evaluate His wording through my human filter, I believe there is a correct interpretation of His words or else communication would be impossible. That correct interpretation comes from finding the Author's meaning, not interjecting my own meaning into the text.
Why do you think so many "christians" disagree with each other?
They do not try to understand what God is saying. Their bias, influence from others, and denominationalism gets in the way. His Word is our standard.
It's because "human evaluation" and "human interpretation" is inescapable.
Even though I use my human filter - my mind - I try to get the Author's meaning. That is possible, so there is a correct INTERPRETATION.
You can certainly claim it's "something else" like "holy inspiration" or something, but you'd better be able to back it up with tons of charisma or else you're likely to be burned alive by your fellows.
The back up is reasonable and logical. I usually use prophecy, the resurrection, the internal consistency and unity of the word to substantiate my points. With prophecy I refer to human history of the biblical times too.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheists usually incorporate humanism in their belief system.That's not the same thing.
Okay, let be be more specific, secular humanism.
Without God or gods you are not left with a personal being but a force which is not directed by intent or purpose. It just is. So an atheist would be a secular humanist.
See the definition under the heading "Ultimate Reality" in the following article about secular humanism as 'vehemently atheistic.'
Definition of secular humanism
: HUMANISM sense 3especially : humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion
***
humanism, secular humanism(noun)
the doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural
the doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural
Secular Humanism
The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism embraces human reason, ethics, social justice and philosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision making. It posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god.
The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism embraces human reason, ethics, social justice and philosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision making. It posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You're conflating QUANTA with QUALIA.1 + 1 = 2 therefore I love you.Grab hold of oneness, will you? The concept of one plus one can be demonstrated in the material world (empirically).HOW DOES THE PRINCIPLE OF AXIOMS APPLY TO MORALITY??
They are established by the Ten Commandments. Most nations, most cultures, most groups, most individuals of the world recognize the fundamentals of the Ten Commandments as they relate to human beings - do not murder, steal, lie, covet, commit adultery, and do honour your parents. In most legal systems these principles are ruled upon.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Show me why you think this god is worthy of worship and consideration.Because it made everything without demanding worship.
So you do not believe in giving honour and gratitude where they are due? Worship is giving that honour, adoration, awe, gratitude, and appreciation to a Being of greatest glory, majesty, purity, holiness, goodness, and worth.
Because it made everything without threatening eternal torture.
While the Bible uses much apocalyptic language and metaphors about hell, I believe that hell is an experience devoid of the biblical God. If you don't want a relationship with Him why would He include you in His presence? The eternal darkness of hell is a life devoid of God.
Is a parent "worthy" of "worship" simply because they made their children?
No, a parent is worthy of honour and respect being your elder and being responsible for your life and taking care of you. Worship is an awesome wonder and appreciation of the majesty and glory that is God.
Is an engineer "worthy" of "worship" simply because they designed some robots?
No, only God is worthy of worship. You can respect and appreciate a person and their ability, but to bow down in total reveerence and obeisance is a different matter.
I made you robots, now worship me or be tortured forever in the simulated hell that I specifically designed in order to give myself leverage.
We are designed but we have our own wills, a volition to do what we want or desire to do. A robot is programmed to do the will of its maker. We have a choice but suffer the consequences when we don't obey what is good. A robot does not have a mind of its own. It is only as good as its program and programmer.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Before the Bible was codified...There's a significant gap between Abraham and "codification".
As with most ancient history, so what? Moses is said to be the human author of the Pentateuch, which includes the account of Abraham.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is reasonable to believe in ISHTAR (2150 BCE) because the holy EPIC OF GILGAMESH predates ABRAHAM (1927 BCE).How is that showing me that such a god is reasonable to believe?It is reasonable to believe the EARLIEST records.
Are they the earliest records, though?
I have shown you that Moses compiled a whole bunch of records earlier than his writings. Just because we do not have archaeological proof today does not mean those records were fictitious or later than the Epic of Gilgamesh. What we do find from such records is that in some parts they agree with the biblical accounts, such as a worldwide flood. An explanation of these accounts is that they have been passed down from Noah and the oral translation corrupted over a period of time. Thus, Moses sets the record straight by an actual revelation from God in which he speaks with God, as well as compiling an account from what records he had access to.
Presumably those records would be the most accurate, since they would be recorded the people closest to the actual events.
You are presuming a lot. The biblical accounts have a far more in-depth account of the histories and interactions of Israel with other ntions than anything else we find. The confirmation in history and archaeology from these biblical documents is good.
IF YOU HAVE SOME SPECIAL DEFINITION OF "REASONABLE" THAT YOU'D LIKE ME TO CONSIDER, PLEASE MAKE IT EXPLICIT.
Just the standard definitions of the word:
rea·son·a·ble
1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.
Reasons to believe in God as the sensible explanation rather than chance happenstance is because the one is intelligent and logical, the other devoid of such things. Thus, with a rational being you would expect to find order and design in the universe and with God's creature - humankind. With chance happenstance, why? It is reasonable to believe that an almighty, omniscient God can do things that exceed our limited abilities. Not so with chance happenstance or something impersonal. There would be no reason with chance happenstance. Things just happen. The universe, if it had a cause must have an explanation since we find and trace back explanations to the beginning, but unless origins have been revealed by such a being they are guesswork.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you value accurate PROPHECY, perhaps you should worship BLACKROCK. [LINK]What point do you want me to glean? Blackrock was a financial data keeper, programmed by a man. I watched from your set start point one conspiracy theory and assertion after another until the Trump part (1:32:00).BLACKROCK has demonstrated their consistent ability to predict future events and capitalize on these predictions in an extremely QUANTIFIABLE and profitable manner (prophet).It's not a "theory". It's extremely real.Do you think we should worship BLACKROCK?
What is there predictability rate in percentage?
No, they do not deserve worship for they do not make the claim to be your Creator and I am highly doubtful of the information you provided that they are trustworthy.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Show me how.Same as you. Moral instinct. Sense of fairness.Start with how morals come about for an atheist and what makes them anything but a relativistic and subjective preference.Without explicit MORAL AXIOMS, your claim to "universal" "objective" morality is indistinguishable from your personal preference.Please present your moral mathematics.For example, [MORAL MATHEMATICS]
Again, the presentation relies on your merit, your good deeds outweighing your bad deeds. It does not take into account God's moral purity and holiness, and the wrongs we have done that deserve addressing. Remember, God is a good Judge. He does not wink at evil or wrongdoing but addresses it. Thus, I realize my good deeds do not measure up to His perfection and that I have fallen short of the mark He has set for intimate fellowship and peace and joy with Him. That is why I look to the works of another, the Lord Jesus Christ in setting my record straight.
So, my moral maths is a realization that I do not measure up to God's perfection and goodness. Thus, once again, I take the means God has given me to do that. I no longer continue to strive to do the impossible. I see through the example of OT Israel that they were abject failures in maintaining their relationship with God. They continually ignored Him and His moral compass. His word is my plumb line. Through it I realize I am not good enough in my own merit to have a close relationship with such a pure and holy Person. I can't come into His presence and live there on my own merit, only on that of Jesus Christ.
Romans 3:5-18 (NASB)
5 But if our unrighteousness [a]demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) 6 May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “Let us do evil that good may come”? [b]Their condemnation is just.
9 What then? [c]Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written,
“There is none righteous, not even one;
11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16 Destruction and misery are in their paths,
17 And the path of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
If that is all you've got why should I believe you when I hold different beliefs about morality?
Unless you can show me that your beliefs are well founded and ring true to what is the case, the actual good, your moral system is a facade, something you hide behind. Show me it has what is necessary by showing me it is objective for starters, or at least reasonable to believe it is objective. That is step one. If that involves your god, then show me how your god is reasonable to believe. Show me what evidence that god as given you so that you might believe in such a god.
You see, I am well prepared to show you that my God meets the burden of proof but what has been written. I can also show you how your god contradicts my God, so at least one of the two is false.
Therefore, I suggest you lay out truths about your god and why that god is true and I will contrast your beliefs with the Christian God and show you why what you believe is not as reasonable to believe. Whether you still choose to believe is your choice of course.
But that's the funny thing. We discovered our moral instincts in exactly the same way. And we believe basically the same thing (ethics).
Do we? And who is borrowing from whose system of morality?
Why do you think mine is just moral instinct? I look to a source outside myself that has revealed.
What is your stance on abortion, same-sex marriage, capital punishment, adultery? We could test our beliefs in each of these areas, or to cut it short let's even see if we think the same about abortion.
The fact that you claim your moral codec is endorsed by some celestial celebrity means nothing to me.
What is objective about your moral choices? Do you have what is necessary for objectivity? If so, lay out your case.
The fact that I might claim my own moral codec is endorsed by some rival celestial celebrity means nothing to you.
Go ahead. Let us test it out. I am game!
What makes one subjective preference 'better' than another?The ability to cobble together PERSUASIVE RHETORIC (AND OR BLUNT FORCE).
(As he reaches for his gun and cocks the trigger. "Persuade me," He says.)
Atheists use qualitative language all the time but how do they distinguish better?Using absolute language to describe your moral preferences is simply a category error.
How is that absolute? It is asking a question. I am inquiring how atheists, using qualitative language, such as 'good, better, evil,' arrive at such a term if there is no ideal or fixed standard on which to compare these values against? Show me how their view reflects anything other than subjectivism or relativism.
Where's your moral mathematics?
See above.
What is their ultimate/final/fixed reference point?The same as yours. Yourself. You are the only thing at the center of your own perception.
No, mine is not myself. I appeal to a reference that is beyond myself. I look to that point of view as a necessary authority on morality and adopt His thoughts on the subject of morality. Morality does not derive from me but Another! I look at His goodness, His nature, the attributes He displays by His word and see they meet the standard - fixed, unchanging, eternal, objective.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Tell me what Nanabozo reveals about evil.NANABOZHO reveals some things may appear to be "good" yet lead to negative consequences.NANABOZHO reveals some things may appear to be "bad" yet lead to positive consequences.
Specifically, what?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
They become their own authority on all things...Do you consider yourself your own authority on what you should believe, or do you delegate that authority to someone else?
I consider myself more knowledgeable than the average Joe. I understand many biblical teaching through forty years of being a Christian (1980). When in doubt about a teaching I use not only my reason, but the reason of others to seek an answer while I compare and contrast what is said to the biblical teaching. I realize that in Jesus Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
How do you know what "YHWH" wants you to do today?
His Word speaks to my spirit and I reason with Him through it. There is no audible communication. He does not direct me to go here or there at a specific time. In reading His word I am taught godly principles and I ponder how they relate to the world around me. Sometimes I have an opportunity to share my faith in little ways. When the opportunity presents itself I will engage but I do not go knocking from door to door. I live by faith, believing that God sets up opportunities. It is up to me to be open and faithful to Him in representing His word to the best of my ability. The more I study His word the more I get to know Him and what He is like. I look upon myself not as an evangelist but as someone who is planting seeds that may or may not sprout, depending on whether God makes them grow. It is not up to me. I do not know how hard of a heart a person has (how receptive to God) but I can judge to a degree by their openness and responses. If a person has a question I will do my best to answer it until I sense that they are trampling God's word, then I shake the dust from my feet. If someone is against God, I will tempt to reason with them since I am convinced God's word is able to penetrate the fortresses of opposition. Again, that is up to His Spirit. But when someone turns nasty it is time to move on. I understand that people resist God because they want to do their own thing. Their own thing leads to chaos and bad consequences. When they reach the end of their rope some reach out to Him in desperation.
Do you ask yourself, or do you ask someone else?
Sometimes I need the counsel of others in understanding deep issues. I listen to that counsel and think how it relates to God's word. I am not afraid of failure because I know He will never leave me or forsake me. Failure helps me grow, even though it is unpleasant. It teaches life lessons. I just live life as best as I can and when an opportunity presents itself I tell others the reasons why I believe what I do. That is why I frequent these threads. It gives the opportunity to test myself and test others.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The fact is that we cannot really be unenlightened regarding Brahman, if the soul is one with Brahman. We cannot be ignorant of Brahman, if we are one with it. If we are ignorant of Brahman's nature, then Brahman is also ignorant of Brahman, since the two are one, which is impossible.Are you aware of your amygdala?
Nope.
Is your tibia aware of your elbow?
No, it does not think or have awareness. I do.
Is every part of your body aware of every other part of your body?
No. I am sometimes aware of my body parts, but they are not aware of me.
How big is your enteric nervous system cluster?
No idea. What does this have to do with anything? The conversation is digesting more and more. What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand? Are you implying or inferring that it does?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
There are logical answers for these apparent contradictions...Does god tempt man?
Tempts, yes, but not in an evil way. God is not tempted by evil, nor does He ever tempt anyone to do evil. God tempts man to seek Him out through His Word, His Son, His Spirit and by the situations God allows human beings to face. He tests man (humanity) to expose our character and also our faith or lack of. Tests teach us about ourselves. Suffering helps us to empathize with others who suffer. Life is a roller-coaster of ups and downs. As believers, God does not give us more than we can handle. His purpose in suffering is to draw us as believers closer to Him.
When Israel strayed from obedience to God then God withdrew His hand of protection. Sometimes He allowed them to heap up their sins until He reached the limit of which He would allow them to go unpunished.
We pray for God to deliver us from evil, but just like in the OT times, sometimes God allows evil for a purpose. We do not want to be tempted by evil to test our character. He does not cause evil, but by removing His hand of protection it finds us. Evil is going against God's good commands and decrees. Sometimes God brings a natural disaster upon us or allows us to experience it in judgment of evil. It either brings out the good in us or hardens us to God. Evil others do affect us, and the evil we do affects others.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
This is not a serious attempt to address the issues but an ad hom attack to mock Christians and Jews as stupid people, which I object to.If pointing out apparent contradictions is "out of bounds" in your opinion, then you must be 100% impervious to critique.The presentation doesn't contain a single ad hominem attack (it's insult free).
I forget the context of my statement. We have exchanged a lot of correspondence. The greater context was not included and I don't want to do the work in investigating.
Therefore, I will grant you the benefit of the doubt. Please include the greater context in the future if you want to make a charge against me. If you want to supply the greater context we can discuss it further.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe I have good reason to believe that "YHWH" is not anything other than a man-made god on the impossibility of the contrary.Go ahead and present those reasons.Abraham invented "YHWH" out of whole cloth.Ahura Mazda and Ishtar both predate Abraham in the physical historical record and even in Jewish mythology.The angels that Abraham describes are suspiciously similar to the Canaanite pantheon from his native Land of Ur.
Composition fallacy. You are inferring that because these writings predate the biblical writings that they were before the biblical God and the biblical God is made up because of them. One alternative is that as humanity drifted away from relationship with God they invented their own religions loosely based on the biblical God and the Bible is God setting the record straight. And that is what we find Moses who had direct communication with God, per the Exodus accounts, doing.
These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.
[ Descendants of Noah ] Now these are the records of the generations of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah; and sons were born to them after the flood.
[ Descendants of Shem ] These are the records of the generations of Shem. Shem was one hundred years old, and became the father of Arpachshad two years after the flood;
You are also implying that because these records are first that these other gods by default predate the biblical God.
Oh, right, and there's also LOGIC.(IFF) "YHWH" is the omniscient, omnimpotent, omnibenevolent sole creator of all things and was not created itself but is the original and principle necessary being that defines "existence" (THEN) EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS MUST BE PART OF "YHWH".
You are confusing pantheism with monogism. God transcends His creation. A tree is not God. A tree is created by God and owes its existence to God.
- Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Alternatively, you are having an imaginary conversation with your ultra ego because you are lonely.Why did "YHWH" create humans?Slavery."there was not a man to till the ground." Till = dig = mine.A better question I have asked hundreds of theists, is why did god create anything, at all, in the first place? and like much of the bible, I have never had a answer that couldn't easily be debunked.
For His pleasure. Because He wanted to, not because He had to. He chose to make a creature like Him that had its own volition that He could have a relationship with and teach. Since God is love He wanted the creature to choose to love Him also, of its own will. If it decided not to do so God would show it the consequences of its limited knowledge in living life with the idea that good would come from it. What humans turn to evil God lets good come of that evil. Some people tire of the evil and seek a solution, which is God. But to get there they first see the consequences of living without God, the consequences of their 'perfect utopian illusion,' the consequences of their relative morality and of their systems of thought.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your words convey your thoughts and how they relate or don't to the topic.You seem to eagerly jump to conclusions regarding my internal motivational schema.
I can see that you have very seldom addressed the topic of the thread. The topic is on morality and which system, Christianity or Atheism is more reasonable to believe. Please give examples of how and where you have answered that topic.
Notice it says Christianity and Atheism, not some other god. That is because I only defend the Christian God in my thinking and I was addressing SkepticalOne specifically, but opened the discussion to others who felt that atheism could be shown to be more reasonable regarding morality. With any other god I will be right there with you in exposing the weakness of such a god.
Are you familiar with the distinction between IMPLY (AND) INFER?
im·ply
1.
a. To express or state indirectly: She implied that she was in a hurry.
b. To make evident indirectly: His fine clothes implied that he was wealthy.
2. To involve by logical necessity
in·fer
1. To conclude from evidence or by reasoning: "For many years the cerebral localization of all higher cognitive processes could be inferred only from the effects of brain injuries on the people who survived them" (Sally E. Shaywitz).
2. To involve by logical necessity; entail: "Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor" (Academy).
3. (Usage Problem) To indicate indirectly; imply.
A speaker or writer implies, a hearer or reader infers;
A speaker could do either.
Implications are incorporated in statements, while inferences are deduced from statements.
Okay.
You could both imply and infer from statements. So what? What is your point?
'God is real' is implied. It is an assertation with no direct evidence. That does not necessarily mean that none can be given. It just means the statement did not give any.
'God is real and these are the reasons why'...is inferred. It provides reasons for the belief whether you deduce the same or not.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The starting point is either a personal Being - God, or naturalism (impersonal matter) and follows it up from that starting point.Nope. This is a false-dichotomy.
Blow away the fluff and you either are created by a personal Creator or you are a product of chance happenstance. There is either intention behind your existent or you are a product of random chance happenstance.
Show me other options are feasible. We can discuss each one.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
There are laws for murder, stealing, perjury, adultery, built into most (if not all) legal systems.Which legal system do you consider "perfect", or you know "the best"?
I do not consider any man-made system perfect. Once finite beings start monkeying around with things everything goes south. I consider God's set of laws (The Ten commandments) a guideline for our legal systems.
Don't the Jews have an extensive framework specifically purpose built for the practical, real-world application of "YHWH"s law?
For the ANE the 613 Mosaic laws were practical. The principles of the Ten Commandments are the ideal.
Do you follow that system?
As with every other human being, I fall short of God's perfect stand of love for Him and love for my fellow human beings, which sums up the Ten Commandments. Thus, I recognize my need for a Saviour, someone who could achieve what I have failed to do on my behalf, and pay the penalty for my sins.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
...but if that being is not almighty (which describes God) or necessary, and has a beginning, such as Nanabozho, then there is a greater cause and explanation.NOUMENON fits your criteria perfectly.EIN-SOF fits your criteria perfectly.χάος fits your criteria perfectly.
What are your reasons? Then I will argue that the biblical God better fits the criterion.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The alternative to a Creator is blind random chance happenstance.There is no such thing as "random".
You are mistaken.
ran·dom
adj.
1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.
Without a personal Creator the universe would have no intent. There would be no reason why anything would act in a specific manner or sustain a definite pattern for any period of time. It would be like rolling a dice and getting six repeatedly. First, something causes the rolling, and second, do this for a million times with the same result each time and you would surely suspect the dice are fixed, designed to roll the same number. Third, now do that in real life, not in theory, without fixing the dice as see how long it would take to get a million rolls of six every time. Fourth, if you think is is probable, explain how without such a being. What is generating the roll?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can't "map" logic by an empirical standard for it is conceptual.You can test logic for efficacy using empirical standards.All mechanical devices are logical systems.
They are not logical systems. You are attributing human qualities to things that are not capable of logic. They display our logic.
They (mechanical devices) owe their origin to our conceptions, our thoughts, our logic, which are not empirical. Without our thoughts, our conceptions or ideas, they would not be possible unless you think a F14 can construct itself without intention? Information and logic is used to create devices. Information is mindful. Logic is mindful. A rock does not think of itself or anything else. The universe, however, is full of things we discover that are mindful, like mathematics. The concept of oneness is not only a product of my mind. Yet it is needed for mathematics to work. Without it, as one cog in the system, math would not be possible. Is it self-evident and universal or is it only you who think such thoughts?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Did you begin to exist, and do you owe your existence to something or someone else?This "question" is immaterial (beyond our epistemological limit).
For you. I have no difficulty knowing I had a beginning and that I am a limited being. I did not create myself. I have enough evidence to believe my reasoning is sound.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You are not the origin of yourself if you had a beginning.I may or may not be the ultimate "origin". That "question" is immaterial (beyond our epistemological limit).
Self-creation! Then you are having a sanity issue. Good luck with your conversation with yourself! (You/or is it me: "Psychiatric ward, I would like to report an issue with myself. Let me put myself in a straight jacket to restrain myself. Stop thinking this way or I will punch myself!")
HOwEveR, I am the starting point of my perception.COGITO, ERGO SUM.First and foremost, you must know thyself.Only then can you start building models of how things relate to you.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Alternatively, you are having an imaginary conversation with your ultra ego because you are lonely.Why did "YHWH" create humans?
For His pleasure. He wanted to create a creature that could think and will and reason, and LOVE, so He created humanity in His image and likeness that we could have fellowship with Him and learn from Him. He did not need to do this. He just did it for His pleasure. Yet we rejected Him as He knew we would, so He lets us go through life searching for meaning and looking for justice. It is only found in Him.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Although we have our reason and logic to work with are we necessary beings?Yes.
You are necesaary for my existence?
You are necessary for truth?
You are necessary for knowledge of origins?
You are necessary for moral right?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
...and I agree to serve your prison sentence...Yeah, people could just pay others to serve their prison terms.This seems to be missing the point.
What is the point? that you have sinned? That you have wronged others? That you have the money to pay others to serve your time? Maybe before men, but not before God. He owns all things. What are you going to pay Him that He doesn't already own?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
provided this God exists.Thank you for this. The most reasonable thing I think I've ever seen you write. Maybe there is hope for you yet.
That is for your thinking, not mine. I know God exists yet I can never prove that to anyone who does not want to hear or accept it. They deny the obvious. They deny what is necessary. He has confirmed Himself to me by His word, His Son, His Spirit, His creation. I am certain of that yet I realize you are not. You have not done the leg work necessary. I believe you to be very ignorant of prophecy as a verification, thus you sluff it off.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
God understands there are some things I must do to liveThis is an interesting tidbit too. If he can make exceptions based on the situation isn't that suddenly a subjective standard?
It is not an exception. It is covered in the New Covenant.
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”
Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
Colossians 2:16-17 (NASB)
16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
No one is to judge me in regard to the Sabbath, because the Sabbath was a glimpse of what was to come and it represents our rest in Christ, our rest from all that we could not do but that Christ has done for us.
Romans 14:4-6 (NASB)
4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.
4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Christ and His righteousness, His sacrificeYeah let's talk about that shall we? Is it not by definition unjust to punish someone for the crimes of another?
It depends on what the offended party is willing to accept. If I owe you money and my rich relative offers to pay my debt should I refuse it? It means very little to him in financial strain. God is offended by sin. The Son offers to make the payment on our behalf. To do so He must not have sin found within Himself. To do that He must take on the life of a human being since humanity is guilty of the offense. It also means living that righteous life before God as a man. That means dying in our place for our sin, for the penalty for sin is death to God. (And I contend the kind of death is firstly a spiritual death since God is a Spirit and we were alienated from Him by our wrongdoing). He took our death we deserved by our faith/trust/dependence in/on Him! So God's anger is appeased. His justice is met. His righteousness is met. And all in Jesus Christ!
If you hit someone with your car while drunk driving and I agree to serve your prison sentence should you be absolved of all wrongdoing? Maybe given your driver's license back? Would that be moral? Do you think it would satisfy the family of the deceased or the community at large?
No, I should not be absolved if guilty, but I don't drink. (^8
But you don't understand the problem. You (all of those of accountable age, plus also through the representation of our federal head - Adam) have wronged your Creator by your willful sin. Thus, you are accountable to Him. Your nature has too been affected by Adam's sin. It is no longer open to God. Because of His grace the Son chose to address our problem and make our relationship with God good again. Since He made us for relationship with Him He is willing to fix the wrong without sacrificing His justice and righteousness. A good Judge does not overlook the law or what is right. Neither did God.
Also what exactly is an omnipotent immortal being sacrificing by having (arguably) a pretty bad weekend followed by going back to being an omnipotent immortal being?
Many things. First, He humbled Himself, made Himself of no importance. He was born into a low income family, worked for a living, obeyed and respected them even though He was Lord over them. He did not use that Lordship to rule over them because of what He came to do. Next, as a human being, He lived a life of righteousness before the Father while suffering ridicule and hardships from His people, the people whose descent He was born into, to fulfill prophecy. Then He was ostracized, falsely accused, flogged, speared and stripped of all dignity for your sake. He was tortured on a cross in which His human life was given in extreme pain, gasping for breathe while wounded by a spear and forty lashes, until His body gave out, also for your sake, if you will believe and trust in the sufficiency of His sacrifice. And to think, those He came to save mock(ed) His suffering and hardship.
He didn't lose anything but it did prove that his love is conditional and that my mother loves me more (whenever she needed to forgive me for something she just forgave me. She didn't have to sacrifice anything/one) than the Yahweh loves humanity (according to the source material).
He suffered more than most humans do. He lost His human life. He experienced pain for His innocence. He was wrongly convicted. That may not mean anything to you but I am eternally grateful!
What innocent person would die on behalf of others? That shows love. What person is willing to humble and humiliate themselves for the sake of others? What person is willing to forgive those who have offended and done him wrong? Jesus, that is who! God the Son, that's who!
Really this seems more like performance art than noble sacrifice.
You speak of things you don't understand or know of. If a person is righteous, has done nothing wrong, yet is willing to die in the place of others and they mock and spit on Him it shows that they are ignorant or ungracious people.
Or you could say.(IF) Yahweh is incapable of simply forgiving humans for the serious crime of being human (THEN) he is not omnipotent.
If a good, righteous, just Judge winks at wrongdoing the law and justice is not met. God is appeased in that His Son meets the just standard as well as appeasd of His righteous anger for wrongdoing because the Son takes the penalty.
(THEREFORE)(IF) the Yahweh is omnipotent (THAN) it was a possible to forgive humans without a sacrifice
Then how will the wrong be dealt with? Do you really think a just judge will let a murderer go free without penalty? How would that be just?
(AND)(IF) it was a possible for the Yahweh's to forgie humans without requiring a sacrifice (THEN) the Yahweh could have forgiven humans without a sacrifice.
Remember, God created human beings in His image and likeness. That means they were reasoning beings would could chose. So when Adam sinned, humans had to realize the grievous nature of sin, of doing what was wrong before their Creator. They had to realize the gulf it created between them and their Creator, that He is pure in nature, good, without sin. They had to experience what it was like to live without God, all the time God opening His arms to those who would seek Him sincerely. They had to see that their good works did not measure up to His purity and goodness. Then perhaps they would consider a better way, once they discovered the evil within themselves and others.
(THEREFORE)THE SACRIFICE WAS COMPLEYELY UNNECESSARY.
If you could live a life without sin you would not need the sacrifice of another, just like Israel needed to atone for their many sins yearly to maintain fellowship with God. They had to realize that sin required their life (spiritual separation from God) as well as physical death, and that the animal was sacrificed as an appeasement that they recognized should have been them.
How well do you measure up? Have you ever sinned? Have you ever been mad enough to kill someone? Have you ever lied? Have you ever stolen something that was not yours. Have you ever coveted something that was not yours. Have you ever committed adultery, either the physical act or spiritual adultery by lusting after a woman? Then have you ever idolized something and ignore God the respect He deserves as your Maker? If so, why should He forgive you? Yet He chose to in His Son.
If you disagree then please point put the specific flaw in my logic and or offer a (demonstrable or logically necessary) counterfactual.
See above.
(I was going to talk about the other points you made. I feel like some of it was interesting but I deleted all of the rest in favor of talking about this point first. You really do have a gift for the old gish gallop. It's a real gift and if left unchecked a great way to shut a conversation down.)
I am trying to help you realize what you are missing. (^8
I am trying to show you what makes sense and is necessary to make sense.
I am having a hard time keeping up with all your posts, hardly any of which are relevant to the topic at hand.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
...rstand evil since the Fall because God let us experience evil for a purpose, that we might perhaps seek out God, be reunited, and escape from the...OK, you've convinced me.How do I detect moral absolutes?
You find out what is necessary to make sense of morality (that is God) and then you find out if any such being is claimed to have revealed themself to humanity. Then you check out the internal and logical consistency of that said beings' message and what kind of evidence is offered for that being both within and without that revelation.
1. Morality needs a best as a reference point or ideal.
2. Morality needs an unchanging or fixed reference point.
3. The moral source needs to be objective (one that qualifies is an omniscient being).
4. Morality is a mindful process. It requires a mind and one that is necessary. That is not your mind or mine.
The Ten Commandments fit the bill in what is addressed in those decrees.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
There is a fixed and final reference point with the biblical God.Why don't you follow the full 613 biblical commandments? [LINK]
1. The covenant was made with Israel.
2. It was made for a different time, the purpose (of God) to demonstrate our inability of meeting His righteousness in and of ourselves.
3. It is nullified with the New Covenant. Jesus fulfilled every letter of the law. Thus the law is dead for those who have faith in Him, in His ability. Because of that, because of His sacrifice, His worthiness, we live by a new covenant. I do not live by works but by grace.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
How does a mob make anything right or good?Brass tacks.
That is not right or you would have to agree Hitler's treatment of the Jews was right.
"YHWH" IS REAL AND THE HOLY-WORD IS 100% TRUE.Now what?You live in a city swarming with heavily armed mafiosos.But you know that "YHWH" is real and morality is objective, not relative or contextual.These mafiosos demand that you pay tax to them.If you refuse to pay your tax, your land will be seized and you will be incarcerated (without medical care).Every store you visit gives 12% of their gross sales revenue to these heavily armed mafiosos.You know for a fact that these heavily armed mafiosos commit horrifying atrocities.They don't even try and hide it most of the time.Does "YHWH" allow you to contribute your hard-earned cash (taxes) to support these horrifying atrocities?
So what is right about any of this?
He has given me a will, a volition to choose. I know what is the right. Do I put myself first or others and suffer the consequences. I hope I have the will to choose to go to prison for the good of others.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Your post is going to take some work.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Why is your preference significant if there are not absolute, objective standards, like with atheism?Why is your preference significant if there are not absolute, objective standards, like with christianity? After all don't forget
It is not. If all I have is preference there is no moral good, just opinion based on likes, dislikes, and/or force or charisma.
God understands there are some things I must do to liveThis is an interesting tidbit too. If he can make exceptions based on the situation isn't that suddenly a subjective standard.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Thou shalt not kill (murder).This is a perfect example of a QUALITATIVE moral standard.
Yes, it is a should not or ought not to do, which is prescriptive.
An unjustified kill is murder.
It would be a killing in which there was hate or malicious intent, not an accident.
What is a justifiable kill?
An accident (unintentional and not malicious) that was not preventable that results in the death of someone. It was a mistake that does not deserve life for life. In times of war where shooting at enemy results in the death of an innocent bystander/civilian.
And please try to avoid any "appeal to authority".
An inappropriate appeal to authority, IMO, is an unjustified appeal that may not lead to facts but be devoid of them. Alternatively, the authority may not be an expert in a particular field, or particularly biased. At times we all use some kind of appeal to authority to support a claim by name dropping someone who is not an expert, or right. It may appeal to the authority alone as the justification. God, granting His existence as true, by necessity, would qualify as the highest authority that can be appealed to since we are speaking of a Being of whom no higher can be thought of. My argument is that God is more reasonable than atheism or other beliefs. I know it is something that infuriates unbelievers to cite God.
Imagine you and I are on a remote island.Two of our friends go hunting in the forest.Only one of them comes back.Our friend who comes back says the missing friend tried to kill them and so they pushed the missing friend off a cliff.PLEASE EXPLAIN THE OBJECTIVE, QUANTIFIABLE MORALITY OF THIS SITUATION.
Sometimes we cannot ascertain what happened because there is not enough evidence to be objective.
Sometimes the scene gives clues, such as evidence of a struggle or the beforehand conversation or witness of a threat. Perhaps that particular situation gives other clues as an indication of what happened, but if it does not and there is an unknown wrong done, the person is still answerable/accountable to God. Without God/gods and His revealed moral decrees there is no accountability.
So in that case God may be the only objective Judge of the situation.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
They must have a different standard of measure from quantitative values which are empirically measured.Please QUANTIFY empirically measurable MORAL AXIOMS.
Morality operates on a different standard than physical objects because it is an abstract concept. Morals are mindful things.
Some would argue that behaviours are the physical measures for deciding morality. Again, a behaviour is a descriptive thing. If I have a twitch when I am put in a stressed situation how does that make it wrong? It just is.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
For example, HUME'S GUILLOTINE [LINKI listened to the whole thing and agree with some of it. What is the main point that you want me to glean from it?(IFF) morality is "objective" and "universal" and a logical extension of the "IS" of "YHWH" (THEN) you must be able to program your PRIMARY MORAL AXIOMS into a computer and it would be forced to compute MORAL MATHEMATICS (perfectly moral, unambiguous, moral judgements)
I'm not sure your meaning or significance?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I can choose to eat or not eat sugar (my preference) at my own peril, but should I also be allowed to kill innocent people if that was my preference?Unless you can grow and refine your own sugar for your own personal use, your purchase of refined sugar contributes to a system that causes QUANTIFIABLE damage to the health of OTHER PEOPLE.
So, you have made a case for sugar being banned. Should sugar be banned like cigarettes from public areas or should there be a warning that too much is bad for you? Should I not grow sugarcane? Can someone eat it in moderation without harm? Again, if it is my preference to eat it should you be allowed to stop me if I am harming no one else? If it is shown that eating sushi can kill you should sushi be banned and a law passed against it? You see, these things are not universally wrong. It depends on how sushi is prepared, to my knowledge. Eating a little sugar may not do me harm, and let's face it, we are all going to die someday. How many other things has hastened my death?
Now with the case of killing innocent people, should that ever be allowed as a preference and sometimes killing innocent humans is unavoidable such as in an act of war?
Created: