Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
Topic's author
#511
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 much have they pondered the idea of justice among cats and dogs?
Are you suggesting that moral instinct is only accessible to the intellectually curious and capable?
I am saying that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God with the ability to know moral right and wrong and are able to reason with Him and each other on such a level that a dog nor a cat is capable of. Dogs do not ponder the moral significance of right and wrong or lecture on such things, ut by instinct find out whether something is safe to do and tend to avoid something that will harm them or their progeny. 
Topic's author
#512
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL

We are not showing love when we harm our neighbours.
What does your law say is appropriate if your neighbor is threatening you and or your family?
OT or NT?

IMO, obey the law of the land, love your neighbour, be kind, show the same grace and mercy that you have received from God, bless those who persecute you, keep no record of wrongs, leave justice or revenge to God and the law in the land, repay evil with good, turn the other cheek where you are concerned, but when others are concerned, to protect them against harm.   

What does your law say is appropriate if your neighbor is storing hazardous material on the edge of your property?
IMO, ask them kindly to store them properly, on their land, or remove them. If that does not work report them to the authorities.

What does your law say is appropriate if your neighbor's dog eats several of your chickens?
I don't know. 

Sure, I "love" them, but in a real-world-practical-actionable sense, how does that apply?
Since the world is not a perfect place, do as best as I can, thinking of the service and sacrifice that Christ showed me as an example of what I should do for others.  When I do wrong to others, ask for forgiveness, for I remember that I too have been forgiven. 
Topic's author
#513
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
It is immoral because if offends the righteousness of God. 
This is an unclear standard. Please either offer a reliable metric for determining why things or offensive in this manner or I will be forced to conclude that you are using a standard which yo uh do not actually understand which is not helpful to the conversation.
I wish you would provide more of the context. I have to search now to find out what it was. Here it is:

"I have told you many times. You do not listen. It is immoral because it offends the righteousness of God. It is wrong if there is an objective standard to measure values against that is fix and best. If not, nothing ultimately matters, and morality becomes nothing more than a 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 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." 

***

I offered the reason why. God is a necessary Being. He is omniscient, knowing all things. How is such a standard unclear? How can you have something that is anything other than preference without a fixed, objective best? God fits the criterion that you do not (and cannot demonstrate that is necessary). 

I can simply say that anything which offends Betty White is immoral but without some way of determining why something would be offensive to her (Betty White's primary moral axioms) this gives us no actionable data and we are right back to having to rely on our own moral intuition to determine what is and is not offensive to Betty White.
Why Betty White? How does she qualify?

Do you want to live as if there is such a fixed standard
Things are not true or false according to my whims. I have no choice but to believe there is no standard unless some  useful standard can be offered. Any discussion of whether this standard is objective of course would be entirely seperate.
First, tell me what your standard is and why it qualifies as moral. I have given you the Ten Commandments as universal. I have explained why it is reasonable to believe by explaining what is necessary for morality.

Show me yours is as well. 

The thing is we are moral agents but how did we become such agents? 
That we evolved the sensibility is a sufficient explanation and the process of evolution (including behavioral evolution) is observable so that is a more reasonable hypothesis than any hypothesis which includes an undemonstrable explanation even if that explanation would be sufficient.
Evolve? How does that make anything good or better? 

Behaviour - what IS. How does what is qualify as what ought to be? I observe a chimp who likes to eat bananas. Its behaviour demonstrates it like to eat some kinds of food. What is moral about that? I see a lion chasing down and killing an impala. What is moral about that. Its instinct to live triggers the behaviour. 
 
Morality is based on His (the Yahweh's) nature. 
Great how do we determine his nature?
Only if He has revealed Himself in some way to humanity, which is what the Bible states.  

If we examine the source material (the bible) the Yahweh appears to be a cruel, capricious, jealous, vengeful, genocidal, egomaniacal maniac whose ten most important rules deal mostly with his own vanity and do not address rape or owning people as property at all and elsewhere in the book deals with these issues very unsatisfactorilly.
How is it cruel to punish wickedness? Why is it wrong for God to jealously protect what is right and good? Why is it wrong to take vengeance (accountability for the wrong) on injustice?

Those who do not recognize the majesty and awesome glory of God put their own above Him in their boasting and puffed-up self. It is not vanity to point to Himself for guidance but wisdom. 

Why do you charge God with promoting God? How is rape, loving and non-harming?  

He commands that we do not kill
Except when he commands that we do.
There was a reason, 1) to bring punishment to the wicked and 2) to drive them out of the land God was giving Israel. If they stayed in the land, they would have (and did) influenced Israel in worshiping idols. They were unwilling to leave but instead wanted to harm Israel. Since God owns all things (He made the universe), He can determine who lives in the land. Since they did not respect God, they would not listen to the warning. The same is true of you. You do not respect God. You think you know better. That is why I quiz you on how you know this. Why is it that you have what is necessary for determining goodness when even your neighbour may disagree? 

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. 
You mean like the ones in leviticus detailing the way in which one goes about owning a human being as property in perpetuity and can then pass them down to one's children as inheritance? I feel like the system you are using fails the livability test. I do not want to be next under this system and I don't think you would either if you gave it a little honest reflection but hey to each his own and if you are willing to be owned by master and obey him even if he is cruel and to give him the right to beat you as long as you don't die within a few days then I suppose to each their own.
I have explained this a dozen times and am sick of reiterating the same thing over and over. 

How does it pass the livability test? A foreign war slave is reparation for the damages done. A foreign bought slave is more often than not trying to escape poverty. It is a better life than the one they came from, or it should be because Israel lives under God's requirements.  

There is a difference between free will and no will. You still have a will to choose. 
How do you justify hairsplitting between these two concepts? It seems like you want to have your cale and eat it to (freedom to choose but no freewill).
You chose. You just are influenced by ideas and opinions in your choices and your worldview (what you have invested your outlook into, a particular frame of mind and thought that looks at life in a particular way that starts from core presuppositions). 
#514
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Adam had free will. He was the only person who could choose to sin or not sin, other than Jesus Christ.
If I made a robot, would that robot be "free from the influence of sin"?
#515
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
A homosexual robot.


#516
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0



.
PGA2.0,

YOUR REVEALING QUOTE IN POST # 498 THAT MAKES A MOCKERY OF CHRISTIANITY WHEN PROVIDING THAT JESUS WAS AN ABORTIONIST!:  "The most helpless are the unborn. They rely totally on the mother. They are also the most discriminated against and most put to death unjustly, in the billions (1.6 since 1980). "

SILENCE 2ND CLASS BIBLE WOMAN!  How many times have I told you not to rock the boat when our faith is at question? Huh?  This is because your quote above is  blatantly hypocritical since our Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, was the NUMBER 1 ABORTIONIST OF ALL TIME!  No matter what the situation prevailed, whether Jesus murdering zygotes, fetus' or babies in His Great Flood Scenario, or where Jesus outright caused abortions in the biblical passage below in the book of Hosea, remember Bible fool?!

“The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for their children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children survive to grow up, I will take them from you.  It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone.  I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre.  But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered oh Lord. what should I request for your people? I will ask for the wombs that don’t give birth and breast that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them.  I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions.  I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels.  The people of Israel are stricken.  Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit.  And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children. (Hosea 9:11-16) 

Ewwwww, can you believe that when our alleged ever loving and forgiving Jesus is Yahweh God incarnate, then He did the horrific abortions above to innocent fetus' and babies, and will MURDER innocent children if they are born as a true Abortionist?  :(


As shown ad infinitum before where you become an outright hypocrite to the TRUE words of Jesus the Christ within the scriptures, check with me next time so you DO NOT step in the proverbial poo in damaging our faith, understood Bible fool?

You are excused at this time.



.
Topic's author
#517
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
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. 
Very revealing. It does not matter to you that innocent human beings are allowed to die for the want of a kidney.
Yes, it is revealing. You are shifting the goalposts.

So is there an inference that the unborn are innocent and killing the unborn is wrong in your supposed equivalent analogy, since you call this a double-standard? So does it matter that innocent unborn humans are being killed in the biggest holocaust in human history to date? If so, stand up against abortion and stop supporting the woman's 'right' to kill it. It won't cost you a kidney. 

And there is a stem cell harvesting going on here, too with the aborted unborn.

Yes, it matters. What do you propose I do? Are you willing to give both your kidneys to save two people? Or perhaps just one!!! Are you proposing everyone SHOULD/MUST donate a kidney to save another person? You first! Set the example! And I am aware that Jesus called His disciples to love their neighbours, the neighbour going beyond the immediately adjacent landowner. There is a blessing in helping save another person's life. Yes, I am aware of that. 

The unborn in the womb is a separate human being. Don't strip it of its right to life. It has a right to bodily integrity too. 

A kidney donation is just that, whereas the womb is the natural home of the unborn. All unborns require such a home. And what parent would deny their own child the right to live? 


Would it matter to you if someone chose to allow your innocent ten-year-old die rather than donate a kidney?
You are talking in hypotheticals. I am talking in terms of what is really happening.

Another person is not responsible for my ten-year-old. You are placing the responsibility on them. Why are you assuming they are responsible? My ten-year-old's health in such a case may very well be beyond my control to help. I would be disappointed, even heartbroken, if they died or if someone volunteered to give a kidney, then chickened out, but I have no right to force another person to give their kidney unless that person signs a contract to do so. Usually, a money exchange takes place in such contracts.  

You are borrowing from a derivative, a variation, an offshoot of a Judith Jarvis Thomson argument in the Violinist and Burglar analogies. A stranger does not share the same responsibility to look after my family that I do. If a stranger did, I could neglect my responsibility and rely on them. You do not have a duty to pay my mortgage. If you did (AOC's socialism), I would not have to work. You could become my slave!!!

Yes, I have a duty to look after my child as best as possible, but that obligation and duty are not something you share to the same degree as a stranger. That is an important point. Sure, my love for the child will be greater than yours as well. I will try to obtain the needed kidney in as much as it is within my power to do.

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.  
It is not a double-standard. It is not inconsistent. It is a woman choosing to kill her offspring. I am not choosing to do that with my hypothetical ten-year-old. I am looking out for their well-being. The woman is promoting the destruction and harm of her own unborn. The analogy fails on several fronts. In most cases, the woman consented to sexual relations, knowing full well that there is a possibility of pregnancy and a new life. The woman voluntaries to have sex. In the case of kidney failure, neither the father nor the child consent to such a reality. Second, pregnancy is not a bad thing, kidney failure is. Pregnancy is the creation of a new unique human being, not its destruction, like is the final result of kidney failure. The woman's body is designed to carry an additional human being. The womb is the natural home of the unborn. Third, the unborn shares in her DNA and is her offspring, a kidney donor is not usually, but a stranger, thus the moral responsibility is not the same. Parents have a duty, an obligation to protect their children (born or unborn) from harm. A stranger does not share the same moral responsibility/the same degree to look after a stranger. Their first responsibility is to their immediate family. Fifth, I do not have the right to kill a potential kidney recipient like the woman has the right to kill the unborn just because I don't want or like them. I can't kill a human being/person just because I don't like them. The woman can.

The right to bodily autonomy is not absolute. The natural right to life (our most basic right) is being denied for the unborn. The legal right has been stripped away to a large extent by liberal-minded people. And the way abortion right advocates question beg in regards to the humanity of the unborn disgusts me. 
Topic's author
#518
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
But you (plus those who make the laws) can tell me that all human life is not equal,
Incorrect. All humans have equal right to usurp my bodily autonomy and personal sovereignty for their own benefit.
Please be serious. Do you believe all human life should be treated equally under the law, or should some groups be treated less than equal?

Simple question, right? 

This is a matter of whether it is morally right to treat others differently and marginalize some groups or classes of people because we do not like or consider them of equal value to other groups of people. Or should basic human rights be considered equal to ALL, regardless of class or group?

It is a matter of justice. What does justice mean to you? It is just that others treat you as less of a human being than other human beings because of the group or class you fall into? Would you call that just? If not, why do you do that with the class of human beings called the unborn? They are not treated with the same 'equality' you give the woman. You think that her bodily rights trump the unborn's bodily rights (You exclude it from having any. How is that fair?) and give her the choice to 'usurp' the unborn body in a cruel, inhumane way.
Topic's author
#519
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
I have denied from the start that biblical slavery is the same as chattel slavery.
Yea, well, you're just wrong, and you squash your own denial when you argue for forced slavery for the purpose of conversion. I mean, seriously, if it's forced it can't be indentured servitude. 
No, you're mistaken. You are comparing the 19th-century chattel slavery to biblical slavery that God condones. You mistake Egyptian slavery that God specifically forbids and condemns Israel from doing as OT slavery. He forbids Israel from treating foreigners in the way they experienced treatment in Egypt. Not only this, God is continually looking out for the well-being of the poor, whether that be domestic or foreign. We constantly read passages that express the principle of loving thy neighbour. You misinterpret passages that you believe speak against those loving principles. You do not understand that when God issued the mandate to drive out the land inhabitants, He was doing that for a purpose. They were evil. They were being judged. They were unwilling to leave obediently. You don't understand that these land inhabitants were against Israel and bent on her destruction or plotting her outing from the land God gave them. These foreign nations would corrupt Israel if they remained, and, in fact, they did. You do not seem to understand His concern for the poor and the provisions for them, including when they were debt-ridden and needed help.  You do not understand that God as Creator is the universe's owner, and we are His tenants. Thus, He has the right to determine where people will live.

You do not understand the principle of conversion and redemption from slavery that God offers slaves. He saves His people from slavery. You do not understand how physical slavery's typology teaches a far greater truth, that of spiritual bondage or slavery to sin. God frees His people from such bondage, just like He did in Egypt. You are a slave to whatever has control over your mind, things that you cannot overcome, things that are not true, yet you believe them anyway. So God used a nation to teach all people a greater truth through the biblical revelation.     
Topic's author
#520
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
How does your personal opinion and preference make something right if you have no objective unchanging/fixed source or reference point?
How can you go north, east, west or south without an unchanging/fixed source or reference point?
You are inferring and projecting again. How is God not a fixed and final reference point for morality? 

What is your best? Take abortion, you believe it is permissible to slaughter innocent unborn human beings, per your debates. You have a poor sense of justice. You do not treat all human beings equally.

P.S. Magnetic north isn't a fixed reference point - it moves. 
True north or the North Pole is.

P.S.S. Human interpretation of the 'will of God' isn't a fixed reference point either and can be used to support atrocities and oppose equality. (Holocaust, apartheid, Transatlantic slave trade)
The Holocaust, Apartheid, transatlantic slavery are not biblical or OT slavery but a misinterpretation. 

P.S.S.S. I think you're dropping the argument: post 365.  You called me out on this thread..are we done?

I have since argued that post. I am going systematically and in order down the list. 
Topic's author
#521
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
This claim is unfalsifiable.
Not for those who are true believers.
You don't seem to understand what "unfalsifiable" means.

Sorry, a misunderstanding on my part. 

I want to compliment you, Peter. You admit fault and you've integrated some awareness of logical fallacies into your repertoire. Kudos, sir.
Thank you, Chuck! I have ten to twenty books on the subject. 

I sometimes admit to errors when I am made aware of them. (^8
Topic's author
#522
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@FLRW
I believed in Santa who was my standard of gift giving. He first chose me to  wrap Christmas gifts. Then, in watching the Miracle on 34th Street's  message, I came to believe. My standard does not originate from or in myself. It is the revelation of Someone else who is logically necessary for receiving Xmas gifts . Then I turned 7.
Well done! Seven was a big year for you.
Topic's author
#523
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 relevant is whether there is a truth that is discernable.
Why can't Christians agree?
First off, do you believe truth is discernable? 

The problem is that way too often we collapse passages, ignore context, ignore the relevant audience of address, ignore time statements, misunderstand the difference between biblical culture and our own, and a whole host of reasons. Having said that, Scripture makes it clear there is a correct way i=of interpreting God's word. You have to understand what the Author is saying to get His meaning. That means not reading into His words something He has not said or does not convey. You also have to build line upon line, precept upon precept. An isolated passage can very often lead to a pretext.

What practical value is an abstract "truth" if nobody knows what it is?
Why do you think no one knows and how do you know that?

God is able to say what He means. 
Topic's author
#524
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
They can justify what is necessary for morality,
Did morality exist before Abraham?
Yes.
Topic's author
#525
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Then, in hearing the gospel message, I came to believe.
You used your own reasoning and moral instinct to VALIDATE "the gospel message".
You have to believe that God exists before you will come to Him. Why would you trust Someone you do not believe in, even if what they say is true?
Topic's author
#526
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Do subjective standards meet what is necessary? If you think so, explain how. 
Each individual is the arbiter of their own moral instinct.
Then I say what is say is morally wrong!

You never explain why your relative standard is or can be better than anyone else's? Is it because you believe it? Does that make something good? Then two opposing and contrary standards (a logical absurdity) can both be right depending upon who holds what view? Without a fixed identity for a moral prescription, what makes it good/right? Is it force? If you force me to believe 'it' does that make it good/right? If Kim Jong Un kidnaps you and forces you to live in a concentration camp while he physically tortures you as he did with poor Otto, is that then good/right? He believes so. Why is your belief any 'better' than his? 
Topic's author
#527
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 the difference is, he has the means to do it. Kim Jong Un is an example, so is Xi Jiping and many more dictators around the world. 
Your examples should include some biblical references,
Love your neighbour as yourself. 

15 And Moses said to them, “Have you [a]spared all the women? 16 Behold, these [b]caused the sons of Israel, through the [c]counsel of Balaam, to [d]trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man [e]intimately. 18 But all the [f]girls who have not known man [g]intimately, [h]spare for yourselves. [LINK]
Already explained previously and in detail. 
Topic's author
#528
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 if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come about that those whom you let remain of them will become as pricks in your eyes and as thorns in your sides, and they will trouble you in the land in which you live.
Does this universal and unchanging principle still apply today?
Not physically. That physical application was for OT Israel during the taking of the Promised Land. It was during the time of the Old Covenant. There is a greater spiritual principle of God (the universal truth to both covenants) intended for us to learn from the physical example. We are to drive out sinful practices or deeds from our lives so that they do not rule over us so we can have a close relationship with God. Our Promised Land is the heavenly country, where we come into the presence of God and learn from and relate to Him. 
Topic's author
#529
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Then some things do matter and become absolutely morally wrong [TO YOU PERSONALLY], even though the majority think otherwise.
Moral instinct is a GNOSTIC phenomenon (not empirically demonstrable).

(IFF) you agree with the CONSENSUS (THEN) you believe the majority is moral (the law is true and just).
This is moral relativism. It still begs the question of why a majority is right.

(IFF) you disagree with the CONSENSUS (THEN) you believe the majority is immoral (the law is false and corrupt).
What is the actual right? You can't produce one. All you can say is "I like this view." You are in the same boat as Nazi Germany. How can you say they were wrong? It tears apart morality and replaces it with preference, whoever has the most power gets to do what they want to. There is nothing right about that. The only way it could be right is if there is an actual standard of rightness that does not change and your position agrees with it. This kind of moral relativism is something that cannot be lived. As soon as you become the minority and are persecuted to death it becomes unlivable. 

(IFF) I believe I am "right" (THEN) that doesn't necessarily make you "wrong"
Why? 

(IFF) you believe you are "right" (THEN) that doesn't necessarily make me "wrong"
It is EITHER right or it is not. It can't logically be both. Thus, your view is totally inconsistent. It can't explain why something should be done because it is right. All it can do is say, "You do this or I will kill you." You can't live with such a system because as soon as someone else comes along and is stronger than you are then the opposite of what you believe now becomes the norm of standard. It contravenes the law of identity which states that A=A, a thing is what it is. A dog is a dog. A dog cannot be a non-dog.

Right=Right; good=good. 

What you have is a shifting standard. Good can equal whatever you want it to.  YOU do not have what is necessary for morality. All you have is what is preferable. How does that make anything right? It does not. If it does make something right then Nazi Germany and the killing of over six million Jews becomes right for anyone who agrees. 

It's exactly the same as law.  Different territories have different laws.  It's exactly the same for people.  What's appropriate behavior in front of your parents is not always the same as what's considered appropriate behavior in front of your friends.  What's appropriate behavior in one friend's house is not always what's appropriate behavior at another friends house.
So at one house, it is 'morally' permissible to rape your neighbour for fun???? At another, it is 'morally' permissible to kill your neighbour for fun. That is the implication of this stupid moral relativism idea. You throw away justice because justice needs a fixed moral good, something that is actually so. And that is why a large number of people in the USA support abortion as a woman's choice because they are moral relativists. Greg Koukle lists seven things you cannot do and remain consistent as a moral relativist. You can't live with such a standard because as soon as the tables are turned on you and you are the victim your position changes and you realize these things are morally reprehensible and wrong. Then you no longer endorse moral relativism.  
Topic's author
#530
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 does that meet the requirements of justice?
How would the death of another person (Jesus or Nathaniel or Tom) "meet the requirements for justice"?
In the case of God, a man sinned against Him, which caused humanity to know both good and evil. That man rejected God's command to refrain from eating of the tree of knowledge. That man was representing humanity as our federal head. He determined whether we would live at peace with God in the Garden (paradise) or be separate from Him because of evil. That man, now knowing both good and evil, passed his views onto humanity. His thinking without God influences his children with evil. Now they no longer have a fixed standard for righteousness. Without God as the constant moderator and teacher, humans now became the relative standard. Thus evil increased. Each generation passed more evil onto their offspring, so the influence waxed greater and greater to a point in time where God chose to judge the inhabitants of the earth with a flood. He selected eight to continue humanity because one (Noah) had chosen to believe or listen to God. One man's belief was the umbrella for the other seven to have life. Noah did what God required. Thus, he too is a typology or picture of what Jesus would do and Noah pointed ahead to Jesus. That is the case throughout the OT. Everything points to Jesus Christ. 
 
Jesus Christ, the Second Adam, also represented us before God as our federal head. The Son became a man to live a life pleasing to God. This time, instead of being tempted, He overcame temptation, satisfying God's righteousness. Thus, those who believe in Him find their justification before God. He meets the standard they could not. Not only this, He pays for their sin (the penalty for sin is death - separation from God spiritually) by dying in their place. Thus, both God's justice is met in a righteous life, but also, His wrath is appeased for wrong. It is satisfied in Christ's substitutionary death. The OT sacrificial system, typologically speaking, points to a substitution for Israel's sin to have fellowship with God. The lamb had to be perfect, without any blemishes because it represented Israel in its death as her substitute.  The other lamb was released into the wilderness, symbolizing it being cut off from God, rather than Israel. The same is true of Christ's sacrifice, except it does not have to be performed year after year because, as a human originally sinned against God, a Man does not sin and is righteous before God.  

[ Results of Justification ] Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

Topic's author
#531
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 see every letter of the law met or fulfilled in Jesus Christ by AD 70.
What does this mean in practical terms?
It means that those who truly put their faith/trust in God find forgiveness for their sin and peace in a right relationship with God. It means that in AD 70 God ended the OT system of sacrifice and replaced it with another for His people. His people now live by His grace rather than their own merit in obtaining that right relationship with God. Those who do not will stand before Him under their own merit rather than Christ's. 

Is it perhaps something like, "Love Jesus, read the bible and do what you think is right"?
It is more than that. It is trusting in His merit and righteousness in meeting God's righteous requirements rather than your own merit. It is repenting before God and asking for His forgiveness in Jesus Christ. It is identifying yourself in Jesus Christ and seeking Him out to change your life. It is a daily communion with God, asking for His guidance and mercy in dealing with your life. It is reading His word to find out more about Him and what is right. You are not capable of yourself to meet God's righteousness. If you don't recognize this why would you need a Saviour? But I believe each of us does. We see our flaws. We know our shortcomings. Some seek Him out and beg for His forgiveness. Repentance is being sorrowful for our wrongs against Him and a willingness to change by seeking Him instead of hiding from Him. Others dig in and resist even more. 
#532
Conway
Conway's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 278
1
2
5
Conway's avatar
Conway
1
2
5
I've never heard a Christian testify that one is saved by a coherent logical sequence through reason.
Topic's author
#533
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
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.  
Do you believe that heaven is a golden cube, measuring 12,000 furlongs (1,400 miles or 2,200 kilometers) each side? 
Heaven is a living relationship with God that I believe changes somewhat after physical death by our increased knowledge of Him. Heaven is a spiritual kingdom, not of this world. It does not have the same values or the corruption of this world. As Christians, we are now a part of that kingdom, living as ambassadors of that kingdom on earth until we physically die. Since much of Revelation is a spiritual truth that sometimes uses the physical and, at other times, uses apocalyptic language, I am not sure how to treat the description. I have not studied the passages enough to make a sound evaluation yet. I am still of two minds on the subject. I'm still unsure if the spiritual country is metaphoric and symbolic of our relationship and fellowship with God or heaven is a spiritual realm apart from this world that has a physicality to it. That part may be fully revealed only after my physical body dies. I doubt the heaven country is physical since God Himself is a Spirit and my relationship with Him now is a spiritual one. I see the concept of a spiritual body mentioned in Scripture. The Church is the body of Christ here on earth.

Whether our exiting physical bodies are translated to spiritual bodies at death and experience another physical realm is something I have not investigated enough to make a firm decision on yet. I have concentrated more on understanding other aspects of eschatology. These areas are still open for His teaching and will happen when He chooses. There have been times when I struggled with understanding a doctrine for years and years. In one instant, after years of inquiry, His word made it crystal clear to me in one night. His word spoke to my spirit by reading the NT from cover to cover once again during that night. In that reading, God's word made me aware of who was doing the action (Him) and who was receiving it (the believer) regarding salvation. In passage after passage, I became more and more aware of that relationship concerning salvation. In other doctrinal issues, it took years of study. Slowly His Spirt made me aware of the audience of address and time statements. When that happened, I began to understand the great significance of prophecy. I began to investigate how the Bible prophecy is related to external historical sources. I looked for the earliest evidence of OT Scripture writing and found the said events were prophesied before the historical event happened. I did the same with the NT. I looked at each writing in its clues as to when it was written. Every NT writing treats the coming judgment as soon and quickly approaching for a 1st-century Old Covenant people. Each writing still contains the OT sacrificial system as operational, which is impossible after AD 70.   

God interacts with my life here on earth as a believer (heaven on earth, thus although we are in the world, we are not of this world - our outlook is different). I witness this interaction in prayer and with what happens in my life. He does not speak to me in an audible voice, but through His word and by the circumstances I experience. His word is alive to me. God teaches me through His word. He continually confirms His word as truth. People and places I interact with are in His control. I see His goodness even as I experience the evil that is a result of sin. I see it in what is made as well as in catastrophic events. Good comes from such events, even though such events bring much sadness to us as well.  
Topic's author
#534
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
These moral instincts predate the "discovery" of "YHWH" by Abraham.
That is your assumption and presumption that comes from your worldview bias. 
There is ample evidence that people were protecting themselves long before Abraham was ever born.
Sure, but what or who influenced such thinking in the first place is the underlying issue here. 
Topic's author
#535
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
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 [unchanging], except for the Sabbath Day. Jesus reiterated the Ten Commandments in the NT, so do the apostles. 
You just admitted that it changed.  Not universal.  Not unchanging.
Perhaps I should have been more clear. See the [added] wording. IOW's it is the same as spoken of in the OT. The difference is the although the NT believer recognizes the law, or Ten Commandments, are good, Jesus has met the standard of the law on our behalf. Thus, we are no longer condemned when we break the law. He took our condemnation upon Himself. The judgment for breaking the law is now satisfied in Jesus Christ! 

Still universal! Still unchanging, except we as Christians find our Sabbath rest in Jesus Christ, not in a physical day. He has secured it for us. We are now at peace with God. In honour of this security, we choose to worship Him (Jesus/Yeshua) on the Lord's Day, the resurrection day, a Sunday, in remembrance of what He has done.
Topic's author
#536
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Something that just is, without mind, without personhood, is incapable of revealing anything.
Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

It sounds like "YHWH" is "beyond comprehension".

Our minds are like the minds of ants.
He is comprehensible in as much as He has revealed Himself to us and in as much as we are able to comprehend that revelation and His interaction in our life. But in a complete understanding, He is incomprehensible for our minds are limited while He is infinitely knowledgeable and wise.

We learn of His thoughts in the Bible and His Spirit leads us to an understanding of them. 
Topic's author
#537
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
...thus we need a personal Being to reveal the truth to us.
Soooo, NOT a book?
The writings are Him speaking to humanity. God has left us a physical record of His dealings with a particular people and the problem we face in a relationship with Him, our sin and His purity and holiness. He has revealed the problem and the solution in these writings. They speak to us. When we read them we sense God speaking to us. Whether we choose to deny that is another matter. 
Topic's author
#538
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no such thing MORE purely OBJECTIVE than NOUMENON.
How has this been revealed to you?
By examining the definition of "objective".
But your mind is subjective. Why is your reference valid? Let's face it, we are of different opinions on probably hundreds of issues. That begs the question of who is actually right, if either. So you must show on such issues that what you believe is the objective truth. How do you do that? Take, for instance, abortion. I come back to that moral issue because it is so divisive. How do you determine it is right or wrong? You still have to demonstrate you have a standard that does not change. You come up with all these theoretical, abstract concepts (noumenon/objective) without demonstrating the standard is reasonable without God. You can't show moral values as anything other than shifting in which you also have no best, just a shifting standard that you label as 'better.' Better than what? Abortion, before 1973, was considered a moral wrong. Now it is up to the woman to decide whether it is right or wrong. Some choose right, others choose wrong. Who is actually right? If both then right loses its identity. (Right=Right)
Topic's author
#539
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
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. 
You start out by saying "NO", but then you go on to explain how it WAS CHANGED.
The covenant was changed in that the OT required the believer or 'people of God' to sacrifice for their sins, for every time they broke the law (summed up in the Ten). In the NT, Jesus establishes a New Covenant in meeting the Law in Himself for the believer, or 'His people.'  

So, the covenant changed, not the Law.

God showed the reader (of His word) that these OT believers failed to live up to the letter of the law, something they agreed to follow. They kept having to offer an animal sacrifice to atone for their sins, over, and over, and over. And they only offered Him lip service while in practice they worshiped idols and made their own gods. Thus He judged that covenant, AS HE PROMISED He would in Deuteronomy 28. There were blessings and curses, depending on whether they obeyed or disobeyed. 

The difference (i.e., change) is that the Old Covenant people demonstrated they could not meet God's righteous requirements. Therefore, God set a new day in which He would provide a better sacrifice for sin, one that was capable of meeting all the righteous requirements of the law for all times by ONE sacrifice for His people. We, both OT and NT, are held hostage by the law. We know what is right - do not murder, do not steal, do not covet - yet we find we are incapable of meeting that standard because of our natures. Therefore, God provides a better sacrifice to free us from the PENALTY of the law. The law is still just, still right, still good. Now the difference is that we have an Advocate, a Sacrificial Lamb that has fulfilled the law for us. He has put us right with God because of what He has done. 
Topic's author
#540
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Thus, the penalty is death - spiritual separation from God. 
I think I can handle it, anything else?
That is your choice.

How do you plan on avoiding Naraka?
He/she/it does not exist. He/she/it is a false god. Sorry to break your bubble. Sorry, I am not trying to skirt the issue by being politically correct. Not all ideas about God are sound.