Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
#571
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,612
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
I can see how mass murderers get their morality from God.
However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. You must completely destroy them – the Hethite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite …. (Deut. 20:16-18)
Topic's author
#572
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@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.
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. 
I don't hold Christianity is centered on humanism. There is undeniably humanism within Christian morality, but this is not the focus of (fundamentalistic) Christian morality. Christian morality is about doing the will of a non-human god (as determined by humans). In the OT (and throughout history), we all too often see this 'will' benefiting those who claim to speak for god and not humanity in general. This dissonance makes clear Christian morality is not interchangeable with humanism. It's not a matter of which came first, but of the two not meshing well and knowing which came first.

YOU: It is not my position humanism came before "God" - that would require me to believe the Christian god exists...which, - *surprise!* - I don't. If you think God came before humanism, well, that's your burden.  Good luck. My position is merely that humanism came before the religion from which "God" is the object of worship

YOU: "It is not my position humanism came before "God" - that would require me to believe the Christian god exists...which, - *surprise!* - I don't." 

Doublespeak: "Not your position" that humanism came before God, then you deny the Christian God exists (the same God of the OT), which means you think humanism comes before God because humanism is the default position in such a case. Then you confirm it with this statement:

YOU: "My position is merely that humanism came before the religion from which "God" is the object of worship."

What does that leave you with - Humanism. You have yet to propose another god exists. For once, you capitalize the word "God." So, you are speaking of the God I continually refer to here. Until you reveal another god, we can't have that discussion that there are any other gods and if they are not almighty what they derive their existence from. 

If you think humanism came before God that is your burden. You can't say humanism came before the biblical God and then supply no evidence that what you say is true. Let's face it; you work from a particular presuppositional point of view. 

YOU: "My position is merely that humanism came before the religion from which "God" is the object of worship and that it was conscripted into a tortured marriage to said religion."

"Conscripted into a tortured marriage"? What are you saying, Skone?

ME: 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.

First, let me squash the notion that you can overcome the Hume's guillotine by appealing to "God is". You can't. Ought from "God is" is still an ought from an is, and there is no getting around that. 
You have an unclear idea of what 'is' and what 'ought to be' and why God transverses that divide. An 'is' is purely descriptive, not obligatory. It doesn't have the means to make an 'ought' distinction. That stone on the ground doesn't have the means to reason, to say why you 'should not' crush it into dust with a hammer. It just is. We as human beings do. The question is how we got to that position. A behaviour, a function is something that just is, a description of what is done and becomes automatic - I do this in reaction to that, I seek food when I am hungry, is the way I respond to a particular situation. It DESCRIBES what is.  

A stone just is. It is not good or bad because it does not have an INTENT or agency to do things. It does not ponder how things are or ought to be. It has no means of acquiring intention. A mind does. The question from the 'what is' is how we get to the 'what ought to be?' How do we get consciousness from something that just is? How does something that 'is' acquire consciousness? What gives it this ability? Does it pick up the ability from nothing, just not having then suddenly having - poof, magic?

Hume begins with the is, the descriptive from an empirical standard. We, as Christians do not. We begin with a non-physical moral being, a being who is conscious, who is capable of reason and who is prescriptive. Hume begins with the 'is,' and can't understand how to get an ought from it.  For Hume, the ought cannot be observed or explained from what is, the descriptive. HUMANISM derives the ought from what is. Christianity does not. It has what is necessary, a conscious, mindful, reasoning Being who knows all things. Thus, how can you describe Him as subjective? 

Preferences are descriptions. "I like ice-cream" is describing what I like. There is nothing morally prescriptive or obligatory about that. What is morally prescriptive is when you say, "I like ice-cream and you MUST like it too." You imply a penalty for not liking it and that it is morally wrong. But why, based on your preference?  

Hume, a humanist/secularist as well as an empiricist, is looking at the origin of our ideas and our very nature. He reduced everything, including the mind and senses to empiricism and the physical universe, IMO (from what I glean). He is looking at this from his human reason, his thesis of human nature. From such a position it is difficult to come up with an ought from an is. Yet notice how he smuggles in the very ought he argues against from the is: 

I have already shewn, that the relation of cause and effectcan never afford us any just conclusion from the existence or qualities of our perceptions to the existence of external continu’d objects: And I shall farther add, that even tho’ they cou’d afford such aconclusion, we shou’d never have any reason to infer, that our objects resemble our perceptions...I begun this subject with premising, that we ought to have an implicit faith in oursenses, and that this wou’d be the conclusion, I shou’d draw from the whole of my reasoning. But tobe ingenuous, I feel myself at present of a quite contrary sentiment, and am more inclin’d to reposeno faith at all in my senses, or rather imagination, than to place in it such an implicit confidence. Icannot conceive how such trivial qualities of the fancy, conducted by such false suppositions, canever lead to any solid and rational system. P. 116

He continually uses moral imperatives (should, must, ought) while preaching against their possibility from the senses along in his premises. 

’Tis one thing to know virtue, and anotherto conform the will to it. In order, therefore, to prove, that the measures of right and wrong are eternal laws, obligatory on every rational mind, ’tis not sufficient to shew the relations upon which theyare founded: We must also point out the connexion betwixt the relation and the will; and must provethat this connexion is so necessary, that in every well-disposed mind, it must take place and have itsinfluence; tho’ the difference betwixt these minds be in other respects immense and infinite. Nowbesides what I have already prov’d, that even in human nature no relation can ever alone produceany action; besides this, I say, it has been shewn, in treating of the understanding, that there is noconnexion of cause and effect, such as this is suppos’d to be, which is discoverable otherwise thanby experience, and of which we can pretend to have any security by the simple consideration of theobjects. All beings in the universe, consider’d in themselves, appear entirely loose and independentof each other. ’Tis only by experience we learn their influence and connexion; and this influence we ought never to extend beyond experience. Thus it will be impossible to fulfil the first condition required to the system of eternal rational measures of right and wrong; because it is impossible to shew those relations, upon which such a distinction may be founded: And ’tis as impossible to fulfil the second condition; because we cannotprove a priori, that these relations, if they really existed and were perceiv’d, wou’d be universallyforcible and obligatory. P. 243

That is why I asked you for a necessary connexion existing between the is and the ought. Once you exclude a necessary mindful being - God (abstract and non-physical), as that necessary agent of morality, you are left with what 'is,' the purely descriptive since humans would derive their existence from the physical too. How do you get values from facts? A fact is what is; a value is what ought to be. So, you need to explain how. 

To be continued with your second point after some chores. 

Secondly, the basis of your morality is subjective not objective.  From "God is" you derive God's will. This is a subjective standard.  You value this and think everyone else should as well. God's will, as you understand it, disallows abortion (for instance).  With God's will as the (subjective) standard, abortion is objectively wrong. If I agree to your interpretation of God's will, then you and I could objectively determine moral views. Unfortunately, we don't agree to this standard because, for me, there is insufficient evidence for belief in god. 
To be continued. 

On the other hand, a moral basis of human well-being is something generally accepted. This too is a subjective standard. With human well-being as a standard, we can objectively determine moral views which coincide with it. Fortunately, most people agree to this standard, and if they don't, well, they have no business weighing in on human morality (and I don't even think they are talking about morality).


Topic's author
#573
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Secondly, the basis of your morality is subjective not objective.  From "God is" you derive God's will. This is a subjective standard.  You value this and think everyone else should as well. God's will, as you understand it, disallows abortion (for instance).  With God's will as the (subjective) standard, abortion is objectively wrong. If I agree to your interpretation of God's will, then you and I could objectively determine moral views.
The point is not 'God is' but 'God has revealed' that makes the standard. 'God is' does not give us a standard. God reveals does. The standard is not of ourselves, so it is not from a subjective standpoint. The Ten Commandments are very clear. Nine of the Ten are carried over from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. The Sabbath Rest has already been obtained in Christ, as have all the other commandments for Christians. In AD 70, the Law of Moses was fulfilled completely for Christians. Now, only one covenant remained. Before that point in time, two covenants existed, and there was a transition taking place. Unbelievers show from the way they live that they are conscious of the wrong of breaking these commandments, so they will be judged outside of Christ's provision.

You keep implying that there is no objective biblical standard because subjective people, such as Christians, cannot make objective judgments. Yet, you yourself claim there is an objective standard (double standard). Your whole argument goes out of the window by such an admission, but not only that, communication would be impossible if there was no objective understanding between people. Thus, you are inconsistent in two counts. Communication only takes place when both parties understand each other. The 'author' is not understood until the reader gets his/her meaning (objectively understood). Reading a foreign meaning into the author's statements is not objective but subjective. 

Obviously, if God decrees that men shall not shed innocent blood (the life of a person, just like that of an animal, is in the blood), that would most definitely include the unborn's life. If such an innocent life is destroyed on earth, God will restore it to a better place, His presence, but that is beside the point. The point is that the penalty for sin is death (separation from God), and taking innocent human life is sinful. You only agree to a point that taking innocent life is wrong. You separate the wrongness before birth or viability. It is still an innocent human being that is killed, whether before or after birth. Another double standard by you.   

Unfortunately, we don't agree to this standard because, for me, there is insufficient evidence for belief in god. 
You do exactly what the Bible claims you would. There is plenty of evidence in the Bible and in the universe (since God created it, it will show His 'handiwork').

On the other hand, a moral basis of human well-being is something generally accepted.
It begs the question of whose and why are they right in their assessment. 

This too is a subjective standard.
Yet you have stated elsewhere, and below that, you believe morality has an objective standard. 

With human well-being as a standard, we can objectively determine moral views which coincide with it.
It again begs the question of whose well-being is defined, and why are they right?

Fortunately, most people agree to this standard, and if they don't, well, they have no business weighing in on human morality (and I don't even think they are talking about morality).
What you find in the world is that people push their standards of 'well-being' on others to the detriment of many. Regime after regime could be named. Well-being only goes as far as competing for food or some other desired thing for many, especially in life and death situations. The Christian worldview surpasses these standards. 

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.
No, I think a 'right to choose' comes from self ownership and the right to bodily autonomy is true for all people. You're a horrible mind-reader! Maybe you should ask honest questions rather than trying to read my mind...
Again, what about the well-being you speak so much about? It does not exist for the unborn based on the selfish choice of a woman. What about the bodily rights of the unborn? They are forgotten. Who SHOULD HAVE the right to choose to kill an innocent human being? You always skirt the issue both from a moral and justice point of view.  Why is this choice only applied to unborn human beings? The newborn or toddler is still dependent on a woman for its life. They still seek her body for nourishment and her for protection. 

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? 
Depending on the level of development, the unborn may be a group of cells...a human group of cells, and I don't need to show the unborn is not a person to argue for bodily autonomy. Being a person doesn't give you the right to use my kidneys without my consent. Likewise, being a person wouldn't give the unborn the right to use reproductive organs without consent. Anti-abortionists advocate, not for equal rights, but for special rights. How is this not 'true for one and not another' you suggested of my view? How is this equality?
Here you go again, degrading and dehumanizing a human being. It is not a group of cells but a complete organism. You downplay its significance. 

You only argue for bodily autonomy for one - the woman. With the other, it is brutally murdered. Its innocent life is taken from it. 

The woman knew there was a chance of pregnancy and a moral obligation once she CONSENTED to sex (somewhere around 95% of all cases). The womb is the natural home of the unborn. It cannot survive outside the womb until it reaches a stage of development. That stage of development does not make it less human than you or me. If you think so, then you are basing judgment not on what it is and can only be (it can't be another type of being if its parents are human beings) but on its growth. That is a slippery slope. The newborn is not as developed as the toddler, the toddler not as developed as the teenager, the teenager not as developed as the adult, and so on. Based on the level of development does not give a person the right to kill another person. If it did, then the level of brain development would give one person the right to kill another less developed person. Einstein would have the right to kill you or me if he felt it was based on the development level, and the development level was the standard. 

Your arguments are totally nuts. The most basic natural right of any human being is the right to life. That is where equal rights start, and anything else leads to discrimination and dehumanization, the very thing abortion advocates do. You can't face that. You ignore it just like you ignore the unborn's bodily autonomy, its natural home, its humanity as just as valuable as that of the woman's. The Supreme Court did a great disservice to humanity in the seven to two decision with a faulty interpretation of history and questioning the unborn's humanity and personhood. 

Topic's author
#574
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
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. 
Already addressed: "[...] 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."
God is not pro-abortion. That is a gross misinterpretation of the biblical text. You isolate verses to make them a pretext. When you see God judging a people, you immediately believe that any innocent blood taken will not be restored to a better place, or you believe that it is wrong for God to judge evil. And often humans are the ones making the killing in obedience to God's judgment on wicked people. God uses human beings to bring judgment on the guilty, but final judgment is for Him alone.

God does not condone the killing of innocent human beings. The unborn is an innocent human being, and this is understood throughout the Bible.
1. All humanity is made in His image and likeness. The unborn is a human being. 
2. Human life is sacred since we are made in His image and likeness. Only God has the right to give and take life since He created it, and He only takes life in the judgment of sin. When an innocent life is taken, God restores that life to a better place. 
3. Morality does not change with God just because of location or environment. Location nor environment makes a difference to what the human being is. 
4. God specifically forbids us to take an innocent life, for humans cannot restore such life. 
5. God sees the unborn as a human being, a complete human organism, not just a bunch of human cells. The biblical narrative identifies the unborn as a baby and child, responding to outside the womb situations.  He 'knits' the unborn together in the womb.
6. Sin affects all of us. Our wrongful actions affect other people.  
7. The OT system of justice demanded life for life. The intentional or negligent death of an unborn was punishable by death, per Exodus 21:22-25. 
 
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??? 
What is this 'see-saw' you refer to? My core position is simple and unchanging: there is no right to use the body of another without consent.
The woman is violating the body of the unborn TO KILL IT and without its consent. That unborn contains her own DNA. The unborn is her own offspring, her own child. You see-saw, depending on which bodily autonomy is spoken of. For you, it is perfectly justifiable to kill some innocent human beings and violate their bodily autonomy if they are in their natural habitat, the womb. On the other hand, it is not okay to violate the innocent woman's fundamental right to life if she is in her natural environment, the world. Your worldview smacks of hypocrisy that you seem unaware of.   

Also, I don't determine anything from an "atheistic framework" Atheism is not a moral philosophy. Your inability to understand this is an issue you need to resolve - it holds us from having a much more meaningful conversation. 
Atheists view life (their worldview) as devoid of a God or gods. Therefore, they seek nature or materialism as the answer to morality rather than God or gods. That is what they build upon. You try to understand morality through behaviourism and what is. Your inability to understand what you are doing clouds your moral judgment. Your moral judgment can only be based on preferences. It has no objectivity to it, for it cannot define a fixed reference point. Everything is shifting, which begs how you can ever arrive at 'better.' Better' is only possible if in comparison or relation to something else. Without a 'best,' there is nothing fixed to base the better on for 'better' needs an ideal. Preferences make nothing right, only desirable. A preference is a description, not a prescription. "I like ice-cream" is a statement of fact, not a statement on what should be the case. 

The issue is one for you to resolve. You do not have what is necessary for morality from your worldview perspective. You constantly try to turn the tables on the Christian, whereas your worldview is devoid of reason in explaining morality, for it reeks of relativism. You keep speaking of an objective standard. What is that standard? Well-being? Whose? You can't demonstrate that well-being is the normal outcome in everyday life, for we witness great inhumanity towards our fellow human beings on a grand scale. Day after day, we see people stealing, lying, committing adultery, coveting, murdering, and plotting against their fellow humans. We see governments harming their citizens in large numbers.  

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.
Some Christians are pro-choice...I wonder if you think they are operating on some "atheistic framework"? And a god-centered argument related to laws in a secular nation would easily be dismantled - I assumed you knew better than to try. 
Yes, in that matter of Scripture, they are for the denial of Scripture or go against its teaching. The atheist, likewise, denies God, just on a broader scale of matters. 

Even in a secular nation, there must be equality for there to be justice. But how often do you find justice in such nations? How does a secular nation determine justice? They do so on preference. That is not just. 

Why are you only mentioning one side of the equation?
Because the "will of god" is not being used to manipulate votes and increase political power on the other side...
God's will often is to let people see and experience what kind of hardships and turmoil their dishonest actions and poor choices result in. You have a candidate who is almost senile, rapidly deteriorating. You have a bitch, IMO (Nancy Pelosi), who is bent on Democrat power and wants to invoke the 25 Amendment to remove him once he gets into office. That will lead your nation to socialism on an even greater scale with Kamala Harris. You'll get what you want yet don't comprehend its dangers. Watch how fast your country starts to unravel because most can't discern what is good and right. Watch over the next four years how America becomes poorer based on Democrat promises that they never fulfill.  

IMO, based on facts that are obscured by the media: 

Downright deceit and lies are used to manipulate votes through a 'might makes right' political philosophy, where anything goes as the ends 'justify' the means. Over and over, we see compromised candidates, like Joe Biden, who lies through his teeth while Democrats rig and manipulate the system so he and his family can live high on the hog and they gain power - POWER. That is what it is all about, not the good of America. And the mainstream media is complicit in this manipulation, along with all the other gatekeepers of society, like Arts and Entertainment (Holywood), the judicial systems (which have been packed with those sharing the same deceitful philosophies), Academia (who indoctrinate the youth, just as Hitler did, because he realize the youth shape tomorrow and tomorrow after that). We see partisan overseers barred from witnessing the fair process when they represent Republicans. We see illegal votes being counted in many states, including votes from dead people being counted - ballot harvesting. In Pennsylvania, we see illegal rules to favour the Democrats, days and weeks before the election reaping the desired effects.  

Then you have the political coverups over the past four years. We witness those who colluded with the Russians being the Democrats, those who manufactured crisis after crisis, the Democrats. Those who sought to impeach a President on false grounds, the Democrats. Those who set up the Muller witchhunt, the Democrats. Those who lie about peaceful protests and do nothing to stop rioting and vandalism in their cities and their controlled states (but make Trump out to be the villain), the Democrats. These people are sick, and those who vote for them are sick, IMO. They burden the American people in so many ways while pretending they are all for justice, for minorities, for the downtrodden. Secretly they exploit them just for their votes. And these downtrodden people continually fall for their political ploys and deceptions. Their neighbourhoods are in disrepair while the Democrats promise everything will be better, election after election, as long as they are in power. They are demagogues. They are the racists. They are the party of the KKK. They promise taxes increased, which will drive out your industries while the rich, those bastard billionaires, line their pockets with Chinese money and cater to China, selling the USA's intellectual property and technology to those who are seeking to harm them. The fate of the free world is in the hands of these fools, and the American people continually vote for them. They endanger the whole world. They want open borders to increase their vote counts, promising healthcare and schooling for all who come across. That will bankrupt your healthcare system while the average American picks up the cost.  

I don't understand how people who have been lied to, and the proof is out there, continue to vote these dishonest people in based on their dislike and hatred for a President who has put their interests first. Now, these elected officials will once again put their own interests first with more gerrymandering and fixing the system by changing the voting system never again to be a Republican elected president. Your country is losing its sense of justice and what is right and good.  
Topic's author
#575
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
However, I do understand that you have a particular bias and crusade against Christianity,

 More the scriptures than Christianity per se.     Although, Christianity and not necessarily the New Testament has been the cause of many millions innocent deaths.  Matthew Hopkins leaps to mind as do the Salem witch trials , and the burning alive of the Templars, to mention a few.
You mistake what is done in the name of Christianity as the same as the teaching of Christianity.  

The death toll of the Salem Witch trials: 24 people. 
The death toll of the crusades: An estimated one to nine million. 

Now consider the death toll in the twentieth century alone by just two communist/atheistic governments, the Soviet Union and China. 

The Soviet Union, 1917-1987: 61,911,000 million.
China, 1949-1987: 76,702,000 million. 

Compare the numbers.

Then there is the massacre of the Cathars and on and on you maniacs go and  all in the name of Christianity, where as Jesus preached exactly the opposite and to  love thy neighbour, give to the poor .
Yes, Jesus preached the opposite than people who profess the name of Jesus often do. So what? 

judging from you perhaps fifty threads, many of which work on isolating biblical context,

Only fifty???? I better get my finger out.  There is much work to do.
IMO< you continually show your hatred of Christians and Christianity. For what? Why do you do this?  

It is lacking in any proof, just hearsay

 You have never read the bible then I take  it particularly the Old Testament. . Why doesn't that surprise me.  Most of you bible thumpers rarely do read it for yourselves.. 
I have read it many times. I have studied it. I have done that over a period of forty years. 

Bible thumpers as opposed to atheist thumpers. How many times have you read it, and how well do you understand it? How well do you understand the unity of the Bible? How well do you understand eschatology? How often do you collapse the context? How often do you ignore the audience of address, the time frame, the culture of the times, the history of the times? 
Topic's author
#576
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Once you start discriminating against one group or another of innocent human beings you are not being just and it leads to great inhumanity and dehumanization. 
So if for example the rules governing the ownership of, protection under the law for and killing of hebrews verses non hebrews then they are an unjust foundation?
How is it unjust in looking out for the best interest of others (the poor), or for requiring reparations for war crimes? Slavery in the ANE was either the result of warfare, exploitation, or poverty. Israel was not allowed by God to exploit foreigners as they had been exploited in Eygpt. And with non-Hebraic 'slavery' there were two escape classes, fleeing to another city or converting to Judaism. 
#577
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Israel was not allowed by God to exploit foreigners as they had been exploited in Eygpt.
You're technically right about that.  The Israelites didn't build any pyramids with their foreign chattel slaves.
Topic's author
#578
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Is it okay to kill innocent human beings? 
Doesn't original sin (as per your argument) guarantee that there are no innocent human beings?
Through the federal head, Adam, all receive a sinful nature. We are all influenced by sin as human beings. But not everyone has a chance to act on that sinful nature, so if they have done no wrong (as of yet), how can be judged for it. And in Christ becoming the Second Adam, our federal head, He died in the place of the guilty, so all those counted in Him are innocent before the judgment seat of Christ. He died for specific people that their sins would not be counted against them, and included in those people are children and those innocent yet of acting upon sin. 

Perhaps it would simplify things if we simply eliminate the word innocent. That would leave us with the revised question "is it ok to kill human beings?" Now this still doesn't get to the core of what is and is not a human being (or more to the point a person which is perhaps a more important distinction) but I am interested to know how you will answer this revised question. Is it ok to kill humans?
Why? Because you cannot justify killing people who have done no wrong? You know that applies to the unborn. What wrong have they done? What wrong have others done to them???

Do you not understand the concept of innocence under the law? A person who is guilty has done something that breaks the law. A person who is not guilty should not be punished for something they did not do. How would that be just? 

It is not okay for an individual to take the law into their own hands or kill someone who has done nothing wrong under the law. It is permitted under the law to defend yourself with the necessary force to defend your life. 

The core of what is human??? Is a living being whose biological parents are human a human being? If not, what kind of being is that being?

A person??? Have you ever met a human being who is not a personal being? Is it not in our nature as human beings to be personal beings? Again, you appeal to development. If I am not as developed as you, does that give you grounds to kill me? If you are going to appeal to development (growth) as a reason to kill a human being, then anyone less developed than you should be grounds for you to kill them (if you like/choose), and the same goes for anyone more advanced in growth or development than you should be able to kill you, based on your reasoning. Is personhood built into our DNA structure? If you can't answer that or give conclusive proof should you not err on the side of caution???
Topic's author
#579
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Is it " okay " to,  ATTEMPT to kill someone ?
I'm not sure who you are addressing. You did not include a receiver. 

It would depend on the reason, the circumstances. Generally speaking, killing is done only via the legal system for a moral wrong. Sometimes the legal system is unjust.

On a personal level, are they trying to kill you? Are they innocent or guilty of wanting to harm you? An attempt for the wrong reasons is manslaughter or murder depending on the circumstances and their motives. An 'attempt' implies intent. 
Topic's author
#580
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
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"?
Its programming would depend on your moral character and what you included in the programming. Are you capable of making such a robot? I do not believe you are able. A robot does not suggest (to me) a free moral agent. Did you program it to make moral choices and did you determine what the good was and the boundaries to which it could choose?  IOW's, is there a best that the robot can use as its standard for goodness? What is that standard? Yourself? Is your own standard really good? Or do you just suppose so, or call it good even though it is not? Are the standard those who influence your thoughts? Since you are not almighty, nor omniscient, how could you avoid programming it without including sinful instructions or codes? For freedom of choice would it not have to know all things to determine the good, or nothing at all and build from there and choose the right choice every time to avoid sin? 

Some suggest that Adam was a blank slate, free to choose to sin or not to sin. No influence at first. He only knew the good God had made. That is what he saw. In this way, he was different from every other human being. He could choose not to sin. We can't. It is built into our nature through the Fall. He was influenced by two initial agents (God and Satan) and then a third, Eve, repeating what Satan had said. Adam chose to sin which impacted the rest of humanity since not only did sin create a barrier between humanity and a holy and pure God but it also gave rise to humans deciding what they would accept as right and wrong (subjectivism/relativism). 
Topic's author
#581
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrotherDThomas
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?!
Only God can restore human life. You cannot. He will not take or allow the taking of an innocent life without restoring it to a better place, His presence. 

“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) 
First, the glory of Israel (God) will fly away. This is a metaphorical language. God will remove His hand of protection. When that happens, children will die in the womb. What happened at Gilgal? God will allow foreign nations to drive Israel from the land because they continually broke their covenant with Him. How does God slaughter their children? He allows foreign nations to come in and drive them out. They reaped the consequences of their disobedience. Disobedience has consequences. They knew this. 

15 “But it shall come about, if you do not [a]obey the Lord your God, to be careful to [b]follow all His commandments and His statutes which I am commanding you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:
18 “Cursed will be the [d]children of your womb, the [e]produce of your ground, the newborn of your herd, and the offspring of your flock.
20 “The Lord will send against you curses, panic, and rebuke, in [f]everything you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have abandoned Me. 
25 “The Lord will cause you to be defeated by your enemies; you will go out one way against them, but you will flee seven ways from their presence, and you will be an example of terror to all the kingdoms of the earth. 26 Your dead bodies will [i]serve as food for all birds of the sky and for the animals of the earth, and there will be no one to frighten them away.
30 You will [l]betroth a woman, but another man will [m]violate her; you will build a house, but you will not live in it; you will plant a vineyard, but you will not make use of its fruit. 31 Your ox will be slaughtered before your eyes, but you will not eat of it; your donkey will be snatched away from you, and will not [n]be restored to you; your [o]sheep will be given to your enemies, and you will have no one to save you. 32 Your sons and your daughters will be given to another people, while your eyes look on and long for them constantly; but there will be nothing [p]you can do.
36 The Lord will bring you and your king, whom you appoint over you, to a nation that neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you shall serve other gods, made of wood and stone. 37 And you will become an object of horror, a song of mockery, and an object of taunting among all the peoples where the Lord drives you.

And when presented with the covenant of blessings and curses, what did the people say? 

Exodus 24:3 (NASB)
3 Then Moses came and reported to the people all the words of the Lord and all the [a]ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do!”
7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it [a]as the people listened; and they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!”

Not only this, God continually sent prophets and teachers to warn the people to come back to God and honour the covenant. They would not. They killed many of them.

“Do not touch My anointed ones, And do not harm My prophets.”

Since the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt until this day, I have sent you all My servants the prophets, sending them daily, again and again.

Thus, He withdrew His hand of protection, and other nations inflicted all kinds of cruelty as He knew they would, in the judgment of them. 

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?  :(
Jesus will never take an innocent life without restoring it to a better place, in His presence and glory. 

Please refrain from blatant ad hominem attacks and mockery if you want my reply. 
Topic's author
#582
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Conway
I've never heard a Christian testify that one is saved by a coherent logical sequence through reason.
What are you specifically referring to? 

What I have said is our faith is a reasonable and logical faith. We are saved by faith alone (not our works or how smart we are), by God alone, by His grace alone, in His Son alone. 
Topic's author
#583
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 has to be a standard for goodness, something that is best (the ideal) to compare it against as to its merits or lack of.
Is your standard of "goodness" the "ten commandments"?
My standard of goodness is God. The Ten Commandments are a standard or revelation for humanity in which the love of God is laid out. They display what love is, both love for God and love for your neighbour.

Or is your standard of "goodness" "love thy neighbor"?
God is the standard. When I read His word, He conveys to me what He is like by His interaction with Israel, His concern for them to walk in righteousness, and His provisions that enable them to do that. The Old Covenant is only a shadow of a greater covenant and truth. 

Or is your standard of "goodness" "let Jesus guide your heart"?
By faith in God through Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit is given to the believer that they may know Him better. The Spirit gives the believer a new nature, a changed nature that is no longer hostile to God but learns to love Him in ever greater degrees. 

The Bible speaks of this change as being born again, regenerated, our spirits once again open to the guidance and leading of His Spirit. 
Topic's author
#584
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 are reasons given in which divorce is permissible. That is for marital unfaithfulness.
Right, but REMARRIAGE IS VERBOTEN!
Not when marital unfaithfulness is present. God even divorced Israel in OT times. Adultery is a reason given in which the offended person may divorce their spouse. 

And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a certificate of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and prostituted herself also.

Topic's author
#585
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 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. 
Now you know how I feel when someone tells me I'm going to "hell".
That is between you and God. 

Romans 10:5-7 (NASB)
5 For Moses writes of the righteousness that is [a]based on the Law, that the person who performs [b]them will live by [c]them. 6 But the righteousness [d]based on faith speaks as follows: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will go up into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).”

The only thing I can do is warn you of the consequences, the rest is between you and God. I cannot judge who will go to heaven or who will go to hell. I can get an indication to an extent in what a person says whether he/she is living in faith or not. That judgment is discernable. Jesus said you would recognize them by their fruit. A good tree does not bear bad fruit and a bad tree does not bear good fruit. By their fruit, I can recognize them. But their destination is between them and God.  

Topic's author
#586
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
So, the covenant changed, not the Law.
Hairsplitting.
It changes for the believer because he/she is not judged by the law but by what Jesus Christ did in his/her stead. The NT tells the believer repeatedly; we live by grace, not by the works of the law. By the works of the law, no human is justified because no accountable human other than Jesus has been able to live without sin.  
Topic's author
#587
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
So you (also you) must show (also show) on such issues that what you believe is the objective truth.
And I point to that truth; God is truth. I have continually argued for what is necessary for objective moral truth. I have invited you and others to show me otherwise. You have not been able to do that because you do not have what is necessary and that can be demonstrated because it is not livable or experientially seen. 

If you are unable to produce a coherent definition of "objective" then your naked opinion is laid bare.
Objective: That which is the actual case, to put it simply. Do you want me to expand on that? 

As a subjective person, do you know what is the actual case? 
Topic's author
#588
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
That man, now knowing both good and evil, passed his views onto humanity. His thinking without God influences his children with evil.
So, does this mean the children of True Christians are born without sin?
No, they still need the same Saviour. Sin helps us recognize our deficiency. 

His children are those who come to faith in Jesus Christ. They are classified as joint-heirs with Christ of the heavenly kingdom. 
Topic's author
#589
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 the actual right? You can't produce one. All you can say is "I like this [old book] view."
Do you think it is right to murder, to take an innocent life out of malice intentionally? Can you live without condemning murder as wrong? As soon as someone decides you are to be murdered because they hate you, you can no longer live with your condoning murder.  

Do you think it is wrong to lie? What if someone defames your character and says things that are untrue of you to others. Do you think it is right for them when they are the recipient of lies?

Do you think it is okay when others steal from you? Is it okay for you to steal from others? 

Is it okay when the person you love is unfaithful to you and doesn't care?

Do you think it is okay when someone wants something that does not belong to them and takes it? Is it okay that you want something that does not belong to you and you are willing to do whatever it takes to obtain that something?  

You have an OPINION that "the bible" is "objective".
I have what is necessary for objectivity. I question that your worldview does, and I want you to demonstrate it does. I can also justify my faith in the Biblical God as reasonable and logical. I can show evidence that confirms what the Bible says as matching history, repeatedly. I can reason with you that God provides what is necessary for the universe and humanity; chance happenstance does not. Other gods contradict the Christian God. That means both you and I cannot be right in our assessment of God. I challenge you to show me it is your god rather than the Christian God. 
#590
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
IMO< you continually show your hatred of Christians and Christianity. For what? Why do you do this?  

 Like you have said above, " IMO".  

How many fkn TIMES!!!!!? I don't "hate"  Christians . In fact, I only recall ever hating one person that I knew personally, in the whole of my life. It is the scriptures that I have a problem with. My threads are all to do with the scriptures. And I have more threads to create highlighting the many problems that arise from the bibles contradictory nature and ambiguity.  Your own faith and belief is all irrelevant to me. I don't care about your personal beliefs or  that you have a faith. It is what Christians have faith in  (the scriptures) that concerns me.

Stop stop trying to play victim. I don't care about you. I don't know you personally to care about you. Just as I don't know you to "hate you". You could be the nicest person on the planet, but that alone wouldn't convince me that the scriptures are true and flawless. 



#591
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
You have an OPINION that "the bible" is "objective".
I have what is necessary for objectivity.
You are a human who suffers from sample bias.

Therefore you are biased.

Therefore you are not "objective".

I question that your worldview does, and I want you to demonstrate it does.
I am not "objective" and I've never claimed to be "objective".

I do my best to maintain logically coherent, fact based world view based on explicit primary axioms.

I very intentionally engage in exploration of opposing viewpoints in order to continuously refine and update my own perspective.

+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
#592
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you think it is right to murder, to take an innocent life out of malice intentionally?
Of course not.

But I don't need to resort to a hackneyed "appeal to authority" in order to come to that conclusion.
#593
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Can you live without condemning murder as wrong?
Can you live without explicitly defining "an unjustified killing"?

I'm pretty sure you can live without explicitly defining "an unjustified killing" because I'm pretty sure you can't explicitly define "an unjustified killing" (murder).

Without a fixed reference point (without an explicit, unchanging and universal definition), how can you claim to condemn "murder"?
#594
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you think it is wrong to lie?
Of course (under certain circumstances).

Even Christians believe it's permissible, even admirable to violate unjust laws and use subterfuge (lies by omission and or lies by commission) in order to avoid legal consequences.

Like lying to the state in order to assist escaped slaves and or people persecuted by the state for their religious beliefs and or genetic composition.

But I don't need to resort to a hackneyed "appeal to authority" in order to come to that conclusion.

+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
#595
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
What if someone defames your character and says things that are untrue of you to others.
You can say whatever you wish.

I will not attempt to intimidate or coerce you with threats of force (by the state or otherwise) or verbal counter-attack.

(IFF) people are easily fooled by banal ad hominem attacks (THEN) they merely demonstrate their own deficit of critical thinking
#596
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you think it is okay when others steal from you? Is it okay for you to steal from others? 
Do you consider inflation "theft"?

Do you consider taxation "theft"?

Do you consider price gouging "theft"?

Do you consider anti-competitive business practices "theft"?

Do you consider exploitation of labor "theft"?
#597
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Is it okay when the person you love is unfaithful to you and doesn't care?
(IFF) you are relying on a formalized social contract (and public ritual) in order to maintain a sense of security in your personal relationships (THEN) you are missing the point of human interaction
#598
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you think it is okay when someone wants something that does not belong to them and takes it?
Isn't that what you call "shopping"?

Is it okay that you want something that does not belong to you and you are willing to do whatever it takes to obtain that something?
Isn't that what you call "ambition"?
#599
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
And I point to that truth; God is truth. I have continually argued for what is necessary for objective moral truth.
But you have failed to demonstrate a single solitary unchanging, universal moral axiom.
#600
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
If you are unable to produce a coherent definition of "objective" then your naked opinion is laid bare.
Objective: That which is the actual case, to put it simply. Do you want me to expand on that? 
How do you personally determine and how do you personally verify "that which is the actual case"?

Do you rely on your "gut instincts"?

As a subjective person, do you know what is the actual case? 
I draw the brightest possible line between FACT and OPINION.