Is there a single moral issue that Christians hold dear that could not be arrived at through reason? (Commandments, Antichrist)

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by citizenkane2

I am dazzled at how arrogant and condescending your initial question is. So you assume that the moral stances Christians take are not logical or well reasoned?

Just curious....

Well I certainly think some of them may be, but others are not...Examples...condemning homosexuals, premarital sex, children being guilty of sins of the father, divorce in some denominations, the use of birth control in others.....There are many more that are immoral to various sects of Christians, many of them totally illogical.

[shibata]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

condemning

Christians don't condemn anything. They preach the message of salvation. It is others who condemn homosexuality, abortion, etc.- for their own evil reasons- and one heavily suspects that the deep, stubborn resistance of homosexuals and others to acknowledge that fact is equally evil.

homosexuals

Why is homosexuality well reasoned?

premarital sex

Why is that well-reasoned?

children being guilty of sins of the father

That's absurd nonsense.

divorce in some denominations

That's not denominational, it's Scriptural. Why is divorce well-reasoned?

the use of birth control in others

That's nothing to do with Christian morals.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by shibata

Christians don't condemn anything. They preach the message of salvation. It is others who condemn homosexuality, abortion, etc.- for their own evil reasons- and one heavily suspects that the deep, stubborn resistance of homosexuals and others to acknowledge that fact is equally evil.

I don't agree...Homosexuality is condemned by most Christians from what I have seen and heard.

Why is homosexuality well reasoned?

Because it is perfectly natural and normal.

Why is that well-reasoned?

Premarital sex harms no one. I certainly would never marry anyone without having sex first. I may not be compatible. Sex is a very important part of any marriage.

That's absurd nonsense.

I heartily agree.

That's not denominational, it's Scriptural. Why is divorce well-reasoned?

Would you prefer to stay with a person who doesn't want to be there? Should one stay with an abusive spouse? Divorce is the reasonable answer in those situations.

That's nothing to do with Christian morals.

Wrong...Birth control is considered immoral in many denominations and that is just not reasonable.

[tigetmax24]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Tactic? Apparently you think that discussions about morality can be reduced to yes or no answers, how infantile.

Once again, go back and read my opening post. It's obviously not a yes or no question. You're free to take up as much space as needed in order to provide a sensible answer or summon up the courage to admit that my point is valid and that you really don't have any basis upon which to single out Christian morality for derision.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Here is your simple answer, morality is nothing more and nothing less than a code of conduct for a society. It isn't dependent upon some "transcendent eternal creator, since none exist. Morality is a human construct, devised by man to serve man's social needs.

Nonsense. It's not possible to have transcendent law in the absence of a transcendent being.

Clearly, if there is no transcendent law, morality must necessarily be relative. If no transcendent being exists, as you claim, you have no basis on which to impugn the morality of anyone else.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

If you define obfuscation as being an answer you don't like, so be it.

Oh I'm perfectly fine with answers that I don't like. In fact, I would much prefer any sort of direct answer to my question - one that doesn't equate to a non-answer or opportunity to go off on another tangential rabbit trail.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

So says a slave owning political rhetorician.

I don't own any slaves.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Duh.

You can't have it both ways. Is slavery right or is slavery wrong?

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Oh, they found support for slavery in the teachings of Christ but simply chose to ignore it, just as progressive Christians ignore, gloss over, and reinterpret biblical teachings to fit their religious beliefs to modern realities and rationalism.

Brilliant observation! Humans often choose to ignore what they choose to ignore and accept what they choose to accept.

Now what does any of this have to do with this discussion?

Originally Posted by ovcatto

I thought the truth was the truth and a falsity was false?

You can't be this dense.

If you are actually serious about this ridiculous assertion, please explain how it is possible for a controversy over the truth to alter that which is actually true.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Why waste my time:

You're the one making the absurd assertion that Christian teaching advocates slavery.

Make the case - in your own words. I'm well acquainted with the endless number of varying viewpoints available through on-line search engines.

I suggest that you either put up or shut up.

[tigetmax24]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Now respond to my questions without deflection.

Now this is rich! You've done nothing but deflect and obfuscate and now you accuse me of deflecting? LOL!

Originally Posted by ovcatto

If "God's" law is transcendent and immutable, then why must we even bother with searching for truth, it should be readily apparent without need of ecclesiastical interpretations, or reinterpretations. There would be no need for the Talmud, myriad versions and translations of the bible, the Hadith or a coterie of wise religious men who assume to interpret and apply this transcendent and immutable law. So what is truth, the moral truth of Papal infallibility, the Truth of Martin Luther or the Truth according to Pat Roberston?

Is there a question here? I would truly like to answer without "deflection" but all you've done here is present your personal opinion.

Ask any police detective and you'll get absolute confirmation that the truth is often difficult to come by.

People will find reasons to argue over pretty much anything. Personally, I don't find any deep dark mystery concerning the important truths of God's law or God's clearly revealed nature.

Some would no doubt disagree with me - so what?

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Can you point to a single society, untouched by the god of Jews and Christians, whereby the moral code of that society differed to such an extent as to be deem utterly unrecognizable by another society? As an example, a society which draws no distinction between lawful and unlawful homicide, where there is a total absence of honoring of elders or parents, where intra-group theft is condoned, or encouraged, where honesty is not considered a virtue?

What part of my opening post response do you not understand?

[tigetmax24]

Originally Posted by Konraden

You claim what whatever God does is morally right, because he is absolutely good.

The Old Testament, as everybody knows, represents one of the most violent gods in history. If God says its okay to kill millions, including women and children, why are we not allowed to? Why do we view our morality as better that your God?

To begin, I don't accept your picture of the Old Testament "gods."

God is also perfectly just. All humans die. Do all humans deserve to die?

Anyone can go on a web forum and spout off about God's supposed unfair capricious ruthless and violent nature. The tougher task would be for you to lay out a sensible theological argument that supports such an assertion.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Depends if you're Stalin and his followers or not. Clearly Stalin believed the ends justified the means.

Well, in view of relative morality, do you believe that the ends justify the means?

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Based on?

Based upon the same source that identifies all wrongs - God's word.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Clearly. There is a reason why the Founders of the U.S. saw fit to keep its citizens armed. "An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man a subject." Any "morality," the system of rules we all agree to live by, that didn't meet or exceeded unnecessarily the needs of the people could be removed by force of the people.

What does this have to do with my question?

Again, does might make right?

[shibata]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

I don't agree...Homosexuality is condemned by most Christians from what I have seen and heard.

By all Christians- if they are asked. Moderator cut: rude comments deleted.

But others can mind their own business, you know.

Because it is perfectly natural and normal.

It has been taboo, and a revulsive concept, in almost all societies, until very recently. And I'm not at all sure that buggery is not a revulsive concept to everyone today, if they are honest. Homosexuals not infrequently admit that they despise themselves after the act, but get over it in time for the next one.

Premarital sex harms no one.

Many people don't think so, and wish they had never indulged- even if there are no consequent pregnancies or diseases, to say nothing of emotional disturbances.

I heartily agree.

It's absurd nonsense that you think it's Christian teaching. How did you get that idea?

Would you prefer to stay with a person who doesn't want to be there?

That's not the issue. Should persons not want to be there?

It does not seem to me that skeptics have much of a case against Christian values on sexual matters, which they often seem to be obsessed by. The prohibition of bearing false witness is one 'law' that they seldom mention as a Christian one. Now why do you think that may be?

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

Once again, go back and read my opening post.

This one?

"...how it would be possible to have any basis for any morality in the absence of a transcendent eternal creator."

This is a yes or no question? I think not.

Nonsense. It's not possible to have transcendent law in the absence of a transcendent being.

Ya got me there. But since I don't ascribe to the existence of "transcendent law" (whatever that is suppose to mean) or a transcendent being for that matter, your beef lies elsewhere.

Clearly, if there is no transcendent law, morality must necessarily be relative. If no transcendent being exists, as you claim, you have no basis on which to impugn the morality of anyone else.

Morality and your "transcendent law" are two very separate concepts.

Anyway, if we agree then that morality is relative, which by the way it is, the morality of one society, is open to rational critique (impugning in your view) by another.

Oh I'm perfectly fine with answers that I don't like. In fact, I would much prefer any sort of direct answer to my question - one that doesn't equate to a non-answer or opportunity to go off on another tangential rabbit trail.

I disagree.

You can't have it both ways. Is slavery right or is slavery wrong?

Asked and answered.

Brilliant observation! Humans often choose to ignore what they choose to ignore and accept what they choose to accept.

Now what does any of this have to do with this discussion?

If the keepers, interpreters and protagonist of "transcendent law" can't keep the truths of that "transcendent law" straight, it begs the question if it exists at all. Get it?

You can't be this dense.

You're right, I'm not, so I suggest the problem lies elsewhere.

If you are actually serious about this ridiculous assertion,

I answer when you can tell the difference between a question and an assertion (hint, questions are followed by question marks, assertions are not).

You're the one making the absurd assertion that Christian teaching advocates slavery.

I make no assertion, I simply provided you with links to numerous theologians that do.

I'm well acquainted with the endless number of varying viewpoints available through on-line search engines.

Good, then take your own advice.

'I suggest that you either put up or shut up."

[Konraden]

You've misquoted Me as Ovcatto.

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

To begin, I don't accept your picture of the Old Testament "gods."

OT Yahweh is far more violent than NT Yahweh. He kills tons of people. He orders the killing of tons of people. Literally, he kills more people in the OT than Satan does.

God is also perfectly just. All humans die. Do all humans deserve to die?

And how is God's orders for the destruction of 60 cities, and to kill everyone in them, including women and children, just? All so the Israelites can live there. For a God that supposedly loves all of his creation, he certainly appreciates the Israelites more than any other.

Anyone can go on a web forum and spout off about God's supposed unfair capricious ruthless and violent nature. The tougher task would be for you to lay out a sensible theological argument that supports such an assertion.

When you play thought terminating cliches like "It's God's creation, he can do what he wants (which I know you will eventually do, so don't bother) it's hard to have a serious discussion about the (lack of) morality of God.

Any simple reading of the OT will reveal that God is a violent Creator. An actual understanding of why is much more beneficial: Faith empowers, and believing that there is this guy in the sky that is watching of you and your nation as you fight wars and conquer, it's pretty uplifting and induces quite a bit of morale in the forces. Believing that God tells you to destroy 60 cities is much more reason to fight than some overarching commander telling you to do so, especially considering, well, it's God, creator of all things! You can't argue against that kind of authority.

Well, in view of relative morality, do you believe that the ends justify the means?

Frequently they do. Sacrifice is a common practice.

Based upon the same source that identifies all wrongs - God's word.

God's Word?! Are you sure about that? Are you following OT law or NT law? Because there is a very specific difference, notably that the later you're following the Religion of Paul.

What does this have to do with my question?

Again, does might make right?

Would you like me to reiterate? CLEARLY MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. That's why citizens have guns, to defend what society, the masses, finds right. 300 million people armed and revolting is more than a government could handle. If the government overstepped its bounds (like, disavowed freedom of press or some such), the people could rise up and violently overthrow those in power. The Society determines what is right, and we agree to what is right.

Which is why we have rights and laws in the first place: we all agree to follow them. When it comes time to change them, somebody disagrees, leads a movement, and overthrows (thankfully peacefully) the incumbent laws,rights, and "morals" of the society. That isn't too difficult to understand.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

Well, in view of relative morality, do you believe that the ends justify the means?

Here is the problem with absolutist. Yes, there are most definitely times when the ends justify the means.

Based upon the same source that identifies all wrongs - God's word.

Horse crap. God's word doesn't even begin to cover "all wrongs" until priest, rabbis, imans, and minsters interpret what they like while ignoring what they don't in order to cover the situation, if they so choose to.