My moral instincts are universal and self-evident to many and exist without any endorsement.Your moral instincts are universal and self-evident? To you! They are not to me.
Actually, the death rate of children under 15 was 50 percent until intelligent man got the death rate down to 5 percent in the 1900's.It was parents that saw 1/2 of their children die that created religion. Search for Mortality rates of children over the last two millennia.
Torturing innocent people for fun is right as long as the majority thinks so, correct?
Then some things do matter and become absolutely morally wrong [TO YOU PERSONALLY], even though the majority think otherwise.
Some of these are restated in the Ten Commandments. Others I disagree with. Finally, who is the authority who revealed them? Is such an authority almighty? If so, let's discuss that being.Yama is the Hindu god of death, king of ancestors, and final judge on the destination of souls. He is also known as the ‘Restrainer’, Pretaraja or ‘King of Ghosts’, Dharmaraja or ‘King of Justice’, and as Daksinasapati is considered the regent of the South Quarter. Yama may also be referred to simply as ‘Death’ – Antaka, Kala or Mrtyu. Due to his responsibility for good decision-making based on records of a person’s deeds, the god is particularly associated with the rule of law. Yama is also present in Iranian mythology, traditional Chinese and Japanese mythology, and elements of Buddhism. [LINK]
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?
How does that meet the requirements of justice?
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]
I see every letter of the law met or fulfilled in Jesus Christ by AD 70.
Not only this, there is an internal unity and consistency in the 66 'books' or writings in which particular themes are laced throughout - God, sin, Israel, judgment, redemption, the Messiah, heaven.
These moral instincts predate the "discovery" of "YHWH" by Abraham.That is your assumption and presumption that comes from your worldview bias.
The critical conceit here is your claim that you follow a universal, unchanging moral code.The decalogue is NOT unchanging. It is interpreted in different ways at different times.It is, except for the Sabbath Day. Jesus reiterated the Ten Commandments in the NT, so do the apostles.
Something that just is, without mind, without personhood, is incapable of revealing anything.
...thus we need a personal Being to reveal the truth to us.
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?
There is no such thing MORE purely OBJECTIVE than NOUMENON.How has this been revealed to you?
Are you suggesting that the whole of the Levitical Law was modified between the OT and the NT?No, what I am suggesting is the Jesus met or fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law of Moses and the Law of God in His human capacity (alone) on behalf of believers. It (the Law) was nailed to the cross and covered by His death, for He died on behalf of those who would believe, not only the living a righteous life aspect (satisfying God's righteousness), but also taking the penalty for sins of the believer upon Himself (satisfying God's justice and the penalty for sin). Thus God was fully satisfied in His Son.
Thus, the penalty is death - spiritual separation from God.
It doesn't and as soon as you lose or deny the 'best' that you compare morals against (as necessary) you have disagreements that contradict each other.The decalogue doesn't resolve these disagreements.Sure it does. An omniscient, unchanging, eternal, objective being who has revealed most certainly does.
What is good is so whether you believe so or not.
How can you distinguish what is better without this best?Quite easily.Start at the "worst" and take it one step at a time.Worst in comparison to what?
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?
So, if the law changed, then it can't be described as universal and unchanging (objective) can it?
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.
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.First off, they don't live perfectly moral.
They sometimes act better than believers and act 'morally' despite not being able to justify why they should. What they do is borrow from another worldview in living life contrary and inconsistently within the bounds of their own worldview system
And most through human history have believed in God or gods....an actual argument from popularity.It is just a fact.
No, I have stated that I only stand for and defend the biblical God. I believe all others are fake.
If not, then this fact couldn't help you even if it weren't logically fallacious.What is fallacious about the biblical God?
I have always stated there is a correct interpretation of Scripture, and I point to the Scriptures as the final standard in arguing disputes. I have reasoned that the type of slavery you are suggesting as being practiced by Israel is a misinterpretation based on several arguments, one of which is God's warning not to do what was done to them in Egypt and two, the principle of loving your neighbour. I had also argued that the 'slave' was not to be treated harshly, even when punishment was required. The slave was given the same treatment that a Hebrew was in punishment. If the slave was injured in a prescribed way, they were granted freedom. The foreign slave could be acquired in two ways, through war (thus restitution) or purchasing.
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.I have given sufficient reason for biblical slavery. You do not accept it, but the argument is logical. I have asked how a God who promotes love for our neighbours could also promote mistreatment of them? Again, you misread God's intent by not understanding the ANE or Scripture.
No, Hitler's antisemitism was not rooted in Christian theology.
Apartheid read into Scripture because they ignored the audience of the address.The South's view on slavery was one that God explicitly warned His people (Israel) against under the Old Covenant. God made the Old Covenant obsolete in AD 70.
Even the current resistance to abortion is a manipulation of Christian theology to affect political gain.How is that?
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.
Even the current resistance to abortion is a manipulation of Christian theology to affect political gain.How is that?So glad you asked. There is nothing in the Bible that directly disallows abortion.
In fact, there are many instances of the Biblical god committing or condoning the destruction of fetuses and infants (Isaiah 13:18; Hosea 9:10-16; Hosea 13:!6; 2 Kings 8:12). A prescribed process to cause fetuses to be aborted as proof of adultery (Numbers 5:11-31). Life begins with "the breath of life" ie. birth (Gen 2:7). Fetuses are not persons (Ex 21:22-25). And yes, I know an indirect argument against abortion can be extricated from the Bible as well, but this can hardly stand against an explicitly pro-abortion god.
Furthermore, politician's views on abortion did not break down along party lines until the 1970's. It was Richard Nixon that first pushed a pro-abortion stance, but reversed his position specifically to attract Catholics and conservatives. Seeing his success, Republicans strategists began using an anti-abortion position to form alliances with evangelical groups and social conservatives. It was all about using an interpretation of "God's will' to attract more voters and political power.
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.I was a little rushed and did not have time to check over what I had written. I did not explain why I think your statement is an either/or fallacy or a false dilemma. You think that because there were humanists before there were Christians that Christianity is influenced by humanism and not the other way around, that humanism was influenced by rejecting God's moral commandments, yet choosing the same in many cases. Why does Christianity have to be centred on humanism rather than being fortified and centred on the biblical God of the OT? And why does humanism have to come before God? You first have to establish which came first.
You fail to state how humanism, which works on natural explanations and human reasoning alone, can explain the ought from the is. Your moral basis continues to be shown to work on subjectivism and the subjectivist fallacy (relativism), or from borrowing from another worldview that can justify morality because it has what is necessary.
For instance, you think that because you believe abortion is a 'woman's right to choose,' that makes it right. You think that something can be true for one person and not another, but what is true, morally speaking, must be so for all people, or you lose sight of objectivity and universality.
You have never shown that the unborn is not a human being (although you have likened it to a group of cells, or not as human), although you have degraded it of value by references of dehumanization and discrimination. You have never shown how there can be justice and equality when some humanity members are treated unequally or less than others by subjective laws. What makes that right?
There is nothing in the Bible that directly disallows abortion.There most certainly are. God says that He hates the shedding of innocent blood as the very first principle of respecting human life. That would directly disavow abortion. Then there is the principle of going forth and multiplying. Also, all human life is created in the image and likeness of God, therefore it is God's right to give and take life (human beings are only given a short time on this earth to come to or reject God), not ours. There are also numerous verses I could employ to show that God values the unborn human being.
On the moral aspect of abortion alone you have a see-saw of okay or not okay which begs the question of which is the correct position. How do you determine this, from an atheistic framework???
Although Christians are pro-life I never once used a God-centred argument against abortion in our debates. I don't need to. Abortion is wrong in most cases based on what is killed and upon the principle of justice.
Why are you only mentioning one side of the equation?
