Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
-
You're using the camels nose to suggest that because we don't buy your book that we're eventually going to legalise rape and sex with minors. Ridiculous. these things by the way weren't unheard of back in the old biblical days. There's also no mention of an age of consent in the bible. There's plenty of Rape, though.
We have been over this before. Marienbad was the last to suggest it.
Where in the bible does god condone rape?
when did the church ever say sex with children was okay?
It has always said it is wrong?
so please dont dodge the question
You stated :The fact is Good and evil are personal choices and morals change over time.
is rape always wrong?
Is sex between an adult and a child always wrong?
Yes or no? Your "morals change/it depends on the society of the day" = NO
Have you changed your mind?0 -
Is 1+1 always 2?
Suprisingly for a person who does not believe in morality Morbert is suggesting rape is always wrong!
Unless of course he is trying to pose a trick question and say something like iota plus iota is an imaginary number.
Rape is always wrong? Yes or no?
If you say yes then you cant have moral relativity as a basis for argument.0 -
We have been over this before. Marienbad was the last to suggest it.
Where in the bible does god condone rape?
when did the church ever say sex with children was okay?
It has always said it is wrong?
so please dont dodge the question
You stated :The fact is Good and evil are personal choices and morals change over time.
is rape always wrong?
Is sex between an adult and a child always wrong?
Yes or no? Your "morals change/it depends on the society of the day" = NO
Have you changed your mind?
(Judges 21:10-24 NLT
(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) laws of rape
(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
"when did the church ever say sex with children was okay?"
I'm talking about the Bible. Not the church, who by the way we know for a fact have been covering up systemic child abuse in their ranks. it has nothing to say on the age of consent and Plenty of laws regarding the rape of women.0 -
I think sex with a child is always wrong, some ,as is well documented do not, some even come to believe that the child enjoys it. But enough people also think sex with a child is always wrong so we have been able to make laws prohibiting it.
I think rape is always wrong in every case, not all do . For example rape within marriage is only a relatively recent concept. Again enough people agree so that we made laws against it.
and this coming for someone that claimed that god ordered rape in the bible ?-he didnt -What are all these laws that do not change over time ? You keep alluding to them but never list them. Can you give us some specific examples ?
How about a list of ten ?
you may be compounding your errors Marienbad
Ever heard "sin existed before the law"
guess where i got that from?
You dont have to write laws down to have them ; that is a school called "positive law"
But ther is a school called "natural law"
For example if a country passed a "children enjoy sex" law or " rape your wife" or 3pi equals three" law it would be wrong
According to what? according to an overarching moral law which can be but does not have to be written down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenumerated_rights
Article 40.3 of the Irish constitution refers to and accounts for the recognition of unenumerated rights. The Supreme Court is often the main source of such rights, such as the right to bodily integrity, the right to marry and the right to earn a living, among others.
not themselves expressly coded or "enumerated" among the explicit writ of the law.
Alternative terminology sometimes used are: natural rights, background rights, and fundamental rights.
They might still be there in the spirit of the law since time immemorial but unwritten.0 -
Advertisement
-
Suprisingly for a person who does not believe in morality Morbert is suggesting rape is always wrong!
Unless of course he is trying to pose a trick question and say something like iota plus iota is an imaginary number.
Rape is always wrong? Yes or no?
If you say yes then you cant have moral relativity as a basis for argument.
Under the real number system, 1+1 is always 2.
However, under a simple ring with a single element, 1 that is both an additive and multiplicative identity:
1+1 = 1
Similarly, if you adopt a moral system built from compassion, and consideration for suffering, rape is always wrong. If you adopt a moral system built from consideration for ham sandwiches, rape is not always wrong.0 -
Under the real number system, 1+1 is always 2.
However, under a simple ring with a single element, 1 that is both an additive and multiplicative identity:
1+1 = 1
Similarly, if you adopt a moral system built from compassion, and consideration for suffering, rape is always wrong. If you adopt a moral system built from consideration for ham sandwiches, rape is not always wrong.
But we don't build our moral or legal system on compassion or consideration for suffering. Jesus may have advocated such a system but even yet it has failed to materialize.
If this natural moral law exists it ain't like gravity because it doesn't apply universally or through time.0 -
and this coming for someone that claimed that god ordered rape in the bible ?-he didnt -
you may be compounding your errors Marienbad
Ever heard "sin existed before the law"
guess where i got that from?
You dont have to write laws down to have them ; that is a school called "positive law"
But ther is a school called "natural law"
For example if a country passed a "children enjoy sex" law or " rape your wife" or 3pi equals three" law it would be wrong
According to what? according to an overarching moral law which can be but does not have to be written down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenumerated_rights
Article 40.3 of the Irish constitution refers to and accounts for the recognition of unenumerated rights. The Supreme Court is often the main source of such rights, such as the right to bodily integrity, the right to marry and the right to earn a living, among others.
not themselves expressly coded or "enumerated" among the explicit writ of the law.''
Alternative terminology sometimes used are: natural rights, background rights, and fundamental rights.
They might still be there in the spirit of the law since time immemorial but unwritten.
Why not answer the question ISAW ? the above is all just more needless verbiage.
It is a simple question , can you give some examples of these '' natural rights ,background rights,fundamental rights'' ?0 -
dealt with earlier in the thread when Marianbad raised it(Judges 21:10-24 NLT
Not rape
Not god justifying rape!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76206830&postcount=1612
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76207055&postcount=1615
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76207940&postcount=1623
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76208295&postcount=1628
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76208418&postcount=1630
which says WHERE about god commanding rape?(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76208493&postcount=1633(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
ditto plunder is not rape! it may be indentured service for life -the Jews are big on laws and they dont condone sex at all between unmarried people.(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) laws of rape
which does not condone rape! It condems it and has a legal penalty.
That is only if she consents ie it isnt rape(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
You didnt read the next verse
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.
i.e it says rape is wrong and punishable by death.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76209347&postcount=1657
"when did the church ever say sex with children was okay?"I'm talking about the Bible. Not the church, who by the way we know for a fact have been covering up systemic child abuse in their ranks. it has nothing to say on the age of consent and Plenty of laws regarding the rape of women.
WHERE where in the Bible does God order rape where is it mentioned as right?
It is always mentioned as a wrong in the bible!
We dont know for a FACT that the church conspired to have a system to cover up child abuse!
On what basis is it a FACT? Wher is your evidence?
the church has plenty to say about age and sex. The roman church in particular has reams on it!0 -
Why not answer the question ISAW ? the above is all just more needless verbiage.
It is a simple question , can you give some examples of these '' natural rights ,background rights,fundamental rights'' ?
i just did. the Irish constitution.
some of them even became enumerated
I dont think you understand. they are not written down but exist. If you wrote them down they would become positive law not natural law.
ninth ammendment to the US constitution:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.
During the Age of Enlightenment, natural law theory challenged the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government — and thus legal rights — in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by some anarchists to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments.
The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of natural rights; some recognize no difference between the two and regard both as labels for the same thing, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights. Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights0 -
Advertisement
-
Under the real number system, 1+1 is always 2.
However, under a simple ring with a single element, 1 that is both an additive and multiplicative identity:
1+1 = 1
Similarly, if you adopt a moral system built from compassion, and consideration for suffering, rape is always wrong. If you adopt a moral system built from consideration for ham sandwiches, rape is not always wrong.
Look Morbert you are well aware that there are unprovable assertions. Any system that is sufficiently powerful to be able to state true propositions must be able to create statements that can neither be proved nor disproved within that system.
It is a theorem but one thats been proved!
But to move off Mariens point on listing things that cant be shown true to the "rape is always wrong" you are trying to suggest that because the REPRESENTATION of 1+1 =2 can be changed that we can consider rape is not always wrong because mathematics says so?
i don't accept that mathematics proves rape is not always wrong . children are not ham sandwiches.
But if it is you opinion that rape is not always wrong then say it and dont beat around the bush. I dont think you feminist colleagues will be pleased when you tell them.0 -
(sniped)
i don't accept that mathematics proves rape is not always wrong . children are not ham sandwiches.
But if it is you opinion that rape is not always wrong then say it and dont beat around the bush. I dont think you feminist colleagues will be pleased when you tell them.
The problem is that rape is a legal term that describes what it 'is', not what is 'wrong'. One time I could force with violence my wife to have sex, it was not rape therefore it was right?
Is it wrong to force someone to have sex, coerce or compel them? All of these things have been legal at one time or another and some approved of by the Church.0 -
i just did. the Irish constitution.
some of them even became enumerated
I dont think you understand. they are not written down but exist. If you wrote them down they would become positive law not natural law.
ninth ammendment to the US constitution:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.
During the Age of Enlightenment, natural law theory challenged the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government — and thus legal rights — in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by some anarchists to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments.
The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of natural rights; some recognize no difference between the two and regard both as labels for the same thing, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights. Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights[/QUOTE]
This is just such utter rubbish, you keep banging on about overarching laws , presumably coming from some higher power and you can't even give a few examples.
All the cases you have listed above are irrelevant to your position,they are all man made laws and often made in the teeth of clerical opposition and church teaching.
Once again what are some examples of these universal laws , etc that are unchanging ,that are applicable for all peoples and in all times and are self evident to all ?
How hard can it be to give even a few examples ?0 -
Look Morbert you are well aware that there are unprovable assertions. Any system that is sufficiently powerful to be able to state true propositions must be able to create statements that can neither be proved nor disproved within that system.
It is a theorem but one thats been proved!
But to move off Mariens point on listing things that cant be shown true to the "rape is always wrong" you are trying to suggest that because the REPRESENTATION of 1+1 =2 can be changed that we can consider rape is not always wrong because mathematics says so?
i don't accept that mathematics proves rape is not always wrong . children are not ham sandwiches.
But if it is you opinion that rape is not always wrong then say it and dont beat around the bush. I dont think you feminist colleagues will be pleased when you tell them.
My point is you are tendering a false dichotomy. It is not a case of "If morality is a construct, then rape is not always wrong". marienbad might accept that morality emerges as a societal, biological phenomenon, and is not issued from God, but they could still say rape is always wrong, insofar as they adopt a moral system which says there is never a case where rape is justified.0 -
But we don't build our moral or legal system on compassion or consideration for suffering. Jesus may have advocated such a system but even yet it has failed to materialize.
If this natural moral law exists it ain't like gravity because it doesn't apply universally or through time.
Morality and legality are, as I'm sure you are aware, different issues. And it is important to stress, as I did in my post to ISAW, that morality as a construct does not lead to normative moral relativism, a self-defeating (and dangerous) position.0 -
My point is you are tendering a false dichotomy. It is not a case of "If morality is a construct, then rape is not always wrong".
It is to a moral relativist who says "well it might be that way now but it could change depending on how people feel"
As a secular natural law yes but not as a relativist position.marienbad might accept that morality emerges as a societal, biological phenomenon, and is not issued from God,but they could still say rape is always wrong, insofar as they adopt a moral system which says there is never a case where rape is justified.
Not as a relativist.
They can only say it is wrong for them and it depends on the person.
If they believe rape is always wrong no matter who does it they are not relativist.
but posters have intimated ethics and morality are social constructs
If there is a false dichotomy it may be "are all moral duties binding on all people at all times or are moral duties relative to culture?"
but i didnt claim ALL i claimed a very small subset such as rape. i accept we can interpret with a cultural lens. but the source of that interpretation is in nature. and some things are always wrong.0 -
Morality and legality are, as I'm sure you are aware, different issues. And it is important to stress, as I did in my post to ISAW, that morality as a construct does not lead to normative moral relativism, a self-defeating (and dangerous) position.
for one we agree on something?
i guess we will both always be right about that?:)0 -
Morality and legality are, as I'm sure you are aware, different issues. And it is important to stress, as I did in my post to ISAW, that morality as a construct does not lead to normative moral relativism, a self-defeating (and dangerous) position.
Never implied that it would lead to a relativist position, I went farther and implied that all positions are relativist.
Whether their is or is not a natural law the fact remains that we can't agree what it is, we make it up as we go and change to fit our understanding and needs. The end result is the same. Or perhaps not in a metaphysical sense, which seems to be what we are arguing about.0 -
I think sex with a child is always wrong, some ,as is well documented do not, some even come to believe that the child enjoys it. But enough people also think sex with a child is always wrong so we have been able to make laws prohibiting it.
I think rape is always wrong in every case, not all do . For example rape within marriage is only a relatively recent concept. Again enough people agree so that we made laws against it.
What are all these laws that do not change over time ? You keep alluding to them but never list them. Can you give us some specific examples ?
How about a list of ten ?
Although not the first to discuss the idea, Lewis mentions natural law in Mere Christianity. Perhaps reading up on that would provide a gentle introduction to the proposition that we all resolutely believe in the concepts of good and bad, even if we can quite agree on what each is.0 -
which does not condone rape! It condems it and has a legal penalty.
That is only if she consents ie it isnt rape
You didnt read the next verse
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.
i.e it says rape is wrong and punishable by death.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76209347&postcount=1657
"when did the church ever say sex with children was okay?"
WHERE where in the Bible does God order rape where is it mentioned as right?
It is always mentioned as a wrong in the bible!
We dont know for a FACT that the church conspired to have a system to cover up child abuse!
On what basis is it a FACT? Wher is your evidence?
the church has plenty to say about age and sex. The roman church in particular has reams on it!
Where did I say anywhere that God orders Rape? he allows it as part of war plunder.
and yea, the legal penalty for rape is 50 sheckles and you have to marry the girl you rape... hang on, isn't there outcry in the media because they are doing this to girls in the middle east?
as for the church cover up, have you been asleep the last 15 years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases0 -
Advertisement
-
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Although not the first to discuss the idea, Lewis mentions natural law in Mere Christianity. Perhaps reading up on that would provide a gentle introduction to the proposition that we all resolutely believe in the concepts of good and bad, even if we can quite agree on what each is.
Oh I definitely believe in the concept of good and bad Fanny Cradock, but that really dos'nt advance the argument one way or the other.
The problem is not everyone will agree to my definitions of good and bad and I won't agree with their definitions.
This is why I keep asking for some examples of there overarching laws that are so self-evident, but to no avail.
One example ISAW keeps using is the American founding fathers and those glorious documents ( that is not sarcasm either) they created. But even amidst all that rhetoric about about liberty and all men being equal , they either owned slaves , tolerated slave owners and created a slave owning republic.
So what are these self-evident truths, maxims , whatever you wish to call them ? Those undeniable , unchanging , unalterable laws that are so obvious to all ?
Can you show me even one that is not contested ?
The best that ISAW can come up with is ''thou shalt not rape a six year old ''0 -
to a objective person natural law to a CHristian the source of nature is God.
Again though the definition of good and evil in Christianity is what God does and what God doesn't. If God gets his Hebrew soldiers to go of an kill a group of Cannaites that is good, because God told them to do it. He might tell you not to do because it would be bad, but you still define it as when God says so it is good. The particular instance when God told the Hebrew soliders to go do it, well that must have been good by definition because God ordered it.
Either we can judge God or we can't. It is nonsensical to say we can judge God when he does good things but not when he does bad things.
If he did how would you know given that you would define anything God tells you to do as good automatically? It would simply be considered a failing of our understanding of what God originally wanted.But god is consistent. He dosnt do good acts and define evil and then do evil and sayand if we didn't would we be truly human?
Not as humans currently are. In the same way that right now we are not truly aardvarks.god wouldnt god would wish we were with him. but if we so chose we can reject that.
That doesn't answer the question (which is becoming a bit of a theme here). Why did God make us to suffer as if in a lake of fire when he removes himself from us. Why would God wish that we are tortured for all eternity if he is not present.
What do you mean "some of it". It cannot be eternal if there is only some of it.some of it could be triggered by harm.
Ok, so how do I choose to be absent from God but not suffer eternal pain in a lake of fire?that is your point. Nobody else ever agreed it was true. Nor is it reasonable. god does not want people to suffer. But he is prepared to allow it if that is what they chose.
Thats right, I can't. I can choose to be absent from God, but because of how God has made it if I am absent from him I suffer as if in a lake of fire. The question remains why would he do that. Why would he decide that in his absence I would suffer eternal torture?but if they dont drown. and psychological harm isnt physical. So you accept something which may not cause any permanent physical harm can cause eternal torment?
No. Firstly you mentioned physical harm, despite me originally mentioning both physical and mental harm. And secondly you cannot indefinitely water board someone without causing both physical and mental harm.
You could but that is an entirely different scenario. Unless you are suggesting that God is constantly helling people in hell in order so that they are able to continue to suffer?also I could harm you and then heal you. I could do this forever.How so?
Cause we are not discussing the existence of all suffering, we are discussing the existence of one particular circumstance of suffering.
No one suggested that there was not a single thing the robot could do to harm himself (not that this would actually matter for him to retain free will, but that is another discussion, though I suspect it is one you would rather have that this current discussion).It is necessary that a least one thing exists which the robot can chose to do which will harm or benefit the robot. If such a thing does not exist and the robot will not be harmed or benefit then the robot does not have any choice does it?so what?
So your point is irrelevant. I cannot burn my skin off standing in an empty room at room temp. I can harm myself other ways, but not that way. I retain free will. So why must I be able to suffer pain in the absence of God? God could have made being in his absence like being in a room at room temp.It may seem that way to you but you arent using logic. "a least one thing exists which the robot can chose to do which will harm or benefit the robot". Picking something that doesnt harm us does not suffice to formally prove that "a least one thing exists which the robot can chose to do which will harm the robot". If such a thing does not exist the robot is not free.
But ISAW no one said the robot cannot choose to harm himself. That is your little straw man that you invented probably because you realized a few posts ago you don't actually have an answer to the question.
I can currently choose to harm myself multiple ways. So imagining that all these remain, why do I have to suffer like in a lake of fire if God removes his presence from me?
I'm afraid it is you are butchering logic here. So much for Christianity being based on reason.Yes eternal suffering based on choosing from the list of "things which the robot can chose to do which will harm the robot". Obviously choosing one of these things will cause suffering or harm.
Yes, but unless it is the only thing on the list not being able to choose it won't have any effect on his free will.
There are millions of ways I can harm myself, and millions of ways I cannot. Removing one from the list would do nothing for my free will, even if we accept your some what nonsensical idea that you have to have at least one way of harming yourself to have free will.0 -
Thats fair enough but alot of people feel very disillusioned with religion. I still don’t have a clear answer to my initial point, whats so special about belief. Not repentance, but belief – I don’t understand its importance, yet the bible says I need to believe to be saved. You say theres nothing special about belief but that contradicts the bible imo. Name a moral or ethical act by a believer that could not be done by a non believer?
Disillusioned with religion? - Anyone can be disillusioned with religious institutions. Even if one is, this has no bearing on whether or not God is trustworthy. Or whether or not Jesus was who He said that He was.
As a Christian. I acknowledge that that means that I am a follower of Jesus, that I accept by His death and resurrection that He stood in my rightful place and took away my sin. As a result, I live in acknowledgement of God and I seek to serve Him fully. The church from a Biblical point of view is simply a grassroots movement of those who follow Him.
Ultimately, belief Biblically is just a wholehearted acknowledgement of Jesus, and walking in it. It isn't a "feeling" or anything else that you've described. It's simply a well founded trust in who God is and what He did through Jesus.Feeling or belief is what im referring to: - belief in a specific religon that is. It doesn’t answer the question as to why Muslims for example believe their religion is the true one? They consider their “light” as being Islam - why are they not convinced by Christianity?
Belief doesn't have much to do with feeling from a Christian perspective. Irrespective of what people think or not about Christianity, ultimately something is true about God whether we like it or not. I believe in Jesus, because there is simply put good reason for me to put my trust in Him.
Muslims aren't convinced by Christianity in a similar way that you aren't convinced by Christianity. It's either because one hasn't sought out God in fullness, or it is because one has never heard of God. It could be also because people want to run from Him, because they are not willing to acknowledge that in His sight their works are evil. Jesus ultimately demands a transformation, that is costly. It can lose us friends and family, it can lose people their jobs, and ultimately people are in some regions of the world killed for believing in Jesus.Certainly over population and the selfish drain on resources by many (selfish gene concept) is of grave concern long term, however the taboo of slavery, better rights for women, better healthcare and longer life spans are some measureable success stories, in the short term at least. Tbh its a very large topic, which I hope not to go into now.
It's not overpopulation that I'm speaking of. It's the sin that mankind has allowed to ruin God's good order in the world. Ultimately, it is mankinds rejection of God's standard that has led the universe into the state that is in.Maybe on some issues, but not all. An example: the catholic church preached that non baptised babies are destined for limbo, but then changed their mind on this recently. http://www.ukapologetics.net/10/unbaptizedbabies.htm
“In 2007, after extensive theological research, the commission has reported that there is a possibility that these unbaptized babies can go to heaven. They do agree with past findings that there is no definite answer to this question in religious documents, however, the commission has found that there is enough evidence to revise the official Roman Catholic Church opinion.”
This took until 2007! The reality is that alot of people have interpretational difficulties that can results in years, decades, or as above, centuries to agree on.
Limbo has nothing to do with Biblical Christianity. The concept isn't listed in the Bible once. I'm a non-Catholic Christian, I simply defend God's word on boards.ie.They dont believe in a "him" in the first place. Just because they don’t believe in him doesn’t make them “evil” imo.
The rejection of God is profoundly wrong. It separates us from our Creator, and ultimately leads us into the delusion that we can better guide ourselves rather than accepting the rightful standard of God. At best it is a mistake, at worst it is a lie that denies the fundamental truth about reality.The fact is Good and evil are personal choices and morals change over time. They used to refer to black males as Bucks. Hangings were a public spectacle and any science outside the church forbidden.
Humans are becoming more liberal and it's a force of change that no book will ever be able to stall.
I don't think that's much a "fact". Even if humans have done things which are profoundly wrong, they have always been profoundly wrong. No matter what humans think, in order for there to be moral understanding between any two individuals, there must be a common standard or a common indicator between them that there is something right or wrong. If people had varying and different notions or right and wrong we ultimately wouldn't be able to engage in any ethical reasoning.0 -
philologos wrote: »As opposed to you determining what is good or evil on the basis of personal preference?
It's entirely reasonable that God determines what is best for us, given that He knows far more about Creation than you or I could ever imagine. Ultimately, I'd rather trust God with that, than myself to be quite honest with you.
But why would God choose what is best for us? Because that is the right thing to do? In which case God doesn't determine morality, he merely follows it.0 -
But why would God choose what is best for us? Because that is the right thing to do? In which case God doesn't determine morality, he merely follows it.
Because, He cares for us as His Creation?Psalm 8:4 wrote:what is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?0 -
It is to a moral relativist who says "well it might be that way now but it could change depending on how people feel"
You are confusing the permanency of the position with the permanency of the judgement.
Anyone can change their mind. Tomorrow you might decide that Christianity is utterly nonsense and abortion is perfectly fine.
Because that is a possibility does that mean that right now you do not believe that abortion is absolutely immoral?0 -
-
ISAW is claiming that even if he regarded abortion as immoral, there is a mind independent ethical reality that states that he was wrong.
He can correct me if I've misinterpreted. As far as I'm concerned it matters little as to what we argue is right and wrong if ultimately something is right and wrong irrespective of our opinion.0 -
philologos wrote: »Because, He cares for us as His Creation?
But to care for something means to act in a good correct manner to it.
So what defines what is the good correct manner to interact with us?
Plenty of parents who say they care for there children treat them badly (badly being defined by us not them). We would say they aren't caring for their children because they are acting immorally towards them.
If you asked the parent though everything they were doing is caring.
So if God decides what is caring then anything he does will, by definition, be caring.
Or God doesn't decide what is caring, in which case he is following a moral rule book, not writing it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Philologos, in your opinion,do all those Muslims and non believers that either won't or can't believe in Jesus go to hell ?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement