Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My source is not based on the natural world. You are unable to say that. Your morality is entirely dependent upon the natural world, and a chemical reaction in your brain.
My source of morality is God himself. It's above the natural world. It is not dependent upon chemical reactions in anyone's brain. It transcends nature. Murder is wrong because God has revealed himself as the giver of life and has stated that it is wrong.
So then God does change his morality. You cannot have both that God never changes unlike man and no do not use those OT stuff because they no longer apply. It is one or the other. And did not slavery exist after Jesus? What about how to treat slaves, if that is OT than can you beat them more now? Are the anti homosexuality stuff not from the OT.
Typical atheist trap question. It's one or the other. The world is apparently only black and white to you. If slavery is wrong in any way shape or form , then taking out a loan to a bank is consider immoral? There are certain actions that are universally wrong in any circumstance. Homosexuality, for instance. There are certain actions that are not universally wrong in any circumstance. Killing someone as a means of self defense and self preservation, for instance.
The thing I can't figure out is why are people like you spending so much time arguing about the character of someone that you don't believe exists? It would be equivalent to passionately debating the morality of Spiderman. If the goal is to convince me to give up my faith because I serve a cruel God then you will fail everytime. No, I agree with the quote in this article. This is exactly what is really going on behind the curtain:
Quote:
The intent of many of those who make such claims is to make a good God look evil in order to justify their rejection of Him, His Word, or even His existence. But if God really doesn’t exist and the Bible isn’t His Word, then those who attack God and His Word by calling Him harsh and evil shouldn’t even care to attack Him. By attacking Him, they show that they know He exists and are simply suppressing that knowledge (see Romans 1:20–25). They are trying to justify their rebellion against God. Few that I have spoken with realize that when they attack God’s character in an effort to make a case against His existence they are refuting their own position.
So he came to fulfill them not abolish them. So are those laws abolished or not? Do any of the Mosaic laws still apply?
And yes my study of the Bible is almost as good as some posters understanding of geology or evolution.
You need to do a lot more studying and understand the purpose of the Law. Christ didn't come to abolish the law in the sense of fighting and wiping it out. He brought the law to fruition by being the ultimate sacrifice for all men.
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a treeâ€â€”
Typical atheist trap question. It's one or the other. The world is apparently only black and white to you.
Absolutely not! Most of us see the world in grey...
But you made the claim that morality must be objective, which means that it must be black and white with no grey. What is right must be right, what is wrong is wrong, and the differences cannot vary over time, location, or based on who is doing the action in question. If morality is objective, and chattel slavery was not immoral when God commanded it, then it cannot be immoral now. Conversely, if chattel slavery was never moral, then why did God permit it in his standard of righteous behavior? How could a moral God do that?
By trying to say that it was cultural, or that was then and this is not, or that was under Law, we are under grace, you are demonstrating that you do in fact believe morality to be relative or subjective.You can't have it both ways.
One thing that would be instructive would be for you to try to formulate the principles of your objective morality. What are the basic principles or rules from which you can derive all the rest? How do you know that these principles are the correct basis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The thing I can't figure out is why are people like you spending so much time arguing about the character of someone that you don't believe exists? It would be equivalent to passionately debating the morality of Spiderman. If the goal is to convince me to give up my faith because I serve a cruel God then you will fail everytime.
It isn't about us "hating" God, which is patently ridiculous. You are trying to make the argument that morality must be objective, and it must be based on your Deity. We are simply pointing out that your standard appears flawed and contradictory. If you don't want us to comment on the morality recorded in your holy book, don't try to use it as a universal standard...
It's downright scary to see the degradation of morality in modern society thanks to secularism.
How are you blaming one on the other exactly? Appears you are making things up again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
And how many times have atheists brought up slavery in the Bible here huh? Talk about bald tires. You ignore 90% of the Bible and focus either on Noah's ark or slavery in the OT.
Generalizing atheists again to feed your narrative I see. Try and apply it to reality though. Find a single post of mine where I focus on slavery or Noahs Ark in the way you describe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justtitans
We are basically discussing what is harm? What does it actually mean to say harm and cannot be used to determine morality?
So I asked cupper3 and I ask all of you? Is there a universal definition of harm?
YES OR NO: Does the definition of emotional harm vary from person to person?
Yes I think it varies from person to person, but not wildly. You can of course point out that there are extremes in moral views and stand points and that morality is therefore a vast continuum in our species. However the constraints of our biology, our way of life, our very nature, cause vast and major clumping on that continuum.
So while the moral values of the species as a whole vary wildly in the size of that continuum, the moral values and systems of it as a whole vary very little in terms of the numerical variety of positions held. Morality and harm do not vary all that much at all in our species.
As for a universal definition of harm, I have yet to hear one myself. But Sam Harris at least makes a useful attempt. He suggests that if morality is to mean anything, it is related to the well being of conscious creatures. Therefore one has to do little more than imagine the worst possible suffering for all conscious creatures.... the maximum amount of suffering for the maximum number of people.
Anything that therefore moves AWAY from that extreme on the continuum of well being is therefore a moral good, and anything that moves overall towards it a moral bad or "harm".
I have seen no evidence that morality is anything but subjective. The theistic bleating that there is some objective standard is not supported by anything but repetition of the claim. But subjectivity does not take away from its importance to us as a species, nor does it automatically mean there are no right or wrong moves that move us along that continuum in either direction.
Typical atheist trap question. It's one or the other. The world is apparently only black and white to you. If slavery is wrong in any way shape or form , then taking out a loan to a bank is consider immoral? There are certain actions that are universally wrong in any circumstance. Homosexuality, for instance. There are certain actions that are not universally wrong in any circumstance. Killing someone as a means of self defense and self preservation, for instance.
The thing I can't figure out is why are people like you spending so much time arguing about the character of someone that you don't believe exists? It would be equivalent to passionately debating the morality of Spiderman. If the goal is to convince me to give up my faith because I serve a cruel God then you will fail everytime. No, I agree with the quote in this article. This is exactly what is really going on behind the curtain:
You need to do a lot more studying and understand the purpose of the Law. Christ didn't come to abolish the law in the sense of fighting and wiping it out. He brought the law to fruition by being the ultimate sacrifice for all men.
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a treeâ€â€”
Galatians 3:13
First of all it has been those supporting the Bible and opposing those of us who claim that we cannot use anything other than god for morals as we are not universal over space and time. But God can and does change over time. So God can change but humans cannot?
Secondly I have no interest in deconverting you or anyone else and that is a false accustation. Show me anywhere that I have told anyone to not beleive in their God. I have and will continue to call out false statements such as the one claiming atheists cannot tell right from wrong or that even if we do not beleive in God we must get our morals from him.
I am probably the opposite of black and white. It is the Christians who change the meanings of words or terms to twist what appears to me immoral acts into acts of kindness. The quotes I provided from the Bible do not show slavery in the light of human kindness that has been suggested and those stating that slavery was different and not bad ignored the fact that some types of slavery were just like the kind in the USA in the 19th Century.
My arguement is not about the character of someone who does not exist but the excuses that you and your fellow supporters use to justify what is in the Bible or what you believe in. God was justified to drown almost every living creature on the planet because he made this is one example. How is that a justification? Or that the laws needed to be stricker back then so that rape victims could be stoned to death or forced into marriage. Your side has argued that stoning them to death was good because othewise they would have no place to live.
As far as murder, self defence is not murder. The example with the army was in the Bible they were commanded to execute all the men they captured in one town and all the people but the virgin females in another town. That is not self defence and the excuse that well they would just grow up and be resentful for their parents being massacure so we had to kill them seems so immoral to me. And it is immoral today. The soldiers in Iraq could shoot at people shooting at them but not execute those they capture and were not allowed to take villagers as plunder. It was not mean that asked if the soldiers were murderers nor did I ever infer it. I pointed out the difference between the modern morality and that from the Biblical passages.
And the ultimate sacrifice, I usually do not try to get much into the actual religion because that is your business but how is Christ's sacrifice knowing he was going straight to heaven any more than those of the suicide bombers , the natives in the Ghost Dance tradition or the Buddists burning themselves for their cause. His sacrifice sure does not seem much different to me. He died, they died.
You claim that homosexuality is universally immoral yet I do not see it as immoral. The United Church of Canada, our largest protestant denomination does not see it as immoral, I believe the Anglican Church has gay bishops. Many other religions did not see it as immoral. Hence you are incorrect on homosexuality being universally immoral.
All that I posted could be false to you if you believe that your belief is the exact word of the only god there is and any intrepretation or deviation from your belief is false.
In summary it is your side's use of the claim that your God is all lovingt and knowing all that all good things and no bad things come from him that I fight. If you can find reasons to excuse all the evil from the bible and discount anything good coming from anywhere other than your bible then maybe you can but that is not the truth.
Your chance to learn something new and find out you are the person who lives in a black and white world. Most people know there are many grey areas and places in shadow. Go for it, Jeff. Open thine eyes and take a good look at what's out there.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 04-01-2015 at 03:13 PM..
Typical atheist trap question. It's one or the other. The world is apparently only black and white to you. If slavery is wrong in any way shape or form , then taking out a loan to a bank is consider immoral?
If you look at Post 141 I in fact stated that if slavery for debt was fine then the Bible should have stated that the other type of slavery was not and that a female slave should have been given the same chance of freedom after the period of time that the male slave was given.
However the type of slavery where the slave is never free is ignored in the whitewashing of slavery in the Bible. If one kind is fine then all slavery is fine? Is it black and white to you, you can either have all types of slavery or none?
The bank loan is slavery goes straight over my head.
If you look at Post 141 I in fact stated that if slavery for debt was fine then the Bible should have stated that the other type of slavery was not and that a female slave should have been given the same chance of freedom after the period of time that the male slave was given.
However the type of slavery where the slave is never free is ignored in the whitewashing of slavery in the Bible. If one kind is fine then all slavery is fine? Is it black and white to you, you can either have all types of slavery or none?
Aside from the question of the morality of any kind of slavery (or indeed, indentured servitude, with which I think he's unsuccessfully trying to equate all Biblical mention of slavery), there is just the fact that a divinely inspired book leads from behind with notions that can't seem to rise above the mien of its day. That doesn't speak well of the alleged provenance of the book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
The bank loan is slavery goes straight over my head.
Don't sell yourself short. It is not that it's over your head, it's that it's a frantic reach and not relevant.
Near as I can tell he was trying to further water down the Bible's failure to condemn the evil of slavery by creating a false equivalency between voluntarily acquiring an obligation in a contractual arrangement, and being taken captive in war and used for free labor and sex.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
