-->
@PGA2.0
If God is perfect and you have wronged God how will you meet such a God's requirements by what you have done.
Wouldn't the god($) be able to forgive such a frail worm?
Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?
Posts
Total:
1,638
-->
@PGA2.0
What I will repeat again is that there is a correct way of interpreting what someone says, get their meaning, not your own.
Are you familiar with Halacha? [LINK]
-->
@PGA2.0
They relate to both Testamants. We find nine of ten in the NT. The Sabbath is debatable but the principle of rest is there, IMO.
Are you suggesting that the whole of the Levitical Law was modified between the OT and the NT?
Were some of the laws of "YHWH" nullified in some official manner?
-->
@PGA2.0
During the transitioning between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant some questioned whether it was okay to eat particular meats.Another instance would be worshiping God on the Sabbath. The NT states that if one person holds one day as more holy than another then it is permissible by God.
So, if the law changed, then it can't be described as universal and unchanging (objective) can it?
-->
@PGA2.0
If I try to distill your question down to something meaningful, I get something along the lines of 'How do you as a non-Christian justify morality?' This strikes me as utterly tone-deaf and arrogant given:1) most people aren't Christian.That is a fallacious argument. (argumentum ad populum)
If your argument is that morality cannot be justified without belief in the Christian god, then the fact that most people don't have that belief and act perfectly moral is a defeator (not an argument from popularity). It counters the assertion that belief in the Christian god is needed for morality.
And most through human history have believed in God or gods.
...an actual argument from popularity. Also, are you now arguing for ANY god whatsoever? If not, then this fact couldn't help you even if it weren't logically fallacious.
2) Christianity has been specifically used to justify things like slavery, Holy wars, etc,So what? People do all kinds of things 'in the name of.' That does not necessarily mean they follow the teachings.
You have actually argued for slavery in the name of god ...today...so ..yea, you have no room to talk. Besides, this undermines the assertion that belief in the Christian god justifies morality.
3) what good may be recognized in its moral views come from humanistic interests which predate and can stand apart from it.That is one way of looking at it.
Given that humanistic interests came before Christianity, it can only be that your god-based morality is fortified with humanism - not the other way around.
Any moral view? So you like Hitler's moral view regarding the Jews! You like Apartheid South Africa's view of segregation and the South's moral view on slavery, and of course, I know you like the view that it is okay to kill innocent unborn human beings. You don't quite see them up to par with other human beings.
I didn't say any moral view in general, but any moral view which puts people above the human interpretation of the will of god - that's pretty specific. Secondly, you've provided great examples of humans interpreting the 'will of god' causing problems. It seems Hitler's antisemitism was rooted in Christian theology, a 'god-given right' to control land was at the core to apartheid, and the South's moral view was perpetuated by a Biblical understanding. Even the current resistance to abortion is a manipulation of Christian theology to affect political gain.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Given that humanistic interests came before Christianity, it can only be that your god-based morality is fortified with humanism - not the other way around.
Well stated.
-->
@PGA2.0
The biblical God is reveled as three distinct Persons.
Yes, now commonly known as Dissociative identity disorder (DID), previously known as multiple personality disorder (MPD), is a mental disorder characterized by the maintenance of at least two distinct and relatively enduring personality states.
-->
@3RU7AL
God permits exceptions for civil societies to function.Where in the holy scripture does it explain under what specific circumstances "YHWH" permits exceptions?
Hebrews 9:15-17
15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a [q]covenant is, there must of necessity [r]be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a [s]covenant is valid only when [t]men are dead, [u]for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.
But no one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results.
Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.”
“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results.
No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.”
But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.
Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.
Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.
When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
So, with a change of covenants comes a difference standard, God's standard of grace and mercy set forth in Jesus Christ.
[ Walk by the Spirit ] It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
We, as believers, are freed from the 'letter' of the law because Jesus Christ has met every righteous standard of the Law and God is well pleased with Him and His substitution.
-->
@secularmerlin
Too many bald assertions to address individual. Even if I accept that some version of the Yahweh must necessarily exist you have not actually demonstrated or even suggested some methodology that takes the guess work out of understanding the primary moral axioms of the Yahweh.Then take a few. I was just answering your statements, charges, and questions. Break them down into segments.Your statements do the same thing - assert. Then you guys pick and choose what you will and will not address. You only select what you believe will further your talking points. I took the time to deal with all your assertions.No. First take the guess work out of your argument. Stop telling me what you think is immoral and tell me why it is immoral. I've given you my standard and we can both discuss it because we both agree that there are humans and that the things we do effect their welfare.
I have told you many times. You do not listen. It is immoral because if offends the righteousness of God. It is wrong if there is an objective standard that we can measure values against that is fix and best. If not, nothing ultimately matters and morality becomes nothing more than subjective individual or group preference. Which way do you want to live? Do you want to live as if there is such a fixed standard and that right and wrong really matter, or do you want to live inconsistently, deceiving yourself, pretending that things do matter and there is an actual right and an actual wrong to issues? If you want to live as though things do matter a worldview devoid of an ultimate, absolute, universal, fixed standard is necessary. If such a standard does not exist don't think that a sniper kills fifty in downtown Los Angeles matters. It is just a biological bag of atoms reacting to its genetics and environment. What is wrong with that?
The thing is we are moral agents but how did we become such agents? It depends where you start to how you justify that question.
You have claimed to share the Yahwehs standard. Great. Now please explain not just his pronouncements about specific actions but how he has determined what is and is not moral and if you don't actually know then I'm afraid you don't actually have a standard to present at all.
Morality is based on His nature. The Being that is God is pure, holy, just, compassionate, loving. These are good qualities. Since He knows all things He knows what is harmful and hurtful to us, thus He commands that we do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, do not covet (that hurts us, creating all kinds of discord and inner turmoil within our life), do not commit adultery, do honour your father and mother, and honour your Maker.
The 613 Mosaic laws feed off the Ten Commandments and give us feedback as how the commanments work in specific situations that applied to the ANE culture. They also teach us principles that apply to us today, like not stripping our fields dry but leaving something for the poor. We can set a side a portion of our income to help others too.
As an example you have said that killing humans is immoral (the opinions in the ot to the contrary) but you have not said why. Why should we care about killing people? Why would the Yahweh (assuming he even exists).
Why did God command Israel to drive out the people of the land and kill certain groups, such as the Canaanites or Amalekites? Because the people of the land God was giving Israel would not respect Israel's worship of God. They would influence Israel and turn them away from God. As for the Canaanites and Amalekites, these people were plain evil, sacrificing their children and practicing many other foul things. If left in the land they would find ways to undermine Israel and rid Israel from the land God was giving them. Thus, their open rebellion towards God had nothing but malice for the people of God. God was judging the immorality of these foreign people groups.
If God allowed His people to be destroyed by these hostile groups or be grossly influenced it would nullify the prophecies about the Messiah's lineage. Thus, God had the greater good in mind, the salvation of a vast number of people in the long run.
We should care for others because God cares about them and us. He cares about how we treat others. We should treat people justly and with love and compassion. Would you rather someone treated you will malice and plotted your death? As for killing, we are made in God's image and likeness, so it is not for us to decide when someone should die. That is our Creator's choice. And He is merciful to many in not wanting them to perish but to come to salvation. The problem is we do not want to come since we are conditioned to hate or be indifferent to God. Thus, it requires an act of His grace in which we hear the message and through it we believe. But not everyone who hears the message believes. Some harden their minds and hearts to its truthfulness.
YHWH is mindful of us because He created us with the purpose of an everlasting relationship with Him. Not everyone wants that but instead, rebel against Him or get lost in the worries of our everyday life and forget to seek Him. The second death is everlasting separation from Him because of our sin and rejection of Him. We either recognize the provision to restore the relationship with Him (His Son and the Son's perfect life lived and sufficient payment for our sins) or we rely on our merit righting the situation if we find that God does actually exist. Our payment does not meet God's righteous requirements but falls short.
-->
@secularmerlin
Do you really think that your will is free, or is it influenced by many things?I do not believe in freewill at all. That is part of why any given christian claiming that I choose not to believe or that I send myself to hell are in my opinion no sequiturs.
There is a difference between free will and no will. You still have a will to choose. It is just not entirely free but influenced by your underlying beliefs, your wants and desires, and the influence of others. Or to you think everything you do is determined and you have no will at all but are just a robot programmed by your genetic makup and chance happenstance. It the latter I think you need to think things through further. I think you will find that you do make choices based too often on preference - likes and dislikes rather than on truth.
-->
@secularmerlin
The unborn is a human being.It doesn't matter.
Very revealing. It does not matter to you that innocent human beings are killed. Would it matter to you if someone chose to kill your innocent ten-year-old? If so, then you have a double-standard and you are not consistent. Consistency is a sign or indicator that something is dreadfully wrong with your logic.
(EITHER) a person's kidney (and their uterus) are their possessions protected by their right to personal bodily autonomy (in which case NO ONE can use them without consent) (OR) a person's body (such that its use is only a danger to the individual but they could live through the process) is commonwealth and anyone in possession of two kidneys is just as guilty of murder by proxy as a woman who gets an abortion.
Let me get this straight, in 99% of cases sex is consensual. Both parties agree to it recognizing that it could produce another human being and that a new human being is the result of a woman consenting to have sex. Now you are telling me that if she gets pregnant she should take no responsibility for it if she does not want to. She knows if she gets pregnant another human being will be sharing her body for a period of time - roughly nine months. So, even though she is partly responsible for creating this human being, it is made up or carries half her DNA, she should be allowed to kill another human being because she no longer wants to take responsibility? So, how realistic is that? If she no longer wants her one-month-old newborn and it is using her milk and her breasts, on your thinking, she should be allowed to kill it too.
Now to the moral aspect. Do you believe that all humans should be treated equally under the law? If not, would you mind if you were discriminated against and dehumanized, considered worthless, a piece of trash, by those who make the law? Would you consider that just, if only the elites decide for the rest of us who lives and who dies? If not, then why are you doing this to the most vulnerable among us? Are you not an elitist yourself? Don't you have a double-standard and aren't you being hypocritical in your views. You see, you can't live with the views you want the unborn to be treated with. Just turn the tables and let someone apply those same views to you - worthless if the elite don't like or want you - and see how you feel as they take your life as they do with the unborn, sucking and tearing apart your body, or injecting poison into it, or the chemical burn to kill you. Do you want to feel that? Do you think others should be permitted to do that to you as a human being?
-->
@PGA2.0
Or to you think everything you do is determined and you have no will at all but are just a robot programmed by your genetic makup and chance happenstance.
i hesitate to make broad statements here, but some seem to be suggesting that nobody is arguing that a human decision is free from all previous influences. i think this is a fair statement. the best attempts at explaining free-will seem to suggest that there is some kind of influence-gap. that is to say, it has been suggested that a human decision is influenced up to some unknown point less than 100% and then there is some i-gap of unspecified quantity and free-will lives there spreading magic fairy dust, however small or improbable that i-gap might be. i have never heard anyone propose a way to measure this i-gap in order to perhaps somehow gauge how much free-will someone might have, or to figure out if children have it, and if not, when do they get it? the i-gap sounds to me more like an ignorance-of-influence gap (this would also seem like the compatibilist's opinion). if this is the case we should be able to dial up free-will by dialing up ignorance.
the main problems i see with this proposal are as follows:
1) there is no way to measure the influence-gap. it is in all likelihood merely a knowledge-of-influence-gap or lack-of-precision-gap.
2) even if the influence-gap is considered to be a real thing, wouldn't that gap simply increase the value of the other influences? how could the influence gap possibly be considered an influence? it's a gap that is by definition non-influential.
3) let's consider based on at least a small shred of logic, what could be in that pesky i-gap that might actually be an influence. well, whatever is in that i-gap can't be influenced since it is inside something defined as an influence-gap. so maybe there's an uninfluenced-influence in that i-gap; we could call it something mysterious like, an uncaused-cause, or maybe a first-cause, or better yet ex-nihilo. could that uncaused-cause be influenced or originated by anything at all? no, of course not because it's in the i-gap and it is defined as being uncaused. so could a human take credit for a decision or action that emerged from the i-gap? how could they possibly take credit or be responsible for something they had no conceivable control over? anything emerging from the i-gap would be indistinguishable from a random event. and randomness is incompatible with choice.
4) but what if it's the essence of "me" that is in the i-gap. are you kidding me?! i don't care if it's your grandmother, your dead child, or your ever lovin' god. if you put them in the i-gap they are at-best indistinguishable from random noise and at worst non-existent.
5) what if the gap is not an influence-gap but instead a black box? if the gap is not an influence-gap, there is no place for mr. free-will to spread his magic fairy dust because the gap instantly fills with influence and is then no longer properly described as a gap. additionally if the output of the i-gap is non-random, that is to say it emits some identifiable pattern, then whatever is happening in the i-gap must have some way of knowing what the hell is going on outside of the i-gap and this knowledge is definitely influencing its output thereby introducing influence into the i-gap which would then promptly disappear in a cute little puff of logic.
i think it's important to fully comprehend this influence-gap. imagine, if you will, that i am constructing a human being. when the recipe calls for me to add "a dash of free-will" i can't just add any old thing, willy nilly; i have to first construct a proper influence-gap to protect my human from the evil determinism. this would be some container that is impervious to all conceivable influence. i probably have a sound-proof, shock-proof, opaque, air-tight, empathy-proof, magic-proof, momentum-proof, time-proof capsule of some sort just laying around my house, i'll just set that to the side for now. ok, adding an empty box to the mix isn't going to do anything of course so we have to put something in it. since whatever is in this i-gap is supposed to advise me on important moral decisions my selection is of critical importance. well, the most intelligent and moral person i know of is my friend george, so since i don't seem to have a better option, i throw george in the i-capsule and seal him in tight. now days, weeks, and months have gone by and i've pretty much forgotten about george until one afternoon i am confronted with an intractable dilemma. i am faced with a decision with staggeringly profound moral implications and i must make a decision immediately. what do i do? well this sounds like a case for the magnificent george! so i locate my everything-proof capsule on which i have scrawled the descriptive term "i-gap" with my handy wax pencil, and i ask my question. i exhaustively explain all of the known factors leading up to and logical implications of this monumental decision to george, my moral, spiritual and financial advisor, and then i wait for an answer, any answer at all. nothing happens. things are getting desperate, so i beg george to give me an answer, to point me in the right direction. nothing happens. i light some candles and wave a magic wand over the i-gap, but still i can't divine any response from george. i realize there is a problem with the i-gap's design. so i quickly scour my garage for spare parts and retrofit a one way intercom system onto the i-gap so i can hear what george has to say. mind you he still can't hear anything or in any way perceive anything that i have to say, thus preserving the integrity of the influence-gap, but now he can speak directly to me, thus becoming an uncaused-cause. of course george has causes, he was born and raised and had both happy and sad experiences, but i'll just ignore all that for now. george is pretty much an uncaused-cause now that he is housed in the exclusive and luxurious, new and improved i-gap. so i ask george again to answer my plea for guidance. nothing happens. every once in a while george does actually say something but it's usually along the lines of "let me out of this f#cking box you god#amned muth#rf#cking muth#rf#cker!" heh, that george is such a kidder!
obviously george is constrained by the parameters of his confinement and is therefore incapable of offering any advice that would be requested from him.
the same would be true if you put jesus, or krishna, or a unicorn, or any conceivable entity or event in the modified i-gap.
ipso-facto, no free-will.
-->
@PGA2.0
Very revealing. It does not matter to you that innocent human beings are killed.
I'm pretty sure "it doesn't matter" how OLD the innocent human being is.
Is it a "greater" crime to kill a one year old than an infant?
Is it a "greater" crime to kill a citizen than a non-citizen?
And if you think "it matters", please explain your reasoning.
-->
@PGA2.0
Let me get this straight, in 99% of cases sex is consensual.
I'm going to guess you're counting COERCION as "consensual".
-->
@PGA2.0
So, even though she is partly responsible for creating this human being, it is made up or carries half her DNA
Perhaps she should only be allowed to deport the half that matches her DNA.
-->
@PGA2.0
...she should be allowed to kill another human being because she no longer wants to take responsibility?
It's a lot like people who are deported back into hostile territory after fleeing for their lives.
Is deportation "murder" when it directly leads to someone's death?
-->
@PGA2.0
If she no longer wants her one month old newborn and it is using her milk and her breasts, on your thinking she should be allowed to kill it too.
Deport, abandon, relinquish care of.
Also, a fetus is NOT a legal entity (not a legal person, no birth-certificate) and cannot therefore be considered a victim (so there's a slight difference between your two examples).
-->
@PGA2.0
Now to the moral aspect. Do you believe that all humans should be treated equally under the law? If not, would you mind is you were discriminated against and dehumanized, considered worthless, a piece of trash, by those who make the law?
Are you personally outraged by the treatment of immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers?
-->
@PGA2.0
Would you consider that just, if only the elites decide for the rest of us who lives and who dies?
You are describing historical reality.
-->
@PGA2.0
If not, then why are you doing this to the most vulnerable among us?
The most vulnerable are the poor, the homeless and the desperate and forgotten prisoners.
-->
@PGA2.0
- and see how you feel as they take your life in the same manner they would the unborn, sucking and tearing apart your body, or injecting poison into it, or the chemical burn to kill you. Do you want to feel that? Do you think others should be permitted to do that to you as a human being?
Are you a vegetarian?
-->
@secularmerlin
You do not get to tell me what I can and cannot do with my kidneys whether you have been born or not.
But you (plus those who make the laws) can tell me that all human life is not equal, that some human beings, based on their environment (where they live) do not deserve to be left alive because of a choice? Can you live with that principle? If you live in an area that I control (the woman controls the unborn in the womb) do you think I should be able to choose whether you live or die? Or if your new born crawls onto my property, should I be allowed to kill it, because it did not know what it was doing and because I had signs posted, "Tresspassers will be shot on sight." How just would that be? Can you live with it if it happened to your newborn or would you consider what was done as wrong? Basically, you are saying that because her body is her property she can do with it whatever she wants, even if someone else also resides in her body. Basically, again, human life means very little to you, until it is your own - then apply the same principles you are applying now to the unborn to yourself. How do you like them now?
Do you believe that justice should be equal? Do you think all innocent human beings should be treated equally, with respect and dignity?I'm not sure agree on what exactly justice is but let's pretend for a moment that that isn't an issue and that this sounds nice in theory.
First of all, let me give you an idea of what it is in a nutshell. Justice is equal treatment under the law. It is not being particular depending on whether a person is rich or influential. It applies the letter of the law equally regardless of persons.
How do we as flawed subjective human beings create a system in which justice is equally distributed favoring none?
Favouring none? By applying the law equally to all, regardless of sex or wealth or influence.
And if there is sone all powerful all knowing being that cares about justice why doesn't he just make everything just?
Because you are on the earth for a purpose, to know your God or reject Him. If God interfared in every aspect of our life's we would be robots, not free to choose. We are free to choose and use our wills, but our will is not free, it is governed by a number of factors that influence our thinking.
I would even go so far as to say that the existence of a world where justice is not shown equally to all human beings indicates that no such being in fact exists.
That is because with the Fall humanity knew the difference between right and wrong and that disobedience alienated us from a loving close relationship with our Maker. Thus, by ignoring God we opened ourselves up to all kinds of relative thinking about right and wrong.
If my body could save a man and I refuse is that immoral?It shows compassion and mercy. Would you like to be shown those two qualities?This does not answer my question. Whether or not it would be admirable is separate to the question of if it would be immoral. Also I do not want to display those qualities if I must surrender my personal bodily autonomy in order to do so.
In the case where your life is compromised and could possibly be lost, saving a human being is an act of compassion and mercy. The Bible tells the believer that there is great reward for someone who willingly gives their life's on behalf of others. Now, that is generally speaking of yielding our wills to others in selfless service, I believe it can also be taken as honourable in protecting some from harm by sacrificing your own life. Jesus is our example, and He did both. His life was spent in selfless service and He willingly gave it to save others.
At risk to yourself comes under the topic of the same compassion and mercy. It is excusable by law if you choose not to risk your own life, but in the case where you ignore someone dying not because your life is at stake but because you are indifferent, that is a crime.Great. Glad we agree. Now I will just point put that pregnancy ALWAYS involves risks to a woman's life so by your reasoning it is excusable by law for a woman not to take this risk.
1. Pregnancy is a function that is natural and without it there would be no humanity.
2. The percentage of pregnancies that are life-threatening is minimal (probably around 99% non life-threatening). So, while there are risks those risks are not usually life-threatening.
3. When the woman's life is threatened (extreme danger that she will lose it) an abortion is permissible if the unborn is too young and not at the point of viability to save it also.
4. It is just another excuse to justify in your mind killing the unborn if the woman wants to.
-->
@PGA2.0
If you live in an area that I control (the woman controls the unborn in the womb) do you think I should be able to choose whether you live or die?
Do you believe deportation is a crime?
-->
@3RU7AL
...but in the case where you ignore someone dying not because your life is at stake but because you are indifferent, that is a crime.People are routinely deported with zero regard for their life or general well-being.
I don't follow your meaning.
-->
@PGA2.0
Or if your new born crawls onto my property, should I be allowed to kill it, because it did not know what it was doing and because I had signs posted, "Tresspassers will be shot on sight."
Do you believe "trespassers can be shot on sight" generally?
The Truth is God.
As atheism is a denial of Absolute Truth or Ultimate Reality, it is the position of nihilism.
Nihilism demolishes morality. Anything built off nihilism is like a house built on sand. Morality becomes a matter of convenience for whomever has the ability to excercise authority.
There is nothing reasonable about the denial of Truth itself. When reason finds itself undermining The Truth itself, it is undermining the very essemce of what makes reason reasonable. Without Truth, there is no reason.
Nihilism is stupid. Atheism is stupid. People who knowingly buy into this worldview are stupid.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Conversion equalled freedom! [...]Conversion is an escape from slavery and bondage just as it was in OT times. [...]So, the principle of evangelism slavery is reasonable to believe. But even if you did find this evangelistic slavery principle hard to stomach, the principle of slavery and freedom is well demonstrated in a physical sense in the OT and in a spiritual way in the NT. [...]War reparations or restitution [a.k.a slavery] was a different principle, the principle of damages owed, damages paid. [...]It should be noted you've shifted from denying Biblically condoned slavery to offering a justification for it.
I have denied from the start that biblical slavery is the same as chattel slavery. There was a purpose for it that looked out for the other person, usually for debt incurrence on the part of Hebrews, and reparations for war crimes and losses, and sometimes poverty for foreigners but a redemption message if a foreigner converted to the faith. Then they too met the principle of justice that a Hebrew would. There was also the escape clause I mentioned earlier. In no way was biblical slavery the same as the harsh treatment experieince in Egypt of the Southern States. God forbid that kind of injustice. Israel was reminded not to treat foreigners the way they were treated.
The kind of slavery Israel experienced in Egypt is a typology of the rescue from that cruel spiritual bondage to sin that the believer experiences. The physical reality of the OT is presented in the NT in a spiritual lesson and slavery is one of the typological messages that God uses in the physical example of the harsh treatment of Egypt. Egypt represents bondage. Spiritual Egypt is spiritual bondage. The physical promised land is typological of the heavenly country or promised land to the NT believer. Thus, throughout the OT God is providing lessons for us of a greater reality - the spiritual reality. We are constantly reminded by the human author's, who were speaking from God, that we as Christians are witnesses to the spiritual. That is why Paul could say:
1 Corinthians 2:11-13
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, [e]combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
-->
@PGA2.0
People are routinely deported with zero regard for their life or general well-being.I don't follow your meaning.
Does it bother you when people die after being deported?
-->
@Mopac
Nihilism demolishes morality.
Nihilism is impossible.
Any human stripped of all motive would necessarily be non-functional.
-->
@PGA2.0
And if there is sone all powerful all knowing being that cares about justice why doesn't he just make everything just?Because you are on the earth for a purpose, to know your God or reject Him.
Oh good, so now that you "know GOD" you're done? You've accomplished your purpose?