Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Open Discussion With Lnc


Ouroboros

Recommended Posts

You may have sufficient grounds for you, but those grounds do not necessarily apply to anyone else. You can say something that would live up to, no my standards, but objective standards, by proving that you have such a basis for morality. I just don't see way to come up with such a basis apart from God, but I am open to hearing alternative ideas if they are out there. Also, you are confusing the conversation. I am not arguing how we know at this point, we first must establish that there is something that we can, in fact, objectively know. Otherwise, it is just an exchange of opinions. BTW, I am very willing to learn, I just haven't seen anyone step up with a valid argument, and there have been few that have even attempted to offer one. Now, you say that I am here to preach and I don't know that I have done much of that; however, I have seen some preaching coming from the other perspective. Second, I will given honest consideration to any idea set forth; however, don't expect me to just accept any idea put forth. This is a discussion site, we are here to exchange ideas, you don't have to accept mine and I don't have to accept yours, but we certainly can have a give and take to get to the truth.

 

Sorry, but you have shown no evidence of being willing to learn or give honest consideration to ideas outside of your beliefs. You can claim it all day, but your behavior speaks louder than your words.

 

I've got better things to do with my time than be your teacher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goodbye Jesus
  • Replies 358
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ouroboros

    74

  • shantonu

    63

  • LNC

    56

  • Abiyoyo

    55

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

A non-believe can't give a reason to why it is good to have humans on this planet. We can only conclude: it is what it is, while the religious could argue that God have a purpose for the humans as a whole. So if you want an argument, I think that's one, but on the other hand,

 

Benjamin Franklin is a good example of a middle representative. He was committed to humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A non-believe can't give a reason to why it is good to have humans on this planet. We can only conclude: it is what it is, while the religious could argue that God have a purpose for the humans as a whole. So if you want an argument, I think that's one, but on the other hand,

 

Benjamin Franklin is a good example of a middle representative. He was committed to humanity.

Sure, but the question is rather about (I'm being on your side of the argument here, just for a brief moment) what is good with humanity? Why humans? Why should the human species survive and live on this planet at all? I have no answer to that, more than, I prefer that it did, and I would prefer if it stayed calm and peaceful, at least as long as I'm alive, and I wish it could do so during my kids life. But do I have any purpose I can give to humanity? Not really. There are some books which suggests that we are more like a virus. The way we group together, and destroy the resources, it's more like we are bad for the overall "good" of the planet. So why humans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A non-believe can't give a reason to why it is good to have humans on this planet. We can only conclude: it is what it is, while the religious could argue that God have a purpose for the humans as a whole. So if you want an argument, I think that's one, but on the other hand,

 

Benjamin Franklin is a good example of a middle representative. He was committed to humanity.

Sure, but the question is rather about (I'm being on your side of the argument here, just for a brief moment) what is good with humanity? Why humans? Why should the human species survive and live on this planet at all? I have no answer to that, more than, I prefer that it did, and I would prefer if it stayed calm and peaceful, at least as long as I'm alive, and I wish it could do so during my kids life. But do I have any purpose I can give to humanity? Not really. There are some books which suggests that we are more like a virus. The way we group together, and destroy the resources, it's more like we are bad for the overall "good" of the planet. So why humans?

 

Shopenhauer's interpretation of Buddhism held that existence was bad, not good. Shopenhauer's essays are brilliant, if you've never read them you should.

 

"Human life must be some kind of mistake. The truth of this will be sufficiently obvious if we only remember that man is compound of needs and necessities hard to satisfy; and that even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness, where nothing remains to him but abandonment to boredom. This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of emptiness of life?"

 

Shopenhauer, from "The Vanity of Existence"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Human life must be some kind of mistake. The truth of this will be sufficiently obvious if we only remember that man is compound of needs and necessities hard to satisfy; and that even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness, where nothing remains to him but abandonment to boredom. This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of emptiness of life?"

 

Shopenhauer, from "The Vanity of Existence"

 

I read this in "The World as Will and Representation". Shopenhauer was heavily influenced by the Upanishads, if I am not mistaken. Buddhism says the same, though. Buddha said life is dukkha, which means "unsatisfactory."

 

This statement made quite an impact on me when I read it many years ago. I haven't followed this entire thread, but thanks for quoting that, Shantonu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but the question is rather about (I'm being on your side of the argument here, just for a brief moment) what is good with humanity? Why humans? Why should the human species survive and live on this planet at all? I have no answer to that, more than, I prefer that it did, and I would prefer if it stayed calm and peaceful, at least as long as I'm alive, and I wish it could do so during my kids life. But do I have any purpose I can give to humanity? Not really. There are some books which suggests that we are more like a virus. The way we group together, and destroy the resources, it's more like we are bad for the overall "good" of the planet. So why humans?

 

When I study world history, it scares me. Last night, after the whole slavery topic with mwc ( which I'm still in thought about); I thought of America, then I thought of China. What would become of Americans if China raided the United States and took over? Scary. I think our peace comes from our history of our desire to be free, and the past dedication of a better humanity from this country. One thing I can't get past is this. Are we just in timeline for our democracy to end, or have we been protected by God?

 

As a believer, I want to say the later, but as a believer, knowing history; it's just a matter of time. I may not see it, but there is always somebody that wants dominant,world control; whether we know it or not. Power is an incredible thing; and in my opinion, to a power stricken ruler, out votes humanity. Hitler is a good example of that. Everything he did was geared toward dominance, systematically.

 

We live in a free country, have rights as an individual, and even freedom of religion. Do you think we would win if China decided to invade the United States?

 

Also, Hitler is a good example of where 'one man' can affect the world. Their is system of things in this world all disclosed and protected by the word of another; it can all go to hell, if someone decides they don't like that system. Maybe causing a nuclear war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Human life must be some kind of mistake. The truth of this will be sufficiently obvious if we only remember that man is compound of needs and necessities hard to satisfy; and that even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness, where nothing remains to him but abandonment to boredom. This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of emptiness of life?"

 

Shopenhauer, from "The Vanity of Existence"

 

I read this in "The World as Will and Representation". Shopenhauer was heavily influenced by the Upanishads, if I am not mistaken. Buddhism says the same, though. Buddha said life is dukkha, which means "unsatisfactory."

 

This statement made quite an impact on me when I read it many years ago. I haven't followed this entire thread, but thanks for quoting that, Shantonu.

 

You're quite right. Shopenhauer was more influenced by the Upanishads, but most people here would be familiar with the doctrines of Buddhism, which are similar.

 

You know I've never read The World as Will and Representation even though I own a copy. I love reading and re-reading his Essays (even the stupid one On Women, which is outrageous enough to be comical). Every time I try to read The World as Will, I get sort of bogged down. His Essays are so entertaing, but The World as Will seems like a lot effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I've never read The World as Will and Representation even though I own a copy. I love reading and re-reading his Essays (even the stupid one On Women, which is outrageous enough to be comical). Every time I try to read The World as Will, I get sort of bogged down. His Essays are so entertaing, but The World as Will seems like a lot effort.

 

:lmao: I am too old to re-read The World now, since I know I would fall asleep before I got past three pages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the objective basis from God's own words. It's an objective claim based upon the fact that I can abide by the 6th Commandment, but God doesn't seem to able to do the same. Is the 6th Commandment just for us humans so that God can murder if he wants to? If so, then the Commandement itself is not good but is to be obeyed merely because God says to obey it. If the Commandment itself is good, then God should keep it too. But, according to the Biblical text, God murdered (or had murdered) lots of little Egyptian, Amalekite, and Caananite children. There is my extraordinary proof. Q.E.D.

 

OK, so we seem to be getting somewhere. Would you say that objective moral values must derive from God? I want to make sure that that is what you are saying. Also, if that is the case, on what grounds do you claim that God committed murder? Maybe you could start by defining murder as you understand the meaning of the word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LNC, even though I don't agree with Adams's new modified DCT, because I can't see why "God's love" or some arbitrary definition of the word "good" applied to a fictitious God makes anything more absolute, I will agree that my definition of morality is subjective and not absolute. So lets take this discussion a different way now, and let me hear you side instead. What is your morality based on? What is your absolute ground on which you have founded goodness?

 

Thanks for clarifying your position. I ground morality in God and his nature, and obviously because of that, I believe that God exists. Since God is, by definition, omnipotent, omniscient eternal and immutable, and the greatest possible being, he is perfect in all of his attributes. That being the case, objective moral values can also exist and they are derived from God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for clarifying your position. I ground morality in God and his nature, and obviously because of that, I believe that God exists. Since God is, by definition, omnipotent, omniscient eternal and immutable, and the greatest possible being, he is perfect in all of his attributes. That being the case, objective moral values can also exist and they are derived from God.

If your god is the "omni" then he must also contain all evil and all flaws as well. You can't exempt him from the things you don't personally care for. He would "perfect" in all aspects not just the desirable ones.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LNC, even though I don't agree with Adams's new modified DCT, because I can't see why "God's love" or some arbitrary definition of the word "good" applied to a fictitious God makes anything more absolute, I will agree that my definition of morality is subjective and not absolute. So lets take this discussion a different way now, and let me hear you side instead. What is your morality based on? What is your absolute ground on which you have founded goodness?

 

There are two senses of the word "objective" afoot here and that is leading to confusion.

 

The first sense of "objective" is the weak sense of being external to the subject. So the Hindu laws of non-harm and the Sixth Commandment are both objective in this sense because they are both external to the particular actor. Thus, the person commiting a certain act--say a murder--can be seen to have acted in contradiction to some objective standard.

 

The second sense of "objective" is the strong sense of being absolutely true, real, and unbounded in both time and space. So if God exists (perhaps) then his justice might be said to be "objective" in this second sense.

 

However, if LNC (or indeed any of us) has the second sense in mind, that is out of bounds. LNC cannot possibly mean that the Christian God's moral and ethical rules are objective in this second sense. He can say that he believes them to be objective in that sense, but his personal beliefs carry no weight. He certainly can never prove that God's moral and ethical rules are strong-sense subjective because to do so would be to prove the existence and exclusive reality of the Christian God, which seems too heavy a burden. LNC can assert, sort of by fiat, that the Bible says that God's ethics are strong-sense objective, but this carries no more weight than the bald assertion because we are not bound to take the Bible seriously as an authority.

 

So we can only be talking about weak-sense objectivity. However, on weak-sense objectivity, God is demonstrably immoral by his own terms, as the conflict between the 6th Commandment and the mass-killings makes clear.

 

I don't necessarily see the first example as necessarily objective as the standard could derive from a source that is subjective, i.e., another subject of this world. I would be more in agreement with the second definition.

 

Now, the problem with your continued objection is that you have again jumped the argument. I can establish that objective moral values exist without even addressing what they are. You jump to the argument of what they are vs. do they exist. We can't go there until we establish that objective moral values exist. So, by stating that we cannot know if God exists, you are now back in the camp of arguing for subjective moral values. Is that what you are arguing? If so, your final judgment is your own subjective personal opinion and not much more (you will most likely have agreement of others on this site as well.) However, nonetheless, it is not an objective indictment against God, so I am not interested in arguing about your preferences or lack thereof. I don't think that this conversation will get us anywhere meaningful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shantonu, it seems to me that if God kept to the commandment "thou shalt not kill", people would never die. Does not God have the power to make us healthful and alive indefinitely? By allowing us to fall sick, is he not committing a multitude of crimes against us? Doesn't God "murder" everyone eventually? Is the "murder" of an elder (in an artificial life span, itself a creation of God) somehow more moral than the "murder" of a youth? Is "murder" of a 90-year-old more moral than "murder" of an 70-year-old? In fact, God commits mass-killings of the elderly daily. God is ageist, too, promoting by example elder abuse!

 

Isn't arguing the morality of God's choices of how/where/when to take life meaningless? If we were to work from the premise that the Bible was wholly a human creation, we could perhaps gain some insight as to the values and morals and culture of the humans who made up a God that exhibited certain behaviors.

 

I find most compelling your argument that God is guiding people to commit genocide.

 

Phanta

 

The correct understanding of the command is "You shall not murder." The command was incorrectly translated in the KJV. I hope that clears it up for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, you say that it contains immoral stuff, and that is true as it is recorded history (another reason to believe th it is not just made up by people); however, it doesn't condone immoral acts, that is the difference.

 

Do you regard abortion as a moral or immoral act if a wife is impregnated by someone other than her husband?

Do you regard it moral or immoral to kill someone if they work on the wrong day of the week?

Do regard it moral or immoral to eat pork?

Do you regard it moral or immoral to place a lower monetary value on the lives of children, women, and the aged?

Do you regard it moral or immoral to make slaves out of war captives (of all ages) and subject them to forced labor?

Do regard it moral or immoral to kill people if they fail to hold the "proper" beliefs?

 

First, before we get into discussing specifics, let me ask you the same question that I have asked the others to answer. Do you regard moral values to be objective or subjective in nature? If you regard them to be objective, please tell me on what basis you ground them as objective? I am just trying to avoid arguments over preferences versus actual objective moral values. So, if you are a relativist (i.e., you don't regard moral values to be objective in nature) then we would be arguing over preferences and I am not interested in that type of discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting to suspect LNC never read the Bible...

 

Leviticus 20:9 ESV

 

For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

I think that is an outrageous law in the Bible. It is an immoral law. And I'm glad that society grew away from literal obedience to the Old Testament and God's absolute commands.

 

Yes, I have read it many times, have you? I mean, have you read it cover to cover, not have you read bits and pieces. Not only have I read it, I have studied it to understand it in context. I suspect that many of you have not taken time to do this based upon the misunderstandings that many of you put forth.

 

Now, prove me wrong by telling me the context and understanding of the verse that you quoted. Who was it written by? Who was the intended audience? Where was it written? What was the culture of the people to whom it was written? Why don't I have to follow this mandate today?

 

I will be interested in your insights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but you have shown no evidence of being willing to learn or give honest consideration to ideas outside of your beliefs. You can claim it all day, but your behavior speaks louder than your words.

 

I've got better things to do with my time than be your teacher.

 

What would you have expected me to learn and what changes would you suggest that I should be making based upon the information that I have been given in this discussion? Please be specific and give me the reasoning by which I should adopt these positions, then we can discuss it further. See, I am willing to learn from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the objective basis from God's own words. It's an objective claim based upon the fact that I can abide by the 6th Commandment, but God doesn't seem to able to do the same. Is the 6th Commandment just for us humans so that God can murder if he wants to? If so, then the Commandement itself is not good but is to be obeyed merely because God says to obey it. If the Commandment itself is good, then God should keep it too. But, according to the Biblical text, God murdered (or had murdered) lots of little Egyptian, Amalekite, and Caananite children. There is my extraordinary proof. Q.E.D.

 

OK, so we seem to be getting somewhere. Would you say that objective moral values must derive from God? I want to make sure that that is what you are saying. Also, if that is the case, on what grounds do you claim that God committed murder? Maybe you could start by defining murder as you understand the meaning of the word.

 

As to the first part of you response, I'm not saying one way or the other. I can't see what different my opinion as to the whether objective moral values must derive from God or not. I've answered your question and provided you with the proof you desired. I won't play a philosophical game with you. Either you're ready to deal with the question head on, or you're interested in just delay.

 

As to the second part regarding the definition of murder. Sure, I'll define that for you. The intentional, unjustified killing of another. I think God is guilty of murder with respect to the children because what justification could there be for killing a two-year old little boy or girl?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for clarifying your position. I ground morality in God and his nature, and obviously because of that, I believe that God exists. Since God is, by definition, omnipotent, omniscient eternal and immutable, and the greatest possible being, he is perfect in all of his attributes. That being the case, objective moral values can also exist and they are derived from God.

If your god is the "omni" then he must also contain all evil and all flaws as well. You can't exempt him from the things you don't personally care for. He would "perfect" in all aspects not just the desirable ones.

 

mwc

 

Really? How do you figure that that fits into the description that I gave? I don't see that your conclusion logically follows. Evil would be an imperfection and I have stated that God is perfect in all of his attributes, not our attributes. However, if you can show me that evil fits within a set of perfect attributes, I would be interested in hearing your defense of that position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the objective basis from God's own words. It's an objective claim based upon the fact that I can abide by the 6th Commandment, but God doesn't seem to able to do the same. Is the 6th Commandment just for us humans so that God can murder if he wants to? If so, then the Commandement itself is not good but is to be obeyed merely because God says to obey it. If the Commandment itself is good, then God should keep it too. But, according to the Biblical text, God murdered (or had murdered) lots of little Egyptian, Amalekite, and Caananite children. There is my extraordinary proof. Q.E.D.

 

OK, so we seem to be getting somewhere. Would you say that objective moral values must derive from God? I want to make sure that that is what you are saying. Also, if that is the case, on what grounds do you claim that God committed murder? Maybe you could start by defining murder as you understand the meaning of the word.

 

As to the first part of you response, I'm not saying one way or the other. I can't see what different my opinion as to the whether objective moral values must derive from God or not. I've answered your question and provided you with the proof you desired. I won't play a philosophical game with you. Either you're ready to deal with the question head on, or you're interested in just delay.

 

As to the second part regarding the definition of murder. Sure, I'll define that for you. The intentional, unjustified killing of another. I think God is guilty of murder with respect to the children because what justification could there be for killing a two-year old little boy or girl?

 

Where I am getting at with this clarification is whether you actually ground objective morality in God or not. Apparently you don't which leaves you in the realm of subjective morality, unless you can find sufficient grounding apart from God. So, in essence, we are back to where we were, which I suspected we would be based upon another response you gave earlier

 

It is one thing to answer my question, but a completely different thing to actually believe the answer that you gave. Considering that you gave an answer that you don't really believe, am I allowed to do the same?

 

I would probably make a slight clarification of your definition of murder, see if you can agree with this. The taking of innocent life. The reasons that I clarify are these: first, our legal system even considers the unintentional taking of innocent life to be murder (2nd degree, otherwise called manslaughter) out of negligence; also, I have added innocent life and taken out the word unjustified, as if an innocent life is taken, it assumes that it is unjustified, but encompasses more in the definition. Would you agree with this change?

 

So, let me ask you another clarification question. Do you consider abortion to be justified or unjustified. If justified, on what basis? Clearly, abortion takes the lives of children under two years-old (unless you have a different definition for when life begins, and if so, please describe that) and these children are innocent of any justification for the taking of their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the objective basis from God's own words. It's an objective claim based upon the fact that I can abide by the 6th Commandment, but God doesn't seem to able to do the same. Is the 6th Commandment just for us humans so that God can murder if he wants to? If so, then the Commandement itself is not good but is to be obeyed merely because God says to obey it. If the Commandment itself is good, then God should keep it too. But, according to the Biblical text, God murdered (or had murdered) lots of little Egyptian, Amalekite, and Caananite children. There is my extraordinary proof. Q.E.D.

 

OK, so we seem to be getting somewhere. Would you say that objective moral values must derive from God? I want to make sure that that is what you are saying. Also, if that is the case, on what grounds do you claim that God committed murder? Maybe you could start by defining murder as you understand the meaning of the word.

 

As to the first part of you response, I'm not saying one way or the other. I can't see what different my opinion as to the whether objective moral values must derive from God or not. I've answered your question and provided you with the proof you desired. I won't play a philosophical game with you. Either you're ready to deal with the question head on, or you're interested in just delay.

 

As to the second part regarding the definition of murder. Sure, I'll define that for you. The intentional, unjustified killing of another. I think God is guilty of murder with respect to the children because what justification could there be for killing a two-year old little boy or girl?

 

Where I am getting at with this clarification is whether you actually ground objective morality in God or not. Apparently you don't which leaves you in the realm of subjective morality, unless you can find sufficient grounding apart from God. So, in essence, we are back to where we were, which I suspected we would be based upon another response you gave earlier

 

It is one thing to answer my question, but a completely different thing to actually believe the answer that you gave. Considering that you gave an answer that you don't really believe, am I allowed to do the same?

 

I would probably make a slight clarification of your definition of murder, see if you can agree with this. The taking of innocent life. The reasons that I clarify are these: first, our legal system even considers the unintentional taking of innocent life to be murder (2nd degree, otherwise called manslaughter) out of negligence; also, I have added innocent life and taken out the word unjustified, as if an innocent life is taken, it assumes that it is unjustified, but encompasses more in the definition. Would you agree with this change?

 

So, let me ask you another clarification question. Do you consider abortion to be justified or unjustified. If justified, on what basis? Clearly, abortion takes the lives of children under two years-old (unless you have a different definition for when life begins, and if so, please describe that) and these children are innocent of any justification for the taking of their lives.

 

What do my beliefs have to do with the question. I'm asking about your beliefs. Would you have followed the order or not? That's really the issue. Of course you're allowed to give an answer you don't believe--as long as the answer makes sense, I don't care what you really believe.

 

And, no, I would not agree with your edit. Murder requires an intentional or depraved heart mens rea. Manslaughter isn't really murder. Second, innocence of the victim has nothing to do with murder. You can be found guilty of murdering Charles Manson. I hope you are not suggesting that "Thou Shalt Not Murder" only applies to innocent people. That's an execption that would swallow the rule.

 

Anyway, I now think I know where this is going. You will argue that, according to Scripture, no human being is innocent and God can kill each and every human being without moral taint--in fact, God does good by killing each human being because they are all worthless having sinned somewhat indirectly by virtue of Adam's fall. Thus Amalekite babies, be they every so innocent looking, are really depraved monsters worthy of death--not for anything the baby particularly did but for who the baby is, namely a human baby.

 

Okay, that's fine. It's not a very attractive view of God, but at least it's an answer. You seem very reluctant to come out and give this answer. Does this line of reasoning embarrass you? You shouldn't be ashamed of Scripture, if that's what you believe, great. Be bold and speak. The fact that it's not very appetizing shouldn't deter you from speaking the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I study world history, it scares me. Last night, after the whole slavery topic with mwc ( which I'm still in thought about); I thought of America, then I thought of China. What would become of Americans if China raided the United States and took over? Scary. I think our peace comes from our history of our desire to be free, and the past dedication of a better humanity from this country. One thing I can't get past is this. Are we just in timeline for our democracy to end, or have we been protected by God?

Well, if God is the protector of our country, then why do Christians like LNC make statements about how corrupt and ruined it is, and how much sin and evilness? If he's right, then America already lost its righteousness before God. On the other hand, USA is only a few hundred years old, compare that to the dynasties of Egypt and China which lasted much, much longer. I'm not sure Egypt had their long series of pharaohs as a result of Ra protecting them.

 

As a believer, I want to say the later, but as a believer, knowing history; it's just a matter of time. I may not see it, but there is always somebody that wants dominant,world control; whether we know it or not. Power is an incredible thing; and in my opinion, to a power stricken ruler, out votes humanity. Hitler is a good example of that. Everything he did was geared toward dominance, systematically.

Yes. It always changes.

 

We live in a free country, have rights as an individual, and even freedom of religion. Do you think we would win if China decided to invade the United States?

I doubt they would be able to deploy troops fast enough. It would be easier for them to bomb us into oblivion, and then invade the desolate land, but then they would risk crashing the whole world economy and even alienate other countries. I doubt they would do it with traditional warfare.

 

Also, Hitler is a good example of where 'one man' can affect the world. Their is system of things in this world all disclosed and protected by the word of another; it can all go to hell, if someone decides they don't like that system. Maybe causing a nuclear war.

I'm more afraid of the presidential power in US being strengthened even more, and we suddenly get a crazy president who declare martial law and practically establish a dictatorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LNC, even though I don't agree with Adams's new modified DCT, because I can't see why "God's love" or some arbitrary definition of the word "good" applied to a fictitious God makes anything more absolute, I will agree that my definition of morality is subjective and not absolute. So lets take this discussion a different way now, and let me hear you side instead. What is your morality based on? What is your absolute ground on which you have founded goodness?

 

Thanks for clarifying your position. I ground morality in God and his nature, and obviously because of that, I believe that God exists. Since God is, by definition, omnipotent, omniscient eternal and immutable, and the greatest possible being, he is perfect in all of his attributes. That being the case, objective moral values can also exist and they are derived from God.

That I can understand, even accept as a fair view for you to have, however not necessarily totally agree. I see nature and God as one, and calling nature and all that exists as "God" is a fallacy of equivocation, so I can't call it God even though it practically is the same thing. Besides, God is traditionally a being with personality, consciousness, and other personal traits, so I don't want to confuse my panentheistic view with the traditional view, even though in some sense they actually can overlap. In other words, I'm believe consciousness (as an emerging "function") is a necessary property of the universe (one way or the other), and I don't find a separate God-being as required explanation for that necessity, so in practical terms, and in comparison to traditional views, I'm a pragmatic atheist.

 

Better get skates... it seems like a very cold day in Hell... Considering that we almost could agree to some small degree. :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting to suspect LNC never read the Bible...

 

Leviticus 20:9 ESV

 

For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

I think that is an outrageous law in the Bible. It is an immoral law. And I'm glad that society grew away from literal obedience to the Old Testament and God's absolute commands.

 

Yes, I have read it many times, have you? I mean, have you read it cover to cover, not have you read bits and pieces. Not only have I read it, I have studied it to understand it in context. I suspect that many of you have not taken time to do this based upon the misunderstandings that many of you put forth.

Yes, I read it from cover-to-cover three times, and then the New Testament 10 times or more. And I went to Bible school for year, missionary trips, knocking doors and evangelizing downtown for quite some time too. I also was teaching in a Christian school, worked several years with voluntary work for the Church, and let worship in the cell-group. And so on...

 

I come from a very religious family, with traditions back many generations. I don't know anyone in my family who was not a Christian. I'm probably the first atheist in that family tree. My brother was pastor, and my other brother is an elder in a Church, and so was my dad when he was alive. Everyone I know in my family tree was involved in religious activity. For more than 10 years I was a member of a very cult-like Church, where dedication, faith, and giving all your time, money, and heart to Jesus and Church was a requirement. But life took many turns after that, and I have learned more about life, and more useful principles as a non-believer and in only a few years, than all those 30 years of heart & soul committed life.

 

Now, prove me wrong by telling me the context and understanding of the verse that you quoted. Who was it written by? Who was the intended audience? Where was it written? What was the culture of the people to whom it was written? Why don't I have to follow this mandate today?

That is the same question you should ask yourself about every verse in the Bible.

 

John 3:16, was that for the Jews and the audience only? After all, he didn't mention your name. So it is a matter of preference if a verse is to be taken as "not applicable to me" or "applicable to me." It's not clear from the text which way it should be. Every verse is spoken in the context of a specific audience, and it's your choice (subjective view) if it applies to you or not.

 

This is the reason why there are so many versions of Christian belief, because they put the verses in different bins of importance. One verse apply, and the next does not. One verse is literal, and the next is not. Then the next Church make the mix a little different, and voilá suddenly you have conflicting beliefs. Hence the Bible is not the "absolute" code, but rather your interpretations is the final arbiter and as such, it becomes subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? How do you figure that that fits into the description that I gave? I don't see that your conclusion logically follows. Evil would be an imperfection and I have stated that God is perfect in all of his attributes, not our attributes. However, if you can show me that evil fits within a set of perfect attributes, I would be interested in hearing your defense of that position.

You stated "Since God is, by definition, omnipotent, omniscient eternal and immutable, and the greatest possible being, he is perfect in all of his attributes."

 

This allows for perfectly evil. The pinnacle, as it were, of all things evil. There is no evil beyond this evil. It is evil in every way, shape and form. Evil beyond compare. There can never be an evil like this evil. It is evil perfected.

 

You take take the word "perfect" and equate it with "goodness." You skew your reality with unnecessary wordplay. Perfection relates to an ideal. This god can be "ideally" anything. This god can be "ideally" evil.

 

Nothing in your little definition makes this god out to be anything "good." Omnipotent? Neutral. Omniscient? Neutral. Eternal? Neutral. Immutable? Neutral. "The greatest possible being?" Relative. "Perfect in all of his attributes?" You misused "perfect" as I have demonstrated and all but one "attribute" you supplied are neutral. So what's left? A relative assertion that your god is the greatest possible being? Okay. But as I pointed out that relative assertion can now go either way. So perhaps this god is "good" or perhaps it is "evil" or maybe it's simply neutral. How do we know? That's what we've been trying to get you to answer and your little self-defined god doesn't quite cut it.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? How do you figure that that fits into the description that I gave? I don't see that your conclusion logically follows. Evil would be an imperfection and I have stated that God is perfect in all of his attributes, not our attributes. However, if you can show me that evil fits within a set of perfect attributes, I would be interested in hearing your defense of that position.

You stated "Since God is, by definition, omnipotent, omniscient eternal and immutable, and the greatest possible being, he is perfect in all of his attributes."

 

This allows for perfectly evil. The pinnacle, as it were, of all things evil. There is no evil beyond this evil. It is evil in every way, shape and form. Evil beyond compare. There can never be an evil like this evil. It is evil perfected.

 

You take take the word "perfect" and equate it with "goodness." You skew your reality with unnecessary wordplay. Perfection relates to an ideal. This god can be "ideally" anything. This god can be "ideally" evil.

 

Nothing in your little definition makes this god out to be anything "good." Omnipotent? Neutral. Omniscient? Neutral. Eternal? Neutral. Immutable? Neutral. "The greatest possible being?" Relative. "Perfect in all of his attributes?" You misused "perfect" as I have demonstrated and all but one "attribute" you supplied are neutral. So what's left? A relative assertion that your god is the greatest possible being? Okay. But as I pointed out that relative assertion can now go either way. So perhaps this god is "good" or perhaps it is "evil" or maybe it's simply neutral. How do we know? That's what we've been trying to get you to answer and your little self-defined god doesn't quite cut it.

 

mwc

 

God created man in his own image, so whatever attributes Adam has, I guess God has too and infinitely. God has an infinite desire for a helpmate and an infinite susceptibility to arguments by snakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.