Is morality objective or subjective?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 753
#331
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
(IFF) this is your primary guiding statement, if this is the foundation of your idea of morality and law (THEN) you're the most radical pacifist, peacenik, tree-hugging, kumbaya singing, doormat hippie I've every met. 

It is not self-seeking?
Do you believe that love should seek its own way over that of those it holds dear? 

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.

I believe this tells me not to take the law into my own hands and to be compassionate to those who offend you instead of seeking revenge. God will repay for vengeance is His. He will judge justly. That is not up to me.

[ Self-denial on Behalf of Others ] Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves. 2 Each of us is to please his neighbor for his good, to his edification. 3 For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached You fell on Me.”

Matthew 5:3-11
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5 “Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
10 “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.


It keeps no record of wrongs?
Those who cannot forgive are like someone who has indigestion. It is not not what they have eaten but what is eating them. It is a piece of baggage those who hold a grudge carry with them. The other person may not even know of the grudge but it eats the person holding it up with hatred or resentment. 

Matthew 6:14-15
14 For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive [i]others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions. 

After God has forgiven me my debts, my sins, how would it be if I did not do the same to others? Thus, if I have a grievance against a loved one I should settle it before I go to sleep. That is a good principle to live with.


I'm not seeing anything in there that would justify killing felons or protesting abortion.

That would be something the government did for it is not for a citizen to take revenge but for the state to apply justice (except in cases of self-defence or protecting others from wrong). And love is just. A good judge will not wink at wrongs. He will punish them or else there would be no justice. Without the state/government applying justice there would be anarchy. People would do whatever evil they liked without any consequences.  
#332
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm not disputing your definition of "love".

I'm asking how it is logically consistent with your idea of "justice".

I'm not seeing anything in there that would justify killing felons or protesting abortion.
That would be something the government did for it is not for a citizen to take revenge but for the state to apply justice (except in cases of self-defence or protecting others from wrong). And love is just. A good judge will not wink at wrongs. He will punish them or else there would be no justice. Without the state/government applying justice there would be anarchy. People would do whatever evil they liked without any consequences. 
Can a judge act in accordance with your definition of "love"?

Doesn't it keep no record of wrongs?

Doesn't your hypothetical god punish evil?

How can you say that the state must enforce laws, otherwise there are no consequences?
#333
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm saying that someone who murders someone else does not receive the same recompense he/she gave without the court system taking their life also. Many times those left behind feel that justice is not equal. Their loved one is no longer alive while the perpetrator of the crime is. 
Those who cannot forgive are like someone who has indigestion. It is not not what they have eaten but what is eating them. It is a piece of baggage those who hold a grudge carry with them. The other person may not even know of the grudge but it eats the person holding it up with hatred or resentment. 
#334
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
And does God ever go back on, or change His word?
No, His word is eternal and unchanging.
How then do we explain verses that seem to say that God does change His mind? Verses such as Genesis 6:6, “The LORD was grieved that He had made man on the earth, and His heart was filled with pain.” Also, Exodus 32:14 proclaims, “Then the LORD relented and did not bring on His people the disaster He had threatened.” These verses speak of the Lord “repenting” or “relenting” of something and seem to contradict the doctrine of God’s immutability.

Another passage that is often used to show that God changes His mind is the story of Jonah. Through His prophet, God had told Nineveh He would destroy the city in forty days (Jonah 3:4). However, Nineveh repented of their sin (verses 5–9). In response to the Assyrians’ repentance, God relented: “He had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction He had threatened” (verse 10). [LINK]

#335
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not disputing your definition of "love".

I'm asking how it is logically consistent with your idea of "justice".
Because evil is not condoned but condemned. How would it be loving to let someone continually torture or beat up some innocent person and not prevent them from doing so? Or how would it be loving to let someone murder person after person rather than preventing them from doing so? 

(Love) 5 does not act unbecomingly....6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness,

Love is protective of the good. It does not condone evil. It rejoices in what is right. Thus, love is just. 


I'm not seeing anything in there that would justify killing felons or protesting abortion.
That would be something the government did for it is not for a citizen to take revenge but for the state to apply justice (except in cases of self-defence or protecting others from wrong). And love is just. A good judge will not wink at wrongs. He will punish them or else there would be no justice. Without the state/government applying justice there would be anarchy. People would do whatever evil they liked without any consequences. 
Can a judge act in accordance with your definition of "love"?
A judge is there to uphold the law. He can have compassion and give a second chance for bad things done but not against evil and unrepentant malice. That would not be acting in a loving or just way. He would not be protecting others, therefore unloving.



Doesn't it keep no record of wrongs?
Speaking of a person (I - first-person singular pronoun - within the context) forgiving others for a wrong against them, not about societal justice.

If a father's two-year-old girl continually hits her younger baby brother the father can disciple her (justice) in love so that she too will learn what is right and what is wrong rather than let her hurt her baby brother. To ignore her actions would be unloving both to her and to her baby brother. It would encourage her to continue her actions while also hurting her brother.


Doesn't your hypothetical god punish evil?
My God is hypothetical to you, not me. Yes, He punishes evil. How would a judge be good if he continually ignored evil and rewarded it? There is a time when God will judge our actions and motives. That keeps some in check or it tends to harden us to God because we don't want Him pointing out what is the right action. A person committing adultery is not acting lovingly towards his wife/her husband since they made that commitment to each other to love each other. Instead, he hurts her or in the case of the woman, she hurts him. While doing evil we do not want to be reminded of our unlovingness. Thus, we ignore and deny God because we do not want to face this fact. We do not want to be reminded that we have wronged others. So we continue to act unjustly and unlovingly towards them. 



How can you say that the state must enforce laws, otherwise there are no consequences?


It means to allow evil would be unloving and unjust. 
#336
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Speaking of a person (I - first-person singular pronoun - within the context) forgiving others for a wrong against them, not about societal justice.
What informs your primary AXIOMS regarding "societal justice" (if-not-love)?
#337
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Speaking of a person (I - first-person singular pronoun - within the context) forgiving others for a wrong against them, not about societal justice.
What informs your primary AXIOMS regarding "societal justice" (if-not-love)?

What is fair, what is equal, what is good, which again would tie into what is the loving thing to do. 
#338
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
So, to recap:
God (OT and NT God are the same) is a perfect moral being whose unchanging Word not only forms the basis of morality, but is in itself always perfectly moral. Agree?
#339
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
So, to recap:
God (OT and NT God are the same) is a perfect moral being whose unchanging Word not only forms the basis of morality, but is in itself always perfectly moral. Agree? 
What do you mean by that? He describes both the good and evil, the moral and the immoral, the perfect and the flawed.
#340
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
but is in itself always perfectly moral. Agree? 
What do you mean by that? He describes both the good and evil, the moral and the immoral, the perfect and the flawed.
I was talking about God's Word, not God Himself. Hopefully that clears it up.
#341
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
but is in itself always perfectly moral. Agree? 
What do you mean by that? He describes both the good and evil, the moral and the immoral, the perfect and the flawed.
I was talking about God's Word, not God Himself. Hopefully that clears it up.

His word describes both the good and bad of human affairs in all their sordidness. It also gives us a moral blueprint to work from, the Ten Commandments. Jesus sums up those ten in two.  
#342
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
His word describes both the good and bad of human affairs in all their sordidness. It also gives us a moral blueprint to work from, the Ten Commandments. Jesus sums up those ten in two.  
If God commanded someone (or a group of people) to do something, then the thing is necessarily moral. Correct?

<br>


#343
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
If both good and bad affairs are equally as sordid.

Then what is one supposed to do.
#344
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
His word describes both the good and bad of human affairs in all their sordidness. It also gives us a moral blueprint to work from, the Ten Commandments. Jesus sums up those ten in two.  
If God commanded someone (or a group of people) to do something, then the thing is necessarily moral. Correct?


I'm trying to think of God commanding someone to do something without a moral imperative behind it and can't think of any so yes. A command is a moral imperative.
#345
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm trying to think of God commanding someone to do something without a moral imperative behind it and can't think of any so yes. A command is a moral imperative.
And if those people disobeyed or went counter to that command, they would be going against the moral imperative of God, thereby making them immoral. Correct?

#346
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
I'm trying to think of God commanding someone to do something without a moral imperative behind it and can't think of any so yes. A command is a moral imperative.
And if those people disobeyed or went counter to that command, they would be going against the moral imperative of God, thereby making them immoral. Correct?

Yes. Now, may I ask what is the purpose of all these questions? Are you developing a case against the biblical God or are you interested in my thinking?
#347
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
What informs your primary AXIOMS regarding "societal justice" (if-not-love)?
What is fair, what is equal, what is good, which again would tie into what is the loving thing to do. 
And is that specified somewhere in your old book?
#348
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
What informs your primary AXIOMS regarding "societal justice" (if-not-love)?
What is fair, what is equal, what is good, which again would tie into what is the loving thing to do. 
And is that specified somewhere in your old book?

The Ten Commandments, which Jesus summarized in two. 
#349
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
What is fair, what is equal, what is good, which again would tie into what is the loving thing to do. 
And is that specified somewhere in your old book?
The Ten Commandments, which Jesus summarized in two. 
Now you're just running in circles.  That's where you got the "love god and love others" from in the first place.

I'm asking why you use the "love" standard for "personal" stuff and the "justice" standard for "state" stuff.
#350
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
Are you developing a case against the biblical God or are you interested in my thinking?
A bit of the latter, not at all the former (at least for this thread).
<br>

Now, may I ask what is the purpose of all these questions?
I’m building a case. Not against the God of the Bible (it may seem like it initially, but it’s not). 
#351
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
And does God ever go back on, or change His word?
No, His word is eternal and unchanging.
How then do we explain verses that seem to say that God does change His mind? Verses such as Genesis 6:6, “The LORD was grieved that He had made man on the earth, and His heart was filled with pain.” Also, Exodus 32:14 proclaims, “Then the LORD relented and did not bring on His people the disaster He had threatened.” These verses speak of the Lord “repenting” or “relenting” of something and seem to contradict the doctrine of God’s immutability.

Another passage that is often used to show that God changes His mind is the story of Jonah. Through His prophet, God had told Nineveh He would destroy the city in forty days (Jonah 3:4). However, Nineveh repented of their sin (verses 5–9). In response to the Assyrians’ repentance, God relented: “He had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction He had threatened” (verse 10). [LINK]


J.P. Holding had this to say about Genesis 6:6-7:

"Gen. 6:6-7 -- This (along with another, 1 Sam 15:11, regarding God "repenting" over the choice of Saul) is the primary hinge point of the Skeptical argument alleging contradiction. But let's look at that word "repent" more closely. It is nacham, and it means to be sorry, grieve, or to pity.
Now here is a question: Is it not possible to grieve and feel sorry over something -- even if we know that it is going to happen, even if we cause it to happen? Of course it is. And there is no reason why this cannot also apply to God, as we shall see."

Exodus 32:14:

There are occasions in which God withholds a promised judgment even when those he had threatened did not change their ways at all. See Ex. 32:9-14.
"Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them." The judgment here is conditional, and not conditional on the Israelites as a whole, but on their human representative Moses. If Moses leaves God alone, then the Israelites will taste judgment. Moses intercedes, as God (no doubt) expected him to.
Contextually we find that the reason for the threat is given in Exodus 32:7,8 where the Israelites not only worship an idol in the shape of a calf, but misplace credit for their deliverance from Egypt.







#352
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
How then do we explain verses that seem to say that God does change His mind? Verses such as Genesis 6:6, “The LORD was grieved that He had made man on the earth, and His heart was filled with pain.” Also, Exodus 32:14 proclaims, “Then the LORD relented and did not bring on His people the disaster He had threatened.” These verses speak of the Lord “repenting” or “relenting” of something and seem to contradict the doctrine of God’s immutability.

Another passage that is often used to show that God changes His mind is the story of Jonah. Through His prophet, God had told Nineveh He would destroy the city in forty days (Jonah 3:4). However, Nineveh repented of their sin (verses 5–9). In response to the Assyrians’ repentance, God relented: “He had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction He had threatened” (verse 10). [LINK]
So your argument is basically that your god is a liar?  Does your god say they're going to destroy stuff even when they know that isn't true?
#353
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
What is fair, what is equal, what is good, which again would tie into what is the loving thing to do. 
And is that specified somewhere in your old book?
The Ten Commandments, which Jesus summarized in two. 
Now you're just running in circles.  That's where you got the "love god and love others" from in the first place.

I'm asking why you use the "love" standard for "personal" stuff and the "justice" standard for "state" stuff.

The Ten Commandments are commandments in relation to God and humanity that He gave Israel as moral guidance on right and wrong. Jesus also confirmed these commandments in the New Covenant and emphasized that if you loved your neighbour and God you would not try to hurt others in the manners revealed by coveting, adultery, lying, stealing, murdering them, etc. But not only this, Jesus shows that hatred and lust for women are also the same as murder and adultery in that these same hurtful motives and desires of lust and hatred lead to the more egregious acts. 
#354
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
Are you developing a case against the biblical God or are you interested in my thinking?
A bit of the latter, not at all the former (at least for this thread).
<br>
Okay, thanks for the clarification!


Now, may I ask what is the purpose of all these questions?
I’m building a case. Not against the God of the Bible (it may seem like it initially, but it’s not). 
So, is your case for the Christian God?
#355
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
But not only this, Jesus shows that hatred and lust for women are also the same as murder and adultery...
Are you suggesting that people should be thrown into prison for thought-crimes?
#356
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
Thanks for the clarification!
No prob!


So, is your case for the Christian God?
My case isn’t directly about god at all.


#357
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
How then do we explain verses that seem to say that God does change His mind? Verses such as Genesis 6:6, “The LORD was grieved that He had made man on the earth, and His heart was filled with pain.” Also, Exodus 32:14 proclaims, “Then the LORD relented and did not bring on His people the disaster He had threatened.” These verses speak of the Lord “repenting” or “relenting” of something and seem to contradict the doctrine of God’s immutability.

Another passage that is often used to show that God changes His mind is the story of Jonah. Through His prophet, God had told Nineveh He would destroy the city in forty days (Jonah 3:4). However, Nineveh repented of their sin (verses 5–9). In response to the Assyrians’ repentance, God relented: “He had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction He had threatened” (verse 10). [LINK]
So your argument is basically that your god is a liar?  Does your god say they're going to destroy stuff even when they know that isn't true?

Heaven forbid. Not at all.

I'm saying that the Hebraic biblical word in Genesis 6:6 translated to English "repentance" or "regretted" have other meanings that better explain the passage that is not contrary to His immutability.

In the case of Exodus 32:14, God is presenting Moses with an if/then choice for Moses to consider, if Moses will intercede for his people, full knowing what Moses' response will be then He will change His mind. Moses does what God required, thus God did not bring judgment.

7 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, “Go down at once, for your people, whom you brought up from the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves. 8 They have quickly turned aside from the way which I commanded them. They have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it and have sacrificed to it and said, ‘This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt!’” 9 The Lord said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and behold, they are an obstinate people. 10 Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation.”

God was presenting His case against Israel's idolatry. He was waiting for Moses to present his case and intercede for His people. If Moses would not do that God would bring judgment. God fully knows what Moses will do that. Moses presents his case, then God tells him because of what Moses has said ('then') He will not bring judgment but spare them.

11 Then Moses entreated the Lord his God, and said, “O Lord, why does Your anger burn against Your people whom You have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, ‘With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about doing harm to Your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants to whom You swore by Yourself, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’” 14 So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.
 
Thus, from Moses' perspective it appears that God changed His mind, even though God knew what Moses would do. 

The lesson, prayer was effective in preventing God's judgment. Now, the whole world has sinned and is guilty before God yet prayer can change their fate, which God is fully aware of and fully aware of the outcome. 

and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, THEN I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

Now for the rest of the relevance from the passage:

13 If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people,
 
Thus, from their perspective, God changing His mind was conditional on what they did. Their prayer, humility, and seeking God changed the outcome since God in Deuteronomy 28 presented an if/then promise, either blessings or curses. 

A further lesson, the Old Covenant was an if/then covenant. It was a covenant of works or their merit in living up to God's commands. Blessings if they did and curses if they did not. Another way of saying this is IF they were obedient THEN they would receive blessings and IF they were disobedient THEN He would bring judgment. 

The lesson from the New Covenant is a different message. It does NOT depend on what we do or have done, it depends on what Another [Jesus] has done. Thus, it does NOT depend on our works or merit but on the merit of Another [Jessu]. Thus, the New Covenant is a covenant of grace, God's grace for those who believe in Jesus and His merit/work. Our salvation CANNOT be attributed to anything righteous we have done so that we could boast about it. Our boasting is on that of Another [Jesus].

Not only this, the Word, the Son becomes a Man to meet the righteous requirements of the Law of Moses so that they, nor we, would have to. God demonstrates throughout the OT that they were incapable of keeping the legal requirements of the law. 


#358
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
But not only this, Jesus shows that hatred and lust for women are also the same as murder and adultery...
Are you suggesting that people should be thrown into prison for thought-crimes?
What I am saying is that God judges our motives and thoughts. 

What I am saying is that we do not meet the righteous requirements of God on our own merit. I know I don't and I know you do not. 
Thus, we need a sacrifice that meets that requirement on our behalf. The sacrifice of our 'good' works, our merit, what we do, does not measure up to God's righteousness. 

#359
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
Thanks for the clarification!
No prob!


So, is your case for the Christian God?
My case isn’t directly about god at all.

Well, then I wait for you to bring it.
#360
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
When I finish building my case, it will reveal itself